The Watchtower, July 1, 1974

Download: PDF — The Watchtower, July 1, 1974

The Watchtower — July 1, 1974

Source: jw.org

Contents

How Women Can Really Be Liberated

Insight on the News

How the Use of Images Can Affect You

For What “Sign” Are Christians Looking?

“Gird Yourselves with Lowliness of Mind”

Humbly Conform to Jehovah’s Way for Salvation

How God’s Spirit Can Help You

Questions From Readers

Was There an Earth-Wide Flood

How Women Can Really Be Liberated

How Women Can Really Be Liberated

“WOMEN, UNITE! SISTERHOOD IS POWERFUL!” This was the slogan of demonstrators at the protest against the Miss America Beauty Pageant in 1969 at Atlantic City. I was there, covering the demonstration for CBS News Radio. The assignment, received only by chance, proved to be a turning point in my life.

I was not a regular reporter. My position then was that of press representative, or publicist, for CBS News. However, protesters refused to talk with male reporters, so I was asked to cover the story, since CBS then had no female reporters based in New York.

I knew only a little about the women’s liberation movement at the time, and much of what I knew sounded extreme. But as I did research, I was surprised to learn that I felt the same way about matters as they did.

True, they were angry. They had complaints. But I think anyone with an open mind would agree that they correctly saw some problems and desired to make things better.

Before going to the Pageant, I interviewed, on CBS Radio, Robin Morgan, one of the organizers of the movement. She explained:

“The whole image of women as presented by the Pageant is a kind of mindless ‘sex object.’ The contestant is there to sort of smile and shut up, and show herself in a bathing suit. . . . We think the whole notion of parading up and down, sort of like a country fair, before judges who judge the meat, is depraved and is a barbarous ritual.”

The more I listened, the more I identified with these women and what they were fighting for. They seemed really sincere; it seemed to me that they were not just thinking of themselves, but were seeking to establish better, more balanced relationships with men.

As Robin explained, men were oppressed too by the cultural definitions of “masculinity” and “femininity”: “Men are oppressed by what we call the Hemingway mystique​—that if you beat up women, shoot dumb animals, and if you drink a lot—​then you are a real man.”

Did she hate men? I wanted to know.

“I hate the John Wayne stereotype,” she answered. “So in that respect I am a man hater. But no, in general terms, we don’t hate men. I think that we want to learn to love ourselves, and learn to love people.”

This was different from what I had been told that the women’s liberation movement wanted. It was what I wanted. So it was not long before I was fully committed to the movement, and eventually I became a fighter for women’s liberation.

I still believe that both women and men need liberation, and I can truthfully say that I am working harder now than ever to show others the solution to the oppression of humankind.

Not all women are in sympathy with all the goals of women’s liberation. So you might wonder, What kind of woman gets involved in the movement? My own story is illustrative.

ACHIEVING WORLDLY SUCCESS

I was raised in Connecticut, in an affluent suburb of New York city, and went to a private all-girls’ school. Mine was an intellectual family with a literary tradition and a keen appreciation of the world of the mind.

I married at eighteen and had a son. The marriage ended in divorce when I was twenty-three. That left me looking for work, with a son to support.

I was offered jobs as a secretary, which I refused, reasoning that if I ever started as a secretary I would never get beyond it. I would have to start beyond it to get beyond it, job discrimination against women being what it is. I knew I had certain skills, but I was not given the serious consideration I would have been had I been a man. This experience hit me very hard, and opened my eyes to the problems of women in the job market.

Finally, almost by accident, I found someone willing to take a chance on me as a publicity writer for The Reporter magazine, a political journal. This led to the position as publicist at CBS News. Eventually I became manager of CBS News Publicity for the entire national news unit, the first woman to hold that position.

As an executive, I had a secretary and a staff of writers under me. And I knew everybody at CBS, from the president on down. I would see Walter Cronkite almost every day, since I would write stories about him as if he had written them himself. He would look a story over and approve it. Then we would feed it to editors in different cities across the country who would print it as if they had personally gotten an interview with Cronkite or as if he had written the article just for them.

This was a glamour job. I had status. I had money. I had youth and attractiveness. Since I had everything the culture teaches you to want, why, you may then ask, did I become a fighter for women’s liberation?

WHY WOMEN’S LIBERATION?

Although I was able to get a good job, I knew that relatively few women make out as well as men, due to job discrimination against them. So I became a fighter for women’s liberation because a principal purpose of the movement was to correct this situation.

Another reason why women’s liberation developed, and why it appealed to me, had to do with rising living costs and modern-day life styles. This meant that wives had to work to help support the family, and then come home and cook and clean and run the household too. Husbands generally refused to step outside their so-called “masculine” role to help, since they considered such chores “woman’s work.” We felt that this heavy physical burden on women was unfair, and women’s liberation wanted to change it.

Within the family arrangement, too, woman’s role has changed. We are not, like some of our grandmothers, raising fifteen children, making our own cloth, milking cows, baking our own bread, and so forth. The average family today has maybe two or three children, and that means that by the time a woman hits her forties, her children do not need her as much anymore. So just at the age that her husband is reaching his career peak, she is at home, often not knowing what to do with herself.

Even with all of this, woman’s lot might have been endurable were it not for the change in sex attitudes in the nineteen sixties. We knew, as women, that a large proportion of men were traditionally unfaithful to their wives. But now men were doing openly and without apology what they had previously done secretly, and they were pressuring women to adopt similar free-wheeling attitudes toward sex. Yet the average woman has a strong distaste for infidelity as a way of life. It goes against her grain. So the open promiscuousness of men led many women directly to women’s liberation.

We were also tired of being viewed as sex objects. Women hate it when their bosses, with power to hire and fire them, try to force them into sexual relationships. This is a widespread problem for women in the working world.

I was fired in 1971, and I felt that it was because I had refused to date my boss at CBS. When I brought the matter to the attention of one of the vice-presidents, instead of being outraged, as I was, he told me: “This is an everyday affair.”

He was right. The proposition was common. My response was not. I filed a $2-million lawsuit, charging discrimination in employment.

All of these, and more, are real problems that women face. They clearly need to be solved. But how? Women began seeking answers.

FORMING THE MOVEMENT

It was Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963, that articulated the malaise that women were increasingly feeling due to the way the changes of the modern world had adversely affected their lives. The effect of this book could be likened to a brush fire. Women all across the country began to realize that they were not alone in their discontent.

In 1966 Friedan formed the National Organization for Women, designed to work organizationally for an end to discrimination against women. Soon similar organizations were being formed. The basis of the developing women’s movements was what were called “rap groups.” These groups of eight to ten women each would decide to get together every week to discuss women’s problems. These groups sprang up like mushrooms.

These were exhilarating times for me and for many women just discovering women’s liberation. We spent many hours hashing out what we felt about being women, sharing experiences and developing theories. We found that a lot of resentments that we had submerged began to surface and, as we all shared our unhappy experiences at the hands of men, we got madder and madder. But, at the same time, we drew closer and closer together as women.

This feeling of solidarity, of trust, of love, which we called “sisterhood,” was new to all of us, and beautiful. We had all grown up viewing other women as potential rivals for some male’s attention. Now we began to try to see one another as friends and co-victims who needed to depend on one another.

Often these “rap groups” developed into larger organizations. For example, my “rap group,” composed largely of women in journalism, formed the nucleus of what became New York Media Women. This group made headlines when it stormed the Ladies’ Home Journal demanding changes in story content and personnel policy to upgrade the image of women that the magazine projected.

The women’s liberation movement revolutionized attitudes toward women. In employment, in education, in sports, the discrimination against women has, to a considerable extent, been relieved.

Also, lawsuits had a tremendous impact on job opportunities for women, such as my own against CBS. When I worked at CBS, there was only one woman reporter on the worldwide national news staff. Within a few months of the filing of my lawsuit, they had five female reporters.

Although sizable accomplishments had been made, I soon saw serious problems within the movement itself and these began disturbing me.

WHAT WENT WRONG?

The ideals of women’s liberation seemed to me to be beautiful in theory, yet they were not working in practice. For example, sisterhood​—one of our most cherished concepts—​broke down as soon as women began to taste power. The theory had not taken into account human selfishness.

I witnessed several bitter power struggles in women’s groups, with women stabbing each other in the back as bloodthirstily as any man I ever saw. In New York Media Women, as in the movement as a whole, many women unmistakably manifested a “hustler’s” mentality​—they wanted to be famous and successful, and they used the movement as their personal stepping-stone.

As the idealistic theories proved unrealistic, radical elements began to take the movement off in new and, to me, frightening directions.

For example, we focused heavily on rape as an issue. How can women protect themselves? The solution the movement came up with was karate and judo. I went along with this and trained in karate, because I was determined that I would never be at any man’s mercy.

I remember a group of us holding a planning session to discuss going out and maiming or even killing men that were known to have raped or beaten up women. We were serious. But would it have been morally right? To me it was not right​—it violated everything I wanted to be as a person. It seemed that the movement was losing its moral thrust. It was willing to enforce change, regardless of the means. Another dominant theme of the movement disgusted me more than violence​—that was lesbianism. I discovered, in time, that many of the women I had admired and who were taking over leadership of the movement were lesbians. Actually, the movement itself served to encourage women to become lesbians. Of course, that was not the original purpose of the movement, but this is what resulted.

The goal of women’s liberation had originally been to build better relationships between men and women, based on mutual respect. We had really believed that as soon as men knew of our grievances, they would acknowledge their validity and change. Instead, men were reacting to women’s liberation with hostility, mockery, and an entrenchment of attitudes.

Thus many women were finding that liberation meant losing their man. Many men simply walked out and found more “feminine” women. In turn, the women they left behind often gave up trying to relate to men. So when their men walked out on them, they too walked out​—to another woman.

To me, however, lesbianism was perversion and a revolting practice. I was not going to fight for a woman’s right to be a lesbian.

EFFECT ON THE FAMILY

As a mother, I became disturbed over another developing aspect of the movement​—the view of children and the family. Divorce was encouraged. Women who married and became pregnant were looked down upon as old-fashioned and bourgeois. Voluntary sterilization was considered a “liberated” action, all-women communes became the encouraged life style, and test-tube babies the dream of the future.

Encouraged by such views, many women began running away from their families. Recently I read some statistics by Tracers Company of America, experts on finding missing persons. In the early nineteen sixties the ratio of husbands to wives deserting their families was 300 to one. By the late sixties, it had become 100 to one. Today it is one to one! Now women are doing the very thing for which they had hated men.

But I loved and enjoyed my son. A chronic source of grief to me was the fact that my job necessitated my being away from him so much. I worried about how he would turn out if a series of baby-sitters raised him, and I wished I had another choice. The women’s liberation movement simply was not answering the basic questions: What happens to the children if both parents work? And, deeper, what happens to them if both parents refuse to be parents anymore because parenthood interferes with their personal pursuit of happiness?

I was confused and disillusioned. Women’s liberation did not have the answers. But what particularly saddened me was that I had fought so hard to involve other women in a movement that was having such bad effects on their relationships both with men and with their families.

Still, liberation was clearly needed. We women had correctly identified real problems that contribute toward making life miserable for millions. What, then, were the solutions? I did not give up looking.

AN UNEXPECTED SOURCE

A friend suggested that the Bible had the answers. I was skeptical to the extreme. To a women’s liberationist the Bible is just a book written by a bunch of men​—reflecting men’s negative attitudes toward women. But I decided at least to investigate. I knew how so many had misrepresented what women’s liberation was all about. Therefore I realized that it would be unfair to pass judgment upon the Bible without first studying it.

I had never before read the Bible. So one day I picked up a copy and happened to open it to Isaiah chapter 54 fifty-four, where I began reading: “‘For your Grand Maker is your husbandly owner, Jehovah of armies being his name . . . For Jehovah called you as if you were a wife left entirely and hurt in spirit, and as a wife of the time of youth who was then rejected,’ your God has said.” How could this God Jehovah know about such womanly feelings? I wondered. The delicacy of the image moved me to want to find out more about what kind of God this is.

The person who directed me to the Bible, although not being one of Jehovah’s witnesses, said that they were the only ones who taught the Bible straight. So in May of 1971 I contacted a local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses and arranged for a Witness to study with me. The answers given gradually began making sense.

The Bible’s emphasis on love and the need to consider the worth of fellow humans really appealed to me. For example, these scriptures are only a sampling of many that impressed me:

“Become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave you.” Do “nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with lowliness of mind considering that the others are superior to you.” “In showing honor to one another take the lead.”​—Eph. 4:32; Phil. 2:3; Rom. 12:10.

Nothing is said about this advice applying only to women; no, this is how people, male and female, should consider and treat one another. I was all for that!

I had become disgusted with the world’s view that men “had” to fly from flower to flower like bumblebees​—immorality supposedly being natural for them. Now I discovered that the Bible says, ‘No! Do not do that! Marriage is to be kept honorable!’ Further, Romans chapter one condemns homosexual conduct, terming it “obscene.” What a relief!

HUSBANDS AND WIVES

“But,” many women are sure to ask, “what about the scripture that says, ‘Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife’”? (Eph. 5:22, 23) When I first read it, this was distasteful to me too. I wondered, How could having a husband as her head be anything but enslaving to his wife? However, the person with whom I was studying urged me to consider the full picture and not to judge the principle stated in this scripture by what I had seen among men in the world.

It was shown to me that Christian husbands, too, have a head to whom they are in subjection and that they are under orders to treat their wives just as Jesus had treated his earthly followers. (1 Cor. 11:3) Ephesians chapter 5 says about this: “Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it.” I thought to myself: If husbands really did this, if they loved their wives so much that they would willingly die for them, there never would have been a women’s liberation movement!

Also, I was shown where the Bible commands husbands to assign honor to their wives. (1 Pet. 3:7) Now this idea of headship began to be a little more acceptable to me.

But, I still wondered, if this was what God, the inventor of marriage, wanted husbands to be like, how did everything get so mixed up? I learned in my study that when man sinned in the garden of Eden, he brought on himself a host of problems, including sickness and death. But, in reading the Bible account, I was appalled at the punishment Eve received: “Your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”​—Gen. 3:16.

What a repugnant thought! Did this mean that in order to accept the Bible I would have to accept domination as woman’s lot? No, as I studied deeper I learned that God has in mind very soon to begin the restoration of man and woman to their original perfect state. Sin, sickness and death will be removed forever. (Rev. 21:3, 4) Did this mean, then, that this domination by sinful men would end also?

Yes. I joyfully learned that while the loving headship principle will remain, the selfish domineering by men will cease. Viewed in this context, would not having a husbandly head as loving as Christ be pleasant?

Not only that, I learned that I did not have to wait for Jehovah God to transform the earth into Paradise. Christian men, true Christians, are supposed to be striving to live up to God’s righteous standards right now. Were they?

ONLY THEORY?

I was urged to attend the meetings of Jehovah’s witnesses regularly and to associate with them and their families, and see for myself. I was amazed. They really practice what the Bible teaches. Then I began to see why.

Each one of them believes the Bible to be true​—that the Creator of the universe actually inspired humans to write it. So the Witnesses sincerely try, to the best of their abilities, to live by God’s Word. As a result they do treat others kindly and with compassion, and husbands do work at loving and honoring their wives.

Moreover, I saw that when they pray to God, ‘Our Father in heaven, let your kingdom come,’ they really believe that God’s government will rule the earth. They really believe the Bible when it says: “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. . . . It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”​—Dan. 2:44.

LIBERATION WORTH FIGHTING FOR

I could see that Jehovah’s witnesses believe that the smashing of this system by God is near and that soon now deserving humankind will be preserved into a righteous new order. As I thought about it, this became reasonable to me too. For surely the Creator must be appalled by the gross selfishness and immorality that pervades every part of this world! And I was convinced that humans by themselves cannot correct this situation.

As I continued to study the Bible, I became more convinced that what God will accomplish will be far beyond what we in women’s liberation could ever have hoped to achieve. For under God’s kingdom not only will women’s problems be solved, but the Creator will see that all humankind is liberated from every form of oppression, including even sickness and death. This is what he has promised in his Word, and there is every reason to believe that he will keep his promise.

So I am still a fighter for the liberation of both women and men, but in a different way. Instead of spending many hours each week in “rap sessions” or fighting legally to improve women’s rights, I use my time showing people that their only real hope for happy living is in applying in their lives the fine principles of God’s Word. This is the only way that will lead to true liberation in the paradise “new earth” under God’s righteous Kingdom rule. (2 Pet. 3:13)​—Contributed.

[Blurb on page 388]

‘A reason why women’s liberation developed had to do with rising living costs and modern-day life styles.’

[Blurb on page 389]

“The open promiscuousness of men led many women directly to women’s liberation.”

[Blurb on page 390]

“Sisterhood​—one of our most cherished concepts—​broke down as soon as women began to taste power.”

[Blurb on page 391]

“I was not going to fight for a woman’s right to be a lesbian.”

[Blurb on page 392]

“The Bible’s emphasis on love and the need to consider the worth of fellow humans really appealed to me.”

[Blurb on page 393]

“I was shown where the Bible commands husbands to assign honor to their wives.”

[Box on page 387]

● For centuries women have been oppressed and mistreated by men of many nations. Now more and more women are demanding freedom and equality.

● Does the Bible approve of these women’s liberation movements?

● Read how one fighter for women’s rights discovered the only really successful way of achieving the needed liberation for women.

Insight on the News

Insight on the News

Marijuana and Male Potency

● Frequent smoking of marijuana can have a depressing effect on the body’s production of male sex hormones and sperm, according to recent medical reports. Research data published in the “New England Journal of Medicine” cited cases where heavy smokers of marijuana were rendered impotent and regained potency only some weeks after giving up the practice. One of the authors of the report, Dr. William H. Masters, said: “It now appears possible that there may be severe consequences of frequent intensive use of the drug.”

Two potential dangers cited were: One, that a preadolescent boy frequently using the drug might not have normal development into puberty. And, second, that the male fetus of a pregnant woman regularly smoking marijuana could thereafter be born defective in its sex organs.

So, evidence continues to mount against so-called “soft” drugs like marijuana that are used to escape from reality.

The Bible truth is also emphasized that one “sowing” to wrong fleshly desires “will reap corruption from his flesh.” (Gal. 6:8) By contrast, Bible guidelines for conduct mean “life to those finding them and health to all their flesh.”​—Prov. 4:22.

Quiché? Cakchiquel? Kekchí?

● Does Quiché mean anything to you? Perhaps Cakchiquel rings a bell? Or what about Kekchí Tzutuhil, Mam, Kanhobal or Pokomam? These are all languages or dialects derived from the ancient Mayan language, and they are spoken today by the people in Guatemala. A recent news report from there states that it is hoped that some 60 percent of the twenty-four native tongues spoken in Guatemala will soon be cared for with Bible translations.

Many people today are unaware of the fact that the Bible​—in whole or in part—​has already been translated into 1,526 languages and dialects. In fact, the number of persons speaking languages not yet served with Bible translations now amounts to only about 3 percent of earth’s inhabitants. No other book in history has even come close to such widespread availability. But, then, no other book is the source of a message as vital as that which the Bible has for all mankind.

Stay Alive​—At Any Cost?

● Cannibalism is generally thought of as something of the uncivilized past. In October 1972, however, following a plane crash high in the Andes mountains of Chile, some of the survivors stayed alive during the next ten weeks by eating parts of their dead companions’ bodies. Now books have been published giving graphic accounts of their ordeal. Though several preferred to die rather than eat human flesh, sixteen chose this as an acceptable way to keep alive. How did they reason?

One argument was that to refuse to eat the dead would mean certain death and that since ‘suicide was forbidden by the church,’ this would make the eating of human flesh allowable in their case. Another claimed to see a parallel between eating the flesh of dear friends and the ‘holy communion,’ maintaining that ‘God had provided us with food.’

The survivors were not alone in their reasoning. A “National Catholic Reporter” review of one of the recent books said: “Church officials later defended the actions of the survivors on the grounds that they had a right to survive and that their treatment of the dead was, considering the circumstances, respectful.” The reviewer then went on to say: “It is good to know, at least, that a church which has in the past so often rationalized wars which created dead bodies can also rationalize the eating of the remains of the dead as a matter of survival.”

The Bible shows that God granted men the right to eat animal flesh​—not that of fellow humans. (Gen. 9:3; compare Leviticus 26:27-29.) There is no doubt that the survivors experienced a trying, harrowing ordeal. But the idea that ‘the end justifies the means’ does not harmonize with the Bible. On that reasoning, men in dictatorial lands followed orders that caused them to commit atrocities. To disobey, they reasoned, would have been “suicidal.” But Christ Jesus showed that attempts to save one’s life in ways out of harmony with God’s will can only lead to loss of God’s favor. Death in integrity, however, assures a resurrection to life in a righteous new order.​—Mark 8:35; John 6:39, 40.

How the Use of Images Can Affect You

How the Use of Images Can Affect You

MAN is a religious creature. Throughout human history the majority of mankind has practiced some form of religion.

There are literally thousands of ways in which people serve their gods. Hundreds of millions of persons​—including Buddhists, Hindus, so-called “primitive” peoples, and many in Christendom—​use images as an aid to devotion.

Although religious images often bear the likeness of humans, at times they may be medals, figurines or merely lumps of wood or stone in which a god or the spirit of a god is thought to dwell. These latter are known as “fetishes.”

How does God view the use of images in worship? How could this practice affect you? Let us consider God’s own view of the matter as found in the Holy Bible.

God’s law forbade making images as objects of worship. The second of the Ten Commandments decreed: “You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.” (Ex. 20:4, 5, The Jerusalem Bible) The inspired Christian Scriptures (usually called the “New Testament”) also command: “You must keep clear of idolatry.”​—1 Cor. 10:14, Je.

IS “RELATIVE” WORSHIP IDOLATRY

Many insist that their use of images in worship is not idolatry. Some Catholics, for example, deny that they actually worship the images before which they bow, kneel or pray. They say that this is merely “relative” worship of the one whom the image represents.

Did you know that pagans made that same claim centuries ago? According to “church father” Lactantius (of the fourth century C.E.), pagans argued: “We do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated.” Many Hindus and Buddhists today make a similar claim in justification of their veneration of images.

Does God approve of the use of images for relative worship of himself? If so, would he not have granted one of his prophets to see him and to write down his description in the Bible? Yet the Scriptures state: “No one has ever seen God.” (1 John 4:12, Je) When the Israelites set up an image for “relative” worship of Jehovah, God expressed his strong disapproval, saying that they had “apostasised.”​—Ex. 32:7, Je.

The claim that images are nothing special in themselves but only aids for relative worship is highly questionable in almost all cases. How so? Well, is it not true that, of several images of the same individual, certain ones may be considered worthy of greater devotion and are thought to be more “efficacious” for a particular matter than others? This indicates that, in practice, people attribute real powers and worship to certain images.

Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas went so far as to say: “The same reverence should be shown to Christ’s image as to Christ Himself.” And since Catholics believe, though incorrectly,a that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, this means that an image of Christ should be given the same reverence as that due to God. There is thus no real difference between “relative” worship through images and idolatry.

What about worship of creatures other than God? Jesus, replying to Satan about worship, drew upon Deuteronomy 6:13 as follows: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Matt. 4:10) He later said that true worshipers would worship “the Father,” no one else. (John 4:23, Je) Realizing this, an angel reprimanded the apostle John for doing an act of worship to him, saying: “Don’t do that: . . . It is God that you must worship.”​—Rev. 22:9, Je.

What about praying to Jesus’ earthly mother Mary or to particular saints for them to “intercede” with God on one’s behalf? The Bible’s direct answer is: “There is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus.”​—1 Tim. 2:5, Je.

EFFECT OF IMAGE WORSHIP ON ONE

Image worship, being contrary to the principles of God’s Word, cannot help people to win God’s approval and gain salvation. On the contrary, Jesus said that eternal life depends upon getting to “know” God, becoming acquainted with his matchless personality, his purposes and dealings with mankind. (John 17:3, Je) Images that can neither see, nor feel, nor speak do not help one to know God and to worship him correctly. (Ps. 115:4-8, Je) That most important education is available only through a study of God’s Word, the Bible.

Besides affording no benefit, image worship can prove harmful. How so? Most importantly, it can cause a breach in one’s relationship with Jehovah. Regarding the Israelites, who “angered him with abominable idols,” God foretold: “I will hide my face from them.” (Deut. 32:16, 20, The New American Bible) Rebuilding their relationship with God meant ‘spurning sinful idols.’​—Isa. 31:6, 7, NAB.

The apostle Paul pointed to another harmful effect of image worship. He said that the relative worship offered to images actually goes “to demons and not to God.” (1 Cor. 10:20, NAB) At times, possessing religious pictures, images or fetishes can even invite harassment from the invisible realm. A woman in North America reports concerning her mother: “She had been ill almost all summer. When my husband and I visited her home she told me that on the previous night she had seen a soft light floating around her room. Then the bed covers were pulled off of her and it felt as if a child had crawled into bed next to her. She was a nervous wreck.” What caused these unusual circumstances?

Her daughter searched the house and found two religious pictures. Could these have something to do with her mother’s difficulties? Realizing that the Bible associates image worship with demonism, they decided to burn the pictures to see what would happen. The daughter continues: “How happy we were to see my mother out of bed the very next day, and feeling better than she had all summer!” Many have had similar experiences.

Image worship cannot aid anyone to meet God’s approval. God views “relative” worship through images as going, not to himself, but to the demons. This can lead only to strained relations with God and, on occasion, may invite direct demon attack. How appropriate, therefore, the Scriptural counsel: “My little children, be on your guard against idols”!​—1 John 5:21, NAB.

[Footnotes]

Jesus Christ did not claim to be God, but “the Son of God” (John 10:36, Je); not did he claim equality with God, but said: “The Father is greater than I.”​—John 14:28, Je.

For What “Sign” Are Christians Looking?

For What “Sign” Are Christians Looking?

FOR nineteen centuries Christians have looked for the coming of Christ in power.

Some have expected a sudden, miraculous visible appearance in the sky, or have believed that those who are “born again” as the spiritual brothers of Christ will suddenly and miraculously disappear from off the face of the earth, being taken to heaven.

There is a similarity in this viewpoint to that of the religious scribes and Pharisees of nineteen centuries ago. They wanted a sign from Jesus Christ, to convince them that he was the Messiah. They required that he make a visible appearance in the sky, one of great power and glory, so that all could see with their natural eyes. But he refused.​—Matt. 12:38; compare Daniel 7:13, 14; Matthew 26:64.

AVOID WRONG EXPECTATIONS

We could be mistaken by having such an expectation, looking for some spectacular miracle, to convince us. This is contrary to the apostle’s statement that “we are walking by faith, not by sight.” (2 Cor. 5:7) Just as there were plenty of evidences when Jesus was on earth for those having faith in Jehovah God to accept Jesus as the Messiah, so today there is strong proof of his now being active in earth’s affairs. The apostle says: “Faith is . . . the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Heb. 11:1) So things that establish faith are not always the visible, obvious things, and may even be things quite different from what we have been led by personal ideas or desires to expect.

Consequently, it is good to examine closely to see what the Bible says are the evidences of Christ’s presence and the approach of his thousand-year rule over earth.

Christ’s Kingdom rule of a thousand years promises the finest conditions​—conditions mankind has never known. Therefore, everyone should look for evidences of its approach with the greatest interest and anticipation. The Bible book of Revelation (chapters 20 and 21) reveals many of the good things that the thousand-year rule will bring. It also tells us that this millennium must be preceded immediately by the most destructive war in all human history. We can now see the political rulers or “kings of the entire inhabited earth” being gathered, under forces beyond human control, for that War of all wars, at the place called Har–Magedon.​—Rev. 16:13-16.

CHRIST REIGNS FOR A TIME BEFORE THOUSAND-YEAR RULE

Describing the battle lineup for that war, the Revelation reveals that on the side of God the Almighty will be the Leader of Jehovah’s heavenly armies. He is called Faithful and True, the Word of God. He is shown to be already reigning as King before the war at Har–Magedon begins. The account describes Christ proceeding to the war: “Upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Rev. 19:11-16; compare Revelation 12:5, 10-12.) Thus he is reigning as King before he enters upon that thousand-year-long period of reigning with his 144,000 Christian joint heirs.​—Rev. 14:1-4; 20:4-6.

Further proof is given, in another picture, that Christ would be active as King and would be “present,” in the sense of turning his attention and exercising kingly power toward the earth. (Compare Jehovah’s ‘coming down’ at Micah 1:3; 2 Samuel 22:10.) In chapter six of Revelation the apostle John records his vision in which he saw the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, start opening up the seven seals holding shut the “scroll” that he had received from the hand of God. John writes: “And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice as of thunder: ‘Come!’ And I saw, and, look! a white horse; and the one seated upon it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went forth conquering and to complete his conquest. And when he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say: ‘Come!’ And another came forth, a fiery-colored horse; and to the one seated upon it there was granted to take peace away from the earth so that they should slaughter one another; and a great sword was given him.”​—Rev. 6:1-4.

This prophetic picture symbolizes the things that came upon the earth starting with World War I in 1914 C.E. Jesus Christ is shown crowned as King, riding forth upon the white horse of righteous warfare. The horseman on the fiery horse represents the prosecution of earthly warfare, which has indeed ravaged the earth since that year 1914 C.E.

Also, the inspired psalmist clearly foretold that Jesus Christ would begin to rule as King some time before the “kings of earth” are destroyed and he starts his thousand-year reign. He wrote, prophetically: “Why have the nations been in tumult and the national groups themselves kept muttering an empty thing? The kings of earth take their stand and high officials themselves have massed together as one against Jehovah and against his anointed one [his Christ, Greek Septuagint Version], saying: ‘Let us tear their bands apart and cast their cords away from us!’ The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah himself will hold them in derision. At that time he will speak to them in his anger and in his hot displeasure he will disturb them, saying: ‘I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain.’”​—Ps. 2:1-6; compare Acts 4:24-30.

Accordingly, after the beginning of Christ’s presence in Kingdom power and glory, there is to be a period of time in which he will be busy conducting a judgment of this system of things and finally bringing it to complete ruin. (Ps. 2:8-12; 110:2-6) During this period he will be invisible to human eyes, because he is now “the exact representation” of the invisible God, whom ‘no man has seen at any time.’ Christ now “dwells in unapproachable light,” and “not one of men has seen or can see” him.​—Heb. 1:3; John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16.

Since Christ was to be invisible to human eyes at the time of his presence in Kingdom power from 1914 C.E. onward, he kindly gave his disciples a “sign” by which they could know and understand when that time had come. He foretold this “sign” just after he had predicted the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. The occasion of his describing the “sign” came shortly after he had said to the Jewish religious leaders who rejected him: “Look! Your house is abandoned to you. For I say to you, You will by no means see me from henceforth until you say, ‘Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name!’”​—Matt. 23:38, 39.

This strong statement of Jesus indicated that he was going away, and that there would be those who would take up the prophetic words of Psalm 118:26 and say: “Blessed be the One coming in the name of Jehovah.” But it would not be at that material temple in Jerusalem that these words would be spoken. This was made clear by Jesus’ next words. The account reads: “Departing now, Jesus was on his way from the temple, but his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. In response he said to them: ‘Do you not behold all these things? Truly I say to you, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.’”​—Matt. 24:1, 2.

“COMING” OR “PRESENCE”​—WHICH?

Jesus and his twelve apostles then walked out of Jerusalem and climbed the Mount of Olives nearby. Seated in a position where they could get a fine view of the entire temple complex, they were deeply moved. Finally four of the apostles posed the question in which all were interested. According to the rendering of the New World Translation, their question was: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence [pa·rou·siʹa, Greek] and of the conclusion of the system of things?”​—Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:3, 4.

Other translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures similarly recognize the term pa·rou·siʹa as meaning “presence.” Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible reads: “Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?” Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible says: “Tell us when these things shall be,​—and what the sign of thy presence and the conclusion of the age.”

Notice that the apostles asked about the Parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. Were they asking about his “coming” or his “advent,” as some call it? No. Observe the term with which Christ’s first coming or advent was spoken of by the Christian martyr Stephen when he spoke to the Jewish Sanhedrin: “Which one of the prophets did your forefathers not persecute? Yes, they killed those who made announcement in advance concerning the coming [eʹleu·sis, Greek] of the righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become.” (Acts 7:52) Note that the word eʹleu·sis, not the word pa·rou·siʹa, was used. They are two Greek words different in form and derivation, and also in meaning.

What is the meaning and significance of the Greek word pa·rou·siʹa? It literally means “a being alongside,” the expression being drawn from the Greek preposition paraʹ (“alongside”) and ousía (a “being”). Let us see what the lexicographers say.

Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicona gives as the first definition of parousía the English word “presence.” It gives as the second definition thereof “arrival,” then adds: “Esp[ecially] visit of a royal or official personage.”

In agreement with this, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Gerhard Friedrich)b gives as “The General Meaning” the English word “Presence.” Then, as “The Technical Use of the Terms,” in Hellenism, it gives “1. The Visit of a Ruler.” It says concerning “The Technical Use of páreimi [verb] and parousía in the NT.”: “In the NT the terms are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and parousía never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one parousía is first found only in the later Church.”

So, then, Jesus’ disciples were asking, not about his future “arrival,” but about after his arrival. They were asking about his “presence.” And if, instead of using the word “presence,” we resort to “the technical use of the terms” in Hellenism, the disciples would be understood to ask Jesus: “What will be the sign of your [visit as a royal personage] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” A “visit” includes more than an “arrival.” It includes a “presence.”

In the so-called New Testament the Greek word parousía occurs twenty-four times, and in all its occurrences there, not only the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translates the word every time as “presence,” but also other translations do so, as Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, of 1862 C.E.; Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, of 1857-1863 C.E.; and Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible, of 1897 C.E. We note how fittingly “presence” and “absence” are contrasted, in Philippians 2:12, where the apostle Paul says: “You have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence.”

Christ’s “presence,” about which the disciples asked, could not have occurred at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans in 70 C.E. Why not? Though it is true that the Jewish system of things ended then, the larger system of things of which that Jewish system was merely a prophetic pattern or type did not end then. This was to come during Christ’s pa·rou·siʹa, which was to culminate in a “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.” (Matt. 24:21) Jerusalem’s tribulation in 70 C.E. was her worst, but was certainly not worse than the global flood of Noah’s day and is far less catastrophic than the conclusion of this present entire world system of things will be.

NEED TO BE ALERT

The pa·rou·siʹa or “presence” of the Lord Jesus Christ is, therefore, his presence or visit as King, invisibly, in royal power and glory. Consequently a “sign” is required so that persons on earth may discern that presence. Jesus, according to his characteristic way of giving kind attention to all questions asked by his disciples, gave them an even more thorough answer than they expected. The entire twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters 24, 25 of Matthew, along with parallel accounts in Mark chapter 13 and Luke chapter 21, give many features of the “sign” of his presence.

Hence, we do well to consider carefully the things Jesus pointed out that would provide full and sufficient proof of his invisible presence. The “sign” with its many features, as outlined by Jesus, is not a sign that he is on the way​—coming—​but that he is present, directing his invisible attention and power toward the earth.

Those who have understanding, using the ‘eyes of the heart,’ will discern that fact. As the prophet Daniel wrote: “the ones having insight will understand.” (Dan. 12:10) If Christ appeared in visible form, with a dazzling display, or by causing miraculous happenings world wide, where would insight be needed? True Christians, therefore, will not be like those who have a wrong expectation; but will have insight and discernment, and will ‘lift up their heads, because their deliverance from this system of things is getting near.’​—Luke 21:28, 36.

[Footnotes]

Volume II, page 1343.

Volume V, pages 859, 865.

“Gird Yourselves with Lowliness of Mind”

“Gird Yourselves with Lowliness of Mind”

“All of you gird yourselves with lowliness of mind toward one another, because God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.”​—1 Pet. 5:5.

1. What qualities are Christians encouraged to develop? Why?

DO YOU know people who are proud, haughty, vain, egotistical, conceited? Most of us do. But how much more do we prefer to associate with individuals who are humble, lowly of mind, modest, meek, unassuming! In fact, the qualities of humility and lowliness of mind are qualities that all Christians are encouraged to develop. On one occasion Jesus knew that his disciples had been arguing among themselves as to who was greater, and he told them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.” Then he went on to show that there was no room for a man to be high-minded, pointing out that if they accepted childlike persons on the basis of his name it would be the same as accepting him as well as his Father Jehovah. So he certainly encouraged his disciples to be lowly of mind. (Mark 9:33-37) Years later Peter wrote: “All of you gird yourselves with lowliness of mind,” and he went on to explain why, saying, “because God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.” (1 Pet. 5:5) Not only, then, do we find lowliness of mind a desirable quality, but so does God, and he rewards such with undeserved kindness.

2. Why should we consider Second Kings, chapter five?

2 We want to have God’s approval, so we do well to give serious consideration to this matter of humility. Since the Bible says that the things written therein “were written for our instruction,” can we find an account in the Scriptures that will instruct us in humility? (Rom. 15:4) One worthy of consideration in this connection is found in Second Kings, chapter five. There we learn of an individual in ancient times who developed humility, and by reading and analyzing the account we can personally derive benefit as we each seek to gird ourselves with lowliness of mind.

NAAMAN LEARNS HUMILITY

3. What do we learn about the man Naaman?

3 In the tenth century B.C.E., Syria, which lay to the north of Israel, had an army chief named Naaman, who led the Syrians to victory. Unknown to Naaman at the time, it was Jehovah who by him had given salvation to Syria. Naaman “had become a great man before his lord and held in esteem, . . . and the man himself had proved to be a valiant, mighty man.” (2 Ki. 5:1) No doubt because of his position and his military exploits, Naaman was a proud man, but he had contracted leprosy. This loathsome disease did not bar him from holding the position of an army chief in Syria as it would have in Israel, but, in time, it served to humble and benefit him in a most unusual way.​—Lev. 13:46.

4. How did the king of Syria come to learn about Elisha?

4 Syrian marauder bands had taken a little Israelite girl captive from the land of Israel, and this girl came to be a maidservant to the wife of Naaman. This girl (not named in the Bible) knew about the prophet of Jehovah named Elisha and the miracles that he had performed. She had faith in Elisha’s God, Jehovah, and bore witness to her faith. On one occasion when she was talking to Naaman’s wife, her mistress, she said: “If only my lord were before the prophet that is in Samaria! In that case he would recover him from his leprosy.” The witness of the Israelite girl in time reached the ears of the king of Syria.​—2 Ki. 5:2-4.

5. How did Naaman come in contact with Elisha?

5 The Syrian king, evidently Ben-hadad II, wrote a letter to Jehoram, king of Israel, and sent his army chief Naaman about a hundred miles to deliver it. Along with Naaman he sent valuable gifts. Jehoram received the letter and read: “And now at the same time that this letter comes to you, here I do send to you Naaman my servant, that you may recover him from his leprosy.” Jehoram was dismayed at the letter and feared that the Syrian king was “seeking a quarrel” with him. Elisha, the prophet of the true God, got to hear of this and sent to King Jehoram, saying: “Let him [Naaman] come, please, to me that he may know that there exists a prophet in Israel.” Ah, at last Naaman was going to get personal attention from the man who the little Israelite girl said could cure him!​—2 Ki. 5:5-8.

6. (a) What happened when Naaman arrived at Elisha’s house? (b) What was Elisha not trying to do, and in what was he interested?

6 “So Naaman came with his horses and his war chariots and stood at the entrance of the house of Elisha.” How would Elisha react with such a dignitary present? Would he make some special fuss over this celebrated army chief? The account continues: “However, Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying: ‘Going there, you must bathe seven times in the Jordan that your flesh may come back to you; and be clean.’” No, Elisha was not trying to curry favor with individuals of high rank. He was interested in having Jehovah’s continued favor and seeing to it that His will was accomplished.​—2 Ki. 5:9, 10.

7. How did Naaman react to Elisha’s instructions?

7 Was Naaman pleased to learn how easy it was for him to get cured from his leprous condition? No; rather, the account continues by saying: “At this Naaman grew indignant and began to go away and say: ‘Here I had said to myself, “To me he will come out all the way and will certainly stand and call upon the name of Jehovah his God and move his hand to and fro over the place and actually give the leper recovery.” Are not the Abaʹnah and the Pharʹpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Can I not bathe in them and certainly be clean?’ With that he turned and went away in a rage.”​—2 Ki. 5:11, 12.

8. What was Naaman’s pride causing him to lose sight of and that his servants helped him to consider?

8 It looked as if Naaman’s pride was going to prevent him from being cured. He was not pleased by the poor reception he received nor by such a simple remedy. It seemed as if he was more interested in some pomp and ceremony attached to the cure than in the actual cure itself. Pride was about to interfere with obedience to the instructions of God’s prophet. But Naaman’s servants helped him to get things in their proper perspective. They said: “Had it been a great thing that the prophet himself had spoken to you, would you not do it? How much more, then, since he said to you, ‘Bathe and be clean’?” (2 Ki. 5:13) They had the proper viewpoint. They appreciated that the main thing was for Naaman to be cured of his disease, and their conversation with their master had results.

9. What occurred when Naaman obeyed Elisha’s instructions?

9 “At that he went down and began to plunge into the Jordan seven times according to the word of the man of the true God.” Yes, he began to show lowliness of mind; he girded himself with humility and followed through on the recommended procedure. He went to the Jordan and plunged himself into the water, once, twice, on up to six times, but no cure. Then came the seventh plunge, and the result? “His flesh came back like the flesh of a little boy and he became clean.” He was cured!​—2 Ki. 5:14.

10. (a) How did Naaman react on being cured? (b) Why did Elisha refuse Naaman’s offer of a gift?

10 But how much of a humbling effect did this have on Naaman? Would he now return home, proud of his cleansed condition but lacking appreciation for what had been done? The account goes on to show that he returned to the man of the true God, a distance of perhaps twenty-five miles or more, along with his horses and war chariots. This time Elisha appeared before him, and Naaman said: “Here, now, I certainly know that there is no God anywhere in the earth but in Israel.” What a confession of faith! Gratefully he offered Elisha a blessing gift. Elisha, however, was not interested in making profit from serving Jehovah, and so he said: “As Jehovah before whom I do stand is living, I will not accept it.” In spite of urging on the part of Naaman, Elisha “kept refusing” to accept any gift, for he realized that Jehovah was the Healer and he did not seek to profit from the office that Jehovah had given him.​—2 Ki. 5:15, 16.

11, 12. Naaman now expressed concern about what? In what ways?

11 Finally Naaman said: “If not, please, let there be given to your servant some ground, the load of a pair of mules; because your servant will no more render up a burnt offering or a sacrifice to any other gods but to Jehovah.” Naaman humbly expressed his desire to worship Elisha’s God, but he wanted to do so on Israelite soil even though he had to return to the service of the king of Syria.​—2 Ki. 5:17.

12 How lowly of mind Naaman had become, not concerned with putting on an outward show or being made prominent himself, but, rather, being interested in pleasing Jehovah, the one he now recognized as the true God! He went on to say to Elisha: “In this thing may Jehovah forgive your servant: When my lord comes into the house of Rimmon [the false god the king of Syria worshiped] to bow down there, and he is supporting himself upon my hand, and I have to bow down at the house of Rimmon, when I bow down at the house of Rimmon may Jehovah, please, forgive your servant in this respect.” No longer would Naaman be worshiping this idol Rimmon, but his bowing would be only mechanical on his part to facilitate his king’s bowing. Elisha believed that Naaman was sincere, and so he said to him, “Go in peace.”​—2 Ki. 5:18, 19.

13. What did Naaman’s ‘girding himself with lowliness of mind’ result in for himself?

13 Is it not interesting to see how, in a relatively short time, Naaman learned to ‘gird himself with lowliness of mind’ and as a result came to be a worshiper of Jehovah and gained His favor and blessing? But during this same time, someone else was becoming self-centered, high-minded. Who was this?

GEHAZI MOVED BY GREED

14, 15. How did Gehazi show in what he was really interested?

14 Elisha had an attendant named Gehazi who was evidently present during Naaman’s discussion with Elisha. Gehazi saw matters differently than Elisha did. He is reported as saying, apparently to himself: “Here my master has spared Naaman this Syrian by not accepting from his hand what he brought. As Jehovah is living, I will run after him and take something from him.” Gehazi was interested in material gain, in profiting from the work of Jehovah’s spirit; so spiritual matters were not the all-important concern in his mind.​—2 Ki. 5:20.

15 Naaman got off his chariot to meet Gehazi and inquired, “Is all well?” Gehazi answered, “All is well,” and then proceeded to lie to get what he was after. “My master himself has sent me, saying, ‘Look! Just now there have come to me two young men from the mountainous region of Ephraim from the sons of the prophets. Do give them, please, a talent of silver and two changes of garments.’” Gehazi lyingly involved his master Elisha and the sons of the prophets in his evil scheme.​—2 Ki. 5:21, 22.

16. What occurred when Gehazi returned to Elisha?

16 Naaman still manifested the same generous spirit he had shown Elisha earlier and said, “Go on, take two talents.” Then Naaman “kept urging” Gehazi, and so this greedy man took the two talents of silver and the two changes of garments and proceeded to deposit them in his house. Then, empty-handed, Gehazi returned to Elisha. “Where did you come from, Gehazi?” Elisha inquired. Adding another lie to cover up the ones he told to Naaman, and lyingly to conceal the truth, Gehazi replied, “Your servant did not go anywhere at all.” But, of course, Jehovah knew what Gehazi had been up to and revealed the entire matter to Elisha. And so Elisha said to Gehazi: “Did not my heart itself go along just as the man turned to get down off his chariot to meet you? Is it a time to accept silver or to accept garments or olive groves or vineyards or sheep or cattle or menservants or maidservants?”​—2 Ki. 5:23-26.

17. (a) Why was Elisha rightly disturbed? (b) What happened to Gehazi for his greed?

17 Can you imagine the horrified feeling that hit Gehazi? Why, his master knew exactly what he had done! Imagine too the righteous indignation that Elisha felt. Here he had served Jehovah’s interests in the curing of Naaman’s leprosy and had refused any financial reward for his part in this miracle. And now his servant, who was not directly involved, had gone and greedily taken something under false pretenses. Elisha, with Jehovah’s obvious backing, went on to say to Gehazi: “So the leprosy of Naaman will stick to you and your offspring to time indefinite.” And the account concludes by saying: “Immediately he went out from before him, a leper white as snow.”​—2 Ki. 5:27.

ATTRIBUTES TO BE IMITATED OR AVOIDED

18. What can we review in connection with Second Kings, chapter five?

18 Look back on the account in Second Kings chapter five that we have just considered. We certainly note some outstanding characteristics and dispositions of different people. It will be most beneficial to us to review some of these differences.

19. (a) What admirable qualities did the little Israelite girl possess? (b) How can we manifest such characteristics?

19 Just think of the little Israelite girl. She was taken captive from Israel, but this did not weaken her faith in Jehovah nor in his ability to use one of his faithful servants through whom to perform miracles. Elisha had never cured any lepers in Israel, as Jesus later pointed out. (Luke 4:27) But this little girl had real faith. There was no question about it in her mind; she believed implicitly that if Naaman would go and ask, Jehovah would answer. Although just a maidservant, she had the courage to witness about her faith in Jehovah. She must have done this enthusiastically and convincingly to succeed in getting her message across so that it was acted upon, and not viewed merely as some childish notion. Like this humble, unnamed servant of God who set so outstanding an example of faith, we should fearlessly speak the truth so that all of honest heart can benefit. Never should we hold back from making known Jehovah and his purposes, fearing we are not qualified to speak to someone in a higher station in life than we. We should have full confidence in Jehovah and his ability to direct us.​—Ps. 56:11.

…