Questions From ReadersThe Watchtower—1958 | August 15
Questions From Readers
● Where other Bible translations use “cross” the New World Translation usually uses “stake,” but in some places it uses “tree,” as at Acts 5:30 in the margin. Why is this?—W. M., United States.
In the Bibles of Christendom in general the Greek word that is translated “cross” is the word staurós. Originally this was used to mean simply a stake or a pole, that is, one without a crossbeam. That this is the proper meaning of the word when referring to the instrument that Jesus was hung upon is shown by the fact that the apostles Peter and Paul sometimes referred to it as a tree, namely, in Acts 5:30, Acts 10:39, Acts 13:29, Galatians 3:13 and; 1 Peter 2:24. The Greek word here translated “tree” is the word xylon, from which we get the word “xylophone,” an instrument of music made of wooden pieces. However, this Greek word xylon does not refer to a live tree growing in the ground and producing fruits. For a live, growing fruit-bearing tree the Greeks used another word, namely, dendron, from which we get the English word “dendrology,” meaning the science of trees. Dendron is the Greek word used in such verses as Matthew 3:10; 7:17, 18, 19; 12:33; 13:32; 21:8. Also Mark 8:24; 11:8; Luke 3:9; Jude 12; Revelation 7:1, 3; 8:7; 9:4.
So the Greek-speaking people of old did not refer to the torture stake of Jesus as a live tree or dendron, but as a xylon. So this xylon corresponds with a log or a staff. In fact, the word is translated “staff” or “staves” in Matthew 26:47, 55; Mark 14:43, 48; Luke 22:52. (AV) Certainly the xylon that the mob which came to take Jesus under arrest used was not a cross, nor was it a live tree rooted in the ground. Sometimes because of the wood of which a tree is composed, or which is taken from a tree, even a live tree may be called a xylon. In this case the reading matter around the word would indicate whether it is a dead tree or a live one, as for instance at Luke 23:31; Revelation 2:7; 22:2, 14.
As you can see, therefore, the above discussion bears out the fact that the torture stake or tree upon which Jesus was impaled was not a cross, or a log with a crossbeam, as Christendom teaches, but was a straight, erect pole or log or stick and did not correspond with the phallic symbol of the cross.
● I have been told that the New World Translation breaks rules of grammar when it translates Philippians 2:5, 6: “Keep this mental attitude in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” A clergyman in Alaska told me this is mistranslated to hide the teaching of trinity. Does the New World Translation break rules of grammar in order to render these verses in this way, which indicates that, as a spirit creature in heaven, before coming to earth and living as a man, Christ Jesus was not equal to Jehovah God?—J. F., United States.
The rendering of Philippians 2:5, 6 found in the New World Translation does not violate any rules of grammar, and furthermore the rendering is in harmony with the teaching of the rest of the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and not God himself, not God Almighty. That Jesus Christ before his coming to earth did not possess equality with God we can prove by other translations of the Scriptures.
For instance, the Revised Standard Version published in 1952 reads: “Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”
The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson published about a hundred years ago reads: “Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God’s form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God.”
An American Translation published by Smith and Goodspeed reads: “Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God.”
The New Testament in an Improved Version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome’s new translation published in 1808 reads: “For let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus also: who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God.”
The Emphasised Bible by J. Rotherham reads: “The same thing esteem in yourselves which also in Christ Jesus ye esteem, who in form of God subsisting, not a thing to be seized accounted the being equal with God.”
The Riverside New Testament translated by William G. Ballantine, D.D., reads: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not think that equality with God was some thing to be grasped.”
Note that none of these translations that are here quoted says that Jesus possessed equality with God in heaven before becoming a man. He did not imitate the Devil’s example, who tried to make himself like God, to be equal with God. Other modern translations can be found to support the foregoing presentation. The trouble with those translations that try to make it appear that Jesus possessed equality with God in heaven before becoming a man is that they insert the small pronoun “it” into their English translations, such as the King James Version: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The pronoun “it” is not in the original Greek.
Dilemma of the ConfessionalThe Watchtower—1958 | August 15
Dilemma of the Confessional
SUPPOSE you had a dear friend who was soon to be hanged for a murder he was innocent of, convicted upon perjured and circumstantial evidence. Then suppose the murderer came to you and confessed his guilt. Would you not immediately notify the police so that your innocent friend would not need to die? Of course you would! But if you were a Roman Catholic priest, and this man had confessed to you, you would have to stand helplessly by as your dear friend died for a murder he did not commit. Fantastic? Not according to Catholic theologians.
Thus the Catholic Herald, London, England, May 9, 1952, in its question column published the following: “Can the seal of confession be broken by a priest in the interests of justice, e.g., in such a grave matter as murder? No. Nothing whatever, except the consent of the penitent (which he can never be obliged to give), can release a priest from the seal. . . . even if the circumstances were such that the priest thought it the criminal’s duty to give himself up—even to save an innocent life—the priest himself could never make use of knowledge which does not belong to him at all, but only to God.”
Two actual incidents illustrate the foregoing: “Returns Bank Loot, Won’t Bare Thief. Priest’s Lips Sealed. . . . part of the money taken by a repentant bank robber has been returned by a Denver priest to whom he confessed, but authorities still don’t know his identity. The Roman Catholic priest, with a ‘sacred obligation’ to reveal nothing heard in the confessional, yesterday returned to authorities $6,850 in bills he said was part of $7,780 taken in a daylight robbery here Feb. 17. . . . The United States attorney said the priest promised to relay a message that partial return of the money would not absolve the robber of ‘criminal responsibility.’ ‘I hope now that he will decide to clear his conscience entirely by coming to the proper authorities,’ said [attorney] Kelley.”—Los Angeles Herald & Express, April 13, 1955.
The second incident was reported by The Inland Register, a Spokane, Washington, Roman Catholic weekly, August 14, 1953. It told of an item that appeared in the London Times regarding a priest to whom a certain convict, thinking he was dying, confessed as having committed the crime for which another man was serving a sentence. The convict recovered, but upon his death, a year later, the priest revealed his confession, causing the innocent man to be set free. It was pointed out that even death does not free a priest from his seal, and that if true, this was perhaps the first time in history in which a priest broke his seal and revealed what had been told him in a confession.
Look out: perhaps there may be some man that will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.—Col. 2:8.