never does he contradict himself or clash with him- self. As to spiritual opportunities in the new world, his Word holds out equal promise to faithful believ- ers regardless of their present earthly situation. Yet the all-wise God does 110t oV'erlook the fact that Christ's followers on earth are still in the flesh and still in this world the god of which is Satan the Devil, Eve's tempter. (2 Cor. 4: -:1:) Christians are still male and female according to the flesh. If God did not take note of this sexual difference, then he would not authorize marriage among Cl11'istians or the female Christians' bearing children. But the Most High God adjusts the relationship of male to female in the best interests of both, and he assigns to them their privi-
leges of service in his Theocratic organization.fully what arrangement God makes. He is not to be found fault with over what disposition he makes of tIle sexes, nor is he to be blamed. Just because Eve yielded to seduction in Eden and then used her ~harms and influence with Adam to turn him criminal against God's law, God is not to be blamed for mak- ing woman, and man is not to take it out on woman. Jehovah God is the great Theocrat and Creator. Like a potter with his clay he has the power and right to make out of the same lump of creative material one vessel for honorable service and another vessel for a seemingly menial service, yet useful and indispensable. Neither vessel that leaves his hands with a service assignment has the right to complain and say: "'Vhy have you made me this way? ",Vhy do you gall me with service in this position?" That would be rebellious, untheocratic. It is an honor and
favor to serve him in any position.-Rom. 9: 20-24.feminine ears when the same apostle who sounds out equality for womankind with the words, "There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," shows that on earth t-here are limitations to the service privileges of female Christians. It was not an arbitrary masculine decision on his part. By inspiration he had the mind of Jehovah the Theocrat upon the matter, and he showed the reason for the restrictions placed upon his Christian sisters. He showed it was her privilege on earth to demonstrate subjection, submission, and to do tllis, not as a gall- ing task, but in a Christlike spirit, and that the angels in heaven were watching. Because of Jeho- ,all's Theocracy, tlle principle of headship obtains throughout the universe, and correspondingly all creatures must learn subjection according to the divine or Theocratic will. So the apostle writes: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor. 11: 3) Should this
be taken as disparaging to the female sex 1 No; no9. Why Is It not disparaging to woman to be submissIve now·
male sex or, more than that, disparaging to Christ. Certainly only Jehovah God could be without a head
over him, for he is the Most High of all the universe.of headship and of subjection the apostle shows the attitudes that are to be taken by members of the congregation according to sex. Bear in mind that man's head is Christ Jesus and woman's head is man. as we read: "Any man who prays or prophesies with a veil on his head dishonours his head, while any woman who prays or prophesies without a veil on her head dishonours her head; she is no better than a shaven ,yoman. If a woman will not veil herself, she should cut off her hair as well. But she ought to veil herself; for it is disgraceful that a woman should have her hair cut off or be shaven." (1 Cor. 11:4-6, lI!offatt) That is, in the apostle's day it was disgraceful for a woman to have her hair clipped short, or worse still, all shaved off with a razor. How sol ",Vhy, then it was the custom among the pagans of the Roman Empire for slavegirls to have their hair cropped to denote their bondage and menial position. Besides that, when a woman ,vas found guilty of immorality, either fornication or adultery, she was sentenced by the court to have her head shaved bald. The Roman Empire, and notori- ously the city of Corinth to the Christians in which the apostle wrote, were very corrupt. So if a woman appeared on the streets without a veil to cover her face she was taken to be a person of low morals and of easy virtue. Hence women who were anxious to keep their respectability never appeared in public
with face exposed to everybody.gross immorality in the Corinthian congregation. that of a supposed brother haying his father's wife. So Paul expressed the fear that when he visited their congregation he might find various disorders among them and also some individuals "who sinned some time ago and yet have never repented of their im- purity, their sexual vice and sensual practices". (2 Cor. 12: 20, 21, Moffatt) Since it was the custom for a woman to appear veiled in public, the apostle Paul did not wish the Christian sisters to violate that accepted rule of respectability by going to con- gregational meetings unveiled. If they did attend unveiled, they would build up the reputation that the women of the Corinthian congregation were low in morals. It was not a case of defying custom and giving womankind her entitled freedom to appear barefaced publicly. It was simply a case of being
"all things to all men", denying ourselves, so as not10. Why was an unveiled woman as disgraceful as one shaved bald? 11. So why was the custom ot velllng to be kept by Christians?
