The Watchtower — March 15, 1964

Earning the Respect Due You

THE lad standing upon the conductor’s podium was only ten years old, yet before him were assembled a hundred trained musicians, every one a virtuoso. Were they disgusted that the management had presumed to let a mere child conduct one of the world’s finest orchestras! They showed it by their disdainful, defiant facial expressions; some were even sucking lollipops to show their contempt.

But not for long. Once the lad lifted his baton and began the rehearsal, it was only a matter of minutes before those instrumental virtuosi were earnestly applying themselves to the business at hand. Ignored now was his being a mere child. What had caused their disdainful disrespect to change to deferential regard, to esteem, to respect? The lad’s ability, for he truly was a prodigy. He had the entire musical score in his head. More than that, he knew what to expect from each instrumentalist, for he could detect at once whenever any one of them played a wrong note. In spite of his age, he had what it took to be a conductor. Incidentally, that was some twenty years ago. Today Maazel is still conducting.

Not only orchestra conductors, but ever so many persons in everyday life are, by reason of their positions, entitled to respect, that is, added respect, for every honest individual is entitled to a measure of respect. In particular are parents and schoolteachers, overseers and ministers—to name but a few—entitled to respect. However, while these could depend solely upon their position or office, it is far better for all concerned when they truly earn the respect due them.

God’s Word, the Bible, throws light on this matter of earning respect, even as it does on every other aspect of life. Thus it tells us of angels not pursuing a certain course—out of respect for Jehovah God. No question about it, Jehovah, the Creator of all things seen and unseen, is entitled to the greatest respect of all his creatures.—2 Pet. 2:11.

In the Bible we also read of one of God’s creatures who at one time enjoyed great respect, namely, Job. As he himself tells us: “When I went forth to the gate by the town, . . . even the aged ones rose up, they stood. Princes themselves restrained words . . . The voice of the leaders themselves was hidden. . . . I was sitting as head; and I resided as a king.”—Job 29:7-10, 25.

And why was such great respect tendered Job? He himself tells us: “For I would rescue the afflicted one crying for help, and the fatherless boy and anyone that had no helper. With righteousness I clothed myself, and it was clothing me. My justice was like a . . . turban. And I would break the jawbones of the wrongdoer, and from his teeth I would tear away the prey.” More than that, Job goes on to enumerate all the selfish or wicked things he had not done. In short, as “the greatest of all the Orientals,” he “proved to be blameless and upright, and fearing God and turning aside from bad.” No question about it, Job earned the great respect that was tendered him.—Job 29:12, 14, 17; 1:1, 3; 31:5-40.

According to God’s Word, husbands are entitled to respect: “The wife should have deep respect for her husband.” The Hebrew patriarch Abraham was one husband who earned the respect of his wife, or she would not, even behind his back, have referred to him as “my lord.” Does your wife esteem you like that? How can you earn the respect of your wife? By being dependable, by being firm when need be, by being honest as regards your money, time and sex interest, by being generous, and, in particular, by showing loving, thoughtful consideration in things little and big; by heeding the counsel: “Husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one.”—Eph. 5:33; Gen. 18:12; 1 Pet. 3:7.

So, too, parents are entitled to the respect of their children. “We used to have fathers . . . and we used to give them respect,” wrote the Christian apostle Paul. (Heb. 12:9) Do your children manifest such respect toward you? Do they listen when you speak to them, and not talk back? Even when they think that you are not watching, do they continue to speak and act in a way that shows respect? Even if you teach your children to be respectful, it calls for constant diligence on your part to counteract the influence of others who may associate with them in school but who may not have learned to respect their parents and others. Clearly, the answer does not lie in simply demanding respect from your children; you must also pursue a course that will win their respect. To do that you must be consistent in dealing with them; you must be impartial and reasonable, helping them to appreciate that there are sound reasons in back of the things you require of them. Be firm in administering discipline. It is also important to manifest self-control, because with loss of self-control goes loss of respect.

Such qualities as the foregoing are also required of those who would instruct others, such as schoolteachers and college professors. However, in addition, these must have sufficient knowledge of the subjects they teach if they would have the respect of their students. Respect flies out the window when students sense that the teacher is bluffing.

Among other positions of respect that might be considered is that of the Christian minister. If you are a minister of God, then, above all persons, you should be careful about your conduct; you should “have a fine testimony from people on the outside.” And like other educators, you must have a fund of accurate knowledge if you would preach and teach authoritatively and convincingly. Only by meeting these requirements can you expect to receive the respect due you.—1 Tim. 3:7; 4:16.

No question about it; although your position might entitle you to respect, it is better for all concerned if you earn it as well by your qualities, attainments and course of action.

What Are You Doing for God?

How can you be sure that what you are doing is pleasing to him? It is vital to know.

IN HIS address of inauguration as president of the United States, the late John F. Kennedy stated: “Ask not what your country will do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

You could hardly expect a government to continue supplying you with benefits if you violated the law and refused to be a peaceable citizen. Instead, you would receive the sanctions exercised against lawbreakers. To benefit from what a government provides, you must do what that government lawfully requires. The Christian does this, for Jesus Christ, God’s Son, said: “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar.”—Matt. 22:21.

WHAT ABOUT GOD?

Too often, though, something much more vital to your welfare is overlooked. While you must do what civil authorities rightly require, there is a higher authority for whom you must also do something. Jesus, when concluding his statement about paying back Caesar’s things to Caesar, showed what that was when he added, “ . . . but God’s things to God.”

Just as civil authorities withhold benefits from those who violate the law of the land, so, too, God withholds his everlasting benefits from those who do not carry out his requirements, but who violate divine law.

No doubt you have observed how millions of persons of various religions pray to God for benefits such as wealth, success in business, sports and politics, or for health and a variety of other things. Probably at one time or another you, too, have prayed for God to supply you with something you wanted.

But on what basis do you expect God to answer? God has already showed unsurpassed love for you as one of the human family. (John 3:16; 1 John 4:19) Now, what have you done for God that he should continue to shower down blessings and prosperity on you? If you are always thinking about what God should do for you, but do not think about what you should do for God, are you not placing yourself in the position of one who expects benefits from his government and yet refuses to obey the requirements of that government?

The vital principle here is this: You should not always be asking what God can do for you, but you should also consider what you should be doing for God. Not that he is dependent on our doing things for him, but it is an evidence of our loving appreciation when we do.

When was the last time you did anything for God? If you are like many religious persons, you might say that you go to a church, synagogue, temple or mosque regularly and also lead a good, decent life. Yet how can you be certain that this is what God wants you to do for him?

It is a tragic truth, but one that is continually brought to the attention of ministers of God who call at the homes of people, that very few persons in either Western or Eastern religions can state with certainty what it is that God wants them to do.

DANGEROUS NOT TO KNOW

However sincere you may be about your religion, it still is dangerous to your everlasting welfare to just feel or think you know what God wants you to do to please him, without really knowing for a certainty.

Many people in centuries past felt that they were doing what God wanted, but the record of history shows that frequently this was not actually what God wanted them to do, but it was what they or an organization of men wanted to do.

One example of this occurred in the days of Jesus. A religious group known as the Pharisees felt that they were doing a lot for God. They had built up a system of worship and believed it had God’s approval. They stated confidently: “Our father is Abraham.” (John 8:39) They felt that they had the same faith as Abraham, who was God’s friend.

What a shock they received when Jesus replied: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham. But now you are seeking to kill me, a man that has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You do the works of your father.”—John 8:39-41.

Those religious leaders still did not get the point. They maintained they were doing what God wanted, for they said to Jesus: “We have one Father, God.”—John 8:41.

Was God actually their father? Did God accept their form of religion? Jesus showed them whether God approved of what they were doing, for he emphatically declared to those religious Pharisees: “You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father.”—John 8:44.

What was wrong? Why did God not accept their way of worship? Listen to what Jesus said about this matter: “Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? . . . you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me.’”—Matt. 15:1-8.

That is what was wrong! They were worshiping and doing things, true, but it was not what God wanted. Does this mean that God did not accept what they were doing, even though it was supposed to be for him? Jesus applied the words of the prophet Isaiah to them when he said: “It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.”—Matt. 15:9.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

Surely you want to receive the blessings that God has in store for obedient humans, the blessings of everlasting life in happiness and perfect health on his paradise earth. You certainly will want to avoid falling into adverse judgment before God. So what should you do now to win God’s approval?

The first thing you must do is to begin finding out for yourself what God’s requirements are. The Christian apostle Paul urged: “Make sure of all things.” (1 Thess. 5:21) How? By taking in knowledge of God’s Word, the Bible, wherein he clearly makes his requirements known. Be like those persons in the ancient city of Beroea who “received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) Yes, personal scrutiny of God’s Word is absolutely necessary for you to determine whether the teaching you are receiving is right or wrong.

What is the purpose of this? It is to build up your faith in God. For “without faith it is impossible to please him well, for he that approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.”—Heb. 11:6.

Is that all? No, there is more. The Bible writer James said: “Faith without works is dead.” (Jas. 2:26) Yes, you must put to use the faith you acquire by doing the works of God. Jesus also said: “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.”—Matt. 7:21.

What works should you do? Those pertaining to “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.” (Gal. 5:22) This means cultivating Christian qualities, gradually putting on a new Christian personality. Paul stated: “Put away the old personality which conforms to your former course of conduct . . . [and] put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.”—Eph. 4:22-24.

Another essential work is that described at Romans 10:10: “For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Is that work necessary for you? The previous verse of this same chapter answers Ro 10:9: “For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.” Thus, making public declaration, or witnessing to God’s name and purposes, is necessary so others may hear and come in line for God’s blessings. The importance of this unselfish work was foretold by Jesus when he stated: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matt. 24:14) Those who want to do what is right will be happy to have a share in this lifesaving work.

However, where will you get the knowledge, training and ability to do this? By gathering together with those who are truly doing God’s work among the nations. Yes, to please God you must “consider one another to incite to love and fine works, not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day drawing near.” (Heb. 10:24, 25) God wants you to meet with his people so you can build up your faith and contribute to the building up of the other person’s faith.

So if, in answer to the question, What are you doing for God? you can say you are studying his Word, building up your faith, putting on a new Christian personality, associating with God’s people and doing the work of witnessing to his kingdom before the end comes, then you can have confidence that you are doing what God wants you to do. You will be like the faithful man of ancient times who survived a world’s destruction. Genesis 6:22 tells us of him: “And Noah proceeded to do according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so.” That is why he survived the end of that world. He listened to God and did “just so.”

Today is a time of decision. You must decide whether you will do what God wants you to do or not. Before the end of this system of things comes, the inspired Bible record urges you to “choose life in order that you may keep alive, you and your offspring, by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice and by sticking to him; for he is your life and the length of your days.”—Deut. 30:19, 20.

So do not be concerned only about what God can do for you, but if you love life, be concerned about what you can do for God.

The Memorial of Christ’s Death and What It Means to You

THE Memorial of Christ’s death, or the “Lord’s Supper” as it also is called, means different things to different people. This no doubt is largely due to a difference in understanding as to its meaning. What is your understanding of it? What does it mean to you? To those who properly understand the Memorial of Christ’s death it means so much that they will leave no stone unturned to celebrate it.

For example, there was an elderly Christian lady in the United States who was bedfast but who had her heart set on celebrating the Memorial of Christ’s death with her Christian brothers. With the help of an ambulance she did attend, but on a stretcher. What a fine example of appreciation she set!

Then, again, there was a Christian witness of Jehovah isolated in a Chinese Communist prison. But even this fact did not keep him from celebrating the Memorial of Christ’s death, as he himself relates:

“Each year I arranged to celebrate the Memorial of Christ’s death in the best way I could. From my prison window I watched the moon grow full near the start of spring. I calculated as carefully as I could the date for the celebration. Of course, I had no way to obtain the emblems, the bread and the wine, and the warders refused to give such things to me. So the first two years I could only go through the motions, using imaginary emblems . . . Then the third year I found some tins of black currants in my Red Cross parcel, and from these I succeeded in making wine, while rice, which is unleavened, served for bread. This year [1963] I had both my wine and some unleavened water biscuits from the Red Cross parcel.”

Going back a little farther, during World War II, many witnesses of Jehovah, particularly those confined to Nazi concentration camps, risked severe punishment, if not also death, to celebrate the Lord’s Memorial. A Christian sister in one of the concentration camps tells us about it:

“Everyone was told to be in the laundry at 11 p.m. Exactly at 11 p.m. we were assembled, 105 in number. We stood close together in a circle, in the midst [of which was] a footstool with a white cloth bearing the emblems. A candle lit the room, as electric light might have betrayed us. We felt like the primitive Christians in the catacombs. It was a solemn feast. We expressed anew our fervent vows to our Father to use all our strength for the vindication of His holy name, to stand faithfully for The Theocracy and to willingly present our bodies as living sacrifices acceptable unto God.”

Similar risks were taken by the Witnesses in Canada and in other lands during those years. In fact, like risks will be taken this very year wherever Jehovah’s witnesses are carrying on underground, as in lands behind the Iron Curtain. No question about it: these appreciate the privilege of celebrating the Memorial of Christ’s death.

OF WHAT IT CONSISTS

To appreciate what the Memorial of Christ’s death means to you, it is necessary for you to know, first of all, of what it consists. Concerning it the apostle Matthew, an eyewitness, wrote: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” On that occasion Jesus also commanded, as reported by the apostle Paul: “Do this in remembrance of me.”—Matt. 26:26-28; 1 Cor. 11:24, RS.

It was most fitting that Jesus Christ should command that his death be commemorated. Certainly his dying to provide a way for mankind to get free from sin and death and become reinstated in God’s favor marked one of the most noteworthy if not the most noteworthy event to occur upon earth up to that time. Further, by means of his faithful course Jesus set a sterling example for all his followers. And, above all, by reason of Jesus’ continuing faithful until death in spite of all that the Devil and his agents could do to turn him aside, Jehovah God truly gained a notable victory over Satan the Devil, who had boasted that he could turn all men away from Jehovah God.—Job 2:4, 5; Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:21.

In instituting the Memorial of his death, what did Jesus mean when he said, “This is my body,” and, “This is my blood”? In the absence of any statement in the Scriptures to the contrary, we must conclude that Jesus simply meant the most obvious thing, namely, that the bread and wine stood for, represented or meant his body, his own flesh-and-blood body; not that these had actually become his flesh and blood. That is why some versions read, “This means my body,” or, “This represents my body.” Because the bread and wine are thus symbols, they are properly referred to as “emblems.”

WHEN AND HOW OFTEN?

When and how often should Christians celebrate the Memorial of Christ’s death? The Roman Catholic Church celebrates her version of it, the mass, every day in the year except Good Friday. Others, such as the Christadelphians, celebrate it weekly. Still others celebrate it three or four times a year.

While Jesus himself did not explicitly state just when and how often the Memorial of his death should be celebrated or observed, still reason, the time he chose to institute it and what the rest of the Scriptures bearing on this subject have to tell us, all help us to come to sound conclusions. In the first place, is it not reasonable or logical to commemorate Christ’s death annually? All other noteworthy events are memorialized annually. Celebrating it more frequently would not add anything to its importance but would seem, rather, to detract from it, making it common.

Besides, Jesus both instituted the Memorial of his death and died on what was the most significant date in Jewish history, the fourteenth day of the first month of their religious lunar year, Nisan. This was the night of the Passover, which commemorated the deliverance of the nation of Israel from Egyptian bondage and the sparing or passing over of the firstborn of the Israelites. It marked at once the birth of the nation of Israel and a phenomenal victory for Jehovah God over the Devil-dominated world power of Egypt. More than that, we read, “Christ our passover has been sacrificed.” Since Jesus Christ is here spoken of as a passover sacrifice and the Passover was commemorated annually on Nisan 14, is it not reasonable to conclude that he intended that the memorial of his death should take the place of the Jewish passover in the lives of his followers, all of whom at the time were Jews, accustomed to celebrating the Passover annually, and that on Nisan 14? In fact, early church history records that for some time many Christians celebrated our Lord’s Memorial on Nisan 14.—1 Cor. 5:7, 8.

In keeping with the foregoing the Christian witnesses of Jehovah celebrate the Memorial of Christ’s death but once a year, and that on Nisan 14, which this year begins on March 28, after sundown.

DO YOU PARTAKE?

The question, Do you partake? may seem strange to some of our readers, as it is a common practice in many parts of Christendom for all who attend the celebration of the “Lord’s Supper” to partake of the bread and wine. However, the Scriptures allow for no such indiscriminate observance of it. When Jesus instituted the Memorial he did so with his eleven faithful apostles, to whom he went on to say: “I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones.” It follows, therefore, that only if you are in this covenant with Christ for a kingdom may you partake of the emblems at the Memorial of Christ’s death. Those in this covenant Jesus termed a “little flock,” which they are, comparatively speaking, their number being limited to but 144,000.—Luke 22:29, 30; 12:32; Rev. 7:4-8; 14:1, 3.

Those who are in this covenant for a kingdom are persons who dedicated themselves to do God’s will, were accepted by Jehovah and were then brought forth by His spirit to be spirit sons of his, “born again,” and made members of Christ’s symbolic body. All such can say with the apostle Paul: “The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children. If, then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.”—Rom. 8:16, 17.

If you are among those eligible to partake of the emblems of our Lord’s Memorial, it has a special meaning for you, for it means you are having communion with Jehovah God and Jesus Christ in a sacrificial meal, as it were. (1 Cor. 10:20, 21) It serves as a reminder to you of your unique position as a spiritual son of God and as one of Christ’s brothers. It also reminds you of the fact that you must be faithful until death, even as Jesus was, and that yours is the hope of the “crown of life,” immortality, in the heavens, sharing a heavenly throne with your head, Jesus Christ. It is also for you a time of self-examination, to make certain that you are partaking with an appreciation of the emblems, so that you do not eat and drink condemnation to yourself.—1 Cor. 11:27-34; Rev. 2:10.

IF YOU DO NOT PARTAKE

Today the vast majority of those who are present at the Lord’s evening meal do not partake of the emblems. In fact, at the 1963 celebration of our Lord’s Memorial only some twelve thousand partook, although more than 1.69 million were present; on an average, only one in 138. But you may ask, Why should I attend when I do not partake of the emblems? Of what value is our Lord’s Memorial to me? Of much value! It is to your spiritual interest to show respect for Jesus’ commandment to his footstep followers. You stand to benefit from being present at this “table of Jehovah” even though you may not be a sharer in the symbolic communion sacrifice.

Your being present at the Memorial might be illustrated by your being present at another’s wedding. You yourself are not getting married, but out of love and respect for the bridal couple and the invitation they have extended, you honor them with your presence. So with the Memorial of Christ’s death; all who love the Lord Jesus Christ and his bride, the members of his body, will want to be present. The rehearsing of the victory Jehovah gained by Jesus’ integrity keeping, and of what Christ’s death will mean for all obedient ones of mankind, as well as calling to mind the fine example of faithfulness Jesus set, will greatly strengthen your faith and appreciation. You will be spiritually refreshed by what you see and hear.

But do not make the mistake of concluding that all you need to do is to attend the Memorial of Christ’s death once a year. Apparently this is an easy mistake to make, for that is the only time many are seen at a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s witnesses. Surely one turkey dinner with all the trimmings could not sustain you physically for a whole year, could it? So, too, Christians need to assemble regularly to be spiritually nourished, not only when there is a special spiritual feast, as at the Memorial of Christ’s death. That is why the Christian witnesses of Jehovah attend five meetings each week. They appreciate that “man must not live by bread alone,” and that in view of the rapidly approaching day of Jehovah it is more urgent than ever that they do not forsake the gathering of themselves together.—Luke 4:4; Heb. 10:24, 25.

Of course, even attending all these meetings regularly is not the sum total of what is required of Christians. At such meetings you take in knowledge, you receive; but Christianity consists of more than receiving, it also requires giving. Did not Jesus say, “There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving”? Yes, that is why he commanded his followers: “Let your light shine before men.” More than that, he foretold that “this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations.” This prophecy is, in effect, a command to all his followers to preach that kingdom. Remember, too, that, while “with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness,” it is “with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.”—Acts 20:35; Matt. 5:16; 24:14; Rom. 10:10.

The Memorial of Christ’s death calls attention to the great victory Jehovah God gained over Satan the Devil and what Jesus Christ did for you. It also highlights the example Christ set for his followers. So by all means attend the celebration of the Memorial of Christ’s death on the evening of March 28. But do not let it go at that. Show your appreciation by continuing to associate with those following Christ’s example and share with them in preaching “this good news of the kingdom.”

Opposition Tactics Rebound

◆ In the State of São Paulo, Brazil, some young students were incited to harass Jehovah’s witnesses as they preached from house to house. The youths followed the Witnesses and made a terrible noise with tin cans and firecrackers. A young lady observed what happened. She thought the interference ridiculous and was very indignant about it, as she well knew the Witnesses’ good behavior and work. The incident had aroused her interest. A home Bible study was started and she has progressed in knowledge, attending meetings at the Kingdom Hall and announcing the Kingdom good news.

Faithful Women Ministers—A Blessing to the New World Society

“The woman that fears Jehovah is the one that procures praise for herself.”—Prov. 31:30.

1. What qualities mark the woman who “procures praise for herself,” and what are some ways in which her presence in the Christian congregation is beneficial?

WHAT a blessing a God-fearing woman is! Whether she is young or old, single or married, whether she is strong and in good health or failing in physical strength, if she is a woman that fears Jehovah, one who is loyally and faithfully serving Him, then she “procures praise for herself.” (Prov. 31:30) If married, what a blessing the God-fearing woman is to her husband and children! And, whether married or single, what a blessing such a woman is to the Christian congregation! Jehovah’s witnesses are indeed most thankful that they have in their midst faithful women ministers. Their zeal and steadfast integrity are a source of encouragement, and the congregations are enriched by their feminine qualities of sympathetic interest and understanding, as all work together in unity in finding and caring for the “sheep.”

2. Why are charm and prettiness not the determining factors as to a woman’s being truly attractive?

² Such women are truly beautiful in the eyes of Jehovah and of God-fearing men. Beauty is attractive, and attractiveness is certainly a desirable quality. Indeed, it would be unnatural for a woman not to want to be attractive to others. The proverb says: “A woman of charm is the one that takes hold of glory.” (Prov. 11:16) But at the same time Proverbs 31:30 states: “Charm may be false, and prettiness may be vain; but the woman that fears Jehovah is the one that procures praise for herself.” Prettiness and superficial charm without the fear of Jehovah would indeed be vain and false. So these are not the determining factors as to a woman’s being truly attractive. In fact, a woman may be very pretty in a physical way and yet, to a man of mature discernment, be most unattractive. Because of her disposition, perhaps by being contentious, an otherwise attractive wife can drive her husband away as surely as he is driven away by dripping water from a leaky roof in a time of rain.—Prov. 27:15.

WOMAN’S THEOCRATIC SETTING

3. In what theocratic setting of things has Jehovah placed woman?

³ Anything takes on added beauty when seen in its proper setting, because it fits. Outside that setting it loses much of its beauty and may indeed become just plain or even ugly. Likewise Jehovah has prepared the proper setting for woman in his theocratic arrangement of things. Under inspiration the apostle wrote at 1 Corinthians 11:3: “The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.”

4. Why has Jehovah arranged for headship in his organization, and is the assigning of man as the head of the woman to disparage her?

⁴ This statement of principle from God’s Word governing the relationship of man and woman may be difficult to accept on the part of some. Those who advocate the “emancipation of women” may take exception to it, and may feel that to accept it would be a retrograde step. But what the apostle writes is not for the purpose of being disparaging to the woman, no more than having Christ as head is disparaging to the man. And surely Christ himself feels no dissatisfaction in having Jehovah as his Head. Of course, man is not Christ, nor for that matter is Christ God. At the same time, “God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace,” and order requires headship, someone to take the responsibility of directing in the various spheres of activity where more than one are involved.—1 Cor. 14:33.

5. (a) So, with respect to Jehovah’s arrangement of things, how can the woman be contented and happy? (b) What results to a woman who tries to compete with man for headship?

⁵ In the relationship of man and woman, God, having created man first, assigned to him, along with the responsibilities that went with it, the position of head of the family, head of his wife. This was meant to work out for the blessing of the family, for the peace and happiness of all its members. The married woman who recognizes this fact, and who has for a husband a man who fulfills his role as a Christian head, is indeed most blessed. She is in the setting God arranged for her, and she has every reason to be contented and happy. The sensible woman appreciates this and is thankful. A woman who rejects the setting Jehovah has designed for her and who seeks to compete with man as head loses her beauty as a woman. She is no longer “the feminine one.” (1 Pet. 3:7) Though bluntly stating it, the wise man was nonetheless speaking truthfully when he said: “As a gold nose ring in the snout of a pig, so is a woman that is pretty but that is turning away from sensibleness.”—Prov. 11:22.

6. How does Peter describe the theocratic attractiveness of the married woman?

⁶ The woman’s recognition of Jehovah’s arrangement and her happily conforming to it are essential to her own joy and contentment and make her a most valuable asset to the New World society. The apostle Peter describes the value and attractiveness of married women in this theocratic setting in these words: “In like manner, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they may be won without a word through the conduct of their wives, because of having been eyewitnesses of your chaste conduct together with deep respect. And do not let your adornment be that of the external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or the wearing of outer garments, but let it be the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of the quiet and mild spirit, which is of great value in the eyes of God.”—1 Pet. 3:1-4.

SUITABLE APPAREL FOR THE WOMAN MINISTER

7. Is it wrong for a woman to give attention to her physical appearance, and yet to what adornment should she give the greatest attention?

⁷ Are we to understand from these words of Peter that it is wrong for a woman to give attention to her physical appearance? No, not at all. Peter is not saying that the braiding of the hair and the putting on of gold ornaments are wrong in themselves, no more than wearing an outer garment is. It was the common practice in Peter’s day and in earlier times for the women to wear their hair very long, and braiding it not only was for the purpose of beauty but was of practical value also. However, as in our day, so back there some women would spend much time fixing their hair, often decorating their hair with gold ornaments, to the point that it became an obsession, and they were more concerned with their outward appearance than with what they really were inside. So Peter shows where to put the emphasis, with what to be chiefly concerned, namely, “the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of the quiet and mild spirit.”

8. Why should the woman minister use good sense in the way she dresses?

⁸ As she goes from house to house talking to people about the good news of God’s kingdom, the woman minister represents Christ, just as a man does. So the woman minister will want to use good sense in the way she dresses, having in mind the dignity of her assignment, and never dressing in a way that would cause any to stumble at the message she bears. Because of the public way in which she carries on her ministry, she is very much in the public eye. Observers are inclined to judge her message according to her outward appearance.

9. What world trend will the woman minister avoid, and why?

⁹ While being tastefully feminine in dress, the woman minister will avoid the trend of the world to overly accentuate sex by means of the overuse of makeup and styles of dress that are sensuous and provocative. Not only would this prevent people from taking her seriously as a Christian minister, but she is more likely to convey an altogether opposite impression. (Isa. 3:16-23) So she avoids the tendency of the world to put the highest premium on sexual allure as though that were the sole object in life, and thus does not fall into the trap of becoming overanxious in such matters, or of going to such extremes that her physical appearance is distracting rather than becomingly attractive.

10. What other extreme should be avoided, and what does Paul counsel as to dress at 1 Timothy 2:9, 10?

¹⁰ At the same time we would not want persons to be distracted from our message because of an obvious lack of interest in our personal appearance. The Bible does not condemn the use of jewelry and ornaments, or other things that may be considered aids to beauty, that is, when these are used in a modest way and with good judgment. (Gen. 24:22; Ex. 35:22) The right attitude of concern is expressed by the Christian overseer Paul, who wrote: “Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works.” (1 Tim. 2:9, 10) In whatever land and whatever the local customs of dress may be, modesty and her reverence for God will help the woman minister to decide how to dress suitably for each occasion and circumstance.

11. (a) What really identifies a woman as being a servant of God and being truly attractive? (b) What does it mean to have a “quiet and mild spirit”?

¹¹ But what really identifies a woman as a servant of God are her good works in the ministry. Having the “incorruptible apparel of the quiet and mild spirit” marks her as a woman of true beauty and attractiveness. It is this apparel that distinguishes the Christian woman from other women. To have a “quiet and mild spirit” means to have a calm and even temper, maintaining it even in times of trouble. It means being contented in mind, with a heart free from envy, pride or malice. It means having a disposition that readily conforms to Jehovah’s will and cooperates willingly and happily with fellow servants in the New World society. A woman with a good heart and a mild spirit remains always a blessing to those with whom she associates. And, more importantly, she has the favor of Jehovah, which leads to endless life in his new order of righteousness.

FAITHFUL WOMEN OF FORMER TIMES

12. Of what is Sarah an outstanding example, and how was she blessed?

¹² Looking back through time, the apostle Peter continues: “For so, too, formerly the holy women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, as Sarah used to obey Abraham, calling him ‘lord.’ And you have become her children, provided you keep on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror.” (1 Pet. 3:5, 6) Consider what a blessing faithful Sarah received from Jehovah. As the wife of the faithful patriarch Abraham she became the mother of Isaac, a son “born in the manner of spirit,” and so became an ancestress of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 4:29) Christian women today who manifest the same qualities as Sarah, especially in the quality under discussion by Peter, that of wifely subjection in faithfulness and loyally, are spoken of as Sarah’s “children,” just as those who adhere to the faith of Abraham are called his “sons.”—Gal. 3:7.

13. What qualities identified Rebekah as a suitable bride for Isaac?

¹³ And what about that other ancestress of Jesus, Rebekah, who is described, at the time Abraham’s servant met her, as a young woman who “was very attractive in appearance”? But it was not just her outward appearance that was attractive, nor was her physical charm the essential quality that got Rebekah a blessing. It was because she proved to be hardworking and modest that the servant of Abraham was able to identify her as the prospective bride for Isaac.

14. What test did Rebekah meet, calling for her to demonstrate these qualities?

¹⁴ The simple test he decided on had nothing to do with physical beauty. “What must occur is that the young woman to whom I shall say, ‘Let your water jar down, please, that I may take a drink,’ and who will indeed say, ‘Take a drink, and I shall also water your camels,’ this is the one you must assign to your servant, to Isaac.” And that is just how it worked out. When the servant asked Rebekah for a drink she immediately complied with a respectful, “Drink, my lord,” and offered to water the camels “until they are done drinking.” This was no small task, for there were ten camels to water. Then, later, when Abraham’s servant made known his mission, Rebekah willingly accepted the privilege of becoming Isaac’s wife. No wonder that, when Isaac finally got to meet Rebekah, “he fell in love with her.”—Gen. 24:14-21, 58, 67.

15. How does the account of Isaac and Rebekah contain timely advice for a young man considering marriage?

¹⁵ This Bible account is also timely in its implied advice to Christian men who may be considering marriage, as to what they should look for in a mate. Rebekah was a beautiful girl, but Abraham’s servant knew that was not enough. He made sure she had the right qualities of heart to qualify as wife for his master’s son. A young man is wise if he makes sure the girl he is going to marry has similar qualities, and he needs to be mature enough himself to be able to make such a decision, if his parents do not decide for him. While in many lands a young man is free to make his own choice of a mate, a freedom that Isaac did not exercise in the case of Rebekah, still it would show maturity on his part to be prepared to listen to advice from older persons, especially that of his parents, if they are mature Christians themselves, though the final decision may be his own.

16. (a) What privilege did Deborah enjoy? (b) What privileges came to Miriam, but how does her record sound a note of caution?

¹⁶ Other faithful women of old enjoyed special privileges of service from Jehovah. Deborah, for example, came to be a prophetess and had the thrilling opportunity of working with Judge Barak, the commander of the forces of Israel, who destroyed the armies of King Jabin of Canaan with Jehovah’s help, and delivered the nation from twenty years of oppression. (Judg. 4:1—5:31) Miriam certainly enjoyed many blessed privileges of service in association with her brother Moses, as he led the nation of Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness. Among other things, she also served as a prophetess and as a leader of the women singers. (Ex. 15:20) But her example sounds a note of caution. When she stepped out of her theocratic assignment and spoke against God’s servant Moses, she was struck with leprosy. The loathsomeness of this disease truly reflected the unattractiveness of her course of conduct in the eyes of Jehovah and Moses. As a consequence she found herself excluded from the camp of Israel for a time.—Num. 12:1-16.

17. What good qualities were manifested by Dorcas? by Lydia? What blessings did they receive?

¹⁷ Then think of some of the faithful women who were blessed in the time of Jesus and the early Christian congregation. Think of what happened to generous Tabitha, or Dorcas. This disciple of the city of Joppa was a hardworking seamstress who “abounded in good deeds and gifts of mercy.” One day she fell sick and died. And what an unexpected blessing she received—being raised out of death by the apostle Peter! (Acts 9:36-42) Then there was Lydia of Thyatira, also a hardworking woman, “a seller of purple.” Her heart was most receptive to the preaching of the good news by Paul, and she showed commendable hospitality in offering lodgings at her home for the apostle and his fellow missionaries. Indeed, Luke was moved to write that “she just made us come.” Her home was apparently used later as a meeting place for the believers, and her name lives on in the Bible record as a testimony of her good works.—Acts 16:14, 15, 40.

18. Of what was Priscilla a fine example and how did she show this, resulting in what privileges of service?

¹⁸ Priscilla is another woman who is mentioned on a number of occasions in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Interestingly, in the six places in the record where her name appears she is always mentioned in association with her husband. With him she shared in extending hospitality to Paul during his visit to Corinth and no doubt did much in building up the new congregation there. On at least one occasion this faithful couple “risked their own necks” to save Paul and thus merited the thanks of all the congregations. With her husband, Priscilla traveled with Paul to Ephesus and there had the privilege of assisting the influential Apollos to an accurate knowledge of the truth, and her home became the local meeting place for the congregation. Thus she is a fine example for women today who have the privilege of being married to dedicated men who may be congregation overseers, traveling ministers or missionaries in a foreign land. Their loyal support brings with it joyful privileges of service.—Acts 18:2, 18, 26; Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19.

19. On what two occasions in Jesus’ ministry did Mary the sister of Martha act in a way that resulted in blessing for her?

¹⁹ When we think of faithful women in the time of Jesus, no name comes more readily to mind than that of Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. Who has not heard of the occasion when Jesus visited Martha’s home, and Mary, rather than being overly concerned with material things, “sat down at the feet of the Lord and kept listening to his word”? For this, Jesus commended her. On a later occasion Mary anointed Jesus with costly perfumed oil at the home of Simon the leper. When others, including Judas Iscariot, criticized her action, Jesus said: “She did a fine deed toward me. . . . She did what she could . . . Truly I say to you, Wherever the good news is preached in all the world, what this woman did shall also be told as a remembrance of her.”—Luke 10:38-42; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8.

20. (a) Do we find like women in the New World society today? (b) What are some of the privileges of service open to them?

²⁰ And what of today? Do we find women like this serving with the modern Christian congregation? Women like Sarah, who gave such a fine example of wifely subjection; women like attractive and hardworking Rebekah, like hospitable Lydia and generous Dorcas, like loyal and faithful Priscilla and like Mary, who “did what she could” in the interests of true worship? Thanks be to Jehovah, we do! And what thrilling privileges are open to such faithful women in this day! Along with believing men they share the same privileges of making a dedication to do Jehovah’s will, of being baptized, of becoming ministers of the good news. They can conduct home Bible studies with interested persons and share in training their own children to become dedicated ministers also. They can take up the full-time ministry as pioneers, as special pioneers or even as missionaries in a foreign land, or perhaps enter Bethel service.

21. So how may dedicated women view their opportunities of service to Jehovah?

²¹ In view of all this, no dedicated woman need feel in any way cramped for lack of opportunities to serve Jehovah. Rather, there is every opportunity for women ministers to enlarge their privileges of service, and every dedicated woman will want to ‘do what she can’ to advance to maturity, to fulfill her role among God’s people faithfully, and thus be of great value in the eyes of God and win the honorable praise of her fellow Christians.

[Picture on page 175]

“Drink, my lord.”

The Privileges of the Christian Woman

1. What kind of a wife will the married Christian woman want to be?

THE classical description of the ideal wife is to be found in the Bible at Proverbs chapter 31. But in this world of imperfect men and women such a wife is hard to find. So the writer of this part of the inspired Scriptures was moved to remark: “A capable wife who can find? Her value is far more than that of corals. In her the heart of her owner has put trust, and there is no gain lacking. She has rewarded him with good, and not bad, all the days of her life.” (Pr 31 Vss. 10-12) This is the kind of wife the married Christian woman will want to be, a wife in whom her husband has complete trust and confidence, a wife who will be a blessing to him as long as they both live.

2. How may a home testify to the capability of the wife?

² There are many practical ways in which a woman can be such a blessing to her husband and children, and in accomplishing these ways she has much joy and satisfaction. A home that is kept clean, neat and orderly is usually a testimony to the fact that here lives a capable wife. It is a witness to the fact that “she is watching over the goings on of her household, and the bread of laziness she does not eat.” For the faithful woman minister it is part of the witness she gives in her community of her being a dedicated servant of Jehovah.—Prov. 31:27.

3. What opportunities are there for the wife to show her capabilities where her husband is also a dedicated minister of Jehovah?

³ Where her husband is also a dedicated witness of Jehovah, the Christian woman has indeed many opportunities to show her capabilities as a wife. She is able to give him loyal support in his ministerial activity, sharing with him in house-to-house preaching, making return visits on interested persons and conducting home Bible studies. Maybe, in addition to being out at work all day and sharing in the public preaching activity at other times, the husband is also an overseer or ministerial assistant in the congregation, and this makes additional demands on his time. While it is true that his first obligation is to his family, and he could not, in fact, properly serve if he did not take care of this obligation, yet the faithful and loving support of his wife does much to help him successfully to care for his responsibilities. She can make it as convenient as possible for him to prepare his various assignments, and help to save precious time for him and for herself by having a good schedule in the home, having meals on time, being ready to leave for congregation meetings promptly. She will want to cooperate with him in an upbuilding program of family study. Sometimes even a dedicated husband needs encouragement along these lines, and a wise and tactful wife can provide this kindly and theocratically, just as Deborah the wife of Lappidoth encouraged Judge Barak in the work he was assigned by Jehovah to do.—Judg. 4:8, 9.

4. How, under her husband’s direction, can the Christian wife help her children to go in the way pleasing to Jehovah?

⁴ Under the direction of her husband, the Christian wife can do much to train up the children in the way they should go to please Jehovah. She should help them to cultivate a healthy respect for their father, never doing anything to undermine his position as head of the family. Not only by words, but also by example, she should set the children in the ways of right conduct. No doubt she will have more time with the children than her husband, and she can make good use of this time to build up the children’s appreciation for the truth, for Jehovah’s organization, for the meetings, for the preaching of the good news, and to help them to share in the meetings and in the ministry to the extent they are able.—1 Tim. 5:10.

5. (a) What environment in the home does the Christian wife work for, and why? (b) How does she reap a rich reward in connection with her children? her husband?

⁵ The Christian wife can do much to create a happy and peaceful environment in the home. She appreciates that this is the best climate for the growth of her children toward mental and spiritual maturity. While always upholding the headship of her husband, she contributes much in the way of gentleness and understanding for the well-being of the family circle. She is wise and tactful in her speech, and “the law of loving-kindness is upon her tongue.” For this she reaps a rich reward as she sees her children come to the age of individual responsibility and make their own personal dedication to do Jehovah’s will. Her sons, appreciating the part she has played in this, will proceed to “pronounce her happy,” and her husbandly owner will also praise her. Truly a good wife brings honor to her husband in the community, both as a Christian minister and as head of his family. “Her owner is someone known in the gates, when he sits down with the older men of the land.”—Prov. 31:26, 28, 23.

PRIVILEGES IN THE CONGREGATION

6. How are faithful women ministers a blessing to others in the congregation, and in what ways can such women advance in the contribution they can make to advancing the Kingdom work?

⁶ The very presence of faithful Christian women in the congregation, their working along with the congregation as ministers of the good news, has a wholesome effect on all those associated with it. Their regularity at the meetings and their support of field service arrangements are often enough in themselves to stir others to like activity, even though we may not be aware of it. But as a dedicated woman improves in the effectiveness of her ministry, she can take on added privileges. For example, she may qualify for an assignment to train other women in the congregation in how to preach the good news. She can also work to improve her participation in the meetings and so share in the privilege of inciting others to love and right works. (Heb. 10:23-25) And if she can enlarge her privileges to take in pioneer service, then even greater joys and blessings await her.

7. (a) In her association with the congregation, what will the Christian woman want to keep in mind? (b) Why does Jehovah take into account the sex distinction as to congregation arrangements?

⁷ But at all times the Christian woman will want to keep within the setting of theocratic order in which Jehovah has placed her. She will not want to be like Miriam and speak against the brothers or compete with them. But in conduct and conversation she will always want to give wholesome support to the organization, including the local servants. Jehovah is the greatest Organizer. He knows how to have individuals work together in unity for the joy and upbuilding of all. He knows women much better than any man does, for he created the first woman and he knows the circumstances that will be most conducive to a woman’s happiness. He knows how she can best serve him to his praise. It is for these reasons that he takes into account the sex distinction as to service arrangements in his organization.

8. What limitations were there on women in the congregation of fleshly Israel, yet what does Paul comment about those who are in union with Christ Jesus?

⁸ In the days of the nation of Israel the privileges of women in connection with worship at Jehovah’s temple were very limited. For example, no woman could serve as a Levite priest or take up duties in connection with temple service. No woman was to sit on the throne as ruler in Israel, the only woman to do so being the usurper Athaliah who died because of her presumptuousness. (Num. 3:1-10; 2 Ki. 11:1-20) But, in connection with spiritual Israel, the apostle Paul wrote, addressing his remarks equally to the dedicated women as well as to the dedicated men: “You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise.”—Gal. 3:26, 28, 29.

9. (a) What privileges as to the Kingdom and priesthood are open to Christian women? (b) As a result of the operation of the holy spirit, in what activity do dedicated women now share?

⁹ This meant that women could now share with men the wonderful hope of becoming joint heirs with Christ Jesus in the heavenly kingdom. Some women were now in line to become kings and priests and reign with Christ Jesus along with the rest of the 144,000 Kingdom associates. This, however, would not be as women, but as glorious spirit creatures in the heavens. (Rom. 8:16, 17; Rev. 20:6; 14:1) Down to this day, among the remnant of the 144,000, there are faithful women in the New World society who have this grand hope. They have been anointed with the holy spirit as members of the body of Christ, and, as such, have become “sons of God” along with anointed male members of the remnant. Just as there were women present when the holy spirit was poured out at Pentecost, so that they along with the men received of its miraculous gifts, so today women as well as men share in the impartation of the holy spirit to guide and energize them in Jehovah’s service, that they too may declare “the magnificent things of God.”—Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 1:14; 2:1-11.

WOMAN’S CONDUCT IN THE CONGREGATION

10. What instructions as to woman’s conduct in the congregation are found at 1 Timothy 2:11-13 and; 1 Corinthians 14:33, 34?

¹⁰ Even though in the days of the early Christian congregation the women who made a dedication and were baptized were also begotten by holy spirit as were the men, yet they were still in the flesh, and so Jehovah took account of this and had instructions given through the apostles for the proper theocratic conduct of things. Thus, at 1 Timothy 2:11-13 we read: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Also, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 34 reads: “For God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace. As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection.”

11. (a) Why could these instructions not mean that women were never to speak at congregation meetings? (b) So what does it mean for them to “keep silent in the congregation”?

¹¹ Does this mean that a woman can never speak in a meeting of the congregation? No, it cannot mean that. Back there the women as well as the men received the gifts of the spirit, including those of speaking in tongues and prophesying, and these would require them to speak in the congregation. So in what sense were they to “keep silent in the congregations”? Evidently in those cases where to speak would be to show a lack of subjection. So a sister would not be found debating with brothers or publicly criticizing them, either at a meeting or to other members of the congregation at other times, nor would she exercise authority over the brothers as a teacher or instructor. If a woman did have a question about what a male member said in the congregation, then she could take this up with her husband at home.—1 Cor. 14:35.

12. How, for example, may women share in study sessions yet still hold their theocratic place?

¹² But this does not mean she needs to stay altogether silent. For example, at congregation meetings dedicated women may give comments on questions propounded during study sessions and reviews, and, in doing so, do much to make the meetings lively and upbuilding for all in attendance. Where a wrong comment is offered by a male person in the audience, during the Watchtower study for example, this does not require the sister if called on to follow along and make her comment agree with the incorrect thought given. But neither by her comment nor by her tone of voice would she be critical of the brother’s answer. Tactfully she can quote from what The Watchtower itself has to say on the point, perhaps prefacing her remarks with an expression like this: “It is interesting to note how the paragraph in our study comments on this . . .” Of course, if there are other mature brothers present, it would be better for the conductor, on noting an incorrect answer by a brother, to call on these ones for further clarification of the point for the benefit of all, and thus avoid any possible embarrassment.

13. What is the desire of all faithful women ministers and yet what questions arise?

¹³ It is the desire of all faithful women ministers in the New World society to conduct themselves in harmony with Jehovah’s principle of theocratic headship. Indeed, their loyal support in this matter, so opposite to the way of many women in the world, is a blessing to the New World society and contributes greatly to the wonderful unity and harmony within it. But, from time to time, questions arise on this matter of headship, such as: Just when is a head covering required by a sister? When may a woman offer prayer when others are present, and, if she does, would she always require a head covering?

BIBLE PRINCIPLES ON HEAD COVERING

14. In connection with what principle does Paul consider the question of woman’s head covering, and what does he say on this at 1 Corinthians 11:4-7?

¹⁴ That a head covering as a sign of subjection is required for a woman on certain occasions is clearly shown in the Scriptures. After stating the principle of headship at 1 Corinthians 11:3, the apostle goes on to apply the principle to the conduct of matters in the congregation. Bear in mind that at the time this counsel was given the regulating of the miraculous gifts of the spirit was also under consideration. However, basically what is said about head covering continues to apply to the congregation today. Note, then, what follows at 1 Corinthians 11:4-7: “Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames the one who is his head; but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames the one who is her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a woman with a shaved head. For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory.”

15. (a) Why would it not be proper for the man to wear a head covering while praying or presiding in the congregation? (b) Why, in the same circumstances, should the woman wear a head covering? (c) Why did Paul liken a woman praying without a head covering in the congregation to a woman with a shorn head?

¹⁵ As God’s image and glory, man was created to act as God’s representative toward his wife and family and he was to accept the responsibility of headship that this arrangement brought to him. Moreover, in the congregation he also acted as a representative of Christ, the head of the congregation. Thus, when he prayed or presided at a meeting of the congregation, it would not be proper for him to wear a sign of subjection on his head as though out of respect for others visibly present. To do so would, as it were, be covering over his headship, and acting as though this was not the normal assignment for him. In this he would fail to act as a proper representative of Christ to the congregation, and so would dishonor his head, Christ. The woman, on the other hand, was to have her head covered when praying or prophesying in the congregation out of respect for the theocratic principle that this was normally the function of the man, so as not to appear as though she were trying to act the man, to usurp the man’s position. This would be dishonoring, not only to the male members of the congregation, but also to her head, her husband, as though she felt no need to be in subjection to him either. So, Paul argues, if a woman were to act that way she might as well go the whole way and have her hair cut short just like a man’s or like a slave girl’s. But this would be disgraceful, would it not? It certainly was in Paul’s day, for the shaving of a woman’s head, or cutting the hair short, was customarily a sign of her being a slave, or worse, of being a woman caught in immorality or adultery and shorn as a sign of public reproach.

16. What principle is at issue in the matter of head covering, and in this connection what indication does nature itself give?

¹⁶ It was a custom for women in the days of the early Christians to wear a head covering whenever going out in public; for a woman without a head covering in public was looked on as a woman of free and easy morals, as a woman recognizing no headship of either father or husband. However, this was not the basic point at issue. It was a matter of recognizing the divine principle of headship, and Paul argues in 1Co 11 verses 13 to 15 how nature itself indicates this: “Judge for your own selves: Is it fitting for a woman to pray uncovered to God? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? Because her hair is given her instead of a headdress.” Not that her long hair was a sufficient head covering when she prayed or prophesied in the congregation; otherwise, verse six would not make good sense. Rather, her long hair would be a reminder to her on such occasions of the need for a head covering as a sign of subjection.

17. What assignment does the humble woman recognize she has?

¹⁷ Certainly a woman with a shaved head would not be very attractive, would she? Likewise, if a woman showed no respect for theocratic order, such as prophesying without a head covering in the early congregation, she would be most unattractive to Jehovah and to the other members of the congregation, because of her lack of humility. A faithful woman recognizes her assignment in Jehovah’s arrangement. As Paul writes in 1Co 11 verses 8 to 10: “For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man; and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels.”

18. What did Paul evidently have in mind in saying that the woman “ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels”?

¹⁸ Why “because of the angels”? This could not be in order to show subjection to them. At 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul makes no mention of the angels as having headship over women on earth. Angels have not been assigned to take the leadership in the Christian congregation or to preach the good news of the Kingdom. So there is no question of the woman’s having to wear a head covering out of respect for some angel for whom she might be substituting. But both dedicated men and women are “a theatrical spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.” (1 Cor. 4:9) For example, a faithful woman can set an excellent example for the angels. In her loyally conforming to Jehovah’s theocratic pattern of subjection to her husbandly head and also in her showing respect for the male members of the congregation, she sets a right example for the angels in heaven in their continued faithful subjection to Jehovah and his reigning King, Jesus Christ.

19. What appreciation of man and woman’s relationship does Paul illustrate in 1 Corinthians 11:11, 12, and what will keep both the man and the woman humble in Jehovah’s arrangement?

¹⁹ However, lest man get the wrong impression from what he wrote, as though the man was the all-important creature and the woman of no account, Paul goes on to say in 1Co 11 verses 11 and 12 of 1 Corinthians chapter 11: “Besides, in connection with the Lord neither is woman without man nor man without woman. For just as the woman is out of the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are out of God.” Yes, this is the thing to keep in mind—that the arrangement of things as to headship, as to the relationship of man and woman, as to conduct and order in the congregation, is from God and not from man. Having this point of view keeps us balanced, humble and appreciative of Jehovah’s blessings, whether we be man or woman.

20. For what purpose is the question of head covering discussed at this time?

²⁰ Apparently there was some dispute on this question of the woman’s place in the congregation at Corinth, and so the apostle Paul took the time to set forth the principles for all to understand, and then concluded: “However, if any man seems to dispute for some other custom, we have no other, neither do the congregations of God.” (1 Cor. 11:16) While this may not be a matter for dispute among Jehovah’s witnesses in these days, yet it seems good at this time to consider the subject in some detail as to its practical application for the Christian congregation today. So, in the following issue of The Watchtower, we will consider some of the circumstances where the question of head covering might arise, so that faithful women ministers in the New World society will know how to act appropriately in harmony with the Scriptures and with a good Christian conscience.

The Parishioners Stayed Awake

A Witness now living in Missouri relates this experience had while she was working one day on an Indian Reservation in South Dakota: “I met a man who was a layman for the Catholic Church. On the reservation there is a church for each village but not a priest, so the priests take turns visiting each week at a different village. When the priest cannot be at the church, then the Indian layman reads a printed sermon sent by the priest. The layman accepted The Watchtower and Awake! from me, and I asked him if I could call back and get his opinion about them. About two weeks later I called back and he was excited. He said: ‘Last Sunday the priest did not come to church and he did not mail me a sermon, so I read The Watchtower in the Catholic church and everybody enjoyed it. Usually everybody goes to sleep in church, but when I read The Watchtower nobody went to sleep.’ After leaving there we called on people of the town and placed about ninety magazines, and several subscriptions were taken. Many had their interest aroused by The Watchtower read in church.”

The Story of an Interpolation—1 John 5:7, 8

MODERN scholars do not hesitate to omit from their Bible translations the spurious passage found at First John 5:7, 8. After the words “For there are three witness bearers” this added passage reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. [Verse 8] And there are three witness bearers on earth.” (Omitted by the American Standard Version, An American Translation, English Revised Version, Moffatt, New English Bible, Phillips, Rotherham, Revised Standard Version, Schonfield, Wade, Wand, Weymouth, etc.) Commenting on these words, the famous scholar and prelate B. F. Westcott said, “The words which are interpolated in the common Greek text in this passage offer an instructive illustration of the formation and introduction of a gloss into the apostolic text.”¹ So what is the story behind this passage, and how did the science of textual criticism finally show it to be no part of God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible?

WHEN THE PASSAGE FIRST APPEARS

With the falling away from true Christianity came the rise of much controversy regarding the doctrine of the trinity, yet, though these words would have been most pertinent, early church writers never once used them. Verses six to eight of First John chapter five are quoted by Hesychius, Leo called the Great, and Ambrose among the Latins; and Cyril of Alexandria, Oecumenius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Nicetus among the Greeks, to name just a few, but the words in question never appear in the quotations. As an example, the anonymous work entitled “Of Rebaptising,” written about A.D. 256, states, “For John teaching us says in his epistle (1 John 5:6, 7, 8) ‘This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’”² Even Jerome did not have it in his Bible. A prologue attributed to him that defended the text has been proved to be a false one.

The “comma Johanneum,” as this spurious addition is usually called, first appears in the works of Priscillian, leader of a sect in Spain near the end of the fourth century A.D.³ During the fifth century it was included in a confession of faith presented to Hunneric, king of the Vandals, and it is quoted in the Latin works of Vigilius of Thapsus, in varying forms. It is found in the work entitled “Contra Varimadum” composed between 445 and 450 (A.D.), and Fulgentius, an African bishop, used it a little later.

Until then the “comma” had appeared as an interpretation of the genuine words recorded in the eighth verse, but once it had become established in this way, it next began to be written in as a gloss in the margin of Latin Bible manuscripts. But a marginal gloss can easily be construed as an omission from the genuine text, and so in later manuscripts it is interlined, then finally it became an integral part of the Latin text, though its position in consequence varies, and it is sometimes before the eighth verse and sometimes after it. (Compare John Wesley’s New Testament where the seventh verse follows the eighth.) An interesting survey made some years ago of 258 Latin Bible manuscripts in the National Library of Paris showed the progressive absorption of this interpolation through the centuries.

The text was further promoted at a council held in 1215 by Pope Innocent III when a work of the Abbot Joachim on the trinity was condemned. The entire passage with the interpolation was quoted from the Latin Vulgate in the acts of the council, which were translated from Latin into Greek. From here some Greek writers took up the text, notably Calecas in the fourteenth century and Bryennius in the fifteenth.

ERASMUS AND STEPHENS

The invention of printing gave rise to much increased production of the original Bible text. The interpolation at 1 John 5:7, 8 was omitted in the Greek texts of Erasmus (1516 and 1519), Aldus Manutius (1518) and Gerbelius (1521). Desiderius Erasmus was violently attacked for not including the text, both by Edward Lee, later Archbishop of York, and J. L. Stunica, one of the editors of the Complutensian Polyglott, which had been printed in 1514 but still remained locked in the warehouse awaiting the pope’s approval. The opposition to Erasmus was based upon the view, expressed in a letter to him by Martin Dorp, that the Latin Vulgate was the official Bible and could not be in error.

Confident that no Greek manuscript contained the “comma Johanneum,” Erasmus in reply rashly stated that if so much as one Greek manuscript could be found to contain the words he would insert them in his next edition. He was told of the early sixteenth century Codex Britannicus, better known as Codex Montfortianus (No. 61). Keeping his promise, Erasmus inserted the words in his third edition of 1522, though he appended a long note reasoning against the addition.

A closer examination of the Codex Montfortianus reveals some interesting facts. Its collator, O. T. Dobbin, wrote that the interpolation at 1 John 5:7, 8 “not only differs from the usual text, but is written in such Greek as manifestly betrays a translation from the Latin.”⁴ For instance, because the Latin does not have the article “the” before each of the expressions “Father,” “Son” and “holy spirit” it did not occur to the translator that the Greek would require them. So of how much worth was this codex as a Greek manuscript? The same fault is found in the other authority sometimes referred to, the Codex Ottobonianus 298 (No. 629) in Latin and Greek. In his fourth edition, of 1527, Erasmus inserted the definite articles to make the Greek text more accurate grammatically.

From now on the interpolation appeared in other Greek texts whose authors followed the editions of Erasmus. Then in 1550 further confusion occurred through the edition of Robert Stephens published that year. It contained a critical apparatus giving various readings from fifteen manuscripts and at 1 John 5:7 a semicircle points the reader to the margin, where seven manuscripts are cited as authority for the omission of three words only. Critics have demonstrated that this semicircle was misplaced, as were many other signs throughout this edition, and that it should have included for omission the entire “comma Johanneum.” But worse still, because only seven manuscripts were cited, it was assumed by many ignorant people that all the rest of Stephens’ manuscripts did include the interpolation, for they did not realize that the remaining manuscripts did not contain the epistles of John anyway. So out of a possible 100 percent (seven manuscripts) not one included the disputed words.

It was now only a short step to introduce the text into other language translations. It had already appeared in the version of Wycliffe (1380), for he translated from the Latin, having no knowledge of Greek. But now it appeared in translations made from the Greek, such as those of Tyndale and Cranmer, though it was printed in italics and set in brackets. But by the time of the Geneva version of 1557 even this distinction disappeared and the passage is set in ordinary type without brackets. So the interpolation slipped unobtrusively into the 1611 authorized King James Version.

THE BATTLE RENEWED

Had the final word been said on the “comma Johanneum”? Perhaps it seemed that way as the seventeenth century progressed, dominated by the Authorized Version. But the murmurings never ceased and the search for the mysterious Codex Britannicus continued, for it disappeared after Erasmus was told about it. Toward the end of the century, no less a personage than Sir Isaac Newton turned the attention of his scientifically trained mind to this text. In 1690 he sent John Locke the treatise “An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.” The tract set out clearly the reasons for rejecting the text as spurious and several copies circulated among friends of Newton, but it was never published until nearly seventy years later and then only imperfectly.

Meanwhile the growth of textual criticism took on new impetus. The text was attacked by Richard Simon, and Dr. John Mill gathered the evidence against the passage, though he remained its defender. But Thomas Emlyn took up Mill’s evidence and urged both houses of Convocation assembled in 1717 to cut the words right out, for he said, “ ’tis never given up fairly, till it be left out of our printed copies.”⁵ In short order Emlyn was attacked by Mr. Martin, pastor of the French Church at Utrecht, whose voluminous and subtle answer seemed to clear the field. Emlyn’s reply caused Martin to launch a second tirade against him. But Emlyn won many supporters, though the devious windings of the controversy often made it extremely difficult to find out what it was really all about.

In 1729 there appeared here in England a diglot version of the Christian Greek Scriptures by Daniel Mace. In a fourteen-page note he listed the Greek and Latin manuscripts, ancient versions, early Greek and Latin writers that omitted the text and threw it out with this conclusion, “In a word, if this evidence is not sufficient to prove, that the controverted text in St. John is spurious; by what evidence can it be prov’d, that any text in St. John is genuine?”⁶ Thereafter, other English translations began to omit the verse, such as the one by William Whiston (1745), well known for his translation of Josephus, and that by John Worsley in 1770.

If Edward Gibbon thought the wheel had turned full circle when he published The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1781 he was mistaken. With his usual sarcasm he denounced the passage as a “pious fraud.”⁷ Up rose another champion, George Travis, an archdeacon, who rushed into action to defend the text. His extreme statements elicited crushing replies from Professor Richard Porson (running to over 400 pages) and Herbert Marsh, a bishop. At last the interpolation was exposed in a minute and most exact manner.

THE LAST STRONGHOLD GIVES WAY

After Porson and Marsh there was little to add. Most scholars of the nineteenth century considered the matter settled, but one stronghold remained, the Roman Catholic Church.

As late as 1897 a papal decree was issued forbidding the faithful to doubt the “comma Johanneum.” In part it said:

“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897).

“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful question was presented:

“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that text (1 John V. 7). . . ’

“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637.

But Pope Leo soon realized that he had been imposed upon, and in 1902 he established a commission to study Scripture more closely, directing it to begin with 1 John 5:7, 8. Because the report was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious.

In the Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John 5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues, “Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.”⁸ But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it.

So the prospect envisaged by Professor J. Scott Porter in 1848 has come true. “It is to be hoped,” he wrote, after summing up the evidence on 1 John 5:7, 8, “the time will soon come when those who have the charge of preparing editions of the Bible for general circulation, will be ashamed of sending forth a known interpolation as a portion of the sacred text.”⁹ In recent times the discovery of such Bible manuscripts as the Codex Sinaiticus has confirmed that this particular verse was no part of God’s inspired Word.

In brief summary the words of that well-known textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener can be quoted: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”¹⁰

Our faith in God’s Word is greatly strengthened when we review the story of this text and reflect on the abundance of evidence from all sources that testifies to the accuracy of the Bible we hold in our hand.

REFERENCES

¹ The Epistles of John by B. F. Westcott, 4th edition, 1902, page 202.

² The Works of N. Lardner, volume 3, page 68.

³ Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, volume 18, 1889, by G. Schepss, page 6.

⁴ The Codex Montfortianus, A Collation, by O. T. Dobbin, 1854, page 9.

⁵ A Full Inquiry into the Original Authority of the Text, 1 John 5:7 . . . (second edition) by T. Emlyn, 1717, page 72.

⁶ The New Testament in Greek and English, 1729, volume 2, page 934.

⁷ The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by E. Gibbon, chapter 37, Chandos edition, volume 2, page 526.

⁸ The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures, volume 4, page 146.

⁹ Principles of Textual Criticism by J. Scott Porter, 1848, page 510.

¹⁰ A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament by F. H. A. Scrivener, 4th edition, 1894, volume 2, page 407.

[Chart]

Number omitting

Century the interpolation

9th 7 out of 10, or 70%

10th 3 out of 4, or 75%

11th 3 out of 5, or 60%

12th 2 out of 15, or 13%

13th 5 out of 118, or 4%

14th-16th 1 out of 106, or 1%

A Cool Hell

A FIERY hell of excruciating torments has been envisioned, for centuries, by religious leaders of Christendom as the certain destiny of sinners. From pulpits and in religious publications they have used unrestrained imaginations to describe in gruesome detail the awful torments that the “damned” are thought to suffer eternally in hell. This they have done without having been eyewitnesses of a fiery hell and without having found in God’s written Word the descriptions of it that they have given. The subject is still popular among some religious groups, but the growing tendency among clergymen is to think of a cool hell rather than a literally hot one.

Commenting on how theologians are beginning to view hell today, clergyman John Mellin of New York’s First Presbyterian Church remarked: “Today, most theologians define hell as being shut off from God. It is a present experience and a continuous process, true now as well as after death. More and more people are getting away from the idea of a physical realm of crackling fires.” Clergyman P. M. Dawley of the Episcopal General Theological Seminary said: “The medieval picture of hell as a place of flaming torment which held the minds of men for some generations was inadequate.” More than “in adequate,” the concept of a fiery hell is unscriptural. But Mellin’s saying that hell is “a present experience,” while he is expressing a common worldly view, is not an improvement from the standpoint of the Bible. People ought to know what God’s Word teaches about hell.

There are passages in the Bible that speak of hell, torment and fire, but these passages do not state that unrepentant sinners are confined eternally in a fiery hell where they experience conscious torment as punishment for sins. The Bible states that death, not torment, is the punishment for sin. (Rom. 6:23) The often-quoted verses in the sixteenth chapter of Luke that tell about a rich man and a beggar named Lazarus speak of hell or Hades, flames and torment, but this is an illustration or parable and not a real-life or afterlife experience, as shown by the fact that Jesus opened this illustration with the same expression that he used to open other illustrations, namely, “a certain man.” Compare Luke 16:19 with Lu 16 verse one and with Luke 19:12.

If Jesus had been teaching by his illustration of Lazarus and the rich man that conscious torment in a fiery hell awaits unrepentant sinners, it is very strange that he made no mention of sin in the illustration. All that is said about the rich man is that he was rich and enjoyed himself with magnificence. That in itself can hardly be regarded as grounds for confining him for eternity in a place of fiery torment. Nothing more is said about Lazarus than that he was a beggar who sat at the gate of the rich man hoping to be fed the things that dropped from the rich man’s table. In itself that does not recommend Lazarus for better treatment than the rich man.

Jesus was teaching something by this illustration that had no connection with punishment for sin. It had to do with classes of people and a change in their spiritual positions. On more than one occasion Jesus gave illustrations that applied to the Jewish religious leaders of his day who opposed the truths he preached to the common people. His preaching so tormented them that they finally had him killed. They well fit the rich man of his illustration. (Luke 20:19, 20, 46, 47) On the other hand, the common Jewish people, who were treated like beggars by the religious leaders, experienced a great spiritual change when they became disciples of Jesus; they were pictured by Lazarus.—1 Cor. 1:26-29.

At Mark 9:47 and 48, Jesus warns of Gehenna, “where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out.” What he says in these and the surrounding verses gives no suggestion that those who are pitched into Gehenna are conscious and suffer torments there. His mention of maggots links Gehenna with decaying flesh and not with immortal souls in hell. The valley of Hinnom (Greek: Gehenna) near Jerusalem was a place where dead bodies were cast. Sulphur-fed fires were kept burning to destroy the refuse, and maggots ate dead flesh not reached by the flames. Jesus used Gehenna to symbolize eternal destruction for the wicked. It was from this valley by Jerusalem that the symbol of the “lake of fire and sulphur,” at Revelation 20:10, was drawn.

Although Revelation speaks of the lake of fire as the place where the Devil and his beastly organization are thrown and says that they “will be tormented day and night forever and ever,” we cannot conclude that this is the fiery hell envisioned by certain religious leaders. In their hell the Devil is the one who is doing the tormenting, not the one being tormented. Furthermore, this lake of fire is identified in verse fourteen. There we are told that hell or Hades is thrown into it. “And death and Hades [hell] were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.” The throwing of death and hell into the lake of fire indicates their end or destruction. This is confirmed at 1 Corinthians 15:26, which says: “As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.”

When Adamic death, the death we all have inherited from Adam, ceases to have power over mankind, it will have been brought to nothing as if cast into the destructive lake of fire. Its companion, hell, which also is brought to nothing by being cast into the symbolic lake of fire, has always been inseparately linked with death. It, too, will become a thing of the past.

The word “hell” is translated from the Hebrew word “Sheol” and the Greek word “Hades.” Peter showed that these two words have the same meaning by using Hades, as recorded at Acts 2:27, when he quoted Psalm 16:10, which uses Sheol. These words do not convey the thought of a fiery place of torment. The King James Version translated Sheol as hell, grave and pit. At Job 14:13 this Bible version translates Sheol as “grave,” whereas the Catholic Douay Version uses “hell.” The fact that this text tells of Job praying to be hidden in hell gives further evidence that hell is not a place of torment, but the common grave of mankind.

A close examination of how the Bible words for hell are used makes it evident that they do not refer to a fiery place of eternal torment for “damned souls.” Being the common grave of mankind, hell contains dead persons. Revelation 20:13 speaks of hell as giving up the dead in it. The common grave of mankind, where all humans go because of Adamic death, is actually the Bible hell from which multitudes of sleeping dead will be brought back to life.—John 5:28, 29.

Change of Attitude in Quebec

ONE of Jehovah’s witnesses who attended the “Everlasting Good News” Assembly at Trois-Rivières (Three Rivers), Quebec, Canada, related this experience: “I met a man over seventy years of age at the assembly. He had white hair and a kind, yet authoritative face. He had been a policeman, and in 1949 he was very active in driving a police car in Montreal and taking many of Jehovah’s witnesses to the police station. I started to tell some of my experiences with the police at that time. He hung his head, and looking at the floor, he said, ‘I was so ignorant then.’ He loves the truths of God’s Word now and wanted to sit where he could hear every word. He was taking notes so as to look up the scriptures after he returned home. He said he was not baptized yet but hoped to be.”

A change in attitude was also manifested by the radio and television stations and the newspapers, which have not generally been friendly in the past. For the first time there was an interview with Jehovah’s witnesses on CBF, French Radio-Canada, the program being heard in all cities of the province, as well as all the French network in Canada. English CBC in Montreal ran an interview of eight minutes. Montreal radio CKLM gave an interview, and two radio stations in Trois-Rivières commented on the assembly each day of the assembly week. The interviewers on the various stations especially wanted to discuss the beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses. Also granting an interview was the Quebec City television station, even though the assembly was held seventy-five miles away. The French newspaper of Trois-Rivières, Le Nouvelliste, which had not been favorable in the past, gave more than 100 column inches to the assembly. The larger newspapers of Montreal and Quebec City also covered the assembly, with the weekly Montreal newspaper, Le Nouveau Samedi, giving a report of four pages with many photographs. The report, published in its issue of October 5, 1963, said, among other things:

“What is a witness of Jehovah? Doubtless, many are asking this question. Who are these ‘wicked persons’ about whom we heard in the past, these hell-hounds of Satan, that we heard spoken about as darker than the Devil himself? They are good people, like you and me, family heads, humble workers, professional people, men from all ranks living according to the teachings of the Bible. Each Witness must walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ and demonstrate his faith by preaching and teaching . . . as did Jesus and his apostles.”

All together, there were over a thousand column inches given in the newspapers to the assembly and the work of the Witnesses. This has no doubt aided in changing the attitudes of many other persons, causing them to be favorably disposed to the message of God’s kingdom.

A householder who rented a room to Jehovah’s witnesses during this assembly at Trois-Rivières, Quebec, telephoned after the assembly to say: “I did not want to miss the opportunity to thank you for the privilege we had to lodge some of your delegates. We have lodged many other people before but never had such kind and distinguished people as your people. We thought that your people were really going to force your religion upon us, but they didn’t. We were the ones that asked questions, and we have learned so much from them.”

Questions From Readers

● How did Adam after his rebellion learn that God said, “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take fruit also of the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,—”? (Gen. 3:22)—E. D., U.S.A.

This text does not say that Jehovah God said this to himself so that Adam could not hear it. Rather, it strongly appears that Jehovah said it out loud so that Adam could hear and know why he was being driven out of the paradise of pleasure. In doing this, God surprised Adam with something that he did not know before, neither he nor his wife, Eve; namely, that in the middle of the garden there was the “tree of life” and that to be privileged to eat of that tree betokened that the eater was deserving of life everlasting in the paradise.

There is nothing in the preceding record to indicate that either Adam or Eve knew of this “tree of life” in the middle of the Garden of Eden, when Eve engaged in conversation with the serpent. Then she mentioned only the trees of the garden and included them all in one group and made an exception only with the “tree of the knowledge of good and bad,” which was prohibited to her and her husband, but she made no mention to the serpent of the “tree of life in the middle of the garden,” this tree that is mentioned in the ninth verse of the second chapter.

So now God says that for the express purpose of preventing them from eating of this tree he is driving them out: “With that Jehovah God put him out of the garden of Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. And so he drove the man out.” (Gen. 3:23, 24) Doubtless when God drove them out he ordered them out with some verbal expression and told them in effect to “Get moving!” Thus it is most likely that Adam learned of the “tree of life” and of God’s expression here, “Man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad,” by an audible expression on the part of Jehovah God, not by God’s saying this in his heart and then causing some inspired revelation to Adam later on. Then when Adam wrote this second document he could refer to this “tree of life in the middle of the garden” of Eden.

Announcements

ASSEMBLIES FOR 1964

For the benefit of all of Jehovah’s witnesses and others who are interested in God’s Word, the Watch Tower Society is pleased to announce that arrangements are being made for a series of assemblies to be held from June through August of this year. Since there will be a large number of assemblies, one should be relatively close to your home. Make plans now to be in attendance.

Each assembly will provide a most beneficial four-day program, beginning Thursday afternoon and concluding Sunday at about 6 p.m. Be sure that you are on hand all four days. Arrangements for immersion are being made at each assembly, either Friday or Saturday, depending on when local facilities are available. In due time information regarding rooming accommodations, assembly sites and other matters will be provided. But the thing to do now is to study the list of assembly cities, decide which one you will attend, and plan your vacation dates to include all four days of the assembly.

UNITED STATES

JUNE 25-28: Atlantic City, N.J.

JULY 2-5: Cicero, Ill.: Little Rock, Ark. (tentative)

JULY 9-12: Corvallis, Oreg.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Owensboro, Ky.; Richmond, Va.

JULY 16-19: El Paso, Tex.; Indianapolis, Ind.; Long Beach, Calif.; Pocatello, Idaho; St. Cloud, Minn.; Syracuse, N.Y.

JULY 23-26: Austin, Tex.; Bismarck, N. Dak.; Charleston, S.C.; Davenport, Iowa; Detroit, Mich.; San Bernardino, Calif.; San Jose, Calif.; West Springfield, Mass.

JULY 30—AUGUST 2: Columbus, Ohio; Topeka, Kans.; Ventura, Calif.

AUGUST 6-9: Brewer, Maine; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Greenville, S.C.; Santa Rosa, Calif.

AUGUST 13-16: Duluth, Minn.; Great Falls, Mont.; Montgomery, Ala.; Tacoma, Wash.

AUGUST 20-23: Yuba City, Calif.

AUGUST 27-30: Cheyenne, Wyo.

Dates not set: Wilkes-Barre, Pa. (tentative)

SPANISH ASSEMBLIES

JULY 23-26: Austin, Tex.; San Bernardino, Calif.

AUGUST 20-23: Philadelphia, Pa.

CANADA

JULY 2-5: Alberni, B.C.; Camrose, Alta.; Portage La Prairie, Man.; Val d’Or, Que. (French)

JULY 9-12: Dawson Creek, B.C. (tentative); St. Catharines, Ont.

JULY 16-19: Cloverdale, B.C.; Cornwall, Ont.; Ft. William, Ont.; Swift Current, Sask.

JULY 23-26: Granby, Que. (French) (tentative); Guelph, Ont.; New Glasgow, N.S.; Selkirk, Man. (tentative)

JULY 30—AUGUST 2: Chilliwack, B.C.; Lindsay, Ont.; North Battleford, Sask.

AUGUST 6-9: Bridgewater, N.S.; Chatham, Ont.; Trail, B.C.; Yorkton, Sask.

AUGUST 13-16: Prince George, B.C.; Red Deer, Alta.; Trenton, Ont.

AUGUST 20-23: Fredericton, N.B.

AUGUST 27-30: New Westminster, B.C.

FIELD MINISTRY

Throughout March Jehovah’s witnesses will continue to conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the good news, not only by leading clean moral lives, but also by sharing the Kingdom message with all they meet. They will be offering to all persons a year’s subscription for the outstanding Bible-study aid, The Watchtower, together with three Bible booklets, on a contribution of $1.

MEMORIAL

“Keep doing this in remembrance of me,” said Jesus Christ as he instituted a simple observance to memorialize his death. This year the date to observe this memorial falls on Saturday, March 28, after 6 p.m., Standard Time. All of Jehovah’s witnesses, whether their hope is to be joint heirs with Christ in the heavenly kingdom or to be earthly heirs of the new system of things, will assemble at their local places of meeting on this occasion. After an appropriate discourse, the Memorial emblems, the bread and the wine, will be passed, separately, after Jehovah’s blessing has been asked upon each. All persons of goodwill toward God are invited and encouraged to attend, and an invitation is extended to all who sincerely desire to serve Jehovah God to avail themselves of provisions made in the congregation to learn how to have a share in disseminating the good news of God’s kingdom to others. If you do not know where the nearest Kingdom Hall is located, write the publishers of this magazine for information.

COULD YOU LIVE WITHOUT YOUR RELIGION?

Do you take your religion seriously? Is it an active part of your life? Do you depend upon it to sustain you? Then note this carefully: The Bible foretells the complete downfall of the religious systems of both Christendom and the pagan world! Furthermore, prophecy warns of the desolate condition of those who have relied upon them. Why would God allow this? What will the outcome be? What must you do to have God’s protection at that time? You need the 704-page book “Babylon the Great Has Fallen!” God’s Kingdom Rules! Send only 75c.

“WATCHTOWER” STUDIES FOR THE WEEKS

April 26: Faithful Women Ministers—A Blessing to the New World Society. Page 172.

May 3: The Privileges of the Christian Woman. Page 178.