Here are two links to my debate with Robert Sabin from 2004. There is a part “A” and a part “B”.
I’ve been reading through F.F. Bruce’s commentary on Hebrews. It is interesting that he begins with various possibilities for who the author was and after reading all the positions one is left without much confidence beyond excessive speculation as to who wrote it. However, I’ve noticed that a few times up until chapter 8 it seems like Bruce alluded to his opinion of Pauline authorship. By the time you reach chapter 10 he is actually suggesting it as so. Phraseology particular to Paul is used throughout and on a historical note Hebrews was circulated along with other epistles of Paul. Church attestation also seems to be very supportive for inclusion in a Pauline corpsus. Any thoughts?
Okay, so I love to write but haven’t done much in a long, long time. I have been very busy for the past 5 years and also endeavoring to endure to the end. I have experienced a bit of change on most all levels and as a result I thought about blogging again on a semi-regular basis. The following is an interview so as to help you know me better if you are new here and maybe an uninformed Facebook friend. So here goes…
1.) You seem to be a person of controversy. Would you say this is a fair assessment of yourself?
I would say yes and no. Yes, in that I do feel it necessary to let people know when what they are talking about is falsehood or misinformation and I have found this to be offensive to some people. Also, I am a Christian apologist and this kind of ministry inadvertently draws criticism from some of the shakers and movers of the Cults and the Occult alike. I would also say no this is untrue. Walter Martin once said, “Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin but controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command”. I think this statement has helped me keep things in proper perspective.
2.) How long have you been a Christian?
I was born again sometime in 1993 shortly after I met my wife. I had tried being a Christian before this but didn’t really understand that being a Christian first comes from God’s Spirit initiating and granting repentance and enabling transformation as one believes unto salvation. It took a long time of seeking and searching but I finally passed from death unto life.
3.) What kind of Christian would you describe yourself as?
Not sure really. Theologically speaking I would mostly identify with historic Anabaptist teachings. I say historic because it is hard to find groups identifying as Mennonite/Anabaptist as really adhering to Anabaptist theology. Socially speaking I would say that I’m a serious Christian that is open but cautious. It is true that I’m ecumenical to an extent.
4.) What was the first Church you started attending?
The first Church that I recall is a Nazarene Church. This is where I first remember developing a God Conscience. As a believer I first began attending a southern baptist church. This is where I was baptized as well.
5.) Do you hold to the doctrine of eternal security?
I believe the scripture teaches conditional eternal security. Belief is what initiates conversion and I believe a truly born again person can commit apostasy and forfeit their reward. I also believe this is a rare occurrence but within the realm of possibilities according to the New Testament.
6.) So you certainly would disagree with Calvinism?
Absolutely yes. I have read most of the Institutes and read some of the leading apologists for the Calvinist position and find their argumentation unconvincing.
7.) Where did you attend Church after the baptist church?
We began attending a Pentecostal Holiness Church. I might add, a Trinitarian one.
8.) What pulled you there?
I was friends with the Pastor there. It was there that God really began to work in my life as far as transformation goes. I also became very interested in serious Bible study there.
9.) Do you agree with Pentecostal theology? Specifically, praying in tongues as the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?
I actually disagree with the idea of Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate event apart from initial conversion. However I do identify as a continuationist meaning that the gifts in the early church have continued to be available to believers today. I believe this includes tongues.
10.) Do you speak in tongues and do you believe others should too?
Yes, I have had the gift of tongues since 1997. God administers the gifts as He sees fit so no, I agree with the apostle Paul, “Do all speak in tongues?” obviously no. I believe true unity is best displayed with a diversity of gifts.
11.) Lets talk about you education, where did you attend school?
I’m a proud graduate of Blountstown High School and Chipola Law enforcement academy.
12.) Okay, but I’m speaking of your Christian education
Well on a serious note, I never attended seminary but I did educate myself. We homeschool all of our children and I’ve homeschooled myself in Christian education. I have made myself fairly well read and patterned my research to what a similar student would experience in attaining a masters degree in Biblical Studies. I also had at least two mentors, men older in the faith that I would consider to be scholars as far as research and writing goes. One taught me debate, apologetics and systematic theology. The other helped me fulfill my pursuit in learning Greek on an elementary level and he also helped me gain a thirst for learning proper exegetical methods.
13.) Tell me about your debates.
Actually, I’ve only participated in two formal debates. My first one was with Robert A. Sabin who was a Oneness Pentecostal Theologian and apologist. This occurred in 2004. My next debate took place in 2007 with a Unitarian scholar named Anthony Buzzard. He is a graduate of oxford university and has a really cool accent. In each debate I defended the doctrine of the trinity and the true nature of the deity of Christ.
14.) Do you see yourself debating again and what would the topic be?
Sure, if the opportunity or need arises. I have flirted with the idea of debating Calvinism or unconditional eternal security.
15.) Who are the heroes in your life?
First and foremost it would be Jesus Christ, the son of the living God. Then my wife who is the most serious and genuine Christian that I know. All of my Children are my heroes and inspiration.
16.) Some people have regarded you as an idiot and others an intelligent person. Which is it?
Ha ha, I would say that I’m a fool for Christs sake and I’ve never considered myself as intelligent though most of those subjective IQ tests have me above average even though academically I’m much to be desired. Seriously though, I’m really an average joe.
17.) Looking back, are there people that really influenced you that has affected who you are as a person?
Absolutely. My Dad truly is excessively intelligent and I believe his skepticism towards truth claims, whatever the topic was, taught me to be evidential. I believe this helped me tremendously in developing critical thinking skills. Also, my mother gave me my compassionate side.
18.) Are you a prolific writer? Any published articles?
Not in the slightest! I have always had ambitions. Specifically to write a book on the doctrine of the Trinity and maybe a couple of small books on other topics but I’ve never gotten past 3 chapters. As far as articles go I’m terrible. I was invited to contribute to a popular theological journal and my article was culled. If you count notes for sermons then certainly I’ve written a lot.
19.) Two more questions. What do you see as the biggest challenge for Christianity in your community?
Good question, I don’t think there is just one single big challenge. I would say that indifference towards God’s word, specifically, serious study is being traded in for more mystical approaches to knowing God’s moral will for ones life. For instance, learning to hear and know God’s voice is a very popular and dangerous movement right now. A more sure way to hear God’s voice is to read and know His word.
20.) Final question, What do you see yourself doing five years from now, as far as ministry is concerned?
I’m not sure. I do have interests. I think I may eventually get one book completed. I currently have teaching opportunities where we attend Church so I hope that can continue. I’m thinking about prison ministry. I would also like to devote more time to ministry and less time working vocationally but I’m not sure how to make that happen. I also have thought about getting a degree in theology maybe a minor in apologetics seeing this would be very helpful in helping me get my foot in the door with publishers and into prisons. I also have thought about missions to Britain. Who know right?
Fair enough. In our next interview I would like to talk to you about your experience in the home church movement and also yours thoughts on ecclesiology, eschatology and maybe some of the most influential writers that have really shaped your Christian world view.
Good, I look forward to it…
Revelation 3:1 “And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.”
However, Sardis is not historically insignificant; for, it produced the celebrated Melitus (Melito). (Greek: Μελίτων Σάρδεων Melíton Sárdeon) (died c. 180). He was the Greek bishop of Sardis and a great authority in Early Christianity: Jerome, speaking of the Old Testament canon established by Melito, quotes Tertullian to the effect that he was esteemed as a prophet by many of the faithful. About 161 Melito wrote a celebrated apology for Christianity which he sent to Marcus Aurelius, begging him “not overlook us in the midst of such lawless plundering by the mob.” He also suggested the Emperor make Christianity the state religion. Around 170 after traveling to Palestine, and probably visiting the library at Caesarea Maritima, Melito compiled the earliest known Christian canon of the Old Testament. A passage cited by Eusebius contains Melito’s famous canon of the Jewish Scripture which he called the ‘Old Testament ” (see footnote). Melito presented elaborate parallels between the Old Testament or Old Covenant, which he likened to the form or mold, and the New Testament or New Covenant, which he likened to the truth that broke the mold, in a series of Eklogai, six books of extracts from the Law and the Prophets presaging Christ and the Christian faith. The following quote will serve to demonstrate Meltio’s theology concerning Jesus:
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (AD 170), 8.756. “Then did the whole creation see clearly that for man’s sake the Judge was condemned, and the Invisible was seen, and the Illimitable was circumscribed, and the Impassible suffered, and the Immortal died, and the Celestial was laid in the grave.” 8.758, “God was put to death, the King of Israel slain!”
Footnote: Melito’s canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.13–14:
“Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.”
To be continued.
Peace to your house;
☩ Jerry Hayes
en.wikipedia.org
When I give a definition of a word from the dictionary I do not always (most likely never) give the dictionary I got the definition from. It is the definition. Everyone knows I did not coin the definition. Likewise, when I learn information from an encyclopedia such as historical facts ( as with Melito) it is unnecessary to give the reference since all knows I did not invent the history.
That being said; What I posted is an excerpt from my book on Revelation and does not include the foot notes where the reference is sited – you ignorant person.
Who is this Son of God?
It wasn’t long after becoming a Christian that I was challenged as to whether or not I was ‘really’ a Christian. Specifically, I had bumped into an acquaintance that had found his new love in the United Pentecostal Church International. Being the young Christian that I was, most everything that he said sounded like the adults speaking on Charlie Brown, but one thing stood out to me. He said the doctrine of the Trinity is a lie! Wow! That got my attention though I really didn’t know what the technicalities of the Trinity were per se, I at least knew that it must be important. How did I know this was important? Well, years before I attended, on occasions, a small Nazarene Church. The pastor there had once scolded his son and me for skateboarding with some Jehovah’s Witnesses kids in the neighborhood. Though I don’t recall the details of what he said to us that day; I do recall him saying that they don’t believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Little did I know that on those few occasions I would receive an inoculation that would withstand an attack of the enemy in the future. Though I was suspicious of my friends new love for a Jesus that required a renunciation of the Trinity, this suspicion had no real answers for his challenge. The one question that I did ask him in response to his claim that Jesus was in fact the Father, was, “who was this person, the Son of Man, which prayed to the Father.” His response was quick as he claimed that Jesus’ human nature prayed to the divine nature. He had me agree that Jesus was God and human and that it was the human part praying to the divine part. I really didn’t know what to say, but for sure this encounter propelled me into a quest for finding out ‘who’ is Jesus. What I have found to be true of not only the UPCI but other Oneness Pentecostals is that they deny any ‘actual’ preexistence of the Son of God. They also deny Him as creator of the heavens and the earth and they deny the Son of God as being the only true God without equivocation. Finally, they deny the eternality of the Jesus the Son.
For many Oneness Pentecostal they find excitement in knowing that they have the corner on the market for having received the revelation of ‘who’ Jesus is as they deny the Son of God’s preexistence. Usually, they point to the birth of Christ as the beginning point for the person of the Son. Yet they will tenaciously claim that Jesus is God and eternal. For them, the term ‘Jesus’ applies to both the Father and the Son and thus the vehicle for confusion as the average Christian tries to have a meaningful dialogue with them. I have found it very necessary to use the term “Son of God” when speaking with them. I often ask them if the Son of God existed prior to his birth in Bethlehem which they almost always deny. As a young Christian it was John 1:1-3 that grabbed my attention. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. [1] He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (NKJV)
At least to my mind then, I could recognize that the Word existed with God prior to Bethlehem! As I would demonstrate this to the Oneness Pentecostals they would actually agree and exclaim, “of course it did!” What they meant though was entirely different than what the text says in that they claimed even I existed in the mind and plan of God.
Looking closer though we find that vs. 3 says that all things were made through Him! Thus to be creator one would have to ‘actually’ exist to create. Now I had began feeling like I too were receiving the revelation of ‘who’ Jesus the Son was. In all seriousness, I could recognize this text as supportive of not only an ‘actual’ preexistent Son but that this Son was none other than the creator Himself. To add confidence to my findings I found confirmation as to the ‘Word’ being someone besides the Father. Verse 14 of the same chapter says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
So clearly the one that became flesh was not the Father but begotten of the Father and that it was this person, the Word, that was creator. As we explore this thought we immediately realize that the Trinitarian Jesus and the Oneness Jesus are entirely different, one having existence before His birth in Bethlehem and the other only beginning to exist at Bethlehem. Yet we find more proof that the Son of God is the actual creator, and this proof that comes from the Father Himself. We find this proof in Hebrews 1:8-12.
But to the son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, [2] has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” And: ‘You Lord, in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but you remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But you are the same, And Your years will not fail.”
Several things should be noted here; the throne of the Son is forever and ever. The Son is called God, by God. God says to the Son that ‘He’ laid the foundations of the earth. God says to the Son that ‘He’ is the same and His years never fail. Now if this doesn’t indicate an eternal reigning righteous Son who is Creator, then one has to willfully commit himself to ignorance to claim otherwise! There exist no real ambiguities of the text. Also considering the context as to why the Son is superior to the angels, it makes even more of a solid argument for the supremacy of the Trinitarian’s Son of God. For this Son of God preexisted his incarnation as creator.
Another problem that I found with Oneness Pentecostal Christology is the fact that they deny the Son of God’s essential deity. Hence, they deny that the Son is the one true God. Of course they will tenaciously exclaim, “Jesus is God!” They do so with a hidden meaning. What they mean is either the Father is God or they mean the Son of God contains within Himself true deity. First, to the Oneness Pentecostal, they readily attest to John 17:3.“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
To the Oneness Pentecostal, there is but one person of God. The Father is designated as a person, and it is he that is called the One true God. The sent Christ had a beginning and is not the Father, therefore he must not be the One true God.
This is why Robert A. Sabin, Oneness Pentecostal Theologian can claim that Jesus never took divine prerogatives unto himself. [3] Specifically he means the Son is not God.
Thus one can readily see a shift in their truth claim. It seems that when the dust settles, the modern Oneness Pentecostals are kissing cousins to the ancient Arians. [4] Many modern Oneness Pentecostals love invoking Colossians 2:9 as a proof text for us to consider and to accept them as orthodox in their affirmation of the deity of the Son of God. Yet a closer examination of their appeal and the text itself, one can readily recognize they that they again mean something entirely different. Take for instance, UPCI’s parliamentarian, David K. Bernard’s comments, “Colossians 2;9 proclaims that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus. The Godhead includes the role of the Father, so the Father must dwell in Jesus”. [5]
While this may not seem alarming to most, one can see what this means to Bernard when he also believes, “…We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms “Son of God,” “Son of man,” and “Son” are appropriate and biblical. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.” [6]
So one can see that Bernard equates deity as ‘Father’ and Son as ‘humanity’. Like Bernard’s predecessor Robert A. Sabin, the Son of God can in no way unequivocally be God. Let us now examine Colossians 2:8-10. “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ, For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”
The key phrase here is ‘For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily’. Hence for Sabin and Bernard, the Son can be called God, because the Father (deity) dwells in Him. Consider James White’s comments, “The term Paul uses here of Christ refers to the very essence of deity rather than a mere quality or attribute.” [7]
One must understand that the Son of God was not just a human that possessed deity or was vicariously God because of deity (the Father) dwelling in him but that the Son according to his very nature was the actual essence of deity. He, the Son of God, had all that which makes God, God. He was God, in and of Himself.
As I have briefly discussed the preexistence of the Son of God and His ‘actual’ role as creator and how the Oneness Pentecostal denies the eternality of the Son of God, I thought it would be enlightening to include David K. Bernard’s own words as to how limited and temporary the Son of God actually is. He writes,
“Not only did the Sonship have a beginning, but it will, in at least one sense, have an ending…….. “ And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. “ This passage of Scripture is impossible to explain if one thinks of a “God the Son” who is coequal and coeternal with God the Father. But it is easily explained if we realize that “Son of God” refers to a specific role that God temporarily assumed for the purpose of redemption. When the reasons for the Sonship cease to exist, God will cease acting in His role as Son, and the Sonship will be submerged back into the greatness of God, who will return to His original role as Father, Creator, and Ruler of all…” [8]
Could it be more clear that for the Oneness Pentecostal, his Son of God is not only one that had a beginning and was not creator, but he is also going to have an end!
In conclusion, it should be noteworthy that if we fail to adequately teach a Jesus that is both eternal and is creator then we are accommodating Satan’s plan to deceive and destroy. Consider the Apostle Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians 11: 4,
“For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-you may well put up with it!” What I now realize is that we are not talking about acceptable differing opinions of exegesis but we are talking about the ‘spirit of ant-christ’. Consider 1 John 4:2,3 which says,
“By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”
You may ask me why I’m using a specific text that has a historic application and applying it to a heresy that popped up years later. Certainly the text can be specific for application today, in that not much has changed; for the Oneness Pentecostal cannot confess that the Biblical Son of God ‘came’ in the flesh because for the Oneness adherent, the Son of God is essentially nothing more than flesh. Glenn W. Barker comments,
“…At least they clearly denied that “the Christ” ever had come “in the flesh.” This denial makes them not only precursors of Gnosticism but also of Docetism. The confession John urges speaks not only against those heresies but against any form of adoptionism as well. The clause “that Jesus Christ has come” reflects the author’s clear view of the preexistence of the Son, who came from the Father and from the moment of his historical birth was Jesus Christ in the flesh. [9]
While some Trinitarians may disagree with me that 1 John 4:2,3 has application to Oneness Pentecostals, I would encourage you to consider that if Trinitarian Christology is correct then certainly preexistence is applicable in the ‘coming’ in the flesh. As fitting for both exhortation and warning may you meditate on John’s words found in 1 John 5: 20, 21,
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
A.J. (Drew) Ayers lives in Florida with his wife and six children. He has been involved in dialogue with Oneness Pentecostals and other anti-Trinitarians for the past 18 years. He has also participated in two public debates defending the Doctrine of the Trinity. His first debate was in 2004 with Oneness Pentecostal theologian, Robert A. Sabin. In 2007 he debated Socinian scholar Anthony Buzzard on the topic of the deity of Jesus. Drew has also been involved as a teaching minister for approximately 11 years until recently. Currently He is working on his first book with hopes of completion during the fall of 2013. He and his family attend Red Oak Community Mennonite Church.
[1] For a good discussion on John 1:1c see, Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996), 256-260
[2] For a discussion of the Nom. for Voc. here see, Wallace, Greek Grammar, 59
[3] Robert A. Sabin vs. Drew Ayers debate “ The Bible and early Church teach the Doctrine of the Trinity”, Blountstown, Fl, June 2004
[4] “Arianism developed the idea that the Son is a semidivine being created, not begotten, by the Father and having an origin in time, or at least a definite beginning before the creation of the material world.” Harrold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church (Hendrickson,1998) 106
[5] David K. Bernard, The Oneness Of God (Word Aflame Press, 2001) 66,67
[6] Ibid., 98,99
[8] Bernard, Oneness of God, 106
[9] Glenn W. Barker, 1, 2, 3, John, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed, Frank E. Gaebelein ( Zondervan, 1991), 340
Occasionally, a chronicle of one’s personal, spiritual journey can be beneficial to others. While humbling to tell, it can be encouraging to others to hear of the baby steps fellow Christians make. This paper is a combination of both personal testimony and Scriptural investigation. The topic isn’t even considered worthy of serious study in most Christian circles. Yet this Biblical teaching is found in a New Testament letter which today is both popular and timely. The letter is 1 Corinthians, and the topic is the headship veiling of chapter 11. Embarrassing as it is to admit, I believe I can safely say I’ve held to almost every possible interpretation. The only consolation to this is the fact that, while ignorant, I was at least honest. It is important to remember to be sympathetic to those who dismiss the headship veiling as unimportant. In today’s Christian circles, this text is almost completely ignored or mishandled. In my opinion, the modern Christian is insulated from even beginning to consider this teaching by various erroneous assumptions. For me personally, it was a misunderstanding of the very words of Jesus. Christ stood as a road block to further investigation. The unwarranted assumption was simply this: Jesus’ message stands in opposition to any consideration of externals; especially in regards to clothing issues. A few of those misunderstood statements would include: 1) “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life…nor about your body, what you 3) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27) 4) “Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matthew 23:26) These verses are used to derail the discussion even before it gets started. In the early days of my Christian walk, I would have simply brushed aside the entire issue with a pious cliché, “Let’s not major on the minors.” Yet, now I believe that such cavalier dismissal of Scripture is wrong for the following reasons: 1) It is Scripture we are doing away with, not some extra-Biblical writing. (Recall 2) Peter and Paul both deal with the externals: of clothing, etc. If they were lead by the 3) Church history shows that Christians for hundreds of years in different lands accepted 4) That which we relegate to the “minor” commandments may be more essential than we None of the aforementioned, of course, proves that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is to be obeyed literally today, but it does begin to make the way clear to an open-hearted study. Put in the plainest terms – all Scripture is worthy of serious study, is it not? Admittedly, there was a time in our own Christian walk when ANY discussion of externals of this nature would have immediately been branded as “Pharisaical.” Now, while the way may seem clear to begin a serious study, usually another smoke bomb is dropped into the discussion. In verses two and sixteen, two similar words are used (varying according to translation) namely, “tradition” and “custom” (KJV – “ordinances”). Here an unwarranted assumption is made again. I made this assumption for years. The erroneous thought is this: tradition and custom are always in opposition to Jesus Christ’s own teaching. I’ve heard these words pronounced with a snarl in the voice: “Tradition! Ha!” “Custom! Right!” Inferred in this is that Jesus hated tradition (Matthew 15) and hates it still, and that whenever we read the word ‘tradition’ or ‘custom’, it is always man-made and never used positively. This, of course, is not what the New Testament shows. Two examples will be sufficient concerning the word ‘tradition’: A) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) B) “But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) The situation concerning the word “custom” is very similar. We assumed that “custom” was man-made ordinances. Yet, simply put, the Greek word used here means “usage, habit.” (We’ll deal at length with what the actual cultural context was in Corinth a little later.) Suffice it to say, custom isn’t a bad word either, at least in this context. On the matter of custom in general, one short quote is helpful: “All we have for sure is the text on the pages of the Bible! God wrote it for us, to us and preserved it as we have it today. No information external to the text about the presumed cultural influence on the Apostle Paul’s attitude toward women, worship or anything else can be known with certainty. Therefore, it may never be used to negate, deny, or change the plain and direct meaning of the words of the text.” (Reformed Witness Magazine, March 1992) The thorough treatment of the cultural context will come later. It is my belief that modern evangelical Christians have made void the commandment of God concerning the headship veiling in conformity to our customs. It isn’t that the apostle spoke as influenced by his culture but the culture of pseudo-equality twists our minds! Surely, after all this, the way is clear for a serious look at the text. “But,” we’re told, “this precept (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) is only mentioned once; therefore it must not be all that important. After all, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every charge must be established, right?” Do we believe that if we can’t find two or three verses on any given subject, then it really doesn’t matter? Two items come to mind as I consider such a claim: A) Melchizedek – Are things only important when they are mentioned a lot? If 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 isn’t valuable, then neither is Melchizedek. But in Hebrews 7:4 we read: “Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.” While he is hardly referenced, he is greater than Abraham! (Hebrews 7:7) * C) The mark of the beast: 666 – Not important? Well, this is mentioned once in Revelation 13! Can we safely disregard the warning in this Scripture? After all, it is mentioned only once. Items may appear to be more important or less important because of the number of citations, but this is not a Scriptural way to make such an evaluation. It is regularly maintained that the headship teaching was a problem peculiar to Christians in Corinth. This is what I thought for a long time. And for a long time, I had no motivation to look any further. But as I looked again, this theory began to unravel as well. The first question is: Did Corinthian women have a problem with their observance (or should I say their non-observance) of the headship veiling? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Can we say from this, contrary to verse two, that they didn’t keep the traditions? Nevertheless, Paul does proceed to say immediately following his commendation, “But I would have you know that…” It appears they were obeying, but ignorantly. If the Corinthian women did wear the covering, Paul very well could have been led by the Holy Spirit’s illumination rather than local conditions at Corinth. We do know the letter wasn’t written just to the Corinthian church – see 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (See also the custom mentioned in Colossians 4:16 of sharing letters: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”) Also 1 Corinthians 11:16 uses the phrase “neither do the churches of God”; possibly indicating this teaching wasn’t unique to Corinth. (On this point, the Wycliffe Commentary [Moody Publishing], agrees and adds similar points as well.) Besides all this, Paul himself cites no special Corinthian situation anywhere in his teaching. A portion of the Wycliffe Commentary may be helpful at this point: “It should be noted; however, that each of the reasons given for the wearing of the veil is taken from permanent facts lasting as long as the present earthly economy. Paul did carry his point, for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch and Africa, the custom became the norm.” (Wycliffe Commentary, 1962, Moody Press) We also know the “custom” extended eventually to all Christian communities until quite recently. If this teaching was originally intended to be merely a local response to a unique problem, the entire early church misunderstood! For early drawings show Christian women wearing “…a close fitting headdress while men have their hair short (and also presumably uncovered). Tertullian and Chrysostom testify that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches.” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Volume III, As you can see, there is a lot of work that needs to be done just to get to the text, but now that we’ve cleared some debris, we can move on to the first real argument which I believe makes any sense. The view maintains that the hair is the covering. Obviously this can’t just be hair since then the men would need to shave their heads. What is being proposed is that women ought to have long hair, and this is what Paul intended. This is maintained despite the fact that the entire early church interpreted Paul as teaching a cloth veiling over the hair! (See previous quotes) 1) This “misunderstanding” would have continued during the time Paul was still alive and able to correct them. Not only doesn’t Paul correct them even up to the day of his execution, but no one else even questions this so-called erroneous practice. 2) This “misunderstanding” would have been believed even though they had the great advantage of being native Greek speakers. Our modern scholars, twice removed from the Greek language, are better interpreters than the original readers? This is hard to believe. (John Calvin found this impossible to believe.) * 3) Supplying the words “long hair” wherever the word “covering” or “covered” is used results in confusion. Try this yourself. Not to mention, why use the cryptic “covering” when all you intend is long hair? 4) The strength of the hair = covering view is verse fifteen. However, (and native Greek speakers would have caught this) the Greek word for covering in verse fifteen is a completely different Greek word from those which proceed it. This disconnects verse fifteen from the proceeding in the sense that one is speaking of the natural hair, the other a veil. 5) The statement given in verse fifteen is that the hair is given “for” a covering. Some would understand this as “instead of” a covering, namely, a cloth veil. Yet when we understand the context of 1 Corinthians 11, we see that the inspired apostle is referring to the natural to illuminate the spiritual. The hair is the natural which should lead us to conclude a cloth veil is fitting. Therefore, we would like to submit the meaning “similar to” in replacement of “for” or “instead of”. (See for confirmation Appendix B) This would further weaken the “hair is the covering” position. Many evangelicals will pay lip service to the position that the hair is the covering. Don’t assume anyone is truly convinced this is so. Some specific questions, as outlined above, will create cracks in the facade of this theological house of cards. Needless to say, I once lived in this shaky house. I once believed Jesus didn’t care about externals until His Spirit through His inspired apostles challenged me to look again. I thought whenever the words “tradition” or “custom” were used; it was man-made and therefore nonessential. I had learned that Corinthian women were being given a local solution to a local problem, not applicable to the church at large. Honestly, these positions were held to simply because on the surface they seemed reasonable. It is easy to be an expert at a glance. Yet God’s Word deserves more than a casual glance. In this, 1 Corinthians 8:2 speaks volumes: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” This verse reminds me of another one of my little arguments against literally observing any of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Verse sixteen says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Here I understood that if anyone didn’t want to go along with the head-covering and was argumentative, Paul was saying, “Forget the whole thing.” While this understanding seems plausible at first glance, various observations indicate this isn’t correct. A) First, it strikes me as unlikely that the apostle would argue forcefully for the headship veiling, bringing in creation facts and even angels, then say, “But never mind if you don’t like it.” This really doesn’t make much sense. B) If the phrase “we have no such custom” is non-negotiable, then the illogical theory may be inescapable. But the Greek word translated “such” is translated “other” in several English translations. While this may seem confusing, keep in mind prepositions are very flexible. Their context often determines their meaning. The phrase “we have no other custom” completely changes the meaning, but is translated thusly in the New International Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Williams, Good News Bible, Phillips and the Amplified Bible. This is not a textural matter but a translation challenge. The word is too flexible to hang a conclusion on. Early Christians didn’t argue and obeyed. Let us now return to the strongest argument against the headship veiling. We are told that the Corinthian Christian women were modeling the inappropriate practice of Corinthian prostitutes. Fairly representative of such a view is a footnote in the Life Application Bible: “We need to read it in the context of the situation in Corinth…For a woman to uncover her head in public was a sign of loose morals…Paul was saying that in the Corinthian culture, Christian women should keep their hair long…” (New Living Translation, Life Application Bible, p. 1818) Did Paul really write a concession to Corinthian culture? Could the very one who wrote “Do not be conformed to this world…” (Romans 12:2) really have let the Corinthian customs press him into their mold? Even more troubling is the thought that if Paul wrote teachings in the Corinthian letter based not on God’s infallible Spirit, but on human judgments, what else is cultural? 1 Both Appendix A and B cover aspects of the cultural arguments, and I would urge you to read both. Briefly I want to explain what the actual situation was in both Jewish and Greek cultures. This hopefully will answer the question: Does 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 reflect the culture of that time? Our discussion has centered on the head-covering for women. Yet equally innovative for a Jewish man was Paul’s inspired teaching in 11:4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” Jewish men covered their heads when entering prayer settings (see Exodus 29:6; Leviticus 16:4) and still do. First Corinthians 11:4 isn’t traditional Jewish teaching. Greek prostitutes for sure didn’t cover their heads, this is true. But what isn’t said is that Greek women, as well as their men folk, in general didn’t cover their heads while praying. So the head-covering isn’t in conformity to Greek practice. This brought the Tyndale Commentary to conclude: “Christians adopted a distinctive practice of their own.” (Volume 7, p.152) Another quote is helpful: “(Paul’s) teaching in 1 Corinthians goes far beyond the cultural conditions affecting the Corinthian church. Indeed it was applicable also to other first century churches (1 Corinthians 11:16b) and to God’s people at any time. 2 Still, although all this was true, I could hardly believe that in all my Christian experience, no one had seen any of this. How could the truth be so obscure? Was the head-covering still common practice in 1916? Apparently so. In 1928, Charles Erdman’s Commentary contained these comments: “It is interesting to observe that while the habit of covering the head in public worship is but a trivial custom which obtained in the days of Paul, it is still almost universally observed among Christians. Its real meaning is little understood. Its true significance is almost forgotten. However, the important principle it once represented is everywhere questioned or rejected in the alleged interest of the rights and liberties of women.” It is surprising to realize that the veiling has been removed so recently. In the end, the covering was quarantined to public worship. Yet John Calvin’s observations demonstrate this too was a recent deterioration: “…women should not go out in public with uncovered heads.” (Calvin’s Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 10, Section 29)* Even here we got tripped up into believing the veiling was properly suited to the church service alone. “After all,” I reasoned, “where do we pray and prophecy?” At church. What happened as we deepened our understanding of what constitutes true “church”? Is true “church” only that which happens on Sunday in the “house of God”? Little by little, it dawned on us that we were always members of the church and that anytime we shared Jesus and prayed, this was as much “having church” as any other time. Home Bible studies were surely church (see Acts 16:13). In the grocery store witnessing to searching souls was church. We would slip into church over and over using the head-covering like a convertible top on a rainy day. Up and down it would go until the foolishness of this finally settled in. Overlooked in all this was that our text doesn’t say it is just about praying or prophesying. The focus was more on the demonstration of God’s created order. “God-Christ-Man-Woman.” This doesn’t need to be demonstrated just in church. And, “because of the angels” (11:10) doesn’t seem to imply church settings only, unless angels only go to church and not to the home studies, or grocery store or the beach. Angels minister to us wherever we are. (See Hebrews 1:12; 13:2; Luke 22:43; 2 Kings 6:17) Do you recall the tale of Gulliver’s travels? After a ship wreck, a solitary man is washed ashore on a strange island. He awakens to find himself tied down by hundreds of miniature ropes and surrounded by hundreds of miniature people. This, of course, is a fantastic fable, far-fetched in the extreme. Yet, this picture accurately illustrates the way I feel God dealt with us as He laid reason after reason over our minds, bringing us into conformity to His will. As in Gulliver’s story, at any time he could have lifted himself up, broke free of the Lilliputians’ constraints; so can any of us resist the Holy Spirit’s leading. In the case of the miniature Lilliputians, they were too small to control Gulliver, but in the Holy Spirit’s case, it isn’t that He isn’t able to forcibly tie us down, but that He is unwilling. As you can see from this paper, there are specific, Scriptural, reasonable arguments that may be submitted in favor of the headship veiling. More important, however, is our personal willingness to submit to God’s inspired Word. Bible experts are everywhere offering their counsel. Yet there remains but one Wonderful Counselor: Jesus Christ our Lord. The Jews, expert as they were in God’s law, murdered the holy and just one. As it is written, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves…” (Luke 7:30a) I trust you will not make the same mistake. God bless you, Don and Lauren Childs Widely respected Bible teacher R. C. Sproul’s comments from the book, “Knowing Scripture”: “Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes. What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and have no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis. 3. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. Appeals to creation ordinances reflect stipulations a covenant God makes with man qua man. The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content.” “As we approach the Scriptures and interpret it, we interpret it in a literal or normal way according to the rules of grammar in light of the historical setting in which it was given by God. We need to be very careful we don’t write-off portions of the Word saying, ‘That was cultural.’ Because everything in the Word of God was cultural…it was written within the culture within which it was given. So the cultural arguments simply become an excuse [for some] to reject whatever portion of the Word of God that does not fit with what (they and) the world are doing in this area today. The Word of God transcends culture. What is important here is that it is God giving these instructions. Some say, ‘Well, these portions simply reflect the cultural practices of that period of time.’ That is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture.” (Taken from: “Family Fitness: Equal But Different”; Biblical Discernment Ministries) Occasionally, a chronicle of one’s personal, spiritual journey can be beneficial to others. While humbling to tell, it can be encouraging to others to hear of the baby steps fellow Christians make. This paper is a combination of both personal testimony and Scriptural investigation. The topic isn’t even considered worthy of serious study in most Christian circles. Yet this Biblical teaching is found in a New Testament letter which today is both popular and timely. The letter is 1 Corinthians, and the topic is the headship veiling of chapter 11. Embarrassing as it is to admit, I believe I can safely say I’ve held to almost every possible interpretation. The only consolation to this is the fact that, while ignorant, I was at least honest. It is important to remember to be sympathetic to those who dismiss the headship veiling as unimportant. In today’s Christian circles, this text is almost completely ignored or mishandled. In my opinion, the modern Christian is insulated from even beginning to consider this teaching by various erroneous assumptions. For me personally, it was a misunderstanding of the very words of Jesus. Christ stood as a road block to further investigation. The unwarranted assumption was simply this: Jesus’ message stands in opposition to any consideration of externals; especially in regards to clothing issues. A few of those misunderstood statements would include: 1) “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life…nor about your body, what you 3) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27) 4) “Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matthew 23:26) These verses are used to derail the discussion even before it gets started. In the early days of my Christian walk, I would have simply brushed aside the entire issue with a pious cliché, “Let’s not major on the minors.” Yet, now I believe that such cavalier dismissal of Scripture is wrong for the following reasons: 1) It is Scripture we are doing away with, not some extra-Biblical writing. (Recall 2) Peter and Paul both deal with the externals: of clothing, etc. If they were lead by the 3) Church history shows that Christians for hundreds of years in different lands accepted 4) That which we relegate to the “minor” commandments may be more essential than we None of the aforementioned, of course, proves that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is to be obeyed literally today, but it does begin to make the way clear to an open-hearted study. Put in the plainest terms – all Scripture is worthy of serious study, is it not? Admittedly, there was a time in our own Christian walk when ANY discussion of externals of this nature would have immediately been branded as “Pharisaical.” Now, while the way may seem clear to begin a serious study, usually another smoke bomb is dropped into the discussion. In verses two and sixteen, two similar words are used (varying according to translation) namely, “tradition” and “custom” (KJV – “ordinances”). Here an unwarranted assumption is made again. I made this assumption for years. The erroneous thought is this: tradition and custom are always in opposition to Jesus Christ’s own teaching. I’ve heard these words pronounced with a snarl in the voice: “Tradition! Ha!” “Custom! Right!” Inferred in this is that Jesus hated tradition (Matthew 15) and hates it still, and that whenever we read the word ‘tradition’ or ‘custom’, it is always man-made and never used positively. This, of course, is not what the New Testament shows. Two examples will be sufficient concerning the word ‘tradition’: A) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) B) “But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) The situation concerning the word “custom” is very similar. We assumed that “custom” was man-made ordinances. Yet, simply put, the Greek word used here means “usage, habit.” (We’ll deal at length with what the actual cultural context was in Corinth a little later.) Suffice it to say, custom isn’t a bad word either, at least in this context. On the matter of custom in general, one short quote is helpful: “All we have for sure is the text on the pages of the Bible! God wrote it for us, to us and preserved it as we have it today. No information external to the text about the presumed cultural influence on the Apostle Paul’s attitude toward women, worship or anything else can be known with certainty. Therefore, it may never be used to negate, deny, or change the plain and direct meaning of the words of the text.” (Reformed Witness Magazine, March 1992) The thorough treatment of the cultural context will come later. It is my belief that modern evangelical Christians have made void the commandment of God concerning the headship veiling in conformity to our customs. It isn’t that the apostle spoke as influenced by his culture but the culture of pseudo-equality twists our minds! Surely, after all this, the way is clear for a serious look at the text. “But,” we’re told, “this precept (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) is only mentioned once; therefore it must not be all that important. After all, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every charge must be established, right?” Do we believe that if we can’t find two or three verses on any given subject, then it really doesn’t matter? Two items come to mind as I consider such a claim: A) Melchizedek – Are things only important when they are mentioned a lot? If 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 isn’t valuable, then neither is Melchizedek. But in Hebrews 7:4 we read: “Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.” While he is hardly referenced, he is greater than Abraham! (Hebrews 7:7) * C) The mark of the beast: 666 – Not important? Well, this is mentioned once in Revelation 13! Can we safely disregard the warning in this Scripture? After all, it is mentioned only once. Items may appear to be more important or less important because of the number of citations, but this is not a Scriptural way to make such an evaluation. It is regularly maintained that the headship teaching was a problem peculiar to Christians in Corinth. This is what I thought for a long time. And for a long time, I had no motivation to look any further. But as I looked again, this theory began to unravel as well. The first question is: Did Corinthian women have a problem with their observance (or should I say their non-observance) of the headship veiling? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Can we say from this, contrary to verse two, that they didn’t keep the traditions? Nevertheless, Paul does proceed to say immediately following his commendation, “But I would have you know that…” It appears they were obeying, but ignorantly. If the Corinthian women did wear the covering, Paul very well could have been led by the Holy Spirit’s illumination rather than local conditions at Corinth. We do know the letter wasn’t written just to the Corinthian church – see 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (See also the custom mentioned in Colossians 4:16 of sharing letters: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”) Also 1 Corinthians 11:16 uses the phrase “neither do the churches of God”; possibly indicating this teaching wasn’t unique to Corinth. (On this point, the Wycliffe Commentary [Moody Publishing], agrees and adds similar points as well.) Besides all this, Paul himself cites no special Corinthian situation anywhere in his teaching. A portion of the Wycliffe Commentary may be helpful at this point: “It should be noted; however, that each of the reasons given for the wearing of the veil is taken from permanent facts lasting as long as the present earthly economy. Paul did carry his point, for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch and Africa, the custom became the norm.” (Wycliffe Commentary, 1962, Moody Press) We also know the “custom” extended eventually to all Christian communities until quite recently. If this teaching was originally intended to be merely a local response to a unique problem, the entire early church misunderstood! For early drawings show Christian women wearing “…a close fitting headdress while men have their hair short (and also presumably uncovered). Tertullian and Chrysostom testify that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches.” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Volume III, As you can see, there is a lot of work that needs to be done just to get to the text, but now that we’ve cleared some debris, we can move on to the first real argument which I believe makes any sense. The view maintains that the hair is the covering. Obviously this can’t just be hair since then the men would need to shave their heads. What is being proposed is that women ought to have long hair, and this is what Paul intended. This is maintained despite the fact that the entire early church interpreted Paul as teaching a cloth veiling over the hair! (See previous quotes) 1) This “misunderstanding” would have continued during the time Paul was still alive and able to correct them. Not only doesn’t Paul correct them even up to the day of his execution, but no one else even questions this so-called erroneous practice. 2) This “misunderstanding” would have been believed even though they had the great advantage of being native Greek speakers. Our modern scholars, twice removed from the Greek language, are better interpreters than the original readers? This is hard to believe. (John Calvin found this impossible to believe.) * 3) Supplying the words “long hair” wherever the word “covering” or “covered” is used results in confusion. Try this yourself. Not to mention, why use the cryptic “covering” when all you intend is long hair? 4) The strength of the hair = covering view is verse fifteen. However, (and native Greek speakers would have caught this) the Greek word for covering in verse fifteen is a completely different Greek word from those which proceed it. This disconnects verse fifteen from the proceeding in the sense that one is speaking of the natural hair, the other a veil. 5) The statement given in verse fifteen is that the hair is given “for” a covering. Some would understand this as “instead of” a covering, namely, a cloth veil. Yet when we understand the context of 1 Corinthians 11, we see that the inspired apostle is referring to the natural to illuminate the spiritual. The hair is the natural which should lead us to conclude a cloth veil is fitting. Therefore, we would like to submit the meaning “similar to” in replacement of “for” or “instead of”. (See for confirmation Appendix B) This would further weaken the “hair is the covering” position. Many evangelicals will pay lip service to the position that the hair is the covering. Don’t assume anyone is truly convinced this is so. Some specific questions, as outlined above, will create cracks in the facade of this theological house of cards. Needless to say, I once lived in this shaky house. I once believed Jesus didn’t care about externals until His Spirit through His inspired apostles challenged me to look again. I thought whenever the words “tradition” or “custom” were used; it was man-made and therefore nonessential. I had learned that Corinthian women were being given a local solution to a local problem, not applicable to the church at large. Honestly, these positions were held to simply because on the surface they seemed reasonable. It is easy to be an expert at a glance. Yet God’s Word deserves more than a casual glance. In this, 1 Corinthians 8:2 speaks volumes: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” This verse reminds me of another one of my little arguments against literally observing any of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Verse sixteen says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Here I understood that if anyone didn’t want to go along with the head-covering and was argumentative, Paul was saying, “Forget the whole thing.” While this understanding seems plausible at first glance, various observations indicate this isn’t correct. A) First, it strikes me as unlikely that the apostle would argue forcefully for the headship veiling, bringing in creation facts and even angels, then say, “But never mind if you don’t like it.” This really doesn’t make much sense. B) If the phrase “we have no such custom” is non-negotiable, then the illogical theory may be inescapable. But the Greek word translated “such” is translated “other” in several English translations. While this may seem confusing, keep in mind prepositions are very flexible. Their context often determines their meaning. The phrase “we have no other custom” completely changes the meaning, but is translated thusly in the New International Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Williams, Good News Bible, Phillips and the Amplified Bible. This is not a textural matter but a translation challenge. The word is too flexible to hang a conclusion on. Early Christians didn’t argue and obeyed. Let us now return to the strongest argument against the headship veiling. We are told that the Corinthian Christian women were modeling the inappropriate practice of Corinthian prostitutes. Fairly representative of such a view is a footnote in the Life Application Bible: “We need to read it in the context of the situation in Corinth…For a woman to uncover her head in public was a sign of loose morals…Paul was saying that in the Corinthian culture, Christian women should keep their hair long…” (New Living Translation, Life Application Bible, p. 1818) Did Paul really write a concession to Corinthian culture? Could the very one who wrote “Do not be conformed to this world…” (Romans 12:2) really have let the Corinthian customs press him into their mold? Even more troubling is the thought that if Paul wrote teachings in the Corinthian letter based not on God’s infallible Spirit, but on human judgments, what else is cultural? 1 Both Appendix A and B cover aspects of the cultural arguments, and I would urge you to read both. Briefly I want to explain what the actual situation was in both Jewish and Greek cultures. This hopefully will answer the question: Does 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 reflect the culture of that time? Our discussion has centered on the head-covering for women. Yet equally innovative for a Jewish man was Paul’s inspired teaching in 11:4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” Jewish men covered their heads when entering prayer settings (see Exodus 29:6; Leviticus 16:4) and still do. First Corinthians 11:4 isn’t traditional Jewish teaching. Greek prostitutes for sure didn’t cover their heads, this is true. But what isn’t said is that Greek women, as well as their men folk, in general didn’t cover their heads while praying. So the head-covering isn’t in conformity to Greek practice. This brought the Tyndale Commentary to conclude: “Christians adopted a distinctive practice of their own.” (Volume 7, p.152) Another quote is helpful: “(Paul’s) teaching in 1 Corinthians goes far beyond the cultural conditions affecting the Corinthian church. Indeed it was applicable also to other first century churches (1 Corinthians 11:16b) and to God’s people at any time. 2 Still, although all this was true, I could hardly believe that in all my Christian experience, no one had seen any of this. How could the truth be so obscure? Was the head-covering still common practice in 1916? Apparently so. In 1928, Charles Erdman’s Commentary contained these comments: “It is interesting to observe that while the habit of covering the head in public worship is but a trivial custom which obtained in the days of Paul, it is still almost universally observed among Christians. Its real meaning is little understood. Its true significance is almost forgotten. However, the important principle it once represented is everywhere questioned or rejected in the alleged interest of the rights and liberties of women.” It is surprising to realize that the veiling has been removed so recently. In the end, the covering was quarantined to public worship. Yet John Calvin’s observations demonstrate this too was a recent deterioration: “…women should not go out in public with uncovered heads.” (Calvin’s Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 10, Section 29)* Even here we got tripped up into believing the veiling was properly suited to the church service alone. “After all,” I reasoned, “where do we pray and prophecy?” At church. What happened as we deepened our understanding of what constitutes true “church”? Is true “church” only that which happens on Sunday in the “house of God”? Little by little, it dawned on us that we were always members of the church and that anytime we shared Jesus and prayed, this was as much “having church” as any other time. Home Bible studies were surely church (see Acts 16:13). In the grocery store witnessing to searching souls was church. We would slip into church over and over using the head-covering like a convertible top on a rainy day. Up and down it would go until the foolishness of this finally settled in. Overlooked in all this was that our text doesn’t say it is just about praying or prophesying. The focus was more on the demonstration of God’s created order. “God-Christ-Man-Woman.” This doesn’t need to be demonstrated just in church. And, “because of the angels” (11:10) doesn’t seem to imply church settings only, unless angels only go to church and not to the home studies, or grocery store or the beach. Angels minister to us wherever we are. (See Hebrews 1:12; 13:2; Luke 22:43; 2 Kings 6:17) Do you recall the tale of Gulliver’s travels? After a ship wreck, a solitary man is washed ashore on a strange island. He awakens to find himself tied down by hundreds of miniature ropes and surrounded by hundreds of miniature people. This, of course, is a fantastic fable, far-fetched in the extreme. Yet, this picture accurately illustrates the way I feel God dealt with us as He laid reason after reason over our minds, bringing us into conformity to His will. As in Gulliver’s story, at any time he could have lifted himself up, broke free of the Lilliputians’ constraints; so can any of us resist the Holy Spirit’s leading. In the case of the miniature Lilliputians, they were too small to control Gulliver, but in the Holy Spirit’s case, it isn’t that He isn’t able to forcibly tie us down, but that He is unwilling. As you can see from this paper, there are specific, Scriptural, reasonable arguments that may be submitted in favor of the headship veiling. More important, however, is our personal willingness to submit to God’s inspired Word. Bible experts are everywhere offering their counsel. Yet there remains but one Wonderful Counselor: Jesus Christ our Lord. The Jews, expert as they were in God’s law, murdered the holy and just one. As it is written, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves…” (Luke 7:30a) I trust you will not make the same mistake. God bless you, Don and Lauren Childs Widely respected Bible teacher R. C. Sproul’s comments from the book, “Knowing Scripture”: “Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes. What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and have no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis. 3. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. Appeals to creation ordinances reflect stipulations a covenant God makes with man qua man. The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content.” “As we approach the Scriptures and interpret it, we interpret it in a literal or normal way according to the rules of grammar in light of the historical setting in which it was given by God. We need to be very careful we don’t write-off portions of the Word saying, ‘That was cultural.’ Because everything in the Word of God was cultural…it was written within the culture within which it was given. So the cultural arguments simply become an excuse [for some] to reject whatever portion of the Word of God that does not fit with what (they and) the world are doing in this area today. The Word of God transcends culture. What is important here is that it is God giving these instructions. Some say, ‘Well, these portions simply reflect the cultural practices of that period of time.’ That is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture.” (Taken from: “Family Fitness: Equal But Different”; Biblical Discernment Ministries) Occasionally, a chronicle of one’s personal, spiritual journey can be beneficial to others. While humbling to tell, it can be encouraging to others to hear of the baby steps fellow Christians make. This paper is a combination of both personal testimony and Scriptural investigation. The topic isn’t even considered worthy of serious study in most Christian circles. Yet this Biblical teaching is found in a New Testament letter which today is both popular and timely. The letter is 1 Corinthians, and the topic is the headship veiling of chapter 11. Embarrassing as it is to admit, I believe I can safely say I’ve held to almost every possible interpretation. The only consolation to this is the fact that, while ignorant, I was at least honest. It is important to remember to be sympathetic to those who dismiss the headship veiling as unimportant. In today’s Christian circles, this text is almost completely ignored or mishandled. In my opinion, the modern Christian is insulated from even beginning to consider this teaching by various erroneous assumptions. For me personally, it was a misunderstanding of the very words of Jesus. Christ stood as a road block to further investigation. The unwarranted assumption was simply this: Jesus’ message stands in opposition to any consideration of externals; especially in regards to clothing issues. A few of those misunderstood statements would include: 1) “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life…nor about your body, what you 3) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27) 4) “Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matthew 23:26) These verses are used to derail the discussion even before it gets started. In the early days of my Christian walk, I would have simply brushed aside the entire issue with a pious cliché, “Let’s not major on the minors.” Yet, now I believe that such cavalier dismissal of Scripture is wrong for the following reasons: 1) It is Scripture we are doing away with, not some extra-Biblical writing. (Recall 2) Peter and Paul both deal with the externals: of clothing, etc. If they were lead by the 3) Church history shows that Christians for hundreds of years in different lands accepted 4) That which we relegate to the “minor” commandments may be more essential than we None of the aforementioned, of course, proves that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is to be obeyed literally today, but it does begin to make the way clear to an open-hearted study. Put in the plainest terms – all Scripture is worthy of serious study, is it not? Admittedly, there was a time in our own Christian walk when ANY discussion of externals of this nature would have immediately been branded as “Pharisaical.” Now, while the way may seem clear to begin a serious study, usually another smoke bomb is dropped into the discussion. In verses two and sixteen, two similar words are used (varying according to translation) namely, “tradition” and “custom” (KJV – “ordinances”). Here an unwarranted assumption is made again. I made this assumption for years. The erroneous thought is this: tradition and custom are always in opposition to Jesus Christ’s own teaching. I’ve heard these words pronounced with a snarl in the voice: “Tradition! Ha!” “Custom! Right!” Inferred in this is that Jesus hated tradition (Matthew 15) and hates it still, and that whenever we read the word ‘tradition’ or ‘custom’, it is always man-made and never used positively. This, of course, is not what the New Testament shows. Two examples will be sufficient concerning the word ‘tradition’: A) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) B) “But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s) The situation concerning the word “custom” is very similar. We assumed that “custom” was man-made ordinances. Yet, simply put, the Greek word used here means “usage, habit.” (We’ll deal at length with what the actual cultural context was in Corinth a little later.) Suffice it to say, custom isn’t a bad word either, at least in this context. On the matter of custom in general, one short quote is helpful: “All we have for sure is the text on the pages of the Bible! God wrote it for us, to us and preserved it as we have it today. No information external to the text about the presumed cultural influence on the Apostle Paul’s attitude toward women, worship or anything else can be known with certainty. Therefore, it may never be used to negate, deny, or change the plain and direct meaning of the words of the text.” (Reformed Witness Magazine, March 1992) The thorough treatment of the cultural context will come later. It is my belief that modern evangelical Christians have made void the commandment of God concerning the headship veiling in conformity to our customs. It isn’t that the apostle spoke as influenced by his culture but the culture of pseudo-equality twists our minds! Surely, after all this, the way is clear for a serious look at the text. “But,” we’re told, “this precept (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) is only mentioned once; therefore it must not be all that important. After all, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every charge must be established, right?” Do we believe that if we can’t find two or three verses on any given subject, then it really doesn’t matter? Two items come to mind as I consider such a claim: A) Melchizedek – Are things only important when they are mentioned a lot? If 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 isn’t valuable, then neither is Melchizedek. But in Hebrews 7:4 we read: “Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.” While he is hardly referenced, he is greater than Abraham! (Hebrews 7:7) * C) The mark of the beast: 666 – Not important? Well, this is mentioned once in Revelation 13! Can we safely disregard the warning in this Scripture? After all, it is mentioned only once. Items may appear to be more important or less important because of the number of citations, but this is not a Scriptural way to make such an evaluation. It is regularly maintained that the headship teaching was a problem peculiar to Christians in Corinth. This is what I thought for a long time. And for a long time, I had no motivation to look any further. But as I looked again, this theory began to unravel as well. The first question is: Did Corinthian women have a problem with their observance (or should I say their non-observance) of the headship veiling? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Can we say from this, contrary to verse two, that they didn’t keep the traditions? Nevertheless, Paul does proceed to say immediately following his commendation, “But I would have you know that…” It appears they were obeying, but ignorantly. If the Corinthian women did wear the covering, Paul very well could have been led by the Holy Spirit’s illumination rather than local conditions at Corinth. We do know the letter wasn’t written just to the Corinthian church – see 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (See also the custom mentioned in Colossians 4:16 of sharing letters: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”) Also 1 Corinthians 11:16 uses the phrase “neither do the churches of God”; possibly indicating this teaching wasn’t unique to Corinth. (On this point, the Wycliffe Commentary [Moody Publishing], agrees and adds similar points as well.) Besides all this, Paul himself cites no special Corinthian situation anywhere in his teaching. A portion of the Wycliffe Commentary may be helpful at this point: “It should be noted; however, that each of the reasons given for the wearing of the veil is taken from permanent facts lasting as long as the present earthly economy. Paul did carry his point, for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch and Africa, the custom became the norm.” (Wycliffe Commentary, 1962, Moody Press) We also know the “custom” extended eventually to all Christian communities until quite recently. If this teaching was originally intended to be merely a local response to a unique problem, the entire early church misunderstood! For early drawings show Christian women wearing “…a close fitting headdress while men have their hair short (and also presumably uncovered). Tertullian and Chrysostom testify that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches.” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Volume III, As you can see, there is a lot of work that needs to be done just to get to the text, but now that we’ve cleared some debris, we can move on to the first real argument which I believe makes any sense. The view maintains that the hair is the covering. Obviously this can’t just be hair since then the men would need to shave their heads. What is being proposed is that women ought to have long hair, and this is what Paul intended. This is maintained despite the fact that the entire early church interpreted Paul as teaching a cloth veiling over the hair! (See previous quotes) 1) This “misunderstanding” would have continued during the time Paul was still alive and able to correct them. Not only doesn’t Paul correct them even up to the day of his execution, but no one else even questions this so-called erroneous practice. 2) This “misunderstanding” would have been believed even though they had the great advantage of being native Greek speakers. Our modern scholars, twice removed from the Greek language, are better interpreters than the original readers? This is hard to believe. (John Calvin found this impossible to believe.) * 3) Supplying the words “long hair” wherever the word “covering” or “covered” is used results in confusion. Try this yourself. Not to mention, why use the cryptic “covering” when all you intend is long hair? 4) The strength of the hair = covering view is verse fifteen. However, (and native Greek speakers would have caught this) the Greek word for covering in verse fifteen is a completely different Greek word from those which proceed it. This disconnects verse fifteen from the proceeding in the sense that one is speaking of the natural hair, the other a veil. 5) The statement given in verse fifteen is that the hair is given “for” a covering. Some would understand this as “instead of” a covering, namely, a cloth veil. Yet when we understand the context of 1 Corinthians 11, we see that the inspired apostle is referring to the natural to illuminate the spiritual. The hair is the natural which should lead us to conclude a cloth veil is fitting. Therefore, we would like to submit the meaning “similar to” in replacement of “for” or “instead of”. (See for confirmation Appendix B) This would further weaken the “hair is the covering” position. Many evangelicals will pay lip service to the position that the hair is the covering. Don’t assume anyone is truly convinced this is so. Some specific questions, as outlined above, will create cracks in the facade of this theological house of cards. Needless to say, I once lived in this shaky house. I once believed Jesus didn’t care about externals until His Spirit through His inspired apostles challenged me to look again. I thought whenever the words “tradition” or “custom” were used; it was man-made and therefore nonessential. I had learned that Corinthian women were being given a local solution to a local problem, not applicable to the church at large. Honestly, these positions were held to simply because on the surface they seemed reasonable. It is easy to be an expert at a glance. Yet God’s Word deserves more than a casual glance. In this, 1 Corinthians 8:2 speaks volumes: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” This verse reminds me of another one of my little arguments against literally observing any of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Verse sixteen says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Here I understood that if anyone didn’t want to go along with the head-covering and was argumentative, Paul was saying, “Forget the whole thing.” While this understanding seems plausible at first glance, various observations indicate this isn’t correct. A) First, it strikes me as unlikely that the apostle would argue forcefully for the headship veiling, bringing in creation facts and even angels, then say, “But never mind if you don’t like it.” This really doesn’t make much sense. B) If the phrase “we have no such custom” is non-negotiable, then the illogical theory may be inescapable. But the Greek word translated “such” is translated “other” in several English translations. While this may seem confusing, keep in mind prepositions are very flexible. Their context often determines their meaning. The phrase “we have no other custom” completely changes the meaning, but is translated thusly in the New International Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Williams, Good News Bible, Phillips and the Amplified Bible. This is not a textural matter but a translation challenge. The word is too flexible to hang a conclusion on. Early Christians didn’t argue and obeyed. Let us now return to the strongest argument against the headship veiling. We are told that the Corinthian Christian women were modeling the inappropriate practice of Corinthian prostitutes. Fairly representative of such a view is a footnote in the Life Application Bible: “We need to read it in the context of the situation in Corinth…For a woman to uncover her head in public was a sign of loose morals…Paul was saying that in the Corinthian culture, Christian women should keep their hair long…” (New Living Translation, Life Application Bible, p. 1818) Did Paul really write a concession to Corinthian culture? Could the very one who wrote “Do not be conformed to this world…” (Romans 12:2) really have let the Corinthian customs press him into their mold? Even more troubling is the thought that if Paul wrote teachings in the Corinthian letter based not on God’s infallible Spirit, but on human judgments, what else is cultural? 1 Both Appendix A and B cover aspects of the cultural arguments, and I would urge you to read both. Briefly I want to explain what the actual situation was in both Jewish and Greek cultures. This hopefully will answer the question: Does 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 reflect the culture of that time? Our discussion has centered on the head-covering for women. Yet equally innovative for a Jewish man was Paul’s inspired teaching in 11:4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” Jewish men covered their heads when entering prayer settings (see Exodus 29:6; Leviticus 16:4) and still do. First Corinthians 11:4 isn’t traditional Jewish teaching. Greek prostitutes for sure didn’t cover their heads, this is true. But what isn’t said is that Greek women, as well as their men folk, in general didn’t cover their heads while praying. So the head-covering isn’t in conformity to Greek practice. This brought the Tyndale Commentary to conclude: “Christians adopted a distinctive practice of their own.” (Volume 7, p.152) Another quote is helpful: “(Paul’s) teaching in 1 Corinthians goes far beyond the cultural conditions affecting the Corinthian church. Indeed it was applicable also to other first century churches (1 Corinthians 11:16b) and to God’s people at any time. 2 Still, although all this was true, I could hardly believe that in all my Christian experience, no one had seen any of this. How could the truth be so obscure? Was the head-covering still common practice in 1916? Apparently so. In 1928, Charles Erdman’s Commentary contained these comments: “It is interesting to observe that while the habit of covering the head in public worship is but a trivial custom which obtained in the days of Paul, it is still almost universally observed among Christians. Its real meaning is little understood. Its true significance is almost forgotten. However, the important principle it once represented is everywhere questioned or rejected in the alleged interest of the rights and liberties of women.” It is surprising to realize that the veiling has been removed so recently. In the end, the covering was quarantined to public worship. Yet John Calvin’s observations demonstrate this too was a recent deterioration: “…women should not go out in public with uncovered heads.” (Calvin’s Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 10, Section 29)* Even here we got tripped up into believing the veiling was properly suited to the church service alone. “After all,” I reasoned, “where do we pray and prophecy?” At church. What happened as we deepened our understanding of what constitutes true “church”? Is true “church” only that which happens on Sunday in the “house of God”? Little by little, it dawned on us that we were always members of the church and that anytime we shared Jesus and prayed, this was as much “having church” as any other time. Home Bible studies were surely church (see Acts 16:13). In the grocery store witnessing to searching souls was church. We would slip into church over and over using the head-covering like a convertible top on a rainy day. Up and down it would go until the foolishness of this finally settled in. Overlooked in all this was that our text doesn’t say it is just about praying or prophesying. The focus was more on the demonstration of God’s created order. “God-Christ-Man-Woman.” This doesn’t need to be demonstrated just in church. And, “because of the angels” (11:10) doesn’t seem to imply church settings only, unless angels only go to church and not to the home studies, or grocery store or the beach. Angels minister to us wherever we are. (See Hebrews 1:12; 13:2; Luke 22:43; 2 Kings 6:17) Do you recall the tale of Gulliver’s travels? After a ship wreck, a solitary man is washed ashore on a strange island. He awakens to find himself tied down by hundreds of miniature ropes and surrounded by hundreds of miniature people. This, of course, is a fantastic fable, far-fetched in the extreme. Yet, this picture accurately illustrates the way I feel God dealt with us as He laid reason after reason over our minds, bringing us into conformity to His will. As in Gulliver’s story, at any time he could have lifted himself up, broke free of the Lilliputians’ constraints; so can any of us resist the Holy Spirit’s leading. In the case of the miniature Lilliputians, they were too small to control Gulliver, but in the Holy Spirit’s case, it isn’t that He isn’t able to forcibly tie us down, but that He is unwilling. As you can see from this paper, there are specific, Scriptural, reasonable arguments that may be submitted in favor of the headship veiling. More important, however, is our personal willingness to submit to God’s inspired Word. Bible experts are everywhere offering their counsel. Yet there remains but one Wonderful Counselor: Jesus Christ our Lord. The Jews, expert as they were in God’s law, murdered the holy and just one. As it is written, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves…” (Luke 7:30a) I trust you will not make the same mistake. God bless you, Don and Lauren Childs Widely respected Bible teacher R. C. Sproul’s comments from the book, “Knowing Scripture”: “Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes. What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and have no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis. 3. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. Appeals to creation ordinances reflect stipulations a covenant God makes with man qua man. The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content.” “As we approach the Scriptures and interpret it, we interpret it in a literal or normal way according to the rules of grammar in light of the historical setting in which it was given by God. We need to be very careful we don’t write-off portions of the Word saying, ‘That was cultural.’ Because everything in the Word of God was cultural…it was written within the culture within which it was given. So the cultural arguments simply become an excuse [for some] to reject whatever portion of the Word of God that does not fit with what (they and) the world are doing in this area today. The Word of God transcends culture. What is important here is that it is God giving these instructions. Some say, ‘Well, these portions simply reflect the cultural practices of that period of time.’ That is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture.” (Taken from: “Family Fitness: Equal But Different”; Biblical Discernment Ministries) LikeUnlike · · Unfollow PostFollow Post · 53 minutes ago
Delete CommentMark as Spam
I have new ministry opportunities this year thus far. I have been invited to be a contributing writer for an apologetics ministry. This is a great honour to say the least. Also, the Oneness vs. Trinity discussions forum may have a conference in Montgomery Ala. this May in which I hope to be able to present the doctrine of the Trinity in a formal debate. That seems to be up in the air as of now. Also, spoke with a gentlemen today that informed me of the possibility of me debating a oneness Pentecostal in England on a TV program there, if I were able to come visit. Wow, what to do? It is a blessing to see my efforts from years ago in my previous debates coming to fruition today. I thank God for the internet, seeing how He can use this to His honour and glory during this time. On another note, work has certainly improved! We have received income for eight consecutive weeks now. The home front is doing good as well. We are trekking through 2 Chronicles as a family. I’ve been studying text types and textual criticism. It is also nice to have my books in here with me as opposed to having all of them in the office. Hopefully I’ll have some new shelving installed in a couple of months. Also trying to increase my knowledge with Koine Greek, seeing that I slacked for a few months. That is a no no when studying a language. So what have you been doing?
Hello blogger friends, been some time since blogging…I’ve joined a Oneness and Trinitarian discussion forum and that has been keeping me busy. I have found time to bring my library inside from my office, see the photos below. I also have completed our tile shower project and will begin enjoying bathing inside! Also Joanna is re-arranging my office tomorrow and if you look carefully at the photo below you’ll see that I’ve added some 2×4’s to my ceiling joist’s so as to create a storage system for my camping gear. Work is going very well and I hope to be able to participate in a debate on the doctrine of the Trinity next May in Montgomery Alabama.
Drews2centsforyouBlog 