1. Bo, Sadly, you have not contextualized who the law was given to, and the promises, conditions, and covenant(s) made. Torah, to whom was it given (Yeshua cited the Ten Commandments as needful, save one)? In the John passage cited on the New Covenant blessing and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the New and Living Way becomes the lifestyle and purpose for the follower of Yeshua, as given by his blood. “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love,” stated Paul, and for the central reason of Christ in Us, the Hope of Glory. Why send the Apostles to the Nations, why the Jerusalem Church conference, why does James uphold the Royal Law above the Torah when writing to the tribes scattered abroad? Why do Yeshua’s messengers tell the chosen Apostles from the nation in Acts 1 a timely setting aside of agendas for those of the present Kingdom, and its witness of Him?

    He is your offense, not “trite” answers given Michael Brown through scripture, the Spirit, and life experience with Christ in him.

  2. Jabez H.

    Check out these passages on breaking YHWH’s law (Lawlessness)

    Hebrews 1
    8 and unto the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy reign;
    9 thou didst love righteousness, and didst hate lawlessness; because of this did He anoint thee—God, thy God—with oil of gladness above thy partners;’

    Matthew 7
    15 ¶ ‘But, take heed of the false prophets, who come unto you in sheep’s clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves.
    16 From their fruits ye shall know them; do men gather from thorns grapes? or from thistles figs?
    17 so every good tree doth yield good fruits, but the bad tree doth yield evil fruits.
    18 A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits.
    19 Every tree not yielding good fruit is cut down and is cast to fire:
    20 therefore from their fruits ye shall know them.
    21 ¶ ‘Not every one who is saying to me Lord, lord, shall come into the reign of the heavens; but he who is doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens.
    22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, lord, have we not in thy name prophesied? and in thy name cast out demons? and in thy name done many mighty things?
    23 and then I will acknowledge to them, that—I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness.

    Matthew 24
    11 ‘And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray;
    12 and because of the abounding of the lawlessness, the love of the many shall become cold;
    13 but he who did endure to the end, he shall be saved;

    Titus 2
    11 ¶ For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men,
    12 teaching us, that denying the impiety and the worldly desires, soberly and righteously and piously we may live in the present age,
    13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
    14 who did give himself for us, that he might ransom us from all lawlessness, and might purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works;
    15 ¶ these things be speaking, and exhorting, and convicting, with all charge; let no one despise thee!

    Ro 6:19 In the manner of men I speak, because of the weakness of your flesh, for even as ye did present your members servants to the uncleanness and to the lawlessness—to the lawlessness, so now present your members servants to the righteousness—to sanctification,

    Matthew 13
    41 The Son of Man will commission His angels, and they will gather out of His Kingdom all causes of sin and all who violate His laws;
    42 and these they will throw into the fiery furnace. There will be the weeping aloud and the gnashing of teeth.
    43 Then will the righteous shine out like the sun in their Father’s Kingdom. Listen, every one who has ears!

    Contextualize it all away if you want.


  3. Ok, not what I meant. Head coverings are so far out of my realm of concern you might as well be waving from the moon. Sorry, but I’m not getting into a conversation about head coverings.

    To be fair, though, if you would like to provide some information (say, some history from a reputable source – direct me to a website or something) I would be happy to read it for my enlightenment.

  4. Please do, actually. I am interested in what there is to know about this.

    (and I say that without admitting that it in any way compares to the question on the diety of Christ)

  5. Tom,

    I will see what I can find in the next day or two. I have not really read about this on the net, so it might take me a while. I will also try to post a little word study on the words Paul used in the passage for your reading enjoyment.

    True it doesn’t compare to the nature of Messiah, but since Paul is dealing with the authority of Messiah and those under Him, it is relevant as to His headship.


  6. ‘Preciate it!

    In passing, is head covering found in the OT? I’ve tried to find it, but I’m coming up short. Can you help me out?

    Thanks again!

  7. Tom,

    You will not find a doctrinal statement in the OT. What you do find is a woman’s head being uncovered because of being accused of adultery. Her head needed to be uncovered in order to stand before YHWH, out from under her husbands covering and thus could have judgment fall directly on her if appropriate. This headship is also discussed in the section on a wife or daughter in her father’s house being covered under the authority of the man. He can annul their vows, whereas a man’s vows cannot be annulled. The weaker vessel is supposed to be in a protected position under the covering of the man. Not men in general covering or over women in general, but the man covering his wife or daughter.

    Numbers 5
    11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
    12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
    13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
    14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
    15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
    16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
    17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
    18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
    19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
    20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
    21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
    22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
    23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
    24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
    25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
    26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
    27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
    28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
    29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
    30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
    31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

    Numbers 30
    1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded.
    2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
    3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth;
    4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
    5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
    6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;
    7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
    8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.
    9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.
    10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath;
    11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
    12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.
    13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
    14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
    15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
    16 These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.

    This is another passage off the top of my head about a covering being removed.

    Isaiah 47
    1 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.
    2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.
    3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

    This is all I can think of at this moment.


  8. Right on! Thanks very much for the help!

    Take care, and no rush getting that information to me, just whenever you get the time.

    Take care,

  9. Sheila wrote:
    “I think the following paragraphs summarized it pretty well and I understand better the customs that were prevelant in Paul’s day. I combined the ones I thought spoke plainly to the subject. I would have to say our liberty in Christ extends to a woman’s hair style and to not having her hair covered if she chooses not to.

    “If a Jewish woman who was a believer wanted to take a Nazarite vow, she was allowed to do so and at the end of the vow she would have to shave off her hair. In that culture this may have caused her shame to appear in the congregation with no hair and no veil, because of the connection a shaved head had with an unfaithful wife.
    Paul gives her permission to veil herself, if it is a shame for her to appear with a shaved head. “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, or her head shaved, LET her cover her head.” 1 Corinthians 11:6
    If the woman had the freedom to appear in the worship service without her head covering, Paul says she is also free from the custom of long hair.
    Paul uses the words of permission “Let her.” He says, “Let her wear the veil or let her have her hair cut.” The inspired word is one of permission, not of restriction. Paul is not telling the Corinthians that a woman must cover her head. He could not do that – after all, he had just told them that the covering of the head shamed Christ. Wearing the head covering that symbolizes shame for sin is not a Christian custom – but, on the other hand, Paul could not tell women that they must uncover their head. That would violate the sanctity of many of their marriages. Jewish women presented a different dilemma in the congregation because of the custom of that day.
    It would be wonderful if all women could follow men into the full uncovering of their heads and honour Christ, but many couldn’t — and Paul respects women and the customs of that day that stopped them from having full freedom of an unveiled head in Christ.
    Today, for the most part we don’t have these cultural mandates that require women to have a head covering.
    Let’s go on to the short summary that Paul gives for head coverings, starting in verse 7. “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is in the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.”
    The inspired word usage here is very revealing. Paul says that a male ought not to have his head covered; the Greek word means “to be under obligation to.”
    What Paul is saying is that men do not have an obligation to have their head covered. There are no serious repercussions for a man to go without a head covering in the Christian community. And a man will not suffer loss by being divorced, if he does not cover his head. His only obligation is to Christ. A man who takes a Nazarite vow, and then shaves off his hair is not shamed by having a bald head. Paul says that there is no reason at all for a man to be under obligation to cover his head. Next, Paul introduces the fact that the man’s glory is his creation in the image of God. This was another reason to remove the veil. Paul brings out a very important fact that the woman is the glory of man. Note, that Paul does not say that the woman was made in the image of God or that she is the glory of God. His omission does not mean that the woman is not the image of God or that she is not the glory of God.
    Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 3:18, “But we all with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
    All humans are made in the image of God and all Christians display the glory of God. Male and female are in the image of God. Yet there are those who deny that the woman reflects the glory of God. Man has the glory of God and so does the woman. However, the woman is the only one to be created with two glories. She is the glory of God and the glory of man.”
    Why does Paul put women first here? Because, he has just told us, that women have authority to make their own decisions. Yet, in the Lord, Paul says there is equality and interdependence.
    What started out with the preeminence of the man, being the origin of the woman, moved to the importance of woman as the the origin of all men, but, ultimately all things have their beginning, their origin, in God, so all are equal in the Lord. Now Paul tells the Corinthians to make up their own mind from the example that he has just set.
    “Judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”
    Paul is asking is it right, or proper, for a woman to pray to God without the veil that symbolizes her sin.
    By this point in Paul’s argument, they should be able to judge that, yes, it is right for a woman to go unveiled before God because, she too, has her sins forgiven. Next, there is another judgment call.
    “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
    The Greek was written without punctuation.
    The International Standard Version gives the rendering without the question mark. “Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair, nor, that hair is a woman’s glory, for hair is given as a substitute for coverings.”
    Now let’s think about Paul’s argument. Nature can teach you a lot of things but can it teach you that there is a standard for length of hair for a man and a different standard for a woman?
    To understand Paul’s argument let’s consider our arm hair: What does nature teach us about our arm hair? We all have arm hair but it doesn’t grow very long. Why? Because nature teaches us that arm hair is designed to grow to a certain length, and then stop. Now if we compare our arm hair to our head hair what does nature teach us about the difference between our arm hair and our head hair?
    Nature teaches us that our head hair was designed to keep on growing and growing until we cut it. Our arm hair is different. It was designed to grow a certain length and then stop. Now let’s apply this to Paul’s argument. What does nature teach us about the hair on the head of little boys, and the hair on the head of little girls?
    Is there a difference? No. Both of them have hair that grows. Paul is asking the Corinthians to reason, and then to decide. Does nature teach you that there is a difference between the hair on the head of a male, and that of a female that necessitates a rule that one can cut their hair and the other one cannot? No.
    Paul says because not even nature teaches us that there is a difference.
    Next Paul is asking the Corinthians to reason another way. Is it a shame for a man to have long hair? The answer has to be, No. Why? Because God, Himself, required some men to leave their hair long. A man who took a Nazarite vow did not cut his hair and God wanted it that way.
    In a similar way, the most orthodox Jews did not cut the sides of their hair – the longer the hair on the sides of their heads; the more spiritual they were thought to be.
    Was it a shame for a man to have long hair? No, it wasn’t. And the religious Jewish men proved that. Paul himself would have had to have long hair at one time because he took a Nazarite vow. If Paul let his hair grow because of the vow, how could he tell the Corinthians that it was a shame for a man to have long hair?
    It wasn’t a shame. And what Paul is saying is, ‘Look, the customs surrounding hair are not from God. You can’t appeal to nature for the custom because nature doesn’t distinguish between male and female. You can’t appeal to shame because God required both male and female Nazarites to grow their hair and then later to shave their hair equally.’
    Paul is saying, ‘Look, think, the customs surrounding hair are not God’s customs – they are man’s.’
    Paul gives another argument. “For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
    In the original Greek the inspired Word does not say “given to her” but “given to ones’ own self,” male or female.
    Nature has equally provided to all of us hair for a covering, and nothing additional is needed.
    “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”
    Paul’s last argument against customs dealing with hair is his statement that neither do we, the apostles, nor do the churches of God have this custom.”

  10. Sheila,

    You have turned the passages above totally upside down. I have never seen such twisting of direct statements, that I can remember. You should have titled the above post, “Come on baby Christian let’s do the twist.”

    2 Peter 3
    16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

    You wrote:
    ““For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, or her head shaved, LET her cover her head.” 1 Corinthians 11:6
    If the woman had the freedom to appear in the worship service without her head covering, Paul says she is also free from the custom of long hair.
    Paul uses the words of permission “Let her.” He says, “Let her wear the veil or let her have her hair cut.” The inspired word is one of permission, not of restriction. Paul is not telling the Corinthians that a woman must cover her head. He could not do that – after all, he had just told them that the covering of the head shamed Christ.”

    First the passage says, “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.” This can only mean that there are two options for the woman to which Paul is referring. 1) To cover her head or 2) to get a crew cut at the longest. That is all the first part of the verse says. (Either cover it or shave it…period.) The reason Paul gives for the woman to be covered is that she is the glory of man.(verse 7) There is nothing in this passage about a head covering representing sin. The covering represents the submission and headship principle discussed in the passage. It is physical symbol of divine authority. Rebelling against the symbol is part and parcel to rebelling against the spiritual.

    Paul is discussing new covenant ordinances here.(verse 2) The next one he goes on to discuss is the Lord’s supper. These two ordinances rank right up there with baptism.

    Second the passage says, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” Contrary to your assertion, the “Let her be covered is in the imperative mood in the Greek…it is a command, not an option. The second part of the verse is restating the intent of the first part. If you can’t bring yourself to go around shaven or with a crew cut, cover your head. Again, only two choices. No middle length or hair styling is remotely suggested here.

    Paul did not say that covering the head shamed Messiah. He said that the covering of a MAN’S head shamed Messiah. He also said that the woman that does not cover her head dishonors her husband. So it kind of goes like this:

    If the woman doesn’t care if she shames her husband and so goes about without a head covering, she should also shave her head so that she is also shamed. If she does not like the idea of being shamed, she should also not shame her husband by going about without a head covering. “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have done to yourself” come to mind.

    The rest of your post above strikes me as ludicrous also. I have read dozens of books and articles on this topic and studied it and discussed it for 18 years. This is the first time that my mouth has literally dropped open in utter amazement. Please reconsider your stance on this issue. Did you read the link that Big Tex posted?



  11. Bo,

    For some odd reason, when I just happen to look at some random posts online, I spot one of yours that goes too far, this time to Sheila: “You have turned the passages above totally upside down. I have never seen such twisting of direct statements, that I can remember. You should have titled the above post, ‘Come on baby Christian let’s do the twist.'”

    So, this will be the last time we’ll go through this routine, but if you can’t post without demeaning the people with whom you’re interacting, you’ll have to desist from posting here. You obviously have something to say on the texts in question, but if you can’t say it without the insult, then you’ll not be able to say it on this site.

    All clear?

  12. Bo,

    I didn’t write the above. It came from the link that Ruth posted. I merely copied the sum of the article.

    In other words, they are not “MY” words.

  13. I didn’t spend a lot of time on it, no.

    My salvation happened when I repented and turned from my sins and accepted forgiveness of my sins. I now walk according to the Spirit, not of those things that are unimportant to serving Him. There is no law that would ever hinder my relationship with Jesus, the Christ, other than those necessary things as outlined by the Apostles and that I hold to. I love the Lord with all my heart, soul and mind, and I love my brothers as my own flesh. There is no greater love than what the Lord accomplished on my behalf and I can’t begin to express the depth of my love for Him, so, please don’t lecture me on serving God for I am keeping His commandment to love His Son and to have faith in Him and what He alone accomplished for me–it comes naturally and willingly for me.

    I don’t agree with your not understanding that Christ has the preeminence in all things. To walk in newness of Spirit means, to me, to place Him where He belongs–in my heart.

    In being kind to you, I would admonish you to humble yourself, as that is the greatest admonishment given to us.

    No apology from you for misunderstanding who wrote what?

  14. Sheila,

    My apologies for not recognizing that your post was a quote. Did you agree with the quote?

    You wrote;
    “I don’t agree with your not understanding that Christ has the preeminence in all things.”

    I think that He does have the preeminence in all things. That is why I accept what He told Paul to write about head coverings. That is why I accept what He told John to write about keeping His commandments. The truly spiritual person will acknowledge that what Paul wrote were the commandments of YHWH.

    1 Corinthians 14
    37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
    38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

    Did you ever wonder if YHWH gave us instructions on what He considers love? I wonder if those commandments that we want to be free from are the His very definition of love. (If you love me, keep my commandments.) I wonder if YHWH’s Spirit would lead us to not do those very commandments. Loving our neighbors as ourselves, in its original context is this:

    Leviticus 19
    17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
    18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

    Sin being the transgression of the law, we would have to rebuke our neighbor for commandment breaking if we really love him as YHWH specifies above. If we do not, we are actually hating our neighbor. I doubt that the Word of YHWH made flesh was taking this verse out of context when He proclaimed it to be the second most important commandment. Oops, there is that word that nobody likes…commandment.

    So to really love the Son, we must keep His commandments…one of which is to love our neighbor…which would require us rebuking him for breaking YHWH’s commandments. To really love YHWH with our whole heart, soul and strength, would be to keep his commandments. Let’s look at the most important commandment in context.

    Deuteronomy 6
    4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
    5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
    6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

    What words are to be in our hearts? What is supposed to be written on our hearts when we enter the new covenant? YHWH’s law. His commandments. If we love Him, we love His commandments…and thus we keep them…whether they come from Paul or John or Moses. So when we love our neighbor, we exhort them to keep YHWH’s commandments. When we keep His commandments we know that we love Him and His children.

    1 John 5
    2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
    3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

    2 John 1
    6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

    So head covering is about love. It declares the loving submission of the wife to her husband, and thus symbolizes the bride of Messiah’s loving submission to Him. For the wife does not love the husband if she does not keep his commandments. The believer does not love Messiah if he does not keep His commandments.

    Ephesians 5
    22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
    23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
    24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    The modern paradox is that husbands command/allow their wives not to wear a head covering. This means that they do not love their wives properly because they are not exhorting/rebuking them for breaking one of YHWH’s commandments. They are suffering sin to be upon their wives. They are not loving their wives as Messiah loves the Church. The are also bringing sin upon themselves.

    Ephesians 5
    25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
    26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
    27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
    28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

    Washing of water by the word is supposed to cause us to live up to all of our Husbands expectations and thus be without spot or wrinkle. So if an earthly husband fails to use the clean water from the word, even Paul’s writings, to instruct his wife in proper attire, he allows spots to remain on himself and his wife.

    Loving ones wife as Messiah loved the church will cause dying to self. Head covering is about humility for both husband and wife. It is about true submission. If you do not think so, try it. “It is the little foxes that spoil the vine.”


  15. A few quotes from Wicipedia under the topic, “Christian headcovering” follow:

    “Genesis 20:16, Genesis 24:65, Numbers 5:18 and Isaiah 47:2 are references in the Old Testament referring to a headcovering for women. 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 contains the only reference in the New Testament referring to a headcovering for women and to an absence of a headcovering for men. Various early Church Fathers, such as Hermas[1], Clement of Alexandria[2], Jerome[3], Augustine of Hippo[4] and Tertullian[5] also mentioned women’s headcoverings. Early Christian art shows women wearing headcoverings.[6]

    During the ensuing centuries, women definitely wore the head coverings during the church service, especially when praying or prophesying (1Corinthians 11:5). However, during the twentieth century, the practice of headcovering gradually disappeared from many churches, which dropped their requirement that women cover their heads during worship services. At different points in history, the style of the covering varied.[7]”

    “Among the early Protestant reformers, Martin Luther’s wife, Katherine, wore a headcovering and John Knox and John Calvin both called for women to wear headcoverings.[14][15][16] Other commentators who have advocated headcovering include Matthew Henry, A. R. Fausset, A. T. Robertson, Harry A. Ironside [17], and Charles Caldwell Ryrie.[18]”

    “Those[who?] espousing the practice of headcovering have used Apostle Paul’s appeal to universal principles in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to argue that since the passage mentions “every man” and “every woman,” as well as the universal order of creation, this passage must apply to all Christians in all ages and of all cultures.[citation needed] Also, some Christians[who?] wear head coverings because Sarah (Abraham’s wife) Genesis 20:16 and Rebekah (Isaac’s wife) Genesis 24:65 wore head coverings.[26] They hold that the Bible is not merely referring to hair, long hair, or submission, but rather a literal cloth headcovering.[citation needed] They support this understanding from the original Greek, which uses two different words: one meaning covering, referring to the woman’s head, i.e., her husband, and the other meaning veiling, referring to a literal cloth covering.[citation needed] 1 Corinthians 11:6 is also cited to refute the notion that the headcovering intended by Paul is merely long hair, (“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”) because it would be akin to saying “If a woman has short hair, let her hair be cut short.”[27]”

    “Some Christians[who?] interpret the passage as a cultural mandate that was only for the first-century Corinthian church. Therefore, they say, women no longer need to cover their heads.[citation needed] Other Christians believe that long hair is intended to be the headcovering (see 1 Corinthians 11:14-15).[28] Still others believe that a woman’s husband is her covering. Yet another view, propagated by feminist theologian Katharine Bushnell, holds that 1 Corinthians 11 itself even teaches that women should not cover their heads at all.[29]”

    I guess feminism has deceived even the Christian woman. In the garden of Eden the serpent tempted the woman with equality with Elohim. Now he can tempt her with equality with man. The standard sure has been set pretty low these days. The strange thing is that the woman is already equal with man in Messiah. So woman is being tempted with a false equality. I’m sorry, Paul just would not go for this.

    It is quite a new thing for the church to adopt the “headcovering optional” policy. It is not because there is some new insight into scripture or the discovery of an ancient biblical text. It is because the church is falling in with the world. We are bowing down before the altar of culture and peer pressure…man pleasing, or should that be woman pleasing?

    This falling away from “the faith once delivered to the saints” got its start in apostate Europe and spread to the US. The infection of deception is continuing to sicken the whole body. Freedom in Christ can never mean freedom to disobey Messiah or His apostles.


  16. David,

    I guess that I forgot to post the link and I do not remember which one that I intended. Sorry.

    I will try to find one for you in the next couple of days.


  17. Since we’re on the subject of the OT Law as applicable today, I think it is worth examining in what points in history have been well-applied based on OT models. One thing I’ve looked up from time to time is whether the Euro-whites crossing the Atlantic (at least half of them Puritans) were a more modern “type of Israel” and whether they were right to see the Natives of the Americas as a “type of Canaan” whom the Lord would drive out before their eyes. They DID follow that invasion model down to the letter.

    Concept: Out-of-control legalism started by Puritans causes such a widespread burden in America and, by extension, the axiom that the white settlers morally “know best” woven into the fabric of American culture.

    I think it’s worth examining whether this above concept deserves blame, at least in PART, for liberal rebellion and moral decline in America, OR whether straying from the America white settlers made and opening teachability to the world’s influence is the ONLY reason American Christendom has been falling apart.

    I tend to seldom hear any blame put on the former reason, but mostly on the latter reason, especially by Traditionals of America. Because the “chosenness” of white settlers and such a better bet for them to utterly destroy the natives and dominate other-culture foreigners (usually colored) only get reinforced by those who teach the latter reason, that’s why I think it should be examined.

  18. Bassball Batman,

    I’m finding it really difficult to follow you. Would you care to rephrase the points your making, please? Because my first reaction is that I’m certainly offended by what I “think” you’re saying! So, please state your position clearly and succinctly.

  19. When I think of European settlers claiming land and setting up their own new nation, driving out those who for generations may have lived there, I can’t help but think of how God judged those who occupied the land he gave to Abraham, and how his judgment was to give that land over to the offspring of Abraham.

    So when I think of all this and consider the moral condition of America….it troubles me.

    Yet, I suppose I shouldn’t be so troubled if I knew it would be occupied by a people who would for the most part be at least in part, God fearing people and that because of that, the gospel would spread throughout the land.

Comments are closed.