Answering the Most Common Objection to Headcovering, Culture

 Objection of Culture:

Paulʼs teaching on headcovering is cultural, and was required of the Corinthians’ because it was part of their culture. In western society where headcovering is not part of our culture, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 has no practical application.

Our response to this objection would be to simply ask: “Do the imperatives of Godʼs Word change from culture to culture?” Of course the answer to this is, “Certainly not.”

The Bible is a legal document which makes legal demands upon those who would adopt it as the rule of faith. These demands cross cultures, civilizations, and creeds. Its precepts are binding upon all who would accept the Christian faith, regardless of the norms of any culture. Christians are citizens of the New Jerusalem, and by virtue of that citizenship are obliged to live out their lives according to the rules and laws of their heavenly kingdom, no matter what earthly country or culture of man they may find themselves. We are citizens of the heavenly kingdom that has its own culture, which culture we must adapt with alacrity. Having said that, we would ask: “What part of Paulʼs injunction can be said to be culturally bound to the first century Greek speaking people of Corinth?”

Paul's injunction from 1 Corinthians 1:7-10,

 v7, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

v8, For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

v9, Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

v10, For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

The apostle gave four spiritual and scriptural arguments why Christian men “ought not to cover” their heads when praying or prophesying, and Christian women “ought to cover” their heads when doing the same.

• Argument one: Woman is the glory of the man (verse 7); “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”
• Argument two: Woman was created from the man; (verse 8);  “For man is not from woman, but woman from man.” 
• Argument three: Woman was created for the benefit of the man (verse 9); “Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” 
• Argument four: Because of the angels (verse 10); “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

For the cultural argument to be valid, all four of these spiritual and scriptural arguments must be shown to be culturally bound to the first century Greek speaking people at Corinth. If this cannot be done, it must be admitted and embraced by all, that the Apostleʼs apostolic command is binding on the Church of Jesus Christ in every age, in every culture, and in every geographical location. 

Let us look then, very briefly, at these four arguments; and ask the same question of each one. Namely, “Is this argument culturally bound to the first century Greek speaking people at Corinth?”

Spiritual and Scriptural Arguments
Argument one: Woman is the glory of the man (verse 7);
Is it true that only the Corinthian women were the glory of man? Or, is it true that all women, everywhere and in every age are the glory of man? Obviously, the latter is true. The argument that Paul uses which declares the woman to be the glory of the man is not culturally bound to any people or to any period of history; it is true always and everywhere.

Argument two: Woman was created from the man; (verse 8); We might ask, “Is it still true that woman was created out of the man?” If this is still true, I mean if it is still true that Eve was created from Adam (taken from his side and fashioned from his rib), if that point of history has remained unchanged or been unaltered, then how can this second argument of the Apostle not be applicable to women in all places, at all times?

Argument three: Woman was created for the benefit of the man (verse 9); Here we arrive at the third argument the Apostle gave for the woman to wear a headcovering in the assembly, when praying or prophesying. Again, the question is asked, “Is it still true that the woman was created to be a helpmate for man, and not vice versa?” Indeed, it remains the case in every age and in every place; the facts of history cannot be altered. The woman was created to be a helpmate for Adam. So, the third argument that the apostle employed for headcovering remains applicable to every age and in every place.

Argument four: Because of the angels (verse 10).   

This fourth and final argument, presented by the apostle Paul for the headcovering, is perhaps the strongest and most persuasive of the lot. I donʼt really think that anyone with any reasoning ability would argue that the relationship between the angels and humans has in some way been changed, or altered, since Paul wrote his instructions to the Corinthians. The weight of this argument bears down heavily upon the Christian Church of the twenty-first century. Since the angels are ministering spirits sent forth to minister in behalf of those of us who are heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:14), and since the angels are affected by what they behold in the worship of the saints (Hebrews 12:1, 20), and since the earthbound family of God has need of the aid and ministry of those angelic beings, more today than any other time of history, how much more should the decorum of our worship be such that would garner their favor and good will toward our needs?

We should not be insensitive to the feelings and emotions of the heavenly hosts. Remember that the sin which split heaven, and set brother against brother, was defection from position and place in the order of their estate. The high prince, Lucifer, became discontent within his sphere of authority, threw off his covering, and determined to exalt his throne into the heavenlies, and to be equal with God. One third of the angels confederated with him. The war that ensued brought sadness where only joy had been, darkness where light had ruled, sin where holiness had been unchallenged. Michael and His angels fought with Lucifer and his angels, until Michael and God’s hosts expelled the transgressors, casting them down to earth. 

Now, from among those who were created lower than the angels (human beings), God has chosen a bride for Himself. This body of earthlings has been redeemed from a fallen state; an act that puzzles, and at the same time amazes, the angels who are assigned to minister in the redeemed’s behalf. Scriptures instruct us that these ancient beings are present among the saints during corporate worship, in a manner that is unique to that event. (The writer of Hebrews informs us that angels are present in our worship in great numbers.)  It is during this time of corporate worship that Paul requires Christian women to wear headcovering to demonstrate their rank in the society of the righteous. One must not think that it is a matter of small consequence for these holy warriors of a forgotten past to behold Christian women, who represent the feminine Bride of Christ, demonstrating the self-same transgression (a defecting from their rank and position in society) that caused civil war in Heaven. It is not for a small matter that Paul writes: “Because of the Angels.”

On an entirely different level, but just as important, is the relationship between humans (human women in particular) and the angels who have fallen from the grace of a judicial God. Fallen angels are constantly looking for those in the family of God that can be misled, misdirected, and simply deceived. The inherent weakness within the female psyche to be deceived presents her as easy prey. This disposition lays her bare to the deceptive spirits that would convince her with lies, and ultimately lead her into false worship. Because of this, God has given her a covering, a protector—her male headship. 

The male headship of every woman is attested to by the headcovering she wears when praying or prophesying. When any person prays or prophesies they are transported into the spiritual dimension where angelic beings, both good and evil, have their natural habitat. Being keenly aware of this fact, Paul gave instructions to the Christian women that they should be covered when moving in that spiritual realm, to serve notice to the fallen angels that they are operating in a delegated role, and are, in fact, “covered” by their male headship. Any attack upon them, then, must first come through their covering. This serves as a deterrent to spiritual entities that would be looking for soft targets within the Church.  

Is this any less true today? Since the answer is no, then Paulʼs requirement of a headcovering for Christian women holds as much, if not more, weight in our present time than it did in the first century.

Having looked at the four spiritual and scriptural arguments presented by the Apostle for a woman to wear a headcovering, and for a man not to wear a headcovering when praying our prophesying, we have discovered that these arguments remain valid throughout history, in all cultures, in all races, and in all places.

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:15, Understanding Words

In a quote from modern cinema a particular character is famous for the question, ‘Do you understand the words a-coming out of my month?” We might borrow from that quote and ask “Do you understand the words a-coming from Paul’s pen?” 

The demonstrated truth is: many do not.

First it must be acknowledged that hair as Paul’s required covering has been taught for three generations by teachers that had virtually no education in the Koine Greek language, apart from a few (very few) word studies. This handicap provided an environment where this false understanding was birthed and  nourished. Now that it is a full-grown heresy a few of its sons are becoming educated in the study of biblical languages. Sadly, for most of these it is a case of too little too late. Instead of embracing their newfound knowledge and permitting it to usher  them into the light of New Testament understanding, they double down on this one issue to an unreasonable degree and are willing to sacrifice themselves on the altar of pride for fear of appearing to their constituents as leaving “the old landmarks.”

This chapter will be dedicated to understanding Paul’s choice of words in 1 Corinthians 11;15, “ But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” (KJV). 

This verse is mistakenly employed as the key verse to unlock the understanding of all Paul has taught in the verses leading up to it. It is a guarantee that 99 persons out of 100, that have been taught hair as Paul’s required covering, will immediately jump over the first 14 verses of chapter 11 to verse 15 for their understanding of what Paul’s required covering is. But, do our friends actually understand the words from Paul’s pen, or quill, as it were?

Now, we must have some working knowledge of the Greek words Paul actually used, in order to understanding the meaning of the English words we read as English readers. For example we may read the statement in English (“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”) and have the confidence that the Greek was faithfully rendered into our own tongue. But in the English rendering we have legitimate debate over certain words: such as what is meant by “long hair”? What does “for a covering” actually mean? To arrive at the proper understanding we must look at Paul’s actual words—not what translators turned these words into. Now, mark it well: It is not that the translators’ word choices are wrong. They are correct—when understood in the light of the original intent of the autograph (the author’s [in this case Paul’s] intent.)

In regards to 1 Corinthians 11:15, Paul actually wrote: γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται [αὐτῇ].

To understand the English that we all read in our Bibles, we MUST understand what the Greek word meanings where, which the Apostle chose to use. So, we will set about doing just that. I must warn the reader, the information that follows will be disturbing to the King James only person, who should proceed only at their own peril.

γυνὴ/gunē: 

Strong’s #G1135, a woman, but specifically a wife. This word is translated “wife” in the English Standard Version (ESV): “For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.” 

The Greek word used here for “woman” is gunē (Strongʼs #NT 1135), which, in the New Testament is used for a woman who has, or has had, a man (i.e. a husband). Gunē is used for “wife” eighty times in the KJV New Testament. One other word (gunaikeios, Strongʼs #NT1134) appears for wife only once in the New Testament: at 1 Peter 3:7; even it has gunē as its root. The word gunē is also translated “woman” ninety-six times: each time a married woman (or woman who had been married) is to be understood. Only two other places in the New Testament employ another word for woman: i.e. Romans 1:27 and Galatians 4:30. An example of how the word “gunē” is employed in the Greek New Testament can be seen in Matthew 22:23-28. The word “gunē” is used interchangeably throughout the passage for both “wife” and “woman,” while referencing the same person. 

Thus, “gunē” is understood to reference a woman in the sexual sense of the word. Paul states it clearly in 1 Corinthians 7:34, “... the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, ..” The word “woman” is gunē; the word “virgin” is parthenos. 

There is a difference also between a wife (gunē) and a “virgin” (Greek: parthenos). A virgin (parthenos) is a female (daughter) who has never been married (known a man). The Greek language utilizes different words for female that show distinction and status, relating to being married or never married; some of these are: thelus: female, a woman (Strongʼs #NT 2338) from the word thelazo (Strongʼs # 2337) … means: adult female. The word is used but once in the New Testament (Romans 1:27), where Paul is writing of “the matural use of the woman (thelus)”;  korasion: maiden; a young never married female (Strongʼs #2877), Matthew used this word for Jariusʼ daughter who was twelve years old (Matthew 9:24-25);  pais: a girl (child) (Strongʼs #3816). Used by Luke for Jariusʼ daughter (Luke 8:51,54; parthenos: virgin, a maiden. a never married daughter (Strongʼs #3933). This word is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 for a daughter who has never been married; gunē: a married woman (Strongʼs #NT1135). Gunē is the New Testament word for wife. 

κομᾷ/koma and κόμη/komē:

Strong’s #G2863, 2864, verb, to wear tresses of hair, from the noun komē: ornamental hair—long hair implied. Joseph Henry Thayer says of  “komē”: “it differs from θριξ/thrix (the anatomical or physical term) by designating the hair as an ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested).” Both the verb and the noun is used by Paul: the verb means to use the hair as an ornament, the noun designates the hair as an ornament. —Thayer

Lex Links Lexicon (a beginner’s lexicon), Komaō appears twice in the Greek New Testament—1 Corinthians 11:14, 15. “It is the verb that means: ‘bring the hair into a shape’ … homosexual (male) prostitutes (the effeminate kind in Corinth) used to get hairdos like women. And this is what was offensive to God … one of the secondary aspects of getting a hairdo is growing hair long in order to be able to style it. But it was not the growing of long hair which was offensive to God, just the styling of a man’s hair to look feminine. In the Bible, God even commanded men, regarding the vow of a Nazarite, to not cut the hair. And some prophets never cut their hair even once in their whole lives? So long hair itself is never offensive to God. Nor is it ever offensive to God for a woman to style her hair. Only men are forbidden to style their hair, to look feminine, … .” The noun, “komē, komēs, ē”, is “a hair style, fashioned or styled hair.” The noun “kommōtēs,” (Modern Greek) is “a hairdresser, hair stylist”. Literally: “an agent of hairstyles.” To this day, this Greek word still refers to a hairdo.

So, then, the word that has been touted as proof that Christian women may never cut their hair (the verb: koma, and its noun: komē) are not words that actually mean long hair. The Greek word for hair is θριξ/thrix (I give the Greek spelling and the English transliteration). Thrix (the word for “hair”) does not appear in our text. The word from the Greek translated into English as “long hair” is the noun “komē” and its verb “koma”: which means adorned hair. The long length is only implied, because length is needed for it to be adorned.

Jay P Green, in his Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, A Literal Translation of the Bible (©️1985 Published by Henderson, ISBN 978-1-58563-979-9) renders 1 Corinthians 11:4-15 thusly:

η ουδε αυτη η φυσις διδασκει υμας οτι ανηρ μεν εαν κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν

Does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed adorns the hair, it is a dishonor to him.

γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν οτι η κομη αντι περιβολαιου δεδοται αυτη

But if the woman should adorn the hair, it is a glory to her, because the long hair has been given to her instead  (1993 version: corresponding to a veil) of the veil.

ἀντὶ/anti:

The phrase “ἀντὶ περιβολαίου” is transliterated: anti peribolaiou; English translation: “instead of a covering;” it is so rendered in Young’s Literal Translation (YLT): “... and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... . ” A. T. John 1”1Robertson says, concerning “anti peribolaiou:”  

“... Old word from periballw  to fling around, as a mantle (Hebrews 1:12) or a covering or veil as here. It is not in the place of a veil, but answering to (anti, in the sense of anti in John 1:16), ... .” —Robertson

Robertson cites John 1:16 as an example of how “anti” is to be understood in our text. Komē for a peribolaion is compared to “grace answering to grace”. John 1:16 says: καὶ  χάριν  ἀντὶ  χάριτος· (kai charin anti charitos); English: “and grace for grace.” So, then, the hair “answers to” (Robertson) the veil: it (the hair) “answers,” in the natural arena, to what the veil is in the religious arena. It is one covering answering to another covering. For the covering of hair that the female wears by nature in the worldly arena is answered to in corporate worship with the covering of the RAC. There is an exchange of the two: when in worship there is the RAC. when in the worldly arena, there is the long hair. 

Jay P. Green Jay P Green, in his Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, A Literal Translation of the Bible (©️1993) has “corresponding to a veil”.

Regardless of the clear teaching of the Greek scholars on the word “anti” such Bible teachers as Daniel Segraves, in his book entitled  Hair Length in the Bible, employs his preferred definition of “anti” and states on page 37, “Long, uncut hair is given to a woman instead of a veil.” Using, as he does, the literal wording from the Greek, with no consideration given to the idiom that all scholars recognize on the word “anti.” Gingrich’s Shorter Lexicon of the Greek NT, p17, states the definitions for “anti” as: “for, AS, in place of.” But, Segraves totally omits “AS”—the meaning that fits the context. This is also the definition found in Arndt and Gingrich, p73, and A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the NT. Here, “anti” does not refer to a replacement but to an equivalent. This phrase indicates equivalency. Therefore, “anti” is a word of COMPARISON—Jay P. Green: “CORRESPONDING TO”. In Ephesians 5 Paul uses “anti” to teach how a man and wife are TYPED to Christ and the Church. The “anti” used in v15 does not mean “instead of” (in the sense of "in lieu of")  but “COMPARED TO,” because long hair is LIKE a veil—it SYMBOLIZES a veil. The French language Louis Segond Bible of 1910 translates the “anti” in v15: “...la chevelure lui a ete donnee comme voile,” or “...the hair is given to her LIKE a veil.”

περιβολαίον/peribolaion 

The noun peribolaion is from “peri” to throw or cast, and “bollō” around. Used but twice in the New Testament: here, and Hebrews 1:12 where it is translated “vesture.” Thus, something thrown around one, such as a veil (Robertson, Strong, Thayer). It is  the peribolaion of verse 15, and not the hair, that identifies the katakalupto (covering) of verses 4, 5, 6, and 7. The peribolaion is not the hair, it “answers” (anti) to the hair, as grace “answers” (anti) to grace (John 1:16, Robertson). In Robertson’s paralleling of 1 Corinthians 11:15 with John 1:16, in relation to the Greek word “anti,” it is understood that hair does not replace the peribolaion any more than one grace replaces another grace. The graces (gifts) of God compliment, and compound, one another, as does the Christian woman’s long hair and the veil that she “casts about” her head, when in prayer or moving in the spiritual gifts during the corporate meeting of the Church.

There are two coverings referenced in our passage: the “peribolaion” (verse 15) which is the “katakalupto” (verses 5, 6, 7, and 13): a veil, or wrap, that a woman is to “cast about her head” when she prays or prophesies, but a man “ought not” to put on his head when he prays or prophesies [verse 7]; and the long hair that the woman is given by God as a natural mantle or wrap for her head (which “answers to,” and complements, the required peribolaion)—to be used as her adornment, and a display of her glory. The point made here, is that, just as the hair represents her proper covering in the natural realm, so the veil is the Christian woman’s proper covering in the spiritual realm.

The following quotes to biblical authorities demonstrates that the position presented in this work is the orthodox view of Christians throughout the ages.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

V15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. — We should follow the suggestions of Nature. If a woman has naturally long hair, which is given to her as a covering for her head, the covering of her head can be no shame foe her; therefore let her wear a veil. “The will ought to correspond to Nature.”

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

For a covering—Margin, “veil”. It is given to her as sort of a natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Her … hair … for a covering—Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature (Bengel).

Geneva Study Bible

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a {e} covering. {e}—To be a covering for her, and such a covering as should procure another.

John Chrysostom

“‘And if it be given her for a covering,’ say you, ‘wherefore need she add another covering?’ That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature her- self by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also.” 

Apostolically Speaking

☩ Jerry L Hayes

Also read:

Athanasius Against the World; God's Order of Headship, Part 1

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2020/03/athanasius-against-world-lone-voice-for.html

Athanasius Against the World; God's Order of Headship, Part 3 of 3

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2020/03/athanasius-against-world-part-3-god.html

This essay is excerpted from the author's book entitled "The Christian Woman's Headecovering". Order your personal copy today; https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Womans-Headcovering-Second-Liturgical/dp/B08F65MNZX/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3M3EYRKOXOTEQ&keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+headcovering&qid=1689550186&s=books&sprefix=bishop+jerry+hayes%2C+headcovering%2Cstripbooks%2C130&sr=1-1

Thank You For Your Support 

By Purchasing Our Books For Your Library

If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Revelation, Commentary; Revelation 2:19, Thyatira III

2:19 “I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.”

“...works, ...charity, ...service, ...faith, ...patience, ...works; ...” ～ It is noted, to Thyatira’s favor, that the Lord mentions more graces for them than any other church. The One whose eyes see all things, knows the graces of this church: works, charity, service, faith, patience, and works again. There is much the Lord will have to admonish this church for (vv20-23), but before He does, He praises them for much. The hardest rebukes go to Ephesus and Thyatira; and, to both, He prefaces the scolding with abundance of praise. Through this, we see the Lord’s merciful love and tenderness, even when His words of rebuke are scathing. The Son of God acknowledges their works—twice. The latter works are said to be “more than the first:” pleiona tōn prōtōn; paiō (Strong’s #G4119) means, greater in quantity. Their last works were more in number than their first. Since this was a cause of commendation, the works under discussion would not be classed under the Pauline “works” of self-righteousness (Eph 2:8-9), which God looks on as filthy rags (Is 64:6), and serve only to frustrate His grace (Gal 2:21). Instead, Thyatira’s great number of “works” must be of the type spoken of by James (James 2:14-26). The abiding three graces of charity, faith, and patience are mentioned by Paul this way, 

“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (1 Cor 13:13)

“I know thy ... service, ...” ～ The service of Thyatira would not go unnoticed. The Lord said, kai tēn diakonian, i.e. “and the ministry.” The word “diakonia” (Strong’s #G1248) has reference to “the ministration of those who render to others the offices of Christian affection: 1 Co xvi. 15; Rev ii. 19, especially of those who succor need by either collecting or bestowing benefactions [Ac xii. 25]; the care of the poor, the supplying or distributing of charities,...: Acts vi.1; 2 Co ix. 13;” (Thayer). Thyatira’s works were of the gold, silver, precious stones type, and stood up to the penetrating “eyes like unto flames of fire,” and were not consumed by the fire of God’s righteousness (1 Cor 3:12-15).

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

If you are enjoying this commentary you would appreciate owning "The Apocalypse" from which our commentary is excerpted.

The Apocalypse, is the introduction to the biblical book of Revelation. Here Bishop Hayes also gives a verse by verse commentary of the first three chapters of the Apostle John's Revelation of Jesus Christ, covering the letters addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor. The Bible student will thrill at the Bishop's easy evangelistic style of presenting deep and unique truths never before published. In this study a wealth of information will be shared with the disciples of Christ on each verse of this great manuscript.

Own your personal copy of this enlightening work by ordering at the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Introduction-Epistles-Seven-Churches/dp/1686423152/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Apocalypse&qid=1568308793&s=books&sr=1-1

Companion to "The Apocalypse" is "Letters to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology.

After spending over forty years in the dispensational doctrine, and having raise my children in that theological framework, I became a convinced adherent to a "kingdom" theology that recognizes the Church as the Israel of God, and that the first century actually saw the fulfillment of most of Matthew chapter 24. "Letters to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology" is a compilation of twenty four letters written to my children explaining my journey. These "Letters" provide a systematic approach to Apostolic Eschatological study of Scripture. It is sure to interest all students of Scriptures

Order your personal copy today from the link provided here:

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Children-Apostolic-Kingdom-Theology/dp/1482716712/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_2?keywords=Letters%2C+Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1558365492&s=books&sr=1-2-fkmrnull

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY PURCHASING MY BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY. -JLH

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Personal Convictions II

Can Something Be A Sin For Some, But Not For Others?

Apostle Paul addresses matters of Christian lifestyle in Romans chapter 14. Verses 4 and 5 should be common ground to all parties concerned in the discussion of such matters. “Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” In other words, some things are a matter of conscience. 

In this chapter the apostle Paul addresses those who are weak in the faith versus those who are strong in the faith. It is interesting, and a great revelation, to discover in verse 2 that it is the weak in the faith that adopt restrictive lifestyles, and the strong in the faith who practice liberties which those who are weak in the faith would feel to be wrong, or even sinful. Notice that Paul says in verses 1 and 2: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth he may eat all things, another, who is weak, eateth herbs.” 

Here the weak is juxtaposed with the strong. The strong in the faith believes he may eat all things, while the weak in the faith restricts that which he eats because of personal conviction.

In verse 14 the apostle Paul writes “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” In other words, the one who is weak in the faith (whose faith is timid) is bothered by many things; for such an one to partake of the things that his faith would not allow would be a sin—it would be unclean to him. While the same thing would not be unclean (i.e. sin) to the individual whose faith was stronger.

In verse 20 we have a similar statement from the Apostle: “For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense.” 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 is addressing the same thought. If we, who are strong in the faith, insist on our liberties at the expense of the timid consciousness of those who are weak, we are not walking in love; but are actually bringing offense by our liberties. So then, some things are a matter of conscience. If our conscience is not offended by liberties which holy Scripture does not prohibit, then happy are we; and we may exercise such liberties when appropriate to do so. But if a weaker brother is offended by our action, then we should refrain from the liberties for the sake of his conscience—not ours (1 Corinthians 10:23-33). 

The Apostle drives this point home in Romans 14:22-23, “Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God.” (Exercise your liberty in private, or where the weak in faith will not be offended.) “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he allows. And he that doubts is damned if he eats, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

Apostolically Speaking

☩ JLH

Personal Convictions

Be Mindful of Your Personal convictions

(They will most likely embarrass you later.)

Preaching “personal convictions” as holiness standards is one major problem with the Oneness Pentecostal Movement: Too many people preach personal convictions as doctrine.

One may hold personal convictions against any number of things, but have absolutely zero Bible to support the conviction — only personal opinion. Now, that tis O.K., but he/she should keep his/her personal conviction between himself/herself and God — until he/she grows a bit in the Lord.

I knew young man, once, who felt it was wrong to play checkers. In those days the Oneness people had monthly fellowship meetings and monthly youth rallies where we took turns moving these meetings around the district. At the fellowship meeting each preacher was given 3 to 5 minutes to "deliver his soul." Well, this young man was a preacher, and wouldn’t you know it, in each meeting he would use his few minutes ranting against checkers (he would throw TV in there from time to time).

 I still see that person from time to time. He is close to 70 years old now. You know, he is doing a great work for God, still at his age. But I noticed him playing checkers the other day with his grandson in Cracker Barrel. And, oh yes, he has a TV now also.

I am sure he looks back on those days when he was a babe in Christ with a smile and an appreciation for all of us who tolerated him while he was growing up.

Headcovering, In The Sacred Assembly

ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ

“In Sacred Assembly”

1 Corinthians 11-14

~Addresses Liturgical Decorum~

πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν, καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω. —1 Corinthians 11:18

Before we get too far along in this study we should settle a question that is on most peoples’ minds. “When is the Christian woman required to wear the headcovering?”

Many feel as though the covering is to be worn all the time during waking hours of the day. The Amish and some Mennonites follow this practice. Others feel as though the covering is only required in the assembly, when in corporate worship. Our concern is: What does the Bible teach? What was the Apostles’ intention?

What I am about to say, you have heard me say many times, and I will most likely say it many more times before the Lord calls me home, and that is this: “A text without its context is a pretext.”  I do not know who first said it, but he (or she) was a very bright person. Context is alway a necessary element of any interpretation of the written or spoken word. Since the subject of Christian headcovering is only addressed by Paul, and in this one place in Holy Scripture, the context, then, in which it is located is paramount to answering our question: “When is the Christian woman required to wear the headcovering?”

The Apostle’s instructions on headcovering are found within the context of Christians’ coming together in the church (Greek, sunerchomenōn humōn en ekklêsia [1 Cor. 11:17-18] ~ Joseph Henry Thayer: the sacred assembly). The church at Corinth had written to Paul asking several questions (1 Corinthians 7:1). For the most part this letter is the Apostle’s answers to their inquires. In chapters 11 through 14, Paul is addressing questions having to do with liturgical decorum. The saints at Corinth had gotten out of order regarding their public worship services—Paul writes to correct this.

The liturgy of the apostles’ church included three important things that Paul addresses in chapters 11 through 14: #1. the liturgical garment (the R.A.C.) — 11:3-16;  #2. the holy Eucharist — 11;17-34;  #3. the nine supernatural gifts of the Spirit—especially tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophesy — 12:1 - 14:40.

The liturgical garment of the headcovering relates directly to public speaking within the assembly. Paul writes, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven” (11:4-5). The “praying” spoken of here is not just any praying (in fact, it does not address private prayers at all) the context is praying within the assembly—more correctly, leading the congregation in prayer. Thus, speaking to God on behalf of the congregation. This is underlined by “praying” being coupled with “prophesying.” Prophesying is not done in private. When one prophesies he, or she, addresses the congregation on behalf of God. Prophesying requires an audience. By extrapolation, prophesying includes all nine of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Paul instructs the Christian women of Corinth that they were to wear the liturgical garment “because to the angels” (11:10). The writer of Hebrews informs us that Angels are present in our corporate worship in a special way; “But ye are come unto … an innumerable company of angels, …” (Hebrews 12:22). The Angels, who were affected by Lucifer’s rebellion, know the sin of the rejection of headship and are adversely affected by Christian women who are not covered in public worship. Since Angels are ministers of God to (and for) the saints, it is not a good thing for them to see Christian women signaling a rejection of their God-given headship.

The context of Paul’s instruction on the headcovering is “The Sacred Assembly” (Thayer, on 1 Corinthians 11:17-18): “That ye come together … when ye come together in the church, … .” Therefore, to require the R.A.C. outside the “sacred assembly” would be speaking where the Bible does not speak. We have no authority for such a requirement. The headcovering, being the Christian woman’s apostolically required liturgical garment, is only required in the corporate worship of the church (en ekklêsia). 

Moreover, Paul’s “required” covering speaks to a temporary Religious Article of Clothing (R.A.C.), as such it militates against the hair—which is a permanent covering referenced in v15.

Apostolically Speaking

☩ Jerry L Hayes