Sola Scriptura II

Jerry Lynn Hayes Sr 

 more

Contact Author

Only the Scripture

Introduction:

The following paper on Sola Scriptura was presented at a Berean Biblical Council, held in Portland, Maine during the summer of 1997.

Ladies and gentlemen brothers and sisters in Christ. It is indeed a great honor to write on such an important subject as “Sola Scripture.”

Intention: Permit me to present my intentions at the very beginning of this paper. My intentions are as follows:

1. To define what we mean by “Sola Scriptura.”

2. To show that the holy Scripture is the sole depository of truth. I intend to show this by the testimony of the holy Scripture itself, thereby, showing that if Scripture is to be believed at all it is to be accepted as the sole depository of truth.

3. To show that the claims of councils, creeds, and synods (unless supported by the holy Scripture) are to be discounted; thereby, showing the unreliability of councils, creed, et cetera.

4. To show the reliability of holy Scripture.

The Body

The Definition of “Sola Scriptura.”

It must be stated clearly what we mean by the term “Sola Scriptura” lest there be a misunderstanding from the very first. By this term we do not imply that the true Church could not sit in council on matters which would require the wisdom of the Holy Spirit within the body of Christ. For, indeed, the holy Scripture gives us precedent for such councils, as is demonstrated by Acts chapter 15. Nor should it be understood that we are anti-creedal, for when we say “No Creed but Christ,” or 'No Creed but the Bible" we concede that such statements are themselves creeds. Likewise, in our declaration of “Sola Scriptura” we have, in effect, a creed. It follows then that what is meant by our statement, “Sola Scriptura,” is that the Scriptures must remain the “sole” standard of truth; i. e. the councils may form, and make determinations—only within the context of Scripture; creeds may be written—but only within the confines of holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture is the Sole Depository of Truth, and The Sacredness of Holy Scripture

Permit me to speak to you of the sacredness of Scripture. Time and again the Holy Spirit informs us that the holy Scripture is complete and exclusive; therefore, in need of no Counsel, or Creed, to expand or edit Its precepts.

Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, ...”

Revelation 22:18, 19 “For I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add to these words, God add to him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

And also:

Deuteronomy 12:32 “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”

Then, again:

Proverbs 30:6 “Add not to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

The Holy Scripture Is The Only Standard Of Faith

One of the Bible’s absolutes is that there is but one Faith (Ephesians 4:5). There’s not one Faith of the Bible and another Faith of the church fathers. When the two conflict, we can do nothing but adhere to the testimony of the Scripture. The holy Scripture speaks for Itself and proclaims Itself to be the only standard of faith.

Isaiah 8:20“To the law and to the testimony: if they seek not according to this word, it is because they have no light in them.”

John 12:48 “He that… receiveth not my words, hath one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

The Reality of Holy Scripture.

It will be argued that it was the Church which gave us the Scripture. It also will be argued that the church is the “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). To these two suggestions permit me to make comment.

First, it is true that the church contains the Living Word of God (as it is embodied in the anointing of the Holy Spirit, present with and in the Church), but one must consider how that fact came to be true. Peter tells us that we (the Church) are “born not corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever.” This being true, it would appear that the Word of God existed BEFORE the church IF, indeed, one is born into the church by the Word of God.

Second, as to the church being the pillar and ground of the truth, it must be pointed out that a pillar is the support. Now, inasmuch as the truth is the Word of God (John 17:17) it is evident that the church is the support for the Word of God: not that the Church Is the Word of God. Also we note that “ground” denotes a nurturer. Just as seed is dropped into the ground and through the warmth and moisture contained therein the seed is caused to grow: even so, the Word of God deposited in the Church is caused to produce fruit.

Moreover, it is clear from the testimony of the Scripture, itself, that the holy Scripture was reality from the very beginning of the church. For those who would say that the New Testament did not exist until certain books were canonized, the following is pointed out:

The New Testament existed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the New Testament enfolded; the New Testament is the Old Testament unfolded. John 5:46, “Moses wrote of me,” Jesus said; Hebrews 9:8, “... the Holy Ghost this signifying; 10:1, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come;” Galatians 3:24, “ ... for the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ;” Romans 16:25–26, “ ... according to the revelation of the Mystery, … now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets…;”

It was not the canonizing that made the writings of the New Testament church holy; They were God breathed and holy from the first: 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by the inspiration of God.” Peter referred to the writings of Paul as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). The New Testament preachers were not just winging it, creating and formalizing as they went. They preached the Scriptures.

Acts 2:14 Peter preaches the prophets Joel and David;

Acts chapter 3 Peter preaches Moses and the prophets;

Acts chapter 7, Stephen preached Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, and Jesus;

Acts 8:30, Philip preached Isaiah;

Acts chapter 13, Paul preaches Genesis through Judges;

Acts 15:16, James teaches the prophet Amos;

Acts chapter 17, Paul reasoned with the Jews from the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Acts 18:24 – 28 Apollos preached Christ from Old Testament Scriptures.

The Seat of Authority.

When considering the source of authority in the Kingdom one is faced with two major arguments: a. Sola Scriptura, or b. The wisdom of the Church as it is preached in the councils and creeds, et cetera. The following arguments are presented to show that the source of authority for the church is the Word of God.

Peter is given the keys to bind and loose: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19) Contrary to popular belief Peter was NOT given a blank check to bind and loose as he chose. The text of the verbs “dedemenon” (bind) and “lelumenon” (loose) are PERFECT. The perfect tense in the Greek language indicates a completed action which has consequences in the present. Therefore, Jesus is telling Peter, Whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Clearly, it is not Heaven that will follow Peter’s lead, but Peter who must follow Heaven’s lead: in that he could only bind and loose what Heaven had ALREADY bound and loosed. (Hebrews 4:3).

The authority that bound and loosed “in heaven” prior to the keys being given to Peter was accomplished by the Word of God. We are told in John chapter 1 that all things were made by the word of God. The Psalmist agrees, in that he says “by the Word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” We know the authority that is in the name of Jesus (Philippians 2:2 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;), yet we are informed that the Word of God has been exalted above His name (Psalms138:2).

Even Peter, himself, speaks of “A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY” (2 Peter 1:19) which is the light that shines in a dark place. Paul declares the Gospel of Christ to be “The Power of God unto Salvation” (Romans 1:16). Furthermore, Peter identifies this gospel to be the “The Word of the Lord that endureth for ever,” (1 Peter 1:25).

The Faith of Scripture Is Complete

We cannot speak of holy Scripture without coming face-to-face with its claim of exclusiveness. To say that the Bible is the Word of God without the aid of counsel or creed is to only agree with Its opinion of Itself.

In Luke 24:45 we are told that Jesus breathed upon His disciples and said, Receive the holy Spirit. Further, in (John 20:22) we are informed that He opened their understanding that they might understand the scripture. As a result of this, the ministers of that first generation, which gave us the New Testament scripture, were able to make very bold and exact declarations. Declarations like:

“It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto the…” ( Luke, Luke 1:3).

“Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached it to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Paul, Galatians 1:8–9).

“Receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save your souls… But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty and continue therein, he… shall be blessed in his deed.” (James, James 1:21, 25).

“Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.”(Jude v3).

Thus, the Scripture gives testimony that Its writers’ and Its texts contains the complete and exclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ. Luke had perfect understanding and wrote the same; Paul declared his gospel to be complete and exclusive, and pronounced a curse upon anyone, man or angel, who would veer from its course; James proclaimed the Word of God as “Perfect.” (Perfect: to be entirely without fault or defect, satisfy all requirements, pure, total, absolute, unequivocal, mature); Jude admonishes the Christian to contend for the faith (system of religious beliefs) that was “once and for all time delivered to the saints:” for that is surely the tense of the verb (pradotheisē—delivered), i.e. aorist.Therefore, any system of belief that goes beyond, or stops short of, that which is found in the pages of the holy Scripture must be rejected as a work of man—as he has been inspired by our arch adversary, the Devil.

Concerning Holy Tradition

Truly, we are instructed by Paul to: “... stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or by epistle;” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

It is just here, however, that our problem arises. Those things which the councils and creeds profess to have been spoken orally by the apostles are, far too often, out of step with what the apostles actually wrote. It is blasphemy to suggest that the apostles would teach with the living voice things contrary to their epistles. Paul taught the same things to all the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17; Galatians 1:8). Furthermore, he declares that all true disciples walked in the same spirit and steps (2 Corinthians 12:18).

Surely, tradition can be holy, but only inasmuch as it confines itself to the parameters of the holy Scripture. When it is said by the “fathers” (so-called) that the apostles taught “thus and so” but the “thus and so” cannot be supported by the Scripture, then, it would be advisable to heed the council of the prophet: “Walk not in the statues of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourself with their idols: I am the LORD your God; walk in my statues, and keep my judgments, and do them.” (Ezekiel 20:18 – 19). Also, we should notice that: Jesus cried against the elders of Israel (Mark 7:6–8).

The Unreliability of Councils and Creeds: If we, as Christians, are asked to place our trust in the Councils and Creeds, as though they were God’s rule of faith, then there must be absolute credibility surrounding them. In all honesty this is a problem, in view of the following:

1. The Creed of Nicaea Versus the Nicene Creed: In A. D. 325 there was a true ecumenical council conducted in Nicaea, Asia Minor, with 318 bishops present, both Western and Eastern. The Creed of this Council was revised in the year 381 at Constantinople. This Council of A. D. 381, with 150 Bishops, none of which were from the West, produced a Creed that was quite different from the one formulated in Nicaea, just 56 years earlier. Although the Constantinopolitan Creed was (for all intents and purposes) a different document from the Creed of Nicaea, it was injected into the life stream of the Church as The Nicene Creed. This Creed of 150 Eastern bishops (falsely called The Nicene Creed) was, first of all, not ecumenical, because it excluded the Western bishops; and second, it was not Nicene, because it introduced dogma alien to that of Nicaea: eternally begotten Son; places Mary as an equal partner in the incarnation; places Jesus in an actual right hand position to God the Father; places the Holy Spirit in an equal position of worship with the Father and the Son. The Council of A. D. 381 misrepresents itself on at least two accounts: First, it claims to be ecumenical, and is not; Second, it claims to be The Nicene Creed, and is not.

2. Nicene Anathema Versus Constantinople Anathema: At the end of the the Creed of Nicaea (in the year A. D. 325) 318 bishops placed the following anathema, to protect the teaching that Jesus was the same hypostasis (substance, essence, being) as the Father:

“Whoso assert that he, the Son of God, is a different hypostasis or ousia, … Or, changeable or mutable, the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”

History states that many of the bishops present at Nicaea in A. D. 325 were not happy with the wording concerning the oneness of Christ with the Father. However, the Modalist element was strong enough to retain the concept of one hypostasis for the next 228 years, then enter the Second Council of Constantinople, the year was A. D. 553:

“If anyone does not confess that the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three ... hypostases, or persons, let him be anathema.”

In the light of the fact that the Council of Nicaea in 325 anathematizes those bishops of the Second Council of Constantinople (A. D. 553), and the bishops of the Second Council of Constantinople anathematizes those of the Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), one cannot, in confidence, blindly accept the councils as being from God. (In 228 years this “Catholic” church totally reversed its position on the person of Christ; and anathemas were being flung across the centuries.)

3. Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) and Theotokos: This Council declared Mary to be Theotokos (Mother of God). But the cloud appears over this council when we learn of the political friction between the bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople (Cyril and Nestorius, respectively), and that the council convened and made its decisions before the bishops from Antioch (who were orthodox, but also were sympathetic to Nestorius [who,himself was from Antioch, and was the source of contention over the term, "Theotokos"]) had even arrived at the Council to explain their position. If the idea of councils and creeds is the collective wisdom of the church, it surely was ignored at this point.

4. Nicaea Versus Constantinople Concerning Images: The Seventh Ecumenical Council was held in Nicaea 787. This Council of Nicaea, in A. D. 787, nullified the Council of A. D. 754, that was convened in Constantinople. The Synod of Constantinople (A. D. 754) had condemned image veneration and stated that the only representations of the person of Christ permitted were the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper. Thirty-three years later the Council of Nicaea (A. D. 787) overturned and made null and void the Synod of Constantinople (A. D. 754).

The list could go on, but permit me to mention but one other matter:

5. The Apostles Creed (Falsely Called): This Creed was reported to have been formed by the apostles ten days after the ascension of Christ. However, it is clear that the apostles knew nothing of such a creed. As a point in truth, the present creed which bears that title dates no earlier than the late 600s or early 700s, and is most likely based on the baptismal creed of Hippolytus. ( Hippolytus was the first antipope. He was pastor of a schism church in Rome that was in opposition to the mother church, where the theology was quite different from his. Although Hippolytus was a semi-Trinitarian, the true Bishop of Rome was a Monarchian—as were his predecessors.)

It causes no small concern that a creed formed outside of Scripture would be given the name “Apostles Creed.” The common people were made to receive it as the rule of faith. They accepted it as from God, because they were told that the apostles themselves formed it. Therefore it’s teachings have been, for centuries, predicated upon lies. It must be remembered that a stream can be no purer than the fountain which produces it.

The Reliability of Holy Scripture.

The Holy Word of God speaks in Its own defense, and avows that It is:

Divinely Inspired: “All scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 2:16).

Absolutely Trustworthy: “Heaven and earth shall passed away; but my words shall not pass away;” (Luke 21:33).

Sacred: “Add thou not going to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:6).

The Standard of Faith: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed;” (Galatians 1:8).

The Agent of the New Birth: “Being born again, not a corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever;” (1 Peter 1:23).

Eternally Unchangeable: "Forever, Oh Lord, thy Word is settled in Heaven. "(Psalms 119:89).

“THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOREVER”

(ISAIAH 40:8) (Hebrew: Yaqum—Rises To Stand)

Century follows century;

Empires rise and fall;

Despised and torn to pieces;

Storms of hate swirl around it;

Atheists rail against it;

Thunderbolts of wrath smite it;

Arrows of hate are discharged against it;

The tooth of time gnaws but does not scar it;

An anvil that has broken a million hammers ...

Yaqum - The Bible Rises to Stand!

Apostolically Speaking

☩ Jerry Hayes

Finding God's Grace in Divorce and Remarriage

 Words of Introduction

As we approach our topic there are some introductory remarks that must be made. These words are necessary before beginning the exposition of the several texts that are germane to this study.

At the very first, we must agree that divorce must never be seen as an Easy Fix to any marriage that is not perfect—for no marriage ever is. However, it must also be acknowledged that divorce is a biblical ordinance instituted and regulated by God in the Old Testament Law (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4); the teachings of Jesus that are found in Matthew 5:27-28; 31-32; 19:1-9, with the parallel passages of Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; and the instructions of the apostles which are represented in 1 Corinthians 7:1-40. Through these relevant texts it is demonstrated that Christ (and His Church) not only recognized the legitimacy of divorce, but extended its privilege beyond the parameters of the Old Testament (which limited the right of divorce to husbands), to include the wife within its prerogatives (see Mark 10:11 and 1 Corinthians 7:15).

Biblical marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman, binding each to perform certain socially prescribed roles that are at once physical and spiritual in their reach. This contract covered the lifetime of the contracting parties.

However, it is equally as important to understand that the “Bill of Divorcement” is a legal instrument which removes the obligations of a marriage contract that is, essentially, a sociopolitical concept. The Christian teaching is that, religiously, divorce originally laid outside Godʼs will; but politically had to be allowed because sin entered into the human family. Therefore, in the tension between the religious high ground of an idealistic state of no divorce, and the practical reality of political necessity which allows it, there are two basic ethical questions asked by Christians:
1.) Is a Christian ever justified in seeking a divorce?
2.) Once divorced, may a Christian remarry?

When considering whether divorce is ever right, one must recognize that Yahweh, Himself, divorced Israel. I give the passages here for the readers’ consideration:
Isaiah 50:1 

“Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your motherʼs divorcement, whom I have put away? ... and for your transgressions is your mother put away.”
And,

Jeremiah 3:8
“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had her put away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”

Having, as we do, these passages before us (where Yahweh engaged in divorce against an unfaithful wife) it must be admitted, if we are honest, by all concerned, that there is no unrighteousness with God. This is emphasized by the Psalmist when he writes: “The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works” (Psalms 145:17). We also know that the Holy One cannot commit sin. This truth is elucidated by the Beloved Apostle: “Whosoever committed sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. ... He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:4-5, 8).

So, then, the Lord God, Himself, divorced His wife because of unfaithfulness. Some say He divorced Israel to take the Gentile church for His new bride. Whether this is true, or not, is not really the point. The point is that most who teach against divorce and remarriage believe and accept it. Many see the story of Estherʼs replacement of Queen Vashti (see the Old Testament book of Esther) as a type of Israel being replaced by the Church. It is not our purpose to defend, or deny, the validity of these types, but only to show that most schools of thought accept the metaphor of divorce in Yahwehʼs relationship with His wife Israel. The fact, then, that Yahweh divorced His wife is proof that there is no intrinsic evil in divorce. Why? Because There Is No Evil in God! (See Psalms 145: 17 above.)

Because Of the Hardness of Your Hearts 

Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses (and, by association, God) allowed husbands to divorce their wives because of “... the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8). Here, the phrase “hardness of your hearts” references husbands who have stopped loving and caring for their wives. Moses allowed divorce in order to set the woman free to go to another man—who would love and care for her. The Words of Institution, written by Moses (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), makes this point clear (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4). The law of First Mention (one of the laws of the Art and Science of Scriptural Interpretation) sets the scriptural tone, for divorce, that resounds throughout the Bible. That tone is Mercy. The Law of Moses instituted divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to emancipate rejected wives from husbands whose hearts had grown hard toward them. One need only recall the words of Jesus: “... Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives” (Matthew 19:8).

We should not think, here, that God is catering to the sin-nature of the hardhearted Israelites; that would be unworthy of a holy deity. No! That the Almighty granted divorce is not a caving-in to the callousness of the husbands on Godʼs part; it was in consideration for the rejected and unloved wives.

When Chrysostom (lived A. D. 347-407) wrote on this statement (i.e. “the hardness of your hearts”), he suggested that the Lord God allowed divorce for both moral and social reasons. It would be good to quote him at some length here:

“There was an ancient law made that he who hated his wife, for whatever kind of cause, should not be forbidden to cast her out, and to bring home another instead of her. The law, however, did not command him simply to do this, but after giving the woman a writing of divorcement, that it might not be in her power to return to him again; that so at least the figure of the marriage not remain.

“For if He had not enjoined this, but it were lawful first to cast her out, and take another, and afterwards to take back the former the confusion was sure to be great, all men continually taking each otherʼs wives; and the matter thenceforth would have been direct adultery. With a view to this He devised, as no small mitigation, the writing of divorcement.

“But these things were done by reasons of another, and far greater wickedness; I mean, had He made it necessary to keep in the house her even that was hated, the husband, hating, would have killed her. For such was the race of the Jews. For they who did not spare children, who slew prophets, and “shed blood as water,” (see Psalms 76:3), much more would they have shown no mercy to women. For this case He allowed the less, to remove the greater evil. For that it is not a primary law, hear Him saying, ʻMoses wrote these things according to the hardness of your heartsʼ that he might not slay them in the house, but rather put them out. But for as much as He had taken away all wrath, having forbidden not murder only, but even the mere feeling of anger, He with ease introduces this law likewise. With this view also He is ever bringing to mind the former words, to signify that His sayings are not contrary to them, but in agreement: that He is enforcing, not overthrowing them; perfecting, not doing them away.” (John Chrysostom, homily XXVII. On Matthew V. 27, 28).

According to the understanding of the great and noble Chrysostom, divorce was allowed and regulated, to discourage the hardness of the Jewsʼ hearts, also, to militate against wholesale adultery, and even murder.

While we must be quick to denounce the violence done to the holy institution of marriage by the easy button of divorce in our modern society, we must acknowledge the God-given right to a “bill of divorcement” as a testimony of Godʼs mercy and love for the one who is no longer loved, and is being held bound to an unmerciful master: namely, a husband with a hardened heart; or in our day, perhaps, even a wife.

Christian Teaching: Egalitarian

In the Old Testament economy, the right to divorce belonged to husbands only. “While the woman could not divorce her husband, she could go before the court and compel him to divorce her if he had certain diseases, if he was engaged in certain obnoxious trades, made vows to her detriment, or forced her to make such vows” (Sherman E. Johnson: The Interpreterʼs Bible).

Flavius Josephus, writing in the last quarter of the first century, gives testimony to the helplessness of the Jewish wife if her husband chose not to divorce her. When recording the account of Salome (the sister of Herod the Great) divorcing her husband, Costobarus, Josephus writes: “But sometime afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is only lawful for a husband to do so; but not the wife; if she departs from her husband she cannot, of herself, be married to another, unless her husband put her away.” (Josephus, antiquities 15. 7. 13 [259]).

Under these circumstances a wife may still be held in an unhappy existence where she is unloved and uncared for; the husband would simply take another wife while ignoring the unloved one. Such practices were prevalent because plural marriages were allowed, under the Old Testament economy.

However, the event of Christ, and the establishing of His church, extended the prerogative of divorce beyond the husband to include the wife. Jesus alludes to the right of a wife to divorce her husband in Mark 10:12 (this passage will be examined thoroughly a little later). Moreover, the apostle Paul states the case clearly:  “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” (1 Corinthians 7:15). We must take note here that even a “sister” is not to be held bound to a husband that leaves her.

Christian law was extended by the Apostle Paul, from sexual impropriety (as taught by Christ in Matthew 5:32), to include abandonment as indicated above. According to the Shepherd of Hermas (Mandates 4), and from the Second Apology of Justin Martyr, we learn of a persecution that was brought upon the Christians for just such a practice of divorce.

The egalitarian nature of the Lordʼs church is demonstrated by the right to divorce and remarry being granted to both sexes, as is seen in both the teachings of Jesus (Mark 10:11-12), and of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 7:15).

The Bill of Divorce and Remarriage

The phrase, “divorce and remarriage,” is redundant (although we use it repeatedly in this work), in that the “bill of divorcement” is the LICENSE to remarry. To validate this, one need only read the Words of Institution on divorce:
“... then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another manʼs wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1-2).

There is no confusion in the statement, “... she may go and be another manʼs wife.” The legal permission, granted by the “bill of divorcement,” to remarry is witnessed to by Josephus, where he said: “... but a wife, if she departs from her husband cannot of herself be married to another, unless her husband put her away.” (Antiquities 15. 7. 13 [259]). The putting away spoken of by Josephus is of course the “bill of divorcement” that only the husband could grant, under the Jewish law (i.e. Law of Moses).

The central thought of this treatise is that: The “bill of divorcement” is the license (legal permission) to remarry. Far too often, many in the Western world view divorce as intrinsically evil. But, as we have seen from the Words of Institution (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) that is simply not the case. In fact, the fundamental purpose for Yahweh granting divorce was to free a woman from an unloving, and possibly abusive, husband. In this case the womanʼs “bill of divorcement” announced, to whomever presented, her authority to remarry.

This truth is so often overlooked by those teachers who, not knowing the Word of God, wish to lay burdens upon people that are grievous to bear. These teachers remind one of the Pharisees of Jesusʼ day who EXPANDED the commandments from 10 to 613. Jesus said to his disciples concerning them: “... do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on menʼs shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments” (Matthew 23:3-5).

The enlarging of their phylacteries and the hems of their garments were indicative of their enlarging of the law: namely, demanding more than the Word of God required. At some egotistical level, satisfaction was achieved by influencing their followers to live more severe lifestyles than required by their God-given law.

From time to time this kind of task-mastering is witnessed in the Lordʼs Church, and should be resisted. It should be resisted because it flies in the face of apostolic principal which levies no heavier burden “than the necessary things” (see Acts 15:28).

Sadly, this pharisaical spirit is at work motivating the unlearned to teach and preach against the institution of divorce. One cannot help but wonder: What sickness of the soul garners satisfaction from seeing a fellow Christian suffering in a matrimonial state of affairs where he or she is unloved and mistreated? Whether the abuse is physical or emotional matters little.

This is especially unfortunate since Father God instituted (through the prophet/lawgiver Moses) the Bill of Divorcement, for the specific purpose of freeing one from such circumstances (Deuteronomy 24 1-4); circumstances which arose because of the HARDNESS of the hearts of the men of Israel (Matthew 19:8).

In Conclusion

Having written these introductory remarks, I will attempt to do an E2 (Expository Exegesis) of the texts which speak to the subject of divorce, and by association, remarriage. Also, in the coming chapters one may expect to find the subject of adultery addressed in a straightforward manner.

This study will bring us to the following texts: Matthew 5:27-28, 31-32; 19:1-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:1-40.

It would be impossible for me to overemphasize the need for having a thorough understanding of the above passages, so that we may be ready to give an answer to every person who asks us the reason for our faith (1 Peter 3:15). The Bible instructs us to: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

The phrase “rightly dividing” is the Greek “orthotomeo” (Strongʼs #NT3718) meaning: to make a straight cut, or, to cut straight through. There is no zigging and zagging in order to miss or bypass an uncomfortable clause, or text.

With the Holy Spirit of God as our guide, we will attempt to follow Paulʼs instructions, as here given, to  his son Timothy

Apostolically Speaking,

☩☩Jerry L Hayes, D.D.

This essay is excerpted from the author's book entitled: Finding God's Grace in Divorce and Remarriage. You may purchase this classic work at the link provided here: 

https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Gods-Grace-Divorce-Remarriage-ebook/dp/B012C07RG0/ref=sr_1_1?crid=39C836ZTNBUC9&keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+divorce&qid=1689558389&s=books&sprefix=bishop+jerry+hayes%2C+divorce%2Cstripbooks%2C134&sr=1-1&asin=B012C07RG0&revisionId=b5a9be4a&format=2&depth=1

Thank you for your support by purchasing my books for your library.

To Have Power On Her Head (1 Corinthian 11:10)

“Ought The Woman” 

Previously, we looked at the statement from verse 10 “for this cause,” and there we found four causes; here we examine the next statement, “ought the woman.” These three simple words from verse 10 inform us that there is a moral devoir that rests on women to maintain a dress code that does not apply to the men (see v7). In this case Christian women are morally obligated before God to display a  symbol of their rank in Godʼs economy of order. From verse 10 we learn that the women “ought” to do the very thing that verse 7 says the men “ought not” to do: namely, cover their heads when praying or prophesying. (See Debate Chart HC #7.)

(As a by-the-by, the “ought not” of verse 7 and the “ought ” of verse 10 serve to illustrate that hair is not the covering being required by the Apostle. Men “ought not” to cover their heads when praying or prophesying, the Apostle writes. Is the Apostle saying: Men “ought not” to grow hair long before praying or prophesying? As if that would be possible. Further, is the Apostle instructing the Christian women that they, on the other hand, “ought” to, indeed, grow their hair long upon entering the assembly to pray or prophesy? As if they could. In that the covering is required only in the assembly when praying or prophesying, and not required otherwise (See Debate Chart HC #5), militates against the covering being hair. Simple reasoning would lay the hair issue to rest, if one were honest.)

In Ephesians 5:28-32 the Apostle Paul draws a parallel between a husband and wife, and Christ and his Church. In this apostolic teaching the man represents Christ, and the woman represents the Church. Therefore, each gender of the Lordʼs congregation has a moral obligation to manifest Christ and his Church to the world at large. The Bible tells us that we are living epistles read of all men (2 Corinthians 3:21). The world may never read the Holy Scripture, but they see and read the Christian life every day. So then, just as the Church is to be in submission to Christ (her head), so is the Christian woman to be in submission to her male head (her husband in particular). She should demonstrate this in her life, but particularly in the assembly of the saints.

The church must practice scriptural order; only by doing this can the angels (who are ministering spirits sent forth from God to minister in behalf of those who are heirs of salvation [Hebrews 1:142) minister in the fashion heaven intends. The Scripture teaches clearly that women are to have a covering over their heads “because of the angels.” If we desire the angels to minister TO US on heavenʼs behalf and TO HEAVEN on our behalf, then we must exercise the order of headship that God, Himself, has placed in the Church through His faithful apostle: Paul.

“To Have Power On Her Head” (See Debate Chart HC #60)

Here we come to the central statement of the text. The woman is to have “power on her head.” What could such a statement mean?

Now, admittedly the King James Version (KJV) has a difficult rendering at this place for modern English speaking people—because of its attempt to give a word-for-word rendering of the Greek. Therefore, one should considered a thought-to-thought translation of the original language. When the apostle said “to have power...,” the Greek word is “exousian;” it is a  biblical idiom3 which has the sense in the Greek: “to have a symbol of authority” (semeian exousias).

The phrase, from the KJV, “to have power on her head because of the angels” is a biblical idiom. (An idiom is “an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own” [Merriam Webster]; examples of American idioms are: kick the bucket or hang one's head.) When Bible teachers attempt to interpret such passages without understanding the idiom, a wrong interpretation is unavoidable. Recently, in Oneness Pentecostal circles just such a misinterpretation  has become popular—for just this reason.  “Power on her head” is taught as just that—“power on her head.” It is being taught by such popular Pentecostal personalities as Lee Stoneking4, that a woman’s long, uncut, hair (on her actual head) is actual “power” with God through the Angels.  Women are encouraged to unpin their long hair and drape it over the sick and infirm for healing power5.  Christian households are assured of divine protection because of the power “on” the mothers’ and daughters’ heads, in the form of their long, uncut, hair. Divine wisdom is said to be passed on from the wife to the husband because of the “power on her head” (i.e. long-uncut-hair). The author is third generation Oneness Pentecostal6, and gives testimony that this  is an innovation to Oneness Pentecost teaching that was never mentioned in his youth, nor in his early ministry. As an innovation, it violates the the Scriptural command to not add to, or take away from,  God’s Word:

Deuteronomy 4:2

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, ...”

Revelation 22:18, 19

“For I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add to these words, God add to him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

And also:

Deuteronomy 12:32

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”

Then, again:

Proverbs 30:6

“Add not to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

As is evident from the above texts, such an innovation is a sin, and those teaching it are not teaching truth.

This author witnessed Lee Stoneking teach this very error in his sermon entitled “The Order of Creation.” The authority for teaching resident “power” on the Christian woman’s head is arrived at by a literal interpretation of the phrase: “power on her head.” Stoneking went systematically from word to word giving each word’s meaning from the dictionary. When he was finished he strung the definitions together and arrived at his thesis statement. What follows is a transcription from Stoneking’s sermon “The Order of Creation” at about minute 32:20,

“I want to work with ought, power and because.

“The word ‘ought,’ in the Greek means: owe, or be indebted;

“The word ‘power’ in the Greek means, the ability, authority, rule;

“The Word ‘because’ in the Greek means, through, by, or with.

“So, what this verse is actually saying, therefore, ‘The woman is indebted, or owes her authority on her head, through, by, or with Angels.’ The word ‘power’—the original meaning, the ability to perform an act, the right, the authority, (this is incredible, this is incredible) and, the permission conferred by a higher court—permission conferred by a higher court.

“‘For this cause the woman is owing or indebted to the inward power which is conferred upon her by a higher court with the Angels.’

“That is what that verse is saying.”

Now, Stoneking has done with an idiom exactly what cannot be done. He has defined (sic) each word, and arrives at his thesis from those definitions.  This is an impossible hermeneutic7 for an idiom. Remember Merriam Webster: “an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own.” 

Understanding the Idiom

One would do well to consider this phrase (“power on her head”) from a number of other translations of the Bible. (Keep in mind that Bible translators must be familiar with the idioms of the language they are translating.) Given here is a sampling to consider:

• Todayʼs English Version of the Bible translates: “... have a covering over her head to show she is under her husbandʼs authority.”    
• Philips Modern English Version of the Bible translates: “... to bear on her head an outward sign of manʼs authority.”   
• New American Standard Bible translates: “... therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.”   
• The Amplified Bible translates: “Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them].”

The reading of “power on her head” from the KJV is awkward, and provides an opportunity for misinterpretation by the unlearned, as we have witnessed. However, as we have also seen, the readings from other respected versions of God’s Word clears up the confusion very quickly. But there is another problem with the “long-uncut-hair” crowd: Namely, their unwillingness to accept New Testament Greek scholarship, and their determined fidelity to the twentieth century American innovation (that is but three generations in the making) of long-uncut-hair as Paul’s required covering. Because modern English versions of the Bible remove the ambiguous readings of the A.D. 1611 King James Version, which allows a certain amount of misinterpretations, those who hold dogmatically to the required covering of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 being long-uncut-hair seem bound, even chained, to the KJV for perpetuity.

Going back to the King James Version rendering, the word “power” is, of course, the Greek word “exousian” and means, authority. The Greek schalor A. T. Robertson writes: 

“To have a sign of authority (exousian echein). He means sēmeion exousia (symbol of authority) by exousian, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman's head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. ... .”) 

This strange rendering is, nonetheless, biblical. The biblical idiom is visible throughout the Scripture. This particular idiom is visible whenever the symbol of the principle is often named as the principle itself. Therefore, the headcovering is here called the “power” or “authority” that the Christian woman is to manifest. Many examples can be found throughout the Word of God where the symbol of a thing is actually called by the name of the thing that it symbolizes. Included here are three examples:

1. The act of circumcision is actually called “the covenant” (Genesis 17:10-138), when in
   
   
   reality it is the symbol of the covenant. Therefore, the phrase “the covenant,” in this passage, is an idiom for circumcision.
2. The lamb slain at the time of Passover is actually called “the passover” (Exodus 12:21), when in truth it is but the symbol of all that the Passover entailed. Therefore, the phrase, “the passover,” in this passage, is an idiom for the actual lamb.  
3. In our present case (1 Corinthians 11:109) “power on her head” means that the Christian woman is to display on her head a sign or token that she is under the authority of her male head. Therefore, the phrase “power on her head” is an idiom for a cloth veil (RAC) on her head.

Apostolically Speaking,

☩☩Jerry L Hayes D.D.

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

Footnotes:

¹ 2 Cor 3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

² Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

³ idiom: noun

a. an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristic 

b. a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.

c. a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language. 

d. the peculiar character or genius of a language.

⁴ Lee Stoneking: A leading United Pentecostal Church International, pastor/evangelist. Graduated from Apostolic Bible Institute, St. Paul, Minnesota in 1967; Received Ordination to the Ministry  April 12, 1968; Bachelor of Theology in Apostolic Studies; Apostolic Bible College - St. Paul, Minnesota; Doctor of Christian Philosophy in Christian Education - Institute for Christian Works Bible College and Seminary - South Carolina Campus; Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Divinity; Southern Eastern University; addressed the United Nations General Assembly (April 22, 2015) about being raised from the dead; Stoneking has never married.

⁵ This very act was done in the author’s home town of Parsons, Tennessee. Ladies from the local United Pentecostal Church visited a terminally sick Sister while in the hospital. There were several, at least three, ladies that unpinned their long hair and draped it over the sick person while they prayed for her. They believed the teaching from their church that there was power with the angels in their long-uncut-hair to heal the sick. The sick lady died. ~ This type of activity walks very close—too close—to witchcraft.

⁶ Both paternal and maternal grandparents of the author were converted to Pentecostalism in the second decade of the 20th century—over 100 years ago.

⁷ hermeneutic: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) 2.  a method or principle of interpretation

⁸ Gen 17:10-13 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

⁹ Ex 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.