Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Dating the Book of Revelation


 It seems right to me to take a look at the date for the writing of the book of Revelation. For, whether Revelation was written before or after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the desolation of the Jewish nation, determines how its prophecies are to be understood. For example: if the book of Revelation was written AFTER the taking of Jerusalem and the razing of the temple then one must look beyond the first century for the fulfillment of ALL its prophecies. On the other hand, if Revelation has a date earlier than A.D. 70  much of its content is very likely to have been fulfilled within the context of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans. This writing will examine the issue and attempt to answer the question: Does Revelation have an early date (i.e. before A.D. 70), or a late date (i.e. after A.D. 70)?
Two periods have been suggested for the date of the writing of the Revelation: we can best categorize these periods as EARLY and LATE dates. The “early” date would most likely be within the reign of Nero Caesar (A.D. 54-68), while the “late” date would be the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96).

There is much EXTERNAL evidence (namely, evidence outside of the Bible itself) that would suggest a later date (the traditional date is A.D. 95). However, this “EXTERNAL” evidence is supplied primarily by the Catholic fathers: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, and Eusebius: none of which are representatives of the Apostolic Faith of the first century. Juxtaposed to these witnesses is the INTERNAL evidence (i.e. biblical) which indicates the earlier date of Nero’s reign (A.D. 54-69).
Before we look at the INTERNAL evidence for the early date, it will be good to explore the witnesses for the late date theory. Primarily, we will examine Irenaeus and Eusebius. Irenaeus is third century - Eusebius is fourth century.
While both Irenaeus and Eusebius argue for the late date of the reign of Emperor Domitian for the writing of the book of Revelation, they are not agree on the author. Irenaeus says John the apostle; Eusebius says, John the elder. Furthermore, it appears that the late date and the Ephesus residence of John the Apostle go hand-in-hand. Irenaeus claims that through his teachers, Polycarp and Papias, he has direct record of John the Apostle’s residence and work in the Ephesian region (Her. III.3.4; V.33.4). Irenaeus reports hearing these things from Polycarp when he (Irenaeus) was a boy (Eusebius, History, V. 20. 5). Irenaeus, further claims that Papias was a hearer of John the apostle. Counter to the claim of Irenaeus (that Papias was a hearer of John), Eusebius states flatly that “Papias himself, in the preface to his discourse, makes it plain that he was in no sense a hearer and eyewitness of the holy apostles” (History’s, III. 39. 2). Eusebius goes on to quote Papias as making a distinction between the Apostle John and John the Elder (Histories, 39. 2). Polycrates of Ephesus speaks of the Ephesian residents of “John” and adds that he was a “priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate” (Eusebius, Histories, V. 24. 3); this would suggest a “John” who was of priestly origin—most likely not the apostle. At any rate, if Irenaeus was wrong concerning Papias having heard John the apostle, and he seems to have been, then the force of his testimony is considerably weakened. Compounding his credibility problem is his apparent confusion over James, the Lord’s half brother, with James the son of Zebedee (Iren. Her. III. 12. 15.). Another concern to me is the fact that both Polycarp and Ignatius write epistles to the church at Ephesus and neither mention John at all—let alone as having a long term residents there. The absence of the Apostle John from the epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius to the church at Ephesus seems odd, and unlikely if - as tradition has it - Ephesus was the headquarters of John’s bishopric. Ignatius, in his letter to the Ephesians, speaks of Paul, but not of John.
Furthermore, there is the matter of John’s possible martyrdom as reported by George the Sinner. 
(eighth  - ninth century  George the Monk, also called George the Sinner, Greek Georgios Hamartolos   (flourished 9th century), Byzantine historian, author of a world chronicle that constitutes a prime documentary source for mid-9th-century Byzantine history, particularly the iconoclast [Greek: “image destroyer”] movement.) and Philip of Side (fifth century  Philip of Side or Philip Sidetes (ca 380 - after 431), a historian of the early Christian church, was born at Side, the ancient Greek Iconium, Pamphylia (the modern Konya, Turkey). He wrote a Christian history of which fragments survive. Philip may be the last writer to quote Papias, and is best known for his statement that in the second book of the latter's five book treatise, Papias reported that the Apostle John was "killed by the Jews". He studied in Alexandria under Rhodon, and was teaching in Side about 405. Later he was a priest in Constantinople in the close circle of John Chrysostom, and he was a candidate for the patriarchate of Constantinople against Sisinnius (425), Nestorius (428), and Maximianus (431). Of his numerous books only fragments remain, his history of the Christian church, his polemic against the Emperor Julian.). 
In both accounts, the sons of Zebedee were martyred. This report has support in ancient Church calendars which lists John among Christian martyrs. But more weighty to me is the statement of Jesus, found in Mark 10:39, where He seems to be telling the sons of Zebedee that they both would have to be killed for the cause just as He (Jesus) was going to be killed. Included here is the account from Mark’s Gospel:
Mark 10:37-39.
“They said to him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on my left hand, in thy glory.  38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can you drink of the cup that I drink of? And be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?  39 And they said into him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drank up; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall you be baptized:...”
What is clear to me is that in the zeal of the ancient advocates to establish a late date (which requires a long life for John—thus, the Ephesus residency and bishopric) for the book of Revelation they claimed too much. And one might ask, Why?
I will attempt to give a very short answer and you may take it for what it is worth. Irenaeus is the first of the Catholic Fathers. This, particular, strain of the Church  felt a strong need for an apostolic touchstone. Irenaeus tried to bridge his church, via Papias and Polycarp, to the apostolic Church of Apostle John. The claim of Irenaeus of Lyon is unconvincing as reliable evidence.

EXAMPLES OF THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE
The holy Scripture presents several examples of internal evidence for an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation. 
At the opening of the fifth seal (6:9, When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.), John was shown the souls of martyrs that were under the altar. The altar in view here is the altar of Holocaust which was an important part of the Temple in Jerusalem. (This is not a vision of a heavenly altar, because it is the breaking of one of the seven seals which all relate to the earth.) This passage, then, presupposes the existence of the earthly temple, with its altar, at the time of the writing of Revelation (i.e. pre-A.D. 70).
Second, and similarly, there is the instruction given to John to measure the Temple (11:1-2, Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood,[a] saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. 2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.). 
Again, the passage presupposes the existence of the Temple at that particular time. Added to this is the fact that the book of Revelation nowhere mentions the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70; therefore, the internal evidence indicates an early date for the writing of Revelation.
Furthermore, there are the writings of Peter and James to be considered. Both of these apostles seem to quote the book of Revelation. Peter refers to Rome as Babylon (see 1 Peter 5:13, She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.).  Such a reference would likely have come from reading the book of Revelation, chapter 17 in particular. This is very interesting, in that the First General Epistle of Peter was written in the early 60s. James, our Lord’s half brother, who wrote the General Epistle of James early to mid 50s, wrote: “Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned, behold, the judge standeth before the door” (James 5:9). This has all the characteristics of a gloss to the book of Revelation; namely, 3:20 “Behold I stand at the door, ...”
Another internal evidence is the passage found in chapter 12 verses 1-6,
Revelation 12:1-6
“And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:  2 and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pain to be delivered.  3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and 10 horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.  4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and to cast them into the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.  6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, for she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” 
Notice that the above passage states: “... and the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared of God ...” This prophecy was fulfilled when the Romans lifted their siege from Jerusalem (Josephus states that the Roman general Cestius 
(Gaius Cestius Gallus (d. 67 AD) was the son of a consul in ancient Rome.  He was legate of Syria from 63 or 65. He marched into Judea in 66 in an attempt to restore calm at the outset of the Great Jewish Revolt.  But was unable to take The Temple Mount. During his withdrawal to the coast his army was ambushed near Beth Horon, and only succeeded in making good his escape to Antioch by sacrificing the greater part of his army and a large amount of war material. Soon after his return Gallus died (before the spring of 67), and was succeeded in the governorship by Licinius Mucianus. Emperor Nero appointed General Vespasian, the future Emperor, instead to crush the rebellion.) 
“... retired from the city, without any reason in the world.” Wars of the Jews 2. 19. 7) and withdrew their army to Caesarea; during which time, the Christians fled the city. The Christians crossed the Jordan River, and entered the wilderness of a Pella. 
(Dr. John Gill wrote in his work entitled, An Exposition of the New Testament, in 1809, "...it is remarked by several interpreters, and which Josephus takes notice of with surprise, that Cestius Gallus having advanced with his army to Jerusalem, and besieged it, on a sudden without any cause, raised the siege, and withdrew his army, when the city might have been easily taken; by which means a signal was made, and an opportunity given to the Christians, to make their escape: which they accordingly did, and went over the Jordan, as Eusebius [an early church father] says, to a place called Pella; so that when Titus [another Roman general] came a few months after, there was not a Christian in the city..." More on this later!) 
(Pella was not under Roman control until A.D. 117.) Since the prophecy was given before its fulfillment, and since it was realized in the late 60s, it follows that the Revelation was written earlier.
Moreover, the prophecy of “tribulation ten days,” given to the Church at Smyrna (2:8-10, “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: 9 “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.),   speaks of the ten years of persecution during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). If Revelation is, indeed, viewed as prophecy, it must be accepted that it had a writing earlier than Domitian’s persecution: which argues for the earlier date theory.
Lastly, some would argue that the level of persecution at this early date (mid-50s to mid 60s) was not such that would produce the circumstances which landed John on the island of Patmos. That argument, however, is unconvincing when Peter writes in the early to mid-60s of severe persecution upon his church.
1 Peter 4:14-16.
 “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, put on your part he is glorified.  15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.  16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed: but let him glorify God on this behalf.”
1 Peter 5:8-9.
“Be sober, the vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walk us about, seeking whom he may devour:  9 whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
Conclusion:
From the foregoing information it seems logical to conclude (if internal [biblical] evidence is favored above the external) that the book of Revelation has an early date; i.e. mid-50s to the late 60s. Among the scholars who argue for a pre-A.D. 70 date for the writing of the book of Revelation are: Westcott, Lightfoot, Hort, and Salmon. (See The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Moody.)

My children, the conclusion of the matter is that when teaching the book of Revelation you must allow for its early date of writing, and that much of its contents were fulfilled within the first century A.D.

Apostolically Speaking,
☩☩ Jerry Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)


Read other epistles from the pen of the Bishop on Prophecy:


"Prophecy and the Spiral Staircase"

"The Prophets Speak of the Church"

"Apostolic Eschatology"

God’s New Covenant With Israel
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/05/gods-new-covenant-with-israel.html

Dating the Book of Revelation

The Three Horsemen of Dispensationalism
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-three-horsemen-of-dispensationalism.html

Correct Method of Interpreting the Book of Revelation

 Joel's Messianic Kingdom (The Church of Jesus Christ)

Biblical Eschatology
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/biblical-eschatology.html

Millennial Reign of Christ
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/millennial-reign-of-christ.html

All These Things (A Study on Matthew 24)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/all-these-things-kingdom-teaching-of.html

Second Coming of Christ Jesus
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/second-coming-of-christ-jesus.html

The Crux of the Matter (What Did Jesus Mean By "The Generation"?)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-crux-of-matter-what-did-jesus-mean.html

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.
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.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Saturday, May 18, 2013

The Christian Woman's Headcovering I

                                               



Headcovering Identified and Enjoin 
(1 Corinthians 11:3-6).

An Exegesis of Verses 3-6


Verse 3.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
In this verse Paul lays the foundation for everything he is about to teach. It is very purposeful that headship is introduced at the very beginning, because it is the lesson being taught by the headcovering. God has placed an order of authority into His creation. For there to be peace and tranquility in His world, this order of authority must be recognized and honored. This is an indisputable fact and we hear this matter-of-fact tone in Paulʼs words “But I would have you know,...”
If the principle of authority is neglected, in any area of creation, Anarchy and his twin brother Chaos rule. This is especially true in the kingdom of God.
Discontentment with oneʼs sphere of authority was the original sin that divided heaven and created the Devil (Isaiah 14:12-14; Revelation 12: respectively). This original sin of Lucifer was threatening the Apostleʼs congregation at Corinth - and has raised its head to threaten Christʼs Church today. Here, Paul is giving an apostolic edict, which if obeyed, would maintain a bulwark against Anarchy and Chaos throughout the ages to come.
Paul demonstrates his prowess as a master teacher in verse 3. His task is to enjoin a headcovering for Christian women on the grounds that they have an authority over them, and they were to function in the kingdom of God in respect to this headship, or authority. (I might mention here that Paul employs the word “head” throughout his writings to indicate authority: e.g. Ephesians 5:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 2:10.) To bring this truth to bear he wisely shows that everyone from Christ down functions under the order of headship (authority). Since he is targeting the women in this ordinance he softens his approach by listing the manʼs head first -- then concludes by showing that even Christ has a head. The Christian woman finds herself in the middle position between man, who functions under the authority of Christ, and Christ who, functions under the authority of God. Therefore, her position in the economy of the Kingdom is supported and encouraged by the knowledge of man having an authority over him on one side and Christ having an authority over Him on the other side. Man and Christ, then, form book ends that bolster her in her role.
Notice that the role of the woman in Kingdom economy is to operate beneath the headship of her male leadership. The text says the “head of the woman is THE man.” Attention must be given to the definite article “THE.” The text does not read: “the head of the woman is man;” if it did, men in general would be in authority over women in general. By the introduction of the definite article Paul has the individual particular woman in view; the individual particular woman would then have an individual particular man as her head. Thus, the “head” of a virgin would be her father or perhaps an older brother, if the father had passed; for a married woman her head would be her husband. For a woman who was widowed or divorced the question of headship may become more involved. In the Old Testament, widows and divorcees stood for themselves before God without being subject to male headship. This is seen from Numbers 30:9, “...every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.” “Thus, both the widow and the divorcee hold the same status - in regard to a vow. This is true because neither of the two are under the authority of a Man. If the woman was married and her husband was alive then any vow that she might have made would need to be validated by her male headship. However, since the womanʼs husband was either dead or divorced from her she stood for herself before God” (Finding the Grace of God in Divorce And Remarriage by Bishop Jerry Hayes, Seventh Millennium Publications). In the Lordʼs Church it may be scriptural to assign the pastor as the head to widows and divorcees in that the Saints represent the bride of Christ, while the pastor represents Christ to the church.
Verse 4 
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
Here, the Apostle introduces the subject at hand; namely, the proper decorum of apostolic worshipers in the assembly. We know that the assembly is in view in this entire passage because the subject is praying and/or prophesying. These two (praying and prophesying) are a coupling in the case before us: they are two parts of a whole. The idea is: speaking in the assembly, either to God on behalf of the congregation (i.e. leading in prayer), or speaking to the congregation on behalf of God (i.e. preaching or operating in the gifts). It should be noticed, at this point, that prophesying requires an audience. One does not prophesy in private. The public arena is in view here. Also, since prophecy is listed, one may extrapolate this list to include all three of the spoken gifts of the Spirit: tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10). The ministry of preaching should clearly be included. (Because of the emphasis on the assemble, it is doubtful if headcovering could be enforced scripturally outside the meeting place - though some Christian women feel as though they should wear the headcovering at all times in case the Holy Spirit wanted to speak through them while outside of the congregation.)
From verse 4, then, the Church is instructed that the proper decorum for a man when praying (leading the congregation in prayer), or prophesying (speaking in behalf of God to the congregation) is to be bareheaded. (The Greek: kata kephaleis echon; lit. “having anything down over his head.”
The Amplified Bible reads; “For a man ought not to wear anything on his head.”

It should be pointed out that this is a drastic departure from the Jewish custom of the yarmulke and prayer shawl. Paulʼs instruction (and that of the other apostles: see verse 16) was a new wineskin (i.e. Christian religious form) to hold and preserve the new wine (Christian worship principle). Whereas, the Jews pray with covered heads in the synagogues the Christian men were to pray with uncovered heads.

yarmulke |ˈyämə(l)kə| (also yarmulka)

noun
a skullcap worn in public by Orthodox Jewish men or during prayer by other Jewish men.

(The reader will notice that this practice, of praying or preaching with uncovered heads, continues to be observed by Christian men universally even in areas of the world where Christian women have neglected the ordinance - like the USA.)
In verse 4 “head” is listed twice. The former references the physical head of the man, while the latter is a metaphor for Christ since verse 3 tells us that Christ is the “head of man.” Therefore, Paul teaches: For a man to speak in the assembly with something on his head brings dishonor to Christ, who is the head of man. One must never suggest that this passage mandates a prohibition on women only, for this mandate also, and perhaps more importantly, prohibits men from being covered in the assembly. I say: “more importantly” because to dishonor Christ is more severe than dishonoring man.
Now as servants of Christ, we do not need to know how or why this is a dishonor, we just need to obey, and as men, not speak in the assembly with covered heads. We are not of the world (John 14:16). The physical worldly mind says: “If I understand, I will believe;” the spirit world says: “Believe, then you may understand.”

Verse 5.
Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
In verse five Paul drives to his objective: the womanʼs head covering.
Notice that the opposite is true for the woman as was true for the man. In verse 4, if a man (any man: notice the word “every”) speaks in the assembly with something on his head he dishonors Christ - who is his head. The statement: “that is all one as if she was shaved” is a clear indicator that the Christian faith is not practiced in a vacuum. Paul brings the Corinthianʼs attention to the natural covering of women (not only Christian women) in general and reminds them how shameful it was for a woman to have her head shaved. (A parallel is drawn between the natural covering of hair and the religious covering. They are not the same [ two different Greek words are used to reference each in its turn]; but are compared for the sake of illustration.) This has been true in every society and age of civilized peoples. To disgrace a woman, her head was shaved. If a woman committed adultery or was found collaborating with her peopleʼs enemies her hair was cut off, or her head shaved in the public square, as it were.
The Apostle is making a hard comparison here: for a Christian woman to appear in the assembly with uncovered head was the same dishonor to her male head (father, husband, or perhaps pastor) in the religious arena, as fornicating or collaborating with an enemy would have been in the secular arena.
It is also important to notice that according to this verse (verse 5) the covering is the evidence of submission to Godʼs appointed headship. It is the evidence of humility. “Every woman that prays or prophesies” the Bible says “with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” Therefore, for the woman to pray or prophesy with a covered head is demonstrating respect to her head, which stations her in a position of humility.
Moreover, we are told in verse three that the head of the woman is the man. We see therefore that the womanʼs headcovering is the token of her submission to the man. Now, on the other hand verse 5 states that the removal of the headcovering is a matter of grave disrespect to the womanʼs head, i.e. husband, father, or pastor as her guardian. The headcovering, then, shows favor; it also shows respect.
The matter of favor and respect can be seen in the story of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24:65. In this account, as Rebecca was delivering herself into Isaacʼs possession she covered herself with a veil as a token of her respect. I realize what I am teaching is a very unpopular subject in the midst of a time of great feminist fervor. As important as it is to me that the reader be informed of my awareness of how women have been misused and abused throughout history by men lording over them in an ungodly and cruel manner, it is even more important for the reader to acknowledge that the Christian faith elevates the woman from the position she held in days of antiquity, where she was only chattel, to a loving position beside her male counterpart. However, bear in mind that there is still a God ordained order - there is a position of headship that must be maintained in society at large and especially in the Lordʼs Church. If the position of headship is not maintained and is not everywhere asserted then the Church becomes out of order. When the church is out of order God cannot bless in the way He has purposed to do. The Bible clearly teaches a superiority and inferiority between the roles of men and women in society. It does not teach either sex to be a superior gender. Pertaining to their humanity men and women are absolutely, positively equal. This truth must be acknowledged and everywhere observed by those who call on the name of Christ. The distinction between the sexes is to be found, not in their value as human beings (as in Islam were it takes two women to equal one man), but in the roles they fulfill in the family, the church, and society at large. This distinction is to be limited to the roles that men and women fill in life, and is not to be assigned to the inherent value of gender. This truth can best be illustrated by drawing a parallel between the relationship of people within the armed services. On one end of the spectrum you have the general, and on the other end the private. The general is no greater or lesser a human being than the private; nor is the private a lesser or greater human being than the general. However, there is a clear distinction in their rank. Therefore, it is in this way that men and women are separated and distinct in the economy of God. Paul stated clearly in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man.” Furthermore, Matthew Henry, a respected Bible scholar, said: “This is a situation in which God has placed the woman, and for that reason she should have a mind suited for her rank and do nothing that looks like an affectation of changing places.”
Verse 6
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.

This particular verse is the very text that convinced this writer, once and for all, that the “covering” required of the New Testament Church (by its apostolic authority) was indeed an artificial covering, a religious garment, and not the natural covering of hair that is alleged by so many. Long hair is viewed by many as the covering the Apostle is commanding. This conclusion is arrived at through a misunderstanding and misappropriation of verse 15 which states that a womanʼs hair is given her for a covering.
We will deal with this verse in its proper course. For now, we must honestly deal with verse 6.
If one does not have a proper understanding of verse 6 a correct mental grasp of the entire passage will be out of reach.
To those of you who are reading this article and believe that the hair is the covering Paul is teaching, I ask you to reason with me from this sixth verse. I am sure that we all will be agreed that the word “shaven” means to have oneʼs hair shaved completely from oneʼs head. It would not be unreasonable to assume that we also would agree that to have oneʼs hair shorn would mean to have oneʼs hair cut off shorter than it would be if it was left to grow. Therefore oneʼs head would be covered only if the hair was left uncut; for to cut the hair at any length would be shearing the hair. From this line of argument, then, it would be concluded that a woman would be uncovered if her hair was cut or her head shaved. (This is exactly the position of many holiness groups such as the United Pentecostal Church International and sister fellowships.)
Honestly, if this is the correct interpretation of what Paul meant by being covered or uncovered it leaves verse 6 in a very silly and nonsensical position.
Let me explain: If the hair is the covering then we should be able to replace the phrase “not covered” with the phrase “have her hair cut.” Notice then how verse 6 would read if such were the case: “For if the woman be not covered (have her hair cut), let her also be shorn (have her hair cut):”
Here we give it more plainly: “For if a woman have her hair cut, let her also have her hair cut.”
If Paul meant that the woman's headcovering were the hair itself, this verse would be saying, "If a woman does not have hair on her head, let her also have her hair cut off."
It is linguistically impossible to say that the woman's headcovering is nothing more than her hair. If the hair were the only "covering," then an "uncovered" woman would be a woman who already had her "hair cut off." An already hairless woman cannot be commanded to have her hair cut off. It would be like saying, "Let the bald man get a haircut" or "Let the beardless man shave his beard."
What verse six means is this: if the woman refuses to wear a scarf or shawl, she should also remove the natural covering, her hair. In other words, she should wear both coverings or none at all (which is shameful). Watchman Nee comments on this verse with these strong words: "Today people keep neither of these two commands of the Bible. If a sister will not cover her hair but shears or shaves it, she may yet be reckoned as hearkening to the words of the Bible. But today women neither shave nor cover their hair -- a double disobedience.” (Watchman Nee, Love One Another, Richmond, VA: Christian Fellowship Publ., 94.)
To imagine that the Apostle, who wrote over half of the New Testament, would write in such a silly manner is to insult both him and the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write. Do you, my friend, really believe that Paul, who was argumentatively the most educated of the Lordʼs apostles, would actually write: “For if a woman have her hair cut, let her also have her hair cut?”
If you, as I, do not think Paul would write in such a manner, nor reason in such a silly way, then you must agree that it is not long hair, but an artificial covering, which he is requiring of Christian women.
It should be obvious from the above illustration that the apostle Paul has an artificial headcovering in view and not the hair. The instructions are clear and simple: if it is a shame for a woman to have her natural covering, i.e. her hair, cut or shaved, then, she should not remove her headcovering when in the assembly. Paul simply said: “If you will not cut your hair off, do not remove your headcovering.”
The apostle Paul teaches that women should wear a covering when prophesying or praying in the Christian assembly. Furthermore, the Apostle tells us that all the churches of Christ feel the same way and have the same practice and custom (1 Corinthians 11:16).

Apostolically Speaking
☩ David Ignatius
Read more from the Bishop on this topic at: http://bishopjlhayes.hubpages.com/hub/Biblical-Teaching-of-Headship-and-the-Christian-Womans-Headcovering

This has been an excerpt from the author's book "Christian Woman's Headcovering." Order your personal copy from the link provided here:



Thank You For Your Support 

By Purchasing My Books For Your Library -JLH

 Hello friends, I am a full time biblical researcher. I  rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales  for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support. -JLH




Read other essays from the Bishop on the Christian's physical appearance:
The Christian Woman's Outward Adorning

Meaning of the Word, “KatastolÄ“” 
(As it pertains to a woman’s attire) ⏤ 1 Timothy 2:9

Biblical Liturgical Dress Requirement For Men and Women


Posted by at No comments:

The Christian Woman's Headcovering II

                                               




Four Spiritual and Scriptural Arguments 
(1 Corinthians 11: 7-10).

In verses 7 through 10 of 1 Corinthians 11 the Apostle presents his argumentation for the headcovering, and the order of headship that the headcovering represents. As we continue, it will become clear to the reader that these arguments are at once spiritual and scriptural.         
We will proceed in our examination of this passage by using verse 10 as the pivotal point for the text:
“For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels” (verse 10).
  1. “For This Cause.”
The statement “for this cause” is with the accusative case in the Greek language, which indicates the cause or reason of the act. The “act” in this situation is that the women ought to be covered. “For this cause,” referers to the preceding statements in verses 7 through 9, and also includes the cause given in verse 10; namely, “because of the angels.” The Bible states in this passage (verses 7-9) that the man, indeed, “Ought not to cover his head for in as much as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man; for the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman but the woman for the man. For this cause ... because of the angels.” 
My friends, this is what the Bible is teaching. As much as this may rub our fur the wrong way, or ruffle our feathers, we must, as mature Christians, submit our conscience to the Word of God.
As we look closely at these verses, there are four arguments given in support for the injunction for the Christian woman to have her head covered in the place of meeting. 
  • Argument one: She is the glory of the man; 
  • Argument two: She was created from the man; 
  • Argument three: She was created for the benefit of the man; 
  • Argument four: She should be covered because of the angels.
We will proceed to examine these causes in a close manner.
Argument one: The woman is the glory of the man (verse 7).
Here the apostle Paul writes that the Christian woman is to have a covering on her head, when in the public meeting place, because she is the glory of the man. The Apostle shows that just as man (Adam) was made in the the image and glory of God - as Godʼs representative - even so, the woman Eve, in turn, was made to be the glory of man, to be manʼs representative. As the man is a representative of the glory and perfection of God among all other creatures (so that the fear and dread of him are on every beast of the field), so the woman represents the power and the authority of man in the home and society at large. Since man shows forth the glory of God, it, therefore, follows that the woman shows forth the glory of man.
The ministry of the woman to manifest the glory of man is beautifully demonstrated in the name that Adam gave her. He called her Eve: the “mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). Then we see how well the preacher (Solomon) put it when he asked, “Who can find a virtuous woman? Her price is far above rubies, the heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. ...Her own works praise her in the gates” (Proverbs 31:10-12, 23, and 31b).
The argument presented in verse 7, for the Christian woman to have a symbol of her husbandʼs, fatherʼs etc. authority (or headship) on her head, is as follows: The glory of God (the man), should not be veiled in the presence of God. To veil the glory of God (the man) in the presence of God would be an acted out contradiction. Therefore, by the same logic: The glory of man (the woman) should be veiled in the presence of God. That is, in the assembly where the believers are in Godʼs presence (in a corporate manner), the glory of man is not to be flaunted.
Argument two: The woman was created from the man; or, the woman is from the man (Verse 8).
In this second argument the notion of principality rests upon the fact of priority. That is to say: That which is primary (first) must be the principal; that which is authoritative. Man was created first, and as a result was placed as the federal head of creation, by being the image of the divine Dominion. The woman was made out of man and was made superior to other creatures. Therefore, she shines with the reflection of manʼs glory just as the moon shines with the reflected glory of the sun. She derives this honor from him (the man) out of whom she was made; thereby, being subject to him. Adam Clark stated it on this wise: “Paulʼs meaning is that the man does not belong to the woman as if she was the principle but the woman belongs to the man in that view.”

Argument three: The woman was created for the benefit of man (verse 9).
From the Genesis record it is clear that man is the origin of woman and the reason for her creation. She was created to be a helpmeet for him; so, she was naturally made subject to him. She was made for him - for his use - for his help - for his comfort. Because this is true, she who was intended to be always subjected to the man should do nothing in the Christian assembly that gives the appearance of an affectation of authoritative equality; such as removing her headcovering.
Now, on the simple merit of “principal” and secondary creation” the woman holds a second place to man in Godʼs economy of order. It must be remembered that this “second place” is not in human value, but in rank only.
Moreover, apart from the arguments given above, Eve solidified this position for her gender in the fall. Notice the judgment pronounced upon the woman from the month by Yahweh: “... your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).    Beloved, for these reasons Christian women should not strive for an equality in rank: such as appearing in public worship with uncovered heads.
One feels compelled to soften what may sound harsh to modern ears by saying that there is no superiority nor inferiority in the humanity between men and women. But, this superiority and inferiority is only in the headship, or in the rank which each gender holds within the church and the Christian family, and by extension - society at large. At this point we will go further into 1 Corinthians 11:10 by examining the next statement.

Argument four: Because of the angels.
The author has written on this topic in his work entitled, The Sons Of God And The Daughters Of Men, (which may be acquired through the Biblical Research Institute of Bishop Jerry Hayes™). The following text is an adaptation from that work.
When the apostle Paul writes on the subject of headship, one of the reasons that he gives for the Christian woman to wear a headcovering in the public assembly is “because of the angels.” Since the apostle did not specify what category of angels, we must assume that all categories are intended. There are two primary categories with which we are interested: the angels of God, and the fallen angels. 
In Paulʼs teaching of headship we are instructed that the head of Christ is God, the head of man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man (1 Corinthians 11:3). We are further told, that in public worship a man is to be uncovered, while a woman is to have her head covered (which serves) to demonstrate to the angels (both un-fallen and fallen) that she resides under a protective covering. 
When the angels of God (who are ministering spirits [Hebrews 1:14], and who are present in great numbers in the Christian assemblies in a very special way [Hebrews 12:22]), see the Christian woman covered, it speaks to them of order and delegated authority. Therefore, it directly affects their attitude in ministering on behalf of the saints of God. This is particularly true since man and woman, as husband and wife, serve to represent Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:22-32). The angels of God have known only one primary sin: namely, the violation of headship (Isaiah 14:13-14; and see Ezekiel 28:13ff), where Lucifer cast aside his covering (i.e. the precious stones of the earth), and violated headship by exalting his throne to be equal to Godʼs. On the other hand, when the angels of God view Christian women uncovered, it speaks to them of rebellion and a disregard for created order. This, also, directly affects their attitude of ministry to the church. Rebellion against Godʼs created order of headship was the original sin, and ministering angels cannot help but be adversely affected when they witness the same transgression in the body of Christ.
(Hebrews tells us that we are surrounded by heavenly beings who are bearing witness to the lives we live. So, as a consequence, we must be watchful how we run our race, for in the stands the heavenly hosts are witnessing the contest.  “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1). 
Running counter to the angels of God, are the fallen angels. When these lieutenants of Perdition prowl about the assembly of the righteous, spying out the weak ones upon whom to prey, it is an effective defense for the Christian woman that she be seen with a covered head; thereby, giving testimony to these fallen angels that she resides under a spiritual covering of protection. The fallen Angels are put on notice, by such a display on the part of the Christian woman, that she cannot be touched, cannot be spiritually seduced, without first penetrating her male covering.
It was not Adam that was deceived, but Eve. It seems that a woman has a natural tendency to be easily led astray. The Bible student cannot easily ignore what Paul wrote to his son Timothy in 1 Timothy 2: 11-14. There, the Apostle writes: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Here, the apostle Paul is putting a prohibition on a womanʼs role in public teaching and preaching. He bases the restriction on Genesis chapters 2 and 3. The appeal to the creation account makes the restrictions universal and permanent.
1. “Adam was first formed.” Paul appeals to the priority of Adam in creation, which predates the fall. Thus he views the man/woman relationship set forth in this passage as grounded in creation. This reason militates against those who would argue that since the new birth reverses the curses of the fall, there is no distinction between the roles of men and women in the Kingdom of God. 
2. “The woman being deceived.” Paul argues that since the woman was deceived (and then led Adam astray), she is not to be entrusted with the teaching function of a bishop (or elder) in the public worship services of the assembled church. Of course this prohibition is qualified by the same Apostleʼs teaching in 1 Corinthians 11, where we are told that the Christian woman may, indeed, pray and preach in the public assembly, IF she does so under her covering; by which she demonstrates to all (human and angel alike) that she ministers in a delegated role under male supervision.
Therefore, the tendency of the woman to be  easily deceived makes her an easy target for the dark side of the spiritual world. The denominational Christian landscape is dotted with Christian (so-called) organizations founded by women who were seduced by lying spirits. So, the teaching of the New Testament that a woman wear a headcovering within the assembly is not only her badge of authority (to function on equal footing with her male counterpart, in prophesying and praying), but, is also her shield, which protects her from fallen angels that have a history of seducing human women, both physically (Genesis 6:1-2) and spiritually (Genesis 3:1-6).

Apostolically Speaking
☩ David Ignatius
This has been an excerpt from the author's book "Christian Woman's Headcovering." Order your personal copy from the link provided here:

https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Womans-Headcovering-Testament-Corinthians/dp/1482527464/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Headcovering&qid=1554173954&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0



Thank You For Your Support 

By Purchasing Our Books For Your Library
Read other essays from the Bishop on the Christian's physical appearance:
The Christian Woman's Outward Adorning

Meaning of the Word, “KatastolÄ“” 
(As it pertains to a woman’s attire) ⏤ 1 Timothy 2:9

Biblical Liturgical Dress Requirement For Men and Women


Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)