|
TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE
"The Battle for Apostolic Christianity"
Studies In Bible Doctrine
Mark Bullen
|
|
INTRODUCTION
It is important to remember, when reading this short appeal, that we are not attempting to exhaust every subject, answer every argument. Please realize that, when Jesus said, "Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", He had not yet "commanded them all things" that they were to eventually teach.
John 16:12-14 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
Now, considering this, we see that "all things" Jesus wanted taught to the nations would be progressively taught to the apostles after the Spirit came; and during the apostles' lives.
Don't forget that salvation was "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile". The apostles started only preaching to the Jews. Jesus was made under the Law, to deliver those under the Law. Thus, the preaching was very "Jewish" to start out. The apostles kept the Sabbath, dietary laws, circumcision, etc. for their whole life, this being only modified by the superior obligations of Christ's teachings. In Acts 21, which was 29 years after Pentecost, Paul is still obeying Moses' Law with James and thousands of other Jewish Christians - and Paul is not teaching Jews to forsake Moses or circumcision of their children. The Jews were never required to stop observing Moses' Law (Acts 21). Twelve years after Pentecost God opened the doors of the New Testament Church to uncircumcised Gentiles; who were not required to keep Moses' Law, except for a few "necessary things" (Acts 15); and that which was part of the "Law of Christ" (Matt 28:20; Rom. 13:14). After Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed in AD 70, life for Jewish Christians no longer included temple sacrifice, or any of the ceremonial aspects of the Law that required the temple and priesthood.
Although many things (like the "Lord's Day" observance) may not have been part of the original practice; they became the practice of the churches as God revealed truth to the apostles. We are to receive (and teach others to observe) God's "completed" revelation -- the way the apostles left it; not so much how it started out.
The apostles received "all truth", as Jesus promised, from the Holy Spirit. This finished product of faith and practice is "the faith" we are to contend for; and can be seen in the faith and practice of the churches at the end of the first century. The believers were first called "Christians" in Antioch, not Jerusalem (where they were just a "Jewish sect"). God destroyed Jerusalem, and put an end to Judaism. The middle wall of partition was removed (Col. 2:14-16); the Old Covenant finally vanished away (Heb. 8:13); and the glorious New Testament Church was the "one new body" created for Jew and Gentile "believers only". We now live under the "Law of Christ", keeping the commandments of God, through Christ; which is called the "faith of Christ" or "doctrine of Christ". The New Testament references to the "commandments" (I John 2:3-5; Rev. 22:14; etc.) are not speaking of the "Ten Commandments"; but of "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20), the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), and the Law of Christ (I Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; II Thess. 2:15).
Rarely do people hold to a doctrine as a result of unbiased study and love of truth; but from emotional attachment, "partisan spirit", bias, convenience, and habit. Your life must adjust to fit your beliefs; or your beliefs must adjust to accommodate your lifestyle, or you will go insane. Which is more precious to you - your lifestyle or truth? This is usually the reason you believe what you do. If you are loyal to truth above your love of lifestyle, then you can find truth; otherwise you won't. This is called "willful" ignorance in Scripture, and is seen as rebellion. Don't close your eyes, and bring judgment upon themselves, and need rebuked. To practice Truth, you may have to leave your Tribe.
The "traditions of the apostles" were more precious than gold to the churches of the first two centuries. When Paul went to the churches delivering "the decrees for to keep", they just obeyed. There were no recorded arguments (Acts 16:4,5). All who make Bible story books draw the characters with head veils; yet people in this apostate age fight against this apostolic endorsed tradition. The real argument, then, is whether or not we have liberty to throw away what the faithful churches, from the first century till now, have lived and died for. On which side will you stand?
CAMP MEETING
It was a warm summer night, sitting in the old wooden pew at the camp meeting. The preacher preached hard and eloquent on the parable of the sower. He warned of being stony ground; not having root in ourselves; and said we must get the stony places out of our life. Yet, one thing was missing. The people were full of stony places. The teens showed worldliness from head to foot. Yet, they all left feeling good -- why? The Preacher never told them what "stony" was. He told them to make "right choices", but never told them what they were, and which choices were bad. This is the plague on modern preaching. So afraid to offend, modern preachers speak in general, vague terms and leave the audience to decide for themselves. It has been an obvious failure. Look at the churches. Look at the teenagers. O yes, they are full, which spells success to most; but these churches are also full of sin, fornication, immodesty, worldliness, etc. - which spells failure to Christ.
The chapters in book #5 "Sowing Tares"; and "This Is The Condemnation"; should probably be read before this book. We are not justifying extremists or abusers of the valid Bible principles of which we speak; but "overdoing" discipleship training is hardly the disease of our day. Knowing the TERROR of the Lord, we persuade men. If the righteous scarcely be saved....think about it.
William Cowper wrote a poem that explains why it is good to "spell out" right and wrong in clear terms, so the people know just exactly what you mean. It seems Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, told his followers that only part of the swine could not be eaten; but never told them what part, thus the poem:
"THE LOVE OF THE WORLD REPROVED, OR HYPOCRISY DETECTED"
|
Thus says the prophet of the Turk,
Good mussulman, abstain from pork;
There is a part in ev'ry swine
No friend or follower of mine
May taste, whate'er his inclination,
On pain of excommunication.
Such Mahomet's mysterious charge,
And thus he left the point at large.
Had he the sinful part express'd,
They might with safety eat the rest;
But for one piece they thought it hard
From the whole hog to be debarr'd;
And set their wit at work to find
What joint the prophet had in mind.
Much controversy straight arose,
These choose the back, the belly those;
By some 'tis confidently said
He meant not to forbid the head'
While others at that doctrine rail,
And piously prefer the tail.
|
Thus, conscience freed from ev'ry clog,
Mahometans eat up the hog.
"You laugh-'tis well-The tale applied
May make you laugh on t' other side.
Renounce the world- the preacher cries.
We do- a multitude replies.
While one as innocent regards
A snug and friendly game at cards;
And one, whatever you may say,
Can see no evil in a play;
Some love a concert, or a race;
And others shooting, and the chase.
Revil'd and lov'd, renounc'd and follow'd
Thus bit by bit, the world is swallow'd;
Each thinks his neighbor makes too free,
Yet likes a slice as well as he:
With sophistry their sauce they sweeten,
Till quite from tail to snout 'tis eaten."
-William Cowper
|
CHAPTER 1 - TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE, THE BIBLE PRINCIPLE
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Amen. Matthew 28:18-20
This is a very important study that has been greatly misunderstood in our modern American churchianity; so please listen close to every point. If I seem to be "shouting", it's because this is a major battle today -- Paul warned night and day with tears that the whole counsel of God, which he had taught, would not be changed or perverted. If your care for the whole counsel of God, and the faith once delivered to the saints is any where near Paul's, then I'm sure you'll be shouting "Amen", and not grumbling about what I am going to say.
"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." James 1:22
It is true that your misinformation on some of these issues may not have condemned you to hell, if you were sincerely walking in all the light you have had. However, your ignorance of these issues opens the door for Satan to rob you of God's blessings; and the absence of knowing and doing all the counsel of God leads to deception and the destruction of later generations -- your children and grandchildren. Truth is truth, and once you know it, you are accountable to be a doer of the Word.
Let us examine Matt. 28:18-20:
I. THE COMMAND: Jesus did not say, "Tell them what I commanded". Jesus said, "Teach them to observe what I commanded". Do you see the difference?
Jesus commanded MODESTY; but the Apostles job was not to tell converts to just "be modest". This would develop "every man doing that which is right in his own eyes"; which has never been God's program. If I just tell converts "be modest"; then every convert is left to define modest according to their limited and warped understanding, which has been built by the social norms of their surroundings. Thus, natives in Indonesia may just be concerned about wearing their loin cloth, gourd, or less. Jesus said "teach them to observe" : This involves defining the terms for them, explaining the principles for them, walking them through it, and being an example for them.
Modesty is only one of many "commands" of the Lord, and makes a good illustration; but there are many commands the converts must be "taught to observe" according to the definitions and contexts in which Jesus taught the apostles -- not modern day definitions and contexts. If the churches down through the centuries were faithful in doing what I am saying, then we would still be "observing" Jesus' commands according to the same definition of terms as the first century church. We would define "modest" in their terms, not London's, or Paris', or Hollywood’s'. We would define "love" in Jesus' terms and ideas. We would define: separation, non-conformity, non-resistance, church discipline, evangelism, hospitality, marriage, manhood, fatherhood, motherhood, submission, church authority, worship, holiness, sobriety, watchfulness, faith, repentance, and many more commands of our Lord according to HIS TERMS.
Situational Ethics, "easy believism", individuality, humanism, and the breakdown in church discipline have produced a religious system where "every man does that which is right in his own eyes", based on his finite mind, limited perspective, carnal appetites, and insubordinate heart - and the preacher better not say anything about it, or I'll trot down the road, and pay my tithes there. This is apostate churchianity, not Bible Christianity.
II. THE EXPECTED RESULT: The apostles did teach the first century church to observe Jesus' commands, Jesus' way. It is vital that we understand Jesus set up the format for what kind of "bride" he wanted, AND EXPECTED TO FIND THAT SAME PATTERN WHEN HE RETURNED - "Even unto the end of the world". We are not supposed to be "observing his commands" our way; but His way. That is why we are told to "contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints". What saith the Scripture?
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.....And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. Now we command you, brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us:" II Thess. 2:15; 3:5-7
"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." II Thess. 3:14
In the early 1500's there is an account recorded in Van Braght's "Martyrs Mirror" that tells of some men traveling from the churches of Thessalonica, because they heard there were similar churches to theirs in Moravia, called Anabaptists. They found each other, and rejoiced that they were in agreement. The men from Thessalonica claimed to still be "holding fast the traditions" they received of the apostles. Isn't this amazing. After 1500 years. Maybe it is because they caught this principle clearer than the rest -- Paul spoke it in clearer terms in their epistle.
As long as the church is converting, baptizing, and "teaching them to observe" all things; the church is safe. Why the strong rebukes to the churches in Revelation 2 &3? They were not observing all things in the apostolic way.
Consider Acts 20:26-31,
"Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
(WHY PAUL?)
For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."
Lend me your ear. What the churches today are preaching and practicing is either "the same" as the churches of the first century, who were taught to "observe Jesus' commands" by the apostles; or they are preaching and practicing something from a grievous wolf, crept in unawares.. PERVERSE THINGS: that means they are "altering the original" -- that is why we call new "Bible versions", perversions. Now you may think it is a little thing that you don't observe apostolic church order, baptism, communion, evangelism, women's head covering, holy kiss, modest apparel, and many other "traditions of the apostles"; BUT PAUL WARNED EVERY ONE NIGHT AND DAY WITH TEARS NOT TO TAKE THE COURSE YOU HAVE TAKEN..
Paul told the Corinthians, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ". We already saw what he said to the Thessalonians (3:6). Now, what if these and all the other churches would have obeyed continually up to this day? Would they be wearing head coverings, greeting with a holy kiss, disciplining disobedient members, abstaining from jewelry, costly array, etc., breaking bread weekly on Sunday, obeying their bishops; only having preachers who met Bible qualifications; and much more? Would they? OF COURSE THEY WOULD. They would be practicing the faith, just like the first century churches did.
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim. 2:2
"Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you." Phil. 4:9
"For although the languages of the world are different, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul." Irenaeus 180 AD
So, who dropped the ball? Who suggested to drop the "holy kiss"? Who suggested to drop the "head covering"? Who brought in "unconditional security"? Who? A subtle, yet GRIEVOUS WOLF. Now, just because someone dropped the ball 200+ years ago, does not excuse me leaving it on the ground. I am using some of the smallest items (holy kiss, etc.), because these are the first to go, and the last to come back.
Paul was pure from the blood of all men, because he preached the "whole counsel of God". If we don't, we have bloody hands.
III. THE APPLICATION TO US: If the preachers are commanded to teach converts to observe all things, then converts are hereby also commanded to follow and learn from the preacher to observe all things the apostolic way. God always comes to the preachers or bishops when the church is out of line. See Rev. 2 & 3 - the angels of the churches, were the bishops. "Angel" simply means "messenger". Read what Paul says to Titus and Timothy. Paul, in Acts 20, is giving a charge to the bishops. They, in turn, are to "oversee" the "flock"; who, in turn, are expected to obey the bishop.
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for YOU." Hebrews 13:7,17
You may not understand, at first, all the "rules" of the church, but if they are part of teaching you to observe the commands of the Lord, then you must obey. If they are heretical and anti-bible (like Diotrephes' situation in III John); then you have a responsibility to get into a Biblical church. BUT TO RUN TO A CHURCH WITHOUT "RULES", JUST SO YOU CAN DO AS YOU PLEASE, WILL COST YOU YOUR SOUL. (And your children's). Salvation is only through repentance and submission to Jesus Christ as Lord -- this includes following the program as he set it up, not doing as you please. Jesus chose to have human bishops with authority to apply Bible principles for their present situations. Jesus will back them up when they do this faithfully.
Hebrews 5 tells us that those who are mature in the Lord, and are teachers, have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. You, a young believer, without your senses exercised, need to "follow the faith" of your bishop whose understanding runs a little deeper than yours may. God gives sincere leaders more insight for the sheep's sake. The same Bible that tells children to obey their parents, wives to submit to their husbands, citizens to obey their governments; also tells Christians to be in a local body and obey their bishops.
The church is to be the "bride of Christ", "the pillar and ground of the truth", and "the light of the world"; but this depends on the collective testimony of the membership. Therefore, all the members should submit to the standards of the faith and traditions of the apostles, not do as they please until someday "they are convicted about it". The church would not have a clear testimony if everyone did their own things. If your elders tell you it is wrong, or right, based on "teaching you to observe what Jesus commanded", and they show you the principle in the Bible; then you are convicted about it. God's Spirit works through the men He has gifted to perfect the saints and edify the church (Eph. 4).
God directs his church through Spirit anointed elders, bishops, deacons, etc. --- MEN. These men have not the liberty to change the gospel; but if they make a rule (like abstaining from TV programs) in order to lead the church to obey Christ's commands, and be holy; then you are bound to obey. The very reason Jesus chose ministers was for the "perfecting of the saints" (Eph. 4:11-14). JESUS IS GOING TO STAND ON THE SIDE OF HIS AUTHORITY STRUCTURE, IF THEY ARE STANDING ON THE WORD OF GOD.
If you disobey, this is unprofitable for you. You had better have a good case if you are going to reject the church's authority. You people in "Americanized Churchianity" may not comprehend this principle; but if you could understand the glory of a Biblical church, you would either hate it or love it -- revealing whether you are a sheep or goat. Goats don't last long in a Biblical church setting.
Critics have said, "Well, I think we should just focus more on 'getting the Word out' to sinners, rather than making an issue of this". Pray tell me, what Word are you wanting to get out? A watered down Bible full of eraser marks? The Word we are supposed to get out commands us to "teach sinners to observe all things". Not doing it would be "Sowing Tares", remember? (book #5) All the apostles taught is part of being a believer - there is no gospel salvation without the commandments of Christ and teaching of the apostles. Love demands we give people what God said to give. Look at what John the Baptist handed out? What did Jesus preach? What did Paul preach?
Another has said, "God accepts people just like they are -- just like he did the woman taken in adultery" Jesus accepts REPENTANT SINNERS where they are; but commands them to GO AND SIN NO MORE. He accepts us where we repented, but won't let us stay there.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christians -- even though they profess with their lips the teachings of Christ." Justin Martyr 160 AD
"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." I Jn. 2:3-5
Most people only want security, and so they only go far enough in religion to feel secure. This is not true faith in Jesus Christ. You cannot follow and love Jesus Christ without also desiring to observe all things he commanded, and be a doer of the Word. The two must go together, or you have been deceived. Your "love of life style" must surrender the "love of truth", or Jesus is not your Lord, you are. If you are not willing and anxious to take the full prescription the Great Physician has given, then you don't have faith in Him. It is that simple.
Dear readers, I know this may be new territory for you, and you may wonder why I am so emphatic. Don't forget what happened in Matt. 7:21-27. Please reconsider Paul's tearful warnings. Consider that when Paul said in Gal. 1:8,9, "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..."; he was not speaking about those who denied Jesus' resurrection, virgin birth, deity, etc.; but to men who were altering Paul's instructions concerning "practice". Men were saying that Jewish circumcision, diet, holy days, etc. were essential to Gentiles being Christians. If adding to Paul's message deserves damnation, what about the subtracting that is going on? Can you afford to keep your eyes closed?
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto 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 out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18-19
Are you going to rely on some false security like the Jews who came to see John the Baptist?
"Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." Luke 3:8-9
I am only trying to rescue you from apostate Americanized churchianity, and help you to find First Century Apostolic Christianity. Without this principle, you will never find it.
THE GOSPEL BALANCE
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I Cor. 9:19-22
Fearing that our studies will serve to justify those who abuse truth to the detriment of the church, I have felt it necessary to clarify myself better. There is a vital and important balance between being a faithful disciple, and being a faithful evangelist; between separation from the world, and reaching out to the world; between reaching our lawless society, and yet being under the law to Christ; and, between having standards that "perfect the saints", and not having standards that needlessly stumble the seeker.
I do not mean to oversimplify such a complex balance, yet I believe with all my heart it does not have to be that difficult--if there is sincere desire to find the balance, rather than justify our position. With the example of the apostolic churches, the clear Word of God, and common sense, I believe we can effectively contend for the faith, and still reach out and love sinners.
Paul was very clear where he drew the line: "...but under the law to Christ". He did not throw out one jot or tittle of the teachings of Jesus. To those without head coverings, he did not throw away that principle, but still taught it -- it is part of being under the law to Christ. We want to get to the minimum requirements for sinners, and yet not water down "teaching them to observe all things"-- just like the apostles did in Acts 15. If we really believe in hell, and really love sinners, we will lay aside every obstacle that we lawfully and righteously can to reach them.
Churches who add rules, like holding to the German language while living in an English speaking land; requiring "broad fall" pants; forbidding beards or mustaches; insisting on hair parted in the middle; and such like, are only declaring how little they care about the lost man going to hell. These rules they admit are not part of the "Law of Christ", and are not matters of morality, godliness, or modesty (because they fellowship, accept, and even use preachers from other churches who do not do these things); yet tell the sinners in their community they must do them in order to be a part of their church--this is the same thing Jesus reproved the Pharisees for doing.
Rules that keep "leaven"; carnality; worldliness; and immorality out of the body are one thing; but rules that have no moral bearing are actually wrong and harmful. There is no need to be in the ditch of "No Rules", or in the ditch of "Unnecessary Rules". The fences the church establishes for the sheep are to keep the sheep from going into temptation and destruction, not to uphold non-biblical tradition. These fences should never be used to keep people from growing in holiness, or being more Biblical. Where there is not moral danger to the body of Christ, there should be liberty. I have no problem with rules for maintaining a godly testimony for the church, when they are balanced with holy zeal to reach lost souls, and do not just uphold some dogma. Unless you hunger to win souls AND hunger to obey Jesus, you'll be out of balance.
Some people criticize churches whose rules tend to produce "clones". However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with striving to be "all of one mind" and "of the same judgment", just as the apostles tell us to be over and over in Scripture. The problem is when this "oneness" is abused and taken past the spiritual, doctrinal and moral issues of the church. I doubt the apostles wanted us to all part our hair the same, any more than they meant for us to use the same brand of dish soap -- this is not the idea. To agree on a biblical head-covering is perfectly right as we don't want fashion to bear rule in the design. If we consider the new converts, we will try to agree on a practical, simple, and easy to make head-covering.
For the men of the church to agree on a style or several styles of dress that are acceptable and modest for the ladies is perfectly right. The convert has to get modest clothes anyway, and needs to be taught what "modest" is. If we really care for reaching the lost, we will make this transition as practical and easy as possible without losing our modesty.
Men can get modest, plain clothes at Goodwill or Thrift stores, and thus save money. So to require clothes for men that must be homemade is not very practical. Women can rarely get modest, plain clothes from the world, because the world's fashions are bent on exposing women. It is actually more cost effective and much more modest to just have a simple dress pattern the ladies can make -- this is good for our daughters to learn anyway.
I recently saw a missionary who was wearing a very flowered shirt -- I assume to "relate" to the people in Africa. The irony is that the convert he was baptizing had a plain white shirt on. So, did the missionary really have to throw away plain dress to relate? No. We are to teach the Africans to dress modest and plain too. Obviously, it is not so easy for some Africans to change their wardrobe, just as it is not easy for naked heathen to make clothes; but all this can be done with time -- however, the missionary definitely can wear clothes of the right example. In China, if it is best to dress as the Chinese; then dress as a plain Chinese, not an immodest, extravagant one -- this isn't too hard, is it? The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the same over the whole world.
The principles of modest apparel transcend over geographical boundaries, just as any other moral issue does. We wouldn't expect Arabs to dress as Westerners, but still to dress modest, plain, simple, etc. The principles cannot be laid aside, but can be applied by church leaders in practical, godly ways for their country-- this will follow the type of dress for that country usually, but modify it to fit Bible principles.
In every case, loving the lost, loving our children, loving our members, and loving our Savior will balance our position. We want a chaste, holy bride (church) to present to Christ, but not the Pharisee definition of one. We want a safe environment in which to raise up godly children for many generations; but converting sinners God's way is safer for our children than just "holding the fort" our way. Converting lost sinners keeps the church hot, it is the "pew packing" without true conversion that is dangerous to the church. Making Jesus fans will ruin the church, but making disciples keeps the church alive and in focus.
There is, no doubt, areas where a leader lives his personal convictions on details, and allows others to live and learn by watching and growing. This area of tolerance cannot allow worldliness and leaven to infect the body. People are different, have different ways of keeping house, different ways to garden, different priorities, etc.; and should be allowed to be different, as long as their difference is not "walking in the flesh".
As long as someone has a willing heart, and is growing, we wait patiently for them to take the next step; but if they settle down and refuse to grow, we must prod and encourage continued growth. I would never excommunicate a willing, seeking, humble heart; but would lovingly help them grow. An obstinate, stubborn, rebellious heart must be dealt with, so others are not deceived. THE KEY IS A WILLING HEART --TRUE FAITH IN CHRIST.
CHAPTER 2 - MODESTY
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel (Gr. Katastole), with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array: but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." I Tim. 2:9,10
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation (conduct) coupled with fear. Whose adorning (beautifying) let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel (Gr. Himation);" I Peter 3:1-3
Of all the important doctrinal issues that Paul could have corresponded with Timothy about, he didn't fail to speak of women's modesty. In fact, Paul and Peter both, when speaking about women, made sure they dealt with modesty. Of all the important things in the Christian life that pertain to women, the apostles made sure they spoke of dress, jewelry, hair, head veil, and chastity. Yes, it is a big deal what you observe in these matters. Satan knows all too well that you can be doctrinally sound in every other area and still lose your soul and those of your young people by means of immodesty.
When Paul wrote to young pastor Timothy to make sure the women adorned themselves in modest apparel; it was then pastor Timothy's responsibility to make judgments concerning what is modest and what is not modest. He had to "teach them to observe" modesty. The important point is that Paul expected Timothy to make judgments and be sure the people were dressing modest.
The apostles, in these passages, are "teaching them to observe" Jesus' commands to some extent; but leave some room for the bishops to finish the work. It would be wonderful if pastors today at least taught their people the specific things the apostles did mention (no jewelry, no fancy or costly clothes, no hair-do, but a head covering, etc.) Godly church leaders today must search the Scripture to find God's idea of modest. What did the apostles teach the people concerning this subject? It is the glory of kings to search out a matter...
BASIC OBSERVATIONS
Simple grammar tells us that we should not wear: gold, pearls, costly array, broided hair, immodest apparel, fancy clothes (Himation). So, since we can't wear gold, "I'll wear silver". Is that the idea? No. It is obvious to the seeking soul that the apostles are telling us not to "ornament" our bodies for self glory and not to follow the fashion of the world. We are NOT to work at beautifying our outsides, but this work should be only on our insides.
"As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (conduct)." I Pet. 1:14,15
We are not to dress to look rich, or attract the carnal praises of carnal and wicked men. We are not to justify the world's seeking of self-glory, by partaking in it ourselves.
Paul says to Timothy to instruct the people (teach them to observe) to adorn themselves in modest apparel ....NOT WITH broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array -- of any kind. Now, if you wear costly array of any kind, you are WITH these items; when you should be NOT WITH these items.
Peter tells the wives to win their unbelieving, and worldly husbands by... "dressing to kill"? Did Peter tell them to dress however the husband wanted them to? No, they were accountable to dress and live godly even with an ungodly and unbelieving husband. He said, concerning their adorning: LET IT NOT BE the outward dressing up, fixing hair, putting on jewelry, and fancy clothes (Himation). Now, if you wear a gold ring, you are LETTING IT BE; when you are commanded to LET IT NOT BE.
Yes, I know the Baptists and others like to follow the NKJV perversion and say LET IT NOT MERELY BE; but "merely" is not in the Greek text. It is perversion, and if you "live" it, don't criticize those who tamper with the Word of God, because you are one of them. Peter wouldn't tell them not to merely have outward adorning, while Paul is saying to dress modest, not with gold, pearls, and costly array. You notice they can't fit their merely in Paul's statement. They try to say that "it" in I Peter 3:3 simply refers to their emphasis; but this is ignoring rules of proper grammar. "IT" in I Peter 3:3 does not refer to "emphasis", but to "adorning". The word "emphasis" does not appear in the passage. If you diagram the sentence, you will see "IT" refers to ADORNING. Let your adorning NOT BE the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel (himation - fancy clothes). Let your adorning (beautifying - ornamentation) be the inner spiritual beauty of holiness and godliness in a meek and quiet spirit. You can't serve God and mammon, nor can you have your adorning on the inside while at the same time you are competing on the outside with the world's fashions - they are opposing forces.
MODEST
The word "modest" must be defined for our generation in terms that fit God's program and not our glory. We have already learned that "dressing up" to please carnal man is wrong. We have learned that wearing jewelry, fancy clothes, worldly hair fashions, costly clothes, etc. are all DISOBEDIENCE.
We are told to wear "modest apparel" -- what is that? First, I want you to notice that the word "modest" doesn't just mean "covered up". Modest is an attitude that shows in your dress as well as every other part of your life. Paul uses the synonyms, "shamefacedness", "sobriety", "chaste", "meek", "quiet", and "fear"; but not, "showy", "proud", "sensual", and "attractive".
If I say, "He has a modest house"; what am I saying? If I say, "He makes a modest wage"; what am I saying? Modest also means, "simple", "plain", and is the opposite of extravagant. Yes, modesty should be seen, not only in our clothes, but in our homes, cars, and every area of our life. We are to be a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
1. We should not appear rich, or desirous of being rich.
1Ti 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
2. We should not appear sensual or sexually attractive.
I Thess. 4:4,5 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
3. We should not appear to support fads, fashion groups, special interest groups, etc.
1Pe 1:14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
4. We should not allow the praise of men to dictate our dress.
1Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
5. We should appear as humble, content, spiritual, hard working, modest, chaste, followers of Jesus Christ. That which is highly esteemed among men is still an abomination in the sight of God. The early Christians became a "gazing stock", and so will you when you follow Jesus and protest the world's parade.
Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
KATASTOLE
If one, out of desire to live by Bible principles and to be a faithful leader, digs a little deeper; they will realize that we are not to use "our point of reference" to determine what is modest. They will then ask the question: "What was considered modest apparel in the first century? What principles can we find to apply to our century? Would we be considered modest if we were suddenly placed in the Antioch church in 50 AD? They will then find that the term used by Paul in I Timothy, actually has a "historical setting" in a "style" of dress. Paul said to dress in modest apparel -- KOSMIOS KATASTOLE. The word Katastole evidently refers to parts of the Roman and Grecian dress.
The Katastole seems to have been a "vest" type cover over the Stola or dress. The sincere, God fearing people of the day knew what was considered modest. Here is the testimony of Adam Clarke, in his commentary:
"The apostle seems to refer here to different parts of the Grecian and Roman dress. The stola seems to have been originally very simple. It was a long piece of cloth, doubled in the middle, and sewed up on both sides, leaving room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was cut out, or a slit was made, through which the head passed. It hung down to the feet, both before and behind, and was girded with the zona round the body, just under the breasts. It was sometimes made with, sometimes without, sleeves; and, that it might sit the better, it was gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle.
The katastole seems to have been the same as the pallium or mantle, which, being made nearly in the form of the stola, hung down to the waist, both in back and front, was gathered on the shoulder with a band or buckle, had a hole or slit at top for the head to pass through, and hung loosely over the stola, without being confined by the zona or girdle. Representations of these dresses may be seen in Len's Costume des Peuples de l'Antiquit'e, fig. 11,12,13, and 16. A more modest and becoming dress than the Grecian was never invented; it was, in a great measure, revived in England about the year 1805, and in it, simplicity, decency, and elegance were united; but it soon gave place to another mode, in which frippery and nonsense once more prevailed. It was too rational to last long; and too much like religious simplicity to be suffered in a land of shadows, and a world of painted outsides."
So, if we really want to understand what the apostles had in mind, we can look at the "historical setting" of this command; or, if we don't, we can also follow the "frippery and nonsense" of our age.
The Ana-baptist peoples, and many other godly groups have followed the "Katastole principle" in their dress for the ladies by using a "cape-dress", "dress and vest", or some other way of producing the simple, modest, "double covering" of the Katastole. The advantages of this dress are obvious: A loose, long, full dress, with a second cover to the waist that wasn't drawn in at the waist. This avoids the "drawn in waste" that immodestly accentuates other parts of the body. Such practicality and modesty, why wouldn't every Christian woman want to follow this godly example? Why?
So, is it right for a bishop, in "teaching them to observe", to lead his church to dress in a modest, Katastole-type dress without jewelry, lace, bright colors, fancy prints, and such? Of course it is. Where is the backing for NOT LEADING YOUR CHURCH TO DO SO. Are you teaching your people to "observe all things"? Are you striving for excellence or convenience? It is also right for the bishop to counsel in "home decor", types of vehicles, etc. to "teach people to observe" modesty and simplicity for the testimony of the church and to avoid the snare of the Devil.
I Cor. 6:19,20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
2 Cor. 6:16-7:1 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
TESTIMONY OF GODLY MEN
Charles Finney, One of America's greatest evangelists (1792-1875).
The question now regards fashion, in dress, equipage, and so on. And here I will confess that I was formerly myself in error. I believed, and taught, that the best way for Christians to pursue, was to dress so as not to be noticed, to follow the fashions and changes so as not to appear singular, and that nobody would be led to think of their being different from others in these particulars. But I have seen my error, and now wonder greatly at my former blindness. It is your duty to dress so plain as to show to the world, that you place no sort of reliance in the things of fashion, and set no value at all on them, but despise and neglect them altogether. But unless you are singular, unless you separate yourselves from the fashions of the world, you show that you do value them. There is no way in which you can bear proper testimony by your lives against the fashions of the world, but by dressing plain. "Lectures to Professing Christians," Pg. 146
John Wesley, Founder of the Methodist Church (1703-1791)
I am distressed. I know not what to do. I see what I might have done once. I might have said peremptorily and expressly, "Here I am; I and my Bible. I will not, I dare not vary from this Book either in great things or small. I have no power to dispense with one jot or tittle of what is contained therein. I am determined to be a Bible Christian, not almost, but altogether. Who will meet me on this ground? Join me on this, or not at all." With regard to dress in particular, I might have been as firm (and I now see it would have been better), as either the people called Quakers, or the Moravian brethren. I might have said, "This is our manner of dress which we know is both Scriptural and rational. If you join with us, you are to dress as we do; but you need not join us unless you please." But, alas. The time is now past; and what I can do now, I cannot tell. Wesley's Sermons Vol. II, Pg. 439. Dublin, July 2, 1789.
"Shall I be more particular still? Then, I 'exhort all those who desire me to watch over their souls,' Wear no gold....no pearls, or precious stones; use no curling of the hair, or costly apparel, how grave soever... Buy no velvets, no silks, no fine linen, no superfluities, no mere ornaments, though ever so much in fashion. Wear nothing, though you have it already,...which is in any kind gay, glittering, or showy; nothing made in the very height of the fashion, nothing apt to attract the eyes of the by-standers. I do not advise women to wear rings, ear-rings, necklaces, lace (of whatever kind or colour), or ruffles.... It is true, these are little, very little things, which are not worth defending; therefore, give them up, let them drop, throw them away without another word; else, a little needle may cause much pain in your flesh, a little self-indulgence much hurt to your soul."
The Words of John Wesley, Vol. XI London: Weslayan-Methodist Book-room.
Adoniram Judson (1788-1850) America's first foreign missionary: to Burma:
In a letter to the Christian women of America, he illustrates how he dealt with a new convert from among the heathen:
After the usual examination, I inquired whether she would give up her ornaments for Christ. It was an unexpected blow. I explained the spirit of the Gospel. I appealed to her consciousness of vanity. I read to her the apostle's prohibition. She looked again and again at her handsome necklace -- she wore but one -- and then with an air of modest decision... she quietly took it off, saying, 'I love my Christ more than this'. The news began to spread. The Christian women made but little hesitation.
Judson now makes an appeal to American women:
Let me appeal to your conscience, and inquire, What is the real motive for wearing ornamental and costly apparel? Is it not the desire of setting off one's person to the best advantage, and of exciting the admiration of others? Is not such dress calculated to gratify self-love, and cherished sentiments of vanity and pride?...Do such motives and sentiments compare with the meek, humble, and self-denying religion of Jesus Christ? I would...suggest, that these questions will not be answered so faithfully, in the midst of company, as when quite alone, kneeling before God. Surely you can hold out no longer. You cannot rise from your knees in your present attire. Thanks be to God, I see you taking off your necklaces and ear-rings, tearing away your ribbons, and ruffles, and superfluities of headdress..."
Herald of Truth, Elkhart, In, V. 10 (October, 1868), 146-148, quoted in J,C. Wenger, op. cit., pp. 145-151.
Menno Simons, Anabaptist leader (1496-1561): (writing about the state church)
Dear reader, take notice that all the proud, haughty, avaricious, carnal, and adulterous persons who call themselves Christians, but are not such (for they testify by their disposition, heart, mind, and life that they hate Christ),....They say that they believe, and yet, alas, there are no limits nor bounds to their accursed haughtiness, foolish pride and pomp; they parade in silks, velvets, costly clothes, gold rings, chains, silver belts, pins, and buttons, curiously adorned shirts, shawls, collars, veils, aprons, velvet shoes, slippers, and such like foolish finery. They never regard that the exalted apostles Peter and Paul have in plain and express words forbidden this all to Christian women. And if forbidden to women, how much more to men who are the leaders and heads of their wives. Notwithstanding all this they still want to be called the Christian Church. The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, pg. 377
Well, I think we know the difference between the slick tongued preachers of today, and the God fearing men of yesterday.. Believe me I could add many quotes from church writings of the first 3 centuries.
Today, if you try to build a church that observes "all things whatsoever" Jesus commanded, you are a freak and a cultist. The problem is ignorant and rebellious people who run from the light, because they love their darkness. Compare the lives of these men I have quoted with the life of your smooth talking, compromising preacher.
DEFRAUDING -- FORNICATION
"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness." I Thess. 4:3-7
Notice how the apostle equates "going beyond" the bounds of modesty and "defrauding" his brother (or sister); with "fornication". If you dress for sex appeal, or ignorantly dress in a way that tempts others to think unlawful thoughts, then you are guilty of defrauding. The form-fitting dress; the materials that lay against the form; shear materials; gaping between buttons; low necklines; slit skirts; short skirts; sleeveless; patterns that accentuate body shape; tight fitting clothes; and any other slick trick of Satan to draw people into sin. This goes for men also. Tight form fitting jeans, unbuttoned shirts, tank tops, shorts, T-shirts, thin or shear shirts, etc. are defrauding to the sisters.
You can defraud brothers and sisters by looks, winks, flirting, flattery, lack of sobriety, and not conducting yourself with holiness.
"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity." I Tim. 5:1
Living in holiness with God's people is a challenge for all of us; but the problem is not the difficulty of the way; it is those who would rather come to church to be worshipped than to worship. The problem is secret desires that stem from our wicked fleshly nature. We should strive to build up the church, not tear it down by seeking self-glory and carnal preferences. There must be modesty in the home, work, and church -- everywhere we are and go, we should properly represent Christ. Family nudity and immodesty is wickedness. Having immodest pictures, magazines, art, photos, or such like in our home is defrauding to those who find it or see it. God has called us to holiness, and holiness is modest. IT IS RIGHT FOR CHURCH LEADERS TO SET GODLY STANDARDS OF MODESTY FOR THEIR PEOPLE IN ORDER TO "TEACH THEM TO OBSERVE" MODESTY.
I have made this section a major portion of this tract - why? Why, when so many others make this of very little value, and allow people to dress as they please? I grew up in a church where people dressed as they pleased, and have witnessed the fruits of such ways. I have compared what I saw with what the Bible says. I have seen how mankind's major judgments stemmed from apostasy due to immodesty and sensuality. Look at the flood of Noah: What caused it? Look at Sodom and Gomorrah: What caused it? Why did 23,000 people die in Israel (I Cor. 10:8)? What caused David to fall? Sampson? What was one of the main things David warned Solomon of as we see in Proverbs? What made Solomon fall? Must I go on? You can have right doctrine, good form, nice buildings, and a great heritage, but immodesty in dress and life can still draw your people into Hell right under your nose.
Many times it is wiser to set some simple standards, rather than put the pastor in a bad position of having to police the dress. Printed materials are hard to regulate, and it is unwise for a pastor to have to approach a lady or her husband to let them know their print is too wild after the woman has already made the dress. So, to set a standard which allows only plain solids or just certain types of prints is wise. Give your leaders some slack, and don't buck and rare over the standards set. If you want to do as you please, there are many apostate churches who will let you. If you want to do as you please, just don't complain when everyone else does too.
CHAPTER 3 - HEAD COVERING
If you are just turning to this chapter, without reading all the teaching in the doctrinal series, to try and criticize and justify your disobedience to Scripture; "Do you really want truth?"
You need to understand that we are to be practicing the same faith as the first century apostolic churches had. This is vital. All the commentaries that I have read, which deal with the historical setting of I Corinthians 11, all admit that the practice of the first century churches was that of the women wearing a head veil. So, before we begin to discuss the subject, let me ask you: Do you believe that we are to contend for the "faith once delivered to the saints"? Do you believe that what "all the churches of God" did in the first century, we are to be doing in the 20th century and the 21st?
There are many good books and studies on this subject, and my purpose is not to exhaust the resources, as there are many. "Let Her Be Veiled" (Tom Shank); "Demons In The Church" (Skolfield); Symbols of Divine Order in the Church (Shelter & Shank); The Head Covering (Timothy Nelson); "The Veiling Of The Virgins" (Tertullian); and many others are available if you want to study the subject further.
I've never met a humble seeker of truth who tried to refute or avoid this issue.
HISTORICAL SETTING
In the first century, for women to be seen in public without a head veil was considered immodest. A Jewish man was allowed to divorce a woman who went abroad without a veil. The apostle Paul sets forth, not just the cultural practice, but the Christian practice in I Cor. 11:1-16,
VS. 1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Does this apply to us? It sure does. Are you willing to follow a Holy Spirit inspired apostle?
VS. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Are you remembering Paul in all things? The context is speaking of church ordinances. What is an ordinance? What is a city ordinance? It is law. This is part of the Law of Christ. It is part of the traditions spoken of in II Thess. 2:15 and 3:6 -- The Greek word translated ordinance in I Cor. 11:2 is the same Greek word translated traditions II Thess. 2:15 & 3:6. You don't have liberty to disobey God's Word. Christian liberty is not liberty to disobey the Word of God.
John said that the world could not contain all the books that could be written about what Jesus said and did -- now, since God hand picked what we have in our small New Testament; you can be sure it is all important. Every tradition of the apostles that God wanted us to know about is in the Word. If God saw fit to put it in the New Testament, then it is important enough for us to obey. In the first century, you ladies would be wearing head veils in submission to the teachings of the apostles, or you would be excommunicated -- and lose your hope of Heaven.
VSS. 3,4 But I would have you to 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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Preachers who disregard the head veil ordinance for the women in their church always take their hat off to pray, and would never wear one in the pulpit -- but never ask themselves why.
VS. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:
1. EVERY WOMAN is what it says. That is pretty clear to understand, if you want to obey Jesus.
2. Prayeth or prophesieth is a simple summation of "spiritual business". We are either talking to God, or talking to men for God. This in no way implies women leading in the church. Do we accuse Paul of senility? Or worse yet, the Holy Spirit?
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." I Cor. 14:34,35 -- see context in vss. 26-33.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the 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." I Tim. 2:11-14
The prohibition is not against women singing, with the men, songs chosen for the church by the men; but against "leading" in prayer, teaching, singing in front of the church -- which is ministering in song (she doesn't qualify for a minister); or even asking questions in the assembly, because that can be used to argue, or lead the discussion. God said it, and you ladies will be best off to follow. Is your pastor "teaching you to observe this"?
VS. 5b ..for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Do men take off their hair when they pray? No. Is short, or cut hair "even all one as if she were shaven?" No. Paul says for a woman to pray with an "uncovered" head is even all one as if she were shaven. This cannot be said if the "uncovered head" was just the absence of "long hair"; because short or cut hair is not "even all one as if she were shaven" It simply is not so.
This cannot be said if the "uncovered head" was an actual shaven head, because it would also not be "even all one as if" she were shaven--she would be shaven. This cannot be said of just having long hair up in a "bun" and then letting it down -- that is definitely not "even all one as if she were shaven". This can only be said if she took off her veil; and the shame of taking off her spiritual veil (all at once) was equal to the shame of losing her natural veil (long hair) all at once. In this situation only can it be rightly said, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for THAT is even all one AS IF she were shaven".
Men took of their hat or turban, etc. and women didn't remove their veil. Paul is making a parallel between the natural covering (hair) and the spiritual covering (veil). To remove the spiritual covering (all at once); is compared to removing the natural covering all at once -- shaven. He is about to show that the common knowledge of shame associated with the shaven woman, is to be also for the uncovered woman as well. It is the same shame.
VS. 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.
"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:" Now, pay attention: If the covering is nothing but long hair, then Paul would not say, "let her also be shorn" -- for she would already be shorn. What he is saying is this: "If the woman is going to be unveiled, let her also be shorn" -- there, that makes sense, doesn't it? Paul says that if you are going to be so immodest and bold as to take off the spiritual veil, then you might as well cut off your hair also, like one of the pagan temple prostitutes at Corinth. Both, the cutting of the hair short, and the removing of the veil is usurping the man's position - feminists have now done both!
This speaks of wearing the head covering all the time, not just in church. The women of the east who are not even Christians still wear the veil in public, if they are decent women. It is a shame to shear off your hair, and you should feel the same way about being without your spiritual head covering. This is a covering with spiritual significance, that covers the hair (the woman's glory) for modesty, and humility, in the presence of God, the angels, and man. See. Is. 47:1-3 to understand the Old Testament shame of uncovering the locks of the head. The long hair was to be covered.
VS. 7-12 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 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 ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Where is the argument for following local custom? It is not here. Paul's reasons for this CHURCH ORDINANCE are all SPIRITUAL. 1. Man's relation to woman. 2. Order of creation. 3. Man and woman's relation to God. 4. Women's relation to the angels.
Jewish tradition has it that Angels are present at worship services and will flee from an unveiled woman, because she is promoting rebellion. A woman ought to be covered whenever she is being a light to the world, teaching her children, praying with the neighbor, witnessing at the market, etc. It is rebellious to do spiritual business when you are rejecting God's spiritual order and design. Does this attract evil angels to you, and drive good ones away? It may. Paul seems to agree with the Jewish tradition.
The idea here is that, as man is the glory and image of God, created for God's pleasure; so woman is the glory of man, created for man -- for this cause the woman should have a symbol of authority (submission to this order) on her head, because not to do so reveals rebellion to God's order. This spiritual neon sign tells the spirit world (angels) whose side you are on. When you are under your canopy of authority, you are protected in ways you may never know. There is no hint of Paul just telling them to follow local custom.
VS. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Remember Paul is asking people who lived in the east about 2000 years ago, not an American. In that day and age the obvious answer of anyone, other than some grievous wolf, was NO. It wasn't even comely to be seen in public with your head bare showing off your locks of hair to men other than your husband. When a woman "lets her hair down" (letting it be seen down and flowing), she is understood to be laying aside her modest discretion. Adam Clarke says this: "...it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils."
If it was so uncomely to be seen in public without a veil; was it comely to be in public praying, prophesying, and thus representing Christ without a veil? If you can't think your theology back to the first century, then you will never find truth.
VSS. 14-15 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
What is the lesson of nature? Does it back up Paul's teaching about the veil? Since he used it as a parallel for his argument in verses 5 & 6, lets look at it. Yes, men cut off their natural veil, and don't wear a spiritual veil. Yes, women wear the natural veil, and also should wear the spiritual veil -- Doth not even nature teach you?
I find it shamefully humorous that so many argue that the hair is the covering, and then go around with bobbed, chopped, and permed hair. They are just rebelling.
The Greek word for the spiritual veil is katakalupto: kata -- down, kalupto -- hide or cover. Something hanging down the head, which hides and covers the head.
The Greek word for the hair being a covering in vs. 15 is peribolaion: peri -- around, ballo -- cast, throw, thrust. The hair was usually worn "around" the head -- thrust around; and is compared to putting a coat on the body. The hair was a coat for the head -- usually wrapped up around the head. This is the Greek word used in Heb. 1:12 for "vesture". So, even though some translations give "covering" for both words, yet even the Greek testifies that the veil and the hair are two different coverings: One which hangs down, and one which is wrapped around.
VS. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
"In spite of all I've taken my time to explain, if someone wants to argue about it, then forget all I've said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, forget the angels, nature, order of creation, pleasing God, and the authority of the church, and just forget it" -- IS THIS WHAT PAUL IS SAYING? NO. GOD FORBID. Yet, some false prophets actually teach this.
Here is what Paul is saying: If someone wants to argue, and say women don't have to cover their heads as I have just explained, then he must stand alone; because we apostles and all the churches of God have no such custom of women going without their heads veiled. Notice that Paul says all the churches of God had the same practice -- how foolish it is, in light of this, to say, "it was just a local custom", or "it was just long hair". We know what the churches practiced in the first century, and these churches were scattered over the Roman Empire. You could find what any one of them practiced, and thereby know what they all practiced. Are you one that "seems to be contentious"? There were some in Corinth, and let me share what else Paul said about them in I Cor. 14:37,38. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Is this how you want the Holy Spirit to think of you, because you are over impressed with your argumentive opinion? YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH HISTORY. Paul said that all the churches had the same custom about women wearing head coverings --SO WHAT DID ALL THE CHURCHES OF GOD DO IN THE FIRST CENTURIES OF CHRISTIANITY? NAY, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE FOR THE LAST 2000 YEARS, EXCEPT THE APOSTATE DENOMINATIONS. The burden of proof rests on the contentious person to prove that "all the churches of God" did not have their women wear veils -- I wouldn't want that job. History is unanimously in agreement with this pamphlet.
Did all the churches of God just wear the veil in church? No. Some will argue that since men can wear hats in public, women can also take off their veil. The spiritual significance has to do with women while praying, prophesying, etc.; but it must be also remembered that it isn't immodest for a man to wear a hat in public -- it is immodest for a woman to be uncovered. It doesn't affect the "angels" for a man to wear a hat in the cold, etc.; but it does for the woman to be uncovered. Don't argue that, "men can't ever wear hats, if women should not be out without their covering". You are ignoring the historical usage and practice of those who knew exactly what the apostle meant.
Is this for us today? If you want to be the bride of Jesus, "teaching them to observe all things", and following Jesus through Paul with "all the churches of God" -- it is.
"The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound.... Arabia's pagan females will be your judges. For they cover not only the head, but the face also." Tertullian (Written about 207 A.D.)
Tertullian complains in his day that some of the veils were getting smaller. There was also a question as to how young a girl should be veiled. He would have choked on some of this modern twisting of Scripture to allow women to be unveiled altogether. Go ask Tertullian if Paul was just speaking about the hair. He lived 100 years removed from the first century, and lived in the same part of the world, around the Mediterranean.
The early churches understood the value of the "traditions or ordinances" of the apostles. All who make Bible story books draw the women with head veils. The real argument is whether or not we have the liberty to discard what the faithful churches from the first century until now have died for. On which side will you stand? Is Jesus worth it to you?
CHAPTER 4 - LOVE
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" Matt. 5:44
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me:" John 8:42
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him…If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." John 14:21,23,24
"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." I Cor. 13:4-7
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema-Maranatha" (accursed - our Lord cometh). I Cor. 16:22
"But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him." I John 2:5
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." I John 2:15
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another." I John 4:7-11
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also." I John 4:20,21
"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." I John 5:2-3
If we wish to be Biblical, we must strive to practice a love that encompasses every aspect of love mentioned about. Love cannot be pure and Christ-like toward our fellow man until we "love God and keep his commandments". It is impossible to bypass the precept and have proper brotherly love. If our love doesn't reprove the Pharisees; demand repentance; hate evil; forgive the adulteress; pray for those nailing us to the cross; and all that comes in between, then we are in need of growth. Love that doesn't preach hard and rebuke those who need it, is not true love. Love that doesn't hate error and fight against it, is not true love.
Because we love God, we live in such a way that pleases God. Godliness has to do with not offending God, and living according to his mind, heart, will, and opinion. Because we love God, we honor the "Lord's Day"; meditate in his Word; support his church, contend for the Faith; warn sinners; live holy; obey all things he taught through his Son Jesus, and the apostles; and worship him with all our heart, soul, and mind.
We don't lay up treasure on earth, but seek his kingdom and righteousness. Our homes, cars, and belongings are TOOLS to build his kingdom, not TOYS to satisfy our lusts and pride. They are purchased for this purpose. Our home decor is simple and godly, with walls holding Bible verses, not "Home Interiors" vanities. Our furnishings are kept simple and frugal, so we have more resources for the work of God. We truly try to set our affections on things above, not on things of the earth.
Because we love our brother/sister, we live to provoke him/her to reach their potential for Christ. We live to help them to know God better, and reach heaven safer. Our example is the greatest influence on our brethren. Our walk first, then our talk. Because we love our brethren, we call not our possessions our own, but share as wise stewards of God's blessings. We dress as to never defraud We strive to set the perfect example. We do our part in the church. We carry our burden and try to help others. We strive to preserve the faith for the next generation. We are slow to criticize and quick to believe the best. We pray for each other. We greet one another with the kiss of charity, and in very practical ways, we lay down our lives (opinions, ambitions, pride, possessions, etc.) for the brethren.
Because we love our neighbors and enemies, we try to reach them with the truth, and save their souls from Hell. We preach repentance to them. We strive to be a perfect example, so as not to cause them to stumble away from God. We seek opportunity to help, and thus influence them. We don't sue at the law, or seek vengeance; but try to bless those who curse us, and pray for those who persecute us. Rather than being overcome with evil, we try to overcome evil with good. We don't buy or go out to eat on Sunday, and cause the ungodly to lose their opportunity to attend church services to feed us. Etc.