Are Christian women neglecting the command for head-coverings in church? Some consider this section of Scripture as completely cultural and identify all parts as the custom of contention (1 Cor 11:16). However, Christians cannot avoid that the apostle Paul commanded that Christians must maintain tradition just as delivered to them (1 Cor 11:2). Many believe that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that women must wear cloth coverings hanging over their heads when practicing their faith around men. The interpretations of this passage vary among believers concerning whether the covering is spiritual, garment, or hair. This study draws observations from the Scriptures with consideration of historical background.
Covering and Glory
Long hair is the only covering that Paul specifically mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11. However, some women may not have long hair and need another covering. The text reveals, “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor 11:15). Verses 6 and 7 use the Greek word katakalupto, which literally means “to cover downward” (Gingrich and Danker’s lexicon, BDAG). A woman’s head being uncovered was the same personal shame as having her hair sheared or shaved (1 Cor 11:4–6).
Starting from verse 4, this passage is about what will personally shame the woman’s head. Verse 5 indicates that a personal shame for a woman to shear or shave her head. As other scriptures explain, the woman who elaborately arranged her hair uncovered her head and disregarded her God-given glory and God’s headship. Having long hair is a God-given glory to the woman (1 Cor 11:15). The Scriptures teach that the Christian woman should cover her head in subordination to God’s order of headship and thereby glorify God, Christ, and man (1 Cor 11:3–6). God made male and female in His image and yet He has given each a different glory. “Woman is the glory of man” because man is the “glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7).
Humility, Modesty, and Hair
The woman who washed Jesus’s feet demonstrated how a woman letting her hair down was an act of humility (Luke 7:36–50; cf. Matt 28:9). Lazarus’s sister, Mary of Bethany, demonstrated humility by wiping Jesus’s feet with her hair and anointing him with oil in preparation for his burial (John 12:1–8). In the Journal of Biblical Literature, Charles Cosgrove cited numerous ancient sources depicting how women let their hair down as an act of humility within the Greco-Roman and Jewish societies.[1]
Both Paul and Peter instructed modesty and humility among women in 1 Corinthians 11. In 1 Peter 3:1–6, Peter also applied caution to the external decorating of hair and clothing where a woman’s adornment must exist within her heart. Peter explained, “Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God” (1 Pet 3:3–4 NASB). The braiding of hair appears to mean putting up the hair against the head rather than hanging and covering the head. This practice of braiding with gold and peals demonstrated a lack of humility and modesty.
In Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Ferguson noted,
Portrait sculpture of the Flavian period gives specificity to the type of hairstyles and jewelry forbidden in 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3. The braiding of the hair was very elaborate and ostentatious, quite unlike the simple braid of modern times. The items mentioned in the biblical texts were characteristic of the wealthy upper classes and those who imitated them.[2]
God also instructed the Christian women in 1 Timothy 2:9–10, “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided [woven] hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.” The apostle Paul described elaborately adorned hair as immodest, insubordinate, and not proper for a woman’s claim to godliness. The immodest women in the church at Corinth most probably had put their hair up and probably elaborately adorned their hair woven with gold and pearls demonstrating immodesty, wealth, and authority that was not proper in the church.[3]
Headship and Head-Covering
By not letting their hair hang down, women dishonored God’s headship by dishonoring the man who is head of woman. This headship is not dominance of one over another, but this is like God’s headship to Christ and Christ’s headship to man. Headship implied servant leadership (Mark 10:42–45). Christ led by service, and so men are to lead women by service. By elaborately braiding and adorning hair with gold and pearls, women behaved or appeared as wealthy and immodest, and thus some women exercised authority over men. Thereby, they appeared to reject the man’s God-given instruction to lead and teach because God created man first for this purpose (1 Tim 2:13–14; cf. 1 Cor 11:3, 7–9).
In the Greco-Roman world, the custom for powerful women of authority was to braid their hair with gold and pearls and dress as though higher than others. Pagan women in this time led worship to Diana and Dionysus, and thus women exercised power and influence through the cults.[4] Among the churches, some women arranged and adorned their hair with gold and pearls, and they did not let their long hair hang down to show the God-given glory of woman and the glory of man in woman (1 Cor 11:7, 15). The apostles taught that a woman’s hair was to demonstrate modesty and humility to glorify her God-given glory of man and God’s headship. However, the shame of a woman cutting her hair short was her personal shame. The Greek word for this “shame” is kataischuno appearing in verses 4 and 5, and this word specifically refers to a personal shame or humiliation among people. This word also appears in 1 Corinthians 11:22 where those who partook of the Lord’s Supper without waiting for other Christians were trying to humiliate and shame them (cf. 1 Cor 1:27).
Custom and Contention
The context of 1 Corinthians 11 is that a Christian is not to offend another’s conscience with one’s liberty (1 Cor 10:23–33). The message is a matter of modesty between men and women under the headship of God and Christ. Christian women must display Godly principles of modesty and humility even in dress. Women are not to shame their heads with claims of authority or shame of cutting her hair short. These Scriptures guide Christians to present God’s headship as God is head of Christ, Christ is head of man, and man is head of woman. Christians should remain considerate of demonstrating humility and modesty.
Because of contention, the apostle Paul affirmed that the churches of God have no such custom of women praying with their heads uncovered (1 Cor 11:13–16). Christians must avoid contention over customs. In 1 Corinthians 11:13, Paul expressed, “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (NASB). The use of the word “proper” indicates whatever is for modesty and to respect authority. That same Greek word for “proper” also appears in 1 Timothy 2 to a related matter. In 1 Timothy 2:10, Paul revealed what is proper that Christian women are to adorn themselves with good works “as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.” The translators interpret “proper” from the Greek word prepo meaning “becoming,” “appropriate,” or “fitting” (Matt 3:15; Eph 5:3; Titus 2:1; Heb 2:10; 7:26). Therefore, these Christian women were to pray with their hair hanging to cover their heads as is proper and fitting for demonstrating the headship that God established. In this setting, these Christian women were to allow their hair to hang down in humility because long hair is a God-given covering and glory. In other words, women are to maintain feminine appearance especially in how they keep their hair.
Nature reveals that men and women differ in their pattern of hair. The apostle Paul exhorted, “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor 11:13–15). The apostle Paul observed that long hair for a man and cropped hair for a woman is a “disgrace” according to nature. Nature as God’s created order affects customs and culture despite society’s resistance.
Coffman’s Commentary
Furthermore, consider the insight of James B Coffman who comments upon a woman’s hair as her covering:
Verse 4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
Having his head covered…
Here is where the misunderstanding of this passage begins. This clause, as rendered in the popular versions, is commentary, not Bible. As Echols noted:
“Having his head covered” is a commentary, not a translation. Lenski translated the sense correctly: “having something down from his head.” What the “something” is is neither stated nor implied in 1 Corinthians 11:4.
The logical understanding of this would refer it to “long hair,” being long enough to hang down from the head, as clearly indicated by the apostles’ words a moment later: “If a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him” (1 Corinthians 11:14).
The ancients accepted Paul’s dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul’s words.
“The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes … cropping is to be adopted … let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets.”
Significantly, the words “hang far down” strongly resemble Paul’s words “having something down from his head.” The above is from Clement of Alexandria and was written in the second century.[5]
However, some may ask about verses 5–6. These verses seem to imply that not covering with a garment is like a woman’s hair being sheared or shaved. Paul is simply affirming that short hair and hair drawn up on the head is the same as a cropped or shaved head. A literal translation is:
Every woman praying or prophesying with head uncovered disgraces her head; for this is also one and the same as being shaved. For if the woman is not covered, she must also become sheared; and if this is a disgrace to the woman to become sheared or shaved, she must remain covered. (1 Cor 11:5–6)
Coffman noted,
If Paul meant “hair,” why did he use the word “covered”? The answer is that in the vocabulary of the Old Testament “to uncover the head” was to shave off the hair. When Nadab and Abihu sinned (Leviticus 10:1ff), God commanded Aaron not to “uncover his head” in mourning at their death; and this meant not to cut off his hair (the customary sign of mourning). Job shaved his head when he learned his children were dead (Job 1:20). Many examples of this usage could be cited.[6]
“If it is a shame to a woman to be cropped or shaven, let her be covered” in verse 6 clearly refers to a covering of hair as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:15, “And if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her long hair is given to her for a covering.”
Because of the Angels
What about verse 10’s reference to angels: “because of the angels”? Verse 10 is referring to authority. This scripture shows how women should have authority on their heads. The woman who prophesies also receives revelation from God through angels to prophesy and angels also deliver prayers (Heb 2:2; Rev 1:1; 8:3–4). This instruction has to do with the woman’s service in prayer and teaching before God. She is to serve with apparent respect and modesty. Therefore, “every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Cor 11:5).
By not covering her head, the Christian woman dishonors herself being that God created her as the glory of man and in the image of God. Paul revealed, “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” (1 Cor 11:3). The woman is subordinating to the man by her modesty and covering. Her hair hanging down is her glory for she is the glory of man. This is how the Christian woman honors the headship of God, Christ, and man.
[Last edited June 28, 2021]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Charles Cosgrove, “A Woman’s Unbound Hair,” JBL 124 (2005): 675–92.
- Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 97.”
- Ferguson reported, “In which cultures in the first centuries women wore veils in public, in what numbers, and with what significance are not perfectly clear now. Jewish sources rather uniformly call for women to be veiled in public, but Greek and Roman sources are mixed in their evidence. In classical Greece the veil was worn outside the house by women who had reached sexual maturity — married and young women of marriageable age, and Jewish sources may be read the same way. In depictions in a Greek wedding, the bride lifts her veil to her husband. A Roman woman on her wedding day was a given a red veil. Statuary makes clear that the Greco-Roman veil was the top of the garment pulled over the head; one should not think of the modern Arabic and Islamic veil that covers most of the face as well as the head. In Roman religion the men as well as women were veiled when offering a sacrifice. The Jewish custom for men to cover their heads when praying and studying the law is later than New Testament times” (97).
- Bruce Morton, Deceiving Winds, (Nashville: 21st Century Christian, 2009).
- James Burton Coffman, “Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11.” Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, <www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/1-corinthians-11.html> (Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, TX) 1983-1999.
- Ibid.
- Coffman perceived, “With her head unveiled…
The word here rendered ‘unveiled’ is [Greek: akatakaluptos]. ‘There is no intrinsic meaning in this word which suggests either the covering material or the object covered; it is simply a general word.’ (See under 1 Corinthians 11:15.) Only in 1 Cor. 11:15 does Paul mention any kind of garment ([Greek: peribolaion]) and even there he stated that the woman’s hair took the place of it. [Katakaluptos] means covered completely. [Akatakaluptos] means not completely covered. Thus again, the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment. To suppose that Paul here meant ‘mantle’ or ‘veil’ or any such thing is to import into this text what is not in it. We have seen that he was speaking of ‘hair’ in 1 Cor. 11:4; and that is exactly what he is speaking of here. ‘Not completely covered’ would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads. It is crystal clear that Paul is not speaking of any kind of garment; because he said in 1 Cor. 11:15, below, ‘For her hair is given her instead of a covering.'”
The Breath of God 
When studying and translating Greek we heavily rely on the ancient testimonies of the usage of words, Scott. Again: No one who spoke Koine Greek understood Paul to say long hair is the veil. All understood this to be an analogy from nature that supports the practice of a cloth-veil.
Try to imagine the following situation: A debate between you and/or the scholars you rely on versus men like Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon, John Chrysostom, … all men of God who grew up speaking and thinking in Koine Greek. What do you think: will your party convince them that they misunderstand Paul? Wake up! It will be the other way round! Whoever honestly and humbly desires to learn from one another will quickly see, that these men of old are in a far better position to understand the text in front of us.
By their testimony and the practice of all churches of God during the last 1900 years the case should be considred decided and closed.
Yes, and these early writers did not say the covering was a garment covering or shawl. Each of these writers carry a different weight in interpreting the text as ancient commentaries for us. Those distant in centuries from the Apostles and their students, who ally themselves with the forming “catholic orthodox” hierarchy, may not be trusted anywhere as much as Irenaeus and those from and before his time.
Hair is a far stretch in the context. Guy N. Woods even admitted it was the veil.
Check out BTerry.com at the history articled on the covering. Interesting.
They did say it was a garment oir a shawl, Scott !!!!!! You are like an ostrich that is sticking its head into the sand! You just don’t care to read them!” Facts might be too confusing for your already made up mind, Scott!
The weight they carry is that they really knew Greek.
Michael, Can you give a specific link on bterry.com, so I can read it more readily rather than combing the site?
What about the action verb used of covered and uncovered in verses 4,5,6,7? Do we take hair off and grow hair for praying? Why mention praying or prophesying if Paul is only talking about the hair? I do not believe that switching contexts (1 Tim. 2:9,10, 1 Pet. 3:1-7) proves pinned up hair is the subject in 1st Corinthians 11:2-16. What did the guy do, pin his hair up so as to not be covered or shave it all off if hair is the prayer covering?
Certainly, if you believed in using the complete context, then you have to consider that your position is in error. If Christian women avoided braiding their hair with gold and pearls as the scriptures teach about modesty, then such faithful women would to let their hang down and have long hair for their glory from God. If they have not hair for a covering, then they would need another such a shawl. When you have encouraged the Christian women in your fellowship in modesty, then you would encourage them to follow 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3 if you find the Scriptures true that the arranging and braiding of hair with gold and pearls is immodest. This means more than simply pinning the hair up, but also that women were hiding the glory that God gave to women.
By nature, the Scriptures say that the men were to have short hair being uncovered or unwrapped with hair hanging from the head. These were clearly cultural matters and society’s forms of respect should be consider by Christians. We must show the world that we do not accept their authorities over God, but we honor the headship of God and Christ first, and then man and woman.
Scott-
John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
So you are the Greek scholar or you are a Greek scholar?
So are you saying “a” and “the” reciprocate? They can be interchanged?
For example, since you use the word the covering instead of a covering John 1:1 would say,
In a beginning was a Word, and a Word was with God, and a Word was God.
I strongly disagree with your use of the Word the covering in Verse 15.
You change it to suit yourself.
Because I read ancient Greek does not make me a Greek scholar anymore than reading English makes me an English scholar. Yet, I can certainly correct basic grammar and spelling in both languages.
It is strange that you use John 1:1. I was thinking of using it when I wrote my previous reply. Clearly, you did not understand my response. The definite article “the” is appropriate in translating the article in Greek, and yet, there is no indefinite article equivalent to “a” in ancient Greek. Therefore, “the Word” is absolutely right in representing the article. Yet, the JWs have translated John 1:1 as “a god” because theon and theos lack the definite article. Although “God” has no definite article like “covering” has no definite article, this does not mean that “God” is now “a god” rather than “the God” or that “covering” is now “a covering” rather than “the covering”. The accusative or object of the sentence in Greek often lacks the definite article and yet is very definite to the context. Therefore, the context settles whether this covering of hair is either “a covering” or “the covering”. My reference to “the covering” was not referring to the Greek article, but rather to the specific word indicated by my use of the article in English, which I have the right to use to refer to a specific word in any language.
Either way, “a covering” or “the covering” still affirms the position of this article and proves again my position gained from impartially studying this matter and following God wherever He leads.
Scott, I wrote this earlier, and I repeat it again. None of us is a native speaker of Koine Greek. Those who were back then in these early centuries NEVER understood long hair to be the veil. These men of old are of much higher authority than any Greek Scholar of today.
Yet, the New Testament was providentially written in Koine Greek. A language encased in time and preserved without linguistic ambiguity. Without reading Koine Greek, there would be no translation from the original. Someone must study and read the language of the period.
“If a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor. 11.15).
What is the man’s covering he is not too have on his head when praying?
A: hair hanging down from his head
Why not a veil hanging down head?
Men were not to have hanging hair. Have you forgotten the meaning of this “covering” in Greek means “hanging from the head” rather than your definition of covering?
But Paul was talking about what is on the head, not the face or shoulders. Guy N. Woods pointed out that if hair is the prayer covering then a man would have to be bald headed in order to not have something on his head. It must be a cloth covering that he could remove on the spot for prayer. By the way, I do believe we should encourage women to wear long hair, considerably longer than a man’s. What Paul teaches here he taught in every church. (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:16; 14:33; 16:1). The same reason Paul gives for the covering he gives for women’s subjection and not teaching nor usurping authority over the man. (1 Cot. 11:7-10; 1 Tim. 2:11-14). If the covering was just cultural, then what about women’s roles in worship? Can’t you see where the cultural position can paint us into a corner? Again thanks for allowing the open discussions on this web site. There are very good articles on here. Really enjoyed recently the one on translations.
Scott-
You state: “…Yet, the text says that the covering is hair in verse 15, and the covering is not indicated to be a garment.”
Verse 15 does not say the covering-it says a covering.
No “a” in Greek. All because the word is anarthrous does not mean that it is not specific. Lastly, hair is a covering, and in the context, the covering mentioned in the text.
I’m glad to see this discussing getting back to the topic at hand. There are two covering discussed in the context. Verses 5,6 shows it is impossible for the hair to be the only covering under consideration. It is what it is regardless of how much we might try to make it what we want it to be. Thanks brother Scott for allowing these discussions. This is not discussed in so many circles.
Michael,
Until you comprehend our premises, you will not be able to correct us. We find that the hair in verses 5 & 6 is short, braided up, or put up by the woman on her head, and thus this hair is compared to a cropped or shaved head. From the context along with 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3, we can see that such hair is immodest. Whether short, braided, cropped, or shaved, no covering hanging down means no covering. Hanging from the head is the verbal meaning of covering in the Greek as presented in the study above. Therefore, by context, we must determine whether this is hair and, or a garment covering hanging from the head.
Now, comprehend our position within scripture. “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered [Gr. without hanging hair] dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered [without hanging hair], let her also be cropped. But if it is shameful for a woman to be cropped or shaved, let her be covered [with hanging hair]” (1 Cor. 11.5-6).
In conclusion, “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor. 11:15). Until you understand what we believe, how can you be able to correct us?
“our premises”
I strongly disagree with “your premises”
Masonry believes we are all going to the same place if we have a mediator-it does not matter if it is Krishna, Jesus … I strongly disagree.
Jesus is the only mediator for the Living God.
There is a difference between the words a and the. The only written “Bible” mess to date that I have found with regard to the misuse of a and the with regard to the Bible translation is the Jehovah’s Witnesses on John 1:1 where the Bible states the Word not a word like they present.
As said before, I strongly disagree with you.
You really haven’t comprehended a word that I have said.
You haven’t comprehended a word that I said.
Words that are italicized in the Bible are words that are added to help with clarity.
The word a is not italicized in Verse 15.
There is no indefinite article in ancient Greek. There is no “a” in this verse or in any verse. Look it up in Greek or email a Greek professor of your choice, and find out.
I would ask what your Greek concordance says for peribolaiou in Verse 15 and Hebrews 1:12 but whatever you came up with I believe what the Bible says and not what you come up with. And that is for a covering not for the covering.
Who is your Greek source? Seems like a far stretch to come up with balled up hair on the head. We’ll just have to disagree on this one. Thanks for open sharing and discussion on your web site.
Hi Scott,
Forgive me for my repetitive questions. I respect that you hold the long hair view as the covering, but I wanted to know if you could please address a couple of things for me.
What was the purpose of Priscillia covering her head, as shown in the early catacomb, while her hands were lifted in prayer?
I realize you hold the position that women with short hair are to use a cloth covering, while women with long hair do not need to.
Are there other catacomb paintings, other than the one of Priscilla, that could help me accurately come to this conclusion? Are the people sitting by Priscilla women? I am assuming they are, but their hair is shoulder length and it’s not super easy to distinguish.
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Seeing God’s Breath wrote:
> Scott Shifferd Jr. commented: “No “a” in Greek. All because the word > is anarthrous does not mean that it is not specific. Lastly, hair is a > covering, and in the context, the covering mentioned in the text.” >
Scott, Look for “No Such Custom:” an exposition of 1st Corinthians 11:2-16. You should just be able to type that on goggle and it will take you to Bruce Terry’s very researched article. It has history and all the good stuff. It is worth you study. I believe Bruce is a member of the Church too. Brotherly, Michael Baggett
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 13:35:33 +0000 To: mikebaggett@hotmail.com
s Plost,
Yes, I have the same questions. As you presuppose, she appears very clearly to have had short curly hair in another picture. The other people in one picture may be showing her during other parts of her life. In these, the women are uncovered and have long hair.
Hello Scott, I know you must be busy with Sunday tomorrow, but wanted to share something with you. I ran across the article that really tilted me toward believing in the head covering in worship. I saved the article this time. This is an absolutely incredible article that is worthy of your consideration. Just look at when you get a chance. God bless, Michael Baggett
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:12:16 +0000 To: mikebaggett@hotmail.com
Where is the surrender in your theology? On one hand you would agree with the bible
that we are weak, but on the other hand not too weak to obey commands?
I hate to distract from the head covering issue, but it is connected to our discussion of the outer and inner aspects Christianity and what more important.
You said:
Phil,
God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). You seem to imply that the Spirit of God leads you in ways different than that found in God’s Word. The doctrine of Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8,9). We should be established in this grace/truth/doctrine. The teaching in 1st Corinthians 11:2-16 is the same today as it was almost 2000 years ago. What the Bible says about women being subject to their husbands, quiet in worship and not leading and teaching over the man in the worship is the same today as back then. God’s Word must not be taken away from or add to in any way (Rev. 22:18,19). Even if “an angel” from heaven were to tell us something different, he is to be accursed (Gal. 1:7,8).
My response:
You’re right, yet how many different religions were created from the same Bible? So obviously confusion still exists! God is not the author of sin, yet sin still exists. You have as much possibility of confusing what you read as anyone else. The Bible is a Spiritual writing and cannot be processed using intellectual principles to extract the true message, which is bigger than the script. The Bible has many mystical aspects that are not understood using logic. Jesus made this clear when He said you need ears to hear. He wasn’t talking about some logical conclusion that one makes based on cause and effect. Faith is Mystical. Grace is Mystical. They are not based on logic.
You need to outside of the box of logic to get the Higher Message. You got to develop spiritual ears that can hear. if not then that’s between you and God.
The whole problem is thinking outside of the box, which is the Bible. Phil, can we ubderstand theBible? If not, why does Paul say we can? (Eph. 3:2ffl 5:17).
It’s not a question of whether we can understand the Bible. The Bible is a spiritual writing and when we apply our in intellectual mind to spiritual truth we tend to get the practical message and then approach Christianity from the standpoint of “what to do.” This is how you approach the scriptures and you method of service is that of using your fleshly mind to carry out His will through personal effort and discipline. However, there is another way that much deeper and richer than the practical method of service. It is the Spiritual way toward righteousness in which you see your weak state and realize how helpless you really are. Then a natural surrender occurs, which then invokes God Spirit to come alive in you, whereby you are no longer the player. Instead you are the one being used by God. You are actually moved by the Spirit. the NT has so much insight into this I don’t know where to start. Yet the coC downplays this and basically becomes like the Galatians and insists on doing thing by written instructions. Be assured there is another way to serve other than by written words and obedience to commands. The Bible is not one dimensional!
Phi., you seem to insist that God is the author of confusion, when He says He is not! The very problem with this whole discussion is too much thinking “outside of the box!” And what I mean by the box, is the Bible. We can indeed understand the Bible, but we must approach it as a book to be understand and believe what it says.
Paul the apostle tells us, “Whereby, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4).
“Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).
Never would I imply that God is the author of confusion. The Spirit is not confused, only the flesh!
The Bible writing are totally out of the box!!! The idea of Faith, Grace, eternity…are all abstract in nature. How can you suggest it’s only in the box logic?
Where does the Bible say understanding happens? It never equates understanding with the intellect and always equates understanding with the heart. Understanding is much deeper than intellectual knowledge. Surely you agree with this.
Michael, you are simply looking at the surface of how Christianity is supposed to appear. You seem to obey from a sense of instruction and how you conduct yourself, as if that’s what matters mostly to God. Your lack of insight into the biblical principles is amazing. I’m sorry you choose not to get beyond the superficial appearances of NT Christianity.
If you want you can stand before God and list your obedient behavior achievements then be my guest. But that’s not what God wants for me and I’ll take my chances with what I understand God to want from me. He wants me to surrender to Him.to become His Instrument. I’m not here to show how good I can read, behave, perform, obey and show my personal competency in doing so. That’s the goal of the flesh, not the Spirit. Read Romans 7 & 8 and see how God’s Spirit works in you, instead of you becoming the master of your life through your ability to carry out His will by reading, doing, performing, obeying. Pro-action has it’s place, but not in the Spiritual realm. We are made strong through weakness. We die so we can be given life. We place ourselves last so we become first. Don’t these Spiritual principles mean anything to you? You want to overcome your sins with your obedience as if that will win out. Sorry if that offends you.
The principle of head coverings is the same as that of circumcision. Outward appearance!
You’re missing the principle and applying the specific as if there is no lesson other than the personal instruction of how to “appear.” That’s superficial!
Phil, how else can we “obey” and become God’s “instrument” except through following the instructions of God’s Word? I don’t see anything superficial about following God’s Word. If not God’s Word; then, what do we follow? Our feelings? If we want the truth that sets us free from sin; then, we must go to the source, the Word of God (John 8:32; 14:6; 17:17). Without the New Testament, we would have no source of faith, for God’s Word reveals faith. We are not on the same page. (Ok, I caved in. I was waiting on the moderator to chime in again).
Do you refrain from murder, theft and all wrong-doing because you read it in scripture? O r do you have his laws Implanted in your heart (Heb. 8:10).
Not saying the bible is useless but the NT is spiritual writing to help you become connected to Him and to live from His Spirit in you. Romans 8 nowhere says to live from the Scriptures only, but says to live from His Spirit in you. Lots of other scripture support this. If you think we as NT Christians are bound to rules, regs and commands then you are wrong. You, as a NT are asked to awaken to God’s Spirit in you and then to live from that and not from the text. The Bible is a wonderful tool, but was intended to serve you, not master you. Jesus said, “the Sabbath was made for man ,not man for the Sabbath. This principle applies to more than just that subject. I think it’s also true to say that the Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible! Keep it in it’s intended purpose.
If the Bible is our only source for truth then the intellectually challenged and the illiterates are disqualified from Salvation through no fault of their own. And Hebrews 8:10 would be a lie.
You simply cannot grasp that we are made strong through weakness, a strong NT principle.
Phil,
We are not under the law of the Gentiles who knew God through His creation and, yes, certain rights and wrongs (Rom. 1). We are not under the Old Law with it’s animal sacrifices and it’s keeping of feast ( Col. 2:12-14). We are under law to Christ (1st Cor. 9:21-23). The gospel is the saving power of God (Rom 1:16). We learn about the life, death, burial, resurrection, His return one day, only through the Word (Rom. 10:17; II Thess. 1-7-10). I learn about His will for our lives only through His Word (Eph. 3:2,3; 5:17). We are to keep these spiritual tradition just as they are written (1 Cor. 11:2; II Thess. 2:14-15). The passage just before the last one listed, leads into a discussion of men not covering their heads in worship and women being required to do so. It is an inspired ordinance or tradition of the churches (1 Cor. 11:16).
Michael, if you can only deal with the subject and not the principles taught then we can’t communicate. Christ taught using “insight,” not just instruction. You gotta look deeper than just the superficial!
So some of God’s word is superficial? Which parts? The parts we don’t like? We will be judged based on this word. (John 12:48).
God’s word (especially the NT) becomes superficial when you turn it into a list of commands to obey. It was not intended to be superficial but man approaches the NT like he does a science project and it then takes on superficial effect.
Phil, if you are willing to go on through this life with this theology and face God in the judgment with this belief; then what can I say? I will leave you with the plea to study God’s word and not take what is written so lightly. We cannot change it to fit our theology. I’ll turn this back to Scott.
Michael, the spiritual principle behind the “circumcision” story is that we are not to allow physical things to make us look like we’re inwardly changed. Faith is is an inner spiritual state of consciousness that leads us to walk by His presence in us, not by rules ,regs and laws that we read in Scripture. The NT Scriptures were created to help us in our quest to become more Spiritual and less fleshly. They were not intended to make us look Holy through the process of obedience to biblical commands. Can you not see the difference here?
Tell the apostle Paul what you said.He spoke the commands of Christ. (1 Cor. 14:37). Are we to Ignore what God has commanded in the New Testament based on your principle? Why even read the New Testament? Isn’t all scripture profitable? (11 Tim. 3:16-17). Faith alone is not enough to please God (James 2:14-26).
Michael, a new Christian can only obey from commands. A seasoned and mature Christian obeys from living in the Spirit and not the flesh! I don’t think you get this. As we Spiritually mature we begin to die to self, which then makes us strong through that weakness. Then His Spirit (living in us) becomes our guide and not just the written commands. Our obedience is from His Truth inside of us that we have allowed to become our essence, and not just continuing to live by written instruction.
I can support everything I say by Scripture, I assure you! You just read it differently than me and others.
Phil,
God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). You seem to imply that the Spirit of God leads you in ways different than that found in God’s Word. The doctrine of Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8,9). We should be established in this grace/truth/doctrine. The teaching in 1st Corinthians 11:2-16 is the same today as it was almost 2000 years ago. What the Bible says about women being subject to their husbands, quiet in worship and not leading and teaching over the man in the worship is the same today as back then. God’s Word must not be taken away from or add to in any way (Rev. 22:18,19). Even if “an angel” from heaven were to tell us something different, he is to be accursed (Gal. 1:7,8).