Bible Blog – Page 20

As I already said previously, female head covering is opposed for all types of reasons.

The first knee-jerk objection often heard is, what about the other verses (that we don’t follow) such as the holy kiss, laying on hands, anointing the head with oil, etc?

Let’s be clear, these objections are a diversionary tactic. These excuses spring from emotion, not from a logical analysis of the scriptures on head covering.

When these objections are raised, I now respond that “ two wrongs, don’t make a right.”

Just because there may be another command (or passage that is ignored) is not a justification for violating the head covering scriptures.

Is it okay for me to stay perpetually drunken because you are a gossip?

Is it acceptable for me to be an adulterer since you tell white lies?

I encourage you to focus on the question at hand without pointing to other conduct that you believe may be possibly sinful.

Maybe we should also study the other topics such as the holy kiss, etc. – but be clear – admitting from your mouth a violation of what you know to do seems a very poor excuse.

In Matthew 12:3, Jesus said, “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” NKJV

Theological Significance Carries Great Weight in Interpreting and the Correct Understanding

I would suggest comparing what the Bible says regarding the reasons for head covering with the verses mentioning the holy kiss. The Bible gives multiple reasons for the practice of head covering. The holy kiss is not described in the Bible with theological significance.

Well, there’s that fancy word again!

What does theological significance mean?

Theology is the study of God. Significance is something that has importance associated with it. Like when my wife says to pick a specific brand of butter on my way home. She means that particular brand, very specific. It’s important to her.

So theological significance is trying to decide what is important to God as we study His book, the Bible.

We find mention of greeting one another with a holy kiss in 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, Romans 16:16, and 1 Thessalonians 5:26. and 1 Peter 5:14.

Now someone may want to give weight or credence to the number of times the holy kiss is discussed. I don’t see the importance and I will explain.

Some things in the Bible appear to be facts or historical information that flavors it. For instance, in the account of David and Goliath in the Old Testament we learn that David picked up 5 smooth stones from a brook. 1 Samuel 17:40

As far as I can tell, the fact that David selected 5 stones, not 8 stones, that these were smooth as opposed to rough, and that he took them from the creek is not significant. While these details help us see the story as it unfolds, there does not appear to be anything in these details that is connected with pleasing God.

In every passage where the apostles say to give a holy kiss, the context is a greeting or saying goodbye. The context seems to me as giving someone a warm welcome (or a heartfelt sendoff if they are leaving). The emphasis appears to be on letting the individual know that you truly have an agape love for them, not a physical lips to the cheek.

As such, the holy kiss does not receive as much weight as other scriptures.

Head covering (while only mentioned in one book of the New Testament) comes with Paul giving several reasons for the practice.

Paul says women should cover their heads (and men should not) in prayer and prophesy. He goes on to identify the reasons and tell us why.

These reasons have a symbolic meaning associated with the instructions for head covering.

For example, head covering is said to be important because of the angels. We are not given the details for why or how the angels are affected, but just the explanation that the angels are observing says a lot to me.

Paul goes to the creation account with Adam and Eve including their falling into sin. These reasons (along with the others) show us that head covering involves symbolism.

So at the end of the day, the holy kiss seems to be about letting someone know that you are genuinely happy to see them (or truly sorry to see them go). Head covering is about acknowledging to God that we accept the rank or position that He has assigned to us.

Blog Post Table of Contents

Churches seem to be moving away from gender roles as the commands of God to these roles being merely cultural ways, i.e., they can be ignored. This has greatly harmed the church and the family structure that God put in place.

Liberal Teaching

The practice of women becoming preachers, women pastors, and female evangelists has become accepted by a growing number of churches and denominations around the world.

In contending that women can teach adult Bible classes (with men present), preach from the pulpit, and become elders in the church, they point out that head covering is treated as simply a cultural practice.

How about you?

Do you (or your church) take the position that head covering was merely a cultural matter that no longer applies?

The position that head covering is a only matter of the culture in Corinth that applied back then, sets the stage for other scriptures to be treated the same way!

It’s Hypocritical To Say One Thing and then Do Another!

Those who approve of female church leadership argue that passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-14 must also be interpreted using the cultural lens. Otherwise, using two different hermeneutics (Bible interpretations) is hypocritical.

In other words, the same standard should be applied.

This is a fair criticism.

The underpinnings of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 are quite similar. Both passages go back to the creation account. Both sets of scripture put men in the leadership role.

The folks who accept women in leadership (and pulpit ministry) point out that it’s hypocritical to use a double standard.

If we read one part of the Bible with one rule of interpretation, then use another rule for a different passage – the inconsistency – is disingenuous regardless of who does it.

Women Are Not to Exercise Authority Over Men

Let’s read 1 Timothy 2:11-14, one of the scriptures that I rely upon for my position that women have a different teaching role in the church from men.

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” 1st Timothy 2:11-14 NKJV (Bold added)

As you see, Paul says that a woman is not to teach or have authority over a man, but to learn in silence. The reason that he gives is that at the time of creation, Adam was formed first. He goes on that Eve was deceived while Adam was not.

Sounds a lot like Paul’s reasons for head covering given in 1st Corinthians.

The criticism by “liberally minded” Christians is that 1st Corinthians Chapter 11 just like 1st Timothy 2:11-14 goes back to creation as the reason for the command. If the creation account is not considered significant in 1st Corinthians, then it should not be in 1st Timothy.

Let’s read 1 Corinthians 11:7-12 NKJV “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.”

Liberal Christians Say We Can’t Have Our Cake and Eat It Too!

To have credibility, then we must apply the rules of Bible interpretation consistently.

We all understand that do as I say, not as I do – results in the loss of credibility.

If 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (that according to the text is founded in creation) is binding, then how do we explain the head covering directive to a woman also founded in creation is not binding?

I agree with the liberal “Christians” in one respect.

If 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is binding based upon the link to creation, then it is hypocritical to say that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 doesn’t matter.

Christians Admit When They Are Wrong

A faithful Christian confronted with the violation of the scriptures makes any change necessary.

We admit being wrong and we repent!

In contrast, a hypocrite pretends to obey God and the Bible while continuing to do what he or she wants.

I will gladly consider any logical analysis or explanation that can reconcile these contradictions. But I cannot currently understand how this inconsistency is not a hypocritical interpretation of the Bible.

The Adversary Knows the Bible Better Than We Do!

Satan knows the scriptures better than we do. He’s been around for a long time with plenty of opportunities to study for ways to trip us up.

He knows how to use our error in one part of the scriptures to launch an attack from another part of the Bible.

In short, he attacks the credibility of those who teach against female leadership in the church. He uses the inconsistency in how the Bible is interpreted to make this attack.

Satan’s Strategy and Attack

First, he convinced a large segment of the church that head covering was insignificant. Just like in the Garden of Eden, he asked, “Did God say . . . for women to cover their heads”?

“Surely God didn’t mean wearing or not wearing a covering makes any difference. How could it matter”?

Satan has almost universally destroyed the doctrine of head covering across the church as a whole.

Destroy the Home and Male Leadership

Now he has turned to eliminating the gender roles that God has put in place in both the home and the church.

Satan says women are equal to men. This is a half-truth.

Women have equal value in the eyes of God. But women were given a lower rank than men.

Satan then finishes with the lie that this equality means a woman can perform any role of a man.

Just like in the Garden, he fills people full of half-truths combined with outright lies. He appeals to a woman’s pride and harnesses the tendency of men to shrug off responsibility.

We Can Only Judge the Fruits, Not the Hearts

Are brethren who refuse female leadership hypocrites by picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that they want to apply (while discarding the parts that they don’t like)?

Are those who teach that women can occupy the roles God designated for men innocently deceived (or false teachers that have crept into the church)?

These questions involve the heart of each person. We cannot judge the hearts of others – only their fruits.

The fruits suggest a refusal to obey God’s commands about the role of women for those practicing female leadership.

For those who believe in male leadership in the home and the church (but not head covering), the fruits demonstrate an inconsistency in interpreting the scriptures.

The need for repentance for the failure of women to wear a covering is glaring us in the face. We should preach and teach with consistent rules of interpretation.

Similarly, those who have female ministers, elders, and pastors should also repent.

Top of this Post