Sometimes it’s nice to learn a little bit about people when I read their blogs. It helps remind me they are real people living real lives – not just robots surfing the internet arguing theology In light of that, here is some recent work I have done (feed readers see blog for videos):

Know anyone in need of a high impact, affordable video?
http://www.brandonpadams.com

I have been thrust into a study of the final judgment. It started when I read a post over at Bring the Books: If You Are Late to the Discussion. It is a summary, taken from Christianity Today, of John Piper and N.T. Wright’s views of justification. My study began when I commented that, given Piper’s view, he was the exact wrong person to be defending justification against Wright – and my comment was met with strong criticism. Here is Piper’s view:

Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

I do not believe Piper’s view is biblical. There is no “future” justification in addition to “present” justification. They are the same. In the words of Robert Reymond: “Justification possesses an eschatological dimension, for it amounts to the divine verdict of the Eschaton being brought forward into the present time and rendered here and now concerning the believing sinner.” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p743).

Piper cannot consistently believe the above statement and also believe that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1) because he believes our salvation must await validation, determined by our works, on the last day.

Another consequence of Piper’s view is that he must deny justification by faith alone. I understand that he does not believe he denies it and in fact has written a whole book on it, and I thank God for that, but that just means he is inconsistent. Given that “present” justification is different from “future” justification, we can say that “present” justification does not matter because it does not determine who is going to heaven to spend eternity in paradise with God and who is going to hell to burn forever. “Future” justification is what determines our fate, and thus, “future” justification is what matters.

That being said, Piper does not believe that faith alone determines our “future” justification (keep in mind there is actually no difference between “future” and “present” justification). He believes that both our faith and our works determine our “future” justification. Granted, he does not view them equally – he believes in a sort of chain where our works connect us to saving faith which then connects us to Christ’s righteousness. But that means that it is not faith alone that unites us with Christ. Both our faith and our works play a determining role. Thus both our faith and our works are the instrumental causes of our justification.

You may say that’s unfair, that my logic must be wrong, that there’s no way Piper believes that. Well, let me offer some biblical support for Piper’s view. James says: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2:24). Clear enough, and if there’s any chance I have any Roman Catholics reading this, I’m sure you’re shouting “I told you so” from the rooftop.

But Brandon, you may object, James is not talking about the same thing as Paul. James is talking about our justification before men, about evidence that we look at to estimate if someone is justified. We can’t look into someone else’s heart to see if their faith is genuine. To us, faith is invisible, so we must look at the fruit of faith. I agree! But Piper does not. Piper does not believe James is talking about how we view each other here and now. No, Piper believes James is talking about the final judgment:

Several times Paul listed certain kinds of deeds and said, “those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). In other words, when these deeds are exposed at the judgment as a person’s way of life, they will be the evidence that their faith is dead and he will not be saved. As James said, “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). That is what will be shown at the judgment. (Future Grace, p366, emphasis added)

He also says:

How then can I say that the judgment of believers will not only be the public declaration of our differing rewards in the kingdom of God, according to our deeds, but will also be the public declaration of our salvation – our entering the kingdom – according to our deeds? The answer is that our deeds will be the public evidence brought forth in Christ’s courtroom to demonstrate that our faith is real. And our deeds will be the public evidence brought fourth to demonstrate the varying measures of our obedience of faith. In other words, salvation is by grace through faith, and rewards are by grace through faith, but the evidence of invisible faith in the judgment hall of Christ will be a transformed life. (Future Grace, p364)

So Piper necessarily denies justification by faith alone, as James makes very, very plain. Yet Paul disagrees: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

If you disagree with the conclusion, I would honestly love to hear why, because I cannot come to any other conclusion. (If you do comment, please do not simply list quotes of Piper affirming “present” justification through faith alone – please actually demonstrate how the points above do not lead to the necessary conclusion).

For Further Reading:

• Mark Seifrid: Piper Nearly Tridentine on Justification
• John Gill: The Necessity of Good Work Unto Salvation Considered
• J.V. Fesko: Paul on Justification and the Final Judgment
• Rick Phillips: Five Arguments Against a Future Justification According to Works
• Rick Phillips: Judgment of Believers in the Westminster Standards

The 2010 Global Atheist Convention “The Rise of Atheism” released the following statement:

As you may already be aware, recently the Atheist Founation of Australia and the Global Atheist Convention websites were the target of a significant DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack, which began on Monday 19 October.

This is a call to all non-believers and advocates for freedom of speech to join us in a global co-ordinated minute of prayer with the aim of inundating God (in this context, the Christian god, God, as distinct from the Greek god, Zeus, the Egyptian god, Ra etc etc) with so many useless prayers that it causes his divineness to go offline as as result of our own DDOS (‘Divine’ Denial of Service).

The prayer minute will be at exactly 8pm (Eastern Standard Time) and 9am (Greenwich Mean Time) on Sunday 8 November 2009.

The prayer can be about anything you want (but say it as frequently as possible in the minute we have assigned to ensure DDOS is achieved) or to whomever god you want. Its mostly directed at the Christian god so as to ensure we don’t get too many return to senders from other gods.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=162437479558&ref=share

If you don’t know, a DoS is:

an attempt to make a computer resource unavailable to its intended users. Although the means to carry out, motives for, and targets of a DoS attack may vary, it generally consists of the concerted efforts of a person or people to prevent an Internet site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or indefinitely. Perpetrators of DoS attacks typically target sites or services hosted on high-profile web servers such as banks, credit card payment gateways, and even root nameservers.

One common method of attack involves saturating the target (victim) machine with external communications requests, such that it cannot respond to legitimate traffic, or responds so slowly as to be rendered effectively unavailable. In general terms, DoS attacks are implemented by either forcing the targeted computer(s) to reset, or consuming its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended service or obstructing the communication media between the intended users and the victim so that they can no longer communicate adequately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

In simple terms, it sends a tremendous amount of traffic to one place, which brings the system to it’s knees. Think of having all the cars in California drive down I-84 in Boise at the same time. Some companies pay hackers to launch DoS attacks against their competitors because it cripples them.

It is difficult, but there are ways of preventing DoS attacks. One method is the use of a good firewall that can filter good traffic from bad traffic. Apparently the Global Atheist Convention didn’t have one. But God does.

Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,
or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
And your sins have hidden His face from you,
So that He will not hear.
Isaiah 59:1-2

Come and hear, all you who fear God,
and I will tell what he has done for my soul.
I cried to him with my mouth,
and high praise was on my tongue.
If I had cherished iniquity in my heart,
the Lord would not have listened.
But truly God has listened;
he has attended to the voice of my prayer.
Psalm 66:16-19

If one turns away his ear from hearing the law,
even his prayer is an abomination.
Proverbs 28:9

We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.
John 9:31

The Father’s filter is holiness. He does not hear anyone that is unholy, anyone who has transgressed His law.

Which is everyone.
Except one.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1 Tim 2:5

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
Hebrews 7:23-28

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Hebrews 9:11-12

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Hebrews 10:19-22

Christ is the only mediator between God and man (“No one comes to the Father except through me” Jn 14:6), but Christ is not the mediator of every man. Christ only intercedes on behalf of those for whom His sacrifice was made. John 9, quoted above, gives us a clue as to who God listens to: if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, God listens to him. What is God’s will?

“What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”…

…this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:28-29, 40

The Atheist Conventin’s DDoS attack on Nov 8 will fail because God does not hear the prayers of the unrighteous. He only hears the prayers of those who are counted righteous, whom Christ intercedes for in the Holy of Holies.

Are your prayers heard?

I’ve been having a rather lengthy conversation with some Arminian/Molinist acquaintances about Calvinism generally and about God not being the author of sin specifically.  Overall I think it has been beneficial in drawing out the underlying differences between the two views. In particular, I wanted to share an excerpt regarding the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath that is rather telling:

—

Suppose a beautiful pot says, “Look how beautiful I am, won’t you congratulate me for being so beautiful?” And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any credit for being beautiful because I am the one who made you beautiful; I am the one who should be praised for making you beautiful, and you have no right to claim any credit for it.”

The potter’s response, to my lights, is completely sensical.

But now exchange “beautiful” with “ugly”": The pot says “Look how ugly I am, won’t you blame me for be being so ugly?” And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any blame for being ugly because I am the one who made you ugly; I am the one who should be blamed for making you ugly, and you have no right to claim any blame for it.”

If the potter to pot relation undercuts the pot’s ability to be praised, the same relation undercuts the pot’s ability to be blamed.

And hence, so much for a soteriological reading of Romans 9.

Derek, your statements here betray a poor understanding of salvation. By beauty and ugliness I assume you are referring to righteousness and unrighteousness (since that is the standard of salvation). Let’s plug those words back into your objection and see where it gets us:

Suppose a righteous pot says, “Look how righteous I am, won’t you congratulate me for being so righteous?” (Luke 18:9-14) And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any credit for being righteous because I am the one who made you righteous; I am the one who should be praised for making you righteous, and you have no right to claim any credit for it.”

Now, if the righteous pot was righteous because he lived a life of perfect obedience, then he deserves congratulation (Rom 4:4). Even if it was God who willed him to live that perfect life, he still did it, so he does deserve honor. But the truth is, no pot can say “look how righteous I am” because no pot is righteous. The vessels of mercy are not made righteous, they are counted righteous. They are covered, or clothed, in an alien righteousness, the righteousness of Christ. That is why they cannot boast in their righteousness, because they have none of their own.

“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

I read this to mean that Abraham himself is now righteous because he believed in God.

Though Abraham believed, his mere believing isn’t what makes him righteous; because he believed, he can now take on the righteousness of Christ. So Abraham’s believing is a necessary but insufficient condition for Abraham being righteous. Do you agree?

Though, on my view, it was up to Abraham to believe or not, his act of believing itself is no work, and even though we can credit Abraham, in part for believing, the consequence of his believing-viz. taking on the righteousness of Christ, is not something Abraham can credit himself for.

I think the forensic model is helpful here. Suppose the the Judge says “someone else has atoned for your sins, do you accept?” If the defendant says, “Yes.” We can say correctly that, “He said “yes”, and therefore he as become atoned, in part, because he believed. But because the actual work of atonement was not his own, but another’s, he cannot credit himself for his own righteousness, though whether or not to be atoned was something he did choose.

You might insist: Paul says his faith is not “of himself”. In one sense this is true: Without the calling of the HS, Abraham couldn’t have had any faith-viz., the Holy Spirit is an enabling condition. But though the HS is a necessary condition, the HS’s enabling is not itself sufficient, for it is Abraham who believed and not HS; not the HS causing Abraham to believe.

his act of believing itself is no work

This is a very important point. We must understand exactly why believing is not a work, even though it is equally an act of the will of Abraham. Why is it that Paul contrasts the two so strongly? Why is faith so diametrically opposed to works?

The answer lies both in the object of saving faith and in the necessary flipside of saving faith – repentance. I would argue that the illustration you have provided is not wholly biblical and may be introducing some difficulty. Nowhere in Scripture do we see a sinner told that Christ atoned for their sin and then asked if they would like to accept it or not. What we read in Scripture is that all men everywhere are commanded to repent of their sin. They are also told that if they repent and place their faith in the work of Christ alone, they will be saved. Repentance is an essential part of saving faith. You cannot have one without the other.

I would also add that Abraham was not clothed in Christ’s righteousness as a result of his faith. Abraham’s faith was itself the putting on of Christ. I think the difference is very important. That is what is meant by faith being the instrumental cause of justification. I would also say that faith is much closer to someone (the Holy Spirit) notifying you (by monergistic regeneration) of the fact that your debt has been paid. It serves the function of a receipt for what has already been paid in full and nothing else is required.

The London Baptist Confession states this very well when it says:
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.

What is repentance and how is it related to saving faith? Repent means to change your mind. It means to change your mind about who you are and who Christ is. It means to turn away from trust in yourself and place your trust in Christ alone.

Job 42:5-6
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”

This is why saving faith is so diametrically opposed to works – because saving faith in Christ’s work means abandoning all faith in your work and worth and despising yourself as nothing.

So then, to bring this back around to your original illustration:
Suppose a repentant sinner says, “Look how righteous I am, won’t you congratulate me for being so righteous?” And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any credit for being righteous because you are not. I am the one who is righteous; I am the one who should be praised for being righteous, and you have no right to claim any righteousness of your own.”

Suppose a repentant sinner says, “Look how righteous I am” is a contradiction. It is not possible. If someone says “look how righteous I am,” they are not repentant and do not have saving faith in Christ’s work and thus are not justified. This is what Christ teaches us in Luke 18:9-14

Here is an excellent (short) statement in regards to this:
Do Protestants Believe that True Faith = Faith + Works?

“This is a very important point. We must understand exactly why believing is not a work, even though it is equally an act of the will of Abraham. Why is it that Paul contrasts the two so strongly? Why is faith so diametrically opposed to works?

”

Yeah, we’re already going to part ways from here. From my reading of Paul, we could summarize works as:

(works) = S’s living/acting in accordance with the law.

Whereas,

(faith) = S’s trust in Christ.

Understood like so, though faith and works are both what proceed from Abraham’s will, it’s simply wrongheaded to think of faith as a work because of this similarity. Faith is simply when Abraham trusts God, and works are simply Abraham’s living in accordance with the law; and this difference is the one and only difference between “faith” and “works”, and this difference itself is what constitutes their “diametric” opposition.

“The answer lies both in the object of saving faith and in the necessary flipside of saving faith – repentance. I would argue that the illustration you have provided is not wholly biblical and may be introducing some difficulty. Nowhere in Scripture do we see a sinner told that Christ atoned for their sin and then asked if they would like to accept it or not. What we read in Scripture is that all men everywhere are commanded to repent of their sin. They are also told that if they repent and place their faith in the work of Christ alone, they will be saved. Repentance is an essential part of saving faith. You cannot have one without the other.

”

Right. Who said this? My view is that Christ’s work is sufficient for atoning S’s sin on the condition that they have faith. I.e., Sinners are told that their sins will be forgiven if they repent. And this is tantamount to saying that if S trusts in Christ’s blood (which would include repentance), then he shall be forgiven.”

“[…] Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.” (Mk 4:25)

“I would also add that Abraham was not clothed in Christ’s righteousness as a result of his faith. Abraham’s faith was itself the putting on of Christ.”

I agree here, but I don’t agree with what follows.

“I think the difference is very important. That is what is meant by faith being the instrumental cause of justification. I would also say that faith is much closer to someone (the Holy Spirit) notifying you (by monergistic regeneration) of the fact that your debt has been paid. It serves the function of a receipt for what has already been paid in full and nothing else is required.”

Nope. If faith (and repentance) are conditions for one to be forgiven, then I don’t know what it means to construe faith “as the notification that your debt has been paid.” Faith, again, is S’s trust in Christ and his atonement, and the result POST-FACTO is that S’s “debt has been forgiven.”

“What is repentance and how is it related to saving faith? Repent means to change your mind. It means to change your mind about who you are and who Christ is. It means to turn away from trust in yourself and place your trust in Christ alone.

Job 42:5-6
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”

This is why saving faith is so diametrically opposed to works – because saving faith in Christ’s work means abandoning all faith in your work and worth and despising yourself as nothing.”

We both agree that faith and repentance are coextensive; one who has faith is one who repented.

I do think, however, Job’s language ought to be qualified a bit. It’s true that we are absolutely nothing without God, since only He makes our very being possible. But, insofar as we have being, even in our fallen state, we are still made in God’s image, and Christ thought that we are worthy to be saved (Christ loved as, even as sinners), and hence if we weren’t worthy to be saved, Christ wouldn’t have gone through the trouble.

”So then, to bring this back around to your original illustration:
Suppose a repentant sinner says, “Look how righteous I am, won’t you congratulate me for being so righteous?” And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any credit for being righteous because you are not. I am the one who is righteous; I am the one who should be praised for being righteous, and you have no right to claim any righteousness of your own.”

Suppose a repentant sinner says, “Look how righteous I am” is a contradiction. It is not possible. If someone says “look how righteous I am,” they are not repentant and do not have saving faith in Christ’s work and thus are not justified. This is what Christ teaches us in Luke 18:9-14”

I agree this all true for anyone who is saved by grace. My original issue is that if God unequivocally causes men to sin, then he cannot blame them for sinning, and if God unequivocally causes Job to be righteous, for instance, then he cannot be praised. So if someone goes to hell, it’s because they freely sinned and because they rejected Christ, and they deserve such a fate because God did not unequivocally cause them to reject Christ.

If we weren’t worthy to be saved, Christ wouldn’t have gone through the trouble.

Again, what disgusting pride!

Ezek 36:
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name…I will vindicate the holiness of my great name…And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

I don’t know what it means to construe faith “as the notification that your debt has been paid.”

This is because you don’t understand the atonement and you reject monergistic regeneration.

My original issue is that if God unequivocally causes men to sin, then he cannot blame them for sinning

Ok, then just go back to my original response, and Paul’s:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

and if God unequivocally causes Job to be righteous, for instance, then he cannot be praised

Yes He can, and for all the reasons I just laid out, including the fact that Job is not MADE righteous. He is counted righteous.

Yes He can, and for all the reasons I just laid out, including the fact that Job is not MADE righteous. He is counted righteous.”

It’s clear from the account that Job not only had faith like Abraham did, but unlike Abraham, he lived completely in accordance with whatever the law required of him:

“[…] and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.” (1:1)

I take the “blameless” and “upright” part of the conjunction to be describing Job’s works: he never did anything wrong and did everything correctly. If your not convinced that this is right, then the whole narrative loses it’s potency, for Job’s friends are trying to find the one thing Job did wrong to explain his misfortune. That is, they are trying to construe what happened to him as an instance of God’s justice, as opposed to the unjust suffering of an unequivocally innocent man.

I take the “feared God” part of the conjunction to be describing Job’s faith in God.

So, on my account, God deems Job “blameless” because it was up to Job whether or not to sin (God didn’t unequivocally cause his blamelessness), and hence, we think Job is praiseworthy.

But, counterfactually, suppose that Job did sin yet feared (had faith) in God. He would then be in Abraham’s “camp”, where his faith would be “accounted to him for righteousness.”

Looking at the big picture.

I think that everything is causally dependent on God, in the sense that anything whatever is made possible by God’s existence.

So suppose that Adam resisted the temptation of the Serpent, or suppose, as is actually the case, that Job didn’t do anything wrong. We can praise Job and Adam because it was up to them whether or not they decided to be good. We can praise them because of their choices. They can say, rightly, that “God won’t punish us for our sins, for we have none.” Of course, they still must acknowledge that God is what made their righteousness possible, so they could never say, even if they never sin, “We don’t need God because we made the right choices.” Any righteous man who never sins still would acknowledge that his righteousness is derived from God.

But suppose that Adam sinned, like he actually did, and that Job sinned, though he actually didn’t. Because they sin, and God didn’t cause them to sin, then God rightfully punishes them with death, “for the wages of sin is death.” Paul’s whole story, I think, is this: even though they didn’t live in accordance with the law, they can be saved by grace, and take on an alien righteousness, if they have faith. Suppose that Adam has faith; then he will be saved. Suppose Job doesn’t; then, for the sins he chose to commit, and for rejecting Christ’s blood, he shall forever be left in his sin and the natural consequence that follow from it- i.e., damnation.

—

So at the back of this particular rejection of Calvinism lies pure Pelagianism and a refusal to despise oneself and repent in dust and ashes. In this instance, I agree with Ronald W. Di Giacomo when he says:

Now why won’t they [accept Calvinism]? Because the matter is ethical, not intellectual, that’s why. God has blinded the Arminian to the glorious doctrines of grace, which is why they say things like: “How can God find fault, for who can resist his will?” I’m afraid that Arminians don’t recognize that Romans nine is speaking to them.

Molinism – problems, problems, problems

I have been teaching a Bible study class through Genesis for the last few months. We’re taking it quite slow and have only just finished chapter 2. We spent last Wednesday talking about the creation of woman and examining how the NT interprets this foundational passage in places like Matthew 19, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Corinthians 11.

Until this study I had not taken the time to carefully consider 1 Corinthians 11. I had looked at it and glanced at a few commentaries, but nothing serious. However, my most recent study was very beneficial and I’d like to share my findings.

Interpretations

There are several different interpretations of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 regarding head coverings. They are as follows (as far as I can tell):

1. Paul is commanding women to wear some type of physical head covering when they are in church as a symbol of man’s authority over them. As Christians, we are bound to obey what Scripture commands and therefore women today must wear physical head coverings in church.
2. Paul is commanding physical head coverings, but only because the 1st century Corinthian culture viewed head coverings as a sign of submission. Our culture does not view head coverings as a sign of submission, therefore women today do not need to wear head coverings. However, the principle of authority and submission is still applicable today.
3. Paul is simply referring to long hair (v15) and he is commanding that women have long hair and men have short hair as the sign of distinction and thus authority.
4. Paul is referring to hair styles. “Uncovered” is the same or similar word used in the Septuagint in Lev 13:45; 10:6; 21:10; Num 6:5; & 5:18. In those instances it refers to unkempt hair hanging down from the head. Therefore Paul is commanding women to do their hair up as a covering and not to leave it hanging down in disorder, and to do so as a symbol of man’s authority over them.
5. I have no idea.

I have a lot of respect for those who hold to #1. It certainly is not a popular position and the only reason to hold to it, I think, would be because of a strong commitment to the authority of Scripture. These people recognize that we cannot simply dismiss a passage because it doesn’t seem to make sense in our culture. And they see that rather than dismissing Scripture because it doesn’t fit with our culture, we should change our culture to conform with Scripture. But I’m not convinced that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches us, or the Corinthians, to require women to wear physical head coverings.

I’m a little more cautious of #2. This form of interpretation leaves the door open (ie. http://pomomusings.com/2009/01/04/jesus-the-bible-and-homosexuality/ ), though I don’t think wide open. If we fail to apply this passage because it doesn’t fit in our culture, then what else should we ignore? Also, my brother-in-law does a lot of street preaching and he says this passage is one of the most common objections that Muslims use against him. They say that we simply pick and choose what to believe about the Bible.

There is a legitimate point that we should still apply the principle, if not the specifics – but if Paul is commanding specifics then that is what we must obey, in my opinion. Thomas Schreiner summarizes this position:

To sum up: the custom recommended here is a head covering of some kind, probably a shawl. The importance of identifying this custom can be exaggerated, unless one believes that the custom of the day should be applied to our culture. The major point of the text is clear: women are to adorn themselves in a certain way. The precise kind of head covering Paul had in mind is no longer clear. What is more important, and we turn to this next, is: Why does Paul want the women to adorn themselves in a certain way?

[...]

In conclusion, we should affirm the participation of women in prayer and prophecy in the church. Their contribution should not be slighted or ignored. Nevertheless, women should participate in these activities with hearts that are submissive to male leadership, and they should dress so that they retain their femininity.

Head Coverings, Prophecies, and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Against this view, Sam Waldron notes:

I cannot agree with this interpretation (that head coverings were merely cultural) for these reasons. (1) This directive according to v. 16 was a matter of universal custom and practice in the Apostolic churches. It was not of merely local significance. This interpretation, then, implies that Apostolic directives and customs universally practiced by the Apostolic church do not bind the church today…

#3 appears to be somewhat common, though it does not appear to have strong support, especially considering v6. If a woman will not cover her head (i.e. have long hair), then she should have short hair. Or put another way: If we read “long hair” instead of “covering” it amounts to this — “if the woman have not long hair, let her also have not long hair,” because shorn simply means to have one’s hair cut close. Furthermore, this would seem to contradict Scripture in regards to the Nazarite vows (Numbers 6).

I’m more impressed by #4 for a few reasons. First of all, it seeks to find context first and foremost in Scripture rather than in some extrabiblical historical source. One issue I have with #1/2 is that if this is something commanded by nature, why is this the first time we’re reading about it in Scripture? Where is the OT context requiring women to wear head coverings?

Second, this position, like #1, believes that we are obligated to obey what Scripture says and to conform our thoughts and our culture to what Scripture teaches. It upholds the regulative principle of worship. I found some notes from a sermon/lecture given by Sam Waldron some time ago on the topic. He holds to #4 and summarizes it in part:

My conclusion is that the covering of women is mandatory today. I conclude this because the covering of women was (1) a matter of universal, apostolic practice and (2) was required by the teaching of nature. Why was the headcovering to be worn? Because it is required by Apostolic command and natural revelation.

[...]

The covering is long hair done up (or styled) in an orderly or tidy fashion.

This conclusion is supported by the following things:

(1) This interpretation gives full weight to v.15 without contradicting verses 4-6. Long hair (kept in an orderly manner) is given in place of covering. Verse 6 then means that if a woman lets her hair down to flow in a wild unkempt fashion, she should have it cut off.

(2) It makes sense of the transition from headcoverings to long hair in verses 13-15. This transition indicates that the covering in some sense consisted in long hair.

(3) It is consistent with the Old Testament meaning and usage of the words, cover and uncover. In the Old Testament to uncover one’s head was to loose one’s hair or allow one’s hair to flow free with the connotation of disorder and disarray. One may see this by comparing Lev. 13:45 where in the Greek the same word meaning uncover as is used in 1 Cor. 11:5 occurs: “As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his mustache and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ Keil and Delitzsch remark on this word that it means that lepers should “leave the hair of their head in disorder”.1 (Note also Lev. 10:6; 21:10; Num. 6:5 where the same Hebrew word as occurs in Lev. 13:45 is used. Note finally Num. 5:18 where the same root word is used in the Greek version as is used in Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Volume 1)-The Pentateuch, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1975), p.382. 1 Corinthians 11.) This Old Testament background helps us understand v.6.

Finally, I can sympathize with #5, but I can’t be satisfied with it. Hopefully you can’t either.

Some Difficulties (#3) – Doily?

One of the main difficulties with #1 is discerning what exactly Paul has in view. If the passage requires women today to wear a head covering, then we better know exactly what constitutes a head covering. The problem, however, is that the passage doesn’t say. Nowhere does Paul actually describe what he is referring to. The issue is not clarified at all if we try to look to historical sources. In arguing that Paul is referring to long hair, Gordon Clark notes the following:

(Re: v4) This verse does not say that the man wears a hat or a veil. Nor does it precisely say, “Having something on his head” (NAS). It is definitely something hanging down from his head. This could be a veil or a toga. Plutarch (Moralia 100 F) speaks of a man who “was walking having his garment hanging down from his head,” but whereas Plutarch identifies  what was hanging down, Paul does not. Most commentaries assume that a veil is meant, but could it not mean long hair hanging down?

… However, first, what were the ancient customs relative to prayer? Chrysostrom mentions pagan prophets who prophesied with hats or coverings on their heads. Whether Jewish men of the first century prayed with their hats on, as they do today, is a different question. Rabbi Jehoshua (c. A.D. 90) says that men usually walked bareheaded in public, while women wore a veil or something because, he says, woman brought sin into the world. Sometimes men too would wear hats, but children hardly ever did. In Babylon, but apparently not in Palestine, a hat on a man indicated that he was married. In Palestine, a man’s bare head signified political freedom from Pharaoh. Other rabbinical hints seem to imply that, therefore, a man should wear a hat to pray, for he was not free from God. Then, there are other indications that men wore hats in winter simply because it was cold and did not wear them in summer. The rabbinical passages on prayer also indicate both customs. Sometimes men prayed with a hat on, sometimes without a hat.

Now it is clear that Paul objects to something. Clearly also, he assumes that the Corinthians would instantly recognize that the posture in question was shameful. How can one explain either of these points when many of the Jewish men prayed with their hats on? However, if Paul is not referring to hats, but to long hair, neither of these two points is strange, or at least not so strange.

Schreiner also notes the difficulty in discerning what exactly Paul is referring to:

One of the perplexing questions in this passage is this: What custom regarding  adornment is referred to here? We cannot treat this complex question in detail, but the  two most probable suggestions can be set forth: (1) The custom Paul recommends is for women to wear shawls. (2) Paul objects to long, loose hair that falls down the back; he wants women to follow the usual custom of piling their hair up on top of their heads. In favor of the view that Paul is speaking against women wearing their hair loose and falling down the back are the following arguments: (1) There is no extant evidence that
full veiling, familiar in Islam, was current in Paul’s time. Therefore, the custom described cannot be veiling…

…it is probable that Paul is speaking of wearing a head covering of some kind, such as a shawl. That a shawl rather than a full veil is in Paul’s mind is indicated by the word covering (peribolaios) in 11:15, which is not the usual word for veil but probably refers to a wrap-around. The evidence in favor of this position is as follows: (1) The verb translated as “cover” in the niv (katakalypto¯ ) occurs three times in verses 6-7, and related cognate words occur in verses 5 and 13. These words most often refer to a covering of some kind. For example, the angels who saw the glory of Yahweh in the temple covered their faces (Isaiah 6:2). Judah thought Tamar, his daughter-in-law, was a harlot because she covered her face (Genesis 38:15). Since the word almost universally means “to cover” or “to hide,” the text is probably referring to a hair covering of some kind.5

(2) Philo (30 b.c. – a.d. 45) uses the same words Paul does in 1 Corinthians 11:5, “head uncovered” (akatakalypto¯ te¯ kephale¯ ), and it is clear that Philo is speaking of a head covering being removed because the priest had just removed her kerchief (Special Laws, 3:60). Akatakalyptos  also means “uncovered” in Philo, Allegorical Interpretation II,29, and in Polybius 15,27.2 (second century b.c.). Moreover, it is simply a negative adjective based on the verb katakalypto¯ , which commonly means “cover, veil.” (3) Esther 6:12 (LXX) employs the same expression found in verse four, kata kephale¯s, of Haman, who hurried home mourning, covering his head in shame. He probably used part of his garment to do this. (4) A similar expression occurs in Plutarch (46-120 a.d.), where it is specifically stated that the head is covered with part of the toga (himation).

That’s not exactly a confident argument, to say the least. Note the hesitant phrasing (probably, probable) throughout. We simply are not able to determine from the text what Paul is referring to. Some will say it doesn’t matter, because all Paul requires is a symbol of authority (v10). We will get to that later.

Some More Difficulties (#4) – Uncovered Men?

If we are to adopt Waldron’s view that “The covering is long hair done up (or styled) in an orderly or tidy fashion” then what does that mean for men? V5 would read “Every woman/wife who prays or prophesies without her hair done up dishonors her head.” So v4 would read “Every man who prays or prophesies with his hair done up dishonors his head.”

First off, is there any context for such a comment from Paul? Were Corinthian men in the habit of wearing their hair in buns? But more importantly, does this fit the OT context Waldron relies upon?

In Leviticus 13:45, what would have been the opposite of letting the hair of the head hang down? Would it have been for the man to do his hair up in a bun? Most likely not, but perhaps it simply meant that he should let it grow out and be unkempt, as opposed to cut short. So in Leviticus 13:45, covered would have to mean either done up in a bun or, more likely, covered would mean short hair.

Looking at Leviticus 10:6, let us consider Keil & Delitzsch:

Moses prohibited Aaron and his remaining sons from showing any sign of mourning on account of this fatal calamity. “Uncover not your heads,” i.e., do not go about with your hair dishevelled, or flowing free and in disorder  (Lev. 13:45). ŠJROˆRApFdoes not signify merely uncovering the head by taking off the head-band (LXX, Vulg., Kimchi, etc.), or by shaving off the hair (Ges. and others; see on the other hand Knobel on Lev. 21:10), but is to be taken in a similar sense to WŠOJRORˆAViˆRApE, the free growth of the hair, not cut short with scissors (Num. 6: 5; Eze. 44:20). It is derived from ˆRApF, to let loose from anything (Pro. 1:25; 4: 5, etc.), to let a people loose, equivalent to giving them the reins (Exo. 32:25), and signifies solvere crines, capellos, to leave the hair in disorder, which certainly implies the laying aside of the head-dress in the case of the priest, though without consisting in this alone.

So the conclusion is that covered, the opposite of uncovered, would mean either (1) the head-dress worn by the priest, (2) hair done up/styled, or (3) for the hair to be “cut short with scissors.”

Using the same hermeneutic as Waldron, let’s apply that meaning to 1 Corinthians 11:4 and see what we get:

(1) Every man who prays or prophesies with a head-dress on (like a priest) dishonors his head.

(2) Every man who prays or prophesies with his hair done up/styled dishonors his head.

(3) Every man who prays or prophesies with short hair dishonors his head.

Certainly (1) is not an option, especially if this is a universally binding command throughout all ages. If we use the OT meaning in this context, then we must be led to conclude that men who pray and prophesy dishonor Christ if they do not have long unkempt hair. This would clearly make little sense of Paul’s argument in v14.

More Difficulties

In addition to these problems, I found the following list helpful:

First, there is no direct command present in the passage.  Paul does not command that women must wear hats in the public gathering of the church for worship.  There is an imperatival form of “cover” in verse 6, but it occurs as a conclusion to an illustration Paul uses in the verse.

Second, if we assume Paul is commanding the wearing of hats in the public gathering of the church, then women ought to be allowed and even encouraged to engage in the authority functions of the church; i.e. praying and prophesying.  It is interesting to note however that many churches who practice the covering as outlined in this passage, do not let the women in said churches pray and prophesy publicly.

Third, if we assume that Paul is commanding the wearing of hats, we should limit it as he himself does:  only to times when the ladies pray and/or prophesy.  Paul does not specify in verse 5 that she must be covered to enter the church building, sing psalms or hymns, participate in the Lord’s Supper or give tithes.  If a church forbids women from praying and/or prophesying publicly, then she does not need to wear a hat.

Fourth, in 1 Timothy 2 Paul deals specifically with what women are to wear in worship and there is no mention whatsoever of a head covering.  Paul does give a prohibition concerning ostentatious hairstyles.  The very fact that Paul says the women are not to wear “braided hair and gold” argues that some in fact were.  One wonders how these things would have been visible to other worshippers if they were covered by a hat or an external shawl. [And furthermore, Paul seems to imply that outward apparel is not what matters, but a life of good works flowing from a submissive heart.  -Brandon]

Fifth, the text is admittedly difficult in its interpretation. A whole host of good men differ on the interpretation of the text.  This fact alone does not favor one particular argument, but it is difficult to ground a practice of the church (almost a sacrament to some) upon a text that has been subject to such varying interpretations throughout the centuries.

Sixth, the issue of liberty is a strong argument against the idea that hats are in view in the passage. One would expect more liberty in New Covenant ethics, not less. There is no command for women to wear hats, veils etc. in the Old Testament and once again, we must be careful about binding the consciences of Christ’s sheep in an unbiblical manner.

Seventh, the thrust of the passage argues against the wearing of hats. We shall deal with the thrust of the passage in the following portion of this paper, but I have often wondered what the Apostle Paul would say about the controversy that has surrounded this passage throughout the 20 centuries of Christ’s church. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul is arguing for pastoral remuneration and cites the law of Moses as an example why ministers ought to be compensated: “For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain’” (verse 9a). Paul then goes on to ask rhetorically, “Is it oxen God is concerned about?” One wonders if in light of the controversy surrounding 11:2-16, the Apostle Paul would have asked rhetorically, “Is it hats that God is concerned about?!”

Hats, Hair, or Headship: Paul’s Teaching Uncovered Jim Butler

Greatest Difficulty, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Perhaps the greatest difficulty for all of these interpretations is how to reconcile it with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

If Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 11 that women are not to pray or prophecy without a doily or without wearing a bun, then it would seem that he is approving the practice of women praying and prophesying as long as they are “covered.” Calvin paraphrases this problem:

It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 2:12). It would not, therefore be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering.

But then how do we reconcile such a view with 1 Corinthians 14. In his book “Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries,” John W. Robbins paraphrases James B. Hurley’s four possible options:

(1) denying the text in 1 Corinthians 14 is authentic

(2) admitting that Paul contradicts himself

(3) asserting that Paul did not give permission for women to speak in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14

(4) holding that chapter 14 refers to talkative women, to tongues-speaking women, or to “women judging men by their speech,” not to praying or prophesying

[(5) 1 Corinthians 11 refers to some kind of public gathering apart from corporate worship. -BA]

Believe it or not, some professed Christians have opted for (1) or (2). Neither are an option. To quote R. L. Dabney:

They desire to find here the implication that the woman who feels the call may prophesy or preach in public, as long as she does so with her head covered. But when we turn to the fourteenth chapter, verses 34 and 35, we find the same apostle strictly forbidding public preaching in the churches by women, and commanding silence. No honest reader of Scripture can infer that the Apostle meant by inference to allow the very thing, which, in the same epistle and in the same part of it, he expressly prohibits. It is a wicked thing to represent the Apostle Paul as one who contradicts himself.

Women Preachers

Waldron argues for (5), but I am uncertain of what such a public gathering would be in the 1st century church if not corporate worship. Some, like Calvin, hold to (3), while it appears that many today hold to (4). Quoting from Robbins again:

A recent book on Exegetical Fallacies (D.A. Carson, Baker Book House, 1984) contains some fallacies of its own. Carson writes:

“An easy example [of the fallacy of appealing to selective evidence] is the appeal made by some very conservative Christians to 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 to argue that women should always keep silence in the church. They should not pray out loud, offer testimonies, or speak under any condition. Admittedly those verses by themselves could be taken that way; but such an interpretation brings us into unavoidable conflict with what Paul says three chapters earlier, where he permits women under certain conditions to pray and prophesy in the church (1 Cor. 11:2-15) (p. 99).

Carson’s error, of course, is not appealing to selected evidence, but to no evidence at all. Nowhere in chapter 11 does Paul permit or prohibit women speaking in church. Carson does not quote Paul in chapter 11. Nor do any of the other commentators who believe Paul gave permission for women to speak in chapter 11. Let Carson, let Hurley, let anyone who holds that position, quote Paul’s words. The statement that Paul permits women to pray and prophesy in church is simply false. Nor are the words “in the church” in chapter 11. Carson has read them in. Carson not only fails to recognize an ad hominem argument [note this for later -BA] when he reads one, he fails to understand English. I do not know what our seminary faculties teach, but it is not logic. One ought to know logic before writing a book on exegetical fallacies.

What is Robbins referring to? Well, earlier in the book, he quotes Calvin (continued directly from Calvin’s quote above):

…It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one [prophesying uncovered] does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in chapter 14.

Calvin is correct. Paul simply does not permit women to prophesy in church/public anywhere in 1 Corinthians 11. But yet, if he does not, then it is quite strange and makes for awkward reading. Clearly anyone reading Paul’s words would assume by the way they are written that he does permit a woman to prophesy if covered. So while logically Calvin is correct, it makes for a very unnatural reading of the text.

Now, keep in mind we have not yet decided what “covered” means. What if whatever Paul means by “covered,” by definition prohibits women from prophesying? In other words, what if being “covered” made it impossible for a woman to speak in church? No, I’m not talking about a muzzled doily.

The Meaning of Head

Time and time again I have learned the importance of defining terms. In this regard, let us note the potential difficulty here because of Paul’s tendency to play with words. Consider, for example, Romans 7:21-25

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

How many times is the word law used and in how many different ways? Clearly Paul is playing with words here for rhetorical effect. Paul uses the word “head” in a similar fashion in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. In verse 5 we read:

but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head – it is the same as if her head were shaven.

I believe each instance of head here refers to something different.

• head = person/self
• head = authority
• head = skull

To paraphrase then:

but every wife who prays or prophesies uncovered dishonors her husband – it is the same as if her hair were shaven.

Ok, but what does it mean for a woman’s “self” to pray uncovered? Let’s consider Paul’s opening statement:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

God
^
Christ
^
Man
^
Woman

Notice how the diagram demonstrates that the authority over each is a covering over each. Woman is covered by her authority, Man.

So then for woman to be uncovered would look like this:

God
^
Christ
^
Man Woman

Conversely, for man to be covered (v4) would look like this:

God
^
Christ
^
Woman
^
Man

I believe that verse 10 supports this view:

That is why a wife ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels.

But wait, you say. That’s not what verse 10 says. Verse 10 says woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head! … Are you sure? I handed someone an interlinear in the Bible study class and asked them to read the Greek word for symbol. After a moment, he looked up confused. “There is no Greek word for symbol.” Thomas Schreiner explains:

But what does Paul mean when he speaks of a woman having authority on her head? English versions often have added a word to the Greek text in order to make the meaning plainer. Thus, the nasb translates verse 10 to say that “the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.” The rsv says that a woman should “have a veil on her head,” and the niv says a woman should have “a sign of authority on her head.” But the Greek text literally says “the woman ought to have authority on her head.” The words symbol (nasb), veil (rsv), and sign (niv) are not in the Greek text. All the text says is that a woman should have authority (exousia) on her head.

[on a side note, Schreiner says: "The word authority has been translated by the English versions in a passive sense so that Paul seems to be saying that a woman should have a sign or symbol of man's authority on her head, namely, a head covering or veil. But M. Hooker has contended that such translations are misguided. She says that the word authority nowhere else has a passive meaning; it is always active." -I can't read Greek, so I don't know if this observation would make a difference one way or the other for the interpretation I am offering]

So then, for woman to be covered is for man to have authority over her in the church. And for woman to pray or prophesy in church (an act of authority) is for woman to no longer be covered by man (i.e. uncovered).

I’m not certain what this would mean for v4 but I think it would be something along the lines of referring to a man who has willfully surrendered his authority over to a woman.

Hair Length

But what are we to make of Paul’s comments regarding nature and the length of hair for men and women? Are they commands that are and have always been universally binding? First we should ask if these are commands at all. I don’t think they are. Recall Robbins’ statement above about an ad hominem argument. Robbins does not expand upon the statement in his book, so I’m not certain what he means. However, it certainly helps me to make sense of Paul’s writing. Robbins does not mean abusive ad hominem character attacks. Here is what he means:

The methods of Christian apologetics may be divided into two parts, logical and rhetorical. The logical methods are sometimes stated, most often illustrated, by Jesus and Paul (and the other Biblical writers as well), as are the rhetorical methods. The logical methods include deduction in the forms of immediate inference, syllogism, and sorites; apagogic, sometimes called ad hominem, arguments (not to be confused with abusive ad hominem arguments) in which an opponent’s point of view is adopted for the purpose of demonstrating the logical absurdity of his view; dilemmas, and arguments a fortiori. The rhetorical devices include sarcasm, ridicule, kindness, courtesy, paradox, and questions.

The Apologetics of Jesus and Paul

And he references 1 Cor 15 as a prime example of an ad hominem argument (if…). So when we apply this to 1 Cor 11, we see that Paul is, for the sake of argument, adopting the already accepted view of the Corinthians in regards to hair and gender distinctions.

v6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

Paul commands women to cover themselves. Some object that there is no difference between men and women. Paul replies,
“If there is no difference, then shave off your hair.”
“Never! That’s disgraceful! My hair is my glory! I would look like a man!”
“Oh, so there is a difference between men and women? If there is a difference, then live like it and cover yourself.”

Note Paul’s sarcasm. He seems to be a big fan of using it.

We see this quite clearly in v13-15:

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Judge for yourselves if what I am saying is true. Do you not already acknowledge the distinction between men and women? If you acknowledge a distinction outside of the church, in your everyday life, then you should acknowledge a distinction in the church as well.

Conclusion

So in conclusion, Paul is not commanding that women have long hair and men have short hair. He also is not commanding women to wear their hair in a bun or to wear some kind of hat or veil. He is simply commanding all Christians to acknowledge the created order, the intentional differences between men and women, and to conduct themselves accordingly in corporate worship, and he uses some rhetorical flare to drive the point home.

I think that makes the most sense of the passage, but I assume I am most likely mistaken because I have not come across any similar interpretation in anything I have read. So if you could be so kind as to point out it’s flaws, I would greatly appreciate it.

I saw the following status update on facebook today:

Cheers to all my friends who have officially begun their 33-day spiritual preparation for Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary in August! I began yesterday myself! †Ad Jesum per Mariam†

I asked him to explain what this was, and he pointed me to an essay explaining the practice.  http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=48156972164 The essay begins:

Total Consecration of oneself to Jesus through the Blessed Virgin Mary is quite simply the greatest devotion there is. It is a total self-giving of ones will to Jesus through His Mother Mary. The idea is that your will is no longer your own but that of Mary and her’s, of course, is totally united with the will of God… No one should ever do one of these consecrations without proper preparation and prayer. There is nothing worse than someone who promises themselves to Mary only for them to neglect and abandon Her.

So we see that Mary’s will is the will of God. The author then quotes Roman Catholic “Saints” in support of this:

“The most perfect and most profitable of all devotions to the Blessed Virgin consists in consecrating ourselves entirely to her, and to Jesus through her, as their slaves. It involves consecrating to her completely and for all eternity our body and soul, our possessions both spiritual and material, the atoning value and the merits of our good actions and our right to dispose of them. In short, it involves the offering of all we have acquired in the past, all we actually possess at the moment, and all we will acquire in the future.”

“This devotion consists in surrendering oneself in the manner of a slave to Mary, and to Jesus through her, and then performing all our actions with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for Mary.”

“As all perfection consists in our being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus it naturally follows that the most perfect of all devotions is that which conforms, unites, and consecrates us most completely to Jesus. Now of all God’s creatures Mary is the most conformed to Jesus. It therefore follows that, of all devotions, devotion to her makes for the most effective consecration and conformity to him. The more one is consecrated to Mary, the more one is consecrated to Jesus. That is why perfect consecration to Jesus is but a perfect and complete consecration of oneself to the Blessed Virgin, which is the devotion I teach; or in other words, it is the perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy baptism.”

–Saint Louis Marie de Montfort

He then quotes Popes commending this practice:

“This is the best and most acceptable form of devotion to our Blessed Lady.”
-Blessed Pope Pius IX

“Reading this book was a deceive turning point in my life. This perfect devotion is indispensable to anyone who means to give himself without reserve to Christ and to the work of redemption.”
-Pope John Paul II

He then concludes:

The Necessity of devotion to Our Lady in Attaining Salvation

“All the Elect obtain eternal salvation through the means of Mary.”
-Saint Ildephonsus, Bishop, d. 667 AD

“With reason did the Most Holy Virgin predict that all generations would call her blessed, for all the Elect obtain eternal salvation through the means of Mary.
-Saint Ildephonsus, Bishop, d. 667 AD

“Without the Blessed Virgin, a person travels along the road to damnation.”
-Saint Ildephonsus, Bishop, d. 667 AD

“No one will ever be the servant of the Son without serving the Mother.”
-Saint Ildephonsus, Bishop, d. 667 AD

“Devotion to you, O Blessed Virgin, is a means of salvation which God gives to those whom he wishes to save.”
-Saint John Damascene, Father and Doctor of the Church, 676-787 AD

”There is no one, O Most Holy Mary, who can know God except through thee; no one who can be saved or redeemed but through thee, O Mother of God; no one who can be delivered from dangers but through thee, O Virgin Mother; no one who obtains mercy but through thee, O Filled-With-All-Grace!”

-Saint Germanus of Constantinople, Patriarch of Constantinople, d. 733 AD

I had no idea Mary worship was this serious and I have no idea how any person can believe anything written above if they have ever read the New Testament.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Hebrews 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Romans 3:10 “None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Mary was a wicked sinner who was saved by the blood of the spotless lamb! Apart from the blood of Christ, God would have damned her for eternity. Woah to the man who puts his faith in her!

Mary Worship, Mary Ann Collins (PDF)

The Parallel of Mary to Jesus, Richard Bennett (MP3)

The Occult and Roman Superstitions, Timothy Kauffman (MP3)

When it comes to faith, how do you know god?

Well you don’t have to know god, you have to surrender to a mystery, the mystery of your own existence. You have to have trust in a higher consciousness or in a deeper reality even though you don’t understand it. Most importantly, you have to have meaning and purpose for living. So when people have a certain outcome, like, you know, their daughter is going to get married on such and such a date, it’s known that they will wait for that date to come before they will succumb to the illness because the significance and meaning of that event will translate into a biological response in the body. So you don’t have to be a believer in the traditional sense. Because sometimes belief can also be a cover-up for insecurity, and that is not good, because you’re actually overshadowing your insecurities by fervently believing in something that you’re not sure about, so I make a distinction between faith and belief. Faith is the ability to trust the unknown and say, I can step into the unknown and trust that in the unknown, there are possibilities. In the known, it’s just the past. What’s the known? It’s all that’s happened in the past. So the known has no creativity in it. Whereas the unknown, trusting the unknown, stepping into the mystery, and surrendering to it, and feeling at peace with it, opens you to the field of possibilities, and therefore to creativity. And healing is a response of creativity. Your body responds creatively. It heals itself.

Just thought I’d share another quote from transcription work. Please note that this utter nonsense has earned the speaker millions in book sales.

On a side note, he’s clearly not a fan of Gordon Clark in his definition of faith as distinct from belief and including trust, and his assertion that we must surrender to the mystery of a higher consciousness that we cannot understand

For a rather different answer to the question: How Does Man Know God?

And for a bit on my comment regarding faith/belief: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=238

As mentioned in a previous post, part of my job consists of doing transcription of interviews. I’ve highlighted a few quotes in the past, and below is another one:

Yeah, and you know, we’re big… we’re big believer, big Jesus people. You know, we try to live our life according to how He lived His life and praying and trying to be a good person, which is hard. But we strive to be that and it’s given us great peace…. great peace.

How on earth could that possibly give this woman great peace? How could anyone find great peace trusting in themselves to live like Jesus? If this woman had read her Bible, she would be filled with anxiety and gripped with fear. For Jesus said, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Perhaps she thinks she does.

Jesus finds no joy in this woman.

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

About once a year for the last 3 years I have had the opportunity to preach at my church. Last week my pastors attended the Banner of Truth Conference in Philadelphia and they asked me to prepare a message. They are currently teaching a series on the law of God. Below is a link to the sermon. The intro was not recorded, so I included it below. What I’m saying won’t make sense without it:

Hurricane Katrina of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the costliest hurricane, as well as one of the five deadliest, in the history of the United States. Among recorded Atlantic hurricanes, it was the sixth strongest overall. Hurricane Katrina formed over the Bahamas on August 23, 2005, and crossed southern Florida as a moderate Category 1 hurricane, causing some deaths and flooding there before strengthening rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico. The storm weakened before making its second landfall as a Category 3 storm on the morning of Monday, August 29 in southeast Louisiana. It caused severe destruction along the Gulf coast from central Florida to Texas, much of it due to the storm surge. The most severe loss of life and property damage occurred in New Orleans, Louisiana, which flooded as the levee system catastrophically failed, in many cases hours after the storm had moved inland. The federal flood protection system in New Orleans failed at more than fifty places. Nearly every levee in metro New Orleans was breached as Hurricane Katrina passed just east of the city limits. Eventually 80% of the city became flooded and the floodwaters lingered for weeks. At least 1,836 people lost their lives.

A levee is basically a wall that keeps water in its place. It is a boundary.
Now, is water evil? No. Water has it’s place and purpose, and a very valuable purpose, but New Orleans perished because their levees were neglected, the barrier separating the water from the land was neglected, and Hurricane Katrina overcame the city.

Jesus warns us of a similar force:
Luke 21:34-35
“But be on guard lest your hearts be overcharged with dissipation, and drunkenness, and the cares of this life – and that day [of judgment] come upon you suddenly like a trap. For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth.”

1 Peter 2:11
Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.

What comes to mind when Peter warns us against the passions of the flesh? Do you think of sex, murder, and mayhem? Hopefully through this series on the law, we will come to understand just how subtle and deceptive the passions of the flesh can be.

The 4th Commandment

Jon led us to communion after the message by quoting Matthew 11:

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

If you are interested in listening to my other sermons:

John 17:6-8

The Glory of God in Election and Reprobation

Other Portico sermons, including the current series on the law can be found http://porticochurch.com/resources.htm

I just sent out an email to my family after watching a video on Youtube.  Here’s what I sent them:

Hello Family,

I just saw a video that I want to share with you and help explain a little.

Here’s a video that does a good job of visualizing the amount of money that has been spent in the last year or less:

Keep in mind the money is either borrowed or it is printed. Most of it is printed, created out of thin air. This is inflation. Inflation is not higher prices, inflation is an increase in the money supply. Higher prices are the result of inflation. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon that just advances over time. It is a direct result of how much money is in circulation. The amount of money that has just been dumped into circulation will destroy the dollar.

Let me try an analogy: Dad’s pecan pie.
Let’s say Dad baked a pecan pie at Christmas time. Several of us had a piece, but we saved one big piece for Tony (*my brother-in-law in Iraq) in the freezer and Brittanny sent Tony a certificate that said “You are entitled to one piece of pecan pie” so that he can bring it back home with him and have his pie.

Now, let’s say that Brady got a hold of the certificate template and printed out a bunch of certificates and gave them to all his biking friends. Mom enlarged the font size of the certificate and printed several to give to other teachers at school. Bryan bribed his teachers with some more certificates, and even gave one to Nicole. And Dad printed out and gave each of his employees a certificate for one piece of pie as a Christmas bonus.

What happens when they all show up to claim their piece of pie? Well, that big piece of pie that belonged to Tony now has to be divided among all the certificates. So Tony’s piece is now maybe a single pecan, probably less. The piece that was put in the freezer for him magically shrunk.

That is what is happening with the dollar. A dollar originally represented 1 UNIT of value. What happens when more money is printed? Does the total amount of value in America increase? Does the total amount of pie increase when Brady prints a certificate? No. What the dollar represents decreases. If twice as much money is printed, then 1 dollar would = 1/2 UNIT of value. If 4x as much, then 1/4, etc. That is why a dollar put in a savings jar in 1913 is worth only $0.05!

Inflation has generally been gradual, but the system is reaching it’s end and politicians are panicking. Remember the video you just watched? That ridiculous amount of money that is being spent is being printed. They are increasing the supply of money in circulation at an uncontrollable level. It takes time for the effect of inflation to raise prices, but because these bailouts were not gradual, when the effect hits, it will be hard and fast, especially for anyone who does not receive the new money but is relying on “old” money being saved. It’s probably 12-18 months out.

The other option for Tony would have been to send him the piece of pie directly. No certificate, just the actual pie. That way it would be his and no amount of certificates could change his piece of the pie. His piece of pie would not grow bigger, it would remain the same, even if what his certificate represented decreased in value. That’s the way gold and other hard assets work. Investing in gold is not because gold will increase in value, but because it will retain it’s value while the certificates (dollars) will lose their value. (And if 1 oz of gold had been put in a jar in 1913, it would be worth 1 oz of gold today).*

Here is Ron Paul talking about inflation:

in a little more detail:

And here is Glenn Beck talking about it last October:

*No analogy is perfect. And I do not mean to imply that the dollar/certificate actually represents gold, because it no longer even does that. It represents whatever faith people have in the currency. So no faith = no value. Uh-oh.