Welcome to Biblestudy.net!

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed ? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? and how shall they hear without a preacher ? – Romans 10:14

---

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. – Romans 1:16

---

 

Real Hebrew Roots. - Comments (0)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 13th February, 2014 @ 03:42:07 PM

A modern-day repackaging of an old-time religion may be found in the “Hebrew Roots” movement, which teaches that Christians need to obey the Levitical laws and sanctions generally agreed to be 613 laws, customs, and so forth derived from the first five books of Scripture.

This “movement” is misnamed. Of course, the errors it propounds are nothing new, and are prominently figured into Paul’s rather seething commentary on such ideas in his epistle to the Galatians. Most people either gloss Galatians when they read it, or mistake its major premise by focusing on a minor one, and/or reading too many commentaries. To aid the reader, the central consideration is not initial salvation from sin unto the gift of eternal life, but {progressive sanctification in the life.|Gal 3:3}

The Hebrew Roots movement is truly against Christian practice and faith, despite being occupied as it is by Christians. There are very clear Scriptural warnings to NOT do the very thing this movement represents. It steals the liberty into which every Christian has been placed. We should, rather, {stand fast in that liberty.|Gal 5:1}

Once again we learn the difference between being sanctified – which every single believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is – and being able to sanctify: which no Christian can do.

How many times do you hear, in a discussion of an unbiblical practice or doctrine, how many Christians, including Christians of some note, either do the practice or believe and or teach the doctrine? As if that can possibly settle a matter? All of this leads to confusion in the mind of the beholder, the very beholder we are trying to reach with the truth of God’s word. When Peter violated the principles of the early church, his acts were not sanctified, but {Paul put him in his place.|Gal 2:11-12}

A paradox, you may say? Sure it is. But of all people to understand the paradoxes of those who are identifiable by faith and practice, Jewish people should understand that a variety of practices and beliefs doesn’t completely obscure the identity underneath. In short, these are Christians acting as if they are Jewish proselytes, to a large extent, and when Christians join into the inferior priesthood of Levi – as they do – they do a disservice to the Christian faith.

“Christians” were first called as such by others who identified them at Antioch, in Pisidia, in the middle of the first century. Prior to that time, before Gentiles began to be Christians in larger numbers, they were knows as Jews who went “the way.”

In fact, this fairly large group of Jews who believed in Jesus Christ could be found occupying “Solomon’s porch” in the Herodian temple when it was standing, and Jews gathered together on the requisite feasts.

So, yes, Christianity has Jewish roots. To call it “Hebrew roots” is flat wrong.

Abraham is called a Hebrew. He didn’t perform any of the law, nor did he keep its dietary restrictions, let alone wear phylacteries, etc., and other Rabbinic practices which actually miss the mark spiritually, and, at best, are superstition, or worse, end up choking on gnats and swallowing camels.

As for how it happens, Christians receive a supernatural love for God and His word, because of the love of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t take much study of the Scriptures to realize God’s special love for His people, Israel. Jesus is a Jew, too. Not was. Is. Tribe of Judah.

So any thoughtful Christian cannot hate the Jews – even though many do – but instead have a supernatural affinity to them, and are indebted to the Jews because that is where faith in Jehovah (Jesus Christ) comes from. To call that a “Hebrew Root,” is a misnomer.

The Scriptures teach that Israel is a tender planting of God, a tree (or vine) that grew, and then later at some time Gentile branches were grafted in. That time was in the first century, as Jews increasingly rejected Jesus Christ, even though many, many believed.

That leaves we former Gentiles who have believed readily aware that we only stand by our faith in Jesus Christ, and when the time comes that no longer is the case among the Gentiles, God will once again take up Israel as the light of the world.

But that is NOT Hebrew roots, even in the generic sense. True “Hebrew Roots” may be found in Abraham the Hebrew, but not in the Levitical priesthood.

And this is the core of the problem. These misled and misleading Christians have come short of the second phase of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, the one He is in today, which is His priesthood at the right hand of His and our Father. This is not a Levitical priesthood as is obviously evident in the fact that Jesus Christ is of the tribe of Judah, house of David, and not of the tribe of Levi. He’s genealogy is most eloquently found in first parts of Matthew and Luke.

{Paul, when he was before Ananias,|Acts 23:2-5} the alleged Jewish high priest, was slapped at Ananias instruction, and Paul subsequently called Ananias a “whited wall.” He then claimed he did not know Ananias WAS the high priest. Of course, Paul was aware of who Ananias was.

However, unlike the others around, Paul also knew Who the Lord Jesus Christ is, and also knew Him to be a high priest of a higher order than any from Levi. He published this viewpoint clearly and succinctly in his Epistle to the Hebrews. And it is in that epistle that the undeniable logic is presented: that Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec.

Because Abraham is Levi’s great grandfather, Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham. And after Abraham tithed to Melchisedec, Melchisedec blessed Abraham. It is not controversial that the greater blesses the lesser, and therefore we see how great this man Melchisedec was: greater than Abraham. It is significant that in the blessing of Abraham, Melchisedec, the king-priest of Salem, brought forth bread and wine to Abraham. This foreshadows the Christian ordinance.

Therefore we see that, prior to Levi and Moses, there was a priest of God who was king of Salem, later to be Jeru-salem. This priest was greater than Abraham. He was NOT a high priest, but that his order existed is a fact of the Bible. This no doubt traces back to the commitment of the true worship of God to Shem. In fact, I suspect that Melchisedec may have indeed BEEN Shem. But that’s not especially important. If Melchisedec’s genealogy was important, it would be included. The fact is, it is important he has NO genealogy, typifying as it does his priestly Successor, Who is timeless.

Shem was the father of ALL of the children of Eber, upon whose name the term Hebrew rests.

These are Hebrew roots if the phrase is to be used. The roots of faith in Abraham the Hebrew.

Abraham the Hebrew recognized the priesthood of Melchisedec. And while Melchisedec was a king-priest, his Successor, Jesus Christ, is the High-Priest King, after the same order. With Jesus Christ the high-priestly order of Levi was terminated. The High Priest after the order of Melchisedec took His office after His ascent back to heaven.

The Lord Jesus will hold the three offices given to Israel: Prophet, Priest, King. No other single man was ever allowed this. He dies, as prophets do, at the hands of His own people. Today, he is the High-Priest, after the order of Melchisedec, and therefore all the order of Aaron (Levi) is terminated. Finally, He will rule as King of Kings, Lord of Lords.

And the law of Moses, which came 400 years later, cannot annul God’s promises to Abraham, in part signified by his meeting with Melchisedec after Abraham’s triumph over the kings.

This, by the way, is orthodox and fundamental Christian belief.

I have Hebrew roots.

Right of Attila the Hun. - Comments (0)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 12th February, 2014 @ 06:47:04 AM

It’s been quite a few years ago that I was introduced as being “Somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun,” by a friend of mine. I’m misunderstood. Sometimes I revel in that. I try to stay principled. I think that’s the only way to live.

So in my experiences lately of trying to function as both salt to the earth as well as light to the world, the call to faithfulness of every Christian, I have set about in my local community to confront lawless government.

That has led me to represent myself in Court as a citizen advocate. I have received injunctive relief against the City of Omaha because it implemented an illegal set of ordinances to license virtually everyone that does any work on real property. I am attempting to stop the City of Omaha from illegally appropriating tax money to the state-supported university.

Recently I have been watching the city of Fremont, NE try to drive the illegal aliens out of their city. It’s incipient xenophobia. Now, there is no doubt that illegal aliens crossing our borders is a problem. It is a problem of failed government. But what Fremont citizens are doing is truly the stuff of pitchforks and lanterns, as they have set about a licensing scheme of all rental real estate AND all renters. That’s right, license everything.

First, let me say that Fremont has always been a city dominated by Masonic elements and therefore has become the kind of community brought about by that secret society.

As far as I can tell, there isn’t a gospel-preaching church in the whole town.

It has failed to grow because it is run my local monopolistic interests. Sort of reminds me a bit of the town of Millard NE, annexed several years ago by Omaha, which is now looking a lot like a ghost town. A lot like Fremont. I wonder if there is a single Jewish family in the entire town.

I pretty much expect Fremonters to tell me: “We’ve handled the Jews, and we’ve handled the blacks, and we sure are going to handle these browns.”

Now here is the paradox in all this. Who do you suppose lined up behind this movement to license all rental real estate and all renters in the Fremont city limits? “Conservatives.” And of course, the expedient bunch of unprincipled politicos that adhere to “conservatives” like barnacles (or,maggots?) – the Republicans.

I have many Republican friends, though I have never been one. And I’m still a Bible Christian. Before I was saved, I was far, far more radical than my Democrat registration described. Of course, today Hubert Humphrey would be to the right of John Boehner, and George Bush, but leave that. I was a definite lefty. I met real communists. I also saw the Civil Rights Movement get hijacked by Sodomites, but I’m working on another article for that.

Anyway, I say all this to explain why it is I have come to my political conclusion on the state of American politics: I left the Democrat party over 35 years ago because they held wrong principles. I’ve never joined the Republicans because they have none.

Watching Republicans and conservatives parade and prate about what a wonderful thing they have achieved in Fremont – by seizing fundamental liberty away from every citizen in Fremont – is exactly the kind of thing I’ve come to expect from Republicans. Just as the Omaha Republicans seized on licensing nearly every man that works with his hands in Omaha.

Republicans stand no more for freedom that Democrats. They are both becoming more and more like Nazi parties. They will have brownshirts at our doors soon enough. In Omaha they have criminalized work. In Fremont, they have denied property owners an important right. The right to rent out your property without governmental permission. The right to rent a property without government permission.

I’m pretty sure I’m one of the only guys around that thinks that seizing liberty from the people is contrary to both Americanism and Christianity.

Even if it does serve the interests of local anti-christian xenophobia.

Jerusalem Old and New. - Comments (0)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 11th February, 2014 @ 12:36:58 AM

Every time I look “over there,” at Israel, I see a nation out of whack. Israel just cannot find its place in this world, and it won’t until Messiah comes. Devout Jews agree with this.

When Messiah RETURNS – the Scriptures are clear that Messiah needed to suffer death – David will be running Jerusalem here on earth, but the economy of Jerusalem will be so massive that there will plenty of room for all of Abraham’s children, including a heavenly sphere where God’s heavenly people, those He is calling out today.

Just as Abraham looked for a city with permanence, so do I. And I sincerely hope so does everyone.

We Bible Christians do not lust after Jerusalem as do others because we know there is coming a heavenly city, the dimensions of which are closer to the size of the land promised to Abraham – from the Euphrates to the Nile – than to the tiny city on earth. This city, being pyramidical in its dimension – having as it does a 1,500 mile length, width, and height – will have plenty of room for God’s heavenly people. {If it were not so, He would have told us.|Jo 14:1-3}

There is a New Jerusalem, and it’s not the old Jerusalem. In fact, we anticipate, and we see,  the Jerusalem of today slide into a moral abyss. It will get worse. Yet we continue to {pray for the peace of Jerusalem.|Psa 122:6} even as we continue to watch it decline until the day it is spiritually called “Sodom” and “Egypt.”

The earthly Jerusalem belongs to God’s people Israel, the title deed is in the Scriptures. This is why I cannot understand Jewish people who reject the authority of the Scriptures, and yet hold to Zionism.

This is patently incompatible, as the horrors of the holocaust do not logically devolve into a title deed. “Holocausts” are the natural result of envious nations. The nations are envious of Israel’s first-born national status, which, today, has been set aside, together with the nation itself, by God Himself.

I have met many, many Jews who set aside the Scriptures as not written by God, and yet insist on holding out for Jerusalem as belonging to the nation of Israel. I recall one time I was allowed to speak briefly – very briefly – at a synagogue in town, after listening to a speaker carry on for about 20 minutes how it was that Moses did not write the Torah.

I asked him why he was pulling the title deed away from Israel for the land, and the meeting ended on that controversy, the presiding Rabbi assuring me that not all Jews believe and teach such as what I heard.

I realize it is difficult for us Bible Christians to get an audience with sincere Jewish people about what the Scriptures say, but it helps when we agree that they ARE the Scriptures.

When we discover Jewish people looking forward to Messiah, our hearts are warmed knowing that they are not far from the kingdom of God, which, first and foremost, was and is prepared for God’s only first-born national son (Exodus 4:22).

It’s one of the great paradoxes in life that God is trying to get Christians to look forward to the return of the Messiah, knowing already Who He is, while at the same time He is trying to get the Jewish people to look backward to see Who He is.

There remains today, according to the Scriptures, a {“remnant according to the election of grace”|Rom 11:3-5} among the Jews, whose circumcision is {of the heart|Rom 2:29}. I sure hope to find them.

Thoughts of an American Christian. - Comments (0)

Category: Applied,Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 10th February, 2014 @ 04:29:15 AM

Hebrews 11:13-16

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 

For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 

And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 

But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly:wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God:for he hath prepared for them a city.

Maybe some of you are with me when I wonder what is happening to our country’s middle class.

Let me give you my conclusion up-front. It’s being exported overseas.

America’s middle class is now our chief export, and the growth of that class abroad has been fueled by the so-called “quantitative easing” that has had our government funding foreign bank commitments with at the very least $6 Trillion of our debt.

Many have this number closer to $30 Trillion.

How did this happen? Well, it had to do with commoditizing the American lifestyle. First and foremost that means you own your home. It’s the cornerstone of the marketed American dream.

I won’t bore you with the details of how US Housing was monetized into quasi-government-secured securities that were largely held by sovereign national funds, but I will tell you that when that market exploded and was exposed for the near-ponzi scheme that it was, our government ponied up to those other governments, and secured their interest at our expense. Not only did our government guarantee those funds risk capital, but it guaranteed a 30-year interest rate that perhaps is double – potentially triple or quintuple – the average rate paid by our government.

And these actions were, to an extent, an effort to secure the retirements of EU government workers in countries that might have GDP’s of $100,000 per capita.

(You see, it’s an expensive proposition these days to stay in the middle class that has been enjoyed for nearly two generations in America and Europe. Very expensive indeed when you consider that the businesses that created such a class – and the expectations that go with it – are heavily either closed down, or in trouble. General Motors. AT&T (not the name, the company!). Most railroads. IBM. Digital Equipment Corporation. Amoco (Standard Oil). The automotive industry, the aircraft industry. Steel. Rubber.)

Those huge funds are being paid according to their holdings despite a worldwide decline in interest rates, giving these bond holdings at high interest enormous returns.

Yes, friends, all that debt has to go somewhere, and once you’re thoroughly convinced you aren’t seeing it spent on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects, you’re ready to realize that it’s not going here, in our country.

Meanwhile, the story that’s NOT being told, is that while America’s middle-class promise is collapsing around my children, and my grandchildren, it is booming in the developing world, the only place in the world where you can readily consider a worthwhile project, and it adds up to a profit.

If you want to see where our middle class went, it’s overseas. What that does to the middle-class here at home is pins a new, disappointed dependent class upon them.

My advice to young fellows starting out today, is look overseas for the resources that went away, and bring them back. Figure it out how. It’s not that hard.

I’m glad I, like those who have gone before me, am looking for a heavenly country, and a heavenly city.

On the Death of Dr. Orville Menard. - Comments (1)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 14th January, 2014 @ 10:45:14 AM

For better or worse, I am a trained economist That training was paid for, for the most part, by the taxpayers of Nebraska. Thank you very much.

Economics has been rightly called “the dismal science.” Indeed, while it is a dismal study, it’s not really science, intersecting as it does with world politics, where real science is accorded no respect, and often no attention. The one thing that the study of economics can achieve for the student is a certain analytical discipline of mind which holds stubbornly to principles and facts. This bent of mind, which thrives in skepticism, is free and eager to grapple with the affairs of nations and their systems, once armed with a few sturdy analytical tools.

The professors who influenced me a great deal in my youth, were engaged in the analysis of the behavior of nations, and taught me to so engage. Two men in particular come to mind in connection with my present topic, but I estimate there were a many as 10-12 men and one woman who had a salutary influence in the training of my mind, despite their foibles and warts. It was a thread of both study and conversation to discuss the pasts and futures of nations, with focus at least in part, on their political economies.

In the midst of these studies, personal and social crisis in my life colluded together against me, according to the beneficent and inexorable plan of God, Who personally directed the disorderly, hostile and overreaching events that were the true stuff of my life. God truly caused, in my own case, “all [sorts of] things [to] work together for good to them who love God, who are called according to His purpose.”

God actually met me mystically in my studies. I am not claiming the miraculous, but I will tell you that God can be intensely personal, and enter into your deepest problems right along with you. He did this for me in a most preposterous circumstance.

I received Jesus Christ as Savior in the spring of 1975.

I had been dilatory, to say the least, in my approach to my university baccalaureate degree. Upon receiving Jesus Christ, I made some determinations among which was that I would finish my degree in a year. Incredibly, I needed to complete or take 51 credit hours in that year. I set to it.

One particular piece of that work was a course in Political Science involving the development of nations. I went to the professor, who was one of my favorites, but who played no favorites. This was Dr. Orville Menard, a man with whom I had many conversations, and enjoyed at the local pub as often as in the classroom.

He was still a serious student himself, occupying the true place of scholar in his field. I met him in the afternoon. We looked on the calendar and saw that I had no more than a week to complete the course without receiving a failing grade, and, worse, that the professor was leaving for studies overseas in two days, and so the final test must be taken “tomorrow morning.”

I had not prepared for that class in nearly two years. I had taken an incomplete with a “D” on my mid-term test. I asked the professor what will the final cover, and he handed me the textbook, and said, “This.” I went home with that book, determined to read it all afternoon and evening, get a little sleep, and then take the test.

But that’s not what happened.

I had a difficult time settling down to read that book. Call it whatever you want, I have my own excuses. But when I settled in to read it, it was later in the evening, perhaps 10 pm. I determined that I might not sleep. I was alert. I told God I need Him to pull me through this. I did not cry, although I certainly have. I had no anxiety.

As I read that 300-page book, I did not underline. I took no notes. I read with an understanding and insight as I now only have with the Scriptures. I had thought to stay up all night, but completed the book and got perhaps two hours of sleep before reporting to the test. I brought two “blue books” as required. The professor handed me a single question for this final test: “Using the model presented in the text, comment on the future development of India and China.”

Eagerly, I set about that dissertation. The entire model of development, in detail, was actively residing in my mind. I wrote feverishly for perhaps 2-3 hours. Everything flowed well. I submitted my completed papers, and they would be graded that very afternoon. I went away and rested a few hours. I returned to Dr. Menard’s office midway through the afternoon. He was intense. It was good that he was smiling. He handed me my test, scored as it was at the very top. “A+.”

The professor wanted to talk to me now that he saw I had done, apparently, extremely well on his test. “I wanted to give you an ‘A’ in this course. Clearly you have mastered the material. But I could not conceive of any score to combine with your ‘D’ that could come out ‘A.’ So I gave you a B+ in the course.” Frankly, the work achieving the “A+” needed an explanation.

I explained to that very nice, but atheistic professor, that God had helped me, and I actually enjoyed taking the test. I am certain it made an impression on him. I certainly hope it did. This was the last time that I met with this very nice man, to whom I am in certain debt beyond that paid to him by Nebraska taxpayers.

Today Orville Menard died at age 80. He wanted no fanfare, especially not a memorial service.

I want to use this opportunity to give glory to God first, who enabled me in that remarkable test preparation, and speak some good words about a kind man, Dr. Orville Menard who truly cared for me in my youth, and who was a good example of some of the best in manhood, including a 60-year marriage to the same woman.

Dr. Orville Menard led no vain life. I wish I knew I would meet him cheerfully in the coming age.

Hypocrites and Sinners. - Comments (0)

Category: Articles,Doctrine
Author: John Malone
Date: 13th January, 2014 @ 09:21:04 PM

The word “hypocrite” is being thrown about way too often.

It’s a good Bible word. It is a pure word.

That means it is, in its Greek form, one of those {“words of the earth,”|Psa 12:6-7} that God has selected, and refined like silver seven times in a furnace, sanctifying (setting it apart) for His use in the Holy Scriptures.

The Lord used the word when He walked here.  He reserved it for particular sorts of persons: the Pharisees, Scribes, and the like. These were persons with an agenda. Insincere. Conniving. Jealous. Hateful. Ceaselessly plotting against the Lord Himself. As they do against His servants. As the Lord said: {Woe to them.|Mat 23:23-29}

The word itself is the compound Greek word hypokrites meaning under judgment, or under discernment. This gives us important keys to he meaning of the word. It can be rendered “play actor” because in the ancient theatre, play actors held masks over their faces to portray their inward characteristics. The sophisticated cinema of today masks those masks, and requires the player to project those cunning characteristics of the hypocrite in various ways.

The wearing of a mask, or play-acting is the important characteristic of the hypocrite. In any society you can see such people, but it is rare indeed that someone would point them out publicly. They put on a show, oftentimes to make you think they are friendly, but equally often to disguise not only who they are, but their bad intentions. Like the Sadducees, they may give themselves off as knowledgeable Bible guys, {when, as the Lord said, they are ignorant.|Mark 12:24} In any case, as {false prophets|Mat 7:15-20}, they show themselves as pious, when inwardly they are ravening wolves.

So, a hypocrite is no ordinary sinner. The hypocrite is an intentional, inward, purveyor of ill-will and hatred, driven as he is by envy, greed, and other corrupt motives. He’s not failing when he sins, he’s succeeding.

No, an ordinary sinner, such as all of us, yields to his weakness. He is overcome by the fatal flaws of every man. He cannot do what he should do, and he cannot fail to do what he shouldn’t.

A sinner is no hypocrite when he fails to do what he thinks he should. He is no hypocrite when he does what he should not. He is a normal sinner.

Today, you will discover people calling normal sinners, “hypocrites.” They would disqualify the righteous man, who speaks God’s word, and portrays him accurately, because that righteous man sins just as they do.

The Lord never judges men in this way, and will not. He desires his children to reason with Him about sin and see it the way he does.

He socialized with sinners, sat and ate with them, made himself available to them. He still does. You will not find the Lord Jesus among the hypocrites. They hated Him. They stirred up other sinners to have Him killed. They succeeded at His death.

But a normal sinner is not a hypocrite when he says what is right and what is wrong, even when he doesn’t or does do the right or wrong.

Instead, he’s just a sinner, warts and all, and no hypocrite.

Why Christian Women Cover Their Hair. - Comments (9)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 10th January, 2014 @ 11:52:49 AM

Ok, generally speaking, Christian women no longer cover their hair in Christian gatherings. That’s been something that’s developed over the course of my lifetime, or a significant part of it.

When I was a boy, attending Roman Catholic school, the Catholic women and girls around me all covered their hair “in church.” Sometimes it was embarrassing: they’d use bobbie pins to place tissue on their heads if they had no veil.

On Sundays, I’d wander down the street a ways to discover the large black Baptist congregations dressed in their Sunday best (black people seemed to dress much nicer than we did for church), and every single woman wore a hat of some sort, as did some of the men. The women left those hats on in church, the men removed theirs. As it turns out, we went to church because it was “a Sunday obligation,” while these folks seemed to enjoy it and spent much of the day together, “in church.” Later I discovered they even attended on Saturday nights, too! But that is another story, an interesting one.

Almost every time you watch a “period” movie, set some time in the past, you will see church scenes with woman nearly always wearing hats, bonnets, veils: always having their hair covered.

We have therefore seen a nearly universal practice, women covering their hair in churches, completely effaced over the course of, say, the past 50 years or so. In fact, the practice has gone so unpracticed, that when my own wife wore a covering over her hair in the church we attended almost 30 years ago, she was the ONLY woman in the church so doing.

What happened? Well, in my opinion, the truth behind the practice got lost. This is what happens when traditions are practiced without faith. And, as we know, {faith comes only one way|Rom 10:17}, and that is by hearing God’s word. The sequence seems to be this: truth is learned, truth held becomes faith, faith becomes practice, truth is generationally lost, practice continues, practice is questioned, faith behind the practice is gone, the practice is terminated.

So maybe the question of why did women USED to wear head coverings in church is a better question to address. And, parenthetically perhaps, why men DON’T cover their heads.

Because the practice stems from Scripture, it’s probably a good place to start. The practice is taught by the apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, the first part of Chapter 11:

Chapter 11
1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:but the woman is the glory of the man.

8. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.–

9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13. Judge in yourselves:is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:for her hair is given her for a covering.

16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The first and obvious observation is that the apostle is reflecting on something commendable by these Corinthians in that they did keep the “ordinances” he delivered to them. We discover just a little later in this letter that they did not necessarily keep these ordinances well, for one of the principal ones he gave them had to do with the Lord’s supper, and that while they were practicing it, they were doing a lousy job of it. So this is the beginning of a section on ordinances, and first up is this ordinance of a woman’s head covering.

The problem of recalcitrant women is not new. In fact, as Solomon wrote, there is nothing new under the sun. Even the Gentiles knew about this woman problem, and the Book (Megillat) of Esther demonstrates this problem was well understood when Vashti refused to come at the command of Astyages. Those Medes and Persians knew that if the King’s wife was not submissive to him, every woman in the kingdom would break out against her husband. It was Memucan who pointed this out, and advised the king to act. The result was Cyrus, an Artaxerxes of Peria, and a Jew, because son of a Jewess.

So there is this long-standing problem of submission by women to the authority of their husbands, and there’s not much sense asking the women how they feel about it, especially in our society today, where they have been completely deceived about their own well-being, as their arch-enemy Satan has ever done.

Into this problem, Paul explains the symbology of the woman’s head covering, and why it is to be practiced in every church, even though is hardly today practiced in any of them. I suppose that means the praiseworthiness of the this very troubled church is largely unmatched today by the best of churches. Sad story.

It’s interesting to me that this ordinance covers both men and women, that women ought to be covered, but men uncovered. I have not seen much trouble with men covering their heads in church, but I’ve seen a few problems. I’ve seen a preacher who insisted on wearing a cowboy hat when he spoke. We had an older fellow in our church who was asked to remove his cap in a church meeting and refused. He turned out to be a heretic (schismatic person) in the most clear definition of that term.

A man can get arrested for wearing a hat in our country’s court rooms if he insists. But there is no doubt that women’s practice of this ordinance is the one most contested.

The central issues about this ordinance are “headship” and “glory.” One old man taught me years ago that “authority is the central issue in the universe.” I can see that more clearly now that I’m an old man.

Verse 3 (above) begins the meat of the Apostle’s reasoning in this matter. It’s about “headship” and authority. The head of every man is Christ. He is the Chief Cornerstone, the Lord from heaven, the first among unequals. The rest of us are {“all brethren,”|Mat 23:8-9} even the sisters. And the head of the woman is the man. This is the divine order.

In verse 11, the apostle points out an invisible reality. Angels attend the gatherings of true churches, {just as Peter intimates|1Pe 1:12} from his observation about the ancient Ark of the Covenant, where two angels were depicted looking into the coffin-shaped ark: a representation of the Lord Jesus Himself.

And who is it that gets glory and honor? That’s the big question. The apostle states that if a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonors his head: Christ. If a woman prays or prophesies uncovered, she shames her head. That is, she shames her husband.

We now learn, in verse 7, that the man is the image and glory of God. The woman is the glory of the man. This goes back to the creation account. God is father. God is male. The {exact representation of His being is Jesus Christ|Col 1:13-15}. A man. This should go without saying, but it doesn’t. Today, it needs to be said.

In the creation account, we learn that the woman was taken out of the man, made for the man, and placed under his authority. This is God’s intention, his perfect plan, and the order of the universe. When I counsel with men and women who seek marriage, I point out to this woman that she is placing herself under this fellow’s authority, warts and all. I have not found one yet who wants to call it off because of this principle, just as I rarely find one already married who doesn’t rankle under that authority.

Now, to say whose glory is represented by man and woman is not to say that one stands better or even without the other. Every man has a mother. In the Lord they are different, but equals. Not equals in authority, but in standing. God took away the Court of Women, just as he demolished the Court of the Gentiles, when He allowed for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Christian women have a dignified place not found anywhere else in history. Still.

It is not about favoritism by God that puts man in Authority over the woman but it is about design. This is how the creation is to run for a time. I am convinced that in the coming age, this order will change. There will be no marriage arrangement in the coming age, when we enjoy glorified bodies. In that aspect, we will be like the holy angels, with no sexual identity to fulfill. But for now, God’s glory is at stake when it comes to the submissive expression of women, and the expression of headship by men.

The practice has far greater impact than the visibility here below. For this reason, verse 10 stands out strikingly. A woman should have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels looking on. Christian gatherings are elevated into the heavens as a spectacle for angels. For 4,000 years, angels beheld the rebellion of man. Then they saw the defeat of Satan at the cross of Christ. After that they witnessed the salvation of God going out to the Gentiles, the temporary and partial blindness of the nation of Israel, the destruction of the Temple, and God taking up a new people that are a new creation, neither Jew nor Gentile. God wants to put this new creation on display in heaven and earth. It brings him glory. Part of what brings him glory is the order therein displayed, where men and women show their rightful place in the new creation.

Well, one might say, “Hey, today women in general are not at all in authority to their husbands.” Exactly. And they do not cover their heads. One might say the practice today is fitting, but still wrong. The covering of a woman’s head in Christian gatherings is one of four symbols in the Scriptures for Christians to practice today, together with water baptism, the loaf, and the cup. Just four. Not crosses, fishes, bracelets, or collection plates. None of those are Bible-based symbols. So of course they are practiced! And the four symbols? They are either not on display, as is the case with the head covering, and often the case with immersion in water of the believer, or are distorted beyond recognition, as is often the case of the single loaf and single cup of the Lord’s supper.

The teaching of the practice of the woman’s head covering is further brought to a close by the Apostle with the discussion of propriety and glory. The Scripture points out it is a shame for a man to wear long hair. Despite so much practice to the contrary, especially about 40 years ago in the USA, it remains a shame. Yet, long hair on a woman brings her attention: glory.

Indeed, a woman’s hair IS her glory. They don’t look good when they go “butch.” The shaving of a woman’s head historically marked her as a prostitute. If you’d like further evidence that a woman’s hair is her glory, just go price some haircuts between men and women. The statement is so obvious, Paul can reference that “nature” teaches us this. For those who deny what is evident in nature, God has little to say. He calls such people fools.

So the order becomes this: a woman covers her glory (her hair). She, being the glory of the man, by so covering does not put her head to shame (her husband), and therefore the man is now unashamedly capable of showing forth the glory of Christ by NOT covering his head. Because his head is Christ Himself. So, the glory of Christ goes uncovered, being seen in the congregation of the believers. By men and angels.

I must say that it’s pretty instructive to see women refuse to attend our gatherings because we teach and practice this ordinance in our church. I do not remember this ever being a conversation in my youth, but maybe the girls and women always hated wearing hats, veils and scarves and I was out of the loop. I don’t actually think that was going on, but Paul’s final words on the subject anticipate that it will.

The apostle warns at the end of the section that if anyone wants to be contentious about the subject in any church anywhere, at any time, we have either no practice of such contentiousness, or no other practice besides the head covering. In our own church, we do not take any measures to enforce the practice – we teach it and do not allow contention about it – but we don’t enforce water immersion or the Lord’s supper either.

We merely practice them. As should all the churches of God.