You Can't Sit In The Spirit

There has been some discussion on a forum I frequent about what Paul meant by "walking in the spirit" in Romans 8. This is my understanding of walking in the Spirit. As today is the beginning of the Days of Unleavened Bread where those who practice this custom take yeast/leavening out of thier lives phsically as a reminder that it needs to be done spiritually this message fits this idea. But just taking things out of your life is not enough, you must put Jesus in. Nature abnors a vaccum. 

Click on the link below to listen. 

You Can't Sit In The Spirit.

Blind, Deaf and Oh, So Dumb

People do not understand Bible prophecy. They confuse prophecy with predicting the future. There is an element of the prediction of the future in some Bible prophecy—it depends on the book and its purpose.

Mainly, when a prophet "predicts" the future it is along these lines:

“What you are doing is not working. Why do you think you can be a people of violence, and not be subject to violence? When you bash in the heads of the little ones of your enemies, do you really think that your little ones will not suffer the same fate? The hungry cry at the street corners and you drive on by in your Mercedes. Do you think God is blind? The drunk stands on the corner and pretends to cry, so even the just are unable to act rightly. After eating a feast that would feed two you tell the waitress, 'Yes, I want the banana split.' The poor see their bones, but you can't see your toes.”

“I will not even bother to punish you. Instead I will let your own sins blowback be your punishment. Soon you will see your toes again, but you will not rejoice. The Greenlawn you are destined for will turn brown when your children cannot pay your bills. Will your children repent, or will they instead curse you?  ‘Our parents have bought swimming pools, and borrowed money for vacations in Aruba, and there is nothing left for us but this t-shirt.’”

I have not heard anything like this from our modern "prophets," have you? Nor will you. Instead you will hear prophets do like they did for my mom and predict that she would write a book. I knew she would not as she was too frail. I was right, the prophet "speaking for the Lord" was wrong.

Do not listen to the court prophets of this world who speak what you want them to speak. They can be bought. They deceive themselves. I am not just talking about religious people. These prophets in our society are called politicians, pundits on Fox News, and Federal Reserve chairmen. They are at best self-deceived and at worst liars hoping to kick the can down the road one more time.

And no, I do not think I am a prophet. I am merely telling you what a prophet would say if God really wanted to talk to us. He won't because He knows we are blind, deaf, and oh, so dumb. 

When The Man Comes Around

The Man comes around from time to time without it being His final return. In any event it is an interesting presentation-both for Cash and his videographer. Appartently "der sinn des lebens" is German for the meaning of life.

 

Silent Women Wearing Hats: Part 3

There is a tradition in many churches that if a woman enters a church she must cover her head with a scarf. In some churches you can borrow a scarf for this purpose, sometimes for a small fee. This idea comes from the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians. 

 ² I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. ³ But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,^[a] and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. ⁶ For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

 ⁷ A man ought not to cover his head,^[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own^[c] head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹² For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

 ¹³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Several theories have been advanced over the years. 

One is that in Corinth the temple prostitutes shaved their heads, so Paul is saying that women should not shave their heads like prostitutes. You may even see this repeated in some commentaries. However, I have never seen any evidence for this. It is also suggested that male prostitutes would have long hair. Again I have seen no evidence for this.  

While there are no examples of bald women prostitutes, there is this from the 4th century council of Ganga, canon 17:

"If a woman, from supposed asceticism, cuts of her hair which has been given her by God to remind her of her subjection, and thus renounces the command of subjection, let her be anathema."

I found this quote from an interesting article on hair coverings. Click here if you want more information on this topic. 

Of course, this council was written after 1 Corinthians was written and 1 Corinthians might have influenced the council, but still it shows a custom of ascetic religious hair cutting that might be in mind here in 1 Corinthians. 

But whatever is going on seems to have something to do with hair. The conclusion of the section lends support to this.

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

In other words the covering Paul seems to be advocating is hair under this theory. 

Another option is that Paul is following Jewish custom which had a woman cover her hair with a scarf, but her face remained visible. Here is one Jewish commentator on the issue:

The author I quoteHistorically speaking, women in the talmudic period likely did cover their hair, as is attested in several anecdotes in rabbinic literature. For example, Bava Kama (90a) relates an anecdote of a woman who brings a civil suit against a man who caused her to uncover her hair in public. The judge appears to side with the woman because the man violated a social norm. Another vignette in the Talmud describes a woman whose seven sons all served as High Priest. When asked how she merited such sons, she explained that even the walls of her home never saw her hair (Yoma 47a). The latter story is a story of extreme piety, surpassing any law or communal consensus; the former case may also relay a historical fact of practice and similarly does not necessarily reflect religious obligation.

There was debate among the Jews as to whether or not this was commanded by Moses or not. 

The Mishnah in Ketuboth (7:6), however, implies that hair covering is not an obligation of biblical origin. It discusses behaviors that are grounds for divorce such as, "appearing in public with loose hair, weaving in the marketplace, and talking to any man" and calls these violations of Dat Yehudit, which means Jewish rule, as opposed to Dat Moshe, Mosaic rule. This categorization suggests that hair covering is not an absolute obligation originating from Moses at Sinai, but rather is a standard of modesty that was defined by the Jewish community.

So this leaves us with these main possibilities:

1. Paul is advocating that hair be a woman's covering. 

2. Paul is advocating that women should wear a head scarf in deference to Jewish customs, and we should continue to do so today. 

3. Paul is advocating that women should wear a head scarf in deference to Jewish customs, and we should not continue to do so today. While it is best to conform ourselves to societal  customs, when those customs change, we change with them. 

There is a 4th option I want to suggest. Remember the pattern that I discussed with regard to 1 Corinthians 6 and 7? A rather odd statement is made that seems problematic, that is followed by something that seems to be its opposite. Does this pattern appear here? 

⁷ A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.

To me this section of the passage is very odd. First it seems to be saying that the woman has no control over whether or not she should wear a scarf over her hair, while at the same time saying she does. It must be something like this:

It is for this reason that a woman ought to have a scarf as a symbol of the authority of her husband over her own head.

In a footnote the NIV suggests this as correct. Then the rest of verse ten "goes off the rails." I do not understand how an angel catching a glimpse of some woman's hair is going to be offensive to the angel. But when one understands that the Gnostics so clearly in view in 1 Corinthians 6 & 7 worshiped angels, then the whole thing may make more sense. Rather than offend the angels they worshipped the Gnostics wanted women to wear head coverings. You see Gnostics had this rather strange idea that angels were turned on by human women. (The Gnostics based this on the apocryphal Book of Enoch's interpretation of Genesis 6.)

If this is correct then verse 7 to 10 is a quote from the Gnostics that had made Corinth such a mess. If the pattern we have been seeing in 1 Corinthians continues then the next verse should repudiate it. 

¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹² For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Verses 7 to 10 say that women are dependent on men, but verses 11 and 12 say that both are dependent on each other, a direct contradiction of the previous verse. Paul continues: 

¹³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Paul seems to be saying that each person should decide this for themselves. 

While I no longer sell video games, If you want a hammer I will be glad to sell you one in my hardware store!It seems to me that I have "nailed" the proper interpretation of this scripture. But as I draw back my hammer to pound in the nail, I remember the old proverb, "If all a man has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Oh. Am I sure that my nail is not in fact a screw? Or maybe a wood dowel? Am I sure? 

Let me tell you what a relief it is to say this: I have no idea what this passage is saying. It is a great liberation to me to be able to say this. My former mindset was to try to understand and have an answer for everything! There are things that we just do not know. This passage is one of them. 

While I think I have made an excellent case for Paul quoting the letter he received from Corinth in chapters 6 & 7, and a very good case for Paul quoting the letter in 1 Corinthians 14, my case here is much weaker. Should I let the fact that we have no idea what Paul meant by "because of the angels" influence my interpretation in the Gnostic direction? Maybe, but I am not sure. 

I have no word of criticism for any woman who looks at this scripture and decides to wear a scarf to church. I do not think that is what this passage means, but since I am not sure, who am I to decide for someone else? 

What I am sure about is that we follow the advice of Paul and judge for ourselves what the passage means. 

This series will have one more part, and then I will, interspersed with the continuing series I am doing on war, do a series entitled "Men Wearing Kilts."   

Silent Women Wearing Hats, Part 2

Does Your Theology Do This?The pattern I pointed out yesterday in 1 Corinthians was that often in the book there was a rather dramatic statement that when examined looked wrong. I doubt there are too many people who think that husbands and wives should not have martial relations as 1 Corinthians 7:1 seems to say.  Yet that was the interpretation given by many in the early church even though that interpretation was contradicted by the next verses. So the pattern is that the rather odd sounding statement is then directly contradicted by the next few verses. Of course a portion of the church decided to take this exactly as it is written, and ignore the context in order to do so. This is done today in the next scripture I will address. 

In addition to the two examples I gave in I Corinthians 6 and the one I just mentioned in I Corinthians 7, there is another example of this pattern I wish to point out that is in 1 Corinthians 14:

³⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. ³⁵ If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Oh how much I enjoyed this scripture as an immature teen. Based on little snatches of conversations over the years I am afraid that many grown men are teenagers in disguise. 

What about this scripture does not seem right? 

Corinth TodayThe first problem is that we know from Church History that women were not silent during services in the First Century Church. In this very same book in the 11th chapter, Paul tells us that women were to prophesy. The only issue for Paul seems to be that when women do so they should wear a hat! (As you might guess I will talk about this in part III on Monday.) How much sense does it make for Paul to mention women as preachers (remembering that prophecy for the early church mostly fit into the category of preaching) in chapter 11 as normative for the church, yet just three chapters later forbid it? 

A second problem is that there is nowhere in the law where women were forbidden to speak in religious services. Genesis 3 is often advocated as the scripture that is being referenced. However this is a faulty interpretation of Genesis 3. The "curse" given to Eve is that she will be dominated by her husband, which is outside of God's original intent in the same way that the "curse" on Adam, that there will be great hardship in providing food for the family, was not God's original intent either. Both are the result of sin. 

But there is a kind of law that does demand that women be submissive—oral Jewish law. Here are some examples: 

Ten measures of speech descended to the world; women took nine.  Kiddushin 49b (often speech is translated as gossip) 

One sage, Rabbi Eliezer, went further to forbid teaching Torah to daughters by comparing it to the teaching of “tiflut” (Sotah 21b).

The general consensus of Jewish oral law was that women could not even ask questions of a Rabbi. 

Rabbi Eliezer’s stand was so strong that he refused to answer an intelligent query from a woman who was one of his primary patrons (JT Sotah 3:4). While an opposing sage, Ben-Azzai, contended that fathers must teach their daughters, he garnered minimal support (Otzar Hamelech 1:13), with the historical consensus siding with Rabbi Eliezer. 

Note how well this fits in with 1 Corinthians 14 where one of the issues was women asking question in public of leaders, This was not well received in Judaism. 

In the First Century various parts of the synagogue service would be shared among all men. So in a traditional synagogue service each man would at some point pray this traditional prayer: "Thank you God that you did not make me a woman." While this may have had more to do with the idea that men were favored because they had more religious obligations than women did, the constant repetition of this prayer publicly would have an effect on the attitudes of the ones who recited the prayer, and the ones who heard it.  There is also the traditional Jewish proverb, "It is better to give the law to a Gentile, than to a woman." To understand this proverb fully one has to consider the very low estimation of the Jews toward Gentiles. 

(Note that when one reads the word "law" in the New Testament one should not assume that the written law is what is meant, law can mean many things and is not limited to one meaning. Here it seems very likely the law referred to is the oral law.) 

So the first part of the pattern we noted yesterday does exist here. Things are said that do not fit with the context of 1 Corinthians. The second part of the pattern is that the odd statement is immediately followed by its denial. Is this what we find here? 

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

So the pattern fits when you understand that the word "you" in Greek is in the masculine declension. So a potential translation could go like this:  

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you men? Or are you men the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

In other words Paul is strongly rebuking those who want to put down women. God can, and does, work through women. 

While I think I have made a good case that Paul is quoting the letter he received and is disagreeing with it, there is another interpretation that needs to be considered. 

Here is how The Message translates this section: 

^34-36Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking. Do you—both women and men—imagine that you're a sacred oracle determining what's right and wrong? Do you think everything revolves around you?

 ^37-38If any one of you thinks God has something for you to say or has inspired you to do something, pay close attention to what I have written. This is the way the Master wants it. If you won't play by these rules, God can't use you. Sorry.

Since 1 Corinthians 14 deals with speaking in other languages, or "tongues," it certainly makes sense that this was causing chaos in the church—remember that the Corinth Church was a mess. When I was taking Greek at the Assembly of God's Theological Seminary for my Masters in Religious Studies at SMU, this issue came up. I said that while I did not have a lot of experience in charismatic churches, it seemed to me that women did most of the "tongues" speaking. Most there agreed with this, and no one verbally contradicted it. 

But in any event, this interpretation leads to the conclusion that in general women could, did, and should speak. But in this particular area, the women needed to stop the chaos that such charismatic activity can bring. 

The important thing for us men to remember is the danger of trying to silence women. 

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you men? Or are you men the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

I do not wish for God to ignore me!