issues and opinions

Clean and Unclean Foods

Author Unknown

Back in 2007, along with the headcovering thing, another snare that I fell into was that of abstaining from “unclean” meats. We’re so brainwashed in our uniquely american culture to be obsessed with food, with dieting and what constitutes “good food” VS. “bad food” and that brainwashing can sooooo easily carry over into how we view the Bible and the instructions therein.

Because, in general, people are stupid (after all the Bible compares us to sheep, which are not generally known to be the smartest of creatures…) but worse yet, we’re often stupid sheep who believe we’re smart and that we know exactly what we’re doing…and that’s a dangerous combination right there!

And so, because of all this, people seem to naturally assume that the instructions that God gave in the Bible concerning “unclean meats” was because those meats are unhealthy in some way…and that’s what I originally thought too…because that’s how we are trained to think of food in our American culture.  If there is a prohibition against it then that must mean that the food is unhealthy right?? I mean, why else would anyone prohibit a food?! It never occurs to our uniquely “American” mind that God, through his commandment to abstain from unclean meats, might actually be trying to teach us a spiritual principle…I mean, what?. huh?….

The first reference that God makes concerning clean and unclean animals was not in the law that God gave Moses on the mount, but was when God instructed Noah on their separation in Genesis.

Genesis 7:1-2

“And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.“

It had absolutely nothing to do with nutrition or what is a “healthy” animal VS. what is an “unhealthy” animal…NO…it had to do with the sacrifices and which animals were suitable for sacrifice and which ones weren’t.

Genesis 8:20

“And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.”

I don’t know the mind of God, so I can’t say for certain why he deemed certain animals as suitable for sacrifice and others not, but my guess is that it has something to do with keeping his people as a separate and distinct group holy unto himself and unique amongst the Gentiles (unholy nations) living in that area at the time.

The animal sacrifices were instituted as a symbolic representation prefiguring “The Ultimate Sacrifice to End all Sacrifices” that we find in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those who believe on Him are made “clean” for all eternity and can NEVER be made “unclean” again…even if they do eat bacon

The ceremonial law of meats that was given to Moses was meant as an example of the separation of Israel from the Gentile or unclean nations surrounding them. By God requiring that His people make a distinction between clean and unclean meats, he is illustrating how God’s people are to be holy and set apart from the unclean people of the world.  This is also the very same separation principle that God illustrated to Noah in the figure of using the clean animals for the atonement sacrifice. And in Leviticus, following the list of meats that “His people” could and could not eat, verse 44 concludes that it was because He was LORD God, that they should therefore sanctify themselves.

Leviticus 11:44-47

“For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.”

It was to consecrate His People.The clean and unclean animals were separated because God wants these people separated, sanctified or set apart from the unholy nations around them. Note that God never makes any claims regarding reasons of health. So we cannot arbitrarily make suppositions about the reasons for separation. The Bible is it’s own interpreter, and the text itself provides us the reason for these laws. They were instituted to signify that there was a difference between God’s Covenant people and the rest of the world.

Leviticus 20:24-26

“But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.
Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.”

Deuteronomy 14:21

“Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.”

In other words, the meat is unclean to God’s people, but they could sell it to the Gentiles. Obviously, God being the perfectly righteous God that he is, is not telling them to sell something deadly or harmful to the Gentiles!

On the contrary, by God telling them to sell these meats to the Gentiles, he is illustrating that these meats are not necessarily physically harmful to people in general, just that he did not want his people eating them. He wanted his people distinct, separate and set apart.

This prohibition made certain that God’s People would never become friends enough with a Gentile that he would sit down to a meal with him…as the custom of the day dictated that those who were in agreement with each other would eat a meal together as a show of their friendship. But if the other people were eating a bunch of food that you weren’t allowed to eat then it’s highly unlikely that you would sit and sup with them.

And this brings us to the Apostle Peter’s dilemma as told in Acts chapter 10 where he was literally commanded to eat unclean meats by God Himself!

Acts 10:9-16

“On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.”

Now we know that God does not violate his own law or command men to violate it. The ceremonial laws pertaining to sacrifice had been abolished in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and with provision now having been made for the inclusion of the Gentiles these meats could now be eaten.

Acts 10:28

“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

By this vision, Peter was shown that now the separation from the Gentiles is over and that through the blood of Christ all has been reconciled and “made whole”…brought together…both Jew and Gentile. And with the abolishment of these “ceremonial laws” Jews could now lawfully keep company with Gentiles, they could sup together as friends and members of the same great big family (Israel) of God.

Acts 10:33-35

“Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

Again, God would not command Peter to eat unclean meats in direct violation of His own law, if it indeed were a violation of His law. It obviously was not.

The ceremonial laws pertaining to the sacrifice contained in the ordinances such as those forbidding to eat unclean meats, were abolished in the body of Christ, The ULTIMATE SACRIFICE To End ALL Sacrifices, making the clean and the unclean one body in Him. And that is why Peter could now say what He did about the Gentiles. The Lord had cleansed the Gentiles and made clean that which was common or unclean.

Acts 10:45

“And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

By the Gospel now being proclaimed to the Gentiles nations, the wall between Jew and Gentile has been broken down, thus all unclean meats are made clean as long as they are received with thanksgiving.

And think about it. Would the Apostle Peter understand that the Gentiles were now clean if Christ did not declare unclean animals clean in this vision? This is the whole point God is illustrating by these meats. He is explaining the significance of the Old Testament ordinances. If certain animals remained unclean, the Gentiles, which “they signified,” would also remain unclean.

That’s how Peter understood the revelation in his understanding that these meats signified the separation principles. He discerned that God would no longer separate Jews from Gentiles, but that they would now be one people.

The ceremonial laws of separation were abolished in the shed blood of Christ.
God is no respecter of who a person is, for he has made clean what which was called common (unclean), revealing that those laws of unclean beasts were indeed a figure of separation.

All through scripture there is the emphasis upon the division between the holy and the unholy people as the reason God instituted these laws. God in making these Gentiles clean who were unclean, is making known the mystery kept secret (Romans 16:25) since the world began. That the Gentiles would be included, grafted into the New Covenant with Israel. And to place emphasis upon this, God has Peter witness to these people. And as he spoke, the Spirit came upon them and they spoke in other languages. Again, a “sign” signifying that all tongues (languages) have been brought into God’s covenant, and made clean. Call it not common that which the Lord has cleansed. We are not to make commandments that anyone abstain from unclean meats.

1st Timothy 4:1-5

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.“

So the purpose of these Old Testament ordinances and regulations regarding meats need to be understood in the “light” of the whole bible. As is often said, “the Old Testament concealed, is the New Testament revealed.” In the revelation of the New, the Old can be better understood and appreciated. God did not really destroy the law, He completed it in His death and in that sense, it is abolished.

Matthew 5:17

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.“

In the New Testament dispensation the outward form or figure of the law has been fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. By His death, the system of ordinances, which were a figure of the separation of the Jewish nation from the heathen nations, was brought to completion. Just as the animal sacrifices, temple furniture, and other sundry ordinances were completed and are no longer physically observed.

Hebrews 9:9-11

“Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;”

The coming of Christ fulfilled these ordinances which were imposed on the Old Testament saints until the time of reformation. The Greek word translated reformation is diorthosis, meaning to set straight, or, in other words…to set things right. Much like John the Baptist came to make the crooked paths straight. These animal separation ordinances were imposed on Israel until the time that Christ came to replace the figure with the true.

These were ordinances that were but a “shadow” of their true significance. In Christ the basic requirement of holy separation from the unclean world is still validated, but in the true spiritual realities, not in these natural observances. The spiritual reality of God’s people being separated from the unclean world remains, but the ceremonial ordinances prefiguring the separation of Israel from the Gentiles do not. In the New Testament reformation, believers are now coming in from the Gentiles. Thus the children of God are to be separated and not bound together with unbelievers, rather than Gentiles.

2nd Corinthians 6:14-18

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” God’s people are still not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, but the Gentile nations are no longer the representation of the unholy….and thank goodness for that! Because I’m a Gentile, and odds are you are one too! And in the reformation, the separation principle is revealed in it’s true form to be Covenanted (ie. based on relationship with God), rather than ethnic or a physical genealogy. In the revelation of the Covenant promise to Gentiles the children of God are cleansed, and the unclean made holy

Practice Using Your Logic

Can We Modify God’s Instructions?

            Now here is an exercise in logical reasoning. Can we modify God’s commands and slightly redesign them to meet and satisfy situations that we might find ourselves in?

            But before we start, let me say right up front that there is a huge majority of our country and within the church of Christ as well that make most of their decisions using their emotions and not with logical deduction. To these people, and there are many, it is more important to “tolerate” and “accept” than it is to defend the truth of God’s word. To tolerate is to prevent conflict. Conflict leads to disagreement and criticism of the person who dares to disagree. Today it is more important to be “politically correct” by many than it is to be “religiously correct”.  

            Here is an example I heard used one time. We all know that the Bible condemns drunkenness as a sin. But just suppose you find yourself in a remote location with no medical supplies and you need to have a leg amputated. Would it be OK to drink enough whiskey to make yourself “dog drunk” in order to undergo surgery? Wow, now that takes some special thought for a situation like that. Can you answer it? It sure is tempting to authorize drunkenness our self, even if we can’t find it authorized in the Bible. And if we can’t find it in the Bible it sure is tempting to try to find some other way, any way to get the Bible to authorize it.

            Now here’s another one. This might be easier for some people than others. Suppose we have a family in the congregation that is very skilled with musical instruments and they give concerts and sing in many locations and they would like to sing and play for us on Sunday. It is reasoned by many that this would enhance our spiritual experience in our worship. What’s more, this is a prominent family with many relatives in the church and they will go somewhere else if we don’t let them perform. Is there not some way that we can authorize them to perform? I don’t have to tell you that this scenario is being played out in many places already. People are taking it on themselves to authorize this to happen. 

            Now if you conclude that it would be OK for you to authorize drunkenness or instrumental music yourself if the situation called for it, then you might use the same logic to authorize some of the elder’s children to be “unbelievers”. All we are told by the Bible about an elder’s children is that an elder‘s children must be “pistos”. In other words, the Bible says they must be believers. But what will we do if all of them are not believers? Will it be OK to authorize elders to serve anyway? Can we authorize that situation ourselves?

            If we can authorize these things ourselves then the next step in logic would be to authorize anything we choose if the situation calls for some kind of modification of God’s written instructions. Perhaps a young mother needs money for her children. Would that situation call for her to enter prostitution to get the money she needs? Can we authorize and excuse actions like that even though the Bible would call them sin? Can we take it upon our self to claim that God would authorize this? Do we have such authority that we can “set on the throne of God” and decide what we want to be authorized without any instructions from God?

            A well known method used to claim authorization and authority to set aside something God calls a sin and claim authority to allow it anyway, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the sale of “indulgence”. Almost everyone has heard about this sinful abuse by religious people and almost everyone agrees that no such authority exists by anyone on this earth to override God’s laws.

            If we have the authority to decide for our self when we can modify God’s commands and allow behaviour that is listed as sinful (unless we decide it is not), then nothing would be a sin. There are always extenuating circumstances that can be named as to why we feel the situation we are in would merit and allow us to change God’s rules to suit ourselves. And don’t think this is far-fetched. Look at the number of religions in the world today, all teaching different and contradicting doctrines and claiming to be obedient to God’s will. They have no trouble in modifying God’s instructions if it suites their behaviour and design.

            But this is not us. We know better. Situation ethics has always been a false doctrine and still is today. No matter how bad we want something, we cannot modify God’s word to make it OK.

Electronic Church Crisis

 

Our reaction to the Covid 19 virus is creating within our young people “an electronic church crisis”. Unlike the older people in our congregations, our younger members are accustomed to and very comfortable using electronic media to communicate with others and gather information “On Line”. This is causing a mindset within this group that is allowing them to be just as happy to stay at home and miss church as to attend at the building. And to make this situation worse and to allow this mindset to prevail, we have announced to the congregations that “staying at home and watching on line” is perfectly fine and acceptable. Now in the beginning of this pandemic many people felt like we had a Bible mandate to assemble together due to the Scripture in Hebrews 10:25.

And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

Because of the strong feelings about this Bible command, many people were unsure and uncomfortable with having church on line. And because there seemed to be no alternative at the time, church leaders set out to try to relieve people’s minds by announcing publicly that it was perfectly acceptable to God that we have our services by electronic media.

But now, looking back and looking ahead, we can see where this “lack of assembly” is leading the church. Some congregations are having some forms of assembly again but none seem to be back to normal. In fact, with blocking pews and face masks and social distancing, most congregations are having very abbreviated services at best. This has the “look” of some kind of “new normal” with the church of Christ. For years many denominational churches have had one assembly on a Sunday morning only, with very little attention paid to Bible classes and Bible studies. But this has not been so with the church of Christ. We have always had several assemblies each week. A typical week could include AM and PM services on Sunday that include a Sunday morning Bible class and a mid-week Wednesday assembly for Bible study. Most congregations also have other weekly assemblies for Bible classes and women’s classes as well as teen and young people’s assemblies. And now this lack of assembly is taking its toll on many of us. I think most of our members are feeling this change in their motivation for assembling together as we once did.

In reviewing this Scripture in Hebrews 10:25, I have a new understanding of what God knew about the importance of assembling together as a church. Frankly, to stop this assembly takes its toll on all of us. Some will not recover and their salvation will be in jeopardy because they are losing their enthusiasm for Jesus and the church. It is time that we stop giving a green light to electronic assemblies and missing church as though it was OK and acceptable to God as a “new type of assembly”.

            We need to use every means we can to make it perfectly clear to every member of the church that it is not OK to forsake the assembling of ourselves together and substitute a “stay at home electronic assembly” as a “new normal” for the church of Christ. This is not what the Bible is referring to when it tells us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together.

Now here is the hard part and the loop hole for some.

Yes, there are some who will need to stay at home and not assemble together. We don’t expect the sick to attend the assembly. This could infect many other people. And there are some whose health and mobility just won’t permit them to come. No one is telling these people that it is sinful for them to stay at home and watch the services on line, which is the best that they can do. For these people the electronic assembly is better than no assembly at all.  But even with these groups it should never be portrayed as a proper alternative to a personal assembly but only as a temporary substitute until they can do better. It should never be said or even hinted at that skipping the assembling of ourselves together and substituting the electronic media is a proper replacement to a regular assembly of the church.

We are not in normal times, no one disputes that. But you can rest assured that a prolonged flight from our assemblies will take its toll on the church. You can already see it having the effect of reducing the numbers when the congregation is cleared for an assembly. You can also see very short services and a lack of meeting more than once per week. If this does not change soon our membership will suffer great loses.

What can we do about this?

            Well, first off we must get the word out that skipping these assemblies is just not acceptable. People must be told that skipping assemblies will weaken the church and is not an acceptable situation. If we are forced to cancel some assemblies because of Government mandates or the Covid pandemic it is not an acceptable alternative to convert to electronic media as a new normal but is only a poor substitute as a very temporary alternative. We must not give the implication that the electronic live stream honors the command in Hebrews 10: 25 to assemble ourselves together properly.

If we give the impression that assembling ourselves can be done acceptably with the computer while we shelter at home by ourselves or with our families then it will not be very long until this will be the choice of many people who find this convenient for them as normal. This will lead to a weakening of their faith and commitment to Jesus and the church.

We must not let Satan find his way into the church through the Covid 19 pandemic. God knew what He was doing when He instructed us in Hebrews 10: 25; And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

Carl O. Cooper

Wine or Water

In The Days of Jesus, Was The Water Pure?

            Most of us have heard it said at some point in our discussions with others that in the days of Jesus the water was not pure and healthy and for the sake of the people’s health during that time it was necessary that they drink wine in place of the water. Don’t be deceived by this explanation because there is a simple litmus test that will show that this explanation is just not true. And just a tiny bit of logical reasoning will show this idea is without merit.

            We know that in our day and age there is a lot to be said for being careful about the water in foreign countries where you might travel. And for that matter we need to be careful and use common sense about the water we drink anywhere. There has never been a time in history when all water from any source was considered drinkable. However, the pollution levels in creeks and streams is much higher today than it has been in the past. Even in many of our own lifetimes we have seen the contamination and pollution of many rivers and streams and even much of the air we breathe. But even in the foreign countries where we have to be so cautious about drinking the unfamiliar water, we find the locals drinking the very same water that we fear and they seem to be just fine. Of course we know that many of the very things in the water that would make us sick, they have built up an immunity to and they are not affected like us.

            But the litmus test I would like for you to consider is the condition of the Native American Indian when Columbus discovered North America. Have you considered that this was 1500 years after Jesus walked on the face of the earth? When Columbus discovered America in 1492 he found a thriving population of indigenous people that numbered into the millions. They were healthy and living a normal existence in a land where the process of making alcoholic wine had never been discovered. The indigenous American Indian had no knowledge of alcohol in their normal lives. And not only that, they had no culture of getting their drinking water from wells that they dug in the ground. The drinking water of the American Indian came from the local rivers, streams, and lakes. And it was not just the North American Indian that lived like this it also included the Carib Indians in the Caribbean Islands, the Amerindians in South America, and the Indigenous people of the Amazon and Central America.

            How in the world did these people stay alive, someone might ask, because they had no alcoholic wine? And the answer is very simple. Wine is not the “nectar of the gods” and it is not the “preferred drink of Jesus”. Wine is not “required to protect you from the water supply”. In fact, I don’t have to tell you what the introduction of alcoholic wine did to the North American Indian.

            Alcohol was introduced to the Indians soon after the European settlers arrived in America. You already know how it affected them and how the introduction of alcohol into their society destroyed many of their lives. I don’t have to tell you that it had a devastating affect on their society. No, wine is not “the nectar of the gods” it is the “liquor of the demons”.

            I have never met a person who claims to believe the Bible who would try to justify drunkenness as though the Bible did not condemn it and call it a sin. Oh yes, I have met many people who think drinking and drunkenness is a fun recreation and don’t condemn it themselves. In fact, many of them really don’t care what the Bible has to say about it, they choose to do it anyway. And as hard as it is to believe, some of these people are members of the church of Christ. There is a large number of religious people who drink alcohol, especially alcoholic wine. To many people the advertizing of alcohol has been very effective. Alcoholic wine today has the perceived personality of being “romantic and religious”.  But the truth is; it is deceptive, destructive and devastating to families that have it in their lives.

            Unfortunately, no matter what kind of statistics and proof is listed to try to show alcohol as not being approved by the Bible and by common sense, it will never be enough to rid the world and the church of the desire to drink. But for those who would like to know more about what the Bible has to say about wine, I would recommend my book, “Does God Drink Wine” as an easy book to read and understand. If you have a teenager or a friend who needs to know what the Bible teaches on this subject, use this book as a handout. Any teenager can read and understand the simple format of this book.

Carl O. Cooper

Illumination of the Holy Spirit

And other false doctrines

           Most denominational churches teach a false doctrine referred to as “Illumination    of the Spirit”. This is taken, in part, from:

1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV)  14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

            To a person who has limited Bible knowledge, this can be a difficult passage to understand. It is easy for a person who is skilled with words and who appears to be knowledgeable about the Bible to confuse the meaning of this Scripture in the minds of those who have not studied it. This is how the false teaching of “the illumination of the Spirit” has been spread throughout the religious world.

            The Calvinist would teach here that because man is so hopelessly deprived of salvation because of the natural sin he has inherited from Adam, he cannot understand Spiritual things even if they should pertain to his own salvation. Furthermore, they would teach that this man would have no ability to “work out his own salvation” until the Holy Spirit entered him and indwelled him and gave him the understanding he needed to be saved. Of course they would not teach that just anyone could receive this gift, but only those who have been selected and predestined to receive it as God Himself would decide.

            But if we apply even the tiniest bit of common sense and logic to the doctrine of “Illumination of the Spirit”, anyone can see that there is no truth in it.

            For instance, if our ability to understand the words and teachings of the Bible come from a supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit such as the “Illumination of the Spirit” doctrine teaches, then the person who received the supernatural illumination would become infallible and unable to be wrong in his understanding of Bible doctrines. But anyone can see that this is just not the case with any who claim to have this “illumination” gift from the Spirit. There are hundreds if not thousands of denominational churches who each teach different doctrines, most of which disagree with one another and many of which actually contradict one another. Even an unskilled Bible student can readily see that this could not be possible if these churches received their understanding of the Bible as a supernatural gift from God.

            2 Tim. 3: 16-17 gives the true story of where our Bible knowledge comes from.

            ¹⁶ All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 

            Notice that verse 17 tells us that the inspired Scripture is all a person needs to make him complete as a Christian. The Bible is all we need and nothing else is required. There will be no need for special revelations, special supernatural gifts, or any other books that men through the ages will write. The Bible is complete and it is all we will ever need to teach us what we need to do to be saved and how to live our Christian lives.

            Another false Doctrine, Somewhat related “Spiritual Gifts”

            Many denominations teach that once a person is saved, the Holy Spirit enters their lives and imparts to them their own Spiritual Gifts and that becomes their personal ministry. This is a comfort to people who do not understand or do not want to live a committed life for religious things. With this doctrine a person can avoid any parts of religious service they don’t want to obey. Such as;

            “I don’t attend church like you do, but that is not my Spiritual Path”

            “I don’t follow everything that the Bible tells me to do just like you do, but that is                                not my Spiritual Path”

            “My Spiritual gift is playing a musical instrument in the worship service”

          “My Spiritual gift is holding church in the bars and night clubs for the sinners                                       there”

            And anything else you can imagine, since who can criticize the Spiritual Gifts                                     from  God?

            How simple it is to side step and to avoid many things you need to do in order to live your Christian life in full harmony with the teaching and commandments revealed to us in the New Testament. All a person has to do is convince himself that whatever he is doing is “approved” and “permitted” by a direct gift of God and has become his “personal ministry”. Who then could criticize anything someone might want to do, no matter how it might contradict Scripture?

Carl O. Cooper

Should a Christian Be a Mason? By Carl O. Cooper

So what is a Mason and what do they stand for? Unless you really dig for the answer to that question you will not find it. All Masons are sworn to secrecy about the organization and they are not likely to divulge any information that tells you what the Masons are really all about. In fact, they probably don’t really know, themselves, what the Masons really believe and do. What they will likely tell you and what they most likely think is true, is that the Masons are a brotherhood of men who swear to be upright citizens and live a clean moral life. They understand that Masons are sworn to help one another in any way that becomes necessary. The reason the average Mason does not know any information about the Mason organization is because they seldom rise to the rank (They call rank by the term “degree”) where any of the meaningful secret information is known. There are 33 degrees of rank in the Mason society and most of the masons you know will be within the very first of these degrees. At this level of rank only the very basic explanations are given to the members. This is the information that they can quote you and everything sounds very above board and proper to you as well as to the members. If this is all you try to know then you will ignorantly support a “pagan organization”. I would dare say that most of the general membership falls in this category. There is tremendous pressure placed on a new member to honor a binding oath which is required on entering the organization not to speak about or reveal any of the information the Masons consider secret. This oath is entered into with considerable pressure placed on the new member. I am told that all “Masonic Groups” do not always follow exactly the same entrance initiation ritual, but the one they do follow is sobering and shocking and not likely to be ignored by the applicant for the rest of his life. In many cases the applicant is blindfolded and all his own clothes are removed and a special robe is placed on him for the initiation. In many cases a rope is placed around his neck and he is paraded within the group with chants and he is asked to repeat special words and phrases. At some point he can be placed down on his back and a sword or knife is placed at his chest or at his throat and he is asked to swear never to reveal any Masonic secrets under the penalty of death. The penalty can be said to be cutting out the tongue or having one’s throat cut with a knife. He is then asked to kneel at the feet of a high degree Mason and place both hands on a Bible and swear that he will never reveal any Masonic secrets as long as he lives. Now tell me. If someone goes through this, is he likely to tell you anything about the Mason organization? Now most Masons are likely to tell you that this initiation ritual is only symbolic and figurative and is not realistic and no one expects this to really be true; that is, not in America today. But in other times and other places these threats were carried out and these were not just idle threats. But even so, the oaths taken in this environment are taken very serious and are considered binding on anyone who takes them. But there is a dark side to the Masonic organization and it surrounds religion.
Now the Masons intentionally give out propaganda about their religious beliefs that sounds to the person who does not think it through that they are “non-religious” and accept all religions into their organization. They make a strong statement that they believe in and respect the separation of church and state and carry that mindset into the Masonic organization. They allow public statements to be made that they require all their members to believe in one God and they call themselves “Monotheists”. What they do not tell you is the darker side of this belief and that is that they accept those people whose god can be the god of “Buddha”, Mohammed”, “The King of Ethiopia”, “Satan”, Demonic”, or any other god devised by the mind of man. Any claim of allegiance to a higher being is acceptable with the Masons. At this stage of this discussion I would like to remind all Christians of This Biblical command found in 2 Corinthians 2: 14. 14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? There is more to the religious part of the Masons than just calling all gods equal. That alone is a serious problem for Christian people but the Masons of a “high degree” have a plan of salvation that not only is “non-Biblical”, it flies in the face of the Bible’s teaching of a true plan of salvation that saves your soul. The Masons teach that if any Mason is a faithful Mason and properly honors and accepts the Mason doctrine and keeps the information secret; he can die with full assurance that he will be accepted into the afterlife with full salvation for his soul. They do not regard a difference in a higher being but consider all gods equal and capable of giving you salvation when you die. This is a serious hurdle for all Christian people. I do not have to tell any Christian that this false teaching will not save someone’s soul and will have a serious impact on many people actually losing their salvation because of it. There is a lot more to be known about the Masonic organization but few people, including Masons will go to the trouble of trying to find out any more about them. There is the impact they have on governments and political machines because of the vow they have taken to support another Mason in any need they might have for help. With the support of all other Masons a person can have a tremendous advantage over any opposition. There is historical information available about the conflict the Masons have had with the Catholic Church throughout many generations. This conflict started with a struggle for government power which both organizations wanted to be in control of. The Catholic Church had a control of government that was being undermined by the Masons who had tremendous support for one another. This secret support was causing the Catholic Church to begin to lose influence in controlling government and this led to complete criticism of the Masonic organization. This criticism still continues to this day but the reasons are more religious than political with today’s churches. There is much more to know and I suggest you dig hard and you will find things you did not know and did not suspect.

Carl O. Cooper

 

What I am about to tell you is so important when trying to understand the information in the Bible, that to overlook it causes mass misunderstanding among most of the world’s population. And as sad as I am to have to say it, the same is true among members of the church of Christ.

As the first example, let’s start by reading this verse of Scripture;

Acts 22:16 (NKJV)

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

As a member of the church of Christ, you have no trouble understanding that this passage is telling you that Baptism is required to have your sins forgiven. The phrase, “wash away your sins”, is perfectly clear in giving us the message the Holy Spirit intended us to understand.

But consider this; thousands if not millions of people in denominational religions, who claim to be Christians, read this Scripture just as much as you do and they breeze right through it and never give a second thought as to Baptism being required for salvation. How in the world can that be? Well, the answer is really very simple; they do not want the Scripture to say that Baptism is required for salvation. There is an accepted world view among denominational religions that salvation is by faith alone and any Scripture that would contradict that view is simply ignored as though it did not exist. Other Scriptures are chosen instead that would seem to support their views on faith only salvation when allowed to stand alone without considering all the verses together. After all, doesn’t John 3:16 say; 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. There is nothing in this verse about Baptism being required for salvation.

Do you see how this works? Here are 2 Scriptures about salvation and both do not support a world view of salvation by faith alone. So what would you have to do to hold to one and ignore the other? Simple, just allow one Scripture to trump the other in importance and authority. That very thing happens every day, everywhere. And let’s not think it only happens with denominational religions; it happens with people in the church of Christ as well.

The world’s culture is changing with every generation and there is such an urge and a desire to conform with it that hardly anyone can resist it. How does it make you feel if you do something that is viewed “politically incorrect”? We are all like sheep and there is an overpowering need to “follow the herd”. People in the church have that same problem and want to be just like everyone else        in the churches and in the world around us.

There are many things in the church of Christ that we have practiced for years that seem to be very restrictive when we compare them with the practices of others in the world and in other religions. It is very, very tempting to use the “Scripture shell game” just like the denominations do to make the Bible seem to say what we want it to say. Take a look at this passage and tell me what it means;

 2 Corinthians 6:15 (NKJV)

15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 

 

Do you have any trouble understanding this? I seriously doubt that you do. What does the word “believer” mean here? Is this not a clear reference to a believer in Christ, a Christian? And because we will need to know this later, the Greek word here from the original Bible is “pistos”, which means “believer”.

Now what motive could a Christian have that would want “pistos” in this Scripture to mean anything other than a Christian. Tell me, is there any other meaning this Scripture could have that would suit you better. Just setting here on the page it seems very clear, doesn’t it? But do you know that some Christians reject it when they read the rest of what it says? Let’s look at the rest of the topic here.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 (NKJV)

14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness      with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

 

When people look at this verse and start realizing that this would apply to marriage, suddenly the understanding and explanation is more than some folks are willing to accept. Now it becomes easy to just “read over” this text and go on to other passages that are more “culturally” correct.

There is another place where the Greek word “pistos” is used and it can become a “culturally incorrect” Scripture for many.

Titus 1:5-6 (NKJV)
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you–
6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.            Faithful is from the Greek word “Pistos”.

 

Just like 2 Cor. 6:15 the word  “pistos” is used here too, having to do with the qualifications of elders and this time it is translated “faithful”. It is the very same Greek word that was translated “believer” in 2 Cor. 6:15. And this describes the elder’s children.

The ASV translates this word like this; Titus 1:6 (ASV)

            6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe,

 

So why would this verse cause a problem for anyone? Well, there again, what a person really wants this verse to say about the children of elders will likely depend on the situation he is in. Does he have a reason to want to excuse an elder whose children are not “faithful”? If someone was in this situation how would he handle this verse that says, plainly, that an elder’s children need to be faithful believers?

You know what, if you stop to think about this for just a minute; this command about an elder’s children is just as clear in this Scripture as the verse about Baptism in

Acts 22:16 (NKJV)

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’   

Those who have a desire for a “faith only salvation”, look for other Scriptures to “soften” these words and dilute this command.

Well, there are no exceptions made here about the qualifications of an elder’s children being “softened”, so where can we find someplace where they are? Let’s look at another Scripture dealing with the same topic.

1 Timothy 3: 4 (KJV)

4 One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

 

The purpose of redirecting the attention to this verse and leaving Titus 1: 6 is to try to show that all elders do not have to have “believing children”. If it could be proven that an elder’s children are too young to be baptized believers then it might follow that the command in Titus 1:6 is not really binding. OK with all that in mind, let’s look back at 1 Tim. 3:4.

The Greek word for house as used here is “oikos—Strong’s Greek & Hebrew Dictionary” which can be translated family, home, house, household, or dwelling, either literal or physical. So in order for a man to be qualified as an elder he must rule his own family or his household well. And in addition to that he must have his children in subjection. Now if this was the only Scripture we had, there is not one shred of genuine proof as to any reference to the children’s ages or to whether or not they are baptized believers. Look carefully at the words in this Scripture. “4 One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;” Since there is no reference to any ages or salvation condition, any information about it that we try to provide will only come from a personal deduction by the person trying to decide. Now sometimes accurate information can come from personal deduction and analytical thinking, but many times it will only be a preprogrammed world view and a bias for what we want the text to say. On the other hand, there is definite information about the condition of an elder’s children in Titus 1:6 (ASV). “ if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe,” 

Here we have 2 verses about an elder’s children. One is very precise and clear and it says with no doubt that an elder’s children are to be believing Christians. Now if we want to alter this clear command, we need another verse that is equally just as clear. You won’t find that information in 1 Tim. 3:4. The only way you can make it say that is with personal deduction.

At this point I would reference back to beginning of this article. I would point out that the way these verses are handled in this example is the same way the verses about Baptism are handled in an attempt to generate and create a meaning that fits a world view that we feel better about. Would we allow one Bible verse to have more authority than another and allow one verse to “trump” another or would we not try to “meld” the Scriptures together with both having equal authority and respect. If one verse has a clear command, would we not want that command to influence the way we interpret another verse where there is no clear command?

Many people with good and honest hearts form opinions about life based on a sincere desire for what seems to them to be compassion for the welfare of others. If we were to submit to a doctrine that says “Baptism is required for salvation” then many of our friends and loved ones would be condemned to everlasting hell because they were not baptized. No wonder so many people reject what the Bible says about baptism.

The same is true about the qualification of elders with the condition of their children, their status about wives and marriages, and all the other qualifications where a personal judgment has to be made. Many people with good and honest hearts just don’t feel like it is right to withhold a position of honor from another person who is well liked and respected. Let’s be honest here with ourselves. Have you ever questioned how you would advise someone who was discovered to be in an unscriptural marriage? What if it had gone on for years and there were children and maybe even grandchildren involved? Could you see yourself being the one to tell these people they have to separate? Thank goodness it is not our job to “enforce” but to “inform”. Any enforcing is to be done by the church as a group, and not one person.

These scenarios are not the only ones where accepting Scriptural commands come hard. And with every generation of new culture it gets harder to accept some of the things the Bible tells us to do. This next one is so hard and so criticized by the culture of today that to hold on to what the Bible has to say about this has become so very difficult that no mention of these Bible verses will likely be found anywhere near a pulpit today. If anyone does dare read these verses it is likely a rapid disclaimer will quickly follow or the person risks being ostracized and ridiculed and “shunned” for bringing it up. But the Bible lists these commands and even makes it clear that these commands “come from God and do not come from men”. Read this;

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (NKJV)

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are      to be submissive, as the law also says.

35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is   shameful for women to speak in church.

 

And in case you wonder if this is really what God wants, read these parts of this verse;

34. “…. but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.”

 

            …. And read this ….

 

35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is   shameful for women to speak in church.

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 

 

The law that is being referenced here predates the Law of Moses and goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden to woman’s sin with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Now for me to explain this concept would be more than you would want to read in this publication. But I will be happy to give you a free book written by me entitled, “American Women Are Out of Control” if you will request it and I will pay for the shipping. Contact me at ccooperapp@aol.com.

I did not realize this article would be so long when I started it. I hope you did not wear out reading it. Perhaps it is a chapter in a future book someday. Time will tell.

 

 

 

Carl O. Cooper

To Christian people everywhere;

There is a great fear among Christian people to criticize Homosexuals. To do so is not politically correct in today’s world and the fear is to run the risk of suffering attacks against our own person and character by people inside the church and without. There has been such a successful attempt to justify homosexuals in our world that they are now accepted almost everywhere and that is also beginning to be the case within our “Christian” environments as well. They are now to the point where they parade within many denominational religions, the corridors of the school systems as lovers, where they are allowed to hug up in the hallways, boy with boy and girl with girl. (If you have children in school you know about this).

It is because of this fear among our people that very little teaching is being done that criticizes and condemns homosexuals in our churches. But this void does not go unfilled; the public school system and TV and movies fill the gaps in teaching with our young people and fill their heads full of the message that homosexuals are to be respected and accepted and fellowshipped as normal. And what’s more, when we do teach about this sin we are unsure how we should deal with these people because we are unsure what God has told us to do. The reason we are unsure is because we lack teaching and explanation from respected leadership.

Unless this situation changes we are faced with the homosexual message being accepted with our children and future generations of the church. Have you ever asked yourself how it could be that Sodom and Gomorrah could not have 10 people in those cities that were righteous?  Surely every person there was not a practicing homosexual. Well the reason is that they allowed the homosexual community to turn the minds of everyone else to accept their lifestyle as acceptable and they were just as guilty because they tolerated and endorsed them as acceptable.

Let’s not fear teaching our churches that this mindset and lifestyle is a grievous sin. Someone has to be a watchman here. Unless we cry out a warning we run the risk of being guilty ourselves.

 

 

Carl O. Cooper

There are some commands in the Bible that, to quote the late Howard Winters, “are easy to understand, but hard to apply”.

One such scripture is the statement by Jesus in Matthew 19:9 where he says;

Matthew 19:9 (NKJV)

9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

In our modern culture where divorce is considered a common acceptable practice by the majority of the population, even members of the church have a hard time applying this verse to people and situations they encounter. There is a natural tendency to soften this verse or explain it away to sidestep and avoid the consequences of this command. The two most common ways that men use to try to nullify these words are to either claim that this is regulated by the culture and the laws of the land, or to try to spin a different meaning from the words by claiming, “they have a new meaning because of the tenses of the Greek words”. For instance, the phrase, “Commits adultery”, is said to be punctiliar rather than linier and it is a onetime action and not continuous. With that explanation it is said to be a sin, but once you repent of it, it is not necessary to do anything else because you have been forgiven for the action and you do not have to separate. That explanation solves a lot of hard, difficult “messes” that people have created for themselves by their divorces. The only problem with this explanation is that there is a very simple way to show that claiming this explanation is not valid. Suppose we slightly change the words in the sentence to say, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries a man commits adultery”. Doesn’t this clearly tell you what this phrase means? There are no questions to be asked about tenses of the words, and no questions about this action and what needs to be done. Don’t look for this explanation to be respected permanently. With our culture changing and the acceptance of homosexual activity as normal, soon the example I just gave will no longer be enough to satisfy this explanation. Culture makes a difference in how the Bible is interpreted, even in the church.

Another scripture that is more and more diluted by the culture of our time is Gen. 3:16.

Genesis 3:16 (NKJV)

16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

Once again the culture of our times has influenced women to demand equality in all things with the men. This includes equality in authority in the family and even within the church in some locations. Even though the scriptures teach different roles for men and women in the home and in the church and even in life in general, these concepts and laws are, “easy to understand, but hard to apply”. 1 Tim. 2:11 is an explanation for a difference in the roles of women and men.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 (NKJV)

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.  12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

 

Is there any clearer way to tell us why a woman is to “learn in silence (quietness) with all submission”, and why she is “not to teach or have authority over men” but to be in silence? It is because “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman fell into transgression”. But, here again, the culture of our day is making men and women everywhere want to explain this verse out of the Bible.

First off, there is a tendency to restrict this instruction to only within a church assembly. But this passage is much broader than that. The context is not just restricted to an assembly of the church. Look at the context starting with verse 8.

 8: I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere,

Now it is obvious that this is talking about anywhere men and women are gathered together and a public prayer is given. The word “everywhere” is pretty broad and there is nothing in the context that restricts this to “an assembly of the church”.  In fact, it is just the opposite. The very next verse says this; 9: in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel. Now, my question is this; if the context is restricted to a church assembly, can a woman dress in immodest apparel everywhere else? I think the answer to that is clear, don’t you. The word “everywhere” is broad and inclusive, as it should be. Just like the role of women as defined in Gen. 3: 16 is broad and all inclusive, so is the application of it in life. This prohibition on women does not depend on the culture of our times to define it and it is broad and inclusive enough to flow continuously from woman to woman, from generation to generation, and from culture to culture, forever.

I like what Barnes has to say in his commentary on these verses.

The direction in 1 Timothy 2:9-12, therefore, is to be understood particularly of the proper deportment of females in the duties of public worship. At the same time, the principles laid down are doubtless such as were intended to apply to them in the other situations in life, for if modest apparel is appropriate in the sanctuary, it is appropriate everywhere. If what is here prohibited in dress is wrong there, it would be difficult to show that it is right elsewhere. —Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament

And while we are looking at these verses, how does the culture of our day define “modest apparel? Even the young women in the church are “driven” to become like the images they constantly see portrayed on TV and in magazines and the movies. This advertizing is provocative and tempting and the culture of the world around us promotes and endorses it. The way women dress, absolutely catches the eyes of men. This is the obvious and simple reasoning behind the clothes some women wear, and yet it is usually denied to give respectability to any immodest dress that culture promotes. Is this “easy to understand”, yes. But, “hard to apply”.

The last thing I want to mention is the list of sins mentioned in 1 Cor. 6: 9-10.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 

The culture of our day is driving sin. Here is a list of sins that will prevent a person from being saved if they are engaging in these activities. There is not a shadow of doubt that this behavior described here is sin.

By now, most have heard of the NC Amendment 1 that was voted on, May 8, 2012.

This amendment is to make our laws in NC clear that “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”. The culture of today has been carefully manipulated for a long time now to bring us to the point where we are today. All of the children within our public schools have been fed a diet of “tolerance” for homosexual behavior for many years now. This amounts to a public “brain washing” of the general population. The only relief that any children have had for this is where a church or a parent has taken the time to give them the proper explanation at home or at church.

For many people, the Bible verses condemning homosexual behavior are, “easy to understand, but hard to apply”. Already laws are on the book to make it a criminal act to discriminate against this behavior in the work place. Laws are also in place to allow full disclosure of this behavior within the military services and civil service jobs. The media of all types glorify this behavior and make it “politically incorrect” to speak out against it. Even this amendment won’t change much of this cultural acceptance of homosexual lifestyles by the general population. There is likely to soon come a day when laws will appear making it unlawful for a church to discriminate against it and to speak publicly about it as a sin.

“Easy to understand, but hard to apply”, yes, many things are. But there is only one answer, don’t give up! It would be easy to hide our heads in the sand like an ostrich in fear of conflict and confrontation with the evils of sin. But I am reminded of what the Bible has to say in

Revelation 21:8 (NKJV)

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Not only do we have an obligation to those caught up in these sins to tell them and teach them that this behavior will lead to eternal punishment and condemnation, but to cowardly avoid this responsibility is not respected by God either. Sometimes it would do us good to remember the story of King David’s men. In 2 Samuel 23:15-16 (NKJV)  the Bible tells us;

15 And David said with longing, “Oh, that someone would give me a drink of the water from the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate!”

16 So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David. Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord. God so respected what these men did and the bravery they demonstrated in the army of the Lord that he recorded these events in the Bible as an example for us to honor as well.  Can we cowardly avoid telling the world about the  consequences of sin? And let us be very careful that we do not allow our own thoughts to be contaminated by the culture of our day. The Bible also says,  in Romans 1:32 (NKJV),

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.  To approve of sin is also a sin and we must not allow ourselves to be influenced by the pressures of the culture of the day.

 

Carl O. Cooper        ccooperapp@aol.com

Head Coverings

A place where culture does matter

 

Almost everyone who reads the Bible has had questions about the head coverings for women that are mentioned in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11. What in the world does the Apostle Paul mean when he seems to imply that women should have their heads covered when they pray? Is that really what he says? The Bible sure seems to sound like he says that. If he does say that women should have their heads covered when they pray, is that still binding on women today? These are serious questions for women today because in our culture women sure don’t wear head coverings in church. And yet, if the Apostle Paul required these women in Corinth to cover their heads, why would this example not be binding on the women of today? It’s these and other question that I would like to cover in this chapter.

And just so you will know where I am going with this chapter, I intend to show you with logic and proper exegesis of these Scriptures in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 that Paul did, indeed, require the women of his day to wear these head coverings because of the culture of the time and the great influence these symbols had on the people of that day. They were, however, culture. And these were instructions from Paul, driven and required because of the culture of the times. I intend to point out and show you through these Scriptures that the Apostle Paul, himself, considered them required because of the cultural climate of his time.

First off, let’s review what the Apostle Paul said about women covering their heads. Let’s start by reading 1 Corinthians 11:1.

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.

Do you think verses 1 and 2 are binding on us today?

We don’t have any problem with these verses, do we? They are clear and precise and they don’t violate anything we want them to say. I think it is very clear to everyone that these commands are just as binding on us today as they were to the Christians in Corinth in Paul’s day. This is how Paul starts his discussion about head coverings to the Corinthian women.

And then he goes on;

Verse 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”.

Everything Paul has to say about head coverings has as it’s purpose all that is said here in verse 3. Read these words again. Don’t miss the chain of authority he describes and don’t forget that just like verses 1 and 2 are still binding on us today, so is all that is said in verse 3.

So far, it is not hard to accept everything Paul has said in these first 3 verses. But here is where the situation changes drastically. Beginning in verse 4 Paul starts his discussion on head coverings and this is where men and women begin to question everything Paul has to say. It seems so clear that Paul is instructing the women in Corenth to wear head coverings and yet that is just not done by the women of America today. So what do we do? Do we really have to follow the “ordinances” delivered to us by Paul as he said in verse 1?

Before we start trying to decide if these head coverings apply to the women of America today, let’s first decide what Paul’s explanation for the coverings was to the Women of Corinth.

Verse 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”.

So the instructions to the church in Corinth were pretty clear and precise.

The men were not supposed to cover their heads when they prayed. If they did cover their head it would bring dishonor on their head. Verse 7 tells us that the reason he does not cover his head is because the man has a certain honor as being head over the woman and he is the image and glory of God. This verse alone tells us that head coverings are symbolic of the roll that a man and a woman have with each other and with God. It is clear here that head coverings are all about making a public statement about the positions that are held between a man, a woman and God. These verses tell us that the man is the image and glory of God and the woman is the glory of man. This symbol of the head coverings is a public statement from the Christian woman of Corinth that she understands her roll as a woman and she does not hold authority over a man. It is because of this fact that verse 10 tells us the woman “should have power on her head”. The word “power” could be substituted with the word “authority”. This is not talking about the authority of the woman. It is simply pointing out that a woman is under the authority of a man. All of this head covering is showing that the woman is under the authority of the men. Sometimes people get hung up with this phrase, “because of the angels”. I really don’t see that as so complicated at all. I think it simply shows that there is a divine interest in this arrangement that God continues to observe and to look into.

Verse 11 and 12 show us that there is a special relationship between a Christian man and a Christian woman, “in the Lord”.

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.

Verse 12 tells us that the relationship between a man and woman and the authority that a man has is from God. We are not left to forget that fact, even though the way a Christian man treats woman is very different and more respectful to her than the way men of the world might behave. A Christian man has a relationship with a Christian woman that gives her honor and dignity in her roll as a woman.

Now up to this point the real question we all want answered has not been addressed. The real question is this; are these head coverings that Paul instructed the women of Corinth to wear still required on the American women of today. There is no doubt that Paul was giving instruction to the Corinthian women that it was proper to wear head coverings. But what about today? Well, there is a clear answer to this question. We might as well jump to that answer right now and then we will come back to see why it was so important for the Corinthian women to cover their heads. Look at verse 16.

 

 

1 Corinthians 11: 16   

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

 

The real question about these head coverings has been all along, are they required for women of all ages or was this required of the Corinthian women because of the customs of the day?  Here we have the answer. Paul actually uses the word “custom” here to describe the practice in the churches.

People usually find this choice of words in this phrase to be confusing. The Greek does not translate well into a common choice of words that we normally use together in a sentence. Notice that the words say, “But if any man seem to be contentious”. This is saying to those in Corinth who would like not to have to cover their head, (to paraphrase) We have no other such custom here nor in any of the churches of God. So Paul is telling the women of Corinth that this is the way it was done in Corinth and it was the way it was done in all the churches. There is no other “custom”.

            So the matter of covering the head for the women of Corinth was a way for the women to show respect for the roll of women in submitting to the authority of the man by using the customs of the day.

The same customs do not exist in our day and age in America and so to cover the head for women does not carry the same significance as it did then. There is, however, a head covering for men that does carry the same significance as it once did. Consider this example; suppose a man was asked to lead a public prayer at church. What would you think about this man if he refused to remove his hat as he led the prayer? Would you think he was being disrespectful and rebellious? I think most people would. Our customs of the day would require that a man remove his head covering if he led a prayer to God. The same thing was true in the days of Paul. And a woman who refused to wear a head covering was looked on with disrespect and considered to be rebellious and disrespectful to her roll as a woman. People looked at a woman such as that as a common prostitute.

            Look at Paul’s reasons why he wanted the Corinthian women to cover their heads. Look at verse 5. “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.”

Why does Paul mention a woman with a shaved head? I think we all know the reason he said that. A shaved head was a sign of a rebellious prostitute. Paul did not want Christian women to be perceived like a rebellious prostitute. And just like a man today who would refuse to remove his hat when he prays, a woman in Paul’s day who refused to cover her head when she prayed would be looked on with disrespect. That same thing would not happen today to women of America. It could happen, however in other countries. If a woman went to Saudi Arabia on vacation and found herself among women who were under customs to cover their heads, she would be looked on with disrespect if she refused to do so.

It’s hard to say when the custom of head coverings in America got to where it is at today. It was a slow and gradual process and even today in some religious circles a remnant still exists.

But in Paul’s day, it was a custom that had existed for hundreds of years. It had been in existence so long that it was considered the normal and not the exception. Look at what he has to say about that starting in verse 13.

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

My, my, how things change. In my young days this statement would have still been the natural order of the way things were. Frankly. I like the old ways better. But customs change with the times. There are some traditions in Scripture where culture determines how they are carried out. But let me warn you and caution you in every way that I know how, this is always the exception and never the rule. Please, please don’t use culture as a way to avoid obedience to the Scriptures when you just don’t want to obey.

 

Carl O. Cooper