What did Jesus mean when He said to hate your father and mother? By Jack Kettler
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26 NKJV)
Many young Christians have been confused when first reading this passage from Luke. Is Jesus teaching to hate your parents, wife, and children? If so, it would contradict other passages about honoring your parents and caring for your wife and children.
This brief study will seek to clear up any confusion about this passage and show that it is not contradictory and is in harmony with the totality of Scripture.
First, the Greek understanding of hate will be considered. Doing this will help in a proper understanding of the Luke passage.
Hate from the Strong’s Lexicon:
Hate
μισεῖ (misei)
Verb – Present Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 3404: To hate, detest, love less, and esteem less. From a primary misos, to detest, by extension, to love less.
In contemporary Evangelical parlance, a secondary meaning of “misei” is appealed to. The secondary meaning is “love less.” The passage is interpreted to mean that Jesus is not really teaching a disciple actually to hate but to love your family less than him.
While this understanding is correct, there is far more to the passage on discipleship that needs to be considered.
For example:
“So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples.” (John 8:31 ESV)
Abiding or continuing in Christ’s word is a characteristic of a disciple. In order to abide in Christ’s word, His word must be studied and known.
Again from the Strong’s Lexicon:
Disciple.
μαθητής (mathētēs)
Noun – Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong’s Greek 3101: A learner, disciple, pupil. From manthano, a learner, i.e. Pupil.
In the following commentary selections, the importance and requirements of discipleship are seen.
From the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges commentary on Luke 14:26: “26. and hate not his father and mother] It is not so much the true explanation to say that hate here means love less (Genesis 29:31), as to say that when our nearest and dearest relationships prove to be positive obstacles in coming to Christ, then all natural affections must be flung aside; comp. Deuteronomy 13:6-9; Deu 21:19-21; Deu 33:8-9. A reference to Matthew 10:37 will shew that ‘hate’ means hate by comparison. Our Lord purposely stated great principles in their boldest and even most paradoxical form by which He alone has succeeded in impressing them forever as principles on the hearts of His disciples. The ‘love of love’ involves a necessity for the possible ‘hate of hate,’ as even worldly poets have understood.
“Va, je t’aimais trop pour ne pas te hair.”
“I could not love thee, dear, so much
Loved I not honour more.” – Lovelace.
Yea, and his own life also] this further explains the meaning of the word ‘hate.’ The psuche ‘soul’ or ‘animal life’ is the seat of the passions and temptations, which naturally alienate the spirit from Christ. These must be hated, mortified, crucified if they cannot be controlled; and life itself must be cheerfully sacrificed, Revelation 12:11; Acts 20:24.” (1)
From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Luke 14:26: “(26) If any man come to me, and hate not his father.—Like words had been spoken before, as in Matthew 10:37-39, where see Notes. Here they appear in a yet stronger form, “not hating” taking the place of “loving more,” and they are spoken, not to the Twelve only, but to the whole multitude of eager would-be followers. Self-renunciation, pushed, if necessary, to the extremest issues, is with Jesus the one indispensable condition of discipleship. He asks for nothing less than the heart, and that cannot be given by halves.” (2)
Cross-reference passages:
“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37 ESV)
“Whoever loves his life loses it and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” (John 12:25 ESV)
In conclusion:
The passage from Luke 14:26 and other parts of Scripture are in harmony and not contradictory.
The two commentary selections address the Luke passage and explain the meaning of discipleship exceptionally well. As Ellicott notes, “He asks for nothing less than the heart, and that cannot be given by halves.” The two cross-reference passages from Matthew and John provide a larger context to Luke. The next verse in Luke provides an additional understanding of what is required in discipleship.
Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:27 ESV)
“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.” (Revelation 2:4 NKJV)
Is Jesus your first love?
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. F. W. Farrar, D.D., Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Luke, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), p. 251.
2. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Luke, Vol.6, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 313.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
And the new book The Five Points of Scriptural Authority in Paperback,
How to stop CRT Racism in the Church by Jack Kettler
Critical Race Theory (CTR) is dominating the narrative in many circles. The present primer is on how to stop the divisiveness that comes along with the promotion of this so-called theory in Christian Churches. Confessional faithful churches with enrolled membership, and with membership vows have an advantage. Churches of this nature have a process in which discipline can be dealt with in a proper and decent order because the membership vows require it.
The reader is encouraged to read “The Dallas Statement on Social Justice,” which is listed below.
What exactly are promoters of CRT doing?
The advocates of CTR are leveling charges of systemic against Christ’s Church and, by implication, individual members of racism. How is this to be dealt with?
Jesus gives us the outline on how charges of sin are to be handled Biblically: “Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17)
Other Scriptures that inform the process of discipline: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” (Deuteronomy 19:15)
“This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Corinthians 13:1)
The importance of this will be seen in the judicial process listed below; the accuser must have witnesses.
First, the promoter of this so-called theory must put the cards on the table. Said another way, the accuser must bring formal intuitional charges of racism against the church; otherwise, unproven accusations are forbidden. The church cannot passively allow unchecked accusations, which allow discord to spread.
If one encounters a member promoting CRT, the individual leveling these accusations must be challenged and warned to bring forth charges against church members or keep quiet under the threat of discipline for spreading discord among the brethren.
If the promoter of CRT will not bring charges in the courts of the church, that individual themselves must be charged for spreading lies about the church and its members.
Historic definitions must be used in defining racism:
For example, the Oxford Dictionary: Racism: noun
1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
1.1 The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
The present writer has heard promoters of CRT on the radio make accusations of systemic racism, and by implication, individual racism. When challenged by the radio host to the caller, “are you saying I am a racist,” the caller starts dancing around with novel definitions. Established definitions must be used. “This country was built on slavery” is a canard that should not go unchallenged. Slavery was overall regional and agricultural. When building New England, the Puritans did not have slaves.
Racism is real:
There have been cases of outright racism in churches and by individuals. Racism and by churches and individuals must not be tolerated. The present writer knows one individual because of his afro hairstyle was told by one church greeter to go down the street to another church that would be more suited to him. Real racism has and does exist and must not be tolerated in Christ’s Church.
A biblical understanding of racism:
Treating an individual with disdain is mistreating a person created in God’s image. Prejudice and discrimination against any individual are sinful; this would include treating people of color differently. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 ESV)
With that said, making an accusation of racism is serious and, if false, cannot be allowed to stand. If researched, one finds that CRT is not using historically established definitions. Instead, painting with a broad brush, accusations that the country is a white supremacist power structure. In short, CRT labels one by their race as an oppressor. Using the dictionary definition listed above, CRT is itself racist. CRT does not believe the Scriptures and instead erects racial distinctions in contradiction to Galatians 3:28.
If the individual promoting CTR is not challenged to bring charges in the courts of the church, evil fruit will be the result: “A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:18-19)
The following rather lengthy citation from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s Book of Discipline is in order. The present writer has had personal experience using this procedure: Suggested Forms for Use in Connection with the Book of Discipline
I. CHARGE AND SPECIFICATIONS
_____________ [here insert the title of the trial judicatory] of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church charges ____________ with __________ [here name the alleged offense]: __________ [here give references to applicable portions of the Word of God, and, where pertinent, to relevant provisions of the constitution].
Specifications: That on or about __________ the said ________ did ________ [here set forth briefly the place and circumstances of the alleged offense].
Witnesses and/or Documents: ___________ [here set forth the names of witnesses and/or the titles of documents to be produced in support of the charge and specifications].
_______________ [Moderator]
_______________ [Clerk]
Date: ____________
II. CITATION OF ACCUSED
To ____________:
You are hereby cited to appear before _______, meeting on _______ at _________ o’clock at _________, then and there to hear and receive certain charges and specifications which have been preferred against you by ___________ [here insert the title of the trial judicatory] of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
[In the case of a second citation, add the appropriate warning prescribed by Chapter IV, Section A.1.e, of the Book of Discipline.]
By order of ___________ [here insert the title of the trial judicatory] of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
_______________ [Moderator]
_______________ [Clerk]
Date: ____________
III. CITATION OF WITNESS
To ____________:
You are hereby cited to appear before _________, meeting on _______ at ________ o’clock, at ________, then and there to give evidence in the trial of ___________ [here insert the name of the accused].
[In the case of a second citation of a witness who has failed to appear after a first citation, add the warning prescribed in Chapter IV, Section A.4.e, of the Book of Discipline.]
By order of __________ [here insert the title of the trial judicatory] of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
_______________ [Moderator]
_______________ [Clerk]
Date: ____________
IV. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAL (in Judicial Cases)
To ____________, Clerk [or Moderator] of ____________ [here insert the title of the judicatory from which the appeal is to be taken] of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church:
And now, this _______ day of _________, A.D. __________, comes ____________ and gives notice of intention to appeal to ____________ from the judgment of ___________ in the case of ____________ [here insert the name of the accused].
_______________, Appellant
Date: ____________
V. APPEAL (in Judicial Cases)
To ____________, Clerk [or Moderator] of _____________ [here insert the title of the judicatory to which the appeal is taken] of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church:
And now, this ___________ day of __________, A.D. _______, comes _______________ and appeals from the judgment of ___________ in the case of ___________ [here insert the name of the accused], and in support of said appeal sets forth the following specifications of error:
____________ [here insert the title of the judicatory from which the appeal is taken] of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church erred in __________ [here state concisely the error alleged to have been made].
[Additional specifications of error may be filed.]
_______________, Appellant
Date: ____________
VI
COMPLAINT
To ____________, Clerk [or Moderator] of _____________ [here insert the title of the judicatory to which the complaint is taken] of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church:
And now, this _______ day of _______, A.D. _______, comes ____________ and complains against the action [or delinquency] of ____________ in connection with _____________ [here state briefly the matter of which complaint is made].
In bringing this complaint I affirm that I believe that the session [or presbytery] has erred [or has been delinquent] and that this error [or delinquency] is serious; that I have tried to understand the session’s [or presbytery’s] point of view; that I have seriously examined, in prayer before the Lord, my willingness to be in subjection to my brothers in Christ; and that I have made a serious effort to correct the error [or delinquency] short of entering a complaint.
In support of this complaint I set forth the following grounds:
[Here set forth concisely in numbered paragraphs the grounds of fact, circumstance and law in support of the complaint.]
_______________, Complainant
Date: ____________
VII. APPEAL (in Administrative Cases)
To ____________, Clerk of _____________:
And now, this ____________ day of ____________, A.D. __________, comes __________________ and appeals from the decision of the ______________ on the enclosed complaint of _____________ against actions of the _____________, in order to bring that complaint to _____________ for adjudication.
_______________, Appellant
Date: ____________
VIII. THE PUBLIC IMPOSITION AND REMOVAL OF CENSURES
(This document was prepared for the use of sessions of local congregations. Presbyteries using it shall make appropriate adaptations.)
A. The Manner of Imposing Censure
The power which the exalted Christ gives the rulers of his church is for edification, not destruction. Therefore, when a member is found guilty of a fault deserving censure, the session shall proceed with all tenderness and in the spirit of meekness, each considering himself lest he also be tempted, with the hope of reclaiming or gaining the offender. They should impose censure with great solemnity, so that all might fear, so that it may be a means of impressing the offender’s heart with a proper sense of his sin, and so that by God’s gracious blessing it may lead him to repentance. They should do all this in accordance with the provisions of the Book of Discipline.
B. Indefinite Suspension
1. When the judicatory has passed sentence, indefinitely suspending an officer or a member of the church from privileges, it is fitting that when the sentence is announced, it be in a gathering of the congregation.
2. The one making the announcement may begin by setting forth the teaching of Scripture concerning God’s fatherly discipline (cf. Heb. 12:7-11), the church as God’s instrument in discipline (cf. Matt. 18:17ff.), and the obligation upon the church to fulfill this role (1 Cor. 5:1-13).
3. He may then announce the censure using the following or similar words:
Whereas [name] has been found guilty by (his/her) own confession, or by sufficient proof (as the case may be), of the sin of [here name the particular offence], we have suspended (him/her) from the privileges of church membership [and/or, as appropriate, the privileges of his office], until (he/she) gives satisfactory evidence of repentance.
4. To this the judicatory shall add such advice, admonition, or rebuke, as it may judge necessary; and it shall conclude the whole with prayer to almighty God, that he would accompany this act of discipline with his blessing.
5. The indefinite suspension of an officer or other member of the church shall be announced to the church in which membership or office is held.
6. After a person has been thus suspended, the minister and elders should frequently converse with him, as well as pray for him in private, that it would please God to grant him repentance. And, especially in connection with celebrating the Lord’s Supper, they should offer up public prayers for any who have shut themselves out from this holy communion.
7. When the judicatory is satisfied as to the reality of the repentance of any such suspended member, it shall permit him to profess his repentance, and restore him to fellowship (and/or, as appropriate, the privileges of office) in the presence of the church.
8. If a suspended person fails to manifest repentance for his offence, and continues in impenitence, it may become the duty of the judicatory to excommunicate (and/or, as appropriate, depose him from office) without further trial.
C. Excommunication and Deposition
1. When the judicatory has passed sentence imposing excommunication, with or without previous suspension, it is fitting that when the sentence is announced, it be in a gathering of the congregation.
2. The minister should then make a brief statement of the several steps which have been taken, with respect to the offender, announcing that the session has found it necessary to excommunicate him. He should begin by showing from Scripture (for example, Matthew 18:15-18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1-5) the power of the church to cast out unfaithful members. He should briefly explain the nature, use, and consequences of excommunication.
3. He shall then announce the censure. He may use the following or similar words:
Whereas [name] has by (his/her) own confession, or by sufficient proof (as the case may be), been found guilty of [here name the particular offence], and after much admonition and prayer refuses to hear the church and manifests no evidence of repentance; therefore, in the name and by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, (he/she) has been excluded from the communion of the church.
4. He may instruct and warn the congregation in the following or similar words:
Beloved congregation, [name] may no longer use the sacraments. (He/she) has no part any more in the spiritual blessings and benefits which Christ bestows upon his church. As long as (he/she) persists in sin, let (him/her) be to you as an unbeliever. We exhort you, beloved Christians, do not wash your hands of (him/her). On the contrary, pray for (him/her) with lamentation. Try to evangelize and warn (him/her) as you would a lost sheep. But do not associate with (him/her) as a fellow believer, that (he/she) may be ashamed and be brought to repentance. This excommunication, beloved, is a warning for us all. Let us fear the Lord and be cautious, for he who thinks he stands must take heed lest he fall. Continue in the true fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, and also with all faithful believers, so that we may obtain eternal salvation. “Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.”
5. He should then lead the congregation in prayer for the conviction and reclaiming or gaining of the excommunicated person, and for the establishment of all true believers.
6. When an officer is to be deposed, these provisions should be appropriately modified.
D. Readmission of an Excommunicated Person
1. When an excommunicated person is so affected by his state that he is brought to repentance and desires to be readmitted to the privileges of the church, the session of the church which excommunicated him, being satisfied of the evidence of his repentance and contrition, shall proceed to readmit him. It is fitting that the sentence of restoration be openly pronounced by the minister in a service of public worship on the Lord’s Day.
2. It is well that the elders stand with the minister before the congregation.
3. The minister may address the congregation in the following or similar words:
[Name] was excluded from the communion of the church, but (he/she) has now given satisfactory evidence of repentance to the session. Therefore, in the name and by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, we declare (him/her) absolved from the sentence of excommunication, and we do restore (him/her) to the communion of the church, that (he/she) may be a partaker of all the benefits of the Lord Jesus, to (his/her) eternal salvation.
4. The minister may then address the restored believer in these or similar words:
Beloved (brother/sister), be assured in your heart that the Lord himself has received you in grace. Be diligent to guard yourself against the subtleties of Satan, the wickedness of the world, and the folly of the flesh, lest you again become entangled in sin. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit again. I charge you to continue steadfastly in the confession which you have made, humbly relying upon the grace of God in the diligent use of the means of grace—especially the Word of God, the sacraments, and prayer.
5. The minister may then address the congregation in these or similar words:
Beloved Christians, receive this (brother/sister) in love. Rejoice and be thankful, for this (brother/sister) was dead and is alive. (He/she) was lost and is found. Rejoice with the angels, for our Lord Jesus said, “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). Do not look on (him/her) any longer as a stranger, but as a fellow citizen with the saints and a member of the household of God.
6. The congregation should then be led in prayer. It is well in such prayer to thank and praise God for granting repentance and restoration to the one who has been restored; and to pray that he may grow in assurance and joy; that he may walk faithfully, and that just as he has previously caused grief, so now may he be the cause of great joy and edification; that God may graciously enable us to forgive and receive; and that he would enable us all to persevere in faith, hope, and love.
E. Other Censures
Censures other than indefinite suspension from church privileges, or deposition, or excommunication, shall be imposed in such manner as the judicatory may direct.
This process, while lengthy and complex, ensures the rights of the accuser and the accused. In this process, the accuser, the one bringing charges, is warned about the severity of the action of filing charges. If the accused is acquitted, the accuser will be counseled to repent for bringing false accusations.
Why is this necessary?
If those promoting CRT are not forced to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak, division and divisiveness will spread.
If an individual promoting CTR is not willing to bring formal charges against the church and specific individuals, they themselves should be charged with making unproven in the courts of the church for making false accusations.
A personal observation:
Leveling an unproven charge of racism is offensive, and those accused have every right to have their names cleared in the courts of the church.
In conclusion:
This primer only touches on how CRT can be dealt with in confessional enrolled membership Protestant Churches.
CRT in the marketplace or places of employment is a different case entirely. Large corporations listen to their attorneys and, for supposed legal protection from employee lawsuits, force their employees into sensitivity training that involves CRT training, among other things. Unfortunately, employees are at the mercy of their employers, which in many cases is merciless.
Churches need to sign on or at least make available the following their congregants:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
And the new book The Five Points of Scriptural Authority in Paperback,
What does judged by no man mean in 1 Corinthians 2:15? by Jack Kettler
“But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” (1 Corinthians 2:15)
At first glance, this passage is perplexing. Regarding the spiritual one, the text says concerning a spiritual person, “yet he himself is judged of no man.” What could this possibly mean? It seems common knowledge that at some point, everyone is or has been judged by others, even spiritual persons.
Two cross-references that help to understand the Corinthians text:
“Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.” (Proverbs 28:5)
“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.” (1 Corinthians 3:1)
It appears from the cross-references a distinction emerges from a carnal man and a converted man. This distinction could also be described as the natural man and spiritual man.
How does Strong’s Lexicon analyze the passage?
The
ὁ (ho)
Article – Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong’s Greek 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.
spiritual [man]
πνευματικὸς (pneumatikos)
Adjective – Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong’s Greek 4152: Spiritual. From pneuma; non-carnal, i.e. ethereal, or a spirit, or supernatural, regenerate, religious.
judges
ἀνακρίνει (anakrinei)
Verb – Present Indicative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 350: From ana and krino, properly, to scrutinize, i.e. investigate, interrogate, determine.
all things,
πάντα (panta)
Adjective – Accusative Neuter Plural
Strong’s Greek 3956: All, the whole, every kind of. Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole.
but
δὲ (de)
Conjunction
Strong’s Greek 1161: A primary particle; but, and, etc.
he himself
αὐτὸς (autos)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun – Nominative Masculine 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 846: He, she, it, they, them, same. From the particle au; the reflexive pronoun self, used of the third person, and of the other persons.
is not subject to anyone’s judgment
ἀνακρίνεται (anakrinetai)
Verb – Present Indicative Middle or Passive – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 350: From ana and krino, properly, to scrutinize, i.e. investigate, interrogate, determine.
ὑπ’ (hyp’)
Preposition
Strong’s Greek 5259: A primary preposition; under, i.e. of place, or with verbs; of place (underneath) or where (below) or time (when).
οὐδενὸς (oudenos)
Adjective – Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong’s Greek 3762: No one, none, nothing.
Strong’s Lexicon: Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D. 1890
A survey of some learned commentators:
From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on 1 Corinthians 2:15: “But he that is spiritual – The man who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit in contradistinction from him who is under the influence of the senses only.
Judgeth – Greek: “Discerns.” (Margin); the same word as in the previous verse. It means that the spiritual man has a discernment of these truths in regard to which the sensual man was blind and ignorant.
All things – Not absolutely all things; or not that he is omniscient; but that he has a view of those things to which the apostle had reference – that is, to the things which are revealed to man by the Holy Spirit.
Yet he himself is judged – Greek, as in the margin, “is discerned;” that is, his feelings, principles, views, hopes, fears, joys, cannot be fully understood and appreciated by any natural or sensual man. He does not comprehend the principles, which actuate him; he does not enter into his joys; he does not sympathize with him in his feelings. This is a matter of simple truth and universal observation. The reason is added in the following verse, that as the Christian is influenced by the Lord and as the natural man does not know him, so he cannot know him who is influenced by him; that is the Christian.” (1)
From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on 1 Corinthians 2:15: “(15) He that is spiritual.—the spiritual man judges all spiritual truth, but he himself is judged by none who are not spiritual. (See 1Corinthians 14:29; 1John 4:1.)” (2)
From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:15: “He that is spiritual, in this verse, is opposed to the natural man, in the former verse, pneumatikov to qucikov. So that by spiritual here is understood, he that is taught by the Spirit of God, and is by him specially and savingly enlightened.
Judgeth or discerneth
all things, that is, of this nature, the mysteries of God, which concern man’s eternal life and salvation; not that every good Christian hath any such perfect judgment or power of discerning, but according to the measure of illumination which he hath received.
Yet he himself is judged of no man; it may as well be translated, of nothing; and the term judged might as well have been translated examined, or searched, as it is in Acts 4:9 12:19 17:11 24:8; or condemned. The wisdom that is of God is not to be subjected to the wisdom of men, nor to be judged of any man, but only the spiritual man. The truth, which the spiritual man owneth and professeth, dependeth only upon God and his word, and is not subjected to the authority and judgment of men, nor the dictates of human reason: so as the spiritual man, so far forth as he is spiritual, is neither judged by any man nor by anything. There are some that by he himself understand the Spirit of God; he indeed
is judged of no man, nor of anything; but that seemeth a much more strained sense.” (3)
From the Pulpit Commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:15: “Verse 15. – Judgeth all things. If he can judge the higher, lie can of course judge the lower. Being spiritual, he becomes intellectual also, as well as more than intellectual. He can see into the difference between the dream and the reality; he can no longer take the shadow for the substance. He cannot only decide about ordinary matters, but can also “discriminate the transcendent,” i.e. see that which is best even in different alternatives of good. “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him” (Psalm 25:14). He himself is judged of no man. He may be judged, condemned, depreciated, slandered every day of his life, but the arrow flights of human judgment fall far short of him. These Corinthians were judging and comparing Paul and Apollos and Cephas; but their judgments were false and worthless, and Paul told them that it was less than nothing to him to be judged by them or by man’s feeble transitory day (1 Corinthians 4:3). “Evil men,” as Solomon said, “understand not judgment” (Proverbs 28:5).” (4)
The passage in 1 Corinthians 2:15 is merely saying that a non-Christian is unable to judge a Christian with spiritual judgment since they are non-spiritual.
While not a big fan of the NIV, in this case, it captures the sense of the passage remarkably well. “The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments.” (1 Corinthians 2:15 NIV)
For example, a real-life application:
How could a non-Christian vote (a judgment) or understand if a man were qualified to be an elder in the church? What criteria would be used? The non-Christian may use criteria like hiring a manager at a grocery store. It should be evident that this criterion is not adequate biblically. Hence, non-Christians cannot exercise spiritual judgment since they are carnal and not spiritual.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, 1 Corinthians, Vol. 2 p. 2454.
2. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, I Corinthians, Vol.7, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 294.
3. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1 Corinthians, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 545. 4. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, 1 Corinthians, Vol. 19, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 61.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
And the new book The Five Points of Scriptural Authority in Paperback,
“And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Isaiah 22:22)
What exactly is the key of the house of David? This key of David is mentioned in Revelation 3:7. In Matthew 16:19, the keys of the kingdom of heaven are mentioned. Are these keys related?
Cross Reference Scriptures:
“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)
“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; these things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Revelation 3:7)
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers does a good job of answering the introductory questions: “(22) And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder . . .—The key of the king’s treasure-chambers and of the gates of the palace was the natural symbol of the chamberlain’s or vizier’s office, and, as in Isaiah 9:6, it was solemnly laid upon the shoulder of the new official, perhaps as representing the burden of the responsibilities of the duties of his office. In the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” in Matthew 16:19, and again in Revelation 3:7, as also in the custom of admitting a Rabbi to his office by giving him a key, we have a reproduction of the same emblem.
So he shall open, and none shall shut . . .—The words paint vividly the supremacy of the office to which Eliakim was to be called. He alone was to decide who was to be admitted into the king’s chamber, and for whom the king’s treasury was to be opened. In Revelation 3:7, the symbolism is reproduced in its higher application to the King of kings.” (1)
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible adds to this and connects the two cross-reference passages: “And the key – A key is that by which a house is locked or opened. To possess that is, therefore, to have free access to it, or control over it. Thus we give possession of a house by giving the “key” into the hands of a purchaser, implying that it is his; that he has free access to it; that he can close it when he pleases, and that no other one, without his permission, has the right of access to it…
So he shall open … – This phrase means that he should have the highest authority in the government, and is a promise of unlimited power. Our Saviour has made use of the same expression to denote the unlimited power conferred on his apostles in his church Matthew 16:19; and has applied it also to himself in Revelation 3:7.” (2)
Matthew Poole’s Commentary enhances the information regarding the significance of the key upon the shoulder: “The key; the government, the power of opening and shutting, of letting men into it or putting them out of it, whereof a key is a fit emblem; whence the delivering of the keys of a house or city into the hands of another, is a sign to signify and confirm the giving him the power and possession of it.
Lay upon his shoulder; he mentions the shoulder rather than the hand, in which keys are commonly carried, either from some ceremony then in use, of carrying a key upon the shoulder, either of the officer of state himself, or of another in his name and stead; or to signify that this was a key of greater weight than ordinary, and that government, which is designed by this key, is a heavy burden, and therefore in Scripture phrase said to be upon the shoulder, as Isaiah 9:6.
None shall shut against his will, or without his commission or consent.” (3)
Dictionary of Bible Themes on keys: “A tool for opening a locked door. Used mainly symbolically in Scripture to speak of Jesus Christ’s victory over death and his authority over believers or of the need of deliverance from the imprisonment brought to human nature by sin and the law.
Keys for opening doors
Judges 3:23-25; 1 Chronicles 9:27; Luke 3:20; Luke 11:7; John 20:19, 26; Acts 5:23
The symbolic use of keys
As a symbol of Jesus Christ’s, complete authority
Revelation 3:7 See also Isaiah 22:22
As a symbol of Jesus Christ’s ultimate victory over death and hell
Revelation 1:18
As a symbol of Satan’s ultimate defeat
Revelation 20:1-3 See also Revelation 9:1
As a symbol of Jesus Christ’s authoritative ministry through his church
Matthew 16:19 usually understood as illustrating how God’s forgiveness is made effective through preaching the gospel.
As a symbol of living faith
Isaiah 33:6 See also Matthew 13:52
Being locked up as a symbol of obstacles to faith
Galatians 3:23 See also Luke 11:52” (5)
In conclusion:
From the commentary evidence, it is seen that the keys are related. The key of David prophetically looks forward to the true and final key holder, the Lord Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16:19, the keys were given to Peter initially. Later in Matthew 18:18, the keys were given to all the apostles. They were apostolic keys, enabling the apostles to act in the name of Christ.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Isaiah, Vol.4, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 479.
2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Isaiah, Vol. 3 p. 604.
3. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Isaiah, Vol. 2, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 375.
4. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers), p. 836. 5. McConville, Manser, Martin H., Dictionary of Bible Themes (Kindle Location 7). BookBaby. Kindle Edition.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
And the new book The Five Points of Scriptural Authority in Paperback,
Can evolution account for human consciousness? An essay by Jack Kettler
Thoughts and questions:
In this essay, it will be considered: how did “you” become “you?” and the evolutionist as a metaphysician.
The evolutionary theory tries to explain how the physical life forms evolve. Said another way, “Natural Selection” seeks to explain the origin of things that have physical characteristics. Evolutionists claim that this also involves immaterial entities like the human conscious going beyond the material or physical. However, it is problematic for the theory, if consciousness has no physical characteristics, how can it evolve? Is the human consciousness material or immaterial? A strict materialist would say that human consciousness or the mind is physical and nothing more than electrical and chemical interactions. Seemingly, this would be the most consistent attempt to explain this. However, in this case, human consciousness would be nothing more than a mind in a vat.
The existence of human consciousness is a dilemma for the evolutionist. If the conscious is non-material, human consciousness is problematic for the evolutionist. How can materialism produce non-material entities like the laws of logic, ethics, mathematics, and science? How in evolutionary theory do the mechanisms of consciousness work and arise within the purely physical? Attempts to explain this, it seems, are merely metaphysical speculations. Consciousness has no physical existence in the world. Quantifiable dimensions of consciousness would be needed. How can this be done? Therefore, consciousness exists beyond the physical, and evolutionary theory adds nothing in refutation or confirmation.
What exactly is self-consciousness?
When considering human consciousness, it is not an abstract concept. It is how each individual has an identity, which is distinguished from others. Human consciousness is self-awareness.
Consider this about Self-Consciousness: “Human beings are conscious not only of the world around them but also of themselves: their activities, their bodies, and their mental lives. They are, that is, self-conscious (or, equivalently, self-aware). Self-consciousness can be understood as an awareness of oneself. But a self-conscious subject is not just aware of something that merely happens to be themselves, as one is if one sees an old photograph without realising that it is of oneself. Rather a self-conscious subject is aware of themselves as themselves; it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”, terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such.” (1)
Solutions:
The following quotes from philosopher Rene Descartes and Early Church Bishop Augustine are examples of how one is self-aware of their personal identity.
Rene Descartes – B. 1596 – D. 1650, philosopher, mathematician, and a scientist who created logical geometry: “I doubt; therefore, I think, therefore I am.” – René Descartes
“But what then am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understand, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and that also imagines and senses.” – René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy
“When I turn my mind’s eye upon myself, I understand that I am a thing which is incomplete and dependent on another and which aspires without limit to ever greater and better things…” – René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy
“And what more am I? I look for aid to the imagination. [But how mistakenly!] I am not that assemblage of limbs we call the human body; I am not a subtle penetrating air distributed throughout all these members; I am not a wind, a fire, a vapor, a breath or anything at all that I can image. I am supposing all these things to be nothing. Yet I find, while so doing, that I am still assured that I am a something.” – René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy
Descartes believed that the intrinsic property of thoughts is when the subject becomes aware of the thought itself. Thus, Cartesian dualism produced the dictum “cognito ergo sum” or I think; therefore, I am.
Augustine – B. 354 – D. 430, was a theologian, philosopher, and the bishop of Hippo in North Africa:
The power of memory is great, very great, my God. It
is a vast and infinite profundity. Who has plumbed its
bottom? This power is that of my mind and is a natural
endowment, but I myself cannot grasp the totality of
what I am (Confessions 10.8.15).
But where in my consciousness, Lord do you dwell? . . .
You conferred this honor on my memory that you should
dwell in it. But the question I have to consider is,
in what part of it do you dwell? . . . I entered into
the very seat of my mind, which is located in my
memory, since the mind also remembers itself. But you
were not there … All these things are liable to
change. But you remain immutable above all things, and
yet have deigned to dwell in my memory since the time I
learnt about you (Confessions10.25.36).
Where then did I find you so that I could learn of you
if not in the fact that you transcend me? (Confessions 10.26.37).
Both Augustine and Descartes were aware that they were something more than just a functioning corporeal object. Both men rooted this self-awareness ultimately in God. Evolutionary theory cannot convincingly explain why a physical body could have developed a self-conscious identity. In other words, how did “you” become “you”? How did “you” end up in a physical body? Was it an accident or chance? Do “you” have a continued existence after the body wears out? In Christian theology, there are debates about the origin of the soul, which involves human consciousness. One theory is called traducianism, as opposed to what is known as creationism, a unique special creation of a new soul at each conception.
In conclusion:
In the present reality, the continuation of ongoing macroevolution cannot be observed. Similarly, the evolutionist argues for ongoing unobservable daily evolution of new personal human consciousness’ coming into existence. Can evolution explain each child’s birth and the growing personal self-awareness as ongoing evolution? If so, it would seem then, rather than God behind the origin of the soul, which involves a human consciousness, it is miraculous personified evolution purporting to be a daily occurrence. If this is true, has evolution taken on the character-like attributes of personality. If so, it reminds one of how chance is often used, which supposedly causes and directs things. Contradictions aside, those who allege incorporeal entities evolve daily have not made the case of how this happens. Those attempting to do so have contradicted the very premise of science, that it is through observation and experiment since the incorporeal cannot be measured or seen. In the case of human consciousness, the evolutionist is very religious, having faith in the unseen, a closet religious metaphysician laid bare. In addition, the disciples of evolution choose not to notice the shift from observable science to a religious-philosophical argument when it comes to explaining self-conciseness.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
After experiencing a controlled stopping of the heart and restarting it, an awareness of eternity’s closeness became very real. Hence, the title of this study. It is not true later in life; everyone from conception onwards is living on the edge of eternity. Humanity’s life span is incredibly short. This study will look at several Scriptural texts that emphasize this reality.
Scriptures on the shortness of a man’s life:
“For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.” (1 Chronicles 29:15) (KJV unless otherwise noted)
“Oh, remember that my life is a breath! [some translations use “wind”] My eye will never again see good.” (Job 7:7 NKJV)
From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Job 7:7: “That my life is wind – Life is often compared with a vapor, a shadow, a breath. The language denotes that it is frail, and soon passed – as the breeze blows upon us, and soon passes by; compare Psalm 78:39:
For he remembered that they were but flesh;
A wind that passeth away and cometh not again.” (1)
“For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow.” (Job 8:9)
From John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Job 8:9:
“because our days upon earth are a shadow; man’s time is rather measured by days than by months and years, being so short; and these are called “days” on earth, to distinguish them from the days of heaven, which are one everlasting day, in which there is no night of darkness, either in a literal or figurative sense, and which will never end; but the days of this life are like a “shadow”, dark and obscure; full of the darkness of adversity and trouble, as well as greatly deficient in the light of knowledge; there is nothing in them solid and substantial; the greatest and best things of this life are but a vain show; in heaven there is a better and more enduring substance: everything is mutable and uncertain here; man is subject to a variety of changes in his mind and body, in family and outward estate and circumstances: and life itself is but a vapour, which appears a while and soon vanishes away; or rather like a shadow, that declines, is fleeting, and quickly gone; see 1 Chronicles 29:15.” (2)
“He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.” (Job 14:2)
From the Pulpit Commentary on Job 14:2: “Verse 2. – He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down. Few similes are more frequently used in Scripture (comp. Psalm 103:15; Isaiah 28:1, 4; Isaiah 40:6, 7; James 1:10, 11; 1 Peter 1:24), and certainly none could have more poetic beauty. Eastern flowers do not often last much more than a day. He fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not (comp. Job 7:2; Job 8:9; 1 Chronicles 29:15; Psalm 102:11; Psalm 109:23; Ecclesiastes 6:12, etc.). Shadows are always changing; but the shadows which flee away the fastest, and which Job has probably in his mind, are those of clouds, or other moving objects, which seem to chase each other over the earth, and never to continue for a single minute in one stay.” (3)
“Indeed, You have made my days as handbreadths, And my age is as nothing before You; Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor. Selah” (Psalm 39:5 NKJV)
“For He remembered that they were but flesh a breath that passes away and does not come again.” (Psalm 78:39 NKJV)
“Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?” (Psalm 89:47)
From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Psalm 89:47: “Remember how short my time is – The word rendered “time” – חלד cheled – means duration; lifetime. Psalm 39:5. Then it means life; time; age, the world. Literally, here, “Remember; I; what duration.” The meaning is plain. Bear in remembrance that my time must soon come to an end. Life is brief. In a short period the time will come for me to die; and if these promises are fulfilled to me, it must be done soon. Remember that these troubles and sorrows cannot continue for a much longer period without exhausting all my appointed time upon the earth. If God was ever to interpose and bless him, it must be done speedily, for he would soon pass away. The promised bestowment of favor must be conferred soon, or it could not be conferred at all. The psalmist prays that God would remember this. So it is proper for us to pray that God would bless us soon; that he would not withhold his grace now; that there may be no delay; that he would (we may say it with reverence) bear in remembrance that our life is very brief, and that if grace is to be bestowed in order to save us, or in order to make us useful, it must be bestowed soon. A young man may properly employ this prayer; how much more appropriately one who is rapidly approaching old age, and the end of life!” (4)
“For my days are consumed like smoke, and my bones are burned as a hearth.” (Psalm 102:3)
From the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on Psalm 102:3: “3. Like smoke or, in smoke, a natural figure for speedy and complete disappearance. Cp. Psalm 37:20; James 4:14.
Are burnt as a hearth Rather (cp. P.B.V. and R.V.), burn as a firebrand. He compares himself to a sick man whose strength is being consumed by the burning heat of fever. Cp. Psalm 22:15; Jeremiah 20:9.” (5)
“Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away.” (Psalm 144:4)
“Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” (Proverbs 27:1)
“Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?” (Isaiah 2:22)
From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Isaiah 2:22: “(22) Cease ye from man . . .—The verse is wanting in some MSS. of the LXX. version, and is rejected by some critics, as of the nature of a marginal comment, and as not in harmony with the context. The first fact is the most weighty argument against it, but is not decisive. The other objection does not count for much. To “cease from man” as well as from “idols” is surely the natural close of the great discourse which had begun with proclaiming that men of all classes and conditions should be brought low. The words “whose breath is in his nostrils” emphasise the frailty of human life (Genesis 2:7; Genesis 7:22; Psalm 146:3-4). Looking to that frailty, the prophet asks, as the psalmist had asked, “What is man? (Psalm 8:1). What is he to be valued at?” If it could be proved that the verse was not Isaiah’s, it is at least the reflection of a devout mind in harmony with his.” (6)
“The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely, the people is grass.” (Isaiah 40:6-7)
“I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass.” (Isaiah 51:12)
From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Isaiah 51:12: “Who art thou? How unreasonable and distrustful art thou, O my church! How unlike to thyself! How unsuitable in these despondencies unto thy own professions and obligations!
Of the son of man which shall be made as grass, of a weak mortal and perishing creature.” (7)
“But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.” (James 1:10)
“Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” (James 4:14)
From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on James 4:14: “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow,…. Whether there would be a morrow for them or not, whether they should live till tomorrow; and if they should, they knew not what a morrow would bring forth, or what things would happen, which might prevent their intended journey and success: no man can secure a day, an hour, a moment, and much less a year of continuance in this life; nor can he foresee what will befall him today or tomorrow; therefore it is great stupidity to determine on this, and the other, without the leave of God, in whom he lives, moves, and has his being; and by whose providence all events are governed and directed; see Proverbs 27:1
For what is your life? Of what kind and nature is it? What assurance can be had of the continuance of it? By what may it be expressed? Or to what may it be compared?
it is even a vapour that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away; which rises out of the earth, or water, and expires almost as soon as it exists; at least, continues but a very short time, and is very weak and fleeting, and carried about here and there, and soon returns from whence it came: the allusion is to the breath of man, which is in his nostrils, and who is not to be accounted of, or depended on.” (8)
“For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:24-25)
Observations:
Whether the above texts compare a man’s life with grass, smoke, a breath, a flower, or vapor, they emphasize the frailty and shortness of human life. Even a non-Christian would agree that a man’s life is short and fragile.
Implications for life:
Given this reality about the shortness of life frailty, some may conclude it is time to party. Others may seek and reflect up the meaning and purpose of life.
Does your life have meaning is it significant? What will happen after your last breath? How can a person know? There are many theories about this? Are these theories nothing more than unprovable speculations? If not, how do you know? This writer has perfect peace about the last breath and entering into eternity. Ask how it is possible to have this peace.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Job, and Vol. 5 p. 325.
2. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Job, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), p. 167.
3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Job, Vol.7, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 244.
4. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Psalms, Vol. 5 p.1458.
5. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Alexander Francis Kirkpatrick, Psalms, (Cambridge University Press, 1901), p. 594.
6. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Isaiah, Vol.5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 424.
7. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Isaiah, Vol. 2, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 640.
8. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, James, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), p. 70-71. Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura
What does the Bible mean when it says, “All Israel shall be saved”? By Jack Kettler
“And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, there shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” (Romans 11:26)
· How has this passage been interpreted historically?
· For example, is the apostle looking beyond the Old Testament typology of Israel to the larger Church made up of all of God’s elect consisting of both Jews and Gentiles?
· If Romans 11:26 is taken at face value, it seems to be saying that everyone in Israel literally will be saved.
· If so, would this mean every Jewish person throughout all of history will be saved, or only at some specific time in history?
Points two and four or some variation with qualifications; are the two major viewpoints or interpretive approaches to the passage.
First, was Paul referencing other Old Testament Scriptures in Romans 11:26?
“But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.” (Isaiah 45:17)
“And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 59:20)
“At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:1)
The above three passages, reiterate the theme that is seen concerning Israel’s redemption throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.
For example:
“And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” (Genesis 17:7)
Paul most certainly had the above passages in mind when he penned Romans 11:26. These Old Testament passages affirm what is said in Romans 11:26; they do not answer the introductory questions about how many in Israel, what time period, and does Israel a type of a larger group of people to be saved.
It is always helpful to survey how Romans 11:26 has been interpreted in the past. There are several competing interpretations.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges describes some of the different approaches to interpreting this passage: “26. And so all Israel shall be saved several interpretations of these words are in themselves legitimate. They may refer (A) to the natural Israel, the Jews; or (B) to the “Israel of God,” the true Church of Christ. Again, if the reference (A) is adopted, the prophecy may mean (a) that then all the elect of Israel shall at length be gathered in—the long process shall at length be complete; or (b) that every individual of the then generation of Jews shall be brought to Messiah’s grace; or (c) that “all” bears a less exact reference here, as so often in Scripture, and means “in general;”—“Israel in general, the Jews of that day as a great aggregate, on a scale unknown before, shall be saved.”
Of these various possibilities we prefer on the whole (A. c,) as the most in accord with the context, and with the analogy of Scripture. The explanation (B) is in itself entirely true: the final glory and triumph of the Gospel will surely be, not specially the salvation of the Jews, but that of the Universal Church—the immortal Bride of the King Eternal. And it is extremely important to remember the full recognition in Scripture of all its true members as the “seed of Abraham” (Galatians 3:29). But this is not the truth exactly in point here, where St Paul is dealing with the special prospect of a time when “blindness in part” will no longer characterize Jews as Jews. And the “Israel” of Romans 11:25 is probably the Israel of Romans 11:26, as no distinction is suggested in the interval.—Again, the reference marked (A. a), though perfectly true in itself, is less likely here because in Romans 11:15; Romans 11:25, we have had already a prediction of a restoration of Jews, en masse, to grace; whereas the process of gathering in the elect of all ages is continuous, and thus, on the whole, gradual.—Again, the reference marked (A. b), though the Divine Plan may, of course, intend no less, is far from analogous to the main teaching of Scripture as to the developements (even the largest) of grace in this world.—On the whole, then, we adopt the interpretation which explains the sentence as predicting the conversion of some generation or generations of Jews, a conversion so real and so vastly extensive that unbelief shall be the small exception at the most, and that Jews as such shall everywhere be recognized as true Christians, lights in the world, and salt on the earth.” (1)
In the next commentary selection, a view will be considered that “all Israel” refers to all of Israel at a specific point in history will be saved.
It will be helpful to consider Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Romans 11:26 for the first or the (A) entry viewpoint as noted by the Cambridge commentary: “Here is a third and chief part of the aforementioned mystery, that in the end,
all Israel shall be saved. By Israel is not meant the whole church of God, consisting of Jews and Gentiles; so that word is used, Galatians 6:16, and elsewhere; for then, what he spake would have been no mystery at all: but by Israel here (as in the precedent verse) you must understand, the nation and people of the Jews. And by
all Israel is not meant every individual Israelite, but many, or (it may be) the greatest part of them. So all is to be taken in Scripture: see John 6:45 1 Timothy 2:6, and elsewhere. Look, as when he speaks of the conversion of the Gentiles, and the coming in of their fulness, there are many (too many of them) still unconverted; so, notwithstanding the general calling of the Jews, a great many of them may remain uncalled.
As it is written; the apostle had this by revelation, but he proves it also by Scripture. All are not agreed from whence these testimonies are taken; the former is found (with some little variation) in Isaiah 59:20: as for the latter, some think it is taken from Jeremiah 31:33. Others think, that he joineth two places in Isaiah together, (as he did before, Romans 11:8), and the last words are taken out of Isaiah 27:9. The Seventy have the very words used by the apostle. These prophecies and promises, though they were in part fulfilled when Christ came in the flesh, {see Acts 3:26} yet there will be a more full and complete accomplishment thereof upon the Jewish nation and people towards the end of the world.” (2)
John Calvin represents a second view or (B) entry, as noted by the Cambridge commentary as a type for all of God’s elect people from the Jews and Gentiles.
It would be good to consider his line of reasoning from John Calvin on Romans 11:26: “26. And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Galatians 6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.
As it is written, etc. He does not confirm the whole passage by this testimony of Isaiah, (Isaiah 59:20,) but only one clause, — that the children of Abraham shall be partakers of redemption. But if one takes this view, — that Christ had been promised and offered to them, but that as they rejected him, they were deprived of his grace; yet the Prophet’s words express more, even this, — that there will be some remnant, who, having repented, shall enjoy the favor of deliverance.
Paul, however, does not quote what we read in Isaiah, word for word;
“Come,” he says, “shall a Redeemer to Sion, and to those who shall repent of iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 59:20.)
But on this point we need not be very curious; only this is to be regarded, that the Apostles suitably apply to their purpose whatever proofs they adduce from the Old Testament; for their object was to point but passages, as it were by the finger, that readers might be directed to the fountain itself.
But though in this prophecy deliverance to the spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included; yet as the Jews are the first-born, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that Scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, whom God had preferred to all other nations. And then, from a regard to the ancient covenant, he says expressly, that a Redeemer shall come to Sion; and he adds, that he will redeem those in Jacob who shall return from their transgression. By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. And though fitter for his purpose would have been the expression used by the Prophet, “shall come to Sion;” yet Paul made no scruple to follow the commonly received translation, which reads, “The Redeemer shall come forth from Mount Sion.” And similar is the case as to the second part, “He shall turn away iniquities from Jacob:” for Paul thought it enough to regard this point only, — that as it is Christ’s peculiar office to reconcile to God an apostate and faithless people, some change was surely to be looked for, lest they should all perish together.” (3)
The following summary of the three most prominent views by Simon J. Kistemaker is constructive:Three Interpretations
A. “The Most Popular Theory
“All Israel” indicates the mass of Jews living on earth in the end-time. The full number of elect Gentiles will be gathered in. After that the mass of the Jews—Israel on a large scale—will be saved. This will happen just previous to, or at the very moment of, Christ’s Return.
For the names of some of the advocates of this theory, see p. 307.
Evaluation
a. The Greek word οὕτως does not mean then or after that. The rendering “Then all Israel will be saved” is wrong. In none of the other occurrences of this word in Romans, or anywhere else in the New Testament, does this word have that meaning. It means so, in this manner, thus.
b. This theory also fails to do justice to the word all in “all Israel.” Does not “all Israel” sound very strange as a description of the (comparatively) tiny fraction of Jews who will still be living on earth just before, or at the moment of, Christ’s Return?
c. The context clearly indicates that in writing about the salvation of Israelites and Gentiles Paul is not limiting his thoughts to what will take place in the future. He very definitely includes what is happening now. See especially verses 30, 31.
d. Would it not be strange for God to single out for a very special favor—nothing less than salvation full and free—exactly that generation of Jews which will have hardened its heart against the testimony of the longest train of Christian witnesses, a train extending all the way from the days of Christ’s sojourn on earth—in fact, in a sense, all the way from Abraham—to the close of the new dispensation?
e. The reader has not been prepared for the idea of a mass conversion of Israelites. All along Paul stresses the very opposite, namely, the salvation, in any age (past, present, future) of a remnant. See the passages listed under 11:5, p. 363. If Rom. 11:26 actually teaches a mass conversion of Jews, would it not seem as if Paul is saying, “Forget what I told you previously”?
f. If Paul is here predicting such a future mass conversion of Jews, is he not, contradicting, if not the letter, at least the spirit, of his earlier statement found in 1 Thess. 2:14b–16:
“… the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and do not please God, and are hostile to all men, in that they try to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But upon them the wrath [of God] has come to the uttermost”?
g. The immediately following context (11:26b, 27) refers to a coming of “the Deliverer” who will turn away godlessness and remove sin from Jacob. Was not that the purpose of Christ’s first coming? But the popular interpretation of Rom. 11:26 predicts a mass conversion of Jews in connection with Christ’s second coming. That theory is, accordingly, not in harmony with the context.
For these several reasons Interpretation A. should be rejected.
B. John Calvin’s Theory
“All Israel” refers to the total number of the elect throughout history, all those who are ultimately saved both Jews and Gentiles. In his Commentary on his passage Calvin expresses himself as follows:
“I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning: when the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also will return from their defection to the obedience of faith, and thus will be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both …”
The same view is defended by J. A. C. Van Leeuwen and D. Jacobs, op. cit., p. 227; and, in a sense, by Karl Barth, Der Römerbrief, Zürich, 1954, p. 401; English tr., p. 416.
Evaluation
In as far as Calvin interprets the term Israel spiritually—“Israel” refers to the elect—his theory must be considered correct. Cf. Rom. 9:6. Also his claim that the section, verses 25–32 (considered as a unit), describes the one people of God cannot be successfully refuted. On the other hand, Calvin’s application of the term “Israel,” in verse 26, to all the people of God, both Jews and Gentiles, is wrong. In the preceding context the words Israel, Isrealites (s) occur no less than eleven times: 9:4; 9:6 (twice); 9:27; 9:31; 10:19; 10:21; 11:1; 11:2; 11:7; and 11:25. In each case the reference is clearly to Jews, never to Gentiles. What compelling reason can there be, therefore, to adopt a different meaning for the term Israel as used here in 11:26? To be sure, at the close of verse 25 the apostle makes mention of the Gentiles, but only in order to indicate that the partial hardening of the Jews will not cease until every elect Gentile will have been brought into the kingdom. Accordingly, Paul is still talking about the Jews. He does so also in verse 26b. Even verse 28 contains a clear reference to Jews. Not until verses 30–32 are reached does the apostle cause the entire body of the elect, both Jews and Gentiles, to pass in review together.
Therefore, while appreciating the good elements in Calvin’s explanation, we cannot agree with him in interpreting the term “all Israel” in 11:26 as referring to all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles. A passage should be interpreted in light of its context. In the present case the context points to Jews, not to Gentiles, nor in verses 26–29 to a combination of Jews and Gentiles.
C. A Third Theory
The term “All Israel” means the total number of elect Jews, the sum of all Israel’s “remnants.” “All Israel” parallels “the fulness of the Gentiles.” Verses 25. 26 make it very clear that God is dealing with both groups, has been saving them, is saving them, and is going to save them. And if “All Israel” indicates, as it does, that not a single elect Israelite will be lacking “when the roll is called up yonder,” then “the fulness of the Gentiles” similarly shows that when the attendance is checked every elect Gentile will answer “Present.”
For the meaning of “will be saved” see on 1:16, p. 60. For Jew and Gentile the way of salvation is the same. In fact, their paths run side by side. Opportunity to be saved will have ended for both when Christ returns. As indicated previously, the two—“the fulness of the Gentiles” and “All Israel”—constitute one organism, symbolized by a single olive tree. It should be clear that if, in the present connection, fulness must be interpreted in its unlimited sense, the same holds for all in “All Israel.”
The words “And so” are explained by Paul himself. They indicate, “In such a marvelous manner,” a manner no one could have guessed. If God had not revealed this “mystery” to Paul, he would not have known it. It was, in fact, astonishing. The very rejection of the majority of Israelites, throughout history recurring again and again, was, is, and will be, a link in the effectuation of Israel’s salvation. For details, see above, p. 366, 367, 377, 378 (Rom. 11:11, 12, 25).
Although, to be sure, this interpretation is not nearly as popular as is theory A, among its defenders are men of recognized scholarship (as holds also, of course, for theories A and B). Let me mention but a few.
One of the propositions successfully defended by S. Volbeda, when he received his summa cum laude doctor of theology degree from the Free University of Amsterdam was: “The term ‘all Israel’ in Rom. 11:26a must be understood as indicating the collective elect out of Israel.”
H. Bavinck, author of the four-volume work Gereformeerde Dogmatiek [Reformed Dogmatics], states, “ ‘All Israel’ in 11:26, is not the people of Israel, destined lo be converted collectively, neither is it the church consisting of united Jews and Gentiles; but it is the full number which during the course of the centuries is gathered out of Israel.” Cf. H. Hoeksema, God’s Eternal Good Pleasure, Grand Rapids, 1950, p. 465.
And L. Berkhof states, “‘All Israel’ is to be understood as a designation not of the whole nation but of the whole number of the elect out of the ancient covenant people … and the adverb οὕτως cannot mean ‘after that,’ but only ‘in this manner.’ ”
For a similar interpretation, see H. Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 263.
Not only scholars of Reformed persuasion and Dutch nationality or lineage have adopted this interpretation, but so have many others, as is clear from a glance at Lenski’s commentary on Romans, pp. 714, 726, 727. See also O. Palmer Robertson, “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans II?,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, Grand Rapids, 1979, pp. 81–94. These interpreters are convinced that this is the only interpretation that suits the text and context.” (4)
A fourth theory: A partial preterist assessment of Romans 11:26:
All Israel will be saved: Notes on Romans 11:26 by Gary DeMar: “As with most theological positions, there are a variety of interpretations of this passage: (1) The salvation of every racial/ethnic Jew. This is an impossible interpretation. Why preach the gospel to the Jews if they’re all going to be saved?”[1] (2) the salvation of believers–racial and spiritual Jews–throughout history. This position changes the meaning of Israel, going from literal (Rom. 11:1) to spiritual (11:26). While it’s possible; it’s unlikely; (3) the salvation of a remnant of Jews at the end of history. This is the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith (Q. 191 LC). Two-thousand years have passed since Romans was written. The Jews have had plenty of time to be “jealous” (Rom. 11:11). The Jews in Paul’s day were jealous. That’s why Jews were persecuting the church; (4) salvation of those Jews who survive the Great Tribulation. This becomes a debate over when the GT took/takes place. A remnant of Jews was saved prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, therefore, the GT is a past event; (5) the remnant of Jews living during the period of covenant transition until the time Jerusalem was judged and the temple destroyed. This interpretation makes the most sense given the time indicators in the passage.
“I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom. 11:1).1. Paul is describing the remnant in his day (11:5) in the same way that Elijah was describing the remnant in his own day (1 Kings 19:10).
· The remnant is alive “at the present time” (11:5), that is, in Paul’s day. It’s this remnant that Paul hopes to save through the preaching of the gospel, many of whom have already been saved (cf. Acts 2:5–12, 37–41).
2. There is no mention of a future tribulation or an “after the rapture” period in Romans 9–11.
3. Paul wants to save “some” of his “fellow-countrymen” (11:14).
· He is speaking of the present.
· What help is Paul’s “ministry” (11:13) going to be more than 2000 years in the future?: “So these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy” (11:31).
4. Save them from what? Save them from the coming judgment upon Jerusalem that took place in A.D. 70.
Endnotes:[1] “Some see [‘all Israel’] in a diachronic sense, namely, that ‘all Israel’ refers to the nation as it has existed throughout history and that will have a share in the world to come (Sanhedrin 10:1) after the resurrection. Others take it in a synchronic sense where ‘all Israel’ refers to the nation only as it exists at a moment in history, particularly at the end of time as a part of the eschatological program. The second alternative is preferred. Moo states, ‘No occurrence of the phrase “all Israel” has a clearly diachronic meaning.’ Furthermore, the context speaks of Israel’s rejection of Messiah and her hardening, which was to continue until the time when the fullness of Gentiles should come in. Then, in sharp contrast, at a particular moment in history, ‘all Israel’ will experience salvation” (Harold W. Hoehner, “Israel in Romans 9–11,” Israel: The Land and the People–An Evangelical Affirmation of God’s Promises, ed. H. Wayne House [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1998], 156).” (6)
In closing:
Romans 11:26 is a challenging passage to interpret. In the viewpoints surveyed, all have elements of truth. Thankfully, salvation does not hinge on a perfect interpretation of this passage.
This writer agrees with the Cambridge commentary that: “Of these various possibilities we prefer on the whole (A. c,) as the most in accord with the context, and with the analogy of Scripture. The explanation (B) is in itself entirely true: the final glory and triumph of the Gospel will surely be, not specially the salvation of the Jews, but that of the Universal Church—the immortal Bride of the King Eternal.”
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, H. C. G. Moule, Romans, (Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1892), p. 199-200.
2. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Matthew, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 519-520.
3. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Romans, Volume XIX, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 437-439.
4. Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, Romans, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1982), pp. 379-382.
5. Gary DeMar, American Vision, All Israel will be saved: Notes on Romans 11:26, (online, 2004)
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
What does the Bible say about education? By Jack Kettler
What does the Bible say regarding education? As much as it seems unthinkable, should Christians turn over their children to non-believers to be educated? In this study, both the Old and New Testaments will be surveyed to answer this question. Some noteworthy Christian thinkers will be quoted who have worked out the philosophy and theology of a distinctively Christian education.
Old Testament texts that mention education:
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7)
“I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.” (Psalm 32:8)
“My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother.” (Proverbs 1:8)
“Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.” (Proverbs 4:13)
“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6)
“And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD, and great shall be the peace of thy children.” (Isaiah 54:13)
New Testament Texts that mention education:
“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33)
“And, ye fathers provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4)
“Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” (Colossians 1:28)
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
Observations:
Some of the passages above do not specifically mention the Word of God, like “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6)
To believe that Proverbs 22:6 can be understood to be instruction minus the Word of God is preposterous. It is presupposed in Scripture, exhortations to learn, educate, and to seek knowledge and wisdom embraces the Word of God as the starting point and ends with man. Government education starts with an autonomous man and his wisdom as the starting point and ends with man’s opinions. Since both approaches have different starting points, both will end at different end places.
The above is a shortlist of passages on the topic of education. It is incontrovertible that the Word of God is the fountainhead of righteous education. Furthermore, it is indisputable that not one example of Christians being encouraged or commanded to submit their children to non-Christians for education can be shown.
Reasons for a distinctively Christian education:
1. God commands it. See above (Deuteronomy 6:6-7)
2. God, in general, forbids socializing with the pagans. – “Do not be deceived: Evil company corrupts good habits.” (1 Corinthians 15:33 NKJV)
3. It is profitable. See above (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
The wrong reasons for sending children to pagans to be educated:
1. Socialization is important and supposedly missing from a Christian education.
2. Who will evangelize the pagans in the government schools?
First:
The supposed lack of socialization in Christian education is an outright lie.
Second:
No doubt, there are cases where Christian students witness to others in pagan government schools. However, evangelism can be a two-way street. What about the recruitment techniques conducted by pagans in ongoing attempts to convert Christian students into paganism? The main thrust of Christian education is learning to think biblically and evaluating ethics, science, and history in terms of a Christian theistic worldview.
Fact:
There is no such thing as neutrality. The next two points are reasons to protect Christian children from ungodly educational indoctrination.
1. Creation is not taught in government schools. Christian children are subjected to ongoing Darwinian propaganda. This propaganda has been the ruin of many.
2. The sex education in government schools in an abomination to God. Examples need not be given. It should go without saying, how could any parent allow their children to be subjected to this type of perverted indoctrination? In the past, Christian children could, with parental requests, have their children opt-out of the ungodly indoctrination.
Observations and implications of non-Christian education by notable scholars:
A bio: Gordon Haddon Clark was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian. He was a leading figure associated with presuppositional apologetics and was chair of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years. Wikipedia
Gordon H. Clark has this to say when summing up his chapter on neutrality:
“There is no neutrality.
Obviously, the schools are not Christian. Just as obviously, they are not neutral. The Scriptures say that the fear of the Lord is the chief part of knowledge; but the schools, by omitting all reference to God, give the pupils the notion that knowledge can be had apart from God. They teach in effect that God has no control of history, that there is no plan of events that God is working out, that God does not foreordain whatsoever comes to pass. Aside from definite anti-Christian instruction to be discussed later, the public schools are not, never were, can never be, neutral. Neutrality is impossible. Let one ask what neutrality can possibly mean when God is involved. How does God judge the school system, which says to him, “O God, we neither deny nor assert thy existence; and O God, we neither obey nor disobey thy commandments; we are strictly neutral.” Let no one fail to see the point: The school system that ignores God teaches its pupils to ignore God; and this is not neutrality. It is the worst form of antagonism, for it judges God to be unimportant and irrelevant in human affairs. This is atheism.” (1)
A bio: Rousas John Rushdoony was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as being the father of Christian Reconstructionism and an inspiration for the modern Christian homeschool movement. Wikipedia
Rushdoony’s book was on the Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til, was titled By What Standard deals with many ideas relevant to education: “The Christian thinker, laboring as he often must on alien ground, has too often embraced as his own a non-Christian principle which he believed would be fruitful in terms of Christian thought. He has made bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh a principle which he has believed would bear fruit in a Christian world-view. This resultant hybrid world-view he believed would fall heir to this world’s substance and show mastery and dominion over the human mind. In this expectation, early Christian thinkers embraced Platonism; the scholastics, Aristotelianism; the men of the enlightenment era Cartesianism and rationalism, and men of the 19th and 20th centuries, Kantianism, existentialism, and other alien brides, hoping thereby that in the dark they held Rachel. But, ‘in the morning, behold, it was Leah’!” (2)
In his book, The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum, Rushdoony analyzes both Greek and Roman education. He identified both as humanism and as statist: “The statist purpose of humanistic education was even more clearly emphasized by the Romans. According to Grimal, “Roman morality has a very distinct aim — the subordination of the individual to the City.” Religion and piety had reference to the City, for the gods with the gods of the City, and religion, by binding man to the gods, bound them to the City of the gods. . . .
The liberal arts curriculum thus had a statist orientation. Man’s liberty, man’s salvation, was to be found in faithful subordination of himself and all his being to the City of Man. The chief end of man, a political and social animal, was to glorify the state and to serve and enjoy it all the days of his life.
It is not surprising therefore, that Christianity came into rapid conflict with Rome and the entire world. It was a battle between Christ and Caesar, between the City of God and the City of Man, for control of the world and of history. One hand, the emphasis was on the triune God and His eternal decree, and on the other hand the emphasis was on the primacy of time, on the civil order as the order of the incarnation and divinity, and on the temporal decree of the total state.” (3)
Rushdoony makes another astute observation that has implications for all of life and in particular, education: “God is thus the principle of definition, of law, and of all things. He is the premise of all thinking, and the necessary presupposition for every sphere of thought. It is blasphemy therefore to attempt to “prove” God; God is the necessary presupposition of all proof. To ground any sphere of thought, life, or action, or any sphere of being, on anything other than the triune God is thus blasphemy. Education without God as its premise, law which does not presuppose God and rest on His law, a civil order which does not derive all authority from God, or a family whose foundation is not God’s word, is blasphemous.” (4)
A bio: John Gresham Machen, (born July 28, 1881, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.—died January 1, 1937, Bismarck, North Dakota), American Presbyterian theologian and fundamentalist leader.
Born to a prominent family in Baltimore, Machen later studied at Johns Hopkins University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and the universities at Marburg and Göttingen. In 1906, he joined the faculty of the Princeton Theological Seminary. He criticized liberal Protestantism as unbiblical and unhistorical in his Christianity and Liberalism (1923) and struggled to preserve the conservative character of the Princeton Theological Seminary. He left Princeton in 1929 after the school was reorganized and adopted a more accepting attitude toward liberal Protestantism, and he helped found Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1914, Machen was suspended from the ministry by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., for his opposition to modern liberal revision of the 17th-century English Presbyterian creed, the Westminster Confession. Following his suspension from the ministry, he helped found the Presbyterian Church in America, which became the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1939. Machen was a major theological voice in support of conservative Christianity. Encyclopedia Britannica
Machen had this to say about public education in 1923: “A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument for tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the Middle Ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective.” (5)
Another incisive observation from Pretoria, South Africa: “What is more, the Old and New Testaments are not only the basis and pattern for Christian education; they also constitute its content. Christian education is through and through about these two Testaments, otherwise it ceases to be Christian education, unless it has been used to mean the approach in all teaching, and not the content. It is for this reason that Paul the apostle reminded Timothy, “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (II Timothy 3:16, 17). It is against this background that the history of Christian (Religious) education is traced from the Old and New Testaments.” (6)
Christian education is in direct conflict humanistic or statist ungodly education. Christian education requires a sacrifice financially; nevertheless, Christian education is the standard and the fountainhead of all knowledge. This view can be called “Scripturalism.”
Scripturalism, the following is a paraphrase of Gordon H. Clark on the Christian starting principle: “Scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible).”
From the principle of Scripturalism, the implications of knowledge are stated. The Bible contains the Christian’s starting principles or presuppositions. Therefore, it can be said that God speaks to us in the Scriptures with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. The Christian worldview has the necessary preconditions to talk intelligently and give justification for the use of logic, science, and morality. In ungodly education, nothing can be defined as right or wrong since there is no fixed law system.
The mixing or synthesizing a God-centered and man as the ultimate determiner of interpretation-centered education is the destruction of knowledge. How exactly? The following quotes from Cornelius Van Til explain: “How shortsighted and how uncultured, then, are the efforts of believers in Christ when they seek for snatches of worldly culture for themselves by placing themselves, as they think, on common ground with those who are not believers in Christ. How dishonoring to their Christ if they allow that any culture endures unless it be because of the power of his resurrection in the world. If you have been taken out of the miry clay, do you jump back into it because of some glistening objects that you see in it? Do you run back into the house now almost burned to the ground in order to save your silverware? It is only those who are believers in Christ that will inherit the earth and all the fulness thereof.” (7)
“Non-Christian education is Godless education . . . Godless or nontheistic education is therefore also non- or anti-Christian education. Godless, non-Christian education naturally becomes humanistic, i.e., man-centered. If man does not need to live for God, he may live for himself. If then we want a God-centered and truly Christian education, we will have to break away completely from the educational philosophy that surrounds us.” (8)
In closing, the Bible, the fountainhead of all education and knowledge:
“The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity.” – Immanuel Kant
“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures…[and] are found upon comparison to be part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” – Sir William Blackstone
“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.” – Patrick Henry
“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure; its examples are captivating and noble. In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.” – Fisher Ames
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison
“By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime.” – Benjamin Rush
“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” – Daniel Webster
“Education is useless without the Bible,” “The Bible was America’s basic textbook in all fields,” “God’s Word, contained in the Bible, has furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct.” – Noah Webster
“It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.” – Horace Greeley
“The Bible is the only force known to history that has freed entire nations from corruption while simultaneously giving them political freedom.” – Vishal Mangalwadi
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, (Jefferson, Maryland, Trinity Foundation), p. 60.
2. R. J. Rushdoony, By What Standard? (Tyler, Texas, Thobern Press, reprinted 1983), p. 1-2.
3. R. J. Rushdoony, The Philosophy Of The Christian Curriculum (Vallecito, CA, Ross House Book, 1981), p. 5-6.
4. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984), p. 127.
5. John Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans Publishing), p. 14.
6. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION The University of Pretoria, Chapter 5, page 2.
7. Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1979), p. 8.
8. Louis Berkhof, Cornelius Van Til, Foundations of Christian Education, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, reprinted 1990), p. 3.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
What does the Bible say about burial and cremation? By Jack Kettler
What does the Bible say regarding putting to rest the dead? In this study, both the Old and New Testaments will be surveyed to answer this question.
Old Testament texts that mention burial:
“And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan.” (Genesis 23:19)
“The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.” (Genesis 25:10)
“But I will lie with my fathers, and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying place. And he said I will do as thou hast said.” (Genesis 47:30)
“And he charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto my people: bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite.” (Genesis 49:29)
“There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah.” (Genesis 49:31)
“His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 21:23)
“So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And He [God] buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.” (Deuteronomy 34:5-6)
“Let thy servant, I pray thee, turn back again, that I may die in mine own city, and be buried by the grave of my father and of my mother. But behold thy servant Chimham; let him go over with my lord the king; and do to him what shall seem good unto thee.” (2 Samuel 19:37)
“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2)
New Testament Texts that mention burial:
“But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.” (Matthew 8:22)
“Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.” (John 11:38)
“But Mary stood without at the sepulchre [tomb μνημεῖον (mnēmeion)] weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.” (John 20:11-12)
“Men and brethren let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” (Acts 2:29)
The doctrine of the resurrection taught with the example of burial:
“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in resurrection.” (Romans 6:4-5)
“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:12)
In the Romans and Colossians texts, a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is taught using the example of Christ’s death and burial, namely, the resurrection. In and of itself, this a compelling argument for traditional Christian burial.
The Bible and cremation:
The Bible is silent about cremation as an alternative burial choice. It would seem therefore, that cremation is not forbidden. If the Bible in the Old and New Testaments do not specifically condemn practice, the church should be careful to outlaw a practice.
There are cases of burning the dead; it should be noticed that these cases are not burials.
“If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.” (Leviticus 20:14)
“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)
“And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.” (Joshua 7:15) In the Old Testament, Achan and his family were stoned and then burned.
Another example of burning and judgment is “Thus saith the LORD; for three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime.” (Amos 2:1)
These examples of burnings were a judgment, and therefore cannot be considered an alternative to burials.
To Bury or Cremate? (Updated) by R. Scott Clark:
“Update: Diarmaid MacCulloch agrees (HT: Russell Moore via Aquila Report). “As hellfire receded, there advanced the literal fires of the crematorium.”
First published in 2006. Republished Aug 13, 2009.
Warning: If You’re Eating, You Might Want to Wait to Read This.
The question not infrequently comes to me: “What about cremation?”
This is an inherently difficult question because it touches a very personal and private decision: what to do with the remains of a loved one or what should be done with one’s own remains (it doesn’t get much more personal).
It’s also difficult because these are difficult decisions often made in a very emotional time.
Nevertheless, there are biblical patterns and doctrines from which we can learn and apply to this situation.
There is a consistent biblical pattern of burial of human remains. Perhaps the most outstanding OT example is Abraham’s quest to bury Sarah (Gen. 23) as a sojourner in a foreign land. Other significant examples could be cited (e.g., Jacob, Joseph and others). This is clearly the biblical pattern, carrying right through the care given to the deceased body of our Lord himself.
According to the Apostle Paul, the biblical pattern was not grounded in sentiment but in a conviction: the resurrection. In 1 Cor. 15 the Apostle Paul used an agrarian metaphor to explain the hope of the resurrection. According to Paul, our bodies are like seeds planted in hope, in the expectation of a glorious (if unusual!) harvest: the resurrection body, i.e., a glorified human body.
As my dear friend and colleague Steve Baugh graciously pointed out to me in 1985 or so, the act of cremation is at odds with the act of planting a body in the soil. For one thing, the imagery is not the same at all. Burial is done with regard to the body’s status as part of the image of God. We don’t just have a body. We are body and soul. That is who we are as image-bearers.
In modernity we’ve been taught to regard the body as a machine and in our disposable age we know what to do with broken down machines: we bin them. But the body isn’t just a machine. The materialists are wrong. However much we may think we know about the body, it is not just a machine. We are persons made in the divine image. Our bodies are part of our personhood. That is why it is wrong, a violation of creational law, to murder (Gen. 9:1-6). To attack the body is to attack the image of God.
Thus, burial is not just a cultural custom. It’s an act of faith. When there is a choice between burial and cremation, the latter isn’t just a convenience or an economy, it’s a message about the body and the nature of our humanity and our status as image-bearers.
To be sure, there may be times when burial is simply impossible. In those cases, we must act like sojourners and make do, but just because some are forced by circumstances to a difficult and unhappy choice doesn’t make that choice desirable or preferable.
As to expense, at least some of this difficulty can be faced by planning and wise stewardship. We’re Calvinists. We should expect to die (if the Lord doesn’t come first). Who believes in sin and death more than we? In that case, knowing that the funeral business is just that, a business in search of profits, if we investigate, we can probably discover less expensive modes of burial. Don’t expect the funeral home to tell you how to be buried inexpensively.
As we contemplate the last thing that will likely happen to our bodies, let us at least give some serious thought to the message we are sending about the body and its relation to the image and to human dignity rooted in the image of God. If cremation is unavoidable, we can at least arrange some clear testimony to the hope of the resurrection. If, however, cremation is just one option among many, then we must ask, are we, as much as lies within us, testifying to our hope of the bodily resurrection or are we unintentionally sending another message? There’s no question whether God can and shall reconstitute bodies at the resurrection, the question is what message are we sending by our acts? UPDATE 21 August 2009” (1)
Robert Scott Clark is an American Reformed pastor and seminary professor at Westminster Seminary, in California. He is the author of several books, including his most recent work, Recovering the Reformed Confession.
From the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) Directory of Worship?
“Article 196 of the Constitution says, “Members of the Church, having died in the faith and hope of the Gospel, shall receive a Christian burial; the burial service may be conducted according to the order prescribed by the Church.” While this sentence does not explicitly forbid cremation, it explicitly requires “Christian burial,” a term, which implicitly requires bodily interment, for “Christian burial” has been historically defined in that way. Thus, a straightforward reading of the Constitution does not conceive of the burial of cremains as a rite of the church, since no body can be present.” (2) See the link for the whole RCUS report in the for more study section.
In closing:
Biblically, there is no direct command for a burial. However, in Scripture, burial is the only method seen along with biblical analogies.
The Christian tradition of burial has additional aspects to consider. For example, in the First Century, bodies before burial or entombment were washed and anointed with spices. In other words, care and respect are shown. Additionally, during the present time, prior to burial bodies are prepared and clothed and placed in caskets to slow the process of decay and protect the remains. In some cases, personal effects are entombed with the buried saint. It is common at funeral services to hear the phrase regarding the burial being described as a sendoff.
In cremation, none of the care emphasized in the above paragraph happens. Cremation has been objectionable to many Christians as it reminds them of the lost who will be burning in Hell. Historically, cremation was practiced throughout the pagan world and later vanquished with the spread of Christianity.
One example of interest, the Hindu religion in India has practiced burning their dead and then sprinkling the ashes if possible into the Ganges River. The practice of burning the dead in India is rejected by Christians in India who see burial as a witness to the Hindus of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also noteworthy, in Eastern Orthodoxy, the practice of cremation is rejected:
Question: Can you tell me if the Orthodox Church allows cremation?
Answer: “According to Byzantine Canon Law, cremation is not permitted. Sources state that the original ban arose out of consideration for the fact that within pagan and possibly gnostic circles cremation was commonly practiced. There was also the implication that through cremation the value of physical creation, and specifically the human body, was denied.”
According to Orthodoxy, cremation is associated with paganism.
This writer takes the position of the RCUS as best reflecting the biblical standard. Christian burial signifies Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Because of this, Christians are buried in the hope of the resurrection.
Those that choose cremation should not be condemned. Many today, choose a cremation because of finances. Churches should consider in their mercy ministry funds to assist those financially to have a burial. In addition, those making the choice of cremation should be encouraged to place the remains in a cemetery with a grave marker or headstone. Why? The gravesite or internment service can be a powerful place to testify or bear witness to the truth of the gospel.
Burial and Scriptural analogies:
As seen in Daniel 12:2, Scripture depicts death as sleep and why bodies are preserved in burials. The grave connects sleep with a bed. In cremation, there are no Scriptural analogies, which correspond with this method and the hope of the resurrection, only judgment.
The apostle Paul speaking of the human body, “It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1 Corinthians 15:43-44
Paul teaches that burial is a sowing or planting of the body in 1 Corinthians 15:43-44. Some modern translations instead of “sown” use “buried” or “planted.” The sowing of seeds involves planting them. In these texts, the apostle highlights the body being “sown in corruption” and “raised in incorruption.” Christian burial where the body is laid at rest is analogous biblically to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:43-44. Cremation does not correspond to rest or sleep, which is a temporal state awaiting the glorious resurrection.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. R. Scott Clark, To Bury or Cremate? The Heidelblog First published in 2006. Republished Aug 13, 2009.
2. Report of the Study Committee of The Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States February 23, 2019.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more study:
Magnifying Christ in My Body: Is Cremation a Legitimate Alternative to Christian Burial?
1 Corinthians 11:2-16, head coverings, for today? By Jack Kettler
Should men wear hats in church? If not, what about women and head coverings?
“2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:2-16 KJV)
An overview of the text:
· Verses 2-3. the headship principle
· Verses 4-6. how the principle of headship is applied
· Verses 7-10. the significance of the created order
· Verses 11-12. the created order and the sexes
· Verses 13-16. apostolic authority and the light of nature
Introductory comments:
What is Paul teaching in this selection from his first letter to the Corinthians? How can it be summarized, and is it for today? The apostle is teaching about the created order of men and women displayed by long hair or head coverings.
Are head coverings for today? The reason why this is a question is that verse 16, which seems to in spite of what has gone before in the section of the text, invalidate the church practice of head coverings.
What is the apostle referring to when he says, “we have no such custom” in verse 16? Is Paul contradicting what he taught in verses 2-15 regarding the created order of men and women in verse 16?
The key to understanding this section from 1 Corinthians comes down to a correct understanding of verse 16 and what the apostle is referring to when he says, “we have no such custom.” What is this custom? Is “custom” referring to what he had just taught regarding the created order and the symbols of this order?
For Christians today, being far removed from the 1st Century, it is not readily apparent as to the apostle’s meaning of verse 16. To start, for the conservative exegete, biblically and logically, Paul cannot be controverting what he had just taught in the preceding verses without being guilty of a blatant contradiction.
Historically, it is evident that women have worn head coverings such as veils or hats in worship services, and men have not. Without fear of contradiction, this tradition is based upon our reading from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The head covering practice should be referred to as apostolic doctrine rather than a tradition since the use of tradition confuses the reader into thinking historic theological tradition and “custom” are the same.
The following entries will provide some historical commentary to what Paul is teaching, particularly in verses 5, 7, 10, and 13-16.
From Vincent’s Word Studies on 1 Corinthians 11:5:
“Her head uncovered
Rev., unveiled. The Greek women rarely appeared in public, but lived in strict seclusion. Unmarried women never quitted their apartments, except on occasions of festal processions, as either spectators or participants. Even after marriage, they were largely confined to the gynaeconitis or women’s rooms. Thus Euripides: “As to that which brings the reproach of a bad reputation upon her who remains not at home, giving up the desire of this, I tarried in my dwelling” (“Troades” 649). And Menander: “The door of the court is the boundary fixed for the free woman.” The headdress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl, which enveloped the body, was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the Christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man. Among the Jews, in ancient times, both married and unmarried women appeared in public unveiled. The later Jewish authorities insisted on the use of the veil.
All one as if she were shaven
Which would be a sign either of grief or of disgrace. The cutting off the hair is used by Isaiah as a figure of the entire destruction of a people by divine retribution. Isaiah 7:20 Among the Jews a woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn, with the formula: “Because thou hast departed from the manner of the daughters of Israel, who go with their head covered, therefore that has befallen thee which thou hast chosen.” According to Tacitus, among the Germans an adulteress was driven from her husband’s house with her head shaved; and the Justinian code prescribed this penalty for an adulteress, whom, at the expiration of two years, her husband refused to receive again. Paul means that a woman praying or prophesying uncovered puts herself in public opinion on a level with a courtesan.” (1)
Vincent, in his comments, says, “This custom was discountenanced by Paul.” If it can be determined, what custom was discountenanced, or which custom Paul refused to approve, the question of the continuity of head coverings for today can be answered. In refusing to approve of this custom, Paul gives his reason that it was because the custom was “striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man.”
According to Vincent, (not all Greek women) but the Corinthian women were proclaiming their right to cast off the traditional practices and symbols, which would be head coverings that signified the created order. The Corinthian women were praying or prophesying with uncovered heads.
In verse 10, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” Verse 10 has perplexed commentators over the centuries.
From Vincent’s Word Studies on 1 Corinthians 11:10:
“Power on her head (ἐξουσίαν)
Not in the primary sense of liberty or permission, but authority. Used here of the symbol of power, i.e., the covering upon the head as a sign of her husband’s authority. So Rev., a sign of authority.
Because of the angels
The holy angels, who were supposed by both the Jewish and the early Christian Church to be present in worshipping assemblies. More, however, seems to be meant than “to avoid exciting disapproval among them.” The key-note of Paul’s thought is subordination according to the original divine order. Woman best asserts her spiritual equality before God, not by unsexing herself, but by recognizing her true position and fulfilling its claims, even as do the angels, who are ministering as well as worshipping spirits (Hebrews 1:4). She is to fall in obediently with that divine economy of which she forms a part with the angels, and not to break the divine harmony, which especially asserts itself in worship, where the angelic ministers mingle with the earthly worshippers; nor to ignore the example of the holy ones who keep their first estate, and serve in the heavenly sanctuary.” (2)
For Reformed Christians, John Calvin’s view on 1 Corinthians 11:16 must be considered:
“16. But if any man seem a contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs — raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful — who do not yield to reasonings — who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those (akoinonetoi) would be singular persons who, from a foolish affectation, aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church.” (3)
Calvin believed the custom the apostle is referring to in verse 16 were to those given to arguing and being contentious about the symbols of the created order.
Our next entry is from Thomas R. Schreiner. Schreiner makes a point that verse 16 does not cancel out the commands given previously in verses 4-9. If so, this would be a serious contradiction in Scripture.
Thomas R. Schreiner is an American New Testament scholar. He is the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Thomas R. Schreiner on verse 16:
“Paul returns in the final paragraph (verses 13-16) to the main burden of the text: women’s wearing head coverings. This is another indication that verses 11-12 do not cancel out the commands given in verses 4-9. Here Paul appeals to the Corinthians’ own judgment (11:13), confident that “the very nature of things” will instruct them with respect to what is fitting or proper. What is the content of the instruction given by nature? Nature teaches that “if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,” while “if a woman has long hair, it is her glory.” What is the meaning of the word nature (physis) here? Is Paul simply saying that human tradition and customs have made a distinction between the hair length of men and women? The use of the word practice (sune ̄theia) in 11:16 could support this interpretation. But Paul’s use of nature elsewhere and the use of teach suggest that he is referring to the natural and instinctive sense of right and wrong that God has planted in us, especially with respect to sexuality. This sense of what is appropriate or fitting has been implanted in human beings from creation.28 Romans 1:26-27 is an illuminating parallel because the same word is used. Women and men involved in a homosexual relationship have exchanged the natural function of sexuality for what is contrary to nature, i.e., they have violated the God-given created order and natural instinct, and therefore are engaging in sexual relations with others of the same sex. Nature teaches, then, in the sense that the natural instincts and psychological perceptions of masculinity and femininity are manifested in particular cultural situations. Thus, a male instinctively and naturally shrinks away from doing anything that his culture labels as feminine. So, too, females have a natural inclination to dress like women rather than men. Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated-what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture.29The function of verses 13-15 in the argument is to show that the wearing of a head covering by a woman is in accord with the God-given sense that women and men are different. For a woman to dress like a man is inappropriate because it violates the distinction God has ordained between the sexes. And, according to Paul, if a woman prophesies in church without wearing the symbol of being under male authority-i.e., if she prophesies while dressed like a man-she is in effect negating the distinction between men and women that God has ordained from creation. In verse 16, Paul concludes his argument by saying, “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” Now, some have said that Paul actually rejects the wearing of head coverings by women with these words because the Greek literally says, “we have no such practice” (toiaute ̄n sune ̄theian), and thus they conclude that the practice of wearing head coverings is renounced here by Paul. But such an understanding is surely wrong. Paul in this verse is addressing the contentious, who, the previous context makes clear, do not want to wear a head covering. The practice of certain Corinthian women who refuse to wear a head covering is what Paul refers to when he says, “we have no such practice.” Thus, he says to the contentious that both the apostolic circle (“we”) and the rest of the churches adhere to the custom of head coverings. The instructions Paul has given reflect his own view of the matter and the practice of the other churches. Those who see this advice as limited only to the Corinthian situation have failed to take this verse seriously enough. Paul perceives his instructions here as binding for all churches in the Greco-Roman world. Indeed, the other churches already adhere to the practice Paul recommends here. Such a universal word at the conclusion of the text is a strong indication that the principle that underlies this passage cannot simply be dismissed as cultural.” (4)
See Schreiner’s full article at the link below in the for more study section.
Comments:
In the 1st Century, women wore head coverings, most commonly to show they were married and also in worship.
In verse 16, Paul is referring to a practice of Greek women in Corinth that were in opposition to the created order and accompanying symbols and traditions. It seems inescapable that the apostolic directive regarding head coverings is still in place. Paul’s directive, which is from the created order, or light of nature, proves that men and women are distinct. Paul uses similar language in “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” (Romans 1:26). Against nature or light of nature must mean natural revelation. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 11:16 cannot be considered a temporal, cultural phenomenon like Jesus wearing a robe, thus requiring everyone to wear robes.
In 1 Corinthians 11:16, two words are juxtaposed, contentious, and custom. The contentious person is against apostolic doctrine, namely, the outward symbols of the created order. The apostle is saying the church has no custom of debating endlessly about this teaching.
John Murray was born in Bonar Bridge, Scotland. He was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and then left to help found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for many years.
Head Coverings and Decorum in Worship: A Letter by John Murray:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th. I very deeply appreciate your request even though I may not be able to provide any definitive advice on the questions asked. Allow me to give my judgement on the second question first.
If the Presbytery becomes convinced that a head covering for women belongs to the decorum governing the conduct of women in the worship of God, then I think Presbytery should declare accordingly. I would not suppose it necessary expressly to legislate. I think it would be enough to make a resolution for the instruction and guidance of ministers, sessions, and people. A higher judicatory has both right and duty to offer to those under its jurisdiction, guidance respecting divine obligation. This has been recognised in Reformed Churches throughout the world.
Your main question turns, of course, on the interpretation of I Corinthians 11:2-16. Permit me to offer some of my reflections in order.
1. Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (vss. 3b, vss. 7ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom.
2. I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (vss. 4, & 7) and enjoined for the woman (vss. 5, 6, 15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5, 6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: “the hair is given to her for a covering.” This is within the scope of the particular argument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from “nature” of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line with what “nature” teaches.
3. There is good reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public assemblies of the Church of God and of worship exercises therein in verse 17, this is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2 begins, “Now I praise you” and verse 17, “Now in this . . . I praise you not”. The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other negative, would suggest, if not require, that both have in view the behaviour of the saints in their assemblies, that is, that in respect of denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers. If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated, it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast between “I praise you” and “I praise you not”.
4. Beyond question it is in reference to praying and prophesying that the injunctions pertain, the absence of head covering for men and the presence for women. It might seem, therefore, that the passage has nothing to do with a head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church if they are not engaged in praying or prophesying, that is, in leading in prayer or exercising the gift of prophesying. And the implication would be that only when they performed these functions were they required to use head covering. The further implication would be that they would be at liberty to perform these functions provided they wore head gear. This view could easily be adopted if it were not so that Paul forbids such exercises on the part of women and does so in the same epistle, (I Cor. 14:33b-36): “As in all the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak” (vss. 33b-34a). It is impossible to think that Paul would, by implication, lend approval in chapter 11, to what he so expressly prohibits in chapter 14. Hence we shall have to conclude that he does not contemplate praying or prophesying on the part of women in the Church in chapter 11. The question arises: how can this be, and how can we interpret 11:5, 6, 13? It is possible to interpret the verses in chapter 11 in a way that is compatible with chapter 14:33b-36. It is as follows: —
a. In chapter 11 the decorum prescribed in 14:33b-36 is distinctly in view and Paul is showing its propriety. Praying and prophesying are functions that imply authority, the authority that belongs to the man as distinguished from the woman according to the ordinance of creation. The man in exercising this authority in praying and prophesying must not wear a head covering. Why not? The head covering is the sign of subjection, the opposite of the authority that belongs to him, exemplified in praying and prophesying, hence 11:4, 7. In a word, head covering in praying and prophesying would be a contradiction.
b. But precisely here enters the relevance of verses 5, 6, 13 as they pertain to women. If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5, 6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions — praying and prophesying — on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely, the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?”
c. This interpretation removes all discrepancy between 11:5, 6, 13 and 14:33b-36 and it seems to me feasible, and consonant with the whole drift of 11:2-16.
5. The foregoing implies that the head covering for women was understood to belong to the decorum of public worship.
6. The above line of thought would derive confirmation from I Cor. 11:10. Admittedly the reference to the angels is not immediately perspicuous. But a reasonable interpretation is that the presence of the angels with the people of God and therefore their presence in the congregations of the saints. What is being pleaded is the offence given to the holy angels when the impropriety concerned mars the sanctity of God’s worship. But, in any case, the obligation asserted is apparent. It is that the woman ought to have upon her head the sign of the authority to which she is subject, in other words, the sign of her subjection. But this subjection pertains throughout and not simply when in the exercise of praying and prophesying according to the supposition that such is permitted. I submit, therefore, that the verse concerned (vs. 10) enunciates a requirement that is general within the scope of the subject with which Paul is dealing, namely, the decorum of worship in the assembly of the saints.
On these grounds my judgment is that presupposed in the Apostle’s words is the accepted practice of head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church, that apparently this part of decorum was recognised, and that the main point of verses 5, 6, 10, 13 was the impropriety of any interruption of the practice if women were to pray or prophesy, for, in that event, it would be necessary to remove the covering in order to signify the authority that praying and prophesying entailed, an authority not possessed by women, a non-possession signified, in turn, by the use of the covering.
If you so desire I could send you two copies of the Westminster Theological Journal in which opposing interpretations are given, one by Noel Weeks and the other by James B. Hurley. My interpretation has been proposed by Noel Weeks and I acknowledge my debt to him. But the argument as developed is my own. If I send you these copies of the Journal they would have to be sent by surface mail and might take two months to reach you.
With my kind regards to you and the members of your Presbytery,
I am
Sincerely yours,
John Murray” (5)
Historical Quotes: On the Veiling of Women, “that not nature only, but also her own will may have a part in her acknowledgment of subjection.” “For her to go without a head covering, contrary to Paul’s command, is an indecency.” – John Chrysostom (347-407)
John Chrysostom, Homily 26 (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). Philip Schaff, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889), 153-154. And John Chrysostom, Homily 15 (Ephesians 4:31)
“It is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair since the Apostle commands women to keep their heads covered” (Letter 245, To Possidius). – Augustine of Hippo, Epistula CCXLV.
“For that reason, the wife wears a headdress, that is, the veil on her head, as St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians in the seventh chapter, that she is not free but under obedience to her husband.” – Martin Luther, Sermon on Marriage, January 5, 1525.
“It is dishonorable to the female sex to lay aside her veil.” – David Dickerson (Scottish theologian; (1583 – 1663) from his Commentaries on the Epistles
The apostle Paul provided “sufficient reasons for that order of covering or veiling the woman,” – George Gillespie; (Scottish theologian; 1613 – 1648) The Works of Mr. George Gillespie, (R. Ogle and Oliver & Boyd, 1846), p. 125.
“For this cause ought the woman to have power”, that is a covering, “on her head, because of the angels” 1 Cor. 11:10…Methinks, holy and beloved sisters, you should be content to wear this power or badge…” – John Bunyan,
The Bunyan quote is from Henry Stebbing, “A Case of Conscience Resolved (Women’s Prayer Meetings),” The Entire Works of John Bunyan, Vol 4 (London: City Road and Ivy Lane, 1860), p. 418.
“The argument of the Apostle will not hold now, covering the head being not a sign of subjection [in our culture]’… I answer, Christian women may… observe the Apostle’s injunction [for reasons beyond the issue of submission, because]… there are other reasons, which will always hold… [Regarding Paul’s mention of ‘angels’ in v.10,] this reason is perpetual.” – John Edwards from An Enquiry Into Four Remarkable Texts of the New Testament, (J. Hayes, 1692), p. 130-135.
…secondly, verses 5, 13, that, on the contrary, that for a woman to appear or to perform any religious function in the Christian assembly, unveiled, is a glaring impropriety, because it is contrary to the subordination of the position assigned her by her Maker, and to the modesty and reserve suitable to her sex; and even nature settles the point by giving her long hair as her natural veil. Even as good taste and a natural sense of propriety would protest against a woman’s going in public shorn of that beautiful badge and adornment of her sex, like a rough soldier or a labourer, even so clearly does nature herself sustain God’s law in requiring the woman always modestly covered in the sanctuary. The holy angels who are present as invisible spectators, hovering over the Christian assemblies, would be shocked by women professing godliness publicly throw off this appropriate badge of their position (verse 10). The woman, then, has a right to the privileges of public worship and the sacraments…but she must always do this veiled or covered.” – Robert L. Dabney, from his Discussions Evangelical and Theological, vol. 2, p. 104.
“Do you think you and I have sufficiently considered that we are always looked upon by angels, and that they desire to learn by us the wisdom of God? The reason why our sisters appear in the House of God with their heads covered is ‘because of the angels’. The apostle says that a woman is to have a covering upon her head, because of the angels, since the angels are present in the assembly and they mark every act of indecorum, and therefore everything is to be conducted with decency and order in the presence of the angelic spirits” – (C. H. Spurgeon
From his sermon on Eph. 3:10, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 8, p. 263.
“The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century.” Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ, which is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15)?” – R. C. Sproul, Source https :// citatis.com/a15/
“During my high school years, when I went to church on Sunday morning, I never saw a woman in that church (this was a mainline Presbyterian church) whose head wasn’t covered with a hat or a veil. That is one of those customs that has simply disappeared for the most part from Christian culture.” – R. C. Sproul
R. C. Sproul, Now, That’s a Good Question! (Tyndale House Publishers, 2011) p. 347.
Ligonier Ministries relevant to head coverings: “Our actions must conform to the principles that God has established…Do you disregard the exterior aspects of religion, saying the heart is all that matters? If so, confess your pride before God today.
Whenever we have a lesson from both the Scriptures and from nature, we are doubly bound to obey. We also must recognize that it is a rule rooted in nature, not custom.
If it is shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, then she must realize that it is just as shameful for her to enter public worship with her head uncovered. We must not confuse Paul’s use of hair as ‘nature’s covering’ and the covering he is exhorting women to wear in public worship.
Nowhere does (Paul) give cultural reasons for his teaching, i.e. abusive practices of a pagan society that placed prostitutes with shorn heads in the temple. Paul points back to God’s established order in nature. Whenever a teaching in Scripture refers to ‘creation ordinances’ that teaching is binding for all cultures in all ages…
The ‘rules of decorum’…regarding the worship of God are established by God Himself not by the whims of culture. It is proper for a woman to have a symbol of authority on her head…The necessity of the symbol remains fixed even as the authority of the man remains fixed.” (From ‘Table Talk’ Devotional Guide for June 17-24, 1996, pp. 36-43 – quoted by Sanseri op. cit. pp. 278f.)
How can this apostolic directive be implemented?
Using Presbyterian ecclesiastical terminology, the implementation of using symbolic affirmation of the created order must start at the local sessional level, then for clarification, work the way through Presbyteries, and end at the General Assembly of the Church. The General Assembly of the Church can start by appointing committees both for and against the implementation of the head covering practice.
It is not that hard to implement:
In this writer’s opinion, a head covering of some sort can accomplish this, such as a veil, made of lace or cloth or hat would suffice.
A question for those that oppose head coverings in worship for women. Is it a proper decorum for men to wear hats in worship? If not, why not? Then again, if it is not proper for men to wear a head covering in worship, what is the argument for this. Admittedly, it is not 1 Corinthians 11:4. If the “we have no such custom” Paul referred to is 1 Corinthians 11:5, freeing women from head coverings, then men by implication must be free to wear hats in worship. Oh, the wonders of inconsistency.
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 246-247.
2. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, (Mclean, Virginia, Macdonald Publishing Company), p. 248.
3. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Corinthians, Volume XX, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 362-363.
4. Thomas Schreiner, Head Coverings, Prophecies And The Trinity, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, online.
5. John Murray, Head Coverings and Decorum in Worship: A Letter by John Murray Badbea, Bonar Bridge, Ardgay, Ross-shire IV2 43AR, Scotland, 16 November 1973. Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
The Religion That Started in a Hat 