Servant of the Lord

In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV) the Apostle Paul is invoking the divine order God has set forth for man and woman. In so doing this makes his scripture regarding head coverings for women "trans cultural," transcending cultures and times (the entire church age/dispensation). The covering he is referring to would be some type of external covering such as a veil., not hair. In my initial post it might be explained in a little more detail than in my follow-up post. I'll give my wife as an example she will cover her head with a veil whenever she prays while attending church or not.

I agree! This is what I was referring to, but not required for witnessing or just explaining.

No board etiquette was violated here, nor was I rude at any time. Please read my response in its entirety. Yet, these two post are not considered rude?

According to the original author of the thread who referenced his definition of "scripture bombing" from the following blog post your list is not correct nor is your definition about "scripture bombing." The definition of "scripture bombing" I responded to which is in regards to the definition the original author set forth in his original post and was supported by his referenced blog post he found. - link below. http://www.faithmeetsworld.com/scripture-bombing/

Yes, so does the word "Love." Which is 4 bits of data could easily be understood by itself without supporting scripture. Yet, that is not what is being referred to in my post, but rather reading just one VERSE and not taking into account that individual scripture needs to be interpreted considering not only the entire chapter in which it is found, then the book in which it is found (for proper context), and finally the verse must be considered within the Bible as a whole.

double post

I strongly disagree with the position of "scripture bombing." Individual scripture needs to be interpreted considering not only the entire chapter in which it is found, then the book in which it is found (for proper context), and finally the verse must be considered within the Bible as a whole; Hanging a major theological position on such a small nail (one verse) will not hold. To draw a scriptural interpretation based on just one verse in the entire chapter in which it is found could do great violence to the actual meaning that was intended. A good example of this tactic is found in 1 Corinthians 11, where vs. 15 is commonly singled out to conclude a woman's hair is her covering and disregarding the rest of the other 14 verses - half a chapter of Holy Scripture! I'm not going into detail about that here I wrote a separate post on this recently. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV) 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. When I was in school I was expected to have adequate support for my theological position. This meant having more than just one or two scriptures of the bible supporting my interpretation, so "scripture bombing" I guess was required to pass the class? I guess most commentaries would be considered "scripture bombing." The Treasures from the Scriptures Commentaries would make Rod Mattoon the Uni-bomber of scripture bombing the way he references all his works.

Below is Pastor Claude A. Short's interpretation of the Talents parable. Please feel free to also read my other post titled "Should women wear prayer veils?" Excerpt used for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: Short, C A. The Gospel Truth: “Once Saved, Always Saved” or “Salvation Can Be Lost”?. C. Short Publications. Kindle Edition. In this parable, Jesus tells us about two types of servants. Both types of servants belonged to the same Master and both types were entrusted with “talents” to use for their Master’s interests. Let’s take one or two verses at a time: Matt. 25:14-15, 19-30 14 Again, it [the kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. Of course, the Master is Jesus and, therefore, His servants must be Christians, for they belonged to Him and He had entrusted His “talents” with them. Unbelievers are not considered servants of Jesus, nor does Jesus entrust spiritual gifts and abilities to unbelievers. The Master went on a journey and left His property in the hands of His servants, just as Jesus has gone into heaven and has entrusted the advancement of the gospel to us (Jude 3). 15 To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey… A “talent” is a sum of money, but these talents can also be likened to gifted abilities Jesus has given to those who belong to Him. Every Christian has gifts…some have more and others less. 19 After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them… 20 The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.” 21 His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” As Jesus promised, He will return. And the time will come when all Christians will have to give an account for what they have done with the gifts God has given them. In this parable, the man that was given “five talents” used the abundance that God had given him for His glory and therefore received great reward for his faithfulness. This will be the glorious outcome of those who love and serve Jesus while on this earth. But what of the Christian who is less gifted…the two-talent Christian? 22 The man with the two talents also came. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.” 23 His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” This man did not receive as many talents (or abilities) as the man with five talents, but he faithfully used the little he had for his Master's glory. Not all Christians have the same abilities and gifts and so Jesus does not expect the same out of each. But notice, in verse 23, that the man who received only two talents received the same reward as the man who had received five talents. Those who have less, but give and use what they have for Jesus' glory, will receive the same reward as those who have been given more. God rewards Christians not for the amount of ability they have, but for their faithfulness and love for Him. But then there are those worldly servants who do not use even the little they have to serve Jesus: 24 Then the man who had received the one talent came. “Master,” he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.” This fellow had some flaky excuses for failing to serve Jesus. There will be those who have received Jesus, but then go through life doing their own thing, giving no thought to serving Him with what they have. Perhaps they have a false sense of security, thinking, “Well, I have received Jesus, so I am saved no matter what I do or don’t do. So why worry about serving the Lord?” But what will Jesus say to those “worthless” (verse 30) servants who do not use even the little God has given them for His glory? 29 His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant… 30 …throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” According to Jesus, Christians who fail to serve Him with even the little God has given them will not be welcomed into His eternal kingdom. Jesus calls this servant wicked and lazy, and then gives instructions to throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Some will protest this interpretation while claiming that the servant with one talent was never saved in the first place. However, those who do this will have to ignore the rest of God’s Word in order to make those Jesus calls His servants and entrusts with His talents unbelievers. They are Christians who have turned “wicked and lazy.” Others will say, “Isn’t that teaching salvation by works?” They will have to talk to Jesus about that…He is the One who gave the parable. And I am sure He is not advocating salvation by works. Serving Jesus is not a work, but a love-response to the One who died for us. Jesus is just making it clear that those who belong to Him are expected to live for Him. Jesus paid a heavy price, not only so we could be forgiven, but also that we would love and serve Him: 1 Cor. 6:19-20 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. Instead of the focus being on “once saved, always saved,” it should be on “once saved, always serve.” There can be no security for those who have received Jesus, and then do their own selfish, worldly thing. Remember Peter’s words: 2 Peter 1:10-11 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If doing things to make our calling and election sure is salvation by works, then the Lord’s Apostle taught salvation by works, and we know he did not. So what does this tell us? It tells us that not only are we saved by grace through faith aside from works, but we also are saved by grace through faith “to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Eph. 2:8-10 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. It amazes me how often verse ten is left out when the above verses are quoted. Once we are saved we must bear fruit for God. Good works are simply the fruit of maintaining a personal relationship with our Lord. He is our Master and we are His servants, therefore obedience, which produces a fruit-filled life, is simply a love-response to the King of Kings. The servant with one talent had a sinful, lackadaisical attitude about serving Jesus, and the result was eternal rejection as a “wicked and lazy servant” (Matt. 25:26 and 30). Any Christian who chooses to serve the world and self over Jesus is in danger of the same outcome.

Certainly... Those individuals are described below. John 8:44 (KJV) 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Why would they be any different then the way they are currently? It is only through receiving Jesus Christ as your personal savior would there be any hope of not only salvation, but sanctification, and transformation from a child of darkness to one of light. Was I any better before I was saved? Of course not! I was as much of a sinner and in darkness as they were. 2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV) 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. The transforming power of the Holy Spirit in peoples lives is the proof that the Lord exists and does work in our daily lives for those who truly believe. We are suppose to be the light that will bring those you described which are in darkness to the light.

Adstar Posted 4 hours ago Woman do not need to wear a vail.. If they have long hair then it is a vail.. Woman should have long hair.. For the most part woman desire to have long hair anyway.. Greetings, Thanks for your contribution to the thread. I did touch on this common response in my original post, but let’s investigate that interpretation here even further. Two points are significant: (1) No word for veil occurs in vv 2-14. Thus, that the hair is regarded by Paul as a veil in v 15 is not necessarily an argument that the hair is the same as the head covering that he is describing in these verses. (2) Throughout this periscope, Paul points out the similarities of long hair with a head covering. But his doing so strongly suggests that the two are not to be identified. Precisely because they are similar, they are not identical. Note the following verses. 11:5-- “but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.” 11:6-- “For if a woman will not cover herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should keep it covered. 11:7-- “For a man ought not to cover his head . . .” 11:10-- “For this reason a woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head” 11:13-- “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” 11:15-- “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory . . .” Several points can be made here. (1) If ‘covering’ = ‘hair,’ then all men should shave their heads or go bald because the men are to have their heads uncovered. (2) If ‘covering’ = ‘long hair,’ then v 6 seems to suggest a tautology: “if a woman will not wear long hair, then she should cut off her hair.” But this in no way advances the argument. (3) The argument caves in by its own subtlety. To see ‘hair’ = ‘head covering’ means that one has to go through several exegetical hoops. In short, it hardly appears to be the plain meaning of the text. (4) Verses 10 and 15 would have to be saying the same thing if long hair is the same as a head covering. But this can hardly be the case. In v 10, a woman is required to wear a ‘symbol of authority.’ Such a symbol represents her submission, not her glory. Paul begins the verse by pointing back to v 9 (διὰ τοῦτο in v 10, ‘for this reason,’ is inferential). Because ‘woman was created for the sake of man’ she ought to wear a symbol of authority on her head. But in v 15, a woman’s long hair is her glory. The Greek is even more emphatic: the dative αὐτῇ is a dative of advantage. A literal translation would be: ‘it is a glory to her’ or ‘a glory accruing to her,’ or ‘to her advantage.’ Surely this is not the point of v 10! To argue, then, that long hair is the woman’s head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one shows her submission while the other shows her glory. Both of these are contrasted with an uncovered head while praying or prophesying, or a shaved head at any time: such would speak of the woman’s humiliation and shame.

In 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 the apostle Paul discusses women wearing prayer veils. Should women wear prayer veils? After much research and prayer, I was moved by the Spirit that half a chapter of Holy Scripture should not be ignored or treated as “incidental” and not preached by the churches. What are some of the common arguments heard against women wearing prayer veils in the church? One of the most common is that the women’s hair is their covering. Another is that it was a custom of the time and not a principle. Let’s discuss these one at a time. Many read only one verse v.15 out of the entire 16 verses and decide that women's hair is their covering, but such an interpretation would contradict itself and make the entire scripture nonsense. Let’s take a closer look about what I am referring to. If her hair has been given to her as a natural covering verse 15 then in verse 5 why would it read if her head is uncovered meaning "bald" let her be more bald? See the contradiction to such an interpretation? Obviously, two different types of coverings are being discussed here. One is her hair, her natural covering for the outside world and her veil inside the church. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV) 1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. When we read scripture, we tend to come to the scriptures with natural biases whether we realize it or not. We currently live in a post-feminist society. This world view has also infiltrated into the churches. It is difficult in our current society to interpret certain scripture when it goes against what societal norms and dictates. In our post-feminist society women wearing prayer veils would be considered sexist. Yet, so would many other teachings of the bible such as Pastors being men and the divine order discussed not only here 1 Corinthians but throughout the bible. A veil may be whatever covering is customary for the day, other than hair. As long as the woman's head is covered is what the Apostle Paul was driving home in this half a chapter of Holy scripture regarding the topic. I try not to be dogmatic about what type of head covering it should be. As I stated earlier another common argument against head coverings is that it was a custom at the time and does not apply to us today. Principles are those commands of God that apply to all people at all time in every culture and in every life situation. Customs are those things that are variant local applications of principles. For example, in the NT the principle of tithing was there and in those days it was done in the Denarius or the Shekel. Does that mean that the only way we can please God today is by paying our tithes in Denarius or Shekel? Of course not! The monetary unit was customary the clothing styles those are the things that are subject to change from culture to culture from place to place. The principle of modesty applies to all generations, but how that modesty is manifested will differ from one country to another and from one time to another. We understand that those things are customary. Many times, distinguishing between custom and principles is a relatively easy matter, but not always sometimes it is excruciatingly difficult to make that distinction. Here is the Principle to apply if you can't decide if something is a custom or principle. The biblical principle would be whatever is not of faith is a sin. The burden of proof is always going to be on those who argue that such and such a command is custom and not principle. If you are not sure then the principle that applies is treat it as a principle, because if you treat a custom as a principle then the only guilt you bear is being overly scrupulous, but if you take a principle of God and treat it as a local custom and don't observe it you have sinned against God. Every serious student of the Word of God first seeks to discover its meaning and standards and then, and only then, to bring practice into conformity with it. Biblical principles determine Biblical practice. It would appear the church had a rich history of veiling for women up until the feminist movement launched a specific attack against the practice. It was the "meaning" of this act that the feminist movement took offense to as does our current day society regarding "male headship in the home & church," which is God's order of creation that the Apostle Paul touched on in several of his epistles. Excerpt used for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: from Gardiner, Jeremy. Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times Head Covering Movement. Kindle Edition. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is a feminist organization founded by Betty Friedan (author of The Feminist Mystique). In 1968 they rallied their troops to have a “national unveiling.” Here’s what they said: “Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection with many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a "national unveiling" by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the spring meeting of the task force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches.” [25] NOW rallied their various chapters to “undertake an effort” to stop the practice of head covering. They were so disgusted with the symbol and what it represented that they had a public burning of women’s veils. Sadly, their efforts achieved what they hoped it would. I do believe that in regards to women wearing a prayer veil that it should not be "required" by the church since that would make it to no "effect," because the biblical principle here is "voluntary submission." As a Pastor, I believe I am required to preach the "whole" word of God to the congregation and let the women in the congregation make their own personal "choice" on the matter as to be in proper fellowship with the Lord. Basically, I believe I am held accountable for preaching it, but they are held accountable for its execution. 1 Corinthians 11: 5-16 Biblical Exegesis Excerpt used for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: 1 MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (pp. 1785–1787). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. 11:5 Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, that is, the man. She is saying, in effect, that she does not recognize man’s God-given headship and will not submit to it. If this were the only verse in the Bible on the subject, then it would imply that it is all right for a woman to pray or prophesy in the assembly as long as she has a veil or other covering on her head. But Paul teaches elsewhere that women should be silent in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34), that they are not permitted to teach or to have authority over the man but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:12). Actually meetings of the assembly do not come into view until verse 17, so the instructions concerning the head-covering in verses 2–16 cannot be confined to church meetings. They apply to whenever a woman prays or prophesies. She prays silently in the assembly, since 1 Timothy 2:8 limits public prayer to the men (lit., males). She prays audibly or silently at other times. She prophesies when she teaches other women (Titus 2:3–5) or children in the Sunday school. 11:6 If a woman is not covered, she might as well be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, then she should be covered. The unveiled head of a woman is as shameful as if her hair were cut off. The apostle is not commanding a barber’s operation but rather telling what moral consistency would require! 11:7 In verses 7–10, Paul teaches the subordination of the woman to the man by going back to creation. This should forever lay to rest any idea that his teaching about women’s covering was what was culturally suitable in his day but not applicable to us today. The headship of man and the subjection of woman have been God’s order from the very beginning. First of all, man is the image and glory of God whereas woman is the glory of man. This means that man was placed on earth as God’s representative, to exercise dominion over it. Man’s uncovered head is a silent witness to this fact. The woman was never given this place of headship; instead she is the glory of man in the sense that she “renders conspicuous the authority of man,” as W. E. Vine expresses it. Man indeed ought not to cover his head in prayer; it would be tantamount to veiling the glory of God, and this would be an insult to the Divine Majesty. 11:8 Paul next reminds us that man was not created from woman but woman was created from man. The man was first, then the woman was taken from his side. This priority of the man strengthens the apostle’s case for man’s headship. 11:9 The purpose of creation is next alluded to in order to press home the point. Nor was man created primarily for the woman, but rather woman for the man. The Lord distinctly stated in Genesis 2:18, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 11:10 Because of her position of subordination to man, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. The symbol of authority is the head-covering and here it indicates not her own authority but subjection to the authority of her husband. Why does Paul add because of the angels? We would suggest that the angels are spectators of the things that are happening on earth today, as they were of the things that happened at creation. In the first creation, they saw how woman usurped the place of headship over the man. She made the decision that Adam should have made. As a result of this, sin entered the human race with its unspeakable aftermath of misery and woe. God does not want what happened in the first creation to be repeated in the new creation. When the angels look down, He wants them to see the woman acting in subjection to the man, and indicating this outwardly by a covering on her head. We might pause here to state that the head-covering is simply an outward sign and it is of value only when it is the outward sign of an inward grace. In other words, a woman might have a covering on her head and yet not truly be submissive to her husband. In such a case, to wear a head-covering would be of no value at all. The most important thing is to be sure that the heart is truly subordinate; then a covering on a woman’s head becomes truly meaningful. 11:11 Paul is not implying that man is at all independent of the woman, so he adds: “Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” In other words, man and woman are mutually dependent. They need one another and the idea of subordination is not at all in conflict with the idea of mutual interdependence. 11:12 Woman came from man by creation, that is, she was created from Adam’s side. But Paul points out that man also comes through woman. Here he is referring to the process of birth. The woman gives birth to the man child. Thus God has created this perfect balance to indicate that the one cannot exist without the other. All things are from God means that He has divinely appointed all these things, so there is no just cause for complaint. Not only were these relationships created by God, but the purpose of them all is to glorify Him. All of this should make the man humble and the woman content. 11:13 The apostle now challenges the Corinthians to judge among themselves if it is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. He appeals to their instinctive sense. The suggestion is that it is not reverent or decorous for a woman to enter into the presence of God unveiled. 11:14 Just how does nature itself teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair is not made clear. Some have suggested that a man’s hair will not naturally grow into as long tresses as a woman’s. For a man to have long hair makes him appear effeminate. In most cultures, the male wears his hair shorter than the female. 11:15 Verse 15 has been greatly misunderstood by many. Some have suggested that since a woman’s hair is given to her for a covering, it is not necessary for her to have any other covering. But such a teaching does grave violence to this portion of Scripture. Unless one sees that two coverings are mentioned in this chapter, the passage becomes hopelessly confusing. This may be demonstrated by referring back to verse 6. There we read: “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.” According to the interpretation just mentioned, this would mean that if a woman “does not have her hair on,” then she might just as well be shorn. But this is ridiculous. If she does not “have her hair on,” she could not possibly be shorn! The actual argument in verse 15 is that there is a real analogy between the spiritual and the natural. God gave woman a natural covering of glory in a way He did not give to man. There is a spiritual significance to this. It teaches that when a woman prays to God, she should wear a covering on her head. What is true in the natural sphere should be true in the spiritual. 11:16 The apostle closes this section with the statement: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Does Paul mean, as has been suggested, that the things he has just been saying are not important enough to contend about? Does he mean that there was no such custom of women veiling their heads in the churches? Does he mean that these teachings are optional and not to be pressed upon women as the commandments of the Lord? It seems strange that any such interpretations would ever be offered, yet they are commonly heard today. This would mean that Paul considered these instructions as of no real consequence, and he had just been wasting over half a chapter of Holy Scripture in setting them forth! There are at least two possible explanations of this verse which fit in with the rest of the Scripture. First of all, the apostle may be saying that he anticipates that certain ones will be contentious about these matters, but he adds that we have no such custom, that is, the custom of contending about this. We do not argue about such matters, but accept them as the teaching of the Lord. Another interpretation, favored by William Kelly, is that Paul was saying that the churches of God did not have any such custom as that of women praying or prophesying without being covered. There is also a growing number of individuals reviving the practice. See https://www.headcoveringmovement.com for further information.