Hi, all! Wow, I can't believe that it's literally been months since I've posted here. I've been very busy offline, both in terms of school (praise the Lord, I graduated in May!) and personal life (among other things, I've begun to have many conversations with unsaved friends). Yet at the same time, the Lord has lead me to many topics of study. I'm planning on working on them and posting them here.
One of the topics I've been working on was a dual subject, namely the relationship between works and salvation (whether there is one or not), and whether or not we are eternally secure without condition. That topic, Lord willing, will come soon, although it's taken me a while to sort through some arguments that have been made on both sides.
Also, I'm planning to do a series on evangelism, and specifically a series discussing both false religion and true Christianity. This will definitely take me a while, as I plan to cover dozens of groups, some of which will literally take probably a dozen or more articles a piece.
:-) I appreciate your prayers and support. The Lord is good and gracious to all that call on His Name in obedience and trust!
Love in Christ,
Sarah
Friday, August 7, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
What does it mean to be "covered?" An investigation into the word "cover" in the Bible and how it connects to women and their heads
There has for quite some time been an argument over what 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is discussing. It is quite clear that this passage instructs women to cover their heads. The real contention is this: is the Holy Spirit here through Paul commanding that women cover their heads with a literal cloth veiling over their natural covering of hair, or is the instruction rather that women grow their hair long that it may be a covering? My goal in this study is to further illuminate our understanding of what the covering is in these passages by studying other passages in the Bible that discuss covering the head and the status of a woman’s hair. I am invoking the “law of first mention” as a study tool; that is, I am going to use the Old Testament as a guide to interpret the New Testament. Please note that this is by no means exhaustive, but I have chosen a sufficient number of passages from different categories to expound the meaning of that word; I am not intentionally leaving anything out but for the sake of brevity I am not including every example, only sufficient examples to understand the way the word is used in that type of passage. With that in mind, please attempt to have an open mind about what I am bringing forth. Let’s start from “ground zero.” The Bible was written with Genesis, and we should start there.
The first place in the Bible where the word “cover” is used is Genesis 7:19.
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
It is evident that this covering is an all-encompassing covering. The waters of the flood covered every square inch of land upon the earth. Nothing was left uncovered or dry. The word translated “covered” here is כּסה (English transliteration kasah), which means “to plump, that is, fill up hollows; by implication to cover (for clothing or secrecy): - clad self, close, clothe, conceal, cover (self), (flee to) hide, overwhelm.” The image here is that the water filled in the valleys and the hills like a blanket covers an entire bed, including indentations and pillows (and the occasional cat!).
There are several other instances where the word “cover” is used to describe the flood and other miracles (such as the plagues of Egypt), but one is sufficient since they are all the same Hebrew word, and since we are studying headcovering and not the flood or other historical events (not that the latter is unimportant!). The same word is also used in Psalm 32:1, and I believe we would all agree that our sins are wholly covered under the blood of Jesus our Lord!
Let’s look at the first place where the word “cover” is used to describe clothing.
Genesis 9:23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
We all know the story: Noah was drunk and naked (in the Bible, “naked” does not always mean that a person is completely without clothes—remember that Peter was “naked” on the ship? He wasn’t completely undressed but rather improperly dressed—it can mean either completely undressed or improperly dressed. So Noah might have been completely naked, but more than likely he was just missing some clothing.), and Ham discovered his father’s nakedness. He told his brothers, who in this verse without looking at their father covered him properly.
The Hebrew word here is the same word (kasah), implying that Shem and Japheth pulled the covering up over every part of their father’s nakedness.
Let’s look at the first example of covering being used to describe a woman.
Genesis 24:65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.
The Hebrew word for vail here is צעיף, transliterated into English as tsaeef. The word means simply a veil, but is from a root word that means “to wrap over.” Once more, the word for “covered” is the same Hebrew word (kasah). So the image here is of Rebekah taking her shawl and “wrapping it over” herself. (see footnote 1 for a side note on this passage). It was clearly a veil separate from her head and her hair.
Let’s look at another example of covering with a woman.
Genesis 38:14 And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
This passage uses the same Hebrew words as the last passage. This passage is slightly different, in that it is clear that Tamar covered her face (look at the next verse). Once more, though, she wholly covered (with a literal cloth veiling) her hair and her face, her beauty and her identity, that she would not be known by Judah.
Let’s look at one more example of women and covering.
Isaiah 47:1-3 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.
God here is saying to rebellious Babylon, “I am going to shame you because of your transgressions, and the way in which I am going to shame you is that I am going to make you naked.” Yes, this passage is a metaphor, but it is a metaphor that would have been understood within Hebrew and Babylonian societies for the reason that the literal actions described would be shameful for a woman to have happen to her.
The word translated “uncover” in this passage is גּלה, or gahlaw. It means to make nude (especially in a disgraceful sense). Its further implication is to dishonor, to discover the glory of, to destroy the honor of, or to uncover the shame of someone. God says here to uncover a woman’s hair, her legs, and her thighs is shameful, dishonorable nakedness.
Isaiah 3:16-24 shows how women also used this covering, meant to be a symbol of modesty, as an excuse for wantonness and for playing the harlot. The Lord in this passage is talking about the shame of Zion, both as a nation and I believe in the lives of individual women; therefore, this passage is both metaphorical and literal.
Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, the rings, and nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
Those are some strong words! The daughters of Zion had discarded their God-given beauty for wantonness, just as Israel discarded the Covenant for idolatry. Rather than wearing a simple, modest dress and head shawl, these women wore fancy clothing and jewelry, and made their headcoverings a display and a glory to them. We ought to meditate on these Scriptures and think on how God views outward adornment (although this is another topic that I will write on later, Lord willing).
It is clear in the Old Testament that the custom formed for women to cover their heads (and bodies) out of modesty with literal clothing, and by Isaiah’s day it was shameful to go about with hair, legs, or thighs—the beauty of a woman--exposed. What is interesting, though, is that most of the passages in the Old Testament that discuss covering the head refer to men (while most of the modern debate is about women…think about that for a bit. Why is the fact of men uncovering their heads not a significant part of this debate when it is a huge issue in Jewish circles?). Let’s explore some of those passages.
The first passage that describes covering involving a man is the case of the leper in Leviticus 13:45.
And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
The context of this passage describes a man with leprosy on his head or his forehead, which caused his hair to fall out entirely or partly. A man would have naturally tried to cover that shame up with a shawl, but this passage describes the priest uncovering the man’s head to expose his leprosy.
The word translated “bare” is פּרע or parah, which means “to uncover or to make bare.” It is interesting here that parah has the same essential meaning as gahlaw in Isaiah, except that parah has no sense of being a shameful uncovering. This means that the uncovered man’s head was not nudity like in Isaiah, but rather an uncovering as a proclamation of that man’s status. Note that the man is not shaving his head here, but rather merely uncovering his head (the man would be foolish to shave his head, since his hair could prove that he does not have leprosy!)
Several passages of Scripture discuss men covering their heads.
2 Samuel 15:30 And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.
Esther 6:12 And Mordecai came again to the king's gate. But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered.
Jeremiah 14:3-4 And their nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits, and found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads. Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads.
The common thread of these passages is that a man covered his head in the Old Testament out of shame and mourning. There was also a commandment that the priests entering into the temple wear a bonnet before the Lord.
Exodus 28:40 And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
It is my opinion that these bonnets were the beginning of the custom of Jewish men covering their heads with a kippah, and also later the reason why Roman Catholic priests (cardinals, etc) wear bonnets (though this is in disobedience to 1 Corinthians 11:1-16; This stems from the false teaching of Augustine that the Old Covenant—that is, the physical Old Kingdom--is to be lived out by the church. That is a completely separate topic, however, and beyond the scope of this study.)
What can we conclude from this? In the Old Testament, men covered their heads out of a sense of shame or mourning. The priests were also called to cover their heads both out of a sense of mourning (since after all the priests were going to atone for the sins of Israel), though like the other garments of the priest their bonnets were beautiful. Women on the other hand wore veils to cover their beauty and their identity. It is plain and obvious that men wore a literal cloth on their heads, and that women covered with a literal cloth covering.
Let’s enter into the New Testament. A study of the New Testament will show that the only passage in which the words “cover” and “head” coincide is in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. There are, however, a few times where the English word “cover” is used in other contexts in the New Testament.
Matthew 8:24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
The Greek word here translated “covered” is καλύπτω, or kalupto. This word means simply “to cover,” though not wholly. The image is that the waves were splashing up and over the ship, although the ship was not brought under water.
Matthew 10:26 (repeated in Luke 12:2) Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
This word “covered” is also kalupto. It is a very rich meditation to think how we as sinful humans attempt to cover our own sin, but as the word implies, we can never cover it fully—only the Lord’s own blood can do that!
Mark 14:65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
The word here is περικαλύπτω, or perikalupto. The word means literally “to cover all around,” or to cover the surface of something entirely like with a blindfold. You can imagine how the soldiers must have covered up our Lord’s face with their hands.
Luke 8:16 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
Again the word here is kalupto. Jesus is saying here that we shouldn’t cover up the glory of God even partly—we should let His light shine out from us fully, in all its glory!
Luke 23:30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
What is interesting is that once more the word “cover” is kalupto. I would imagine that a hill falling upon a man would be an entire covering, but the Lord can see through that pile of dust into the man’s never-dying soul!
1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
Do you know what that word translated “cover” is? It’s kalupto! That word that means to cover incompletely! What Peter is discussing here is that we should have love toward one another and forgive each other in love (because that love will blind us toward others’ transgressions toward us). Yet our love for each other does not erase others’ sins, and even God’s love toward us does not erase our sins if we do not turn to Him in repentance, and if He does not forgive us. Think on that for a while, and praise the Lord for His salvation if He has and is saving you!
This brings us to 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Before we delve into this passage, I’d like to define all of the words thus far used in conjunction with covering as a recap.
Hebrew:
kasah--to cover in entirety
taseef--to wrap over like a veil
gahlaw--to uncover shamefully
parah--to uncover or make bare
Greek:
Peri—all around the edges, as in perimeter
Kata—entirely, the whole of a thing
Kalupto—to cover incompletely
Katakalupto would then mean to cover completely. Kasah is the direct equivalent of katakalupto. One new word used in 1 Corinthians 11 is bolaion, which means something that is cast about. The word bolaion is used as parabolaion (meaning something cast about something else) in the parts of the passage where hair is discussed; in every other place, the word is katakalupto. Do keep this in mind, because it is important that the hair is represented as parabolaion and the other “covering” is represented as katakalupto.
I am going to go through the verses 1 Corinthians 11 that discuss covering and hair, replacing the words “cover” and also interpreting some of the passage in the light of their Greek meaning. This is not because the Bible’s presentation of this passage is deficient—it is not!—but rather because doing this can clarify some of the issues that have been contended over.
Every man praying or prophesying, having something on his head that covers it continually brings dishonor to his head. But every woman that continues to pray or continues to prophesy who does not have the entirety of her head—that is, the area where her hair is that can be grasped--covered continually brings dishonor to her head: it is just as shameful as if she were bald. For if the woman will not entirely cover her head, her head should be shaved: but since it is shameful for a woman to be baldheaded, the woman should entirely cover her head. For a man indeed ought to have his head completely bare, forasmuch as he is the likeness and representative of God on earth: but the woman is the one who draws attention to the man and is a symbol of man’s power and authority. For this cause ought the woman to have a token of the man’s delegated control to her on her head, because of the angels. Use your reasoning: is it comely that a woman pray unto God without her head entirely covered, without that symbol of the veiling of man’s authority in God’s presence? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, which is cast down his body, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long flowing tresses, cast down her body, it will bring attention to her: for God gave woman her hair to be cast about her body (as Eve was given hair in the Garden before the Fall and before God clothed them with clothing).
I think that interpreting the passage in the light of the Greek words clears up the misunderstandings about verses 14-16. It is clear that the hair was given from God as a covering before the Fall (God was concerned about headship even when man was naked!), and then clothing (including a woman’s cloth headcovering) was given after the Fall. The relationship between God, man, and woman was perfect in Eden, but when sin entered in, the relationship was severed, and man’s nakedness was uncovered. He rose up in pride against God, seeking his own authority in disobeying the Lord’s commandment. Thus now that Christ has come to restore us to God, we should seek to hide man’s authority and his pride. As a symbol of this, man should uncover his head (the symbol of God’s glory) and woman should cover her head (the symbol of man’s glory and her own glory). A woman’s hair, therefore, is not the covering that this passage is introducing. Rather, it is a natural symbol of submission that in the light of the Fall should be covered by a voluntary symbol of submission. That really opens this passage up to such deep levels, doesn’t it?
Love in Christ,
Sarah
1. This passage for some is a point of contention. They argue that since Rebekah was not wearing a covering at all times, that whatever the covering is in the New Testament does not need to be worn at all times. The answer to this is that in the Old Testament, there was no broad commandment for women to veil their heads in any way (with hair or with a literal cloth veiling). What Rebekah did was a reflection of the culture in which she lived where there was no teaching from the Bible on covering. Women covered before men out of modesty (the exceptions would be before family and before eunuchs). In the New Testament, the cultural practice of women covering their heads (though it was not a universal practice among any cultural group to whom Paul was writing) was imbued with spiritual significance and made universal and timeless.
The first place in the Bible where the word “cover” is used is Genesis 7:19.
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
It is evident that this covering is an all-encompassing covering. The waters of the flood covered every square inch of land upon the earth. Nothing was left uncovered or dry. The word translated “covered” here is כּסה (English transliteration kasah), which means “to plump, that is, fill up hollows; by implication to cover (for clothing or secrecy): - clad self, close, clothe, conceal, cover (self), (flee to) hide, overwhelm.” The image here is that the water filled in the valleys and the hills like a blanket covers an entire bed, including indentations and pillows (and the occasional cat!).
There are several other instances where the word “cover” is used to describe the flood and other miracles (such as the plagues of Egypt), but one is sufficient since they are all the same Hebrew word, and since we are studying headcovering and not the flood or other historical events (not that the latter is unimportant!). The same word is also used in Psalm 32:1, and I believe we would all agree that our sins are wholly covered under the blood of Jesus our Lord!
Let’s look at the first place where the word “cover” is used to describe clothing.
Genesis 9:23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
We all know the story: Noah was drunk and naked (in the Bible, “naked” does not always mean that a person is completely without clothes—remember that Peter was “naked” on the ship? He wasn’t completely undressed but rather improperly dressed—it can mean either completely undressed or improperly dressed. So Noah might have been completely naked, but more than likely he was just missing some clothing.), and Ham discovered his father’s nakedness. He told his brothers, who in this verse without looking at their father covered him properly.
The Hebrew word here is the same word (kasah), implying that Shem and Japheth pulled the covering up over every part of their father’s nakedness.
Let’s look at the first example of covering being used to describe a woman.
Genesis 24:65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.
The Hebrew word for vail here is צעיף, transliterated into English as tsaeef. The word means simply a veil, but is from a root word that means “to wrap over.” Once more, the word for “covered” is the same Hebrew word (kasah). So the image here is of Rebekah taking her shawl and “wrapping it over” herself. (see footnote 1 for a side note on this passage). It was clearly a veil separate from her head and her hair.
Let’s look at another example of covering with a woman.
Genesis 38:14 And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
This passage uses the same Hebrew words as the last passage. This passage is slightly different, in that it is clear that Tamar covered her face (look at the next verse). Once more, though, she wholly covered (with a literal cloth veiling) her hair and her face, her beauty and her identity, that she would not be known by Judah.
Let’s look at one more example of women and covering.
Isaiah 47:1-3 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.
God here is saying to rebellious Babylon, “I am going to shame you because of your transgressions, and the way in which I am going to shame you is that I am going to make you naked.” Yes, this passage is a metaphor, but it is a metaphor that would have been understood within Hebrew and Babylonian societies for the reason that the literal actions described would be shameful for a woman to have happen to her.
The word translated “uncover” in this passage is גּלה, or gahlaw. It means to make nude (especially in a disgraceful sense). Its further implication is to dishonor, to discover the glory of, to destroy the honor of, or to uncover the shame of someone. God says here to uncover a woman’s hair, her legs, and her thighs is shameful, dishonorable nakedness.
Isaiah 3:16-24 shows how women also used this covering, meant to be a symbol of modesty, as an excuse for wantonness and for playing the harlot. The Lord in this passage is talking about the shame of Zion, both as a nation and I believe in the lives of individual women; therefore, this passage is both metaphorical and literal.
Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, the rings, and nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
Those are some strong words! The daughters of Zion had discarded their God-given beauty for wantonness, just as Israel discarded the Covenant for idolatry. Rather than wearing a simple, modest dress and head shawl, these women wore fancy clothing and jewelry, and made their headcoverings a display and a glory to them. We ought to meditate on these Scriptures and think on how God views outward adornment (although this is another topic that I will write on later, Lord willing).
It is clear in the Old Testament that the custom formed for women to cover their heads (and bodies) out of modesty with literal clothing, and by Isaiah’s day it was shameful to go about with hair, legs, or thighs—the beauty of a woman--exposed. What is interesting, though, is that most of the passages in the Old Testament that discuss covering the head refer to men (while most of the modern debate is about women…think about that for a bit. Why is the fact of men uncovering their heads not a significant part of this debate when it is a huge issue in Jewish circles?). Let’s explore some of those passages.
The first passage that describes covering involving a man is the case of the leper in Leviticus 13:45.
And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
The context of this passage describes a man with leprosy on his head or his forehead, which caused his hair to fall out entirely or partly. A man would have naturally tried to cover that shame up with a shawl, but this passage describes the priest uncovering the man’s head to expose his leprosy.
The word translated “bare” is פּרע or parah, which means “to uncover or to make bare.” It is interesting here that parah has the same essential meaning as gahlaw in Isaiah, except that parah has no sense of being a shameful uncovering. This means that the uncovered man’s head was not nudity like in Isaiah, but rather an uncovering as a proclamation of that man’s status. Note that the man is not shaving his head here, but rather merely uncovering his head (the man would be foolish to shave his head, since his hair could prove that he does not have leprosy!)
Several passages of Scripture discuss men covering their heads.
2 Samuel 15:30 And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.
Esther 6:12 And Mordecai came again to the king's gate. But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered.
Jeremiah 14:3-4 And their nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits, and found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads. Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads.
The common thread of these passages is that a man covered his head in the Old Testament out of shame and mourning. There was also a commandment that the priests entering into the temple wear a bonnet before the Lord.
Exodus 28:40 And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
It is my opinion that these bonnets were the beginning of the custom of Jewish men covering their heads with a kippah, and also later the reason why Roman Catholic priests (cardinals, etc) wear bonnets (though this is in disobedience to 1 Corinthians 11:1-16; This stems from the false teaching of Augustine that the Old Covenant—that is, the physical Old Kingdom--is to be lived out by the church. That is a completely separate topic, however, and beyond the scope of this study.)
What can we conclude from this? In the Old Testament, men covered their heads out of a sense of shame or mourning. The priests were also called to cover their heads both out of a sense of mourning (since after all the priests were going to atone for the sins of Israel), though like the other garments of the priest their bonnets were beautiful. Women on the other hand wore veils to cover their beauty and their identity. It is plain and obvious that men wore a literal cloth on their heads, and that women covered with a literal cloth covering.
Let’s enter into the New Testament. A study of the New Testament will show that the only passage in which the words “cover” and “head” coincide is in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. There are, however, a few times where the English word “cover” is used in other contexts in the New Testament.
Matthew 8:24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
The Greek word here translated “covered” is καλύπτω, or kalupto. This word means simply “to cover,” though not wholly. The image is that the waves were splashing up and over the ship, although the ship was not brought under water.
Matthew 10:26 (repeated in Luke 12:2) Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
This word “covered” is also kalupto. It is a very rich meditation to think how we as sinful humans attempt to cover our own sin, but as the word implies, we can never cover it fully—only the Lord’s own blood can do that!
Mark 14:65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
The word here is περικαλύπτω, or perikalupto. The word means literally “to cover all around,” or to cover the surface of something entirely like with a blindfold. You can imagine how the soldiers must have covered up our Lord’s face with their hands.
Luke 8:16 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
Again the word here is kalupto. Jesus is saying here that we shouldn’t cover up the glory of God even partly—we should let His light shine out from us fully, in all its glory!
Luke 23:30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
What is interesting is that once more the word “cover” is kalupto. I would imagine that a hill falling upon a man would be an entire covering, but the Lord can see through that pile of dust into the man’s never-dying soul!
1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
Do you know what that word translated “cover” is? It’s kalupto! That word that means to cover incompletely! What Peter is discussing here is that we should have love toward one another and forgive each other in love (because that love will blind us toward others’ transgressions toward us). Yet our love for each other does not erase others’ sins, and even God’s love toward us does not erase our sins if we do not turn to Him in repentance, and if He does not forgive us. Think on that for a while, and praise the Lord for His salvation if He has and is saving you!
This brings us to 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Before we delve into this passage, I’d like to define all of the words thus far used in conjunction with covering as a recap.
Hebrew:
kasah--to cover in entirety
taseef--to wrap over like a veil
gahlaw--to uncover shamefully
parah--to uncover or make bare
Greek:
Peri—all around the edges, as in perimeter
Kata—entirely, the whole of a thing
Kalupto—to cover incompletely
Katakalupto would then mean to cover completely. Kasah is the direct equivalent of katakalupto. One new word used in 1 Corinthians 11 is bolaion, which means something that is cast about. The word bolaion is used as parabolaion (meaning something cast about something else) in the parts of the passage where hair is discussed; in every other place, the word is katakalupto. Do keep this in mind, because it is important that the hair is represented as parabolaion and the other “covering” is represented as katakalupto.
I am going to go through the verses 1 Corinthians 11 that discuss covering and hair, replacing the words “cover” and also interpreting some of the passage in the light of their Greek meaning. This is not because the Bible’s presentation of this passage is deficient—it is not!—but rather because doing this can clarify some of the issues that have been contended over.
Every man praying or prophesying, having something on his head that covers it continually brings dishonor to his head. But every woman that continues to pray or continues to prophesy who does not have the entirety of her head—that is, the area where her hair is that can be grasped--covered continually brings dishonor to her head: it is just as shameful as if she were bald. For if the woman will not entirely cover her head, her head should be shaved: but since it is shameful for a woman to be baldheaded, the woman should entirely cover her head. For a man indeed ought to have his head completely bare, forasmuch as he is the likeness and representative of God on earth: but the woman is the one who draws attention to the man and is a symbol of man’s power and authority. For this cause ought the woman to have a token of the man’s delegated control to her on her head, because of the angels. Use your reasoning: is it comely that a woman pray unto God without her head entirely covered, without that symbol of the veiling of man’s authority in God’s presence? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, which is cast down his body, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long flowing tresses, cast down her body, it will bring attention to her: for God gave woman her hair to be cast about her body (as Eve was given hair in the Garden before the Fall and before God clothed them with clothing).
I think that interpreting the passage in the light of the Greek words clears up the misunderstandings about verses 14-16. It is clear that the hair was given from God as a covering before the Fall (God was concerned about headship even when man was naked!), and then clothing (including a woman’s cloth headcovering) was given after the Fall. The relationship between God, man, and woman was perfect in Eden, but when sin entered in, the relationship was severed, and man’s nakedness was uncovered. He rose up in pride against God, seeking his own authority in disobeying the Lord’s commandment. Thus now that Christ has come to restore us to God, we should seek to hide man’s authority and his pride. As a symbol of this, man should uncover his head (the symbol of God’s glory) and woman should cover her head (the symbol of man’s glory and her own glory). A woman’s hair, therefore, is not the covering that this passage is introducing. Rather, it is a natural symbol of submission that in the light of the Fall should be covered by a voluntary symbol of submission. That really opens this passage up to such deep levels, doesn’t it?
Love in Christ,
Sarah
1. This passage for some is a point of contention. They argue that since Rebekah was not wearing a covering at all times, that whatever the covering is in the New Testament does not need to be worn at all times. The answer to this is that in the Old Testament, there was no broad commandment for women to veil their heads in any way (with hair or with a literal cloth veiling). What Rebekah did was a reflection of the culture in which she lived where there was no teaching from the Bible on covering. Women covered before men out of modesty (the exceptions would be before family and before eunuchs). In the New Testament, the cultural practice of women covering their heads (though it was not a universal practice among any cultural group to whom Paul was writing) was imbued with spiritual significance and made universal and timeless.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
"If any man seem to be contentious..."
Hello, dear readers! I wanted to share with you all something the Lord has taught me. It was prompted partly by the recent discussion on the headcovering. I was curious how we should interpret verse 16 of 1 Corinthians 11, which reads, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." I was praying about it, and the Lord revealed these verses in Romans:
"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile..." Romans 2:7-10
Wow, well, that sums it up quite nicely, doesn't it? Many, many people twist and wrest 1 Corinthians 11 (and yea the entire Bible!) to avoid obeying the clear commands of Scripture, and in so doing, they speak their own damnation (I do want to be clear, however, that there are some who in Godly sincerity interpret this passage differently than I do. I am not condemning these dear brethren. I rather am condemning those who willfully disobey, hiding behind a curtain of excuses for their worldly disobedience. Please understand that difference). If we are contentious, we are displaying our disobedience and indeed our hatred for the righteous demands of God. We also are fully deserving of God's indignation and wrath. We should think on this, brothers and sisters. A person who will not obey the Scriptures is a person who will not receive the blessing and peace of God. That should establish our hearts and minds in gravity.
This little portion of Scripture has actually opened up a new issue in my mind: namely, are we unconditionally eternally secure, or can our genuine salvation be lost? I can sense some eyebrows going up at that question! I am going to put my other writing on hold for a while and work out this issue. I will say upfront that it honestly does not matter if one can lose his or her salvation or not; what is important is that we are saved and that we persevere in the works that God has ordained for us to walk in. Nevertheless, God has been opening my eyes to this issue, and I feel pressed to research it. :) I am so glad when God does that. It grows my life immensely!
Love in Christ,
Sarah
"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile..." Romans 2:7-10
Wow, well, that sums it up quite nicely, doesn't it? Many, many people twist and wrest 1 Corinthians 11 (and yea the entire Bible!) to avoid obeying the clear commands of Scripture, and in so doing, they speak their own damnation (I do want to be clear, however, that there are some who in Godly sincerity interpret this passage differently than I do. I am not condemning these dear brethren. I rather am condemning those who willfully disobey, hiding behind a curtain of excuses for their worldly disobedience. Please understand that difference). If we are contentious, we are displaying our disobedience and indeed our hatred for the righteous demands of God. We also are fully deserving of God's indignation and wrath. We should think on this, brothers and sisters. A person who will not obey the Scriptures is a person who will not receive the blessing and peace of God. That should establish our hearts and minds in gravity.
This little portion of Scripture has actually opened up a new issue in my mind: namely, are we unconditionally eternally secure, or can our genuine salvation be lost? I can sense some eyebrows going up at that question! I am going to put my other writing on hold for a while and work out this issue. I will say upfront that it honestly does not matter if one can lose his or her salvation or not; what is important is that we are saved and that we persevere in the works that God has ordained for us to walk in. Nevertheless, God has been opening my eyes to this issue, and I feel pressed to research it. :) I am so glad when God does that. It grows my life immensely!
Love in Christ,
Sarah
Thursday, February 26, 2009
1 Corinthians 11: The Visual Version!
:) Hi, everyone! Since I am a very visually oriented person, and I assume many of you are, too, I wanted to put together a little visual representation of 1 Corinthians 11. Specifically, I want to cover why hair is not the covering spoken of in this passage.
Say hello to my assistant, Magdalene.
Magdalene is going to help me to go through verses 5 and 6 of 1 Corinthians 11 and see whether or not our hair is our only covering.
"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. 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."
Okay, let's first try this with the hair as the covering.
If Magdalene is not covered with hair...
...she must also be shorn, or have her hair cut short. Wow, she's pretty bald. I'm not sure how you'd cut her hair, since she doesn't have a single one on her head!
Let's try it another way, this time interpreting this "covering" as a physical cloth veiling on Magdalene's head.
If Magdalene refuses to wear a covering...
...let her also be shorn...
But since it's shameful for Magdalene to have her hair cut short or shaven off...
...she should wear a covering!
Wow, that makes sense, doesn't it?
Love in Christ,
Sarah
PS I thought about doing a "long hair is the covering" example, too, but it's really unnecessary. If Magdalene's long hair is her covering, and she "be not covered" with long hair (i.e., she has short hair), she is already shorn and can't be shorn again. How would you cut short hair to make it short hair? It's already short hair!
Say hello to my assistant, Magdalene.
Magdalene is going to help me to go through verses 5 and 6 of 1 Corinthians 11 and see whether or not our hair is our only covering.
"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. 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."
Okay, let's first try this with the hair as the covering.
If Magdalene is not covered with hair...
...she must also be shorn, or have her hair cut short. Wow, she's pretty bald. I'm not sure how you'd cut her hair, since she doesn't have a single one on her head!
Let's try it another way, this time interpreting this "covering" as a physical cloth veiling on Magdalene's head.
If Magdalene refuses to wear a covering...
...let her also be shorn...
But since it's shameful for Magdalene to have her hair cut short or shaven off...
...she should wear a covering!
Wow, that makes sense, doesn't it?
Love in Christ,
Sarah
PS I thought about doing a "long hair is the covering" example, too, but it's really unnecessary. If Magdalene's long hair is her covering, and she "be not covered" with long hair (i.e., she has short hair), she is already shorn and can't be shorn again. How would you cut short hair to make it short hair? It's already short hair!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Covered in Harmony: Why the Bible demands a literal cloth veiling for women
Hi, everyone! Most of you dear readers know that I cover my head with a literal cloth veiling out of obedience to 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I have posted before about the covering, but I feel lead to discuss my reasons why and to refute some objections to covering. Some of this is taken from my old, abandoned blog, so don’t be surprised if the wording sounds familiar :)
1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (King James Version)
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But 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.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6For 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.
7For 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.
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Let's look at the principle of headship first, since that's really what the veiling represents:
- Verses 1 and 2 state that people should follow Paul's example of faith and piety in all things (I don’t know a single Christian who wouldn’t want to follow a man with a testimony as incredible as Paul’s.) This means all things, including things we don't necessarily want to do or things that are out of style in society. It's also strange to think that the second half of this passage, which covers The Lord's Supper (or The Holy Communion), is never thought of as "out of date" or "only pertaining to the Corinthians/the early Church/everyone but today. Selah (think about it).
- Verse 3 states something that sounds a little odd: There is a divine order both on earth and in heaven. God is above Christ, who is above man, who is above woman. Does this sound strange to you, like woman is inferior to man? Well, let's think about it. Does this mean woman is inferior to man? No! Is Christ inferior to God? What this really means is a man's job is to love and serve his wife as Christ loves and serves His Church (and think about it--Christ died for the Church! It's not at all a situation for a man to be lazy and use his wife as a footstool!)! A woman, in turn, is to graciously submit to her husband's (or father's, if she isn't married) headship--just as the Church is to submit to Christ.
- Verses 8 and 9 echo this--woman was created from and for man. Eve was created for Adam, since Adam was incomplete and needed a helper! This doesn't sound like slavery and drudgery.This is honor, this is the completeness I believe many women are searching for today. Verses 11 and 12 reinforce that it is an equality of worth, and yet a difference in role and order.
Verses 4-7 say a couple of things:
- A man's glory is the woman, while a woman's glory is her hair. In addition, man is the glory of God.
- First, let's explore the idea that a man's glory is his wife. Think about it: a man has to care for his wife as Christ cares for the Church, washing her and caring for her in virtue and purity. Think of the deep and passionate love a man has for his wife. A man's first priority should be to his wife. In addition, a man can be brought great attention by his wife, especially if she is beautiful.
- Now let’s explore the fact that a woman’s hair is her glory. Well, it's a little weird to think about at first. Nevertheless, if we think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Women today wear their hair down and flowing, with so much stuff in it to try to make themselves beautiful (though true beauty is in the heart). They try to glorify themselves by making their hair beautiful (to"glorify" in the Bible refers to drawing attention to something--we glorify God by bringing our attention to Him). Sisters, it is blasphemy to take away glory from God, and yet professing Christians do it every day! (I speak this in love and not in condemnation of anyone)
- It's also been a traditional symbol of femininity and grace for a woman to have long hair. Women began to abandon this--and the covering--thus abandoning their traditional glory.
- In addition, man is the glory of God. Man was the crowning achievement of the Creation. Man's head is God--he is under direct authority of the Lord.
- Because of all of this--man being God's glory, and woman being man's glory, there should be a symbolic covering or lack thereof for man and woman.
- Verses 4 and 7 show that a man should uncover his head before God. Jewish men wore prayer shawls and caps before the coming of Christ. Now, this is obsolete. The Glory of God has come, so man should uncover that glory.
- This means no yarmulkes, prayer shawls, or anything religious on the head. It also means no hats when you're praying, brothers! Our society more or less understands this--usually men will take off their hats in church, although as this passage is being ignored, some men wear hats in church. I can't tell you how this makes me cringe!
- Verses 5 and 6 show that a woman should cover her head before God. It's a harder thing to accept than the uncovering of the man, but it's equally true. We are to cover our glory,and man's glory (our bodies and our selves, in modest dress and demeanor).A woman has her own glory—her hair--and is a glory in herself. Like we established, a woman is man's glory, and her hair is her own glory. Therefore, a woman should be covered in modest dress and behavior, and her head and the bulk of her hair should be covered. A woman should be dressed modestly (a topic we shall cover soon), and a woman should cover her head in a gesture symbolic of the meaning of the covering.
But what is that covering? This question has plagued Christianity with arguments for decades. There are several arguments:
- Her hair.
- Her long hair.
- A specific type of covering mandated by a church or denomination (i.e., the Mennonite prayer caps, etc).
- A veil that replicates the covering during Corinthian times (i.e., a heavy linen veiling that covers most of the hair but is just laid over it)
- Any scarf or hat that acts as a sufficient covering
- The covering needs to merely be a “sign”
- The covering needs to cover and to be a sign
- If the hair is the covering:
- How is a woman’s glory covered if her glory is her covering? Why would God command us to cover if the covering would just draw more attention to us away from God?
- If hair is the covering, men need to shave their heads every time they pray. I’ve yet to see anyone who argues,“My hair is my covering” argue also that her husband needs to be shaven.
- If hair is the covering, verse five is nonsense. Let’s do a little thinking:
If the hair is the covering, let’s go through verse five replacing “covered” and “shorn” with terms that are more straightforward.
If a woman does not have hair on her head, she must have her hair cut short (shorn means to have your hair cut short, like a sheep, as opposed to being cut completely off, which is the word “shaven”).
Do you see the problem here? If a woman is bald, how do you cut her hair?
Let’s take it one step farther. If the long hair is the covering:
If a woman does not have long hair on her head, she must have her hair cut short.
Do you also see the problem here? If a woman’s hair were already short, how would you go and cut it short?
Since the argument “the long hair is the covering” is a common one, let’s further discuss it.
- If long hair is the covering:
- The issue of revealing your glory is still unanswered. Long hair is even more glorious and attention-drawing than short hair. The problem is compounded, not solved!
- There’s actually no justification for this in the passage. Long hair is spoken of only once, when Paul uses comparison in the natural. He says a woman’s long hair is her natural glory, and then goes on to say that her hair is given her for “a”covering. Just because something is “a” covering does not mean it’s the covering that God wants. Do you remember the fig leaves in the Garden of Eden? Or how about if I were to walk around without clothing, and say, “But my skin is a covering for my body!” That is ridiculous, even though our skin does cover our bodies. What Paul is saying is that women’s hair is a covering given by God to remind us of the voluntary covering that we’re supposed to take onto our heads (and indeed our hearts).
I understand that coverings might draw attention to us because they are unusual in modern society. However, we are called as Christians to dress in a way that will not draw attention to the comely parts of us, like our form, our bodies, or our glorious hair. Once we cover those in a quiet way, it is not our fault if someone’s attention is drawn to us. In fact, that often sparks a conversation with the person or thought within their hearts. We also must be careful, though, of dressing in such a way that is so outlandish that it immediately causes people to look. Wear a simple, modest covering and a simple, modest dress that covers you, and forget about it. Think: Amish no, modest yes. Burka, no, modest yes. At the same time, trendy no, modest yes, and worldly no, modest yes!
I believe that it should be obvious that the hair—long or not—is not the covering mandated in 1 Corinthians 11, although we should also have long hair out of respect for this passage. Before we move on to the other concepts of “covering,” let me say a few words about the argument, “My husband (or father, or pastor) is my covering!” Yes, our authority is a covering for us, and we are to be under their authority. However, it should be obvious by now that the passage is discussing something upon the head, not a metaphorical covering of authority (although we also have that; it again could be compared to the natural hair and the cloth veiling). :) Therefore, unless you want to wear your husband on your head, you need to wear a covering.
I also want to mention that the argument that the covering is not applicable to today is incorrect. This is because:
a.The Bible is timeless, and this like all passages is written to all Christians in every place.
b. Just because our society doesn’t practice covering does not excuse us from the Bible’s commands. Is it OK to cheat on our taxes, get an abortion, dress immodestly, skip fellowship meetings, etc, because society does it? Or to hit closer to home, is it okay to disobey the Word of God just because our Church fellowship does? Think a lot about that. The Bible commands for us to wear a covering, and we must obey God before we obey any other authority.
Since it is evident that a real cloth covering is called for in this passage, what is that covering like? The arguments are:
- A specific type of covering mandated by a church or denomination (i.e., the Mennonite prayer caps, etc).
- A veil that replicates the covering during Corinthian times (i.e., a heavy linen veiling that covers most of the hair but is just laid over it)
- Any scarf or hat that acts as a sufficient covering
- The covering needs to merely be a “sign”
- The covering needs to actually,literally cover the hair.
- I see nothing wrong with a church body choosing to have a uniform style of covering recommended. However, the Bible does not denote a particular style, and so we are not required to wear a Mennonite, Amish, etc covering. However, out of a heart of humility and submission, we should submit to our church leadership if they recommend a style of covering that fulfills the Scriptural requirements (I will discuss this in point two).
- Along the same lines of point one, the Bible doesn’t command that we dress in the same way as the Corinthians. However, there are certain principles we are to follow that are given in this passage that I will discuss in point three.
- Let’s first discuss the first argument. This is used by groups such as the Apostolic Christian Church, which wear a strip of lace over the head a few inches wide as their coverings. I believe it would also apply to those who wear coverings like bandannas, doilies, or bun covers. The reasons why the covering is not just a “sign” or something that “hints at” a covering are:
- The issue of covering your glory is still yet unanswered.
- A fashionable or showy covering draws attention back to itself, nullifying any covering that actually happens.
- A lace covering by itself draws attention especially to the hair underneath. It shows off more than it covers, literally.
- The word translated “covering” for thefirst part of the passage (meaning anywhere where the hair is not mentioned) is the Greek word katakalupto,which basically means to cover hanging down. This is the same word used to describe the Mercy Seat in the Old Testament as being covered all over with gold. A covering should hang down in such a way where it covers our hair to the extent that our glory is destroyed (as in you seem to have very little hair). For this reason, I feel that a covering should cover almost all or all of the hair, and not display a whole bunch of hair orbangs in the front with a veiling perched on the back.
So now we arrive at the final argument: The covering should actually cover the majority of the hair with a literal cloth veiling which hangs down to cover almost all or all of the hair. The covering should do nothing more than cover the head and hair. It should not draw attention back as hair would, which means it should be plain, simple, and functional.
Let’s have some discussion on this! I will also be writing an article on dress in general soon, Lord willing.
Friday, February 13, 2009
:) An update
Hello, dear friends! It's again been a while since I've updated. I'm not too good at that, especially now when life is so busy. I have just four months until I am graduated from college, and I am praising the Lord for these last few moments.
I have been doing a lot of reading lately, mostly in the area of apologetics. I have researched and set in mind a thorough refutation of macroevolution (the theory that life came from nonliving material, including the "Big Bang," aka Darwinism; as opposed to microevolution, which is compatible with a Biblical worldview and basically means variation within kinds and adaptation to the environment without gaining genetic information). I have studied the history and apologetics of the Bible. I have also studied and been deeply challenged by the history of the early Church (specifically from Jesus' ministry up through 300 AD).
You might ask why I am doing so much research. Simple: The Lord has laid a burden on my heart to reach the lost on my campus for Him. There are some specific people in mind (my dear friend Jay and his roomate, Greg; Jay is a skeptical young man leaning into agnosticism, and Greg is a Mormon), but I feel a general call to begin reaching out to all of the lost around me. Please pray for me to have enough strength to do His will!
My bookshelf lately:
Sarah
I have been doing a lot of reading lately, mostly in the area of apologetics. I have researched and set in mind a thorough refutation of macroevolution (the theory that life came from nonliving material, including the "Big Bang," aka Darwinism; as opposed to microevolution, which is compatible with a Biblical worldview and basically means variation within kinds and adaptation to the environment without gaining genetic information). I have studied the history and apologetics of the Bible. I have also studied and been deeply challenged by the history of the early Church (specifically from Jesus' ministry up through 300 AD).
You might ask why I am doing so much research. Simple: The Lord has laid a burden on my heart to reach the lost on my campus for Him. There are some specific people in mind (my dear friend Jay and his roomate, Greg; Jay is a skeptical young man leaning into agnosticism, and Greg is a Mormon), but I feel a general call to begin reaching out to all of the lost around me. Please pray for me to have enough strength to do His will!
My bookshelf lately:
- The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell (this is a must-read if you have any questions about evolution. "Emperor Evolution has no clothes!")
- New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell (a wonderful apologetic for the Scriptures)
- School of Biblical Evangelism by Ray Comfort (if you want a challenge, you'll find it in this book, as well as the next one)
- One Thing You Can't Do in Heaven by Mark Cahill (You will be weeping by the end of this book)
- Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down and Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up by David Bercot
Sarah
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Praising the Lord with hands
(The title comes from a Little Jewel book about a deaf girl and her signing family, called "Talking with Hands".)
Today was my first day back in a signing classroom. My teacher is Deaf and (praise the Lord) insists on a completely signing environment; speaking is forbidden. There were various levels of signing ability in that class, so we were signing simple things: fingerspelling the alphabet, signing numbers 1-100, asking rhetorical questions (a common thing in Deaf conversation, although not used much by advanced signers). About halfway through class, like a warm wave, came a beautiful feeling over me. Signing spoke peace into my heart. I remembered today that the Lord wants me in the Deaf world. I had been questioning where He wanted me, whether He wanted me to teach in the position I have found myself in or not. I praise Him that He confirmed that today. I love American Sign Language, and I love the Lord all the more. Thank you, Jesus!
Love in Christ,
Sarah
Today was my first day back in a signing classroom. My teacher is Deaf and (praise the Lord) insists on a completely signing environment; speaking is forbidden. There were various levels of signing ability in that class, so we were signing simple things: fingerspelling the alphabet, signing numbers 1-100, asking rhetorical questions (a common thing in Deaf conversation, although not used much by advanced signers). About halfway through class, like a warm wave, came a beautiful feeling over me. Signing spoke peace into my heart. I remembered today that the Lord wants me in the Deaf world. I had been questioning where He wanted me, whether He wanted me to teach in the position I have found myself in or not. I praise Him that He confirmed that today. I love American Sign Language, and I love the Lord all the more. Thank you, Jesus!
Love in Christ,
Sarah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
