Head Coverings Leads to Angels?

            1 Corinthians 11:2-15 is one of those passages that very few understand, and I think that the trouble is more to do with our English translations than not. However, with that being said, I think that even when we try to understand what Paul is saying by examining the Greek, we're still only hearing one side of the conversation. What exactly Paul is referencing in this passage we're not 100% sure, and therefore it makes it difficult to understand exactly what he is saying. For this study, we're going to be looking at some Greek. Yes, the dreaded language that the New Testament was actually written in. Now, first off I want to say something: This is not going to be entirely conclusive, because I want you to form your own opinion. I’m going to give enough information to help us understand what is being said, but I don’t want to conclude and bring all of the loose ends together.

            If we translate literally from the Greek to the English, we find that 1 Corinthians 11:2-15 reads: “But I praise you because you have remembered all things of me and you hold fast to you the traditions as I delivered to you. But I wish you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the head of a wife, the husband, and head of Christ, God. Every man praying or prophesying [while] having [anything] down over [his] head shames the head of him. But, every women praying or prophesying with the head uncovered shames the head of her, for it is one and the same thing with the woman who has been shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn; but if [it is] ugly for a woman to be shorn or be shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed is obligated not to be covered, the head being the image and glory of God; but the wise is the glory of husband, For man is not from woman, but woman because of the man. Therefore the woman ought to have authority on the head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither woman separate from man nor man separate from woman in [the] Lord, for as the woman from the man so also the man through the woman; but all things of God. Among you yourselves judge: is it fitting, a woman to pray to God uncovered? [Does] not nature itself teach you that a man indeed if he wears his hair long, it is a dishonor to him, but a woman, if she wears her hair long, it is a glory to her? The long hair has been given to her instead of a covering.”

            This text has been used to say that men should keep their hair short, and that women should not shave their heads. It has also been used to support the notion of head coverings (one only needs to think of the Anabaptists). It has also been used to support the notion that men are superior to women, and therefore women should not teach, lead, learn, speak, etc in the church. Yet, when we read what the actual Greek says, it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to us English speakers. A lot of the things that we have alluded to are actually not entirely there, and the things that we thought were there are simply flat out vacant from the text. One thing that we do know is this: Paul is speaking of head coverings.

            Something to know about Greek is that the same words for man and woman mean husband and wife. Paul could have used words that would mean single men or women, but they bring a connotation that Paul was not wanting to say. So, it is the job of the translator to ask whether Paul is addressing husbands and wives, or whether Paul is addressing men and women. In the above translation, I chose husbands and wives only when we can be certain from the context that it is supposed to be husbands and wives.

            Paul used the Greek word kephale instead of arche when speaking of the head. Arche would mean absolute ruler, chief, or the one who is boss over. Kaphale means the literal head – that thing that has a skull, brain, nose, ears, mouth, etc. Kaphale can also be used as a military term: the first one onto battle. The fact that Paul would use the word kaphale instead of arche tells us that Paul did not intend on saying anything about Christ being the ruler over man, nor man being the ruler over the woman. Though Paul does assert that Christ is the arche over the church in Colossians 1:18, in this specific passage that statement is not made.

            The word for shorn is a form of the word keiro, which means to sheer (as in a sheep) or to cut short (as in one’s hair).

            The word for covered is katakalupto, which is used nowhere else in the New Testament. Kalupto is used elsewhere to mean “cover”, “hide”, or “conceal”, but Paul deliberately added the prefix kata to change the meaning to “cover down over”. In all other passages, when something is “on” someone’s head, the prefix used is epi. Here Paul is saying kata. For this reason, some have translated this as meaning “wearing a veil”. If veil means face covering, then this translation is misleading.

            Hair is the Greek word thrix, but here Paul uses the word kome. It, too, is used nowhere else in the New Testament. It denotes long hair that is ornamented.

            Nature, which Paul said bears witness that men should not have long hair, is the word phusis. Phusis can mean nature, as in the natural law, or natural order, but it can also mean instinct that we hold to from long standing tradition. In that sense, phusis can mean “long established custom”, or “habit”.

            What was Paul saying? Paul appeals to a “tradition” that he had told them before. Now, when Paul wants to say to remember the Gospel that was declared to them, he typically uses the word we translate as Gospel. Here, however, he seems to be alluding to something that he had taught while being with them. Because modern readers were not there when Paul delivered these teachings, we have little clue to what Paul is referencing. However, there is a hint in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18. Paul reminds the church in Corinth about Moses wearing a veil “over” his face. The idea of wearing a head covering was linked to the shekinah glory of God shining down upon the devout. Yet, Paul is asserting that we experience greater glory than Moses through Christ. And his point in 2 Corinthians 3 is that we should have unveiled faces, because it is looking into the face of the other believers that we are then changed from glory to glory. It is Christ in you – the hope of glory – that changes your brethren. We let that glory shine out from our faces, not hiding behind a veil or closing our eyes to it, but instead allowing all to see the glory of God in us and through us.

            Now, this leads me to a specific conclusion. Paul is talking about the prayer shawl. The prayer shawl would traditionally be placed upon the head, and it would then hang down over the head and face. Paul is instructing them not to have this sort of covering, because their covering is Christ. The head of every man is not Moses, but Christ. We have the blood of Jesus as our covering. This is important because we can interpret it for today as well. Should we close our eyes when we pray? Should we all bow our heads? Or should we behold in one another’s faces the glory of God? Should we sit in pews where everyone faces forward? Should we be seeing the back of someone’s head while listening to the preaching? Or should we instead be able to face one another and see everyone’s reaction?

            So, we don’t cover our faces, but allow our faces to be seen. That way, everyone is able to see our Head – Christ. It is a play on words here. Christ is the head over all, but Paul uses the word kaphale meaning the literal body part that sits upon your neck. He is pointing at your head and saying, “What you do with that, and whether you cover your face, is a reflection upon your head – Christ.”

            So lets get back to 1 Corinthians 11. Paul starts to speak about women, and how their head is their husband. Now, from the literal translation of the Greek text, we assume that Paul is asserting that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Now, when we say that the head of the wife is her husband, are we then asserting that women are under men? No. We’re saying that the wife is subject to her husband. But what does that mean? The word in Ephesians 5:21-33 that is used to say that the wife is subject to her husband is hupotassomai, which can be translated as, “be supportive of”, “be responsive to”, “give allegiance to”, or “tend to the needs of”. Paul is not asserting that the man is the arche over the woman, and therefore is the ruler of the house. Instead, Paul is saying that the man is the literal head – that thing upon the two shoulders – and thus needs to be supported by his wife. So, when we read this portion of 1 Corinthians 11, we need to understand that Paul is saying that the way you support Christ, as a wife, is by supporting your husband. The way that you tend to Christ is by tending to the needs of your husband. Does that not revolutionize everything?

            So, what do we make of this part, “But, every women praying or prophesying with the head uncovered shames the head of her, for it is one and the same thing with the woman who has been shaved”? This might be an allusion to culture. It was tradition that the married woman would cover her hair, or keep it bound up when they were married. It was the sort of “wedding ring” in their day – that which identified them as married instead of single. Paul might be saying to not go against that, for it brings shame upon the husband. At the same time, if a woman cuts her hair short, like the prostitutes of their day, it also brings shame upon their husband. Now, what is necessary to note is that Paul asserts that the wife is the glory of her husband. It isn’t simply that the wife needs to respect her husband’s dignity, but that the wife is actually worth something and precious. The husband is found glorious because his wife, not because of his own doing per se. This might be a hint back to Proverbs 31, which is a reflection of the Bride of Christ.

            What should we say about modern times? Is it wrong for a woman to shave her head? Is it wrong for a woman to not cover her head? The context of this portion directed to wives is still under the pretense that “Christ is the head of all”. You come to your own conclusions on that.

            Now, here is where this little bit about the angels comes in. “Therefore a woman ought to have authority on the head because of the angels”. Some have taken this as meaning the nephilim. When God destroyed the earth in the flood, there is a strange passage in Genesis 6 about nephilim. People have concluded that angels came down from their heavenly abode to have sex with women and create giants on the earth. I don’t think so. I think that what Paul is saying her should be taken within the context of other things that he said to the Corinthians.

            By the time we come to 1 Corinthians 11, we’ve already read chapter 6. 1 Corinthians 6 is about lawsuits among believers. Paul asks, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!” Did you not know that we will judge angels? The woman is told that should ought to have authority on the head because of the angels. Who is the head? The head is Christ. What is Paul saying? Women have authority in Christ. You have authority in the name of Jesus over the angels. This is necessary, because you are required to judge the angels. How can you judge them if you don’t have authority over them? Yet, what is the nature of this authority? This authority is most likely in reference to casting out demons and setting captives free.

            So the point of what Paul is saying is about what we do with our heads. If we cover them, we hide the glory of Christ in us. Thus, men are told not to allow their hair to become long enough to cover their face. Wives are told to be careful with what they do in relation to their head, because it is a reflection of how they treat their husband. If a wife mistreats their husband, they aren’t simply disgracing a man, but instead Christ. The assertion is made, then, that women are not left out of the authority in Christ, but instead Paul reassures that they do indeed have authority in Christ. It is not men over women, but instead men and women together. For, “neither woman separate from man, nor man separate from woman in [the] Lord, for as the woman from the man, so the man through the woman; but all things of God.”

Priestliness is Fatherhood, Fatherhood is Priestliness

            The Father loves the Son. His great love is shown through that He desired only to benefit His son. I think to say that God desired “the best” for His Son is provocative, to say that least. The Father didn’t simply desire “the best” for His Son, but desired an eternal blessing. It was the Father’s heart to glorify the Son, which is much deeper than saying “the best.” I think this might be where many of us go wrong. We desire to give “the best” for our children, but how do we define that “best”? God the Father desired to glorify His Son. That glory that He should impart upon His Son was to give Him a name above every name – even His own name.

            “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to” the Son. When it was the Father’s right, seeing as He is eternal and shall never die, to keep Himself upon the throne, nothing delighted Him more than to give everything He had to His Son. No longer do we don’t call upon the Father, but instead we pray “in Jesus’ name.” This isn’t to separate the Father and Son, but to say that it pleases the Father that His Son should receive the higher honor and glory. Jesus taught us to pray, “Our Father who is in heaven…” The Father delights that we should honor the Son.

            Fatherhood is priestliness, and priestliness is fatherhood. The two are interwoven. To be priestly, one must be fatherly. Fatherhood is defined above: to desire nothing but the glorification of the Son. When we are spiritual fathers, adopting sons of our own to raise in the faith, our desire should not be to “impart something of worth,” but instead to sacrifice everything – expending ourselves and being spent – so that our son might be glorified and exalted higher than we ever could have dreamed. This is the priestly act.

            We are called to being a royal priesthood. Yet, I don’t know that I’ve ever heard the question asked: priests for whom? It is not wrong to say that we are priests to one another. In a real sense, we need to take up one another’s burdens and carry them together. I should go to the elders with my faults so that they might pray for me and I might be healed. I should look to the others in the Body to confess my faults, and in that confession to both be held accountable and have someone else to wrestle with me. I should take my petition to another brother as one would take the sacrifice to the priest. They, in return, then take that sacrifice of confession unto the Lord to seek deliverance from the power of sin.

           There is another level to this. We are called to be priests unto Israel. To be Israel’s priests is to take upon self their sins and their wretchedness. We endure the shame of their guilt, exchanging our glory for their shame, so that they might be glorified and exalted to such a place that they can fulfill their ultimate mandate: to be a nation of priests. When Israel is a priestly nation, then the other nations, as nations, can come unto God. As long as Israel remains a people that do not know their God, only individuals will come to Him. There will be a remnant. But when Israel is redeemed, then even the nations will come up to Jerusalem (Micah 4:2).

            Our calling to be priests is a call to being fathers. We need to have a father’s heart. Whether we have come to a place of having a father’s heart is going to be best explained in how we react to this generation. If our heart is to say, “Those darn millennials are just a bunch of hoodlums,” then our heart condemns us. But, if our heart is to break over the amount of youth that are giving themselves over to pornography, lust, violence, and crude entertainment, and we would say to those parents that don’t care about their children, “Send your unwanted children to me,” then we have obtained unto priestliness. It is a priestly thing to submit oneself under agony and suffering for the sake of a generation, or “corporate son.”

            Fathers are so much more than teachers. Priests are so much more than people that minister the sacrifices. To be a priest or a father is to impart life. In 1 Thessalonians 2:7-8, Paul elaborates a bit more for us: “We proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having thus a fond affection for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.”

            Unlike the gifts and callings of God, where God gives to some, the call of fatherhood is made to each and every man in the faith. We should corporately be a fatherly people, in which the world doesn’t have the slightest idea what it means to be “bastard.” If the world’s fathers are so bankrupt of anything sacred that they will abandon their children, then the men of the faith should open their homes and take in those that have no fathers. There should be a refuge and safe haven for all the orphans. Even James says that “religion that is pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

            This in no way means that we should run out into the streets and start pulling the first young man that we see into our homes. All things are done according to the Spirit. All I’m suggesting is that when we are truly of a father’s heart, or a mother’s heart, we yearn for those that are abandoned. We hear of those that have no fathers and we do everything in our power to help that one or two that we know. Maybe we know more than one or two; maybe we only know one. The point isn’t the number, but the heart.

            One man has written, “If we can be faithful to this call, the next generation may yet say to us, ‘Thank you for thinking beyond yourselves, for allowing the Lord to invest in you in such a way that you now have much to deposit in us,’ and thereby serving the purpose of God in your generation, as well as theirs.” Ultimately, the issue of fatherhood is first a spiritual issue. We are to be fathers to those in the faith. We are to take in those that have no father to teach them of the ways of God. There is a generation of young men and women that go to youth group, but have nothing to do with the generation before them. There is such a divide between the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the Millennials. I am fearful to ask what the chasm will be between these and “the Silent Generation” (from the year 2000 to present).

            In the Old Testament, it is continually said over and over that we are to pass on to the next generation the Law of God and the stories of our history. Those that came out of the wilderness and into the Promised Land were to tell the stories of how God brought them out of Egypt and delivered into their possession the Land. Yet, we find in the very next generation after Joshua dies that Israel is carried away into idolatry. What happened? Either the children didn’t care, or the fathers weren’t fathers.

            The statement is made by Hosea, “Like priest, like people.” I think it can be paraphrased, “Like father, like children.” If the fathers don’t care about the things of God, then the children won’t care about the things of God. Too many times I look at the “elders” in the faith, and their eyes are glossed over. They’re still technically alive, but they’ve lost all joy and unction. While everyone else is still maturing in their faith, the one who should be a father to us all is sitting behind the television zoning out of reality. Their eyes have glossed over and their mind has dulled. The no longer see reality, let alone care about reality. And then that gets passed onto the next generation.

            You allow that for multiple generations in a row, and you’ll find yourself in the place where we are currently. Just as much as the question can be asked, “Where are the fathers?” the question can be asked, “Where are the sons?” We have raised up a generation that doesn’t want a father. They’ve become so accustomed to the dread of their own fathers, and the relationships of “lording it over the flock” that they really just want to rebel against anything that calls itself “authoritative.” But this isn’t because the youth have a rebellious heart.

            King Saul at one point told his army that they were going to fight all night. The men were tired. They were hungry. They were exhausted. Then Saul says that they aren’t allowed to eat until they have gained the victory. Guess what the people did. As soon as they had victory they started eating the animals of that people they had victory over. They didn’t even wait for the meat to be thoroughly cooked. They ate the meat with the blood in it. Then Saul laid to their charge that they were sinning by eating the meat with the blood. What’s wrong with this picture?

            That army would not have eaten the meat with the blood in it if King Saul had allowed them to sleep and eat. But instead, he continued to slave drive the army of Israel. We have the same thing in our time. There is a generation that has been stepped on, abused, misused, abandoned, and despised since their conception. They’ve grown up and began to rebel. Whose fault is it? Do we stand in self-righteousness like King Saul? Or do we weep because we have sinned in mishandling the things of God? The answer to that question will reveal more than we're willing to behold of ourselves. When we’re dealing with God’s ultimate purposes, we’re dealing with the very heart of God. It takes a priest to read and teach such things, let alone enact them.

            I think that it is past time that we pursue God's ultimate intentions. If that ultimate intention is fatherhood, which I'm beginning to think that it might be, then we strive with all of our might to be fathers. If there is anything that many of us buck against it is the idea of fatherhood. It might be the most needed thing in our culture, and yet the most opposed at the same time.

Church Leadership

This has been a question asked by a couple people, "What does Church leadership look like?" I am so unfit to answer this question. Before we even talk about leadership, we need to ask what do we mean by "church?" There is a lot to unpack.

When you ask someone what church is, they will typically tell you it is the people. Then you ask them about their church and they will tell you about programs, events, buildings, sermons, worship music, and other things that really make you wonder how much they truly believe that the church is the people. Lets get this one clear: the church is not a building. You might meet in a building, you might meet in a living room, you might meet at a different place each week, but where you meet does not in any way, shape, or form tell us one iota about your "church." The church is first and foremost the people of God, coming together frequently in fellowship together.

In the midst of frequent fellowship, and in the midst of adversity of life lived together, we find ourselves in a strange place. Questions come from the devil asking whether these people even like you. He tempts and taunts and earns his title as "the accuser of the brethren." Nothing short of complete transparency and honesty will help to overcome that hurdle. When we can be united in a way that we are able to confess our faults one to another, and honestly tell each other when we have felt wronged or when the devil has been speaking his deceptions into our ear, it is precisely at that moment that we have stepped out from being an institution and into being an apostolic reality.

Our lives and characters are to be interwoven in a way that you cannot see me without seeing the other members of my community. You cannot tell where the one begins and the other ends. When you hear me speaking about a certain subject, I have not come to this knowledge independent, but instead in the midst of corporate wrestling. We all have a word, a song, a prophecy, a tongue, an interpretation of that tongue, a cry, a burden, a hope, a love, a message that cuts through all the crap, and most of all, we all have hearts yearning for a coming Kingdom. In that context, when we meet, we don't listen to the one man who has prayed, but instead we listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Churches through this man, and that woman, and these brothers, and those couples, and even the children. God speaks through each and every one, or He doesn't speak at all. Even in silence, we can be speaking the very word of God.

This brings me to another question often asked: How do you maintain order? We have set up "church" so that we have the worship, a little bit of announcements, and then the sermon, and then we all "fellowship" or leave. How is it that if there is no set schedule that we will have order?

It is not a cop out when I say that the Holy Spirit gives order. When we take off our control and allow Him to be in control, we find that the amount of order is amazing. Our time together can actually be more ordered and seamless when He is in control than when we are in control. The problem is this: often we let go of control and God is not in it. What happens when the Holy Spirit does not come in our midst to have authority and lead? Is God required to take the authority over the meeting?

When we come together, if there is no order, it is not because we haven't set up rules and bounds and guides, or that we lack leadership. The reason that there might be a lack of order is actually a spiritual issue. For those that have kept their hearts and are following the Spirit, there will be order. But if we have spent our Saturdays watching the football game, and have neglected prayer and the Bible, then it is no wonder that we need a system in order to keep from going berserk.

The quality of our life lived before God is no greater than the quality of the life we live together. When our lives together are constituted by seeing one another once or twice a week, we've already shown our cards. When we "fellowship" by playing games and watching movies together, we've already shown our lack. When we need some sort of entertainment to sit together for multiple days back to back, then our quality of life together is quite poor. How is it that the same eternal Spirit that is at work in me is at work in you, but we can't even find something to talk about? How is it that so often what we talk about and discuss has no eternal weight to it? How is it that we are far more intrigued with the ball game than we are with what it means to have a corporate character of holiness?

I say these things to our shame.

And then we want to talk about how we need church leadership. The leadership is often times equally as wanting in character and life as the person in the pew. The only difference is that you have a man or woman that is now a toddler in the faith that is able to lead the infants. This is not true of every congregation, but it is certainly true for the majority. Church leadership is born out of the intensity of life lived together. When we have wrestled with these first and foundational issues of how to even come together frequently, then we can start discussing leadership.

Leadership is never something that we promote because of a title, education, or credential. It is based on one thing, and one thing only: the word of God. When the credentials are met according to the Bible, and when that word comes from heaven to say, "Separate unto me..." then we shall know who the leaders are. God appoints the elders and deacons. He appoints the pastors and teachers. If it weren't for the assured times when discipline is necessary, you would not even know who the elder is and who the layman is. They are one together.

Submission to authority is thus a submission to the Holy Spirit. Those that are to be great among us are to be our servants. Just as Jesus did not come to be served, but instead to serve, so we are to serve one another. Those that God has appointed as elders are in actuality very rarely the ones that "stand a head and shoulder above all others" (reference to King Saul). Typically God chooses the servant and the least of all. That does not mean the least educated or least knowledgable, but the one that does not identify himself or herself as anything worthy of such a title. The one that does not desire to be sent out and speak to the world as a prophet is the one chosen as a prophet. Why? Because God knows that that man or woman will not speak their words, but will instead remain humble and speak only the words God has given. Likewise, the servant, the one that is truly humble, will not seek to somehow lord over anyone else when they are given authority, but will instead have the authority because of the anointing of the Spirit. They will not govern according to the way that the world governs, but instead have a different disposition: one that asks how Jesus leads; one that asks what it means to rule and reign in the Kingdom of God.

In this manner, God has made it that those who lead are not always those that are most qualified. It is a humbling to those that are more qualified to then submit to the authority. The authority, by the way, is never a man with a title - even one given of God - but instead a submission to the Holy Spirit. If the youngest and newest convert speaks a word that is cogent and drips with anointing, no matter how much we desire to scoff and say we're the elder or we know more, we bend the knee and submit to that word or rebuke that has come from even the babe in Christ.

The oldest is not too far from being rebuked by the youngest. All are able to speak into one another's lives, because what is more important than leadership is apostolic character. Our greatest pursuit is that we do not offend the Holy Spirit of God, which is to say that we we live solely for the glory of God. Anything less than the glory of God is apostasy, and we will not settle. Our leaders are to be those that have discernment to know when a word is truly coming from God and when it is coming from the flesh. These are men that might not know everything as far as knowledge goes, but they do know God. They do know His presence. They do know His power. They do know His Spirit.

Because the leadership has cherished that Spirit that is within them, they are able to see the false a mile away. Any kind of false humility, false speaking, false prophecy, false hope, or false spirit is utterly opposed. And know that it is never the person that is attacked, but the spirit of deception. We speak the truth in love to one another. That doesn't mean that we are somehow timid or wimpy. We can speak boldly and confidently without assailing.

In the context of community, in the midst of adversity of life together, we find an unusual calling. How can we even be to each other what we ought when our privacy is taken away? How can we show each other love when all of the luxuries that we've enjoyed up to now are no longer legitimate? It takes a certain kind of stamina and love for the truth to endure this. When we are willing to submit to that love of truth over our personal ambition, then we have come to a place where maybe we can start asking questions about church leadership. Out of that Body that is consecrated to the Lord, and has been sanctified through the outworking of His Spirit in the midst of that Church, God will speak, "Separate unto me." There will be no question of who the elders or pastors or teachers or deacons or leadership are. It will be blatantly obvious if we are indeed in the Spirit.

I hope that this answers some of those questions about leadership, authority, and submission to that leadership and/or authority.

The Amalekites are wolves

I want to introduce a thought that I've been having for a while, but haven't quite figured out how to express it. Because the thought is rather deep, I wanted to introduce it in a way that wasn't so deep. I'll first put the thought out, and then we'll go into a further explanation.

Every nation that is mentioned in the Bible is stemmed from Genesis 10. Genesis 10 is called "the Table of Nations." It gives you the lineage of the original three sons of Noah, and each of these patriarchs made a nation. From these nations in Genesis 10 come every other nation. Knowing how they are all linked back gives us a good insight into these nations for multiple reasons:

1) God still holds these nations accountable, even though they are not "technically" still around today.
2) All current nations and past nations stem from those peoples, and God sees a continuum from them to the present day.
3) Each nation has a spirit, or characteristic, that is intrinsic to that people. 

The nations mentioned in Genesis 10 have a certain characteristic about them that distinguishes them from all other nations. It isn't enough to say that they have this or that lineage, and they were named this, and so that is what makes them different. What makes them different is the spirit - the principality or power - that is ruling over that nation. We can be of a certain lineage and act quite contrary. Jesus said to the Jews that were questioning Him in John 8, "If you were Abraham's children, you would act like Abraham." They were technically Abraham's offspring by birth, but that did not count them worthy of that title. If Jesus saw it this way, then God always sees it this way. The two views are the same. 

When we dive into our Bible, we find many times that God will somehow throw out these strange phrases. An example would be when He said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam," Micah 6:4. Was the generation that Micah spoke to the same generation that God called out of Egypt? No. This isn't wiped away by playful metaphor or rhetorical language either. God charged the people that Micah spoke to as if they were the very same generation that came out of Egypt. He saw no difference, though it were centuries later and completely different people. He sees an unbroken continuum between these generations according to character, and not according to name.

When we look at the nations in the Bible, we find that certain nations seem to be condemned with no remedy. Why? Because what God is condemning is not the people of Egypt, but the spirit of Egypt. He is condemning the spirit of Babylon. He is condemning the spirit of Tyre. When we lose this understanding, we find it excruciatingly difficult to see how it could be that God would speak such harsh things against these nations. He speaks against what they represent. Any person that would subscribe that that spirit is to receive that judgment, but anyone who subscribes to this spirit will receive of this blessing.

Lets look at the Amalekites. Who were they? We find that the Amalekites are a descendant of Esau. Esau is Jacob's brother. We read in Exodus 17 about how the Amalekites, when Israel came out of Egypt, would stay afar off behind the house of Israel and would slay the weak, the fatigued, the elderly, the children, and anyone else that could not keep up with the majority. They would hunt like wolves. They swarm the sick, the ones that are not able to defend themselves.

Jesus said of such people, "Beware." They come to you in sheep's clothing - pretending to be a descendant of your brother, or in modern language, a part of Christ's Body - but they are inwardly ravenous wolves. A wolf is one that stays away from the strong. They take the weak, the sick, the young, and any who cannot defend themselves. Wolves are cowards. They bite at the leg so that you cannot get away, and then they all come in and swarm around you gnashing their teeth.

This is exactly what the Amalekites did. Saul was charged by God to slay them. But he didn't. He was told to utterly destroy them - don't even allow for the animals to survive. Instead, Saul allowed the king and all of the best of the animals to survive. He took the animals "as an offering" unto the Lord. It was this kind of disobedience that caused the prophet Samuel to weep through the night.

What is so horrible about allowing some animals to survive? After all, they were supposed to be an offering unto the Lord.

Saul did not recognize that he was being called upon to take out the enemy of God. He was being called upon to eradicate an enemy that torments and exterminates the weak and oppressed. God was calling upon Saul to stand up for the weak, stand up for the small, stand up for the child, stand up for the elderly, and stand up for those that cannot stand up themselves. Instead, Saul took it as a bizarre sort of command, and did not take it seriously enough.

That kind of half obedience is not obedience. It caused the prophetic man who understood what they Amalekites represented to weep through the night.

Only a few chapters later we find that Saul completely and utterly destroys Nob. Nob was a town of priests. The very time of extermination that was required of Saul to kill the enemy of God, which he could not perform, was the degree of extermination that Saul was able to slay the priests of God. What would cause him to be able to exterminate the priests, but not the enemies? The priests helped out David, and therefore Saul figured they were not fit to live.

Ministers, elders, deacons, pastors, and the fathers in the faith are called to this one task: utterly destroy the Amalekites. Those that would purport to be sheep, but are inwardly ravenous wolves: kill them. There is no other option. Those that are wolves in our congregations, in our fellowships, in our friends, in our families, or any other kind of relation where they might attack the weak, we are given the command of God to protect the weak at any cost - even the cost of wolf bashing. You will offend. It takes that kind of offense to ensure the safety of those that God has entrusted to you.

Those that are rams are to guard and protect the flock. Any goat or wolf or fox that acts like a sheep, but is not a sheep, is to be opposed to the uttermost. Don't allow one to continue to stand. That spirit that was in Saul that did not equip him to destroy the Amalekites is alive and well in our leaders today. It took David to destroy them. Nothing less than a David, which is in every point and particular the spirit of Jesus, will suffice. Our leadership needs to lead in the spirit of Jesus, and never in the spirit of our own ability. "Not by strength, nor by might, but by my Spirit, says the Lord."

Every nation has a spirit that they represent. The enemies of God are to be overthrown. Many of us have not come into that Land that God has promised - which is Zion - because we have not yet began to overcome the 7 spirits that are bigger and stronger than you. It takes the power of the Spirit to overcome these nations. Nothing short of the cross and death working in our own lives will deliver them into our hands. One of the biggest battles of the book of Joshua was won because God sent hailstones down from heaven, and God killed more that day than the entire army of Israel.

This is the beginning of my thought. I haven't quite wrestled with all of the implications, but I believe that at the end of the age, Jesus will separate the nations as a Shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32). When we have been content to assume that God will judge each man according to his work, maybe the words of Jesus speak a bit more of a truth that we will all be gathered according to the nations that we represent. Each man will be judged accordingly, and I have no doubt that God is able to judge us as individuals, but maybe there is something to this nations thing. I haven't quite gotten my head around it, but I find that even in Revelation 22, when there aren't supposed to be nations, there is a mention of the nations outside of the City of God that must come up to the City and take of the fruit of the Tree of Life. This is supposed to be heaven, and yet there are nations that didn't make it into being the Bride of Christ, and at the same time are present in heaven?

Maybe our understanding is all too Greek, and we need to be taken out from that understanding and brought into a Hebraic view. I don't claim to have it. I just simply mean that what I see in the Bible seems to contradict many of our most precious views about eternity and what it means to be the people of God.