Is it a Goat or a Demon?

Browsing through Leviticus, I came across chapter 17 where God tells the Israelites not to eat blood. Now, it is interesting that in the letter to the Gentiles, the Jerusalem church tells them that this is one of the laws that they cannot break. Circumcision – whatever – but do not eat/drink blood. Before we reach this command in verse 10, we find verses 1-9 speaking of how the people must offer their sacrifices to the Lord at the Tent of Meeting, and not outside of the camp.

But there is something fascinating that happens in verse 7. “They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat demons to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for generations to come.”

Wait… What?

What is a goat demon? The Hebrew word is se’irim, which simply means “hairy one”. It is used in 2 Chronicles 11:15 and Isaiah 13:21 as well. Sometimes it is translated as goat. Sometimes it is translated as Satyr. Sometimes it is simply translated as “baboon”.Some have thought that maybe these se’irim are false gods in Egypt that were “blood thirsty”, and God is saying “Don’t you indulge in that.” What in the world is going on here?

There is this weird connection between offering to the goat demon, and eating the blood. God says don’t eat blood, because the life is in the blood. When we examine Acts 15:29, we find that the things mentioned to the Gentile believers to abstain from are the very things that were used at times to worship false gods. Do not eat sacrifices offered to idols. Do not eat the meat of strangled animals. Abstain from sexual immorality. Sandwiched in the middle is this command to not eat blood. So, it seems likely that this is indeed one of those things that would have been performed as a ritual when sacrificing to a certain false deity.

Jump ahead to 1 Corinthians. Paul is talking to these believers, and he says to them “about eating food sacrificed to idols…” that “food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” Then, to top it off, Paul says, “If anyone… sees you… eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.” This dialogue is found in 1 Corinthians 8.

Jump ahead in 1 Corinthians to chapter 10. Paul makes the statement to “flee from idolatry”, and then wraps that intimately with communion. Then, if that weren’t confusing enough, he flips the subject around and says, “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean that sacrifices offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.”

What just happened? One minute Paul seems to say that it isn’t a big deal to eat of the sacrifices offered to demons – which is deliberately against what the Jerusalem counsel said – and then in chapter 10 it seems like he starts back-peddling. Might I suggest that what is being expressed is bigger than just meat offered to idols? The whole point isn’t about the meat, nor about the idols. The point goes beyond this to a deeper truth. It is about what the communion itself means.

Communion with the Lord is about marriage to God. When the Jewish people would become “engaged” (truthfully, the courtship of the ancient Israelites was much more than what we would call engagement), the father would go with his son to the woman’s home. They would speak to the father of the woman, and they would try to work out a marriage pact. Then, at the end of it all, the son would take a cup and fill it with wine. He would say over the cup, “This is my blood of the covenant. Take and drink of it.” The daughter will then have an option: take the cup and accept marriage with God, or politely decline. When we take of the cup of the Lord, we are committing ourselves to marriage with Him. Jump back to Leviticus 17. Notice the language is about harlotry when the Israelites would offer to this “goat demon”.

We have before us two tables. There is the table of the Lord, which is a covenant between God and His people of marriage with them. Then, there is the table of demons, which is a covenant with death and hell solemnly sworn against the Lord.

To the table of the Lord, we find verses like Genesis 14:18, where Melchizedek brings wine and bread to break with Abraham. We find Psalm 78:19, where God spreads a table in the wilderness for Israel. We find in Mark 8:4, where the disciples ask Jesus, “Where will we get enough bread to feed all these people in this remote place?” In Ezekiel 20:35, the prophet speaks of a time still yet in the future when Israel would be scattered into the wilderness of the nations and sup with God face-to-face. Revelation 12:6 speaks of a time where the woman (Israel) flees into the wilderness to a place that God has prepared to take care of her for 1,260 – another prophecy that is most likely future. It is spoken of this communion that unless you eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, you cannot be His disciple.

Then there is another table. There is a contrast. Psalm 14:4 speaks of evil doers who “devour my people as men eat bread”. Jeremiah 10:25 prophecies of a wrath to be poured out on all the nations and people who “have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him completely and destroyed his homeland.” But the most blatant of all these Scriptures is in Micah 3. “Listen, you leaders of Jacob, you rulers of the house of Israel. Should you not know justice, you who hate good and love evil; who tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones; who eat my people’s flesh, strip off their skin and break their bones in pieces; who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh in the pot?”

What is the point? There is somehow a direct connection between taking the meat sacrificed to idols – joining in the table of demons – and devouring the people of the Lord. There are few things that God says He will cut the people off for. This is one. Another is the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly there is taking the mark of the beast. I believe that all three of these are connected deeply and intimately. Notice Matthew 12:28 that Jesus compares the Spirit of God with the kingdom of God – “If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Then, Jesus goes on to express that the strong man – Satan – must be bound in order for the Kingdom of God to come. Then, Jesus goes back to the subject of the Spirit of God by saying those who blaspheme the Spirit of God will not be forgiven. Why? Because the Spirit of God is the one that is casting out the kingdom of darkness. The Spirit is being likened to the kingdom of God. To say that the work of the Spirit is actually the work of Satan is the ultimate affront.

The book of Revelations contrasts the seal of the 144,000 with the mark of the beast. To one, the mark of God is put upon their forehead. To the other, it is the mark of the beast upon the forehead. What is the difference? They who see the antichrist and will actually claim this man is God is to equate the kingdom of God with the kingdom of darkness. It is the same as they who blaspheme the Spirit – which is the same as they who will feast at the table of demons. Look at Luke 11:20. The same verse in Matthew 12 that compares the Spirit of God with the kingdom of God is said in Luke 11:10 “If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

This phrase is found in Exodus 8:19. The Egyptians see the plagues as the “finger of God”. What is happening? The contrast is being made: Egypt or Israel? Goat demons or Jehovah? The Spirit of God or the false miracles performed by the false prophet? Jesus or the Antichrist? The kingdom of God or the kingdom of darkness? Which do you choose?

A Link to my Other Blog

I have moved to Wordpress, but continue to post blogs here from time to time. Anyone who is subscribed, please check out my wordpress at:

tjustincomer.wordpress.com

God bless you all who read this, and may you continue to find deeper revelation of the truth within our God and Father through His Son, amen.

Running from Church to Find God

            In the case of Philemon, the history might be the best commentary. Philemon was a man who owned slaves. He was a believer in Jesus, and somehow had a connection with Paul, by Paul’s own words he was indebted his life. The story that seems to be taking place in the midst of Philemon is a slave named Onesimus ran away. Philemon was a believer in Jesus, and he had some sort of meeting of the Church in his home. One of the questions that come to mind would be why his slave ran away – but more specifically, why to Paul?

            The best thing that can be figured was that Onesimus heard about this man Paul. He heard about this man Jesus. He heard the message of the Gospel, but didn’t see the reality of it lived out before him. His master was quite the Christian man in front of all the other believers, but is it possible that he was less than sanctified while dealing with his slaves? Maybe the reason that Onesimus ran away – especially to Paul – was because he heard the message of hope and redemption, but still felt oppressed and tormented. Onesimus would have ran to Paul as an attempt to find the man who gave his master hope and redemption. He apparently believed the Gospel, but was discontent in the house of affliction – a house that purported to be Christian.

            In one way, we can look at this and ask why it must have been that this happened, but in another very real sense, we need to glance at out own lives. Why is it that our friends and family – those who are closest to us – don’t believe our message? Is there anything is me that would hinder my witness of the Gospel? Am I the very instrument that is causing someone in my own home to say, “I would love to believe it, but where is the reality in their life?” All across the world we find this story being played out a million times over. Teenagers, friends, coworkers, and acquaintances are running away from Church to find God. This isn’t a new phenomenon. It has happened from the very first century onward. The question is not why they are leaving. The question is why they have been pushed out the door.

            What is it about Philemon that drove Onesimus to such drastic measures? What is it about our so-called Christian homes and church gatherings that have driven the youth away? I have yet to talk to one person that is uninterested in God, except they who are in the Church. The people outside of the buildings have questions that are not getting answered, and they love to talk and discuss the things of God when someone is able to talk reasonably and intellectually. It is the system of religion that has driven them into insanity, looking for life and hope in a dead and dying world. Where are the Pauls of the world? Where are the people that they can run to? Unlike Onesimus, our generation seems to have persecuted the true apostles and prophets so that there is no one to run to.

            In a world that is hostile to God, where do they who truly seek run to? The buildings don’t talk about God. They quote from the Bible, but only to talk about self. On September 12, 2001, while churches across America gathered for their midweek Bible studies, and again on the 16th for Sunday service, millions of people flocked to the churches with questions of love and hope. They wanted to know whether America was under judgment because of the terrorist attacks. They wanted to know if God saw their oppression and heard their cry. They wanted to hear a message from the preachers, who are supposed to be God’s spokesmen, but instead found “business as usual”. When they ran to the churches to find hope and redemption, the preachers got up and began the same sermon series from where they left off – as if the World Trade Centers had not just been kamikazed. Where do the people have to run? Who is the voice that they can go to in order to ask these difficult questions?

            What I find as a challenge with the book of Philemon is that this man was a Christian who sat under Paul’s teaching, and even had a house church. Yet, Onesimus found it necessary to run away from that in order to find God. What vexes me is that I see the same thing taking place, but where do they run? To whom do they take counsel in? The severity of the situation calls for drastic measures, and yet the majority of Christians see it as a “them” problem and not an “us” problem. They are the ones leaving, right? So why is that our fault? What was it in Philemon that caused Onesimus to run away? It wasn’t because of Onesimus that Onismus ran. He could have very well spoken to his master about the same things he sought Paul for. Yet, he decided to run to Paul instead of asking the very man closest to him.

            In considering the book of Philemon, let us consider also the implications that this epistle has on our own lives. Let us reflect on those who have run away from our own homes and lives. Is there anything in us that would have caused for that fleeing? Sometimes there isn’t anything, and they just don’t want to believe. Yet, that shouldn’t be our immediate response, considering the depth of grace and love that we’ve experienced in Christ. Anyone who knew the glory that we have attained to in Christ would sprint 1000 miles to also come unto. The question isn’t our message, nor their hearts, but first and foremost our own hearts and lives and conduct.

           I feel like to end, I should quote Mother Teresa: If you don't want your children, then send them to me. She was talking about abortion, but I'm officially opening my doors for a generation that is asking questions.

A Word on the Two Witnesses

In Revelation 11, we find these “two witnesses” that have both puzzled and fascinated many scholars and Bible students through the centuries. Some want to know who they are, and others want to symbolize them away. What is most fascinating about them is that they “have the power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.”

Before we get to this, lets do a small amount of background. We read in Revelation 11:4 that these “two witnesses” are the “two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth”. Now, this is important for two reasons. First, it is important to know that the lampstands in the book of Revelation are symbolic of the churches (Rev 1:20). Second it is a direct link to call us back to Zechariah 4. In Zechariah 4, we find these “two olive trees” next to a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top and seven lights on it, with seven channels to the lights. No doubt the book of Revelation is looking back to this in Revelation 1:20 with the lamps and the “stars”.

Who are these two olive trees? The context of the vision here begins in Zechariah 2, however, we find that the answer is given when combining chapters 3 and 4 of Zechariah. One of the olive trees is Joshua the High Priest. The other is Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel. These two men are key in the restoration of the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem when Israel came back after the exile. Yet, they are also symbolic of something beyond them. Zerubbabel is the descendant of Jehoiachin – the same king of Israel that Jeremiah claimed was cursed and wouldn’t ever have someone to sit upon his throne (Jer 22:24-30). Now, this Zerubbabel is symbolic of the Messiah, because according to the word of Haggai, he is the one who is the signet ring of God, the chosen one (Hag 2:23). Christ Jesus comes from the lineage of Zerubbabel (Mat 1:12). Joshuah is the High Priest, and is symbolic “symbolic of men to come” (Zech 3:8). It is Joshua who is called “the branch”, which is once again a messianic title in the prophetic Scriptures. Thus, we have both Joshua and Zerubbabel as symbols of the Messiah – one as High Priest, and the other as King of Israel.

Now, for John to be referencing these two men, the “olive trees”, and for him to put them in the future as two literal men that are to be coming into Jerusalem to prophesy for 1,260 days is significant. What exactly is John getting at that these two messianic figures are supposed to be two literal people that are not the Messiah? The answer is found in Zechariah 4, where we see that though Joshua and Zerubbabel are considered messianic figures, the two olive trees are specifically considered “the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth” (Zech 4:14). Though they are symbolically messianic, they are still two real people.

Now, when we see in Revelation 11 that these two men have the power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want, we instantly should think of Moses. Likewise, when we read that they have the power to shut off the heavens so that it doesn’t rain during the time of their prophesying, we should think of Elijah. John is being purposeful here, because these men are symbolic as much as they are literal people. There is something about Moses and Elijah that we find in no one else through all of Scripture: they were given authority over even the elements of nature. But the question isn’t what, the question is why?

Every plague that Moses sent upon Egypt was against a god of Egypt. Khnum was the god of the Nile River, the guardian if you will, and thus the first plague was to turn the Nile to blood. Osiris was the god of the underworld, and the Nile was the “bloodstream” to the underworld. The Egyptians would have wondered where the goddess Tauret was, the goddess of the river, or where Nu, the god of life in the Nile, was trapped to allow such a thing to occur. The frogs were considered the theophany of the goddess Heqt, the wife of the creator of the world. Heqt was depicted as with the head and body of a frog. The “lice”, or “fleas” that came from the dust of the earth would have been an insult against the god “Geb”, the great god of the earth. The “swarms of flies” is actually missing the word “of flies” in the Hebrew, and thus we see the plague of “swarms”. It is most likely that it was swarms of scarab beetles, the god Amon-Ra being depicted with the head of a scarab beetle.

All of the plagues were directed against the gods of Egypt. But still, the question can be asked, “Why?” The gods are representatives of the principalities and powers. The principalities are demonic forces that influence government, society, culture, and every kind of system – whether educational, religious, governmental or otherwise. They rule and influence through the worship of these “powers” that they manipulate and claim to represent. The powers are these forces of nature that are beyond the control of humanity, but the principalities are somehow manipulating humanity into worshiping them as if they have the absolute control and authority over the rain, harvest, sun, and other aspects of worship through the millennia.

So what about Elijah? Elijah claimed there would not be rain nor dew except by his word. Elijah was speaking this to the king, but speaking past the king into the heavenly realms. The god Baal was the god of prosperity, but he was considered the god over the rain and harvest. So for Elijah to stop up the heavens, he is challenging the authority of Baal, and also showing that it is not by worshiping Baal that we will receive prosperity. Through the drought, Elijah would have bankrupted the whole country, not only of money, but also of faith in a false Baal system.

These plagues, though being manifest upon the earth in physical form, are actually somehow going past the physical and plaguing the kingdom of darkness. So, when we get to Revelation 11, we find that these two witnesses are men that somehow are able to see past the physical and into the spiritual. They see the worship of these false gods – even if we claim that we aren’t worshiping any gods. To follow the Antichrist is to worship him as god. We might call science our god (or emphatically say that it isn’t, yet still give it our every waking moment and devotion). We might claim sports as our god. We might claim education as god. Or maybe our society would worship sex and fertility. Yet, even though our society would say that these aren’t gods, we are serving the same old false gods of the Old Testament. In that, we find that the principalities and powers are still very much in control.

Elijah and Moses are referenced in Revelation 11:6 because these two prophets alone have stories of plaguing the earth, and yet somehow they weren’t merely “plaguing the earth”. The point being made with the two witnesses is that these men will have the authority to challenge the whole Antichrist system to its core – which is to say, to blow the whistle on the lie and unmask the principalities and powers. These men are still a curiosity to me, but I find that in this understanding, a lot more makes sense as to what is happening around this passage. The whole point of the two witnesses, their primary purposes and call in God, is to be a Moses and Elijah in their generation to unveiling the kingdom of darkness, and to make full exposure of their bankruptcy.

The reason this applies to all of us today is that we are supposed to be a prophetic people of that caliber. As the Body of Christ, we are to have the discernment and authority to plague the kingdom of darkness, and therefore expose the lie that many – even Christians – continue to live in support of day after day. The answer to many of the cultural agendas that are anti-religion and anti-god is not some sort of political movement, but instead to recognize the principalities that are at play behind those agendas, and to then uproot them through the use of the authority of God given to the saints. This is not a delegation to “call down fire”, but rather to take up the task of seeing the heavenly realities over our localities and nations, and to therefore war against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Sin and Death

            Toward the end of 1 Corinthians, we find a verse that helps us to explain the connection between sin and death. Interestingly, the two words are not used as we commonly use them today. The reference is, of course, 1 Corinthians 15:56: “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Notice here that death is not necessarily the thing that happens at the end of life, for we simply don’t know if there is or is not a sting in that death. Instead, death seems to be something that we all know exactly what is being spoken of. It is a daily thing, suffering the normal aspects of life. Because the sting of death is sin, we see that sin is something that has us in its grips. Death is defined as a moment-by-moment decision to continue in the bounds of sin, or to step out through the cross of Christ Jesus to choose life. We are given the choice, and if we choose death, then we shall face death ultimately (reference Revelation 20:14).

            What shall we say of sin? If death is moment by moment because of sin, then we must ask what we mean by sin. For many, sin is the action that offends God. It is the disobedience to the law of Christ. However, we’ll see later in this section why exactly that cannot be. Sin is a power. It is a condition. We cannot relieve ourselves from the grips of sin. It takes a supernatural work to break the chains of sin. It is at work in our members so that when we were once under the law of sin and death, we found that no matter how greatly we desired to obey the law, we did the very things we did not want to do. We strove to obey God’s commands, but there is something at work within us to prevent us. This prevention is actually not some sort of human nature, but rather a sin nature. It is a secondary nature that has been put upon us.

            The actions called sins are not to be understood as the “end all be all”. Instead, we should understand that the actions are a result of something deeper. There is an inward working of death in our mortal bodies. We are increasingly being moved further and further away from God and toward death. Sin reigns in our bodies, and therefore we are stuck in the grips of death – to be absent from God. It is our sin that separates us from God, but sin of what kind? Certainly it is not the petty shortcomings that we all face, for when we are in Christ there is no condemnation. No, this sin being expressed by Isaiah the prophet is an inward reality of death having its way in our members. It is a condition, a disposition, and that without remedy.

            Now, what is meant by Paul when he says that the power of sin is the law? In Romans 7, he establishes the fact that the law is not unholy, nor evil. On the contrary, the Law is the mechanism that God used to express His heart to us. It is holy, holy, holy. When Paul uses the term “law”, it needs to be understood in the context of two kingdoms. There is a wisdom of the kingdom of darkness that says we can do on our own strength. To walk according to the law is to say that God has given us His ‘manual’ and we only need to live in accordance to it. After all, we do read the B-I-B-L-E – the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. To view the Scripture in this manner is to take the holy things of God in a carnal manner – walking out our faith by our own strength and power – and thus utilizing the wisdom of demons to achieve a preconceived notion of righteousness. Thus, we are not simply talking about the law in content, but the law in practice. It is not just the law, but the law manipulated through the wisdom of this age.

            It is all about self-preservation. Because we know what God commands, we can perform these regulations in order to attain unto righteousness. However, righteousness comes through faith and faith alone. To trust in the works of the law is to trust in sin and death, for through the law sin came. In the ever-nagging question of whether we’re supposed to obey the Torah, we want to answer question number two without asking question number one. The first thing to answer is whether we have indeed established our righteousness upon faith, or whether we in fact do have some sort of religious system and tradition to uphold a preconceived notion of righteousness. Once that has been established, we can then seek to understand the Law according to faith. For they who desire to observe a Sabbath day, do it unto Christ through faith. For they who say that every day is a Sabbath, do so unto Christ through faith.

            We do not observe the letter of the Law as was once taught. Instead, we see that the Passover is fulfilled in Christ, and so when we keep the Passover, it is through Christ and not of fleshly obligation. We see in the kosher diet as ascribed in Leviticus 11 that Christ is our clean food – the bread of truth and sincerity without leaven, and our meat in due season – thus anything clean points us to Christ, and anything unclean reveals to us what Christ was not. In all things, whether eating or drinking, we do it unto Christ. The question of whether we’re free to live apart from the law is answered as follows: Love your neighbor as yourself, for in this the whole of the law is summed up. You who are not circumcised, remain as you are. You who have not kept the kosher diet, think heavily before taking up that kosher diet. Do all things unto Christ through faith, for the power of sin is the law. Now that you have been given freedom, do not exchange that freedom for bondage. You’ve been set free for freedom’s sake.

            This is the power of the kingdom of darkness: Death being at work in us through sin, and sin being at work in us through our own attempts at being righteous. To be free from this is to be free indeed. That kind of freedom comes with a price. The author of Hebrews warned his readers, “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” It takes the Gethsemane experience of every believer to break past the bounds of sin and death and into the realm of eternal glory. It is that resurrection glory that we seek, not just at the end of the age, but to be alive within our members even now. We are of a different kingdom, and therefore we are of a different wisdom. We are not bound by sin and death – the power of the kingdom of darkness – but instead we are bound to Christ. Now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve the new way of the Spirit, and now in the old way of the written code. We are set free, not to avoid the Torah, but to find the deeper expression of it through life lived unto Christ through faith.

Greek Philosophy versus Hebrew Bible

In the first couple centuries of this common era, the Christians were severely persecuted. It was with Constantine having a vision that he decided to examine Christianity a little more openly. Unlike what many teach and say, Christianity did not become unified with the Roman culture during the reign of Constantine. It was actually afterward. However, we can still trace it back to Constantine as the man who initiated this "conversion".

Now, when Christianity became the "in" thing, suddenly you have a lot of people claiming Christianity as just another religion. There were some who were genuinely converted. Yet, what we don't see after this point is a clear and direct stream of thought to understand the Hebrew Bible in its own context. I only need to think of men such as Augustine, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas to come to these conclusions. It was with the Greek philosophy that these men were taught that they understood the Bible. They read the Old Testament with a bent, and this likewise caused them to read the words of Paul and the other apostles with that same bent. Instead of letting Paul speak for himself, he was then reinterpreted through the mouths of Socrates, Aristotle, and the Stoics.

This has caused much damage. For example, when Paul tells us that there is neither slave nor free in Christ, it was the philosophers that argued that slaves are barely even human. Aristotle remarks, "That person is by nature a slave who can belong to another person and who only takes part in thinking by recognizing it, but not by possessing it. Other living beings (animals) cannot recognize thinking; they just obey feelings. However, there is little difference between using slaves and using tame animals: both provide bodily help to do necessary things." Aristotle then proceeds to tell us that a slaves is no more than "a tool of his master". Aristotle even claims that some people "are by nature destined to be ruled, even though they resist it". He thus concludes this thought by saying, "That is why the poets say: 'It is correct that the Greeks rule barbarians", for by nature what is barbarian and what is slave are the same." (Aristotle, Physica, vol. 1; Loeb Classical Library, 1252 b 8. See A.TH van Leeuwen, The Nacht van het Kapitaal, Nijmegen 1984, pp. 182-205)

It was then this Greek philosophy that would be used later in time to validate slavery. Yet, when we hear the historians tell us about slavery, they typically want to speak about how it was Christians that were extreme and difficult to convert to seeing the African Americans as people. Yet, I can't help but ask, if it were in Christianity that these thoughts festered, from where did Christianity gather them? It was in the work of marrying the Greek philosophy with the Hebraic teaching of the Scriptures that such a thought could even possibly be found in Christianity. 

What about women? We find Socrates arguing that women were the "weaker sex" , and claimed that being born a woman was a divine punishment, since being a woman is halfway between being a man and an animal. (Plato, Timaeus, trans. H.D.P. Lee (Baltimore: Penguin, 1965), 42A-C, 90C, 91A) We find also in Socrates' thought that men can do all things better than women (Plato, The Republic, trans. W.H.D. Rouse (New York: Mentor, 1956), 456A). It was Aristotle that taught, "The courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying." (Aristotle, Politics, trans. Oxford University, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Richard McKean, editor (New York: Random House, 1941), 1.1254A, 1259B, 1260A). In this, Aristotle argues that the man is the head over the wife, and that the wife is meant to be ruled over as the soul rules over the body. Aristotle also used this terminology to explain how a master rules over his slave. 

When we read our English versions of the Bible, we need to understand that it is translated from Greek. The original Greek interpretation of those verses is somewhat lost, simply because it is difficult to capture the full intent of the Greek words when translating into any other language. At the same time, we find that there are biases that also get translated into the text. So, when we are taught that the woman is the weaker vessel by Socrates, and we read 1 Peter 3:7 say the same thing, we assume that the apostle is repeating Socrates. Likewise, when we read Paul tell the people in Ephesus that the husband is the head of the wife, we assume naturally that he is reaffirming what Aristotle taught. The thought never even enters our minds that maybe what the apostles were saying was quite contrary to what the philosophers taught. 

One man wrote a book titles, "What Paul Really Said About Women". In this book, he looked at some of major texts that are used to oppress women, and he simply asked the question of whether the apostle Paul was affirming or speaking contrary to the philosophers. In the preface, he writes, "Theoretically, if I took our English translation of his words and translated them back into Greek, my words should be similar to Paul's original words. But when I tried doing this, such was not the case at all! In reality, the words that Paul chose to use imply different ideas from those conveyed by the English words we use to translate his writings. In fact, our English words imply ideas that Paul deliberately avoided! If Paul had wanted to say what we think he said, then he would have chosen quite different words than what he wrote" (John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers 1988), pp xi). 

As I've been looking into this myself, I've begun to realize that the Bible was written by many different authors, and all of them were Jewish. The only man that might not be Jewish descent was Luke. That is debated. Yet, I do ask the question, if 64 books of the Bible were written by Jews, then wouldn't their mindset be a different mindset of the Greek philosophers? The argument can be made that the New Testament writers would have been Hellenized, yet I would like to appeal to Acts 6:1 to make the case that not all of the Jews were Hellenized. Even with this, if some were, then how do we know that Peter and Paul were not? We know because the way that they write is thoroughly Jewish. 

For example, when the Hebraic man debates, he will mention on verse, or only part of the verse, knowing that his audience knows the verse and context. We find this throughout both Paul and Peter's epistles. They reference the verse, but they don't simply mean that verse, they mean the whole context of that verse, and we then see that the context of the verse is actually pointing to this larger picture. Yet, because many of us are not Hebraic, we don't pick up on these things. When we read Paul, we find that he uses a lot of word plays. The reason for this is because the Hebrew Bible also uses a lot of word plays. In fact, the Hebrew language itself is set up in a manner that word plays are necessary. 

So, were the apostles reaffirming that the Greek philosophy was correct? Absolutely not! In no way did they ever agree with the Greek philosophers. Instead, when they wrote to the Greek speaking Hellenized world, they corrected their wrong mentalities. Because we have been too Catholic in following the traditions of the church fathers (which sounds like a rebuke Jesus gave to the Pharisees) instead of seeking to understand the original intent and heart of God, we have perpetuated wrong philosophy through the generations. Slaves are not less than. Other races are not less than. The Jewish people have not been left out of the promises of God. Women are not under men. Wives are not to be ruled over by their husbands. Teachers are not to teach in lecture form like the Greeks. Discipleship is not about learning information - it is about maturity and character. Authority is not about rule or governing; it is about being a servant. We do not rule over one another like the goyim (Gentiles), but instead those that are in authority are they that serve. In this way, there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile, black or white, boss nor employee, clergy nor layman, teacher nor student, fathers nor children, city folk or country folk, or anything else that might divide us. We are all one and the same in Christ - He has broken down that wall of hostility between us. 

That is what is Hebraic. It is the marriage that brings us all to equal status together. We are no longer two, but now have become one. All the things that we have thought would cause someone to be "under" or "less than" us is taken away in the marriage that we partake to become adopted children of God. We are the Bride of Christ, and to be in Christ, we are all now unified and one. No one is over or under - all are made one in Christ. That is the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek. The Greek looks for distinctions between, but the Hebrew sees the marriage and reconciliation of all things. The Greek sees that spirit and flesh fight against one another. The Hebrew sees that in Christ the spirit and flesh marry to become one in harmony together. Every single verse in the Bible teaches us this. Even the ones that speak against it are actually advocating it, because they are spoken in contexts that tell us these views and opinions are wrong. It is an endless study to understand the heart and disposition of God, but I think we need to start here. God is the one who frees the captive and gives liberation to the oppressed. If we are then bringing oppression and bondage to people, we are not in Christ. 

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.”