I’ve done some more reading in William MacDonald’s Believer’s Bible Commentary and came across another very thought-provoking section on Ephesians 4:14. As MacDonald points out, it is very important that we have solid teaching and leadership in the Church or it will suffer the consequences:
When the gifts [given to the Church] operate in their God-appointed manner, and the saints are active in service for the Lord, three dangers are avoided—immaturity, instability, and gullibility.
Immaturity. Believers who never become involved in aggressive service for Christ never emerge from being spiritual children. They are undeveloped through lack of exercise. It was to such that the writer to the Hebrews said, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again
--.” (Heb. 5:12).
Instability. Another danger is spiritual fickleness. Immature Christians are susceptible to the grotesque novelties and fads of professional quacks. They become religious gypsies, moving to and fro from one appealing fantasy to another.
Gullibility. Most serious of all is the danger of deception. Those who are babes are unskillful in the word of righteousness, their senses are not exercised to discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:13, 14). They inevitably meet some false cultist who impresses them by his zeal and apparent sincerity. Because he uses religious words, they think he must be a true Christian. If they had studied the Bible for themselves, they would be able to see through his deceitful juggling of words. But now they are carried about by his wind of doctrine and led by unprincipled cunning into a form of systematized error.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Defend the Faith!
Anyway, I read the first 15 days last night and came across a couple items I really wanted to share with my readers. The following is Dr. Rhodes’ entry for Day 11, Non-Rock-a-Boatus:
Many Christians today seem to be secret-agent Christians who are afraid of blowing their cover before an unregenerate world. Such Christians apparently have a hideous disease called non-rock-a-boatus. This disease has so effectively neutralized Christians that the cancer of false religion has spread at an incredible, unprecedented pace in this country.
Many Christians are so fearful of rocking the boat that they clam up and keep their Christianity to themselves. They think that if they speak out for Christ and for Christian values in this predominantly anti-Christian culture, they may offend someone or perhaps be ridiculed and embarrassed.
If this disease continues unchecked, we can count on the continued spiritual deterioration of our country. If Christians do not act, the followers of false religions will. The war is on - and we Christians will be soldiers in the midst of the conflict or casualties left behind.
The task cannot be left in the hands of the professional clergy. The challenge is too massive for church leaders alone. The involvement of every Christian is necessary if the growth of false ideas in this country is to be turned back (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3). The task begins with a single person - you. If you really want to see things get better in our country, why not take the first step - you, without waiting for others to act - and commit to being an agent of change (see Mathew 28:19; Acts 1:8)?
Please note that the context is slowing the decline of the spiritual condition; Rhodes does not believe we can make the country a better place, rather he believes, as do I, that it is possible to reach more people with the truth if we get active about it. We need to put false teachers out of business as much as we can, rather than sit by and watch our churches collapse spiritually. Of course we know we will never be 100% successful because Scripture tells us of the spiritual decline in the last days. But we can certainly slow it down! Dr.. Rhodes tell us how to do this in the last paragraph of his entry for Day 10, Contend for the Faith, discussing Jude 3.
How can you and I contend for Christian truth? The word translated contend (Greek: agonia) was often used in New Testament times to refer to competition in athletic contests. The English word agony comes from the noun form. The idea behind the word is of an intense and vigorous struggle to defeat the opposition. Believers are to engage in an intense and vigorous struggle in defending Christianity.
Let’s all get out there and CONTEND!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Don't Be A Spectator
I’ve been studying Ephesians 4 and reading William MacDonald’s Believer’s Bible Commentary along with the Bible. In MacDonald’s notes for vs. 12 he cites the following from Vance Havner:
Every Christian is commissioned, for every Christian is a missionary. It has been said that the Gospel is not merely something to come to church to hear but something to go from church to tell - and we are all appointed to tell it. It has also been said, ‘Christianity began as a company of lay witnesses; it has become a professional pulpitism, financed by lay spectators!’ Nowadays we hire a church staff to do ‘full-time Christian work,’ and we sit in church on Sunday to watch them do it. Every Christian is meant to be in full-time Christian service… There is indeed a special ministry of pastors, teachers and evangelists - but for what? … For the perfecting of the saints for their ministry.
I thought this was a really good statement about how so many today go to church to get their weekly dose of Christianity and then go about the rest of their week as if they learned little or nothing about their faith (of course, in churches like Joel Osteen‘s they don‘t learn about the faith). I have learned from experience, sad to say, that most Christians are not interested in evangelism, rather they tell friends and acquaintances to go to church; after all, isn’t it the job of the church to evangelize? NO! that is the job of the individual Christian.
What about you; are you a “lay witness”? If you really believe that Jesus is the only way, and that all unbelievers are destined for Hell, should you not be doing what you can to bring as many as possible into the Kingdom?
Every Christian is commissioned, for every Christian is a missionary. It has been said that the Gospel is not merely something to come to church to hear but something to go from church to tell - and we are all appointed to tell it. It has also been said, ‘Christianity began as a company of lay witnesses; it has become a professional pulpitism, financed by lay spectators!’ Nowadays we hire a church staff to do ‘full-time Christian work,’ and we sit in church on Sunday to watch them do it. Every Christian is meant to be in full-time Christian service… There is indeed a special ministry of pastors, teachers and evangelists - but for what? … For the perfecting of the saints for their ministry.
I thought this was a really good statement about how so many today go to church to get their weekly dose of Christianity and then go about the rest of their week as if they learned little or nothing about their faith (of course, in churches like Joel Osteen‘s they don‘t learn about the faith). I have learned from experience, sad to say, that most Christians are not interested in evangelism, rather they tell friends and acquaintances to go to church; after all, isn’t it the job of the church to evangelize? NO! that is the job of the individual Christian.
What about you; are you a “lay witness”? If you really believe that Jesus is the only way, and that all unbelievers are destined for Hell, should you not be doing what you can to bring as many as possible into the Kingdom?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Revelation 22:18-19
I got such great response on my last post about an abused Bible passage that I thought I’d discuss another one. Let’s read the subject passage:
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (NKJV)
Contrary to the common out-of-context use of this passage, it does not apply to the Bible. This passage is only in reference to the book of Revelation and nothing else. You have to remember that this was written long before the New Testament was collected as a book, and the subject of the text is “the prophecy of this book.” I hate to say this, but many good teachers have misused this passage to apply it to the whole of Scripture; I have seen it over and over again in commentaries.
Mormons hear this so much that they have learned to respond by pointing out the context, which really says nothing about their Book of Mormon or their other standard works. Of course what they don’t understand is that this does indeed apply to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, because he did add to and subtract from the book of Revelation!
Jehovah’s Witnesses change Revelation in their New World Translation, so we can say this applies to them also.
Now that I have your attention, does this mean we can add to or subtract from the Bible with no consequences from God? Of course not! Let’s look at some other passages from the Bible (all NKJV):
Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
What is the context? This is Moses talking to Israel in reference to all the Law given to him for Israel. Can we say this applies to the Bible as a whole? No. In context it only refers to the Law - the commandments of God given by Moses to Israel.
Deuteronomy 12:32: Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
As with the other passage from Deuteronomy, this is Moses talking to Israel about the Law.
Jeremiah 23:31: “Behold, I am against the prophets,” says the LORD, “who use their tongues and say, ‘He says.’”
The context is God telling what He hates about false prophets. This passage says God is against those who claim God said something that He didn’t say.
I think these passages tell us a principle - that God does not want His Word messed with by either adding to it or taking away from it. Now let’s look at one last passage:
Proverbs 30:5-6: Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
This is a general statement about God’s Word. It says don’t add to it! By extension I think we could also say this would certainly apply to taking away from His Word, because when you take away from the Word you add a new meaning.
So then, the lesson for today is this: use the Bible in context because that is where the truth lies. Tradition often leads us into error, and when we take passages out of context because we’ve heard them traditionally used this way, then we become no better exegetes than members of cults.
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (NKJV)
Contrary to the common out-of-context use of this passage, it does not apply to the Bible. This passage is only in reference to the book of Revelation and nothing else. You have to remember that this was written long before the New Testament was collected as a book, and the subject of the text is “the prophecy of this book.” I hate to say this, but many good teachers have misused this passage to apply it to the whole of Scripture; I have seen it over and over again in commentaries.
Mormons hear this so much that they have learned to respond by pointing out the context, which really says nothing about their Book of Mormon or their other standard works. Of course what they don’t understand is that this does indeed apply to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, because he did add to and subtract from the book of Revelation!
Jehovah’s Witnesses change Revelation in their New World Translation, so we can say this applies to them also.
Now that I have your attention, does this mean we can add to or subtract from the Bible with no consequences from God? Of course not! Let’s look at some other passages from the Bible (all NKJV):
Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
What is the context? This is Moses talking to Israel in reference to all the Law given to him for Israel. Can we say this applies to the Bible as a whole? No. In context it only refers to the Law - the commandments of God given by Moses to Israel.
Deuteronomy 12:32: Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
As with the other passage from Deuteronomy, this is Moses talking to Israel about the Law.
Jeremiah 23:31: “Behold, I am against the prophets,” says the LORD, “who use their tongues and say, ‘He says.’”
The context is God telling what He hates about false prophets. This passage says God is against those who claim God said something that He didn’t say.
I think these passages tell us a principle - that God does not want His Word messed with by either adding to it or taking away from it. Now let’s look at one last passage:
Proverbs 30:5-6: Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
This is a general statement about God’s Word. It says don’t add to it! By extension I think we could also say this would certainly apply to taking away from His Word, because when you take away from the Word you add a new meaning.
So then, the lesson for today is this: use the Bible in context because that is where the truth lies. Tradition often leads us into error, and when we take passages out of context because we’ve heard them traditionally used this way, then we become no better exegetes than members of cults.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Deception by Investment
This morning I was catching up on my mail from yesterday, and I read the monthly MRM Update newsletter from Mormonism Research Ministry. The lead article was about a survey of Mormons as to what they would do if they learned Brigham Young really was behind the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The results were not surprising, yet they were sad nevertheless. Most of those surveyed wouldn’t change their view of the Mormon Church because they “have a testimony.”
The most interesting part of the article was an excerpt from an e-mail by a Mormon who said, “If Thomas S. Monson [current LDS president and prophet] were to announce in an address in front of the world that it was all a joke, a fraud, a conspiracy, etc. it would not change my testimony in the slightest because he did not give me my testimony or have anything to do with it.” The author of the article correctly pointed out that, “This is what happens when your worldview is shaped by subjectivism and not biblical truth.”
People in cults and followers of other false teachers all have the same problem: they are deceived by their investment in the false teachers or cults. If they admit that the teacher or cult is in error, then they have to admit they were deceived and their self-pride couldn’t take that. I’ve seen it right here on my blog with the followers of Beth Moore - they can’t admit her teachings are rife with error because that would make them realize all they invested in her teachings was more to their detriment than to their betterment.
In a way I have a difficult time understanding this thinking; I’ve never had that problem. Whenever I discover my beliefs are in error, I want to leave the error behind. That’s why I left the Mormon Church when I learned what a fraudulent origin it had, and that it’s teachings didn’t line up with Scripture. I once thought abortion was okay because it wasn’t a baby until the last couple months - something I learned as an unbeliever. When I began maturing in my faith and learned about life really beginning at conception, I immediately discarded my old beliefs and told people I was wrong. There have been teachers I heartily subscribed to as a new believer because I trusted Christians around me, but as I matured in the word I was able to recognize where some of these teachers were in error and admitted I was wrong to follow them.
Truth is what I am always looking for, not subjective feelings, ideas, beliefs, etc. I want to see objective truth. Why is that so difficult for others? I have so often encountered people who do not want to know the truth because it doesn’t go along with their beliefs. It doesn’t matter if the issue is theology or politics, people will go with what feels good whenever it conflicts with truth.
The person cited in the MRM letter demonstrates exactly why the Emergent movement and mysticism are invading the Church - people invest their time and effort into them because the teachings feel good, and they don’t want to admit they are wrong when they are given the biblical truth.
“Deception by investment” holds people prisoner to false belief systems. We need to work hard at breaking that hold by boldly proclaiming the truth.
The most interesting part of the article was an excerpt from an e-mail by a Mormon who said, “If Thomas S. Monson [current LDS president and prophet] were to announce in an address in front of the world that it was all a joke, a fraud, a conspiracy, etc. it would not change my testimony in the slightest because he did not give me my testimony or have anything to do with it.” The author of the article correctly pointed out that, “This is what happens when your worldview is shaped by subjectivism and not biblical truth.”
People in cults and followers of other false teachers all have the same problem: they are deceived by their investment in the false teachers or cults. If they admit that the teacher or cult is in error, then they have to admit they were deceived and their self-pride couldn’t take that. I’ve seen it right here on my blog with the followers of Beth Moore - they can’t admit her teachings are rife with error because that would make them realize all they invested in her teachings was more to their detriment than to their betterment.
In a way I have a difficult time understanding this thinking; I’ve never had that problem. Whenever I discover my beliefs are in error, I want to leave the error behind. That’s why I left the Mormon Church when I learned what a fraudulent origin it had, and that it’s teachings didn’t line up with Scripture. I once thought abortion was okay because it wasn’t a baby until the last couple months - something I learned as an unbeliever. When I began maturing in my faith and learned about life really beginning at conception, I immediately discarded my old beliefs and told people I was wrong. There have been teachers I heartily subscribed to as a new believer because I trusted Christians around me, but as I matured in the word I was able to recognize where some of these teachers were in error and admitted I was wrong to follow them.
Truth is what I am always looking for, not subjective feelings, ideas, beliefs, etc. I want to see objective truth. Why is that so difficult for others? I have so often encountered people who do not want to know the truth because it doesn’t go along with their beliefs. It doesn’t matter if the issue is theology or politics, people will go with what feels good whenever it conflicts with truth.
The person cited in the MRM letter demonstrates exactly why the Emergent movement and mysticism are invading the Church - people invest their time and effort into them because the teachings feel good, and they don’t want to admit they are wrong when they are given the biblical truth.
“Deception by investment” holds people prisoner to false belief systems. We need to work hard at breaking that hold by boldly proclaiming the truth.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Old Song Needs to Go
Yesterday in church we sang a song that was popular in the 1960s and 1970s among the “Jesus People,” and one I learned when I was studying with the Navigators during my Army days. It is titled, We Are One In the Spirit.
Over the years as I have matured in my faith, I get more and more annoyed by this little ditty. It’s a “feel-good” song, for sure, but the apologetic eye sees a serious biblical error in this song. Let me show you the third verse and see if you can spot the problem:
We will work with each other,
We will work side by side.
We will work with each other,
We will work side by side.
And we'll guard each man's dignity
And save each man's pride.
Do you see it? How many times do Christians sing this song without thinking about all the lyrics? Where is the discernment?
“And we’ll guard each man’s dignity and save each man’s pride.” Where is this taught in the Bible? Isn’t pride something that we have to guard against? Do we find anything in Scripture at all about saving each other’s pride? Some may argue that showing respect for someone is “guarding” their dignity; perhaps we can even say the dignity of man is the image of God. So I won’t quibble on this part because it can really get nuanced. But “saving” each other’s pride is something I just can’t validate at all.
Isn’t it time we threw this old “feel-good” song out?
Over the years as I have matured in my faith, I get more and more annoyed by this little ditty. It’s a “feel-good” song, for sure, but the apologetic eye sees a serious biblical error in this song. Let me show you the third verse and see if you can spot the problem:
We will work with each other,
We will work side by side.
We will work with each other,
We will work side by side.
And we'll guard each man's dignity
And save each man's pride.
Do you see it? How many times do Christians sing this song without thinking about all the lyrics? Where is the discernment?
“And we’ll guard each man’s dignity and save each man’s pride.” Where is this taught in the Bible? Isn’t pride something that we have to guard against? Do we find anything in Scripture at all about saving each other’s pride? Some may argue that showing respect for someone is “guarding” their dignity; perhaps we can even say the dignity of man is the image of God. So I won’t quibble on this part because it can really get nuanced. But “saving” each other’s pride is something I just can’t validate at all.
Isn’t it time we threw this old “feel-good” song out?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Are Christians Required to Keep the Sabbath?
I thought about this post because I have fairly recently been engaged in this discussion with a Seventh-day Adventist, then later with my brother, and then this past week I saw a comment posted on another blog charging Christians with not keeping the Sabbath. So this is my analysis of the issue.
Before the Law of Moses there was no Sabbath. When God made the seventh day holy in Genesis, that's all we know about it - He made it holy. God doesn't say what the day was going to be for, just that it was made holy, meaning "set apart." Set apart for what? We aren't told. The very first time the word Sabbath is mentioned is Exodus 16:23-30 when God gives it to Israel as a day of rest - not as a day of worship since they were to worship God daily.
Okay, now with that prelude, let me digress to the connection between the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath.
Let me first point out that the Law of Moses (hereafter referred to as the “Law”) was only for Israel and no other nation. The Gentiles did not have the Law, nor were they ever to be given it or mandated to follow it. (For biblical references see: Deut. 4:7-8; Lev. 27:34; Ps.147:19-20; Neh. 9:14; Mal. 4:4; Acts 15: 5, 24; Rom. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:7-8, 11, 14; Gal. 3:25; Heb. 7:12, 18.)
So then, does that mean the Gentiles had no moral law? Of course not. Romans 2:14-15 says the moral law is written on the hearts of all people.
Now, as to the Ten Commandments - which are part of the Law and not given to anyone but Israel - notice how they do indeed sum up the moral law which is on everyone's heart, with the exception of the command about the Sabbath because there is no moral issue there. Using the Ten Commandment list, here is what the moral law sums up as and why:
1. No other God: Implicit because God is the only true God and He is the creator. To worship any other is fraudulent worship. Adam & Eve would have known this.
2. Do not misuse the name of God. Again, implicit - if He is your creator, you don't abuse Him in any way. Again, Adam & Eve would have known this.
3. Sabbath day. Did not come into play until God gave it to Israel under Moses as a sign of a covenant between God and Israel. It is not a moral law.
4. Honor your father & mother: This is implied because they are the ones who brought you into the world, who nourished you until you were able to function on your own and provided you with training to go into the world. You are also the result of God's command to the parents to be fruitful and multiply.
5. Do not murder. Originally implicit because Cain knew he did wrong by killing Abel. When Noah stepped off the Ark he was told capital punishment would be the consequences for murder (Genesis 9:6). Noah was the federal head of all civilization to follow.
6. Do not commit adultery. Implicit in the institution of marriage where God said the TWO shall be one, which means anyone coming between them violates that oneness.
7. Do not steal. This is certainly a moral code that God would plant in everyone. In no other way could there be peace and love between people.
8. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor. If Adam and Eve didn't have this one planted in them, they quickly learned the consequences when the serpent (Satan) was punished for bearing false witness against God.
9 and 10 are disputed as to how they split but they both deal with coveting something that is not yours to have. Again, if this was not implanted in Adam's and Eve's hearts then they immediately recognized the penalty for coveting when they coveted and ate of the fruit which was not theirs to have.
Notice how all but one of these commands were either implicit, or given before Abraham, meaning they were given to the entire world, which is why these are the ones continually mentioned in the New Testament as being in force for all mankind. But the Sabbath wasn't before Moses and was not for anyone but Israel, which is why Paul, in Col. 2:16-17, said to let no one judge you in regards to a Sabbath. It may also tell us why Jesus made a point to say that man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath was made for man (Mark. 2:27). Notice also how commands 1 & 2 are about our relationship with God, while 4-10 are about our relationship with each other. Number 3, the Sabbath, is not about either one; it is about a sign of a covenant between Israel and God.
Now, let’s take a closer look at the Sabbath. As pointed out above, the very first time the word Sabbath is mentioned is Exodus 16:23-30 when God gives it to Israel as a day of rest. The next time Sabbath is mentioned is in the Ten Commandments; it is here that God explains why He chose the 7th day as a Sabbath for Israel; because God rested from His creative work on the 7th day. (This use of the 7th day of creation is given as the reason for the choice of that day, not to say that a Sabbath day existed prior to the Mosaic Law.)
So then, just what is the Sabbath? It is called a sign of the covenant between God and Israel in Exod. 31:12-17 You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy....The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever. In Deut. 5:15 we are given the reason for this covenant: Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day. No one else was brought out of Egypt so this cannot refer to anyone but Israel. Nehemiah 9:14 says, You made known to them [Israel] your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses. Who did Nehemiah say God gave the Sabbath and laws to? ISRAEL! Ezekiel 20:12 says, Also I gave them [Israel] my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the LORD made them holy. Go 8 verses farther and He says, Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us.
Scripture makes it very clear that the Sabbath is a sign of a covenant between God and Israel. No one else has that covenant that God has with Israel, His chosen people whose job it was to tell the world about the one true God (Exod. 15; Is.42:6; Acts 13:47; Rom. 2:17-20, 3:2).
What about the Sabbath for the Christian? Since it was not known before the Law, and since it is part of the Law, and since the Law was given only to Israel, this would mean the Christian, or any Gentile, was never under command to keep the Sabbath. And since it is a sign between God and the nation of Israel, and Christians are not Israel, Christians are not part of the covenant which the Sabbath signifies. (An analogy would be my wedding ring being a sign of a covenant between me and my wife - no other woman could wear my wife’s ring because another woman would not be a part of our covenant.)
Is Sunday the Christian “Sabbath”? Absolutely not. The Christian has no Sabbath except the Sabbath rest in Jesus (Heb. 4). Sunday was set aside by the first Church as a day of worship and remembering Jesus’ resurrection on the first day of the week (which began sundown Saturday, and which is most likely when Jesus rose - Saturday evening, not Sunday morning - since He was already gone when the disciples arrived at the tomb that morning). The Bible never said this day of fellowship, breaking the bread and worship, was a Christian “Sabbath.”
The meeting on the 1st day of the week was also Saturday evening originally as shown by Acts 20:7-12. Tradition led to meetings on Sunday morning (most likely during the early 4th century under Constantine), but Scripture does not designate any specific day to meet. Heb. 10:24-25 just says not to forsake the meeting, it never says how often to meet or what days to meet. Although tradition has set Sunday for the most part, any day of the week is fine by Scripture. It is a Romans 14 issue.
Jesus came to perfectly fulfill the requirements of the Mosaic Law and, by doing so, He made them inoperative/not in effect (Rom. 7:1-6). In fact, Romans and Galatians both go into discussions about the Mosaic Law being null and void. Being part of the Law, this voids the Ten Commandments, per se, which would include the command to remember the Sabbath. This does not render the law written on our hearts (what could be called a moral law) ineffective because all the moral laws - not the Sabbath law - outlined in the Decalogue are reiterated in the New Testament teachings. (And remember, Paul specifically states that no one is to be judged in regards to a Sabbath Day.)
The Sabbath was to be kept as a day of remembrance by doing no work on it. It was not a day of worship, which is where so many Sabbath-followers make their biggest mistake. There has never been any command by God to choose any day for worship because we are to worship him every day. God said to ISRAEL to remember the Sabbath because it was a sign of the covenant which showed they were set apart for His service - made holy - because He brought them out of Egypt.
One final note for those who claim we must keep the Sabbath: if you demand this, then keep it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and obey all the laws laid down for the Jew in relation to the Sabbath. If you claim Sunday is the new Sabbath, then you still need to obey the laws of the Sabbath. Since there are no denominations who do all the requirements of the Sabbath, then anyone demanding Sabbath-keeping who doesn’t keep the letter of the Law, is being hypocritical from the “git-go.”
Christians have their Sabbath in Christ (as do the Jews, but they don’t know it).
Before the Law of Moses there was no Sabbath. When God made the seventh day holy in Genesis, that's all we know about it - He made it holy. God doesn't say what the day was going to be for, just that it was made holy, meaning "set apart." Set apart for what? We aren't told. The very first time the word Sabbath is mentioned is Exodus 16:23-30 when God gives it to Israel as a day of rest - not as a day of worship since they were to worship God daily.
Okay, now with that prelude, let me digress to the connection between the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath.
Let me first point out that the Law of Moses (hereafter referred to as the “Law”) was only for Israel and no other nation. The Gentiles did not have the Law, nor were they ever to be given it or mandated to follow it. (For biblical references see: Deut. 4:7-8; Lev. 27:34; Ps.147:19-20; Neh. 9:14; Mal. 4:4; Acts 15: 5, 24; Rom. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:7-8, 11, 14; Gal. 3:25; Heb. 7:12, 18.)
So then, does that mean the Gentiles had no moral law? Of course not. Romans 2:14-15 says the moral law is written on the hearts of all people.
Now, as to the Ten Commandments - which are part of the Law and not given to anyone but Israel - notice how they do indeed sum up the moral law which is on everyone's heart, with the exception of the command about the Sabbath because there is no moral issue there. Using the Ten Commandment list, here is what the moral law sums up as and why:
1. No other God: Implicit because God is the only true God and He is the creator. To worship any other is fraudulent worship. Adam & Eve would have known this.
2. Do not misuse the name of God. Again, implicit - if He is your creator, you don't abuse Him in any way. Again, Adam & Eve would have known this.
3. Sabbath day. Did not come into play until God gave it to Israel under Moses as a sign of a covenant between God and Israel. It is not a moral law.
4. Honor your father & mother: This is implied because they are the ones who brought you into the world, who nourished you until you were able to function on your own and provided you with training to go into the world. You are also the result of God's command to the parents to be fruitful and multiply.
5. Do not murder. Originally implicit because Cain knew he did wrong by killing Abel. When Noah stepped off the Ark he was told capital punishment would be the consequences for murder (Genesis 9:6). Noah was the federal head of all civilization to follow.
6. Do not commit adultery. Implicit in the institution of marriage where God said the TWO shall be one, which means anyone coming between them violates that oneness.
7. Do not steal. This is certainly a moral code that God would plant in everyone. In no other way could there be peace and love between people.
8. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor. If Adam and Eve didn't have this one planted in them, they quickly learned the consequences when the serpent (Satan) was punished for bearing false witness against God.
9 and 10 are disputed as to how they split but they both deal with coveting something that is not yours to have. Again, if this was not implanted in Adam's and Eve's hearts then they immediately recognized the penalty for coveting when they coveted and ate of the fruit which was not theirs to have.
Notice how all but one of these commands were either implicit, or given before Abraham, meaning they were given to the entire world, which is why these are the ones continually mentioned in the New Testament as being in force for all mankind. But the Sabbath wasn't before Moses and was not for anyone but Israel, which is why Paul, in Col. 2:16-17, said to let no one judge you in regards to a Sabbath. It may also tell us why Jesus made a point to say that man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath was made for man (Mark. 2:27). Notice also how commands 1 & 2 are about our relationship with God, while 4-10 are about our relationship with each other. Number 3, the Sabbath, is not about either one; it is about a sign of a covenant between Israel and God.
Now, let’s take a closer look at the Sabbath. As pointed out above, the very first time the word Sabbath is mentioned is Exodus 16:23-30 when God gives it to Israel as a day of rest. The next time Sabbath is mentioned is in the Ten Commandments; it is here that God explains why He chose the 7th day as a Sabbath for Israel; because God rested from His creative work on the 7th day. (This use of the 7th day of creation is given as the reason for the choice of that day, not to say that a Sabbath day existed prior to the Mosaic Law.)
So then, just what is the Sabbath? It is called a sign of the covenant between God and Israel in Exod. 31:12-17 You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy....The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever. In Deut. 5:15 we are given the reason for this covenant: Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day. No one else was brought out of Egypt so this cannot refer to anyone but Israel. Nehemiah 9:14 says, You made known to them [Israel] your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses. Who did Nehemiah say God gave the Sabbath and laws to? ISRAEL! Ezekiel 20:12 says, Also I gave them [Israel] my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the LORD made them holy. Go 8 verses farther and He says, Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us.
Scripture makes it very clear that the Sabbath is a sign of a covenant between God and Israel. No one else has that covenant that God has with Israel, His chosen people whose job it was to tell the world about the one true God (Exod. 15; Is.42:6; Acts 13:47; Rom. 2:17-20, 3:2).
What about the Sabbath for the Christian? Since it was not known before the Law, and since it is part of the Law, and since the Law was given only to Israel, this would mean the Christian, or any Gentile, was never under command to keep the Sabbath. And since it is a sign between God and the nation of Israel, and Christians are not Israel, Christians are not part of the covenant which the Sabbath signifies. (An analogy would be my wedding ring being a sign of a covenant between me and my wife - no other woman could wear my wife’s ring because another woman would not be a part of our covenant.)
Is Sunday the Christian “Sabbath”? Absolutely not. The Christian has no Sabbath except the Sabbath rest in Jesus (Heb. 4). Sunday was set aside by the first Church as a day of worship and remembering Jesus’ resurrection on the first day of the week (which began sundown Saturday, and which is most likely when Jesus rose - Saturday evening, not Sunday morning - since He was already gone when the disciples arrived at the tomb that morning). The Bible never said this day of fellowship, breaking the bread and worship, was a Christian “Sabbath.”
The meeting on the 1st day of the week was also Saturday evening originally as shown by Acts 20:7-12. Tradition led to meetings on Sunday morning (most likely during the early 4th century under Constantine), but Scripture does not designate any specific day to meet. Heb. 10:24-25 just says not to forsake the meeting, it never says how often to meet or what days to meet. Although tradition has set Sunday for the most part, any day of the week is fine by Scripture. It is a Romans 14 issue.
Jesus came to perfectly fulfill the requirements of the Mosaic Law and, by doing so, He made them inoperative/not in effect (Rom. 7:1-6). In fact, Romans and Galatians both go into discussions about the Mosaic Law being null and void. Being part of the Law, this voids the Ten Commandments, per se, which would include the command to remember the Sabbath. This does not render the law written on our hearts (what could be called a moral law) ineffective because all the moral laws - not the Sabbath law - outlined in the Decalogue are reiterated in the New Testament teachings. (And remember, Paul specifically states that no one is to be judged in regards to a Sabbath Day.)
The Sabbath was to be kept as a day of remembrance by doing no work on it. It was not a day of worship, which is where so many Sabbath-followers make their biggest mistake. There has never been any command by God to choose any day for worship because we are to worship him every day. God said to ISRAEL to remember the Sabbath because it was a sign of the covenant which showed they were set apart for His service - made holy - because He brought them out of Egypt.
One final note for those who claim we must keep the Sabbath: if you demand this, then keep it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and obey all the laws laid down for the Jew in relation to the Sabbath. If you claim Sunday is the new Sabbath, then you still need to obey the laws of the Sabbath. Since there are no denominations who do all the requirements of the Sabbath, then anyone demanding Sabbath-keeping who doesn’t keep the letter of the Law, is being hypocritical from the “git-go.”
Christians have their Sabbath in Christ (as do the Jews, but they don’t know it).
UPDATE 9/2/21: A friend pointed me to an excellent article regarding this topic: Is the Sabbath Still Required For Christians? by Justin Taylor, written a few months after my article.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Let Her Be Veiled?
This is a subject I decided to tackle because Thursday night I again saw a family in which the females all wore what they considered to be a “head covering” (a small piece of fabric pinned just in front of a bun of hair). We were involved with a family several years ago who wore head coverings a bit larger on flowing hair, and we live in an area teaming with Amish and Mennonites who wear anything from a doily to a stiff bun-cover to a huge bonnet. From my experience, those who practice the wearing of head coverings for the women are always involved in some sort of legalistic group, and many legalistic home-schoolers have taken to this practice. For these reasons I did a thorough study of the issue several years ago, and it is that study I have modified and shortened for this post.
Before I go farther, let me state that I reviewed 26 English translations of the Bible and 20 commentaries from many viewpoints, including the small book, “…let her be veiled,” which was given to me as a proof of the correctness of women wearing a head covering all the time.
Women wearing head coverings is mentioned only once in Scripture. The context begins at 1 Corinthians 7:1, where Paul begins addressing questions that were written to him. He does not address their worship meetings until 1 Cor. 11:17 - the verse which follows this section, which immediately refutes the idea that a woman should wear a head covering for worship.
My commentary will attempt to answer the following questions from my layman‘s understanding:
1. Is the head covering the woman's hair?
2. Is the head covering cultural or for all time?
3. Is the head covering for all women or just those who are married?
4. When should the head covering be worn?
5. Why should the head covering be worn?
6. What form should the head covering take?
Let’s first look at the text, and I’ll use the NIV. 1 Cor. 11:3-16:
(3) Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. (5) And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. (6) If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. (7) A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (8) For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; (9) neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (10) For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (11) In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. (12) For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (14) Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, (15) but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (16) If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God.
Verses 4-7 and 10 are the actual instructions, while the remainder of the text gives the reasons.
Is the head covering the woman's hair?
Because v. 15 says the woman's long hair was given to her for a covering, does this mean that the hair is the covering discussed as some claim? If that is the case, then, in context of the man having no covering, the man would have to be shaved! Logic dictates that this is wrong, so hair could not be the context of vv.4-10. V.6 says if her head isn't covered, she should be shorn; this implies that she has hair already and that the covering is something separate. Even v.5 seems to imply that she has hair. So, what is the purpose of vv.14-15? I think it is to demonstrate that as in the natural realm God has given the woman long hair for a covering, so in the realm of relationships between men and women there should also be a separate covering - it is an analogy. So, the answer to this question is that the hair is not the covering spoken of.
Was the head covering just cultural as most claim today?
Paul's argument is about the relationships established between God and Christ, Christ and man, and man and woman. This argument transcends culture, so that would make this argument for all time and all cultures. Additionally, chapter 1:2 says, "To the church at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ - their Lord and ours..." This says the instructions in this letter are for "all those everywhere" who are Christians, and that it was not confined to any culture.
Is the head covering for all women or just those who are married?
Most Bible translations have the context of husbands and wives. Since the argument appears to be in relation to a woman and her husband, single women are not included, let alone young girls. Even the requirement of verse 10 is in light of the husband/wife relationship in most of the translations I read. But then, what about single women - should they not be covered? If we translate all verses to just "man" and "woman," which I understand the Greek permits, the text looks just like that of NIV. In this case, ALL women are included, and this actually makes sense in light of Paul's overall argument of the relation of men to women. Verse 10 just says it is a sign of authority; it doesn't say whose authority. In the passage, the reason given (that woman is the glory of man, that she came from man, and was created for man) is not relegated to married women. But then, whose authority are single women then under? I would say their father or an elder maybe? It doesn’t say, so we can only speculate.
An interesting consideration is Paul's appeal to nature in relation to hair length. He says the long hair is given a woman for her covering. This would be a covering for all women, including those unmarried. I think a possible understanding of this passage is this: Woman was given long hair as a natural covering. As long as she is a single woman this is all she needs before God but, once she is married, her husband is her head and so she should cover her own glory to show she is now under his authority.
For the sake of being conservative, let's assume all women, married or single, should be covered. Then the question becomes, at what age would it be appropriate for a girl to begin wearing a head covering, if it is desired as a sign of being under her father's (or other man's) authority? I would suggest it would necessarily be when she is old enough to have a scriptural foundation and understand the purpose. This may very well be around the time of puberty, as Tertullian and other early church leaders suggested, or at least when of marriageable age.
When should the woman have her head covered?
Here is the sticky point. The context is NOT just at worship. As previously pointed out, instructions in relation to worship meetings begin after this discussion - at v.17. Paul’s instructions are for "praying" or "prophesying." Alexander Strauch points out that, by the Greek construction, this must be audible and public, so that the symbolism is meaningful; if a woman is praying silently, how would anyone know she is doing so, and how would a symbol then mean anything? So then, I think that the covering should be worn whenever the woman is participating in a prayer meeting where she would join in audible prayer. As for prophesying, I believe direct revelation from God has ceased, so this would not be a consideration.
Some feel that it should be worn at all times because one may be at prayer at any given moment; this seems to be the teachings of the Amish and others who have adopted the tradition. As Strauch points out, the logic would then need to be applied to men, that they could never wear anything on their heads. And yet every one I have seen practice the head covering tradition have no problem with men wearing hats, and Amish and Mennonite men wear hats often! So they pick part of the passage to force women to be covered, yet ignore the other part that says they are NOT to be covered.
Interesting considerations here would be to look at 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Pet. 3:3. To Timothy, Paul talks about dressing modestly, describing the hair but not saying that modest dress should include covering that hair or even just the head; if the head was to be covered always, would he not have so stated here? Peter also address a woman's hair by saying not to let the braided hair be her beauty; if her head was to be covered always, no one would see her hair to begin with!
What if a woman is somewhere without her head covering, or has never been taught the practice - does God honor her prayer? As with other signs, I believe the whole thing boils down to a heart attitude. If the woman forgets her covering and wants to participate in a prayer meeting, I believe God honors her because of her attitude; she has a submissive attitude that correlates with the sign.
Another argument for continuous wear is that it would be a constant reminder to the wife (single woman) that she is under her husband's (father's) authority. This is adding to the text something not there.
I think the only thing we can determine from the text is that the woman should wear a covering if she is praying or prophesying, regardless of location or setting. And since prophecy is no longer being revealed, current practice would only be for prayer.
Why is it worn? What about the angels; what do they have to do with it?
Commentaries making modesty a reason for the veiling are eisegesis; modesty is not mentioned in our subject text. Paul says the reason the covering is worn is that woman is the glory of man, that she came from man, and was created for man AND, because of the angels she should have a sign of authority on her head. The head covering is obviously considered a sign of authority to those who see it, including angels. But why do the angels need to see a sign of authority on a woman's head? A review of the commentaries gave me some insight:
I learned that the good angels watch over us, minister to us, and are interested in the gospel message. They should see proper attitudes towards God when observing us. Since the angels are veiled as a sign of their subordination to God, their head, they would expect a woman to be veiled as a sign of her subordination to her husband (or father?), who is her head.
But the bad angels have a different problem. They see the beautiful hair, and are enticed by the woman. However, if she has a sign of being under someone's authority, this says to the bad angels that she is protected from them.
Could not single women also wear the covering as a sign here? There is no proscription as I see it, and if the angels are indeed attracted to the beauty of the hair, then it wouldn't matter if the woman was married or single.
What form should the head-covering take?
Since the Greek word for veil means "something that covers completely and hangs down," I would say the covering should be something the woman can drape over her head at the time of prayer, such as a scarf or shawl. The idea is obviously to drape over the head an item that covers it. I do think it is enlightening that the art from early Christian times shows various forms. The attitude of the heart has to be in line with the sign. If the attitude is to just wear a tiny doily so no one would even notice the sign, or to fulfill a legal requirement, then the purpose is defeated. And a small doily certainly doesn’t cover completely and hang down!
Okay, so what is the ultimate lesson to learn here?
Firstly, I think the idea of a woman wearing a head covering was intended to be a forever sort of thing, but it is not a salvation issue, and I think for that main reason our culture has left the teaching behind. (It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Church began teaching the wearing of a covering for audible prayer.)
Secondly, those who claim a woman should wear a covering at all times are adding to Scripture, and ignore the fact that a man could then never wear a hat. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; if you are going to make your women wear a head covering all the time, then you’d better not ever have a hat on your head! You can’t just take part of the verse as being applicable and throw the other part out.
Thirdly, those who wear little fabric patches or doilies are not in compliance with the teaching of the text. Those things do not “cover completely” or “hang down.”
So, to sum the whole thing up, IF you choose in your tradition to wear a head covering, then do it when and how the Bible says: just during audible, public prayer - and have a real covering. Otherwise all you are doing is forcing on the women your own legalistic ideas. Let’s free Christian women from this legalistic bondage!
4/5/19 Addendum: Here is an interesting take on this issue--I don't agree with it, but found it interesting:
James B. Hurley [in Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective ,pp.45-47, 66-68, 162-171, 178-9, and 254-72 ] gives us a thorough treatment of “veils.” He points out that the Old Testament contains no law about wearing a veil, and that the Hebrew and Graeco-Roman custom was for women to be normally unveiled. In both cultures too it was usual for women to put their hair up: loosed or hanging hair was a sign either of mourning or of separation from the community (e.g. because of leprosy, Nazirite vows or being suspected of adultery). Dr. Hurley argues , therefore, that the “covering” and “uncovering” Paul mentions refers to the putting up or letting down of the hair. The NIV margin also adopts this interpretation.
John Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today, pg.283, note 43
Before I go farther, let me state that I reviewed 26 English translations of the Bible and 20 commentaries from many viewpoints, including the small book, “…let her be veiled,” which was given to me as a proof of the correctness of women wearing a head covering all the time.
Women wearing head coverings is mentioned only once in Scripture. The context begins at 1 Corinthians 7:1, where Paul begins addressing questions that were written to him. He does not address their worship meetings until 1 Cor. 11:17 - the verse which follows this section, which immediately refutes the idea that a woman should wear a head covering for worship.
My commentary will attempt to answer the following questions from my layman‘s understanding:
1. Is the head covering the woman's hair?
2. Is the head covering cultural or for all time?
3. Is the head covering for all women or just those who are married?
4. When should the head covering be worn?
5. Why should the head covering be worn?
6. What form should the head covering take?
Let’s first look at the text, and I’ll use the NIV. 1 Cor. 11:3-16:
(3) Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. (5) And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. (6) If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. (7) A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (8) For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; (9) neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (10) For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (11) In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. (12) For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (14) Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, (15) but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (16) If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God.
Verses 4-7 and 10 are the actual instructions, while the remainder of the text gives the reasons.
Is the head covering the woman's hair?
Because v. 15 says the woman's long hair was given to her for a covering, does this mean that the hair is the covering discussed as some claim? If that is the case, then, in context of the man having no covering, the man would have to be shaved! Logic dictates that this is wrong, so hair could not be the context of vv.4-10. V.6 says if her head isn't covered, she should be shorn; this implies that she has hair already and that the covering is something separate. Even v.5 seems to imply that she has hair. So, what is the purpose of vv.14-15? I think it is to demonstrate that as in the natural realm God has given the woman long hair for a covering, so in the realm of relationships between men and women there should also be a separate covering - it is an analogy. So, the answer to this question is that the hair is not the covering spoken of.
Was the head covering just cultural as most claim today?
Paul's argument is about the relationships established between God and Christ, Christ and man, and man and woman. This argument transcends culture, so that would make this argument for all time and all cultures. Additionally, chapter 1:2 says, "To the church at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ - their Lord and ours..." This says the instructions in this letter are for "all those everywhere" who are Christians, and that it was not confined to any culture.
Is the head covering for all women or just those who are married?
Most Bible translations have the context of husbands and wives. Since the argument appears to be in relation to a woman and her husband, single women are not included, let alone young girls. Even the requirement of verse 10 is in light of the husband/wife relationship in most of the translations I read. But then, what about single women - should they not be covered? If we translate all verses to just "man" and "woman," which I understand the Greek permits, the text looks just like that of NIV. In this case, ALL women are included, and this actually makes sense in light of Paul's overall argument of the relation of men to women. Verse 10 just says it is a sign of authority; it doesn't say whose authority. In the passage, the reason given (that woman is the glory of man, that she came from man, and was created for man) is not relegated to married women. But then, whose authority are single women then under? I would say their father or an elder maybe? It doesn’t say, so we can only speculate.
An interesting consideration is Paul's appeal to nature in relation to hair length. He says the long hair is given a woman for her covering. This would be a covering for all women, including those unmarried. I think a possible understanding of this passage is this: Woman was given long hair as a natural covering. As long as she is a single woman this is all she needs before God but, once she is married, her husband is her head and so she should cover her own glory to show she is now under his authority.
For the sake of being conservative, let's assume all women, married or single, should be covered. Then the question becomes, at what age would it be appropriate for a girl to begin wearing a head covering, if it is desired as a sign of being under her father's (or other man's) authority? I would suggest it would necessarily be when she is old enough to have a scriptural foundation and understand the purpose. This may very well be around the time of puberty, as Tertullian and other early church leaders suggested, or at least when of marriageable age.
When should the woman have her head covered?
Here is the sticky point. The context is NOT just at worship. As previously pointed out, instructions in relation to worship meetings begin after this discussion - at v.17. Paul’s instructions are for "praying" or "prophesying." Alexander Strauch points out that, by the Greek construction, this must be audible and public, so that the symbolism is meaningful; if a woman is praying silently, how would anyone know she is doing so, and how would a symbol then mean anything? So then, I think that the covering should be worn whenever the woman is participating in a prayer meeting where she would join in audible prayer. As for prophesying, I believe direct revelation from God has ceased, so this would not be a consideration.
Some feel that it should be worn at all times because one may be at prayer at any given moment; this seems to be the teachings of the Amish and others who have adopted the tradition. As Strauch points out, the logic would then need to be applied to men, that they could never wear anything on their heads. And yet every one I have seen practice the head covering tradition have no problem with men wearing hats, and Amish and Mennonite men wear hats often! So they pick part of the passage to force women to be covered, yet ignore the other part that says they are NOT to be covered.
Interesting considerations here would be to look at 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Pet. 3:3. To Timothy, Paul talks about dressing modestly, describing the hair but not saying that modest dress should include covering that hair or even just the head; if the head was to be covered always, would he not have so stated here? Peter also address a woman's hair by saying not to let the braided hair be her beauty; if her head was to be covered always, no one would see her hair to begin with!
What if a woman is somewhere without her head covering, or has never been taught the practice - does God honor her prayer? As with other signs, I believe the whole thing boils down to a heart attitude. If the woman forgets her covering and wants to participate in a prayer meeting, I believe God honors her because of her attitude; she has a submissive attitude that correlates with the sign.
Another argument for continuous wear is that it would be a constant reminder to the wife (single woman) that she is under her husband's (father's) authority. This is adding to the text something not there.
I think the only thing we can determine from the text is that the woman should wear a covering if she is praying or prophesying, regardless of location or setting. And since prophecy is no longer being revealed, current practice would only be for prayer.
Why is it worn? What about the angels; what do they have to do with it?
Commentaries making modesty a reason for the veiling are eisegesis; modesty is not mentioned in our subject text. Paul says the reason the covering is worn is that woman is the glory of man, that she came from man, and was created for man AND, because of the angels she should have a sign of authority on her head. The head covering is obviously considered a sign of authority to those who see it, including angels. But why do the angels need to see a sign of authority on a woman's head? A review of the commentaries gave me some insight:
I learned that the good angels watch over us, minister to us, and are interested in the gospel message. They should see proper attitudes towards God when observing us. Since the angels are veiled as a sign of their subordination to God, their head, they would expect a woman to be veiled as a sign of her subordination to her husband (or father?), who is her head.
But the bad angels have a different problem. They see the beautiful hair, and are enticed by the woman. However, if she has a sign of being under someone's authority, this says to the bad angels that she is protected from them.
Could not single women also wear the covering as a sign here? There is no proscription as I see it, and if the angels are indeed attracted to the beauty of the hair, then it wouldn't matter if the woman was married or single.
What form should the head-covering take?
Since the Greek word for veil means "something that covers completely and hangs down," I would say the covering should be something the woman can drape over her head at the time of prayer, such as a scarf or shawl. The idea is obviously to drape over the head an item that covers it. I do think it is enlightening that the art from early Christian times shows various forms. The attitude of the heart has to be in line with the sign. If the attitude is to just wear a tiny doily so no one would even notice the sign, or to fulfill a legal requirement, then the purpose is defeated. And a small doily certainly doesn’t cover completely and hang down!
Okay, so what is the ultimate lesson to learn here?
Firstly, I think the idea of a woman wearing a head covering was intended to be a forever sort of thing, but it is not a salvation issue, and I think for that main reason our culture has left the teaching behind. (It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Church began teaching the wearing of a covering for audible prayer.)
Secondly, those who claim a woman should wear a covering at all times are adding to Scripture, and ignore the fact that a man could then never wear a hat. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; if you are going to make your women wear a head covering all the time, then you’d better not ever have a hat on your head! You can’t just take part of the verse as being applicable and throw the other part out.
Thirdly, those who wear little fabric patches or doilies are not in compliance with the teaching of the text. Those things do not “cover completely” or “hang down.”
So, to sum the whole thing up, IF you choose in your tradition to wear a head covering, then do it when and how the Bible says: just during audible, public prayer - and have a real covering. Otherwise all you are doing is forcing on the women your own legalistic ideas. Let’s free Christian women from this legalistic bondage!
4/5/19 Addendum: Here is an interesting take on this issue--I don't agree with it, but found it interesting:
James B. Hurley [in Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective ,pp.45-47, 66-68, 162-171, 178-9, and 254-72 ] gives us a thorough treatment of “veils.” He points out that the Old Testament contains no law about wearing a veil, and that the Hebrew and Graeco-Roman custom was for women to be normally unveiled. In both cultures too it was usual for women to put their hair up: loosed or hanging hair was a sign either of mourning or of separation from the community (e.g. because of leprosy, Nazirite vows or being suspected of adultery). Dr. Hurley argues , therefore, that the “covering” and “uncovering” Paul mentions refers to the putting up or letting down of the hair. The NIV margin also adopts this interpretation.
John Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today, pg.283, note 43
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Unification Church (Moonies)
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8
So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” John 19:30
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. Hebrews 10:12
For many will come in My name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and will deceive many. Matthew 24:5
(Most of the history in this article comes from Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin; Revised, Updated and Expanded Edition, October 2003, with General Editor Ravi Zacharias.)
The founder and leader of the Unification Church is North Korean-born Sun Myung Moon, whose parents were Confucian farmers. Moon was born January 6, 1920 as Yong Myung Moon (Shining Dragon Moon). When his family converted to the Presbyterian Church in 1930, Yong retained his Confucian veneration of his ancestors, and in his early teen years he attempted to contact then in the spirit world.
Moon reportedly had a vision of Jesus when he was 16-years-old on Easter morning, April 17, 1936. This “first vision” story has some discrepancies like the LDS “first vision” story of Joseph Smith. While 16 is the generally accepted age, some Unification authorities place the vision anywhere from 15 to 18 years of age. A major problem with the claim is that April 17, 1936 was a Friday and not a Sunday, so it could not have been on Easter. Additionally, depending on which calendar one uses, in 1936 Easter was either on March 30th or April 12th. Apparently, the Unification Church has not addressed this problem.
Moon was first married in 1945 in North Korea to Choi Sun Kil and had a son. After World War II, Moon was involved with various “Pentecostal” groups where he participated in “séances, spiritism, ancestral spirit guidance, and a host of occult practices.” (KofC, p.374)
Moon was excommunicated from the Presbyterian church in 1948, the year in which Moon was also first arrested for “irresponsible sexual activity.” In February 1949 Moon married Kim X while still married to Choi, which resulted in the pair being sentenced to prison for bigamy. (There is some possibility that Moon had four marriages by this time.)
In October 1950, during the Korean War, Moon’s prison was bombed by United Nations forces, freeing the prisoners, and Moon traveled south to Pusan, South Korea. It was in Pusan where he wrote his Divine Principle during 1951-1952. On May 1, 1954, Moon established the Unification Church in Seoul, the official title being The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. (“The phrase "Holy Spirit Association" has the sense in the original Korean of "Heavenly Spirits" and not the "Holy Spirit" of Christianity.” Wikipedia) By the end of 1955 there were 30 churches in South Korea.
“Again, he was arrested on July 4, 1955, for irresponsible sexual activity that caused a scandal at Ewha Women’s (Methodist) University in Seoul. … Moon was released October 4, 1955, because the eighty women involved in the incident exercised their right of silence in court. It was also reported by the Church of the Nazarene Korea Mission that Moon’s church was involved in an unusual sexual ‘blood cleansing’ rite where a woman was to have sexual intercourse with Sun Myung Moon to cleanse her blood from Satan’s lineage. The ‘cleansed’ woman could then cleanse her husband through sexual union with him. This ritual was based upon the Unification doctrine that Eve fell by having intercourse with Satan; therefore, a woman having intercourse with Moon, who is the Lord of the Second Advent, would be cleansed. Just as Eve passed Satan’s tainted blood lineage on to Adam, likewise the cleansed Unification member passes purification of blood on to her spouse.” (KofC, p.374-375) The church ceased this practice after a period, most likely as a result of the increasing membership.
In 1958 Moon sent missionaries to Japan, and the following year he sent them to the United States.
In March 1960, at the age of 40, Moon, known by his followers as “Father,” married his current wife, Hak Ja Han, who was 17-years-old; she is referred to as “Mother” by members of the Church. She and Moon had thirteen children, all who are supposedly “sinless,” and the two are called “True Parents.” Additionally, their wedding was considered to be the “marriage of the Lamb” of Revelation 21:9. “To Unification members, this monumental event ushers in the ‘New Age, the Cosmic era.’ Moon and his wife are the first True Parents and have the power to bless other marriages with pureness and ‘sinless’ offspring. Incidentally, this is why the Unification Church conducts massive weddings, with up to three hundred thousand couples at a time. These blessed couples supposedly are sinless families on earth.” (KofC, p.375) Since his marriage, it has been reported that Moon has had numerous affairs.
In 1964 Moon sought out spiritist-medium Arthur Ford and discussed his mission with a disincarnate spirit. The Unification Church published the events of the séance until they realized Christians considered such things as abhorrent to God, and they have since suppressed all references to Moon’s entire history of occultic practices.
Moon moved to the United States in 1971. He said, “I came to America primarily to declare the New Age and new truth…. This is why God appeared to me and told me to got to America to speak the truth.” (KofC, p.375)
In 1976 Moon held a rally in Washington, DC, at the Washington Monument, attended by 200 to 300 thousand people. Moon told the audience “that his work had broken down all the walls of the spirit world, and spirits were descending rapidly upon the earth.” (KofC, p.376)
During the mid-1980s Moon was convicted of income tax evasion and spent thirteen months in federal prison. As with so many other cult leaders, Moon’s private wealth has reached millions of dollars.
In 1994, Moon changed the official name of the church to the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.
In April 2008, Sun Myung Moon appointed his youngest son, Hyung Jin Moon, to be the new leader of the Unification Church. However, Moon was still active at 90 years old when, in February 2010, he blessed about 7000 couples in a mass wedding is Seoul.
Currently, the Unification Church is making an emphasis to appear more mainstream, and has instituted a new outreach called, Lovin’ Life Ministries, which is intended to become the new church in America. Membership in the church is accomplished through a 21-day course.
Although Moon goes by the title of “Reverend,” there is no history of him being ordained in any denomination, and the Unification Church does not ordain, so it is apparently a title he took for himself. He also claims the title, “Lord of the Second Advent,” and is referred to as the “Messiah.”
Besides the mass wedding, another distinguishing feature of the Moonies is their fund-raising tactics. They sell flowers at many public venues, including street intersections. Tactics for fund-raising include what Moon calls “heavenly deception” - lying. Moon has stated, “Even God tells lies very often.” (KofC, p.377). This “heavenly deception” includes pretending to be wheel-chair-bound to gain sympathy while selling flowers, and giving names of false charities.
The Unification Church owns many large corporations, as well as the Washington Times newspaper.
Doctrine: “The Unification Church is one of the best cults at disguising its unusual, nontraditional beliefs from the unsuspecting secular world.” (KoC p.371) Most of their doctrine is based on Taoist philosophy, and, in fact, Moon claims the Taoist Book of Changes (I Ching) is a key God provided for Moon to interpret the Bible. Since the Unification Church is so far removed from any semblance of Biblical teachings, rather than spend a lot of time on their many doctrines we will look at highlights from just a few.
1. God: “God is viewed as the creator, whose nature combines both masculinity and femininity, and is the source of all truth, beauty, and goodness. Human beings and the universe reflect God's personality, nature, and purpose. ‘Give-and-take action’ (reciprocal interaction) and ‘subject and object position’ (initiator and responder) are ‘key interpretive concepts,’ and the self is designed to be God's object. The purpose of human existence is to return joy to God.” (Wikipedia) God’s characteristics in Moon’s theology are based on Yin and Yang dualism. Unification theology denies the Trinity.
2. The fall of Adam: Prior to writing Divine Principle, Moon supposedly personally faced Satan and questioned him about the Fall until Satan told him the truth about it. “When man was created, Lucifer became extremely envious of God’s love for man. He also saw Eve’s great beauty and lusted after her. At this time Lucifer had not fallen himself, but because of jealousy and lust he entered into an unlawful relationship with Eve. Their sexual intercourse constitutes the spiritual fall of man as well as the fall of Lucifer. When Eve participated in an illicit relationship with Lucifer, she received spiritual insight and realized that she had violated the purpose of creation. She knew then that her intended spouse was not Lucifer but Adam. Subsequently she had intercourse with Adam in an attempt to restore her position with God. Adam, however, was still spiritually immature. Consequently they entered into a relationship which constituted they physical fall of man. So there is a dual aspect to the fall: a spiritual fall and a physical fall. Both of them have to do with sexuality.” (A Guide to Cults & New Religions, by Ronald Enroth & Others, p.157)
3. Jesus: Unification teaching deny the virgin birth, and say that Zachariah, John the Baptist’s father, was Jesus’ father. They also deny that Jesus is God, and that he is an ordinary man but without original sin. Moon claims it was Christians who claimed that Jesus is God. Jesus was supposed to marry and raise sinless children.
4. The atonement: According to Moon, when he met Jesus as a teen, Jesus told him that his crucifixion and death were not supposed to have happened, and that they caused him to not complete his mission of marrying and raising a family. This was because his disciples failed to find him a bride. Because of this, Jesus could not save man physically, but only spiritually. Therefore, Moon was to complete mission by raising a perfect family as a model for the world. (Apologia Report, Vol. 15:8, 3/3/10, p.2) As an aside, in addition to meeting Jesus, Moon also claims to have met Moses and Buddha.
5. The Bible and revelation: “It is stated in their history that Moon struggled for nine years (the original Divine Principle says seven) to discover the truth of Divine Principle. The Divine Principle is authoritative scripture in the Unification Church and is considered superior to the Bible. ~ Through Divine Principle, in its latest version, Moon’s followers understand and interpret the Bible. … It must be explained by the organization and God’s prophet for today: Rev. Sun Myung Moon.” (Kingdom of the Cults, p.373)
There is a debate as to the origin of Moon’s Divine Principle. Unification writers are divided as to whether it was “discovered” or came as revelation. Most likely, the origin of this work came from Moon’s former teacher, Klder Baik Moon Kim, who taught similar “principles” to Moon in 1946. It was under Kim’s tutelage that Moon changed his name to Sun Myung Moon (Shining Sun and Moon). Moon’s Divine Principle was published six years later.
Moon said, “The Bible, however, is not the truth itself, but contains the truth.” Moon then claims that new truth comes from God through Moon. The introduction to Divine Principle says, “This truth must appear as a revelation from God himself. This new truth has already appeared! God has sent his messenger …. His name is Sun Myung Moon.” (KofC, p.380)
Moon says his Divine Principle is the “Complete Testament,” becoming the third testament of the Scripture after the Old and New Testaments.
6. Marriage: Those couples married in the Unification Church become part of the sinless mankind which will bring physical salvation to the earth. Moon’s blessing on these mass weddings guarantees their children will be sinless. After the wedding, the couples remain celibate for 40 days, after which they consummate the marriage for three days and then remain celibate for three years.
How to Witness: The best way to witness to Moonies would be to start with the reliability of Scripture and then undermine the prophet by comparing his teachings with the Bible.
I think it’s fair to say that there is nothing resembling biblical Christianity in the Unification Church. The Moonies are deceived by the same evil behind all the other cults - Satan.
So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” John 19:30
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. Hebrews 10:12
For many will come in My name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and will deceive many. Matthew 24:5
(Most of the history in this article comes from Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin; Revised, Updated and Expanded Edition, October 2003, with General Editor Ravi Zacharias.)
The founder and leader of the Unification Church is North Korean-born Sun Myung Moon, whose parents were Confucian farmers. Moon was born January 6, 1920 as Yong Myung Moon (Shining Dragon Moon). When his family converted to the Presbyterian Church in 1930, Yong retained his Confucian veneration of his ancestors, and in his early teen years he attempted to contact then in the spirit world.
Moon reportedly had a vision of Jesus when he was 16-years-old on Easter morning, April 17, 1936. This “first vision” story has some discrepancies like the LDS “first vision” story of Joseph Smith. While 16 is the generally accepted age, some Unification authorities place the vision anywhere from 15 to 18 years of age. A major problem with the claim is that April 17, 1936 was a Friday and not a Sunday, so it could not have been on Easter. Additionally, depending on which calendar one uses, in 1936 Easter was either on March 30th or April 12th. Apparently, the Unification Church has not addressed this problem.
Moon was first married in 1945 in North Korea to Choi Sun Kil and had a son. After World War II, Moon was involved with various “Pentecostal” groups where he participated in “séances, spiritism, ancestral spirit guidance, and a host of occult practices.” (KofC, p.374)
Moon was excommunicated from the Presbyterian church in 1948, the year in which Moon was also first arrested for “irresponsible sexual activity.” In February 1949 Moon married Kim X while still married to Choi, which resulted in the pair being sentenced to prison for bigamy. (There is some possibility that Moon had four marriages by this time.)
In October 1950, during the Korean War, Moon’s prison was bombed by United Nations forces, freeing the prisoners, and Moon traveled south to Pusan, South Korea. It was in Pusan where he wrote his Divine Principle during 1951-1952. On May 1, 1954, Moon established the Unification Church in Seoul, the official title being The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. (“The phrase "Holy Spirit Association" has the sense in the original Korean of "Heavenly Spirits" and not the "Holy Spirit" of Christianity.” Wikipedia) By the end of 1955 there were 30 churches in South Korea.
“Again, he was arrested on July 4, 1955, for irresponsible sexual activity that caused a scandal at Ewha Women’s (Methodist) University in Seoul. … Moon was released October 4, 1955, because the eighty women involved in the incident exercised their right of silence in court. It was also reported by the Church of the Nazarene Korea Mission that Moon’s church was involved in an unusual sexual ‘blood cleansing’ rite where a woman was to have sexual intercourse with Sun Myung Moon to cleanse her blood from Satan’s lineage. The ‘cleansed’ woman could then cleanse her husband through sexual union with him. This ritual was based upon the Unification doctrine that Eve fell by having intercourse with Satan; therefore, a woman having intercourse with Moon, who is the Lord of the Second Advent, would be cleansed. Just as Eve passed Satan’s tainted blood lineage on to Adam, likewise the cleansed Unification member passes purification of blood on to her spouse.” (KofC, p.374-375) The church ceased this practice after a period, most likely as a result of the increasing membership.
In 1958 Moon sent missionaries to Japan, and the following year he sent them to the United States.
In March 1960, at the age of 40, Moon, known by his followers as “Father,” married his current wife, Hak Ja Han, who was 17-years-old; she is referred to as “Mother” by members of the Church. She and Moon had thirteen children, all who are supposedly “sinless,” and the two are called “True Parents.” Additionally, their wedding was considered to be the “marriage of the Lamb” of Revelation 21:9. “To Unification members, this monumental event ushers in the ‘New Age, the Cosmic era.’ Moon and his wife are the first True Parents and have the power to bless other marriages with pureness and ‘sinless’ offspring. Incidentally, this is why the Unification Church conducts massive weddings, with up to three hundred thousand couples at a time. These blessed couples supposedly are sinless families on earth.” (KofC, p.375) Since his marriage, it has been reported that Moon has had numerous affairs.
In 1964 Moon sought out spiritist-medium Arthur Ford and discussed his mission with a disincarnate spirit. The Unification Church published the events of the séance until they realized Christians considered such things as abhorrent to God, and they have since suppressed all references to Moon’s entire history of occultic practices.
Moon moved to the United States in 1971. He said, “I came to America primarily to declare the New Age and new truth…. This is why God appeared to me and told me to got to America to speak the truth.” (KofC, p.375)
In 1976 Moon held a rally in Washington, DC, at the Washington Monument, attended by 200 to 300 thousand people. Moon told the audience “that his work had broken down all the walls of the spirit world, and spirits were descending rapidly upon the earth.” (KofC, p.376)
During the mid-1980s Moon was convicted of income tax evasion and spent thirteen months in federal prison. As with so many other cult leaders, Moon’s private wealth has reached millions of dollars.
In 1994, Moon changed the official name of the church to the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.
In April 2008, Sun Myung Moon appointed his youngest son, Hyung Jin Moon, to be the new leader of the Unification Church. However, Moon was still active at 90 years old when, in February 2010, he blessed about 7000 couples in a mass wedding is Seoul.
Currently, the Unification Church is making an emphasis to appear more mainstream, and has instituted a new outreach called, Lovin’ Life Ministries, which is intended to become the new church in America. Membership in the church is accomplished through a 21-day course.
Although Moon goes by the title of “Reverend,” there is no history of him being ordained in any denomination, and the Unification Church does not ordain, so it is apparently a title he took for himself. He also claims the title, “Lord of the Second Advent,” and is referred to as the “Messiah.”
Besides the mass wedding, another distinguishing feature of the Moonies is their fund-raising tactics. They sell flowers at many public venues, including street intersections. Tactics for fund-raising include what Moon calls “heavenly deception” - lying. Moon has stated, “Even God tells lies very often.” (KofC, p.377). This “heavenly deception” includes pretending to be wheel-chair-bound to gain sympathy while selling flowers, and giving names of false charities.
The Unification Church owns many large corporations, as well as the Washington Times newspaper.
Doctrine: “The Unification Church is one of the best cults at disguising its unusual, nontraditional beliefs from the unsuspecting secular world.” (KoC p.371) Most of their doctrine is based on Taoist philosophy, and, in fact, Moon claims the Taoist Book of Changes (I Ching) is a key God provided for Moon to interpret the Bible. Since the Unification Church is so far removed from any semblance of Biblical teachings, rather than spend a lot of time on their many doctrines we will look at highlights from just a few.
1. God: “God is viewed as the creator, whose nature combines both masculinity and femininity, and is the source of all truth, beauty, and goodness. Human beings and the universe reflect God's personality, nature, and purpose. ‘Give-and-take action’ (reciprocal interaction) and ‘subject and object position’ (initiator and responder) are ‘key interpretive concepts,’ and the self is designed to be God's object. The purpose of human existence is to return joy to God.” (Wikipedia) God’s characteristics in Moon’s theology are based on Yin and Yang dualism. Unification theology denies the Trinity.
2. The fall of Adam: Prior to writing Divine Principle, Moon supposedly personally faced Satan and questioned him about the Fall until Satan told him the truth about it. “When man was created, Lucifer became extremely envious of God’s love for man. He also saw Eve’s great beauty and lusted after her. At this time Lucifer had not fallen himself, but because of jealousy and lust he entered into an unlawful relationship with Eve. Their sexual intercourse constitutes the spiritual fall of man as well as the fall of Lucifer. When Eve participated in an illicit relationship with Lucifer, she received spiritual insight and realized that she had violated the purpose of creation. She knew then that her intended spouse was not Lucifer but Adam. Subsequently she had intercourse with Adam in an attempt to restore her position with God. Adam, however, was still spiritually immature. Consequently they entered into a relationship which constituted they physical fall of man. So there is a dual aspect to the fall: a spiritual fall and a physical fall. Both of them have to do with sexuality.” (A Guide to Cults & New Religions, by Ronald Enroth & Others, p.157)
3. Jesus: Unification teaching deny the virgin birth, and say that Zachariah, John the Baptist’s father, was Jesus’ father. They also deny that Jesus is God, and that he is an ordinary man but without original sin. Moon claims it was Christians who claimed that Jesus is God. Jesus was supposed to marry and raise sinless children.
4. The atonement: According to Moon, when he met Jesus as a teen, Jesus told him that his crucifixion and death were not supposed to have happened, and that they caused him to not complete his mission of marrying and raising a family. This was because his disciples failed to find him a bride. Because of this, Jesus could not save man physically, but only spiritually. Therefore, Moon was to complete mission by raising a perfect family as a model for the world. (Apologia Report, Vol. 15:8, 3/3/10, p.2) As an aside, in addition to meeting Jesus, Moon also claims to have met Moses and Buddha.
5. The Bible and revelation: “It is stated in their history that Moon struggled for nine years (the original Divine Principle says seven) to discover the truth of Divine Principle. The Divine Principle is authoritative scripture in the Unification Church and is considered superior to the Bible. ~ Through Divine Principle, in its latest version, Moon’s followers understand and interpret the Bible. … It must be explained by the organization and God’s prophet for today: Rev. Sun Myung Moon.” (Kingdom of the Cults, p.373)
There is a debate as to the origin of Moon’s Divine Principle. Unification writers are divided as to whether it was “discovered” or came as revelation. Most likely, the origin of this work came from Moon’s former teacher, Klder Baik Moon Kim, who taught similar “principles” to Moon in 1946. It was under Kim’s tutelage that Moon changed his name to Sun Myung Moon (Shining Sun and Moon). Moon’s Divine Principle was published six years later.
Moon said, “The Bible, however, is not the truth itself, but contains the truth.” Moon then claims that new truth comes from God through Moon. The introduction to Divine Principle says, “This truth must appear as a revelation from God himself. This new truth has already appeared! God has sent his messenger …. His name is Sun Myung Moon.” (KofC, p.380)
Moon says his Divine Principle is the “Complete Testament,” becoming the third testament of the Scripture after the Old and New Testaments.
6. Marriage: Those couples married in the Unification Church become part of the sinless mankind which will bring physical salvation to the earth. Moon’s blessing on these mass weddings guarantees their children will be sinless. After the wedding, the couples remain celibate for 40 days, after which they consummate the marriage for three days and then remain celibate for three years.
How to Witness: The best way to witness to Moonies would be to start with the reliability of Scripture and then undermine the prophet by comparing his teachings with the Bible.
I think it’s fair to say that there is nothing resembling biblical Christianity in the Unification Church. The Moonies are deceived by the same evil behind all the other cults - Satan.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Unity School of Christianity
Founded by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore in 1889, Unity is one of the fastest-growing New Age church systems. They do not claim to be a church, rather they claim to be a school which “seeks to help anyone, regardless of church affiliation, ‘to find health, peace, joy and plenty through his day-by-day practice of Christian Principles.’” (Confronting the Cults, by Gordon R. Lewis, p.131)
Charles Fillmore was born near St. Cloud, MN, in 1854, and married Mary Caroline Page (“Myrtle”) in 1881. The couple ended up moving to Kansas City, MO, where Charles set up a real estate office.
The origin of Unity began in 1886 when the Fillmores went to see a lecture given by “mental healer” Dr. E.B. Weeks. Myrtle, who had suffered for years with tuberculosis and malaria, was immediately taken by Weeks’ talk. “One of his statements transformed her life: ‘I am a child of God and therefore I do not inherit sickness.’ Since life is intelligent, she began to reason, it can be directed by thinking and talking. ‘Then it flashed upon me,’ Mrs. Fillmore wrote, ‘that I might talk to the life in every part of my body and have it do just what I wanted. I began to teach my body and got marvelous results.’ Mrs. Fillmore spoke words of truth to each life center silently and aloud until the organs responded. After asking for divine forgiveness for misusing her body she determined to entertain no anxious or negative thoughts. In two years Myrtle Fillmore was no longer an invalid.” (Confronting the Cults, p.132)
Charles, supposedly crippled from infancy, wasn’t ready to accept his wife’s new healing technique and began studying “mind science” and Eastern religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism. After several months he decided to apply his wife’s healing principle to himself. “My chronic pains ceased. My hip healed and grew stronger, and my leg lengthened until in a few years I dispensed with the steel extension that I had worn since I was a child.” (Confronting the Cults, p.132).
The Fillmores then began counseling and praying with others to heal them. This required more and more time, so Charles then left his real estate business and published his first paper in 1889. The Fillmores borrowed ideas from Christian Science and New Thought (a healing movement developed from P.P. Quimby’s system), and added in ideas from the Eastern religions Charles had studied, including the teachings on reincarnation. Pressure from Mary Baker Eddy forced them to stop using terms common to Christian Science, although they had a long relationship with New Thought.
Originally named “Modern Thought” in 1889, the Fillmores’ teachings became known as “Christian Science Thought” in 1890, then “Thought” in 1891, and finally “Unity” in 1895.
Myrtle died in 1931 and Charles then married his private secretary. Charles died in 1948 and the leadership of Unity passed to his two sons, Lowell and Rickert. Unity is headquartered in Lees Summit, MO.
Weekly publications of Unity are Daily Word and Weekly Unity. Monthly publications include Good Business (for working people), Progress for young people, Wee Wisdom for children, and Unity for sick people. Unity also operates “Dial-A-Prayer.”
Doctrines: Similar to Christian Science, with Hinduism mixed in. The Fillmores’ attitude toward doctrine can be summed up in a statement Charles wrote in an early edition of Modern Thought: “He who writes a creed or puts a limit to revelation, is the enemy of humanity…. Creeds have ever been the vampires that sucked the blood of spiritual progress in the past, and life can only be kept in the present movement by latitude of thought tempered always by the power that moves the world, love.” (Confronting the Cults, p.133).
Much of Unity’s teachings, like Christian Science, are also in line with gnosticism. “According to gnosticism, God is impersonal and one’s eventual goal is to reach oneness with this impersonal God. Gnostics view Jesus Christ as a human being who possessed, in some great way, the expression or presence of God. To them, Jesus refers to the man and Christ refers to the divine influence. Rather than agreeing with the Bible by declaring that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 5:1), gnostics, including Unity, separate Jesus from the Christ. Unity is not as interested in theology as it is in prosperity and happiness. A survey of the literature of Unity will clearly show that the stress is on material and worldly happiness, not spiritual happiness.” (Handbook of Today’s Religions, by Josh McDowell and John Stewart, p.132)
Below are some samplings of Unity doctrines. Reference citations below are from Handbook of Today’s Religions or Confronting the Cults.
God: Like Christian Science, Unity’s God is a force or energy which permeates the universe.
a. “Though personal to each one of us, God is it, neither male nor female, but principle.” (Myrtle Fillmore, How to Let God Help You, 1956, p.25).
b. “The Father is Principle, the Son is that Principle revealed in creative plan, the Holy Spirit is the executive power of both Father and Son carrying out the creative plan.” (Charles Fillmore, Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, p.629)
c. “God is all and all is God.” (Unity, August 1974, p.40)
d. “God is not loving…God does not love anybody or anything. God is the love in everybody and everything. God is love…God exercises none of His attributes except though the inner consciousness of the universe and man.” (Jesus Christ Heals, Unity School of Christianity, 1944, pp.31,32)
The Bible: “We believe that the Word of God is the thought of God expressed in creative ideas and that these ideas are the primal attributes of all enduring entities in the universe, visible and invisible. The Logos of the first chapter of the Gospel of John is the God idea of Christ that produced Jesus, the perfect man. We believe the Scriptures are the testimonials of who have in a measure apprehended the diving Logos but that their writings should not be taken as final.” (Unity’s Statement of Faith, part 27.)
Jesus: “Christ consciousness” that is within all of us.
a. “The Bible says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, but the Bible does not here refer to Jesus of Nazareth, the outer man; it refers to the Christ, the spiritual identity of Jesus, whom he acknowledged in all his ways, and brought forth into his outer self, until even the flesh of his body was lifted up, purified, spiritualized, and redeemed, thus he became Jesus Christ, the word made flesh. We are to follow into this perfect state and become like Him, for in each of us is the Christ, the only begotten Son. We can, through Jesus Christ, our redeemer and example, bring forth the Christ within us, the true self of all is perfect, as Jesus Christ commanded his followers to be.” (Unity, Vol. 57, no.5, p.464, and Vol. 72, no.2, p.8)
Salvation: There is no necessity for salvation because sin and evil are illusions. “To eradicate physical ills and mental sickness and to attract happiness, all a person needs to do is to tap into, or become attuned, aligned, or united with the ‘Divine Mind.’” (New Age Cults & Religions, by Texe Marrs, p.329)
a. “There is no sin, sickness or death.” (Unity, Vo. 47, No. 5, p.403)
b. “The atonement is the union of man with God the Father, in Christ. Stating it in terms of mind, we should say that the Atonement is the At-one-ment or agreement of reconciliation of man’s mind with Divine Mind through superconsciousness of Christ’s mind.” (What Practical Christianity Stands For, p.5)
The Gospel: “The gospel of Jesus is that every man can become God incarnate. It is not alone a gospel of right living, but also shows the way into dominion and power equal to and surpassing that of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Charles Fillmore, The Revealing Word, p.88) Compare this to 1 Cor. 15:1-3.
Reincarnation: This belief is borrowed from Hinduism. “We believe that the dissolution of the spirit, soul, and body caused by death, is annulled by rebirth of the same spirit and soul in another body here on earth. We believe the repeated incarnations of man to be a merciful provision of our loving Father to the end that all may have opportunity to attain immortality through regeneration, as did Jesus. This corruptible must put on incorruption.” (Unity’s Statement of Faith, Article 22)
As anyone can see by comparing Unity doctrines to true Christian doctrines, Unity has nothing in common with the Christian faith as defined by the Holy Bible.
Charles Fillmore was born near St. Cloud, MN, in 1854, and married Mary Caroline Page (“Myrtle”) in 1881. The couple ended up moving to Kansas City, MO, where Charles set up a real estate office.
The origin of Unity began in 1886 when the Fillmores went to see a lecture given by “mental healer” Dr. E.B. Weeks. Myrtle, who had suffered for years with tuberculosis and malaria, was immediately taken by Weeks’ talk. “One of his statements transformed her life: ‘I am a child of God and therefore I do not inherit sickness.’ Since life is intelligent, she began to reason, it can be directed by thinking and talking. ‘Then it flashed upon me,’ Mrs. Fillmore wrote, ‘that I might talk to the life in every part of my body and have it do just what I wanted. I began to teach my body and got marvelous results.’ Mrs. Fillmore spoke words of truth to each life center silently and aloud until the organs responded. After asking for divine forgiveness for misusing her body she determined to entertain no anxious or negative thoughts. In two years Myrtle Fillmore was no longer an invalid.” (Confronting the Cults, p.132)
Charles, supposedly crippled from infancy, wasn’t ready to accept his wife’s new healing technique and began studying “mind science” and Eastern religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism. After several months he decided to apply his wife’s healing principle to himself. “My chronic pains ceased. My hip healed and grew stronger, and my leg lengthened until in a few years I dispensed with the steel extension that I had worn since I was a child.” (Confronting the Cults, p.132).
The Fillmores then began counseling and praying with others to heal them. This required more and more time, so Charles then left his real estate business and published his first paper in 1889. The Fillmores borrowed ideas from Christian Science and New Thought (a healing movement developed from P.P. Quimby’s system), and added in ideas from the Eastern religions Charles had studied, including the teachings on reincarnation. Pressure from Mary Baker Eddy forced them to stop using terms common to Christian Science, although they had a long relationship with New Thought.
Originally named “Modern Thought” in 1889, the Fillmores’ teachings became known as “Christian Science Thought” in 1890, then “Thought” in 1891, and finally “Unity” in 1895.
Myrtle died in 1931 and Charles then married his private secretary. Charles died in 1948 and the leadership of Unity passed to his two sons, Lowell and Rickert. Unity is headquartered in Lees Summit, MO.
Weekly publications of Unity are Daily Word and Weekly Unity. Monthly publications include Good Business (for working people), Progress for young people, Wee Wisdom for children, and Unity for sick people. Unity also operates “Dial-A-Prayer.”
Doctrines: Similar to Christian Science, with Hinduism mixed in. The Fillmores’ attitude toward doctrine can be summed up in a statement Charles wrote in an early edition of Modern Thought: “He who writes a creed or puts a limit to revelation, is the enemy of humanity…. Creeds have ever been the vampires that sucked the blood of spiritual progress in the past, and life can only be kept in the present movement by latitude of thought tempered always by the power that moves the world, love.” (Confronting the Cults, p.133).
Much of Unity’s teachings, like Christian Science, are also in line with gnosticism. “According to gnosticism, God is impersonal and one’s eventual goal is to reach oneness with this impersonal God. Gnostics view Jesus Christ as a human being who possessed, in some great way, the expression or presence of God. To them, Jesus refers to the man and Christ refers to the divine influence. Rather than agreeing with the Bible by declaring that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 5:1), gnostics, including Unity, separate Jesus from the Christ. Unity is not as interested in theology as it is in prosperity and happiness. A survey of the literature of Unity will clearly show that the stress is on material and worldly happiness, not spiritual happiness.” (Handbook of Today’s Religions, by Josh McDowell and John Stewart, p.132)
Below are some samplings of Unity doctrines. Reference citations below are from Handbook of Today’s Religions or Confronting the Cults.
God: Like Christian Science, Unity’s God is a force or energy which permeates the universe.
a. “Though personal to each one of us, God is it, neither male nor female, but principle.” (Myrtle Fillmore, How to Let God Help You, 1956, p.25).
b. “The Father is Principle, the Son is that Principle revealed in creative plan, the Holy Spirit is the executive power of both Father and Son carrying out the creative plan.” (Charles Fillmore, Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, p.629)
c. “God is all and all is God.” (Unity, August 1974, p.40)
d. “God is not loving…God does not love anybody or anything. God is the love in everybody and everything. God is love…God exercises none of His attributes except though the inner consciousness of the universe and man.” (Jesus Christ Heals, Unity School of Christianity, 1944, pp.31,32)
The Bible: “We believe that the Word of God is the thought of God expressed in creative ideas and that these ideas are the primal attributes of all enduring entities in the universe, visible and invisible. The Logos of the first chapter of the Gospel of John is the God idea of Christ that produced Jesus, the perfect man. We believe the Scriptures are the testimonials of who have in a measure apprehended the diving Logos but that their writings should not be taken as final.” (Unity’s Statement of Faith, part 27.)
Jesus: “Christ consciousness” that is within all of us.
a. “The Bible says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, but the Bible does not here refer to Jesus of Nazareth, the outer man; it refers to the Christ, the spiritual identity of Jesus, whom he acknowledged in all his ways, and brought forth into his outer self, until even the flesh of his body was lifted up, purified, spiritualized, and redeemed, thus he became Jesus Christ, the word made flesh. We are to follow into this perfect state and become like Him, for in each of us is the Christ, the only begotten Son. We can, through Jesus Christ, our redeemer and example, bring forth the Christ within us, the true self of all is perfect, as Jesus Christ commanded his followers to be.” (Unity, Vol. 57, no.5, p.464, and Vol. 72, no.2, p.8)
Salvation: There is no necessity for salvation because sin and evil are illusions. “To eradicate physical ills and mental sickness and to attract happiness, all a person needs to do is to tap into, or become attuned, aligned, or united with the ‘Divine Mind.’” (New Age Cults & Religions, by Texe Marrs, p.329)
a. “There is no sin, sickness or death.” (Unity, Vo. 47, No. 5, p.403)
b. “The atonement is the union of man with God the Father, in Christ. Stating it in terms of mind, we should say that the Atonement is the At-one-ment or agreement of reconciliation of man’s mind with Divine Mind through superconsciousness of Christ’s mind.” (What Practical Christianity Stands For, p.5)
The Gospel: “The gospel of Jesus is that every man can become God incarnate. It is not alone a gospel of right living, but also shows the way into dominion and power equal to and surpassing that of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Charles Fillmore, The Revealing Word, p.88) Compare this to 1 Cor. 15:1-3.
Reincarnation: This belief is borrowed from Hinduism. “We believe that the dissolution of the spirit, soul, and body caused by death, is annulled by rebirth of the same spirit and soul in another body here on earth. We believe the repeated incarnations of man to be a merciful provision of our loving Father to the end that all may have opportunity to attain immortality through regeneration, as did Jesus. This corruptible must put on incorruption.” (Unity’s Statement of Faith, Article 22)
As anyone can see by comparing Unity doctrines to true Christian doctrines, Unity has nothing in common with the Christian faith as defined by the Holy Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
