A series of unfortunate Events…Pt-2

Part two the final episode of “A woman’s covering” video

Written by: Pat Rogers

At around the four-minute mark of this video Jacob finally gets to some scripture references. He uses parts of 1 Cor. 11 and mentions Eph. 5…actually he doesn’t read any scripture, he just tells you what it means. That’s why it’s so critical to read along in your Bible, what he is referencing and interpreting, for oneself.

  1. 4:34 mark Let’s look at the issue of the head covering. One can make a perfectly comprehensive exegetical argument from the Greek text of 1 cor. 11 that the head covering is not a hat it’s not a veil, it is long hair. What’s important however is what the covering represents; it is emblematic.
  2. Some have said it’s like a wedding ring. What it represents is this; Corinthians tells us one aspect of this and Ephesians another. A husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. A husband is the head covering of his wife. Her head covering is her husband. Long hair, hat, wedding ring whatever, it may be emblematic of it but the meaning is her covering is her husband.

This reminds the church that the covering of the church is her husband Jesus. Christ is the head of the church as his bride and this is reflected in Christian marriage hence…. the headship of Christ is reflected in the head covering within the church.

If Prasch even concludes that reading 1 Cor. 11:2-16 in its normal customary meaning, at face value; that “One can make a perfectly comprehensive exegetical argument from the Greek text of 1 cor. 11 that the head covering is not a hat it’s not a veil, it is long hair.”.

But he says the important meaning is what it means emblematically and can one cut and paste what is or is not emblematic, not using the context?  In verse 3 it’s made clear that “the head of every man is Christ; the head of the wife is the husband and the head of Christ is God.” This verse, as Pasch says, is supported in Eph. 5 as well. However, Prasch scuffles the scriptures like a deck of cards, interjecting “covering” from 1 cor. Into Eph. 5 by saying   This reminds the church that the covering of the church is her husband Jesus.   ….. hence the headship of Christ is reflected in the head covering within the church.

Nowhere in Eph. 5 is the word “covering” used. Jacob uses these two words (covering and head) interchangeably as if they mean the same thing. There is a large distinction between head and covering. They are two very different words, with very different meanings and applications and although Eph. 5 supports verse 4 in 1 Cor. 11 concerning the “head”, Ephesian’s 5 makes no mention of “covering” ( to cover wholly, that is, veil: – hide.), it only speaks of the “head”- (in the sense of seizing); the head (as the part most readily taken hold of), literally or figuratively: – head.)

If we follow Prasch’s “emblematic” interpretation of the “covering” of the woman’s head and how that is reflective of Eph. 5 Christ and the church we have to also see in 1 Cor. 11:3 that Christ is the head of the man, which would also mean that Christ is the covering of the man using Prasch’s interpretation of covering.

So what does this tell us?

First off, Jacob does not speak on the whole text, he picks and chooses verses to spiritualize; that should be enough for anyone to stop and grab their Bible to see what he’s leaving out and why.

Reading 1 Cor. 11 concerning the covering of the woman while she is praying and or prophesying is supposedly her husband; and as Jacob points out that Christ is the head of the church (Eph.).  But what of the man who is supposed to pray with his head uncovered???? So the question begs to be asked is; If Christ is the head of the man i.e. his covering as Jacob implies; why then does verse 4 & 7 say Every man praying or prophesying having his head “covered” dishonors his head. (7) “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

Back up to verse 3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

 So if Jesus is his covering how and why should he be praying without Christ as his covering? Why then does it say it dishonors his head if he covers it, meaning he is dishonoring Christ who is his covering. Confused? So am I. There’s no cohesive, understandable flow of the text here, that’s why this verse is not addressed and is left out of Jacobs teaching. It leads to these types of questions. Cut and paste.

So from this statement alone it can be concluded that Paul was addressing the Corinthian church concerning the customary conduct of men and women praying and prophesying. Paul goes on to clarify this and further include ALL the churches in verse 16

One more verse left out of the context on this topic, let’s see if it’s literal or emblematic:

 Staying in context of the entire topic of the covering and making it emblematic or symbolic, what would it mean then when we reach verse 16 in chapter 11, since it is still clearly in the context and content of the topic of the covering for women and uncovered for men? When it says (1 Cor. 11:16) “But if any man seems to be contentious, we have NO such custom, neither the churches of God.”  How is this symbolized? Or should we take it at face value? Does it mean that if one seems to have issues with the covering or uncovering that it’s a non-essential? One has to take note that verse 16 seems to dismiss the entire topic as unimportant if someone brings an argument against it.  Of course this is never mentioned by Jacob, another context verse omitted.

There are so many other issues that are out of context, shuffled together, omitted and twisted that one could spend hours and hours on each one and I would encourage everyone to do so, as I will be. Suffice it to say that this brief overview of just these few quotes of Jacobs teaching clearly shows it is in error, not only of what is taught as doctrine but his blatant mishandling of the scriptures.

I’m going to end with one last quote and point that should give everyone pause.

  1. 5:14 mark:  Women can function in ministry as a deaconess, or even as a teacher of other women or a prophetess or any function in the body bearing in mind that women can only teach other women they cannot teach mixed congregations doctrine.

So, as Jacob pointed out women can prophesy, again the question remains; who are they prophesying to? Note: teaching and prophesying are NOT the same thing.

Prophesieth: to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office. (Strongs G4395) The word here is the same word used throughout the new testament. So it is to be applied as such. Prophesying is done in the corporate body of Christ, mixed crowds, men. So how does God go against His own order?….He doesn’t.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “A series of unfortunate Events…Pt-2

  1. Pingback: When a non-essential doctrine becomes an essential doctrine | Closingstages

  2. Cherie c.
    I thank you for supporting that we all need to study and stay in the Word, using good study tools and principles, context is key as you say. I humbly disagree with the head covering being necessary today for a woman to prophesy as mentioned in 1 Cor. 11. In verse 16 Paul states that if one is contentious concerning the covering or uncovered, we and the churches have no such custom. So unless I’m misunderstanding, this is speaking to a custom that was being addressed by Paul at Corinth.
    Also concerning women being the weaker vessel again it’s true that scripture does say this; but in context Paul is giving instructions to the husband concerning the wife as the weaker vessel.
    1 Peter 3:7 Likewise ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of like; that your prayers be not hindered.
    At face value the word “weaker” is in reference to physical strength and would have nothing to do with spirituality or women leading or teaching men or mixed congregations. Remember it’s husband and wife. Also women when they are prophesying they are speaking in front of and to a corporate body of believer’s men and women both. So I will respectfully disagree with you also on this.
    Not sure at the moment which scripture you are referencing in Titus (it just won’t come to me ..been a long day) but am familiar with the standalone 1 Timothy 2 verses that are truly central to the doctrine of women not teaching, preaching or leading. When you really start to dig into and try and find a concise scriptural exegesis on these few verses the foundation of this doctrine starts to crumble. We see examples of wonderful women who did in scripture who were not used under extraordinary circumstances as is the Calvinistic teaching. But were simply followers of Christ operating in their gifts and calling. God bless and yes keeping it all in prayer.

  3. Wow, how subtle is this error, right?

    Again I emphasize, as have you Pat, that it i’s essential to study the Word, in context, using other Scripture to help explain Scripture we might not fully understand.

    Women can, with a head covering (vail or scarf, hat, this is literal ) prophesy, but they cannot teach. I believe women are the weaker vessel, as Paul states, and so we are not to lead and teach men in the church and I believe, just enough to fulfill the commission given to each of us by Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature. I don’t think this is difficult to grasp.

    Also, Titus and Timothy are point by point clear, about the role of women in the church. I do not believe it keeps us down, or belittles us in any way. We were made for man, not the other way around,

    However, we are co-heirs in the Kingdom of God, which is spirit not flesh, but we are not their yet and must adhere to Scripture.

    Excellent expose Pat. God bless and prayers for God’s correction on Jacob and the whole of Moriel.

  4. I was actually going to include 1 Cor. 11:6 in this article but thought that this may be better studied and looked at, at a later time. Seems to give the woman options here, where the man has none as far as covered or uncovered.
    “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
    So depending on the “if’s” in this verse a woman can be covered or shaved, while praying or prophesying. I guess my point is that this verse also reinforces verse 16 concerning not having such customs, neither the churches of God. Jacob’s teaching is as you say so convoluted that it really is embarrassing, or should be to him, particularly in light of what he himself says “A text, out of context, in isolation from co-text is always a pre-text.”
    The only reasonable explanation or conclusion that one can draw for his lack of correct hermeneutics on this topic, is that he simply knows that to apply these principles will show that his teaching is in error. A sad and scary thing. I just pray that some will be able to be helped here and on M’Kayla’s blog and others that are speaking out against this error.

    .

  5. Pat,
    I just read this, I see you covered the 1 Cor 11:16 here. It sure makes JP’s assertions on the ambiguous side; and yes, he picks and spiritualizes the text.
    In 1Cor(7) “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” In Genesis, the Hebrew for Adam means human, not man. The “human” is called man, after Eve is made. Adam had Eve within him; he was a human creation. Paul is trying to convey the idea of the order of creation, not a doctrine of the “female is less than, or is subjugated by, or is ruled over.” The Corinthians were known for their religious syncretism, worshiping the goddess Aphrodite, and general mixed pagan practices.
    Paul had to deal with that.
    I remember a teaching done years ago by Jacob, where he picked out “the woman is the glory of the man”, and he added “and she always will be”.He taught a totally convoluted idea of this passage, from the perspective of a man’s ego and the need to be “superior” over the female.
    The scripture just does not convey such a thing. I don’t know, but maybe he needs to see his doctor about getting a prescription for some testosterone. Think maybe?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s