Proof that Jesus Christ is Jehovah from the New World Translation of the Bible


, , , , , , , ,

Does the Scripture call Jesus Christ Jehovah? It in fact does in several parts.

The first example we are going to use is so unequivocal and easy to understand, we are going to quote entirely from the NWT, 2013:

When the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous things he did and the boys who were shouting in the temple, “Save, we pray, the Son of David!” they became indignant and said to him: “Do you hear what these are saying?” Jesus said to them: “Yes. Did you never read this, ‘Out of the mouth of children and infants, you have brought forth praise’?”And leaving them behind, he went out of the city to Beth′a·ny and spent the night there (Matt 21:15-17).

So, let’s recap. The Pharisees saw young men saying, “Hosanna” specifically in reference to Jesus. In astonishment they asked Christ if He understood that these children were using a phrase (“save, we pray,” i.e. “Hosanna” in Greek or “Hoshiya na” in Hebrew in Ps 118:25), which should be reserved for Jehovah. The inference that Jesus could save, something reserved for Jehovah, appeared to require rebuking the youth in the eyes of the Pharisees, who did not view Christ as God.

Jesus’ response is telling. Instead of telling the Pharisees that they are making an incorrect inference and He is not receptive to requests for salvation (“Hosanna”) befitting of God, He responds with, “Yeah I hear them, have you ever read Psalm 8?” Then He left.

What does Psalm 8 say? It begins as follows in the NWT, 2013:

O Jehovah our Lord, how majestic your name is throughout the earth;You have set your splendor even higher than the heavens!  Out of the mouth of children and infants you have established strength [i.e. “praise”] (Ps 8:1-2).

So, the praise that Christ affirms is ascribed to Himself in Matt 21 is ascribed specifically to Jehovah in Ps 8. Therefore, Christ affirms in no uncertain terms that He is Jehovah.

Here’s another example. Heb 1:8, 10 (NWT, 2013) states, “But about the Son, he says…’At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.'”

The Scripture says Jehovah created alone (Is 44:24), and that in Christ all things were created (John 1:3). Here in Hebrews it says about the Son that He “laid the foundations of the earth.” The NWT Bible’s study notes points out that Ps 102:25 is being quoted, where it says (NWT, 2013), “Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands,” So, the Letter to the Hebrews says “O Lord” and Psalm 102 says “you.”

Who’s the “you” in Ps 102:25? In verse 24 in the NWT it refers to the “you” as “God.” In verses 19 and 21, the name “Jehovah” is used. So, Jehovah is God, the Lord who laid the foundations of the earth. And, as Hebrews makes clear this is all said about “the Son.” Therefore, the Son is Jehovah.

Lastly, in John 12:37, 38, 40, 41  (NWT, 2013) it states:

Although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him, so that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, who said: ‘He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.’ Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.

Verse 40 of John 12 is a reference to Is 6:9 (NWT, 2013) where it says, “You will hear again and again, but you will not understand; you will see again and again, but you will not get any knowledge.” Now, the Gospel of John says that “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory.” Who is “his” in Isaiah 6?

Is 6:1 identifies Him as “the Lord” (NWT says “Jehovah,”) and Is 6:3 and 8 calls Him by His divine name “Jehovah.” John 12:42 also makes clear that the “him” that “the rulers put faith in” was Jesus. So again, Jesus is referred to as Jehovah.

Please prayerfully consider that if you do not know Christ as Jehovah, your faith in a false-Jehovah cannot save you from your sin. Only the one, true God, revealed in the Scripture can save and His name is the name above every other: Jesus Christ.

Supreme Court Says Marriage for Gays is Okay: Pros and Cons for Christians


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The death knell of the religious right is heard around the world: the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe versus Wade style has invented the right for homosexuals to marry totally out of thin air.

Obviously many Christians view it as bad, simply because they do not like homosexuality seemingly more than a plethora of other sins which are totally legal to commit. However, if we calmly think about it, what are the actual pros and cons of what just occurred?


1. Religious Right Can Now Focus on More Important Issues

The Supreme Court decision could have not come at a more opportune time if you were running for the Republican nomination for the Presidency. Opposing gay rights (or the rights of anyone for that matter) is a losing issue for a generation of people that do not have real civil rights issues to worry about. Everyone wants to be a hero, and championing gay rights has become heroic.

This is no exaggeration. Children clap when they see gay people get married. I don’t see people clap when they see heterosexuals marry on video. So, gay marriage has obviously become some sort of “stand against the man,” and you’re not with the “man,” are you?

So, imagine a bunch of Republicans running for the Presidential nomination in Iowa. In the debates, they would be asked where they stand on gay marriage. Saying one is against it guarantees the Republican can never win the general election. Saying that he is for it guarantees he cannot win Iowa, and likely the Republican primary. Unbeknownst to many “conservatives,” the Supreme Court did them a huge favor and kept their chances in 2016 alive.

Unless Christians are going to fight tooth and nail to make fornication, adultery, and other sexual sins illegal, it was best to let the gay issue go so we can focus on illegalizing abortion. Why? For one, only 29 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal under ALL circumstances.

When Rand Paul asked the head of the Democratic Party “if it is okay to kill a seven pound baby in the uterus” it became a huge quagmire for them. Why? Because most Americans don’t believe in the extreme pro-choice/pro-infanticide position which presently Roe versus Wade makes the law of the land. Hence, we actually can start restricting infanticide without alienating the unsaved masses while we have no chance to reverse the tide of history as it pertains to homosexuality.

2. Defending the Rights of Gays Implicitly Protects the Rights of Christians

If us Christians can get off our moral high horses and simply just preach the Gospel, we will find that as we dwindle into obscurity that we may enjoy the legal protections enjoyed by oppressed minorities. Hence, if we cast ourselves as forgiving, loving, morally upright and sacrificial people who live by the knowledge that our Savior died for us, then when our rights are infringed upon we can decry that we are being oppressed in spite of us not hurting anyone.

The Scripture speaks of us having love for one another so that the world knows who we are, and that our good works would be so visible that they praise God on our behalf. Hence, when they see our goodness and desire to worship freely, and not jam our religion down their throats by force, they will let us be and we will no longer be their enemies. It is easier to preach the Gospel to someone that does not view you as his enemy to the death.

Further, the days are coming when our preaching certain parts of the Bible will be considered hate speech. Disciplining a child when he or she is a minor, refusing to let a young one date at a certain age or take part in sodomatic sins, will be considered child abuse. Guess what Christians. The same government you wanted empowered to arrest sodomites less than 15 years ago is now going to come after you.

Isn’t it better when the government is left powerless to punish people for living according to their beliefs? It may mean that homosexuals can marry, but it also means that Christians can practice their religion without the government infringing upon it. A sure-fire way to lose “the culture war” is to empower the government. The government is not the friend of Christianity, so get them out of the morality business and we protect ourselves from them.

3. Ultimately, Homosexual Marriage is an Issue of Religious Freedom

Piggy-backing off our second point is this one. Secularism, humanism, and atheism are all worldviews that you may disagree with, but Christianity is a worldview too. Unless we seriously want to impose an Iranian-styled theocracy, we should be happy that the religious freedom of atheists and secularists is being upheld. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, because I want my religious freedoms upheld to.


1. The Dreadful Jurisprudence Behind the Decision

This is a blog on religion, and not politics, so you can read up on the Fourteenth Amendment on your own. This amendment should be repealed from the Constitution simply because it is not consistently upheld. A state cannot make a newspaper illegal, because the congress is banned from doing so because of the first amendment. And, the fourteenth amendment guarantees in theory that state governments cannot inhibit freedoms that are guaranteed against Federal infringement. Obviously, the amendment was made after the Civil War to prevent the southern states from taking away federally guaranteed rights away from freed slaves.

However, the fourteenth amendment has been upheld extremely inconsistently. For most of its history, the rights of blacks were run roughshod over. Newspapers are legal everywhere, but public demonstrations are not. Guns can be regulated by states even though the second amendment explicitly bans that, yet abortion is legal due to implicit inferences drawn from the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment explicitly forbids searches and seizures even on one’s very person without a warrant, yet the Supreme Court upholds “stop and frisk” which would explicitly violate the fourth amendment.

So, while the right of Americans to pray in public, protest, own guns, and avoid being searched without warrants are all ignored even though a third grader can read the Amendments and see that these are clearly guaranteed, the rights of infant murders and homosexuals to their “privacy” somehow protects abortion and gay marriage. You don’t need to be a Constitutional scholar to see that the fourteenth amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion and everything to do with gun ownership and the right not to be searched without probable cause.

However, we live with this unhappy inconsistency, which means that the government can very easily and inconsistently oppress Christians and no one will bat and eyelash.

2. The Transexual Issue

Now that the gay issue is out of the way, all these people who made a living out of it will need something new to focus on. Most likely, it will be federal subsidies to pay for sex changes. This will go down as one of the most barbaric, completely wicked chapters in the history of US politics and medicine, up there with eugenics and electro-shock therapy for schizophrenics. While gay marriage in the end pertains to human rights, transexualism is the wholesale butchering and taking advantage of people who are either extremely mentally ill or innately disordered.

Once transexual surgeries are subsidized and the mutilation of this group of very depressed and abnormal people is celebrated, we are only steps away from legalizing polygamy and bestiality. We would have become a society without any moral or scientific grounding or sense. Worst of all, it hurts a group of people that need serious psychological help, not to be pumped up with synthetic hormones and have body parts chopped off.

3. Confusion for Young People Inside and Outside of Churches.

When the Supreme Court overturns something, it sends the message that what was overturned was bad. This means to many young people, if banning gay marriage is bad, then that means gay marriage in of itself is good. This makes books like “My Two Mommies” and “My First Sex Change” required reading in schools.

Sadly, kids do not need to see this stuff, nor think about it. I would venture to guess even entertaining the notion to them perverts their minds. Let children be children a little while longer, they will figure out how their plumbing works on their own, it’s instinct. They do not need the world to tell them.

Was Saint Mary, Mother of God, sinless?


, , , , , , , ,

Catholics and Protestants agree that the Scripture covers a lot of the really important, essential details of the Christian faith. They also have to admit that only the Scripture remains as our only uncontested source of Apostolic tradition. So, when the Bible says quite a few times that Jesus is unequivocally without sin (1 Peter 2:22, 2 Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1 John 3:5), it seems like an awfully big omission to not include that detail about his mother if that were such an important statement of fact.

“Well,” say these defenders of Mary’s sinlessness, “Sola Scriptura is an abhorrent doctrine that the ancients did not teach. Apostolic oral tradition that confirms her sinlessness, immaculate conception, and assumption are true. Hence, Protestants by rejecting God’s other source of revelation in oral tradition do not have the whole of Sacred Tradition and have an incomplete view of the Christian faith.”

Your objection is noted, but on both Scriptural and traditional grounds we are going to show there is significant reason to doubt the sinlessness of Mary.

The testimony of Scripture:

Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Ecc 7:20).

There is no one righteous, not one (Rom 3:10).

The above two Scripture appear to teach the simple fact that unless the Scripture specifically says that someone (i.e. Jesus) is without sin, the default is that they are sinful. There is not a single verse in the Bible that even implies that Mary is without sin, in fact there appear to be verses that clearly teach the opposite:

Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matt 11:11).

Being that Mary was born of a woman, she would be by default less than John the Baptist (who, by the way, was having doubts that Jesus was the Messiah at the time Jesus said this according to Matt 11:3). Some argue saying, “The least of those in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist, and Mary is in the kingdom of heaven, so she is greater than John the Baptist.”

This may be a legitimate point. This is because those born of the Spirit are indwelt by God Himself, and because of His righteousness exceed the righteousness of men that are not. So, John the Baptist in his own right would not be greater than anyone who has the Holy Spirit.

Yet, according to Luke 1:15 John the Baptist was full of the Holy Spirit! So, while John on his own may not be that great, by God’s own imputed righteousness he is the opposite. So, at the very least, Matt 11:11 is highly suggestive that Mary is not the greatest human by virtue of humanity. An odd fact considering Roman Catholics today don her with the title, “Queen of the Universe.”

When His own kinsmen heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses…” Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.”Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:21, 31-35).

The Biblical passage quoted here at the very least shows that Christ did not consider his mother (nor his brothers at the time) to be his disciples. Depending upon the rendering of the Greek translated as “kinsman” here, it is possible that Christ’s family publicly called Him a madman. It is worth noting, however, that the original Greek (“οἱ παρ’”) in the Septuagint’s rendering of Susanna 13:33 can mean something along the lines of “friends.”  So, certain translations such as the NIV probably go to far in conflating the kinsmen in Mark 3:21 to Christ’s literal family.

While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (Luke 11:27-28). 

This verse is the most convincing and definitive in the Scripture. Many give St. Mary the title, “The Blessed Virgin Mary” which is strikingly at odds with how Jesus responded to the idea. This does not mean that Mary is not blessed, she is (Luke 1:45), but Christ viewed the blessedness of faithful obedience to be greater than the womb that bore Him and the breasts that nursed Him.

This idea might confuse Catholics because they repeat the following prayer repeatedly:

Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

The Roman Catholic prayer appears to elevate Mary, the person. She is the one full of grace, which is why Mary does not receive veneration like other Saints, but hyper-veneration which apparently is as much as one can venerate a being without worshiping it. The part in bold is lifted from Luke 1:42, when read in its full context, paints a different picture:

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord (Luke 1:42-45).

In the Scripture, Mary’s blessedness is not something inherent to her being (hence she is not the greatest born of women), nor is it a reference to her supposed sinlessness (which the Scripture does not address). Rather, she is blessed specifically because:

1. She is a chosen vessel of God to bear God Incarnate.

2. The fruit of her womb is blessed.

3. She believed what the Lord told her.

None of these things speak specifically of her character or being in anyway. She is righteous by faith like the rest of us are according the the passage in Luke 1:42-45. Because of this understanding, Christ declined to call his own mother blessed and instead called all those who are faithful blessed–because no one is blessed because anything in themselves, but rather they are credited righteousness for their faith (Rom 1:17).

The testimony of tradition: (Some quotes came from this link)

While none of the preceding verses definitively prove that Mary has ever sinned, several are suggestive that she had and two of them elevate the importance of discipleship above simply being Christ’s mother. Not surprisingly, the ancient church did not take a definitive stand on the issue because the Scriptural evidence did not demand it. However, quite a few Church Fathers appear to credit Mary with wrongdoing or insufficient faith:

Examples of insufficient faith:

He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him stood without, while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer None but they who hear my words and do them, He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Ch. 19).

For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?” The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12).


And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, Who is My mother, and who are My brethren? Matthew 12:48, because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him…And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 21).

They have no wine. For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, Show yourself to the world John 17:4, desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 21).

…St Hilary in his Annotations on the 20th verse of the cxixth [119th] Psalm, “My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments,” applies it unto the future judgment and among other observations has this passage, “Seeing we must render an account for every idle word do we desire the day of judgment in which that unwearied fire is to be passed through in which those grievous punishments are to be undergone for the expiating of a soul from sin [1 Cor 3:12], a sword shall pass through the soul of the blessed Virgin Mary that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed [Luke 2:35]. If that Virgin who bore God is to come into the severity of the judgment will any one dare desire to be judged by God?”(Excerpt of Hilary of Poitiers Homily on Psalm 119).

Although they [Christ’s family] had like the rest power to come in, yet they abstain from all approach to Him, “for he came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Hilary of Poitiers commenting of Matt 12:50).


The preceding leads us to the following conclusions:

1. The Scripture does not explicitly call Mary sinless, and though the Scriptural evidence is suggestive that she is not an exception to Rom 3:10 it is not logically impossible that Mary would be exempt.

2. It was not considered heretical in the ancient church, at least for a time, to speculate that Mary was at times lacking in faith and committed wrongdoing.

For what it is worth, the Eastern Orthodox Church in the modern day does not take a definitive stand on the issue. The most we can say based upon the evidence is that it is suggestive that Mary sinned, but we cannot definitively prove it. However, the issue is not important. Mary’s sinlessness saves nobody, because she did not satisfy the wrath of God against sinners like us. Christ’s sinlessness does.

Augustine on the Superiority of Scripture over Councils


, , , , , , , , ,

Martin Luther said during the Diet of Worms:

Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason — I cannot accept the authority of popes and councils because they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

Is this the innovative ravings of a mad-man? No. He might have been mad, but he was hardly innovative. Augustine covered all the same points (other than Popes, because the Bishop of Rome was not called a Pope during his time) in Chapter Three of his second book On Baptism, Against the Donatists:

But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true;

Hmmm, that does not sound like Augustine thought there was an authoritative oral tradition, Magesterium of the Church, or anything else. But, just in case you think we are taking Augustine out of context he continues:

but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth

Anything written since the closing of the Canon, according to Augustine, is liable to be refuted. How is this consistent with modern Roman Catholic Dogma that the Ecunemical Councils and the Pope can make statements that, like Scripture, are inerrant? Augustine continues:

either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them…

What?!?! Ecumenical Councils can err and be corrected by ones that follow them?

“Objection,” says Mr. Catholic. “He said ‘plenary,’ not ‘ecumenical.'”

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The ecumenical councils or synods of the Universal Church are called plenary council[s] by St. Augustine (C. illa, xi, Dist. 12), as they form a compete representation of the entire Church.

Wow, Augustine must really hold a much higher view of Scripture than do many modern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who compare Scripture’s authority as equivalent to Councils, Bishops, and Apostolic Tradition reported second hand by them.

Libosus also of Vaga says: “The Lord says in the gospel, ‘I am the Truth.’ John 14:6 He does not say, ‘I am custom.’ Therefore, when the truth is made manifest, custom must give way to truth.” Clearly, no one could doubt that custom must give way to truth where it is made manifest (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book III, Chapter 6).

So, do I agree with Augustine on everything? No. But, being that his high view of Scripture and relatively low view of Church authority was not considered heretical in his day, I would say that the Reformed Protestant view of Scripture and tradition accords much better with early church thought than both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Steve Anderson and Long Hair as the Head Covering


, , , , , ,

KJV-Onlyist Steve Anderson uploaded a sermon a while back against hair coverings, arguing that long hair is the hair covering. Now, some of you might be wondering why I would bother responding to him because he is not “legit.” For one, he has a sizable following and second, he is a cerebral thinker. The man knows his Bible, can speak in several languages including Greek, and has a good command of logic. So, when he argues that head coverings are simply long hair, it is good to take him seriously.

His argument is as follows:

This is where they get this doctrine from and this is why its false. Let’s go to verse five. ‘But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head–‘Watch this, ‘for that is even all one as if she were shaven.’ Now what does it mean to be shaven?…Just completely bald. What he is saying is wouldn’t it be shameful, completely bazaar, if a woman shaved her head completely bald…’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.’…This is the correct interpretation if we think the covering is long hair, it is as if saying, ‘Ladies, if you are going to have short hair, you might as well shave it all off.’

Simply put, his argument is that because verse 15 says that long hair has been given to her as a covering in KJV English, then verses five and six must be necessity be referring to a woman who is “uncovered” in the sense that verse 15 would supposedly dictate. So, if a woman has long hair as her covering, then having short hair means she is logically uncovered.

Anderson warns, “Whenever someone cannot prove something from an English Bible, then it is wrong.” So, I will disprove Anderson without digging into the languages.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head…

First, we can see that Paul is speaking of the head being uncovered during prayer and prophesy. There is nothing in the verse that speaks of Paul issuing a commandment that is binding upon Christian women under every circumstance. Hence, Anderson’s position requires presupposing that what Paul wants women to do during prayer just so happens to apply to the rest of their lives. Yet, this presupposition is not in the English (nor the original languages).

for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 

Our second point is more complicated, so please take care when following along. It seems that keeping a head uncovered is the same as having all of one’s hair cut off. Now, Anderson and those in his camp may say, “See, so baldness is equivalent to being uncovered.” However, this does not make sense in light of what we just covered. Paul is speaking of covering during prayer and prophesy in a church setting, just as everything else in the next three chapters of the Bible refers to a church setting. Someone cannot have long hair for a few hours during the service, and then magically the rest of the week live and work bald. This is impossible and the only way to explain it away is to adopt Anderson’s presupposition.

Does Paul hold to this presupposition? Why does Paul say that having one’s head uncovered is the same as being bald? Let’s give Paul an opportunity to explain:

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.

Clearly, Paul is not giving us an option between covering heads with long hair or a covering, and being bald–even though literally that is what Paul is saying. I suppose if this were Anderson’s position, it would be hard to argue against it without invoking tradition. However, no one takes this position, so we must interpret Paul differently.

What Paul is really saying in verse six is that if a woman is uncovered, that is just as shameful as being bald. Because you know it is shameful to be bald, she ought to cover.

Take note, that being shorn and not being covered in the plain English are presented as two, mutually exclusive things. Why? An uncovered woman, could theoretically abide by Paul’s commandment by having her hair shorn if it were not shameful. But if being shorn is a type of “uncovering,” how is this logically possible? It isn’t. By just looking at the KJV as Anderson likes, the uncovering and lack of hair are not one of the same. Therefore, a long hairstyle and a covering cannot be one of the same either.

Granted, Anderson would say we can’t take Paul literally because he is speaking rhetorically. I agree. We already said that no one thinks Paul really means that women can choose baldness if they prefer not to cover. When a boss says, “If you take tomorrow off, you don’t have to bother going in next week either,” we know his point without having to explicitly state that what the boss is saying is you will be fired. In the same way, no one seriously thinks Paul is saying anything more than being uncovered is equivalently shameful to baldness.

Nonetheless, the rhetoric Paul uses reveals his logic: one can both have her head uncovered AND be bald, or she can have her head uncovered AND not be bald. This means, baldness and lack of covering CANNOT be the same thing.

It is ironic when he says that, “This is the logic of people that don’t understand the language.” However, the people who DID understand the language all adopted the traditional view of head covering, including the ancient Corinthian Church that received the letter and the men who actually translated the King James. That says a lot right there!

Later, Anderson goes to the Old Testament to try to show that coverings on men’s heads is okay, thereby disproving the traditional view of head coverings:

Why is he [Aaron] praying and prophesying with his head covered…Why is God commanding the priest to put on a bonnet before he prophesies and prays?..They are wearing the bonnet as they minister.

This is not a serious point. Divorce is allowed in the OT, not in the NT. Sacrifices are made in the OT, not in the NT. I do not even need to go into the languages or manuscripts to show that his logic (“that if it applies then, then it applies now!”) does not hold up. Ironically, he gave himself seven points for this in his sermon, he found it so convincing. Ultimately, however, it is irrelevant.


Just for fun, those who read Ex 28:40 in the KJV and many other Bibles will see that God commands Aaron to wear a head covering. However, this is based off of the Masoretic manuscript. The Septuagint speaks of cinctures, which are not a head covering of any sort. So, now this becomes an argument over manuscripts, and being that several Masoretic renderings do not match the renderings in the NT itself, we can see that the issue is more complicated than simply reading just a KJV Bible. However, even with just this, as we have shown, it is logically impossible for hair to be the covering that Paul speaks of.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers