Celebration of Holidays

by Joe Norton
1992 Preacher’s Study Notes
There is no way in this presentation on holidays to please everyone or make everyone agree. My purpose today is to present some material that I hope will stimulate us to take a fresh look at this subject.

Everyone will not agree because there are so many shades of understanding and beliefs on this subject. I approach this study of holidays openly and objectively out of a genuine interest in reaching a better understanding of it. I pray that we can all approach it in this way. If, however, we approach the subject with our minds already made up, we really will do a grave injustice to it.

During the past several years, we have been taught that it is wrong to celebrate various holidays, especially Christmas; and it has been many years since I have been heavily involved in any of these holidays.

Through the years, though, I have questioned, “Why? Why do so many Christians continue to celebrate holidays (namely Christmas) and others do not?”

Some who are against any participation in certain holidays are not always open-minded to other thoughts and ideas. Consequently, they have not stopped to take a good look at the subject. And those who participate in one or more activities around holiday seasons have a variety of reasons for thinking it is okay for them to do so without violating their conscience or doing disservice to the name of Christ.

I want to point out that our attitude in this matter is of the greatest importance. Some who have not celebrated holidays have looked down their noses at those who have and have even considered them second class Christians. Some who have celebrated have felt a great deal of guilt because others do not celebrate. These attitudes cannot be right and cannot produce the fruit of the Spirit with good feelings between brethren.

I want us to understand the truth on these issues not just to preach and believe what is generally accepted — not to believe or practice something just because that is what we have done traditionally — but to think rationally about the subject.

If my presentation proves false, then I ask you to be fair in your judgment. I will listen to your points and give them prayerful consideration. If my presentation proves true, then I ask that you give equal consideration. We are not here setting brotherhood policy We are here to discuss the topic and then go home to study further, drawing solid conclusions based on an honest investigation of God’s holy Word.

This study will be broken down as follows:

1. Introduction
2. A brief history of holidays as observed or celebrated around the world.
3. Leading arguments used for not observing (religious) holidays.
4. A call for consistency.
5. Conclusion.

The charge for this study was to discuss the celebration of holidays in general. For the most part, when we think of the subject of holidays, we think of religious holidays. And we will focus on religious holidays in the main part of the study. When we think of religious holidays, we think of Christmas because that is the holiday people are primarily interested in. But I was not asked to discuss just Christmas.

In fact, we will concentrate on the “big four” as we begin our study: Valentine’s Day, Easter, Halloween, and Christmas.

Valentine’s Day
The first of these holidays is Valentine’s Day, celebrated each year on February 14 and usually associated with love and romance. It was first celebrated in honor of two martyrs in the Roman Catholic Church, each with the name of Saint Valentine and each martyred on February 14. One of these men supposedly died in Rome and the other at Interamna about 60 miles out of Rome. One was a priest and the other a bishop in the Catholic Church. Some have concluded that they were not two but only one person — he was a bishop in Interamna but was martyred in Rome.

Customs now associated with this holiday have nothing to do with the martyrs. The customs probably go back to an ancient Roman festival called Lupercalia, celebrated on February 15. The festival was proclaimed in honor of Juno, the Roman goddess of women and marriage, and of Pan, the god of nature. Lupercalia was “a lovers festival for young people. Young men and women chose partners for the festival by drawing names by chance from a box” (World Book 205). Then they paired off, became better acquainted, and sometimes even ended up being married.

In the 400’s, one of the popes changed this festival into Saint Valentine’s day and changed the day to February 14.

Many customs and beliefs have developed since the beginning of Valentine’s Day, and most of them have to do with love, the choice of a marriage partner, or things a young girl can do to get a husband. The practice of exchanging Valentines or cards on this day goes only as far back as the English poet, Geoffrey Chaucer.

Easter
Originally, the word Easter was the Saxon word Estra, the goddess of spring (Unger’s Bible Dictionary 283). Or some write that it may have been from the word Eastur, referring to the festival of spring (World Book 25). The celebration came to refer to what the world calls a Christian celebration in honor of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. “By the 8th century Anglo-Saxons had adopted the name to designate the celebration of Christ’s resurrection” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary 283).

The World Book says, “It is the most important holy day of the Christian religion. People attend churches and take part in religious ceremonies” (25).

Several symbols have developed, referring to various aspects of the Easter celebration:

(1) the cross, representing the crucifixion of Jesus and serving as a symbol of His triumph over death;
(2) the Lamb, symbolizing the paschal lamb offered in the Jewish Passover;
(3) eggs, suggesting new life or the coming back to life of nature around Easter time. This is an ancient custom. “The Egyptians and Persians often dyed eggs in spring colors and gave them to their friends as gifts. The Persians believed that the earth had hatched from a giant egg. Early Christians of Mesopotamia were the first to use colored eggs for Easter” (World Book 25);
(4) rabbits. Sometimes children are taught to believe that the Easter bunny brings them Easter eggs, a belief that may have originated in Germany.

One legend says that a poor woman dyed some eggs during a famine and hid them in a nest as an Easter gift for her children. Just as the children discovered the nest, a big rabbit leaped away. The story spread that the rabbit had brought the Easter eggs. In ancient Egypt, the rabbit symbolized birth and new life. Some ancient people considered it a symbol of the moon. It may later have become an Easter symbol because the moon determines the date of Easter (World Book 26).

Halloween
Halloween means hallowed or holy evening and is associated with Alihallows’ Eve. It takes place on the day before All Saints’ Day, November 1. The holiday comes “. . . from the rites of the druids celebrating the day of Saman, when the Lord of the Death called together the souls of the wicked who had died during the past year” (Collier’s Encyclopedia). Celtic tribes, who practiced the religion of the Druids, brought this celebration to the British Isles. These people believed that ghosts, spirits, witches, and elves harmed people on Halloween. It was also used by the Druids as a celebration of the summer’s end.

The theme of the harvest, which runs through modern Halloween celebrations, comes from both the old druidic celebrations and the old Roman festivals in honor of Pomona, goddess of fruit, which were brought to Britain during the Roman occupation (Collier’s Encyclopedia).

It was common for horses and humans to be sacrificed during these celebrations. Men, mostly criminals, were imprisoned in wicker and thatch cages shaped like animals or giants; and Druid priests set fire to the cages, burning them to death.

During the Middle Ages in Europe, black cats were thrown into the flames in wicker cages because they were thought to be friends of the witches. During this time, too, some believed that witches rode through the skies on their broomsticks. On Halloween, these witches reportedly danced on hilltops with goblins and imps while the Devil played the bagpipes or castanets made from dead men’s bones. This was also a time when young women used various fortune telling techniques to determine who their future husband would be.

After the spread of Christianity, enemies of the church made fun of the Christians; and one Halloween they worshipped the Devil, set skulls on pretended altars or painted profane crosses on church walls. The Roman Catholic Church transformed this day into a Christian feast day in the 700’s when they named November 1 as All Saints’ Day. Many Superstitions and beliefs have developed from these original beginnings.

Christmas
The fourth holiday is Christmas, a time when the world celebrates the birth of Christ, even though the date of His birth is unknown.

Scholars do not know the exact date of Christ’s birth. For more than 300 years, people observed His birthday on various dates. In AD 354, Pope Liberius of Rome ordered the people to celebrate on December 25. He probably chose this date because the people of Rome already observed it as the Feast of Saturn, celebrating the birthday of the Sun as the Light of the World. The Christians of Egypt celebrated Christmas on January 6, and many members of the Easter Orthodox Church still observe this date (World Book 416).

As with other holidays, customs and celebrations have developed surrounding Christmas. One tradition honors St. Nicholas, a bishop who became known for his generosity in the A.D. 300’s and later designated by the Dutch as “the patron saint of children” (World Book 415).

Even though Santa Claus is known as an American symbol, the idea came from various traditions in several European countries.

The Norse believed that the goddess Hertha appeared in the fireplace and brought good luck to the home. The name Santa Claus also developed from a European source. Dutch settlers in New York, called St. Nicholas Sinterklaas. American children loved this symbol and they called him Santa Claus (World Book 415).

No one is sure about the origin of the Christmas tree legend, but several legends and tales have developed, some being connected with so-called miraculous happenings and other just legends. Other symbols include the star, lights, Christmas cards, the yule log, mistletoe, and others.

These four holidays are ones that we usually think of when we think of religious holidays. As we broaden our study of holidays, I would ask you to consider the following also:

Thanksgiving
A holiday that originated in the United States, Thanksgiving is also celebrated in Canada and probably came from a similar type holiday in England. It is a time of feasting and prayer for the blessings received for the year.

The first Thanksgiving Days were harvest festivals, or days for thanking God for plentiful crops. For this reason the holiday still takes place late in the fall, after the crops have been gathered. One of the first Thanksgiving observances in America was entirely religious and did not involve feasting. On Dec. 4, 1619, 39 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Plantation, on the James River near what is now Charles City, Virginia. The group’s charter required that the day of arrival be observed yearly as a day of thanksgiving to God (World Book 180).

The first Thanksgiving in this country took place less than a year after the people at Plymouth Colony settled. The first winter in Massachusetts was very severe and killed almost half of the people in the colony. But, because there was a good corn harvest during the summer of 1621, the governor (William Bradford) decreed that there would be a three-day feast and a Thanksgiving Day with the purpose of prayer and celebration.

The point is that it was begun as a religious celebration and not as just a secular holiday, as some believe.

New Year’s Day
One of the oldest religious celebrations in the world is New Year’s Day. From the earliest of times, all nations have celebrated New Year’s Day. The different cultures—Chinese Egyptian, Jewish, Mohammedan, and Roman—all began their new year at a different time, but the first day of the year has always been a time of celebration.

Thousands of years ago, the Egyptians celebrated the new year about the middle of June. This was the time when the Nile River usually overflowed its banks. . . . In ancient Rome, the first day of the year was given over to honoring Janus, the god of gates and doors and of beginnings and endings. The month of January was named after this god (World Book 237).

Many people brought gifts to the Roman emperor to wish him well. In Persia, many gave eggs to their friends, symbolizing the beginning of new life. This custom meant the same thing as “turning over a new leaf.” The custom of bringing gifts to the emperor was later brought over to England.

New Year’s Day was made a holy day in what was termed the Christian church in A.D. 437, and it was called the feast of circumcision. This custom was brought over from paganism. “At first, parties were not allowed on this day because the pagans had followed that custom” (World Book 237).

A book titled Holidays and Birthdays says, “Because New Year’s Day is called a Christian holy day, many people begin the day by going to church. But it is also a day to visit friends and relatives and to exchange gifts” (36-37).

New Year’s Day is a holiday that has been celebrated for more than 5000 years, but not at the same time of the year by all cultures. And it is a holiday that we normally do not think of as religious as far as the world is concerned; however its history shows that it has always been considered a religious celebration. In spite of that association, we think nothing of observing this holiday and of even integrating Worship with it.

Birthdays
Another holiday not usually considered a religious holiday, is birthdays; but its origin comes from religious type celebration that reach back into pagan times. The idea of a birthday being a special day goes back thousands of years, even to the time when people believed that good or bad spirits could help a person on that special day.

Long ago, people believed that on a birthday a person could be helped by good spirits or hurt by evil spirits. So, when a person had a birthday, friends and relatives gathered to protect him or her. And that is how birthday parties began (Holidays and Birthdays 12).

Birthday candles came from ancient Greece where people worshipped many gods and goddesses. Artemis, the goddess of the moon, was one of these. Each month, the Greeks brought cakes to her temple. “The cakes were round, like a full moon. And, because the moon glows with light, the cakes were decorated with lighted candles” (Holidays and Birthdays 12); thus the idea of the birthday cake and candles developed from paganism.

References are made to Herod’s birthday celebration in Matthew 14:6 and Mark 6:21, although some scholars believe these may have been a celebration of his ascension to power instead of his day of birth.

The later Jews regarded the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship. In the early Church the term “birthdays” was applied to the festivals of martyrs, the days on which they suffered death in this world and were born to the glory and life of heaven (Unger’s Bible Dictionary 147).

In spite of this background, I have heard some say they would celebrate birthdays in an extra special way, but they would not celebrate any of the Christmas traditions. This is a great inconsistency.

Other Common Items with Roots in Idolatry
Many other parts of our everyday lives today have roots in idolatry. For example, several of the months are named for Greek and Roman gods. January is named for the Roman god Janus, March for the Roman god Mars, May for the Roman goddess of spring and growth — Maia, June either for Juno (the Roman goddess of marriage) or from a Latin word meaning juniores.

Days of the week are likewise named for pagan gods.

In spite of these facts, no one hesitates to place a calendar on the wall because it began in idolatry No one feels he is worshipping one of these gods when a month or a day of the week is showing on the calendar.

Even some of our New Testament words, so commonly used and so well accepted, came out of either paganism or Romanism.

For example, the word saint. Paul used this word many times, but one place is at the beginning of the book of Ephesians where he addresses his words to the “saints.”

Paul took it right out of the terminology of the pagan Greek religions. He had to. There were no other terms which he could use so long as he was confined to the Greek language. There it meant “devoted to the gods.” For instance, a Greek worshiper would bring an offering to the god as a gift. He devoted it to that god. Or, the Greeks would build a magnificent temple and devote it to a certain god. The building was thereby set apart from any secular use, and separated to a religious one. It was consecrated to the worship of that particular Greek god (Wuest, Vol. I, 16).

The point is not that we should not use such terminology. The point is that just because something began in another age, even back in pagan times, does not necessarily make it either right or wrong. It is when it is used in connection with idolatry or with the wrong attitude that it becomes wrong. This fact we accept every day. We celebrate birthdays and we use calendars in spite of their beginnings. If something is wrong, it is wrong for another reason.

Reasons Some Use for Not Celebrating Christmas
When we discuss religious holidays and reasons that we should not celebrate them, we usually talk about Christmas and leave the others out of the discussion. The point of my approach in this study is that we need to be consistent, regardless of what our view is.

When brethren discuss Christmas, they offer various reasons for believing it is wrong. Some of these reasons are as follows:

1. It is paganistic because of where it began.
2. It was celebrated by the Roman Catholics who named it Christ’s mass.
3. It is a “religious” holiday.
4. It celebrates the birth of Christ, but it is the wrong time of the year.
5. It is not authorized by Scripture. (1 Peter 4:11) [pdc]

Those who have these reasons for not celebrating this holiday are, no doubt, sincere in their beliefs; and it would be wrong for them to observe it. My purpose is not to sway anyone from his conscience in this matter but to call all of us to consistency in our attitudes toward all holidays. As far as Christmas is concerned, we have a lot of closet celebrators and a lot of nibblers. Yet they hesitate to mention the subject for fear of being ostracized.

I see no reason to treat those who celebrate Christmas any differently from the way we treat those who celebrate Valentine’s Day by giving their wife a bottle of perfume or allowing their children to exchange cards — this one is no different from other so-called religious holidays. I have shown through the histories of these holidays that every one of them, even those we do not usually consider religious holidays, have their roots in paganism or Catholicism and usually both.

The question is, then, does the observance of these holidays as family or social traditions cause one to be a idolater or a Catholic — does this act cause one to sin? I believe not, no more than one is a pagan if he has a calendar on his wall. If I believed that, I would have to eliminate all holidays, calendars, and some terminology so commonly used by Christians.

Things I do believe:

1. If one participates in any of the deceptions or lies commonly associated with Christmas, Easter, or any of the other holidays, it is wrong.

2. If one has the feeling of worship of an object or an idol as he participates in any of the traditions, it is wrong. But what is true of one is true of all, if we are consistent. If a Christian feels he is worshipping the moon when he has a birthday cake, he should not have one. If he feels he is driving evil spirits away by having candles on a cake, he should not have them. If one believes he is associating himself with the paganistic beginnings when he gives another a valentine, he should not do so.

3. If a Christian violates his conscience by observing any of the holidays, he sins if he does so.

By the arguments traditionally used for not celebrating some religious holidays, some brethren have shown an inconsistency and intolerance that cannot be right and cannot be proved scripturally.

Conclusion
May I repeat that I am not trying to get anyone to accept religious holidays wholesale or partially, nor am I trying to get anyone to reject them. I do hope to stimulate each of us to think deeper about our convictions about these matters and to be consistent with whatever belief we arrive at.

May I further emphasize that we must decide if we are dealing with law or liberty? If we are dealing with law and if our traditional arguments are valid, then we must be consistent. We must give up all holidays that have similar backgrounds.

If observance of holidays is a matter of liberty then we must allow the liberty without making another Christian feel guilty or like a second-class citizen in the kingdom if he does not agree with us. Some have been intolerant in some cases, for example, about Christmas; but they have been tolerant about other holidays, making us look inconsistent in the eyes of those whom we are trying to influence.

Paul speaks about matters of liberty in Romans 14:1-12, making it clear there is flexibility in some matters. He, of course, is not addressing the doing of anything that is a violation of holy scripture --- he addresses only those things that are not in themselves sinful.

The apostle makes it clear that the Lordship of Jesus must be recognized and that He is to be respected (vv. 8-9). Further, he says that each of us must be aware of the judgment of God. “... every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (v. 12). In matters of liberty, we are not to judge or condemn others. In matters of law, it is, of course, the judgment of God that condemns one when he violates that law. The warning is that we are not to become confused in such matters, condemning where we should allow liberty and accepting when we should keep law.

Similar teaching is found in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. Paul ate the meat set before him asking no questions. But if someone set meat before him and said this meat is sacrificed to idols, he then would not eat it. He refused, not for his own conscience sake but for the sake of the weak brother who would feel that he was worshipping an idol if he ate that meat. Eating meat was a matter of liberty — not law.

I believe it is safe to say that people who celebrate holidays today do not in anyway recognize their pagan beginnings or feel they are worshipping an idol by what they do.

It appears very dangerous from the teaching of these Scriptures to push our personal opinions on others and force them to abide by our opinions. When Christian liberties are the issue, Paul said “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Romans 14:5).

One elderly brother used to say, “I had just as soon go to hell for being a law maker as a law breaker.” It is just as wrong to be a law maker as a law breaker.

Am I encouraging anyone to observe any of the holidays we have discussed? No I am not. I will leave that to your personal studies and decision. I am asking that we be consistent in our positions and arguments and not be guilty of making laws.

1712 Wanda Way, Arlington, TX 76017

Bibliography
Collier’s Encyclopedia
Holidays and Birthdays. Vol. 9. Chicago: World Book, Inc.
Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.
World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, Inc., 1982.
Wuest, Kenneth S. Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1. “The Exegesis of Ephesians.” Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973.

Read more!

Table of Contents

1992 Preacher Study Notes Menu
*** PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU SEE AN ARTICLE LISTED THAT IS NOT POSTED --- THAT YOU WOULD LIKE POSTED, PLEASE CONTACT ME AND I WILL DO SO ASAP, Dennis at BibleTruths@hotmail.com ***

< Widows...Allen Bailey

The Covering of 1 Corinthians 11..Mark Bailey

Forsaking the Assembly **...George Battey

Creation vs. Evolution...Smith Bibens

What is Pharisaic Legalism?...Alan Bonifay

Justification by Faith (Romans 4)...Melvin Blalock

How To Train Young Men to be Evangelists...Richard Bunner

The Canon of Scripture...John Criswell

The New Age Movement School Curricula...Jim Crouch

Present Needs of the Church...Bill Davis

The Role of Women in the Church**...Doug Edwards

God’s Description of Heaven...Gerald Hill

Tithing—Contribution*...Edwin Morris

Celebration of Holidays...Joe Norton

Stabilizing New Converts**...James Orten

Return to Main Menu --- Home

Read more!

How We Wear Our Hair --- Is It Important to God?

The Covering of 1 Corinthians 11
by Mark Bailey
Preacher's Study Notes 1992

The subject matter that Paul deals with in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 concerns headship or authority between men and women; however, usually when we deal with this passage we do so, as we will be doing today, not to study authority or headship, but with the determination to figure out what the sign of authority is. In other words, we are generally looking for what constitutes the "power" that Paul mentions in verse 10 when he says, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

Basically, the teaching found in I Corinthians 11:2-16 is in an outline form. In verse 3, Paul gives the ladder of authority: "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." This ladder of authority places God as supreme, followed by Christ, then man and finally woman.

The contention within the Corinthian church was not concerning whether Christ was over man or whether God was over Christ --- they understood these facts. The contention was concerning whether man is, in fact, over woman in the church. Therefore after clearly stating the correct authoritative positions concerning man and woman, Paul deals only with this part and explains in verses 4-6 what men and women are to do to show others that they recognize and are practicing God's teaching concerning this ladder of authority. Not only does Paul state (as in verse 3) that man is over woman, but in verses 7-10 he continues by explaining why man has authority over the woman. Next, in verses 11-12 Paul, parenthetically gives words of caution by stating that even though man is over woman, as far as authority is concerned, that he does not have absolute control because the Lord is supreme over both man and woman.

Finally, in verses 13-16 Paul concludes by comparing the authoritative position of men and women to the sign representing this authority and by noticing, even in the midst of contentious brethren, that the law of nature teaches that this "covering" is suitable for being the "sign of authority." The purpose of giving this outline is that we might understand that this passage is teaching one subject and that is headship. The correct understanding of this passage depends entirely upon keeping the teachings in context regardless of preconceived ideas.

We will begin our study in search of identifying the covering by noticing verse 4: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonereth his head." In verse 3, Paul clearly states that "the head of every man is Christ." Christ, therefore, is man's supreme which man dishonors by having his physical head covered when "praying or prophesying."

We should also notice that there is absolutely nothing here to indicate that the terms "praying or prophesying" are restricted only to the worship services; therefore, we must understand that Paul is instructing that man is to be uncovered any time that he is praying or prophesying. Obviously, if Paul had wanted his readers to understand that he was speaking of actions only in the church he could have easily done so. For example, he could have restricted his teaching to the church only by saying, as he did in verse 18, " ... when ye come together in the church" or, as found in I Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches." In other words, Paul could have said, "Every man praying or prophesying in the church dishonors his head," but he did not. However, I think that we should notice that Paul is, in fact, speaking of these authoritative positions in this chapter in relation to the assembly. He does this due to the abuse of these things in the assembly, but still, the same teaching would apply out of the assembly as well. As an everyday example, a child may be disrespectful to a teacher; therefore, the parents may tell the child: "Act like a Christian while at school." Would this statement indicate that he does not have to act like a Christian if he is not at school? Of course not! However, school is mentioned simply because school is the place where the violation took place. Likewise, "the assembly" is the place under consideration where women were dishonoring their heads that the Corinthians had written Paul about.

Regardless, if this has reference to "worship only," or all times while praying or prophesying we still must be conscious of the fact that a specific time is referred to. In short, if man is "praying or prophesying" he cannot be covered. To violate this would be an act of dishonoring Christ. However, if he is not "praying or prophesying" he can be covered, since he would be able to "uncover" himself before he enters into the specific acts of "praying or prophesying" again.

What does Paul mean by the words "having his head covered"? The term "having" (echo), according to Mayer (266) is used in the sense of "wearing." Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (332) says that "having his head covered" indicates "while he wears (a covering) on his head." The word "head" as used here refers to man's physical head; therefore, Paul has reference to man's having his physical head "covered" with anything. Vincent says these words literally mean "having something hanging down from the head" In his Critical Lexicon and Concordance, Bullinger says: "having [anything] depending from the head." Therefore, in reference to man, Paul is not speaking of a specific covering; instead, he is teaching that if man has "anything" that is, any type of covering or any type of ornament on his head while "praying or prophesying" he dishonors Christ. Since the word "covered" in this verse indicates "anything" on the head, it would include any type of ornament regardless if it is a man-made artificial covering (hat, shawl etc.) or if it is a God-given covering (long hair).

In I Corinthians 11:15 Paul said, ". . . hair is given her for a covering." Thayer (354) says that long hair is "as an ornament." Therefore, man's covering is not limited to, nor does it exclude something artificial. On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that man would sin, if he wears some type of ornament on his head if he is not praying or prophesying. For example, some jobs or sport activities may necessitate some fashion of a head covering (for example, a hat) and nothing is wrong with such since they are not praying or prophesying. Since long hair is mentioned as a covering in verse 15, does this mean that man may have long hair if he is not praying or prophesying? No! Such an act would be a violation of I Corinthians 11:14 "... if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him" Meyer(193) says that "Long hair on the head is a disgrace to a man ... because it is regarded as a sign of human subjection."

Now, concerning man's covering, which is anything on the head, Paul says that if he wears this covering while praying or prophesying that he "dishonors his head." The term "dishonoureth" (kataischuno) is defined by Strong's Dictionary as "to shame." In other words, if man wears "anything" on his head when praying or prophesying he shames his authoritative head which is Jesus Christ. Likewise, we find in verse 5 that if woman fails to wear her covering that she shames her head which is man. Now, the question of concern is: What constitutes the covering that Paul speaks of that brings forth "shame"? The answer is found in the context of I Corinthians 11.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT

Now let us consider the covering of woman. In verses 5 and 13 we find the term "uncovered" (akatakaluptos) which is defined by Thayer (21) as being "not covered, unveiled." Arndt and Gingrich (29) says that an uncovered woman is simply "a woman without (a) head-covering."

Notice that the idea of "anything on the head" is not found here, as it is concerning the man in verse 4; therefore, a particular thing is under consideration and not just "anything." In other words, as Humphry says, The Greek (for uncovered or covered concerning woman) is not the same as (man) at verse 4, which is literally, "having (anything) on the head." Since it is not the same as the word "covered" in verse 4, what is the covering referred to here that, if not worn, dishonors man? Again, some believe that Paul has reference to an artificial veil, while others believe that he is speaking of long hair. However, it seems more correct, due to the context of I Corinthians 11:2-16 to understand that Paul has reference to long (uncut) hair. Notice, in the context, that every statement having reference to women and their being "covered" or "uncovered" implies "long hair" within the same statement.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT

Many errors are made, in trying to understand God's instructions as found here, by not keeping the teachings in the proper context. If we keep the thoughts in context, how can Paul mean anything besides hair? Verse 15 clearly states that long hair is given for a covering. This verse not only implies what the covering is, but it also strengthens and defines the covering as "long" hair. Thayer (354) states that "hair," in this verse, is "as an ornament."

In the last phrase of verse 5, Paul tells us that the "head uncovered"
is "even all one" or "the same as" or "equal to" the head being shaven. The Greek term xurao translated "if she were shaven" is defined "to shear, shave" (Mayer 432). When woman is "uncovered," that is, when her hair is not left as nature gives it (uncut), she shames man by the act, and here Paul says that such an act is the same as having the hair shaved. As noticed in verse 3, the subject under consideration is "headship." Verse 5 is simply teaching that if a woman prays or prophesies "with her head uncovered," that is, without a complete covering of long hair, she dishonors man, and subsequently disobeys God.

The question that we are confronted with is: Why is the uncovered head the same as being shaved? How is the head uncovered? In the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), the "head uncovered" always refers to removing the hair. A study of the word "uncovered," as found in verse 5 of the Greek Old Testament, proves that it refers to cut hair or hair that has been shortened and not to an artificial veil. (See chart 3.)

Consequently, the uncut hair is a glory to woman (v. 15). It is a gift (or ornament) to woman from God. I suppose this could be the reason that Thayer (354) states "hair" in verses 14-15: "differs from thrix (the anatomical or physical term) by designating the hair as an ornament." In other words, the long hair referred to in I Corinthians 11:14-15 has reference to an "ornament" and not simply to hair. Again, Thayer (292) defines thrix as: "the hair of the head." While praying or prophesying women must have this "ornament," that is, long hair as a sign of authority (v. 10). In order for woman not to dishonor man, she must preserve this God-given ornament (long hair) by never removing any part of it. Concerning the woman's head being uncovered, Charles Hodge states:

"She puts herself in the same class with women whose hair has been cut off. Cutting off the hair, which is the principal natural ornament of women, was either a sign of grief, Deuteronomy 21:12, or a disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is: she is one and the same thing with one who is shaven. She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman."
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT

As stated earlier, the reason that the "head uncovered" is one and the same as being shaven is simply that they both refer to hair that has been cut. The Greek word katakalupto ("covered," I Corinthians 11:6) is a compound word made up of kata and kalupto. The prefix kata primarily means "down"; however (according to a study made at the University of South Africa Bible School): "When prefixed to a verb, its most usual meaning is 'completely.' " Also, in his Lexicon of New Testament words, W. J. Hickie says that katakalupto (covered)-means: "to completely cover." Therefore, we should understand that God's desire for woman is that she honors man by wearing her sign of authority, that is uncut hair.

When the hair is shortened even in the least measure the head is no longer "completely" covered. For example: If I were to cover my house with roofing and then remove or cut away a small amount of the covering --- during the first rain, I would quickly understand that my house is not properly or "completely covered." Likewise, when women remove or cut away part of their covering (long hair) they are not properly or completely covered; therefore, they are considered "uncovered" regardless of how much hair they may have left.

I am aware of the contention of some people who try to defend their practice of cutting their hair by saying, "I only trim my hair, it's not shorn, that is, it's not cut dose to the scalp; therefore, I still have long hair." The point being misunderstood here is that the covering of hair has no reference to the length (in inches) of the hair, but to the uncut hair as an ornament. Concerning this ornament, Thayer (54) informs us: The notion of length being only secondary and suggested. Consider it this way, if a woman can cut her hair and still be covered, then a man will have long hair and therefore be covered when he cuts his hair. The consequence of this argument would require every man to be completely shaved. In order for woman to obey the apostle's teaching and not dishonor man, she must keep this "ornament," this "sign of authority" which nature teaches is a "glory" to her, that is, long hair.

Often, instead of cut hair, people understand the words "head uncovered" to be referring to some foreign object (cap, hat, or some type of artificial veil) being taken off the head. However, it is necessary for a proper understanding of this subject to realize that every time the expression "uncover the head" occurs in the Greek Old Testament, it means to remove the hair. For an example notice Numbers 5:18 where the same Hebrew word para is used of a woman accused of adultery: "And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head. . ."

The Septuagint translates Numbers 5:18 with the Greek word apokalupto, the same root form (kalupto) we have in I Corinthians 11 for "uncover." Wycliffe, in his Commentary, tells us that in Numbers 5:18 the phrase "uncover the woman's head" is from the Hebrew word para meaning: "to unbind the hair, not uncover the head. As one under suspicion, she was deprived of this sign of dignity; her hair was unbound." Also, the truth is clearly stated in the definition as given by Gesenius (690) when he says that the Greek apo-kalupto means "to make naked, especially by shaving." It is also of interest and important to notice that the noun form of para (pehra) is simply defined as "hair." Gesenius states that it is "from the idea of shaving. Leveticus. 10:6; 21:10; Numbers. 5:18." Notice from the following translations that the uncovered (apo-kalupto) head has reference to the hair.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT

Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the phrase "uncover the head" from the Hebrew verb para and the noun pehra refers to the hair when we realize that it is the same word used for uncovering the head in grief. The Old Testament makes clear that the "hair" itself was removed in times of grief. In Deuteronomy 21:12 an Israelite is forbidden to take a captive woman for his wife until she has first shaven her head and mourned for her father and mother a full month. In Job 1:20, Job shaves his head upon hearing that his children are all dead. Concerning this term, Strong's Lexicon says, Para "a primary root; to loosen; by implication to expose, dismiss;" "pera from para, the hair (as dishevelled): locks." Speaking of pera, Young's Concordance says, "Locks or other part of the hair of the head, Numbers 6:5; Ezekiel. 44:20"; "Para --- To free, keep or make bare."

Notice also that the grammatical forms of katakalupto (covered) as found in I Corinthians 11:5, 6, 13 can and do refer to hair. Notice Ezekiel 44:20 --- the Septuagint translates: "And they shall not shave their heads, nor shall they pluck off their hair; they shall carefully cover their heads." Special attention should be given to the word "cover" which comes from a form of the Greek term katakalupto. Also, notice from the following translations (in chart 5) that the word "cover' has reference to hair.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT

As can be seen simply from the spelling, kaluptontes and kalupsosi are grammatical forms of kalupto and katakalupto ("covered") as found in I Corinthians 11:5,6,13, and are translated as having reference to the hair even though it is translated by the Septuagint as "cover." The point is, when we read the word "cover" or "covered" it does not necessarily refer to something artificial. The context must make the distinction. Notice the following comments from scholars:
Keil & Delitzsch (vol. 9, 315), concerning the word "cover":" meaning to cut the hair, is obvious from the context."
Adam Clarke (vol.4, 544): "To let the hair grow long would have been impropertherefore the Lord commands them to poll --- cut the hair short, but not to shave.; "
The word "poll," "cover," or kaluptontes is defined by Strong (56) as "a primary root (indicating) to shear." Gesenius (408) defines the terms as "to shave, to shear (the head); found once, Ezekiel 44:20." Without a doubt the meaning is simply that they shall "poll" "cover" with reference to "hair."

Next, let's notice verse 6 where Paul says, "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."

Notice, first of all, the condition of the woman referred to in this verse. She no longer has her "ornament" (long hair). Her hair is no longer as "nature" would have it. She is "not covered," that is, she is not "completely covered" (as is defined by W. J. Hickie) due to having removed a portion of her hair. She did not cut her hair enough to be shorn, she merely trimmed it, but Paul continues to show the sinfulness of this act of trimming by saying, in order to be consistent, "let her also be shorn."

The word "also" (kai) is defined by Thayer (316) as "likewise" and he says that this term "marks something added to what has already been said, or that of which something already said holds good;.. In this use it generally throws an emphasis upon the word which immediately follows it." Notice that the following emphasized word is keiro ("be shorn") having reference to "sheared" hair (Strong) or "hair cut close" (Vincent). In other words, Paul is saying that if she is going to remove a small portion of her hair, for example, if she going to trim her hair, she may as well go further and be shorn, or even a step further than that and be shaved. Vincent tells us that shorn or shaven means: "To have the hair cut close, or to be entirely shaved as with a razor."

Paul concludes verse 6 by relating to the known knowledge of the Corinthians concerning the fact that it is "a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven." The word "shame" (alscbron) means "dishonorable" or sin (Thayer 17). Both the Jews and Gentiles knew that it was sinful for women to be "shorn or shaven"; therefore, Paul says, since this is the case "let her be covered" --- let her be completely covered. In the first part of this verse Paul is simply teaching that if they consider it permissible to cut their hair a small amount they may as well shave their heads. Just as a man today is to keep his hair cut, he may also shave his head, if he desires. This is only consistency! However, in the last part of this verse Paul is saying "if" or since you consider it a "shame" for a woman to be "shorn or shaven" (as they all did), let her be covered --- let her retain her natural hair, that is, hair as nature gave it --- uncut.

Now, we will notice verse 7 where Paul says, "a man indeed ought not to cover his head . . ." The term "ought not" (opheilo) means "one must not" (Bauer, Amdt, and Gingrich). In other words, man "must not" "cover his head" with "anything." In verse 4 Paul's message to man was that he could not have "anything" on his head while praying or prophesying. It seems now that he wants to make it clear that man cannot have "anything" covering his head, no, not even "long hair." Paul continues to give reasons why man must not wear a "sign of subjection" on his physical head. It is important to understand that the reasons given for man to not be covered are also the reasons that woman must be completely covered.
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
It is essential that we consider the reasons given by Paul as to why long hair is to be worn by women and not by men. Many today, mistakenly, believe that the long hair is no longer an issue simply because, they claim, "it was a custom of the day." And now that it is not a recognized custom, they feel that it is no longer necessary. However, notice that the reasons given for the covering had nothing to do with "custom."

Man being created as the origin of the human race stands in the position of leadership, only under God and Christ. He is not to cover his head with "anything" because the covered head is "a sign of subjection." Woman, being created for the man, while man, not being created for anyone (earthly) shows that man is supreme in authority; therefore, he is not to wear the sign of submission, that is, long hair or any type of covering while praying or prophesying.

Now, let's notice verse 10 where Paul says, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." We have just noticed in chart 6 that three reasons are given, by Paul, as to why a woman must be covered. Paul ties these three reasons together in verse 10 by saying: "For this cause" ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Question? For what cause? Because of the order in which woman was created, because she was created both "of" and "for" the man and due to being created for the glory of man. Notice, she is to have "power on her head" because of creation and not because of custom. Customs may have changed over the years but creation did not.

Verse 10 is often overlooked and omitted because of the difficulties surrounding it. However, it is one of the most important verses within this context and one which needs to be thought through carefully. Let's notice some of the key words of this verse. The term "ought" (opheilo) used here in reference to women, as in verse 7 in reference to man, means "must." In other words, Paul is saying that woman "must" have "power" on her head. Thayer (469) says that women are "under obligation, bound by duty or necessity, to do something." Notice that the instruction given is not followed simply because the woman may desire to do so, nor because of custom; instead, it is to be followed because of a sense of duty or necessity in obeying the inspired Scriptures.

Now, we must ask, what is the instruction given for Christian women that she "must" do? Paul said that the instruction is "to have power on her head . . .", that is, the "sign" of subjection which is long hair. The term "power" as used by the apostle in this verse is a metonymy (a figure of speech where the name of one thing is used to suggest another). Thayer defines "power" as: "a sign of the husband's authority over his wife." Notice now, the woman's "headcover" in this verse is called "power" (exousia). The American Standard Version renders: "a sign of authority" Paul's instructions for the woman is that she must wear a "sign" as a sign of her subordination to man.

We should also understand that for a woman to submit herself to her husband is not a sign of spiritual weakness, it is recognizing the fact that has existed since the creation. Also, remember, as we have just noticed, that this is not done by compulsion but obligation. Vincent says that the term power is: "used here of the symbol of power, i.e., the covering upon the head as a sign of her husband's authority." Therefore, the Christian woman is under obligation to the Scriptures "to have power, that is, the sign of authority on her head because of the angels." The question that concerns us at this time is: "What is this power or sign?"

John records in Revelation 9:8 "They had hair as the hair of woman." This passage, first of all, indicate that the woman's hair is different from the man's hair. W.E. Vine says:

"The long hair of the spirit-beings described as locusts in Revelation 9:8 is perhaps indicative of their subjection to their Satanic master (compare
I Corinthians 11:10, R.V.)."

Here Vine is plainly telling us that this "power" the "sign of subjection" in I Corinthians 11:10 has reference to "the hair as the hair of woman," that is, "long hair" as referred to in Revelation 9:8. Concerning 362) refers to a statement of "Callistratus (who) twice uses exousia of "abundance of hair" .. . resembling the Irish expression 'a power of hair.' " Bloomfield quotes commentators who "regard the ("power") exousia as the name of a female ornament for the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels." The word "power" indicating authority refers to the long hair. The opposite of long hair (or power) is cut hair which is a sign of destruction. Vincent says that "The cutting off of the hair is used by Isaiah as a figure of the entire destruction of a people by divine retribution." Here he has reference to Isaiah 7:20 where it says, "In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard." Long hair has always been a sign of anthers authority and cut hair on women has always been a sign of weakness (destruction --- Isaiah 7:20, mourning --- Deuteronomy 21:12, harlotry, etc)

At this time we also need to consider the fact that many scholars state that the word "power" refers to a veil. However, it is important to understand that the words "hair" and "veil" are used at times interchangeably; therefore, the distinction between the two words is not always clear. For example, the Hebrew word tsaminah, which is the Greek word katakalumma (this is a Greek noun form of the verb katakalupto in 1 Corinthians 11) is translated as "hair" and "veil" by different translators; Examples can be found in Isaiah 47:2 where the King James Version translates "uncover thy locks"; and the American Standard Version translates "remove thy veil." However, this does not mean to remove an artificial veil because it is defined (Gesenius 170) as: "to make naked; hence, to disclose, reveal, to uncover; to make. bare, to uncover any one's ear by taking away the hair." This same word is also used in other passages where some translators render "locks" and others "veil."
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
As we can easily see in this chart, in every case, the King James Version translates "locks," the American Standard Version, "veil." Has either mistranslated the word? No, it simply appears that the two words were used interchangeably since the hair was considered to be a veil. "Locks" (KJV) is defined by Gesemus (712) as: "tsamniah fem. a woman's veil." Sometimes tsaniniah is called a veil and other times it is called locks (hair). Young's Analytical Concordance says, tsammah is "a lock of hair, veil," Song of Solomon 4:1,3; 6:7; Isaiah 47:2."

There are some that will argue that in today's society the "sign" of authority is not the same thing as it was in the days of Paul. Some believe the wedding ring on their finger is the "sign" today and therefore conclude that the covering on the head, that is, the ornamental hair, is not necessary. However, we must realize that just because the world or even the members of the church do not believe or recognize what God has commanded does not do away with the command. For example, just because some people do not recognize immersion as a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, does not do away with the commandment to be immersed in baptism. Likewise, just because people may not recognize long hair as a "sign of subjection" does not do away with the command (1 Corinthians 11:6, RSV).

We also need to consider the word "because of the angels." The word "angels" (aggelos) according to Thayer (5) refers to a "messenger," that is, "one who is sent." It is difficult to know the exact purpose of the angels. There are many mysteries concerning what part they may have in our lives; however, it appears, according to Paul's teachings, that angels are in some way associated with Christians, while in the acts of praying or prophesying, as mentioned in verses 4 and 5. McGarvey indicates that Paul has reference to angels "who, though unseen, are always present with you in your places of worship." Psalms 138:1 proves that angels were present during worship "I will praise thee with my whole heart before the gods (angels) will I sing praise unto thee." However, worship is not the only place where angels are found, for Paul speaks of them as being a witness of the sufferings that both he and other apostles had faced (1 Corinthians 4:9) Jesus warns us to be careful how we deal with others due to the fact that "in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven" Paul charged Timothy, in I Timothy 5:21, not only before God and Jesus Christ, but also before "the elect angels to observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."

There are different views held as to who these angels are Some understand that Paul had reference to evil angels, that is, to devils which are called angels as found in I Corinthians 6:3: "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" This view contends that the evil angels will lust after women when they do not have their God given covering --- in other words, when they are disobedient.

A second view is that the angels refer to ministers. This view is often taken by those believing that the terms "praying or prophesying" in verses 4 and 5 refer only to worship. The contention is that women are to be covered in front of ministers, that they may know that the woman considers herself under subjection to man.

A third view is that angels refer to good angels. This view seems more correct because, it seems, every time the Scriptures refer to angels without specifying "good" or "bad" it refers to good angels. However, there is still much confusion concerning why Paul would make reference to the angels. In his comments, Mayer (5) supposes that Paul has reference to good angels "invisibly present in the religious assemblies of Christians," and therefore, women are to be covered where they will "not displease them." Another possibility is that Paul made reference to "because of the angels" because the angels were known to have been an example of covering their faces when they were before God. Notice Isaiah 6:1-2: "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." Sometimes this view is rejected because Paul only stated it in reference to women and not to men. However, this objection is not valid because the teachings found in this passage are basically for improprieties of Christian women and not of men.

The words found in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 are said in order to correct any misunderstanding of Paul's words. Man is indeed the "head," (in an authoritative position), of the woman; however, this does not give man the right to despise nor to treat the woman as a slave. While man is superior to woman in the line of headship, they are also equal in many ways. In Galatians 3:28 Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Here, we see that man is cautioned to understand that he is incomplete without the woman, just as the woman is incomplete without the man. In verse 12 Paul gives an example of this concerning reproduction. In the beginning woman was made from man (Genesis 2:21-23); however, now man is taken from woman—through birth. They are both dependent upon each other because, as Paul concludes, "all things (are) of God" that is, as Vine says, "all is by His counsels." God, through His mighty wisdom, created the human race in such a way that both man and woman are dependent upon the other. Proper respect is essential between men and women, as Paul taught in Ephesians 5:22-33.

We should now notice the question posed by Paul in verse 13: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul has already given his reasons based upon creation as to why women should wear a sign of subjection. Now he tells the Corinthians to judge or "consider" for yourselves concerning the appropriateness of woman praying uncovered. In other words, he is simply asking for their opinion. The word "comely" (prepo) as used in this verse has nothing to do with the idea of custom. He is not asking for their opinion of customs, but their opinions concerning the sign of authority in relation to creation. Paul is merely asking them to consider the matter based upon creation, and then give their honest opinion whether or not it is, as Mayer (535) says, "becoming, seemly, (or) fit" for women to be 'uncovered.' " Their honesty would cause them to realize that by being uncovered, that is, having their hair cut, women would be putting themselves on the same level of authority as men.

Again, we must ask: What are women to be "covered" with --- what is this "sign of authority?" In this verse Paul asks: "Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" It seems that even before they had a chance to answer the question that Paul stated the answer in verses 14 and 15. (See chart 8.)

Obviously, Paul explains that the answer must be "NO." No, it is not fitting for a woman to be without her covering. Why is it not fitting? Paul says that the reason is because her "long hair" (uncut hair) is "a glory" and a "covering" to her.

In verses 14 and 15 Paul plainly declares that man was intended to be uncovered and woman covered. As indicated here, woman is covered by having "long hair," and man is uncovered by having cut hair. Dean Alford explains this same truth by saying: "the mere fact of one sex being by nature unveiled, that is, having short hair --- the other, veiled, that is, having long hair."
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
The question that is asked by some is "How long is long?" The answer to this question is important, because man must not have this covering of long hair or else he "dishonors" Christ. On the other hand, woman must have this covering or else she "dishonors" man. How long is long? The answer is simply that long hair is hair that is not shortened. The term "long hair" is translated from the Greek word komao which Thayer (354) defines as "to let the hair grow." When men or women do not let their hair grow, but instead shorten it by cutting, trimming, breaking, burning, or giving perms, or any other method --- it is not long. I realize some women will say "When I trim the 'dead ends' my hair will grow longer." The truth of this statement is immaterial. It does not matter if it will grow longer once it is shortened. Mayer states that "the notion of length (is) only secondary and suggested." The proper question to be asked is: "When the hair is cut has it been shortened?" Obviously, the answer is "Yes," therefore, it is not long and she loses her "glory?' The contention of some is that long hair is simply hair that is not cut very short. However, let's go to the Scriptures to see if this is correct. (See chart 9.)
CLICK ON THE CHART IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT

Another point of interest is that in this context, the term "glory" is found three times. Notice chart 10.
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Today, we should consider the fact that if woman has the right to do away with her "glory," which verse 15 tells us is "long hair"; then man would be just as right to do away with his "glory," which is "woman," and, therefore, God will do away with His "glory," which is "man."

Next, notice the last phrase of verse 15: "for her hair is given her for a covering." The word "hair" as found here is translated from the Greek word kome and Thayer (354) defines this term as "hair, head of hair: 1 Corinthians 11:15 it differs from thrix (the anatomical or, physical term) by designating the hair as an ornament." The hair as used here has reference to the "ornamental hair." This hair, as an ornament, is given for (instead of or answering to) a "covering" (peribolaion). The term "hair" has reference to the "sign of subjection" in verses 1-10, as is explained by W. E. Vine (189). He says:"The word (kome, hair) is found in 1 Corinthians 11:15, where the context shows that the 'covering' provided in the long hair of the woman is as a veil, a sign of subjection to authority, as indicated in the headship spoken of in verses 1-10."
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Objections are sometimes made to the idea that the "covering" of verse 15 is speaking of the same covering referred to in verses 5, 6, and 13. This objection is based upon the fact that different Greek words are used and the contention is that the verbs katakalupto and akatakalupto ("covered" and "uncovered" in verses 5,6,7, 13) cannot be correctly used with the noun peribolalon ("covering" in verse 15.) However, this objection is based upon theory (Notice chart 11.)

While it may be correct to say the verbs and the noun cannot specifically be found being used together in the New Testament, it is of interest to notice that in the Greek Old Testament that forms of the two verbs (katakalupto & periballo) are used interchangeably. Notice chart 12.
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
For Christian women today to violate the instructions of the Apostle Paul by refusing to wear long (uncut) hair is of serious consequence. The Apostle has taken the time to give several reasons for the necessity of the long hair. As a very brief review, the reasons given are given in chart 13:
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE OR PRINT
Many people attempt to erase all of Paul's teachings found in verses 2-15 by quoting verse 16 which reads: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." However, such efforts are vain because, as we have already noticed, Paul was not speaking about the "custom" of the day concerning the "sign of authority." Furthermore, he is certainly not teaching that if they are having contention over his teaching to forget that he wrote the words. Instead his message is that his spoken words are truth and cannot be altered. He later wrote, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you..."

Well, what does Paul mean by saying "we have no such custom"? First of all, the pronoun "we," according to Bloomfield, refers to "(Paul) and the other Apostles." The term "such" (toioutos) is defined by Thayer
(627) as "such as this, of this kind or sort." In other words, Paul is saying none of the apostles share in this sort of custom as the Corinthians practiced.

There are three views concerning what sort of "custom" Paul had in mind. First, some say that Paul was referring to women being not covered when praying or prophesying. The problem with this view is that the pronoun "we" does not include women, but refers only to the apostles. Second, others say that Paul had reference to the custom of being contentious. In other words none of the apostle maintained a contentious spirit. This view is very likely and should not be ruled out. A third view, that I also cannot completely rule out is that verse 16 applies to the subject which follows and not to verses 2-16.

The long (uncut) hair on women is the covering referred to in I Corinthians 11:2-15. It is a "sign of subjection," and is essential today and must be accepted and worn with pride for "her hair is given her for a covering" (v. 15).

1001 Westwood Dr., Piedmont, SC 29673

Bibliography
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. London: Rivingtons, Waterloo Place; and Deighton, Bell, and Co., Cambridge, 1861.
Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University of Chicago Press, London, 1957.
Bloomfield, S. T., Critical Digest and Synoptical Arrangement of the most Important Annotations on the New Testament. C. and J. Rivington, London, 1828.
Bullinger, Ethelbert W. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, London, ninth edition 1969.
Farrar, Archdeacon. The Pulpit Commentary. Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York and Toronto.
Gesenius. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Baker Book House, Grand Rapid, Michigan, 1979.
Hickie, W. J. Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament. The MacMillan Company, London 1948.
McGarvey, J. W. The Standard Bible Commentary Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. Standard Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Thayer, J. H. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1977.
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha. Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Corinthians. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884.
Strong, James. Exhaustive Concordance. Regal Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. MacDonald Publishing Company, McLean, Virginia.
Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1966.
Wyciffe. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. The Southwestern Company, Nashville, Tennessee, 1962.
Young, Robert. Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970.

Read more!

Forsaking the Assembly

by George Battey
1992 Preacher’s Study Notes

The assembly of God’s people was very important during the Old Testament dispensation. Gathering all the people together was important for several reasons. First, in Leviticus 8, Aaron and his sons were ordained as priests before all the assembly to publicly acknowledge that: “These are God’s official priests and we will follow no others.” In the New Testament, elders were ordained in the assembly to demonstrate that they were the official leaders of the congregation (Acts 14:23). Second, in Numbers 15:32-36, all the people were gathered to witness discipline --- an execution --- so that everyone would learn to respect God’s law. In the New Testament church discipline is to be administered before all the assembly so that everyone would learn a lesson (1 Corinthians 5:4). Third, in Deuteronomy 31:12, all the people were to be gathered for the reading of the law. Not everyone could read but all could hear and understand the reading. Likewise, in the New Testament we are to gather together for public reading and teaching of God’s law. Everyone might not have their own copy of God’s law or be able to read, but all could hear and understand (1 Corinthians 14:23; Colossians 1:9-10)

Holy ConvocationsThe Israelites were at liberty to have as many assemblies as they wanted as often as they wanted; but there were certain assemblies which God chose, and attendance at these meetings was obligatory These divinely appointed assemblies were called: “holy convocations” (miqra’), or “sacred assemblies” (NIV). “And in the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you” (Exodus 12:16).

A “holy” convocation was very special, and there were no excuses accepted for not appearing. One might be excused for not coming to a common town meeting, but there were no excuses accepted for missing a “holy convocation”!

Numbers 9:10,13“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the Passover unto the LORD... But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the LORD in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.”

This indicates the seriousness of “sacred assemblies” and the requirement to be present at them.

Leviticus 23 lists all the “holy convocations” which Israel was to observe --- there were seven in all:

1. Weekly Sabbath --- according to verse 3 there was to be an assembly in each town; an assembly for weekly worship.
2. Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread (vv. 7-8)
3. Feast of Firstfruits (vv. 4,11-12)
4. Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) (v. 21)
5. Feast of Trumpets (v. 24)
6. Day of Atonement (v. 27)
7 Feast of Tabernacles (vv 35-36)

Some of these “holy convocations” required that all the nation gather together in Jerusalem, and others allowed the people to gather in the nearest village.

The New Testament AssemblyIn the New Testament there is only one “holy convocation” required --- a regular assembly of the Lord’s people for worship and it is this assembly to which we turn our attention.

Hebrews 10:25
“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”

Here we have a familiar passage and one that is greatly abused and misused. What we wish to do with this passage is
(1) examine what the passage meant to the Hebrew brethren, and
(2) draw out of the passage the principles which apply to those of us who are not Hebrews.

Written to the HebrewsFirst, let us emphasize that this epistle was written to Hebrews --- Jews! It was not written to Gentiles. This is not to say that Gentiles could not learn from it, but it was written specifically to Jews who were facing special problems. Keep this in mind for it will soon become very important.

Jews Were Quitting the Church
Another important ingredient to understanding this passage is to understand that these Jewish Christians:

(1) were being persecuted and
(2) were tempted to quit the church.

The fact that they were being persecuted is evident from the following passage:

Hebrews 10:32-33
“But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.”

The fact that they were tempted to leave the church and quit is evident from: “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward” (Hebrews 10:35). Over and over in this epistle the Lord is exhorting the Jewish brethren: “Don’t ‘cast away your faith; don’t quit the church; don’t abandon the Christian faith” “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12). Again, in a rather lengthy section, the writer warns:

Hebrews 6:4-6 “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance...”

In the very chapter where these people were instructed not to forsake the assembly the writer says, “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, for He is faithful that promised” (Hebrews 10:23). There is it again: “Don’t give up! Don’t quit the church and revert to Judaism!”

A Warning SignHere in the midst of these warnings not to quit the church, the Lord exhorts: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Hebrews 10:25).

Contextual, the Lord is pointing out that one of the first signs a Christian is getting weak and is about to quit the church when they begin to forsake the assembly! This is not always the case. Sometimes we see Christians who quit suddenly without warning signs. But this is relatively rare. Most often, people begin to slack off in attendance, and it means they are losing interest, growing weak, becoming worldly, and are in danger of eventually quitting altogether.

Attendance at the weekly assembly is a good indicator of how things arc going in the rest of a person’s life. If a brother isn’t attending regularly, he probably is not reading the written Word, praying, or witnessing to others regularly.

Start listening to the excuses people offer for not being present at the assembly, and these excuses reveal even more. Some of the more common ones include: “I was tired.” “I just don’t get anything out of the services.” “It’s just too far to drive all the time.” The revealing thing about all this is that people would never use these excuses if summoned to appear in court! Imagine someone excusing themselves for not responding to a court summons by saying, “I would have come to court, but I was tired. Besides, I’m just not getting anything out of my trial lately, and it’s just too far to drive all the time, so I didn’t come.” Talking to the judge like this will land you in jail, but for the church these excuses seem to be adequate for some folks.

Hebrews 10:25 is exhorting the Jewish people not to slack off on attendance because forsaking the assembly is the first step toward quitting the church altogether!

Defining Some TermsAt this point it is necessary to define some key terms. First, the word “forsaking” comes from the Greek verb egkataleipo, and its form in Hebrew 10:25 is a present, active participle. There are several bonfide ways of translating this participle: “forsake,” “abandon,” “neglect.” But which one of these three valid options most correctly expresses the author’s intended meaning? Because egkataleipo is a present tense participle, continuous action is being described --- that is, action that is being performed over and over again. Had the Lord wanted to indicate a “one time” abandonment, He would have used the aorist participle. Again, had He wanted to indicate a “one time” abandonment, with emphasis on the resulting state of being, He would have used a perfect participle. But because He used a present participle, He was, without doubt, describing continuous, or repetitious action . Of the three possible selections, the word “neglect” carries over the idea of continuous action better than the words “forsake” or “abandon.”

The next critical word we must define is “manner” --- “as the manner of some is.” This comes from the Greek word ethos which means “a usage (prescribed by habit or law); custom, manner, be wont” (Strong’s, # 1485) . In other words, the kind of “forsaking” which the Lord is describing has become a habit with some. Had we chosen “abandon” to translate egkataleipo, it would lead some to think of a “once and for all” abandonment rather than something done habitually. “Neglect,” by contrast, carries across the idea of habit quite well and fits the context better than “abandon.”

Next, notice the words “the assembling.” This translates the Greek noun episunagoga which literally means “the assembly.” This again validates our contention that the Lord is describing a habitual, continuous “neglecting” of the “assembly” rather than a “one time” abandonment of the church. Had the Lord been discussing total abandonment of the “church,” He would have used the word ekklesia rather than episunagoga.

To clarify, there are two separate issues at stake in our study which we might label as (1) the disease and (2) the symptoms of the disease. These two items must not be confused. The Lord is concerned about the Hebrews abandoning the church --- that’s the disease. One of the symptoms that the Hebrews were about to come down ,with the disease was their neglecting of the assembly. Hebrews 10:25 then is forbidding men to neglect the worship assembly, for this will only make them weak and lead to their actual abandonment of the church altogether. Hebrews 10:25 is not directly addressing the issue of their total abandonment of the faith, but rather is focusing in on one of the symptoms that leads to total abandonment

Finally, notice two things about the Greek noun episunagoga: (1) the definite article is used, and (2) it is singular in number. The definite article means a specific assembly is envisioned, not “an assembly,” but “the assembly”; a special assembly convened and conducted by the church. The singular number means that one particular assembly is envisioned; not the assemblies, but the assembly. There is one and only one assembly that is peculiar to the Lord’s church --- the Lord’s day assembly when the brethren come together to “break the bread.” “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them” (Acts 20:7). This is the only assembly that is divinely chosen! “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34). This passage teaches that the church must “come together” to eat the Lord’s supper and according to verse 26 it was done “often.” Every first day of each week the church would do this (Acts 20:7).

Other AssembliesThe church has been granted the liberty to have as many assemblies as she wants and as often as she wants. For example, in Acts 15:6 the church in Jerusalem convened to discuss some church problems. In verse 30 of the same chapter the church in Antioch convened to hear an epistle read to them. There is no indication in either of these passages that this was a Lord’s day assembly. Instead, the brethren themselves decided to conduct an assembly, and they chose the day and time that was convenient for all concerned.

These passages demonstrate that it is scriptural for brethren to assemble on other occasions besides the first day of the week. But there is a certain assembly which God chose, and attendance at this meeting is obligatory. A congregation does not sin by not having a mid-week service, or a Sunday evening service, but it does sin when it doesn’t come together on the first day of the week for communion.

SummaryIn summary, Hebrews 10:25 is commanding the Jewish brethren not to neglect the weekly assembly when the church comes together to “break bread.” Some people were in a habit of neglecting this assembly, but this must stop! When people do neglect this assembly, it is an indication that they are growing weak and on the verge of apostasy! Irregular attendance doesn’t mean they have totally abandoned the church, but it does mean they’re headed that way!

Exhorting One Another
There is now a contrast made in the passage we’re studying: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Hebrews 10:25).

In contrast to neglecting the assembly, we must “exhort one another.” The question we must now answer is: Did the Lord mean we should >(1) exhort brethren to assemble? or (2) should we assemble so as to exhort one another? Look carefully at these two questions
and you will see that they are saying quite different things.

The context is in favor of the second choice We assemble in order that we might exhort one another In fact, look at the preceding verse “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works” (Hebrews 10:24). We must “provoke one another to love and good works.” How can we do this? By our assembly! The Lord’s day assembly of the church was designed by the Lord to exhort all who attend. “Let all things be done unto edifying,” wrote the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:26). In the assembly we sing, and by singing we teach and admonish one another (Colossians 3:16). When we pray we edify (1 Corinthians 14:15-17). By teaching we edify (1 Corinthians 14:4-5). By giving liberally we edify (2 Corinthians 9:2). By communing we edify (1 Corinthians 11:26).

This is why it was so critical for these Jewish brethren to make sure they were present at the assembly. At that time they were tempted to give up and to quit the church. By neglecting the assembly they were getting weaker and weaker, so the Lord was here commanding them to be present at the assembly where exhortation takes place.

“The Day Approaching”
The exhortation offered in the assembly is always needful, but it becomes even more so when a crisis arises: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Hebrews 10:25). As these Jews saw “the day approaching,” it was even more critical that they be present in the assembly and receive exhortation from their brethren!

What is this “day” that is “approaching”? There are three popular interpretations:
(1) The first day of the week theory, (2) the Judgment Day theory, and (3) the destruction of Jerusalem theory. Let us examine each briefly.

The First Day of the Week Theory
Brethren who hold to the first day of the week theory believe the passage teaches that Christians should “exhort to assemble” rather than “assemble to exhort.” For them the passage means: On Monday I come to exhort you to attend church next Sunday. On Wednesday I come by and exhort you more fervently to be present in the assembly next Lord’s day. On Saturday I become almost frantic exhorting you to be present at the Lord’s day assembly.

The problem with this is that those who believe it don’t really believe it! None of them practice it! None of them go around during the week becoming more and more earnest in their exhortations as the first day of the week draws nearer and nearer. Furthermore, there is no logical reason why exhortation to assemble should be more intense on Saturday than On Friday or Thursday.

The End of the World Theory
This theory states that as we see the end of the world getting nearer and nearer, it is even more critical that we “assemble to exhort” or “exhort to assemble.”

The problem with this interpretation is that the Lord was speaking of a certain day that these Jewish Christians in the first century could see coming, and they couldn’t see the end of the world coming! Of this point we can be most confident because:

(1) Christians of the first century were taught that the Judgment Day would not come before a great apostasy occurred first, and this did not happen until hundreds of years later (2 Thessalonians 2:3); (2) Jesus taught over and over that His second coming would be like a thief in the night. “For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians. 5:2).

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.” (2 Peter 3:10)

“But know this, that if the good-man of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Matthew 24:43-44).

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32).

Over and over we are taught that the coming of the Lord will be like a thief who gives no sign or warning that He is coming. Therefore, because there are no signs given to indicate the end of the world is approaching. Hebrews 10:25 is not speaking of the end of the world.

The Destruction of Jerusalem Theory
This theory holds that “the day approaching” refers to the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies . In the year A.D. 70. God allowed the Roman army to absolutely destroy the city of Jerusalem, burning and leveling both the temple and the royal palaces. It is estimated that in the siege 1,100,000 Jews were massacred . Never was there such an intense, overwhelming bloodbath as this upon the Jewish nation. Jesus forewarned of this very thing: “For then shall be a great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matthew 24:21). The first thirty-four verses of Matthew 24 give the great prophecy that Jesus made concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. He gave the people signs to watch for that would indicate the day of Jerusalem’s destruction was approaching.

This is undoubtedly what the Lord was referring to in Hebrews 10:25. Remember, the book of Hebrews was written to Jews! They more than any on earth would be affected by Jerusalem’s destruction. These Jewish Christians were being persecuted and harassed by unbelieving Jews. As Jerusalem’s destruction drew nearer and nearer the persecution intensified. “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another” (Matthew 24:9-10). This increase in persecution would cause many to question their allegiance to Christ. Many would be tempted to abandon the church and revert to Judaism. But the Lord is trying to tell the Hebrew Christians, “If you’ll stay faithful and remain in the church, this persecution and harassment from the Jews is going to end when Jerusalem is destroyed and your enemies are killed. But, if you defect and return to the Jewish religion, you will find yourself destroyed along with those unbelieving Jews!” As these Hebrew Christians saw Jerusalem’s destruction drawing nearer and nearer and their persecution growing worse and worse, it was all the more needful that they should attend the assembly of the church where they could be exhorted to stay faithful!

Application for TodayNow, if the “day approaching” refers to Jerusalem’s destruction, does that mean the passage is worthless to us today? Not at all! This passage is setting a precedent for us. When a great crisis arises in our lives, it becomes even more important for us to be present at the assembly!

The destruction of Jerusalem was a major crisis in the lives of the Jews, and they were tempted to give up on God and quit the church; but the Lord is saying. “This is the time when you need the church most of all!”

Many times today, when people go through a crisis they are tempted to give up on God and quit the church! The loss of a child, the loss of a parent, financial problems, marital problems, health problems --- all of these are disasters that drive a lot of people to give up and quit the church. They throw up their hands and quit, thinking, “If God cares for me why does He allow these disasters to come upon me?” Times of crisis are the times when it is especially important to be present at the assembly where exhortation takes place!

In summary, Hebrews 10:25 is just as relevant to us today during crises which we face, as it was to those Jews who were facing the crisis of Jerusalem’s destruction.

Some Troublesome VersesNow let’s look at the next few verses which have tended to be
rather troublesome:

Hebrews 10:26-31“For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and bath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

If we fail to see the overall message of the book of Hebrews, we will fail to see the point of this passage. Many read verse 25 in connection with these verses and immediately they draw some very serious conclusions:

(1) Forsaking the assembly is willful sin.
(2) There “remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” because you missed church.
(3) You deserve “fiery indignation” for missing church.
(4) You deserve to die without mercy under two or three witnesses.
(5) You trample the Son of God under your feet when you miss church.
(6) You count the blood of Jesus as an unholy thing by missing church.
(7) You insult the Holy Spirit by missing church.
(8) God will take vengeance on you for missing church.
(9) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God after you have missed church.

To hear some tell it, you would think that missing church is blaspheming the Holy Spirit --- an unforgivable sin. To make matters worse these people declare: “Well, it’s in the same context! Verse 26 comes immediately after verse 25 and the willful sin being discussed is missing church!” Admittedly, on the surface, this does seem to be the contextual setting.

However, what we’re failing to do is to back up enough to see the larger context. The Lord is warning about leaving the Christian faith and returning to Judaism. Forsaking the assembly is merely a symptom that some are about to do this --- they’re starting to “not care” about things God commanded!

If these Jewish Christians quit the church and abandon the Christian faith, then: they are willfully sinning; there is no more sacrifice outside of the Lord’s body that will atone for their sins; they deserve fiery indignation for turning their backs on the Lord who purchased their salvation. When men rejected the Mosaic covenant and left for false religion they died without mercy under two or three witnesses (Deuteronmy 17:6-9).

If “death without mercy” was inflicted upon men who left the Mosaic covenant, how much worse should one be punished who leaves behind the new covenant? Again, by leaving Christ and returning to Judaism, these Hebrews would be “trampling under foot” the Son of God; they would be counting His blood which sanctified them as something unholy; they would be insulting the Holy Spirit! Anyone guilty of such atrocities will surely have vengeance taken upon them by God. No wonder a person is worse off if they fall away after obeying the gospel (2 Peter 2:20-22).

Again, for emphasis’ sake, Hebrews 10:25 is warning the Jewish Christians not to “neglect” the weekly assembly because that is the first step toward weakness that will lead to quitting altogether.

What Constitutes “Forsaking the Assembly”?
Now it’s time to apply what we have learned --- the hardest part of any Bible study. How much do you have to ignore something before you’re guilty of “forsaking” it?

First, many insist that “forsake” means to “totally abandon” the church once and for all time. They make the passage read something like this: “Do not totally abandon the assembling of yourselves together as some have done.”

There are two problems with this: (1) the passage does not have the word “totally” in it --- that’s been added by wishful thinking; (2) This interpretation ignores the force of the word ethos, “habit.” Some Christians were in a regular habit of doing something! Were they in the habit of “totally abandoning” the church once and for all about twice a month? That’s like saying, “You can’t count on John Doe because he totally abandons the church once and for all every month.”

Second, when forced to admit “forsake” is not total abandonment, some argue that “forsake” does not mean missing church just once. They illustrate it by asking this: “If a preacher leaves his wife behind to hold a meeting for a week, has he ‘forsaken’ her?” Most would answer “No.” Their conclusion is: If a preacher doesn’t “forsake” his wife by being gone just one week, neither does a Christian “forsake” the assembly by missing just one Sunday.

While this sounds reasonable, let’s imagine this: Suppose the husband left his wife at home sick with no one to care for her? Or suppose he left her penniless with no food to eat? Or again, suppose he spends his week with another woman? Did he “forsake” his wife in any sense?

There’s no doubt that “forsake” can mean “total abandonment,” but the question is: Is that all it can mean? Can a man “forsake,” “neglect,” or “abandon” his wife, or the assembly, in any sense short of total apostasy?

Degrees of “Forsaking”The Scriptures clearly indicate there are degrees of conduct. Consider the following:

1 Samuel 15:3, 9“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.”

Here the Bible distinguishes between destroying and “utterly” destroying; they are not the same thing. Saul “destroyed” some of the Amalekites, but he did not “utterly” destroy them. Again, “And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out” (Judges 1:28). Israel drove out the Canaanites, but they did not “utterly” drive them out.


There is apparently a difference between:

* refusing and utterly refusing Exodus 22:17
* making desolate and making utterly desolate Isaiah 6:11
* rejecting and utterly rejecting Jeremiah 14:19
* forgetting and utterly forgetting Jeremiah 23:39
* going bald and going utterly bald Ezekiel 27:31
* cutting off and utterly cut off Hosea 10:15
* being at fault and being utterly at fault 1 Corinthians 6:7

Likewise, the Bible distinguishes between “forsaking” and “utterly forsaking.” “O forsake me not utterly,” the prophet said (Psalms 119:8). In contrast, God said, “For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment” (Isaiah 54:7-8). Interestingly, the Septuagint (LXX) uses egkataleipo, the same Greek word used in Hebrews 10:25, in both of these Old Testament passages!

In the New Testament there are some familiar passages: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying. . . My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46). Take note that this is the first time God ever forsook Jesus. It was the only time He ever did it. And, He never intended to permanently forsake Him. The Father forsook Jesus for “a small moment,” but He did not “Utterly” forsake Him.

Again, “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world” (2 Timothy 4:10). Even if Demas had returned the very next day, it would not remove the fact that he had “forsaken” Paul.

The point is, we can be guilty of “forsaking the assembly,” or: “neglecting” the assembly when we miss only one time! To say that “forsaking” in Hebrews 10:25 is “total abandonment” of the church is to confuse the disease with its symptoms.

What About Jobs?
Now, “What about my job? I have to make a living and they require me to work sometimes on Sundays!”

I believe the Lord knew this would be a problem. He knew that His disciples would sometimes have to make a choice between their jobs and their obligations to God and that is why He taught:

Matthew 6:25-33
“Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore , if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

There is not a better answer than that! There’s nothing more to say. Jesus said if we put the kingdom of God first in our lives God will provide for all our physical needs. The real question today is not, “What about my job?” but, “Are we believers, or unbelievers?” Do we believe what Jesus said, or not? I do note this particular point In Matthew 22:3-5, when the king’s wedding invitation was rejected in favor of business and job related matters, the king was wroth and declared the guests to be “unworthy.” If a job was an inexcusable reason for missing a king’s wedding invitation, I question that it would be an excusable reason for missing the “holy convocation” called by the living God!
SummaryWhen we “neglect” the assembly for vacation, for business, or any other excuse, we have violated the command of Hebrews 10:25 and we are guilty of sin. And unless we repent we will only grow weaker and end up quitting altogether.

As a side note, why some churches use men in leading roles in the services of the church who can’t even be faithful in attendance is beyond my ability to reason!

ConclusionIn conclusion, what have we seen? Hebrews 10:25 is teaching this: First, the command is given: Don’t neglect the assembly. Remember, this is a command! Second, the rationale is given: To prevent apostasy. The assembly is where men receive the exhortation that will prevent apostasy. Third, an extra reason is given --- Crisis. As we see times of crisis approaching, the assembly becomes all the more important.

Don’t think you can out-guess the Lord --- thinking that you can “neglect” the services just once in a while without growing weak. The Lord said it will make you weak and He -knows --- He made you!

Questions and AnswersFollowing are some commonly asked questions with replies for your consideration.

Q. Can a Christian miss worship because of sickness or car breakdown?

A. The Lord said, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some .. .“ The Greek word kathos (“as the manner of some”) is an adverb of manner and describes in this passage the kind of forsaking under consideration. Hebrews 10:25 is discussing men and women who could attend the services, but chose of their own volition not to do so. To miss because of persecution or lesser reasons is to miss “as the manner of some.” However, missing for sickness or car breakdown is not within one’s control --- not “as the manner of some.”

Equating missing for sickness with missing for work is making the error the Pharisees were guilty of. They could not distinguish between working on the Sabbath and being sick on the Sabbath (cf. Matthew 12:9-14).Shame on anyone equating sickness and car breakdowns with working.

Q. Isn’t there such a thing an “ox in the ditch” that justifies missing services?

A. First, notice the ox in the ditch was not harnessed up plowing in a field (Luke 14:5). In other words, the farmer did not work on the Sabbath and this cannot justify a man’s working during the Lord’s day assembly. Second, Lynwood Smith put it best when he said, “If I had an ox that kept getting in the ditch, I’d either sell the ox or fill in the ditch.” Third, the kind of “forsaking” the Lord had in mind was “as (kathos) the manner of some.” Missing for an ox in the ditch is not “as” some in Hebrews 10:25 were doing. They were missing by choice; they were not “providentially hindered.”

Q. In Numbers 9:9-13, men who were traveling were excused from observing the Passover. They were allowed to make it up later. Why can’t we today miss worship for traveling purposes?

A. Carefully consider the passage cited in this question:

Numbers 9:9-13
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ‘Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the Passover unto the LORD. The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it. But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the LORD in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.’ ”

First, the unclean and travelers still kept the Passover (v. 10)! They did not miss the Passover for traveling! Men traveling on Lord’s day miss the assembly! Second, special revelation from God was required to authorize this second opportunity for observing the Passover. Where is such revelation given for those who miss the weekly assembly to “make it up?” Third, the man that could attend, but simply chose not to, sinned! Many times, when people say they “couldn’t” go, the truth is they “wouldn’t” go!

Q. Is attendance at Sunday night and Wednesday night services mandatory?

A. I believe we should “be ready to every good work” (lit. 3:1), and men should try their best to attend these services, but I am not ready to put these services on an equal level with the “holy convocation” which God chose. To illustrate, suppose all the men of a congregation worked third shift and decided to have Wednesday services at 10 a.m. When a brother moved in with a daytime job, would he be sinning if he did not take off to attend the 10 a.m. service? I think not. Or suppose a congregation decided to have services every evening at 7 p.m. Would a brother be sinning if he decided to stay home one night during the year to rest? Again, I think not. Several things need to be considered before condem-ning one who misses one of these services. Why are they missing? How regularly are they missing? How mature are they in the faith? Are they just babes in Christ or have they been “raised up” in the church? Furthermore, we should consider what position they hold in the church. Is the person an elder? A preacher? A deacon? An “ordinary” member? It is scriptural to expect more out of church leaders than from others (cf. James 3;1; Luke 12:48b). We must be careful and not make a law where God made none (cf. Matthew 23:4). Before we can make a man quit his job so he can attend a 7 p.m. Wednesday night service, ask yourself if you would quit your job to attend a 10 a.m. Wednesday morning service.

Q. Should churches change the time of their weekly assembly to accommodate brethren who work, as practiced by the churches in the Philippines?

A. This is a judgment call which requires consideration of several things. Will changing the services hinder the effort to get unbelievers to attend the assembly? Has every effort been made to resolve this problem some other way? If every effort has been tried and the overall work of the church is not harmed, there is no Scripture that would forbid the congregation from using this option.

Q. If a man misses the weekly assembly to work, is he covetous and should we discipline him as per 1 Corinthians 5:11?

A. A man might miss services to work because of covetousness, and that would be grounds for discipline, but not necessarily. We should not make a blanket rule that covers all cases. We need to consider each case. How mature is this Christian? --- Is he a “babe” or a mature member? What was the man’s reason for missing the assembly to work? Was it really covetousness or merely weakness in faith?

Q. What about being a doctor and having an emergency call on the Lord’s day?

A. First, it is not wrong to be a doctor. Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14). Second, I think it wise for men to seek branches of medicine that would not be likely to interfere with their religion. For example, there would be less problems for an “ear, nose and throat” specialist than for a heart surgeon. Third, what might be an emergency to an ordinary person might not be an emergency to a doctor. He should think through situations that are likely to occur and be prepared for them, e.g., have someone fill in for him while he’s gone. Fourth, I believe it is possible that life-threatening emergencies can arise that are out of the ordinary that would justify a doctor missing services, e.g., a plane crash with all available doctors called in, or a massive pile-up on the freeway. In such cases, the doctor would not be guilty of forsaking “as” the manner of those of Hebrews 10:25, who were voluntarily choosing to miss. Jesus said, “If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7).

Q. Is Hebrews 10:25 really a command? Isn’t the subjunctive mood used rather than the imperative mood?

A. Owen L. Crouch correctly comments upon this: “Subjunctive at this point is kin to the imperative mode in that it offers an exhortation or entreaty.” -

Q. What about worshipping God in a motel room when on vacation? Isn’t Jesus “in the midst” when just two or three gather?

A. First, Matthew 18:20 is discussing church discipline, not worship. Second, even if this passage were discussing a worship service, the phrase, “in my name” means “by my authority.” Where did Jesus ever authorize the practice of missing the Lord’s day assembly and worshipping in a motel room? Third, the apostle never offered this as a solution to the Hebrews! They were being persecuted! Paul never advised them that it would be better for husbands and wives to have communion on the roadside to avoid persecution. How can we do so simply to have a vacation? Fourth, the weekly assembly requires brethren to “come together” (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:33). There is no “coming together” when a husband and a wife wake up in a motel room and “play” church. Fifth, if a man and wife may commune on the side of the road once without coming together with other brethren, they could do so every Lord’s day. This reasoning destroys the need for congregations! “What proves too much, proves nothing at all.”

Q. Wasn’t Paul saying that we can miss so long as we don’t make a “habit” like some—”as the manner (habit) of some”?

A. The Lord was using the bad habit of some to illustrate what Christians should not do even once! To illustrate, in Romans 6:1-2, Paul wrote, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” When Paul condemned continuance in sin, did he thereby condone occasional sinning so long as men don’t make a habit of it? Obviously not. Likewise, in Hebrews 10:25, by condemning the excessive habit of some, the Lord thereby was not condoning neglect of a “holy convocation” on an occasional basis.

2710 Somerton Dr., Morrow, GA 30260
BibliographyBarnes, Albert. Barnes’ Notes On the New Testament --- 1 Volume edition. Kregel Publications. 1980 edition.
Baur, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon. Chicago Press. 1957.
Crouch, Owen L. Expository Preaching and Teaching --- Hebrews. College Press.
Delitzsch, F. Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Hebrews. T. & T. Clark. 1870.
Lindsay, William. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews. William Oliphant & Co. 1867.
Shaw, Tommy. The Destruction of Jerusalem: Its Important Place in the Divine Plan. Published by Tommy Shaw. 1979.
Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Abingdon Press. 1974 edition.
Summers, Ray. Essentials of New Testament Greek. Broadman Press. 1950
Summers, p. 90
Consult also Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich, p. 217, where ethos in Hebrew 10:25 is translated “habit.”
For the definitive articles proving that episunagoga should be translated “assembly,” while ekklesia is reserved for “church” or “congregation,” see: Barnes, p. 1308; Lindsay, 2:121-122; Delitzsch, 2:182-183

Read more!