So after hearing so many great things about this book, I was thrilled to find it available online. I began reading it last night and finished it up today. I have to say, I really respect Ellis and his love for the Lord and for Truth. I agree with a lot of what he says and admire his knowledge of scripture. Having said all that, the woman's head covering is just a hard pill to swallow. Not because it would be inconvenient to believe it. I have always prayed that I would be able to follow and walk in the Lord's truth despite how inconvenient, unpopular, etc, that it might be. So, that is not my problem. It is just hard for me to really believe the need for such a thing when one actually looks and understands the whole of scripture, the church and the christian life. I am in no way saying that I am right and he is wrong. But neither can I blindly embrace this practice simply because he says it's the truth. I will try to, as briefly as possible, point out my initial reservations with this teaching.
1. Ellis comes across as though his interpretation of scripture is the truth and everyone else's is wrong. This is a dangerous mentality. People who claim to "just do what the bible says", are in reality simply doing what they "believe" the bible says. All scripture requires interpretation and thus the millions of doctrinal and theological differences. The desire to interpret scripture exactly as God intended it to be interpreted is something that goes back as far as the ancient Rabbis. Their whole purpose was to fulfill God's Law as they felt He intended it to be fulfilled. Obviously, how one interprets a certain passage will differ from how another interprets it and naturally you get factions or differences. A rabbis' interpretation of scripture was known as his "yoke". To take a Rabbis' "yoke" upon you was to follow his particular interpretation of the scriptures and live it out accordingly. Jesus told us to come to him for his "yoke was easy and his burden was light". Jesus came to lessen the burden of the law and external manifestations that supposedly brought one closer to God. Under the New Covenant in Christ, the focus has shifted from the external to the internal. It's the heart that God looks at. He took the heart of stone and gave us a heart of flesh. Is Ellis truly suggesting that without a literal woman's head covering, we are doomed to deception, exposed to the enemy, and destined for satanic domination? What happened to the power of the Cross? The blood? The Name of Jesus?
I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that there is no absolute truth in the scriptures and that each person's interpretation make it so. That's not what I'm saying at all. The Word of God is absolutely true from beginning to end. The problem is that it can be interpreted incorrectly and misapplied and thus create doctrines that are defended as "truth" but not necessarily so. That is my point.
2. There is no biblical support that failing to accomplish one of the three ordinances can lead one into harm. We agree that baptism is biblical and good. That it should be done. Absolutely. But there is no support that if one fails to be baptized they are doomed in some way. One or two testimonies of people supposedly suffering prior to being baptized does not a biblical truth make. I agree with Ellis' teaching on the importance and power of baptism and that it should be done right away rather than after months of "baptism bible classes". That idea has always seemed so ridiculous to me. But again, if one isn't baptized right away or "properly" as Ellis would define it, there is no support, either biblically or practically that one will suffer untold harm and attack. Along the same lines, neither is there support that failing to partake of communion invites harm and disaster. What we have in the passages regarding communion is a correction for abuse. The believers were being selfish, not waiting for other believers to arrive before scarfing down all the food, leaving nothing for the poorer believers arriving late. On top of this, believers were getting drunk at the gatherings! It is this evil, selfish, and ungodly behavior that Paul is confronting and that is making many among them sick and weak. There is no evidence to support the idea that if the Supper wasn't observed at all, they would be attacked and harmed in some way. It was their ungodly behavior towards others and their drunkenness and irreverence that appears to be in view. To partake of the meal in a "worthy manner" means that they would wait for all to arrive, allow everyone to partake in the meal together, and refrain from inappropriate conduct such as drunkenness.
So, my point is simply that there is no evidence that if one fails to apply one of these ordinances altogether, one will be under attack. So, why would one conclude that a woman failing to cover her head would invite harmful demonic attacks? It doesn't pass the reality test OR the biblical test in my opinion.
3. Ellis goes to great detail to "expose" and critique the charismatics practicing their false signs and wonders, etc. Part of his argument is that people can be duped into believing something works, ie faith healing, when in actuality it is their own emotional or psychological vulnerability, or worse yet, demonic activity creating the supposed miracle. In other words, people can be duped into believing they received a miracle simply by psychology. Many of these false prophets work the crowd and are experts at creating environments were people are almost in a trance like state in order to "receive". My point regarding this is that by Ellis' own admission, people can be duped into believing something works by their own minds or emotions. So how is it not possible that all or some of the testimonies he shared about women covering their heads and then experiencing various changes were not simply due to the fact that these people put their faith in something, wanting it to work and so they made it work? If we can be duped one way, why not the other as well? We know for a fact that when someone wants to believe something and puts their faith in it, many times they will make it work simply by their faith. Look at diet pills or supplements that people stand by as having helped them lose 100 lbs only to find out that the supplement is a worthless sales gimmick....but they still lost weight! How? Faith is a powerful thing, even when it's misguided. Tithing is another example. Tithing is an old covenant practice not commanded or applicable for NT believers. However, millions of tithers swear up and down that once they began tithing all their finances turned around. But you can find a million others who tithed and never saw any difference at all. So who is right? Given the fact that tithing is not applicable for NT believers and is law based living, trusting in a work for blessing rather than in Christ though whom all blessing has been given to us, it would appear that some people's faith in tithing is so strong that it works for them despite not being biblical. My question is could the same principle be at work regarding the head covering?
4. Scripture seems to be clear that the church will endure massive deception no matter what. Many will fall away from the faith, false prophets will come, false teaching will invade the church, people will grow cold, and on and on. This has nothing to do with women covering or not covering their heads but rather it is God's prophetic order. Only a relatively small number of believers will remain faithful to him. Few are chosen. Etc. Deception in the church (as a phenomenon) is unavoidable. Head coverings will not stop this from happening.
5. Paul seems to already give us clear and specific details as to how to fight the enemy and do spiritual warfare. He makes no mention of head coverings in this context. He instead lays out what he calls "putting on the whole armor of God". His purpose for this is stated clearly, "that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil". Paul makes it clear that in order to stand against the attacks of the devil, we only need to put on the whole armor of God. Nothing is mentioned about head coverings. He then defines the armor of God and still no mention of head coverings. Interestingly, Paul does in fact mention the head and how to protect it against the enemy. It is not by a woman wearing a head covering but rather by all believers wearing the helmet of salvation. All of the "armor" appears to be spiritual analogies to different truths of the faith. The word, the spirit, righteousness, salvation, faith, etc. Paul is confident that when a believer applies these spiritual truths and remains in prayer, that they will be perfectly suited against the attacks of the enemy.
6. It fails the reality test. There are many believers around the world, who bare fruit unto God, walk in righteousness and truth, are surrendered to him fully, and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ above all, that do not wear head coverings. There are many healthy, vibrant churches, walking in truth, glorifying the Lord Jesus that do not practice wearing head coverings. If the head covering is the "golden key" and the secret to avoiding deception and demonic attack, then how is it that many believers get by just fine without it? And why is it that some women who cover their heads, still struggle with different attacks, temptations, tempers, unforgiveness, or whatever? It seems that there is no definitive pattern. Some are fine without it, some are not fine with it.
7. I do not agree with Ellis' interpretation of "a woman should learn in silence". He teaches that women should be silent in the assemblies. Really? Are we not all, male and female, priests unto God? Did Christ not purchase us all and make us ALL ministers and functioning priests? This is the fundamental doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers". Something no legitimate scholar argues. If we are all ministers and capable of sharing Christ with our brothers and sisters, then how can we accept that woman are completely shut out of participating in meetings?
I believe there is a better explanation of 1 Timothy 2. Here is an explanation:
Paul urges prayers for peaceful lives. Recorded in Acts 19:24-41 is Paul's violent conflict with Demetrius, a silver craftsmen making shrines to Diana and the city-wide riot that followed. Paul probably has this specific episode in mind when he urges church members at Ephesus to offer "prayers...that we may live peaceful and quiet lives..." 1Tim 2:1-2. The word he uses for peaceful, (heesuchion from hesuchios, Strong's 2272), is the male form of the word and it translates as "peaceful". The feminine form of the same word (hesuchia, hay-soo-khee'-ah, 2271); is used twice in 1 Tim. 2:11-12 describing the atmosphere in which a woman should learn and what Paul feels should be a woman's attitude. The same word used in the same chapter should have the same translation, "peaceful"—a peaceful learning atmosphere—the same atmosphere Paul urges them to pray for so that they might have undisturbed lives! Instead of being translated as "peaceful" as it is in the male form, the female form of the same word was translated as "silence". There are many clues in the second chapter of 1Timothy that an angry dispute has occurred in church, and peacefulness is the exact attribute that Paul advocates for both women and men.
So in 1 Tim 2: 11 when Paul uses the female form of the same word, he is requesting a peaceful atmosphere free of anger and disputing.
"Paul does not command the women not to teach. He employs the present active indicative for "allow." The present tense in Greek principally denotes continuous present action. It can refer to present necessity and obligation and to potential action. Greek has its own imperative mood which is not here employed. Commands can also be phrased in the aorist or the future indicative. Neither of these tenses is here used. Nor does Paul use the perfect tense to denote an action in the past which has changed the state of affairs. Paul is saying: 'I am not presently allowing a woman to teach.'" Beyond the Curse, Aida Besancon Spencer, Pg. 84-85.
So, a fuller and more appropriate/literal translation would read something like this: ""A wife, in peacefulness, I let learn in all obedience (not causing angry disputes), but to teach (a) wife I am not allowing (present indicative tense—he is not presently allowing a wife to teach), not even to dominate (a) husband, but to be in peacefulness.""
The historical context shows that Paul was addressing a very specific problem of dominating women who were causing problems in the church. This was most likely caused by the false religion of Ephesus. They worshiped Diana, long story short, it was taught that women are superior to men. Paul is bringing correction to a specific false teaching and setting some guidelines to restore church order and peace. This also meshes perfectly with the next few verses about Adam being formed first and then the woman. Also, that Eve was the one deceived, not Adam. What is Paul doing? He's correcting the false teaching that women are superior. So, the whole passage is about a specific false teaching happening there at that time and Paul is giving specific instructions for them at that time as well.
So Ellis' claim that "a woman should not speak or teach in the church", based on these verses appears to be completely false bringing me back to my first point. Just because he says it's the truth, doesn't make it so. It's his interpretation and since he is fallible, maybe his interpretation is incorrect. If he is incorrect regarding this issue, could he be incorrect regarding the head covering issue as well? It's certainly possible and I believe it to be so.
8. The NT names by name several important women who Paul considered co-workers in Christ Jesus. To name a few: Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Nympha, etc. Some of these women were considered apostles (ie, Junia), and certainly capable of preaching the gospel and teaching the churches. There seems to be sufficient evidence of women teachers, co-workers in the early church that would seemingly refute Ellis' interpretation of 1 Tim 2.
9. Just as another practical observation. Paul seems to suggest that equal to the woman covering her head is the man NOT covering his head. So, is it sinful for men to wear hats? If I wear a baseball cap am I now open to demonic attack and deception because I "covered my head"? I think most people would say of course not. So how could we promote the female side of the coin but yet deny the male side? Paul seems to place them both on equal ground. If wearing a cap or hat causes me no spiritual harm, then it would stand to reason that a woman not wearing a covering would also not cause any spiritual harm.
10. Finally, I think it is a stretch for Ellis to claim that the consequences of failing to uphold this practice are delusion, deception and demonic attack. Ellis seems to go as far as to suggest that the reason the church is in such deception today is because of neglecting this sole practice. However, the passage itself reveals nothing, nor even hints at evidence of harmful consequences befalling someone if they fail to wear the head covering. There are no statements such as "if you fail to do this you will suffer x, y, and z". Or, "be careful to observe all these things so that you do not suffer x, y, z", etc. When speaking about the Lord's Supper, Paul clearly states that their improper behavior in regard to the Supper was causing them physical harm. There is no such warning or implication in the passage on head covering.
These are just some reservations and doubts I have about this doctrine/practice of the head covering. This is in no way intended to be an "I'm right, you're wrong" post. These are simply my initial reservations and I welcome feedback and correction as we pursue truth together. God bless!
