Expert: Dr Don Howe - 6/21/2011

Question
Hello,
  I just read an article in a newspaper from a recent grad of Yale Divinity School who says that homosexuality is OK with God because only one man, the apostle Paul says it is sin and Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 that it is a shame for a man to leave his hair grow long or a woman cut hers short.  He said if Paul was so petty about hair length he was not qualified to judge homosexuals and if he is wrong about hair length he is also wrong about homosexuals.  This is very confusing.  While I see this grad trying to cut the bible up into acceptable and unacceptable pieces why does Paul say this about hair and does this grad have a point?

Answer
 Don, thank you for your answer. The author of the article in the newspaper who is a graduate of Yale Divinity School is an IDIOT. Yale Divinity School is one of the most liberal, unbiblical seminaries in the country. When you read something like this in the newspaper, look it up for yourself in the Bible. The Word of God is our only authority. Man can think what ever he wants, but it is God's Word, the bible, that has the answers.

 You stated "recent grad of Yale Divinity School who says that homosexuality is OK with God because only one man, the apostle Paul says it is sin." This is a very inaccurate statement by this man who does not know his bible. Let's look what the Word of God has to say about homosexuality. Gen. 19:1-13, Verse 1 states "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground." Don, notice "there came two angels to Sodom" which means God sent two angels for a  specific reason and Lot recognized them and bowed down to the ground. Lot's sitting at the gate of Sodom means he was a civic leader. A man of some importance in Sodom.

 Gen. 19;2-3 states "And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat." The angels were pressed by Lot to come and stay in his house. Notice that they also ate. So angels can eat just like us. Interesting.
 Gen. 19:4-5  states "But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." The word compassed in the Hebrew is cabab which means to surround or encircle. So the word "know" in Hebrew is yada`which means to get know them intimately. These citizens of Sodom clearly came to homosexually abuse and rape these two visitors. That is a shocking demonstration of depravity. But we see the same depravity exhibited by the lesbians, homosexuals, and transgender today as they try to protray themselves a "normal" and push homosexual marriage down people's throat. The same depravity existed in Sodom and today in the United States. It is interesting that God's word said that the homosexuals of Sodom were old and young who came to have sex with these two angels.
 Gen 19:6-8 states "And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." So what is going on here? Lot went out to meet these homesexual evil citizens of Sodom and shut the door behind him, and pleaded with them not do what was on their mind. Then the depravity of Lot shows forth and he compromises that do not have sex with these two angels but he was willing to give up his two daughters to the men instead. Lot is a low life himself. Now, the question why would Lot offer up his two daughters but not his two guests. Maybe there are two reasons. First, in OT times women had a low place in society so it did not bother Lot to give up his daughters, but he had a very high place of the guests that were in his home. It was understood a guest was to be protected more than your own family. And second, Lot knew that these two guests were angelic beings sent by God and he could let no harm come to them.
 Gen. 19:9 states "And they said, Stand back. And they said [again], This one [fellow] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, [even] Lot, and came near to break the door." Where it states "This one [fellow] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them" this shows Lot’s feeble efforts at providing moral and spiritual leadership were rejected and mocked by the men of Sodom.
 Gen. 19:10-11 states " But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that [were] at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door." God intervened by pulling Lot back inside the house, and the angels struck the homosexual men of Sodom with blindness which means the men of Sodom now had both a physical blindness and moral blindness.
 Gen 19:12-13 states "And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it." The angels told Lot to get his sons, daughters, son-in-laws, and anyother kinfolk out of the city. Because had a purpose for sending the angels as it was to save Lot and his family and to destroy the city because of the homosexuality that had infected the entire city.
  Note: Lot himself was a righteous man who was grieved by the sin he saw around him (2 Peter 2:7-8), but because of his compromise few of his family and none of his friends were saved. Compromise destroyed his testimony. Always, always, always, when we do the talk and not the walk, our testimony is compromised.
 Don, this example of God's judgment upon homosexuality shows that homosexuality is not OK with God as the fool from Yale Divinity School stated. But all sin is not okay with God. As far as God is concerned all sin will be judged the same, except the unpardonable sin which is rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23).  
 There was an acutal city called Sodom and God actually destroyed the city with brimstone. I have seen in person this brimstone, which is 99% Sulphur.

 There are other OT passages which tells us what God thinks about homosexuality. Lev. 18:22-23 states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion." Here, God is saying homosexuality and beastility is an abomination.  

 Lev. 20:13 states "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." Again, God is saying committing homosexuality is an abomination that to dealt with by death.
 So God is definitely not OK with Homosexuality.

 Don, you stated that "because only one man, the apostle Paul says it is sin." This is a erroneous statement. As you can tell from the verses above that God Himself says homosexuality is an abomination. So Paul is not the only person saying homosexuality is sin, God Himself says it. This Yale Divinity graduate is an idiot and  does not know his bible. Paul states in Rom. 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Paul here tells it like it is. He does not water down the gospel. God gave men over to vile affections of leaving natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Paul is showing the total depravity of man and this is the that hedonistic lascviousness I said earlier. God spoke of the same total depravity of men in Gen. 19:1-13.
  The recompence of their error that Paul is talking about is that homosexuality has within itself a penalty. This speaks of the self-destructive nature of sin; it often carries within itself it’s own penalty.
  Paul continues in 1:32 "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Men have abandoned the true knowledge of God, and the state of society is a reflection of God’s judgment upon them for this.
 
 Timothy in 1Ti 1:8-10 states "But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." Timothy is saying those who defile themselves with mankind (homosexuality) it is contrary to sound doctrine. Which means it is not okay. So the Apostle Paul is not only writer in the NT that talks about the sin of homosexuality.

 Don, you stated "Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 that it is a shame for a man to leave his hair grow long or a woman cut hers short.  He said if Paul was so petty about hair length he was not qualified to judge homosexuals and if he is wrong about hair length he is also wrong about homosexuals.  This is very confusing." This is a stupid statement for a Seminary Graduate to say. If you want to know what the bible say rightly divide the Word of Truth and study if for yourself.

  1 Cor. 11:14-15 states "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering." When one does biblical interpretation one has to keep everything in CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. If this stupid idiot Yale Divinity graduate should know this. You do not take one or two verses out of context and hook it up with what Paul was talking about in Romans 1 about homosexuality.
 Don you have to keep in context that Paul was dealing with a specific incident with the women of the Corinthian church who were speaking out of turn in church, not covering their head, and the were trying to take over the Corinthian church. But truly understand what Paul is talking about in verses 14-15 you have to go back to the beginning of 1 Cor. 11:1.
 1 Cor. 11:1-2 states "Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you." Paul is telling the Corinthian Church that they need to imitate his walk with the Lord, just as Paul imitated Christ in his walk. Paul is also telling the Corinthian Church to follow the ordinances he gave to them. Corinith was such a propser and full of culture in Paul's time. But there was open prositution, prostitution in the church, homosexuality was running rampant, and so Paul was trying to bring the Corinithians to be imitators of Christ and not of the World.
  
 1 Cor. 11:3   states "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."  Paul sets a foundation for his teaching in the rest of the chapter. Simply put, Paul makes it clear that God has established principles of order, authority, and accountability. Paul is setting the stage to teach the Corinthian Church the proper church order, authority, and accountability.
 Paul is stating what God's order is. The head of every man is Christ, head of every woman is the man, and the Head of Christ is God Almighty. So Paul is giving out what is proper behavior when prophesying or preaching in church every man should have his head covered.
 Don, keep in context that Paul is not talking about one's head that sits on everyone's shoulders. He is talking about the "head" being an idea of headship and authority. It means to have the appropriate responsibility to lead, and the matching accountability. Paul gives three headship relationships: Jesus is head of every man; man is the head of woman, and God (the Father) is head of Christ. Because Paul connects the three relationships, the principles of headship are the same among them.
 Women in the Corinthian church were New Testament feminists in the 1st Century. The did not respect the men as the authority figure in the Church, and they tried to take over. Here Paul is saying this is wrong that the "head" represents the men who have resposibility, authority, and accountability to lead the Church. Paul is saying the women must respect the man as the head of the church, just as Christ is head of the man, and God the Father is head over Jesus.
  Women in the Corinthian Church have two options in their attitude towards their head. They imitate the kind of attitude men have towards Christ: showing a rebelliousness that must be won over. Or, women can imitate the kind of attitude Christ displayed towards God the Father: loving submission to Him as an equal.
  Don, understand that being under authority does not equal inferiority. When God calls women in the church to recognize the headship of men, it is not because women are unequal or inferior, but because there is a God-ordained order of authority to be respected.
 Poole states about this “God is the Head of Christ, not in respect of his essence and Divine nature, but in respect of his office as Mediator; as the man is the head of the woman, not in respect of a different and more excellent essence and nature, (for they are both of the same nature,) but in respect of office and place, as God hath set him over the woman.”

 1 Cor. 11:4-6 states "Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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." Paul is saying because of this order of authority (which he spoke of in verse 3), it is inappropriate for men to pray under a head covering, and inappropriate for women to pray without a head covering.
 The idea of a head covering was important in this Corinthian cultures as well other ancient cultures. To wear the head covering (or, veil in some translations), was a public symbol of being under the authority and protection of another. Clarke states "It was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils.”
 So the man is the authority of the headship in the church and he does not wear anything on his head when praying or preaching. But in order of the church at the Corinthian time, the women die not have their head undercovered which meant they were under authority of the men in the church and the protection of the men. So the women wearing their heads covered was showing being under authority of the men but they were not inferior by any means either. This is just of the order of doing business in the Corinthian Church.
 If a man in the Church was praying or prophesying (preaching), having his head covered was for the man to say, “I am not in authority here. I am under the authority of others.” It would be dishonoring to Jesus (his head) for a man to be praying or prophesying with the wearing of a head covering. It was a no no.
 I do need to address about the shaving the head. Paul is saying if a woman refuses to demonstrate being under authority, she may as well be shaved of her hair (let her also be shorn). In some ancient cultures, the shaving of a woman’s head was the punishment given to an adulteress. Having a woman’s head shorn or shaved meant different things in different cultures; in Jewish law, it was the mark of adultery (Numbers 5:11-31).  In the Greek world, it could be the mark of a prostitute or lesbian.
 There were probably some certain “spiritual” women (1st century feminist) who declared that since Jesus, they did need not demonstrate with a hairstyle or head covering that they were under anyone’s authority. So Paul is saying if you are going to forsake your head covering, go all the way and shave your head, and identify yourself with the women of the world (adultress, prostitutes), in all their shame.

 Some people like to take this out context and  use it today as way of controlling women which where men go above their authority to contol the women. This is  done in cults and legalistic churches all the time.
 Don, remember that some women in the Corinthian Church refused to have their head covered and be under the authority of  men in the church. This why Paul is even menitioning it in 1 Cor. Chapter 11.  

  1 Cor. 11:7-10 states "For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man  
For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels." In these verses, God has created order authority for three reasons: 1). God has established an order of authority, the principle of male headship, both in the church and in the home. 2). A second reason is found in the order of creation: God created Adam first, and gave Him responsibility over Eve. and 3). A third reason God has established male headship in the church is the presence of angels in corporate worship. Think about this. Angels are present at any assembly of Christians for worship and note any departure from reverent order; and apparently, angels are offended by any violation of propriety. God has an order of authority for a reason.

 1 Cor. 11:11-12 states "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God." Paul is saying that men and women need each other, so there is no place for a “lording over” of the men over the women. There is interdependence on each other.

 1 Cor. 11:13-15  states "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering." Paul is saying, judge for yourself is it proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. Paul  is being little sarcastic here. In the Jewish community or tradition, even men would cover their heads while praying. It was therefore inconceivable for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. So women were to cover their heads when the church meets which showing being under authority but does not mean inferiority.
  As far as the hair goes. In both Jewish and Greek cultures, short hair was common for men. Therefore it was a dishonor for a man to wear long hair, because it was considered feminine.
  But women throughout history have generally worn their hair longer than men. In some cultures and at some times, men have worn their hair longer than others, but no matter how long men have worn their hair, women have always worn their hair longer. Because women wear their hair longer than men, Paul thinks of this longer hair as “nature’s veil. So, if nature has given women long hair as a covering, that in itself points to their need to be covered (according to the ancient Corinthian custom). This is what Paul is talking about when he said "Doth not even nature itself teach you."

 After all this said and explained to you, what is the connection with this specific problem that Paul was addressing in the Corinthian Church dealing with headship, authority in church, how men and women are suppose to act in authority and respect authority have to with homosexuality as stated by the Yale Divinity Graduate. There is not connection. I say again this man is an idiot with a degree from an unbiblical seminary.
 
 Don, stop being confused. Just make sure that you are born again, saved by the blood of the Lamb, accepted Jesus as Savior and Lord, and serve Him out of love for what he did on the cross for you.

Blessings,

Dr Don Howe, RN, PhD, ThD