“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” (1 Cor 11:7). The woman is the glory of the man in various respects. She is the glory of the man in her origin, being taken from his side – she is “of the man” (v8). She is the glory of the man in her purpose: she was created “for the man” (v9). She is the glory of the man in that she is under his authority – the wife being under the authority of her husband, and the daughter under that of her father – “the head of the woman is the man” (v3). A king’s honour is in the multitude of his people (Prov 14:28), and it is an honour for a man to have a family – his wife and his children – of which he is the head: “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table” (Ps 128:3).
There is a further sense in which the woman is the glory of the man, which is particularly relevant to the covering of the head in public worship. This sense can be understood by contrasting the way in which “the woman is the glory of the man” with the way in which “the man is the image and glory of God”. Some light on this comes from considering David and Solomon, who between them shared many of the excellences which are found together, and in perfection, in Christ. David “was the image and glory of God” in illustrating certain male characteristics: for example, strength, courage and boldness, both in fighting the lion and the bear (1 Sam 17:34-36) and in his contest with Goliath (v50). The strength, courage, and boldness of the Redeemer were seen in His conflict with Satan: “Thou hast girded Me with strength unto the battle: Thou hast subdued under Me those that rose up against Me” (Ps 18:39).
Another aspect of maleness which David exhibited was that of “begetting”. This was of special significance in the covenant that God made with David concerning David’s son, Solomon – a covenant which found its fulfilment in Christ. God said to David, “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Sam 7:12). The capacity to “beget” is one respect in which man (as opposed to woman) bears the image of God, and this is a matter that needs to be emphasised in a day of “transgenderism”: men “beget” whereas women “conceive”. The Eternal
Word is “the only begotten of the Father” (Jn 1:14); and Christ in His turn will “see His seed” (Is 53:10), and His seed will “endure for ever” (Ps 89:29).
When Solomon came to the throne, he was “the image and glory” of God in his wisdom and authority, and in his dominion over a vast kingdom. In these respects, he was a picture of Christ who is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Solomon’s wife, on the other hand, who was the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Ki 7:8) was “the glory” of Solomon. This can be seen in Psalm 45 which speaks of the marriage of Christ and His Bride under the figure of the marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh’s daughter. The first part of the Psalm speaks of the glory of the bridegroom, but the second part speaks of the beauty (vv11) and clothing (vv13-14) of the bride. In ordinary human marriages, the bride has the chief place, although Christ’s marriage with His Bride is somewhat different in that respect.
With the possible exception of a coronation, there is no human event in Britain more glorious than a royal wedding. Much of the interest of these occasions centres on the bride, and on her beauty and clothing and ornaments, and on the beauty and clothing of her attendants, and of the women generally at the wedding. The men very much occupy a supporting role in this respect. This is true more widely in human life, in which much of the colour, liveliness, gracefulness, refinement and delicacy is provided by women, in almost every society in the world. One exception to this is Islamic culture, from which the beauty and the ordinary social interaction of the woman is excluded. The drabness, and even dourness, which results from this is often commented on, and is now becoming apparent in Britain. The woman is not only the glory of human society but also the glory of the home. Isaac “sported” with his wife Rebekah (Gen 26:8), and the root-meaning of the word translated “sported” is playfulness or laughter – from which the name Isaac (laughter) is derived. It was evident to Abimelech, from the happiness that Rebekah’s company brought to Isaac, that she must be his wife.
The central position that women occupy, both in wider human society and in the home, points to one reason why women should cover their heads in public worship (1 Cor 11:5). In the sanctuary, all human glory must veil itself before the Divine glory which is being set forth “in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). Jesus Christ is to be “evidently set forth, crucified” in the preaching of the Word (Gal 3:1). To set a beautiful woman at the front of a church would be to set up a rival human glory which would distract unbelievers entirely from Christ and would tend to stir up the remnants of sin (lust in men and jealousy in women) in the hearts of God’s children. The very seraphim, which are clearly mighty in heaven, veil their faces and their feet before God (Is 6:2), and this seems to be given as a reason why women should
do the same: “For this cause ought the woman to have power (authority) on her head because of the angels” (1 Cor 11:10). It is because the woman is the glory of the man that she is to cover her head, and she does this not simply on her own behalf, but as a token that all human glory – male and female – is to abase itself before God.
DWBS
The ESV and Christ’s Sinlessness
The English Standard Version (ESV) has been challenging the New International Version (NIV) for some years as the popular choice of many Evangelicals. Many who enthusiastically promoted the NIV now assert the claims of the ESV with equal confidence. They seem to have now discovered the importance of attempting greater accuracy in translation. The choice is also partly influenced by the decision to replace male pronouns with “gender neutral” alternatives in recent NIV editions. In truth, the ESV itself does this in places also, although its overall policy avoids it. The movement to the ESV is further influenced by especially-effective marketing by the publisher, Crossway.
The popularity of the ESV among Evangelicals is, however, something of an enigma. Every sale of the ESV helps to finance a liberal organisation, the National Council of Churches in the USA. This is because they own the copyright to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the ESV is based on that version. The RSV itself was a notoriously and controversially liberal translation. As Alan J Macgregor points out in his book Three Modern Versions, the ESV has revised some but not all of the liberal renderings in the RSV.
One of these is in John 7:8. The Authorised Version reads “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come”. In the RSV and ESV, however, it reads, “I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come”. Why is this a problem? The following verses in the ESV go on to say: “After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.”
Note that just one word, the word yet makes all the difference between the AV and the ESV. The ESV (and indeed the most recent 2011 edition of the NIV) removes this word, and the result is to represent the Lord Jesus as a liar. It makes Him say that He is not going up to the feast but then records that He does go up to the feast. This is not a problem in the AV because the word yet shows that He was going up to this feast, but not immediately.
Why does the ESV choose to do this? The answer is partly found in the footnote to the verse. They recognise that some manuscripts do contain the word yet. To be accurate it ought to say that the overwhelming majority
of manuscripts contain the word yet. The ESV translators ignore this because they are in thrall to German liberals who make ever-shifting decisions about the text of the New Testament. These German liberals produce the Nestle-Aland United Bible Societies editions, which are the standard critical text. This edition prefers corrupted manuscripts rather than those that God has preserved in all ages within the Church by His special providence (the overwhelming majority).
These German liberals try to produce a text in the same way as they might for any other book. They have certain rules that they follow, one of them is that the reading which is more difficult is to be preferred. This is why they opt to reject the word “yet”. This option is more difficult because it undermines Christ’s sinlessness. Christ “did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth” (1 Pet 2:22).
We are told by those who promote the corrupted modern critical text that no doctrine is undermined by the differences (in fact a number of fundamental doctrines are undermined). It is clear here that the doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness is undermined by the ESV and the critical text it uses. In turn this also serves to undermine the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.
Many Evangelicals seek to gloss over the issue of competing modern versions based on corrupted texts as something that is not significant. Yet this is only one of many examples that demonstrate the absolute importance of the issues at stake. “Every word of God is pure” (Prov 30:5). Woe to those who undermine it. How vital it is to be able to say with a pure conscience, “We are not as many, which corrupt the word of God” (2 Cor 2:17). MV
Euthanasia in Belgium
Whilst it is true that euthanasia in Britain remains illegal – at least in theory – we would do well to consider the evil being perpetrated by our European neighbours in Belgium. This relatively small country legalised euthanasia in 2002, supposedly only to end the lives of a very few in “a medically hopeless situation”, and promised to build in “protections” to safeguard the vulnerable. However, in practice, the number of deaths from 2003 has averaged 1400 a year, peaking at over 1800 in 2013 – many of them in no way complying with the above criterion. Belgium is one of the few countries where a doctor may legally kill even depressed patients or those who claim that “their lives do not make sense”. In 2013 the Senate extended the law to include euthanasia of terminally-ill children under 18. One commentator stated then that “Belgium has leaped head first off a moral cliff” and has “become the euthanasia capital of the world”.
New reports warn that the practice has descended to previously unheard-
of depths. Doctors are said to have facilitated the joint euthanasia of healthy elderly couples who ask to die together for fear of future widowhood. Others state that the mentally ill are being killed and that the “death procedure is used for organ harvesting”. A pro-euthanasia campaigner, Dr Ludo Vanopdenbosch, who was a member of the Euthanasia-Review Commission, has turned “whistle blower” and resigned, accusing his former colleagues of covering up abuses of the existing law which could, in his opinion, “discredit euthanasia and reduce its support among the public”. This man is certainly not a pro-life advocate, yet even he feels that the situation is out of control.
For example, in September 2017, at a meeting Dr Vanopdenbosch attended, they discussed “euthanasia of a deeply-demented patient with Parkinson’s disease, by a general practitioner”. Dr Vanopdenbosch claimed the GP was “totally incompetent and had no idea of palliation”. The relatives asked for the patient to be killed; the patient could not have had the capacity to ask. Of course, this was a crime but the Commission apparently turned a blind eye.
The doctor involved was eventually questioned by the Committee and a video of the patient’s condition produced. A long debate ensued but crucially no decision was reached to pass the case to the Public Prosecutor. It appears that those in power want the broadest definition of euthanasia promoted at any cost and want even so-called “protections” to be swept aside. They are seen as “obstacles” to be overcome to the point that they become meaningless.
Tragically it looks as if Belgians have generally become immune to what is happening and, solemnly, that is how sin progresses. Their media are relatively mute on these events and there seems to be an acceptance that such killings are an acceptable answer to human suffering – even when there could be a cure or more palliative care given. Dr Vanopdenbosch also complained in his resignation letter about cases where he was “silenced”. His fear is that, because many of the doctors on the Board are leading euthanasia practitioners, they will protect each other from scrutiny and get away with breaking the law – literally getting away with murder. The chairman of the Commission, Dr Wim Distelmans, denies any wrongdoing, saying, “It can obviously occur that some debate emerges among members but our role is to make sure that the law is observed”.
Comments on social media reflect the alarm felt by many outside Belgium. One says, “Euthanasia, be it abortion or mercy-killing of the terminally ill, once made publicly acceptable will ultimately become killing for convenience”, and another concludes, “If you can kill the babe in the womb, you can kill the old and feeble without a quiver of conscience”. Certainly, when one begins to go down a slippery slope, there is no saying where it will end. It is to be hoped that Dr Vanopdenbosch will change his views on euthanasia.
All other countries should take serious warning of the danger of disobeying God’s holy command, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13). KHM
Protestant View
Rome and Its Chinese Bishops
The Pope has recently decided to recognize the legitimacy of seven bishops who had been previously appointed by the Chinese government. The seven prelates had been excommunicated by Rome and were not recognised by the underground Roman Catholic Church in China. The bishops in the underground groups have been asked to move aside, while the state-appointed men take over leadership of their dioceses. This move is seen as an an attempt on the part of the Vatican to ingratiate itself with the Communist regime, possibly paving the way for a papal visit to China, but certainly with the intention that the Chinese authorities will recognise the Pope as the head of the “Catholic Church” in China.
Even those within the Roman communion have been critical of this move, regarding it as a betrayal of those Roman Catholics who have suffered persecution and harassment at the hands of the Communists over the years for their loyalty to the Pope. A former bishop of Hong Kong, Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, has written, “So, do I think that the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China? Yes, definitely, if they go in the direction which is obvious from all what they are doing in recent years and months.”
To our view, this sort of political manoeuvring has all the hallmarks of the age-old intrigues of the Jesuits, and especially befits the present incumbent of St Peter’s. We have no doubt that these apparent concessions have an ulterior purpose, namely, the aggrandisement of the power of the See of Rome. May the Lord frustrate every effort in that direction. AWM