Modesty and Dress – Part 3

11/26/16 (9/26) Video Broadcast

Modesty and Dress - Part 3 - Study
Modesty and Dress - Part 3 - Study
As we go in this third part of Modesty and Dress I want to make sure everybody understands completely that I've shared a number of very controversial things. They're things I believe are Yahweh's will for us, but I just want everybody to know that why I believe this is important. I don't go around peering down my nose on anybody who believes differently. I really don't pay much attention to those who dress differently or whatever than I do and the reason is, it's very weighty thing. In some ways I think its sort like when I share with somebody about the Sabbath or some other topic that is not very common in our culture. There is this pause that people want to take, you know. They don't want to just jump into something and go yeah that's right because the implications are pretty significant and so they want to make sure they got it down and they can defend it and they understand it properly and so there is a moment where people have to kind of take in what you're saying and even if they see what you're saying, there be at a moment where they have to kind of take it in and say oh okay I think I understand that, but ah and it might just go that far and maybe Yahweh has to water it later a bit. I'm not a judge I'm just a person who is subject to restrict your judgment. So last thing I need is to start judging on top of being one who teaches. I don't want to be that way toward anybody. I just want to walk in love and let Yahweh lead each person individually, but we are now on this third segment of modesty and dress part number three. There will be a part number four in case you're wondering I don't know that there'll be a part number five or going to play that by ear, but there will be part four. We're not going to talk about the last aspect of modesty quite yet. We got a couple of areas of dress we need to talk about and then we'll get into that aspect of it next segment, but I do feel that this is pretty important as well. Last time that we went over some scriptures one of the scriptures we went over was mentioning the tattoos and although this is not technically dress. It's certainly something you're wearing in a sense so you're wearing a tattoo right at least in some aspect of it and so we want to be able to understand what Yahweh's will is regarding whether he wants us to be wearing these tattoos and I have seen some believers they actually even go as far as put scripture verses on their bodies as a permanent marking, but tattoos have become more and more popular in this generation. I know when I was growing up and I'm 46 years old, but when I was growing up, tattoos were only done by men and usually very worldly men at that. I mean they were considered to be a sign of a man whose rough, tough, in all likely hood a drinker and a par tierut now tattoos are more in the main stream. Is it interesting a lot of our trends and our culture come from the worldly party type high society or low society? Everyone look at it, but tattoos are more than extreme and they are very rare among believers in the Messiah. I do sometimes see believers get it done, but the generation I grew up was very much taboo for any believer to especially Christians would never do such a thing, but now oh I guess things have just kind of changed. Now the Scripture does say in Leviticus 19:28 you shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor tattoo any marks on you. I find it interesting that the only place this can be found is the law of Yahweh and this highlights the inconsistency of Main Stream Christianity and that they would quote this verse to tell their congregants you cannot have a tattoo. So they kind of go through the law and pick and choose the things that they want to follow and the ones they don't they, so that's done away with, but that's another issue, but even if they pick and choose, but in my mind Yahweh's command what's applied today including this one and the tattoos have become more popular and more in main stream many churches have changed their position to allow for it. One the reasons is because some believe the contexts here is for the dead. The say what's for the dead? It says don't make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead and then it says nor tattoo any marks on you, I am Yahweh. So there's two things being said here I think, I mean that's the ways it looks to me. Don't make any cuttings your flesh for the dead nor tattoo any marks on you whether its related or not and maybe that was the only context in which somebody would get a tattoo on them or print and marks on them was for the dead and that's why The Commandment's given in this context. Doesn't mean that Yahweh says well as long as it's for the dead, go ahead. Probably in that time, in that generation if they were to get a tattoo people would assume it was for the dead, but you know, that's the details. I notice that the cutting of the flesh for the dead is specifically forbidden and getting a tattoo, just says don't get a tattoo. I don't think it's a good idea for us to tattoo ourselves. I even avoid writing things on my hand, phone numbers or whatever and also I think of the kind of communication this is. There are still a lot of people in our culture, people as young as in their 40's who still have that association of tattoos and worldliness and for people older than me probably even more so and we have to ask ourselves what does that
We talked about how clothing talks well for putting marks all over our body. If you got nothing but tattoos covering your whole body or even just one here on your hand or your arm. I'm making it really get ridiculous, but what kind of message are we communicating to them when we go out and get one of these tatts as they call them. I assure you it's not a message of purity. I assure you it's not a message of being set apart from the world. It seems to me people in my generation, people generation older than mine, it communicates the opposite. It communicates I have decided to compromise. It communicates that I am in the world and I'm of the world. I understand people find ways justify. Here's a scripture where people chose to justify at here in Revelation 19:15. It says now out of his mouth goes a sharp sword with it he will strike the nations and he himself will rule them with the rod of iron. He himself treads the winepress with fierceness and wrath of All Mighty Elohim and he has on his robe and on his thigh a name written on his thigh a name written on his thigh. Interesting, so they say well if he writes on his thigh it must be a tattoo. King of Kings, Master of Masters it must be okay. I've heard the Hebrew word for thigh and the Hebrew word for banner are actually very similar visually John was a Jewish man and would have originally penned this book in Hebrew and the only different between the two ragel and degel is the Hebrew has like this and like that. That's really the only difference this is more or an 'Is' curves and this is more square. So ragel and degel they say, is maybe a copy that was looked at that was actually a banner. It was written King of Kings, Master of Masters, Adon Adonim, Melech Melachim, but as I look up the word ragel and degel okay yes I do see actually ragel and degel look the same obviously but ragel doesn't even mean thigh it actually means foot. I don't know, I don't know, but what I'd do with that. I mean I don't know that we need to take everything even that literally here, right. Does he have literally a sharp sword going out of his mouth or is it the word of Yahweh spiritually He's speaking of His followers actually isn't it said that 144,000 have their name written on their foreheads. I have never seen anybody with a Yahweh on their forehead before, certainly it's spiritual. Revelation 14:1 talks about that and even you might suggest because the Priest had a crown on their head and it said "Kedushah Yahweh" "Holiness to Yahweh". That maybe that was actually it's on their head, but there's actually crown there saying that on their head, maybe that's actually, and it's also possible. Yes it was written on The Messiah's thigh but really not literally his thigh, on his clothing that was on his thigh. Was his naked thigh being seen there in heaven? What I see here in the scripture is, it says you shall make for them linen trousers that'd cover their nakedness. They shall reach from the waist to the thighs as so I study this out it's inclusive of the thighs not just to the thighs its more than a loin cloth which only covers the groin area. The trousers were worn by high priest and if they are representation of the high priest in the heavenly's, it seems to me that we are to be assuming that he wouldn't be going around naked in heaven. I mean waist to the thighs it covers, this word nakedness in Hebrew literally has naked flesh in its literal meaning so that's kind of how I see the tattoo, I mean priests wear trousers they cover the area on the waist to their thighs. Messiah's a high priest, but we'll be talking more about this nakedness question in the next broadcast Yahweh willing. Another thing I want to talk about in you know, the subject of the head coverings. I mean head coverings as that's obviously something that is a garment modesty and dress so it covers the topic here. There are men who wear the Kipa on their head and the reason why is they believe that, well it says David covered his head one time and the other idea is that, well we're priests and the priest wore turbans and so since we're part of this Melchizedek Priesthood and we're priest of our home, then we should wear some kind of head-dress to signify that we are priests and so okay, that's your reasoning. Since you're a priest of your home you're going to wear the turban or the head- dress or the skull cap however you want to call it. If that's the real reason why do you only do the head covering? Why don't you also do the linen tunic that the High Priest's supposed to wear, the sash and the crown and the breast plate with the 12 stones, the whole outfit? Why do you just do the one thing if you believe that's your conviction you're supposed to? What is the conviction only in the head dress? It doesn't make sense to me, I don't understand that reasoning. Besides were not high priest functioning in an earthly tabernacle that is a thing for the sons of Aaron. Another popular teaching particularly among Messianic People is that when Messiah says when you pray you shall not pray like the hypocrites they love standing in this synagogues and in the corners of the streets and they might be seen by many. He says you go and you shut your door and you pray to your Father who is in secret and in that inner room where you're supposed to go in, they say is the Tallit where they would take the Tallit and they will cover their heads and that's where you pray, but I don't see that in the scripture. It says the word for Tallit, the word for inner room is a storage chamber, a store room nothing about either in the Aramaic or the Greek I should mention. Anything about a Tallit, nothing about a garment that you are wearing, I mean, think about this for a minute. If the idea is you go into some secret room somewhere some secret place you know, if you had a Tallit and then you put the Tallit over your head and everybody knows that means you're praying, you
kind of defeat the purpose, doesn't it?
Because you're supposed to be doing it in secret and if you put you're Tallit over your head there is no secret thing happening. Everybody knows you're praying if that's the tradition. He's saying when you pray go in to your Tallit, well everybody would know your praying, but if you go in a secret place in a room somewhere where nobody else is and you pray and then your father in heaven will reward you. So I don't buy it, actually the word Tallit does not mean little tent it means cover. Some people think it means little tent it simply means a cover. Either way Yahshua was not telling anyone to cover their heads. He is telling them find a sacred room to pray don't be like the hypocrites all everybody seeing you praying and everything because if you put the prayer shawl on everyone's going to know your praying. The scripture actually says man should not cover their heads in prayer, because Yahshua is the image and glory of Yahweh. Here in 1Corinthians 11:3 it says, "I want you to know the head of every man is Messiah and the head of woman is man and the head of Messiah is Elohim. Every man praying and prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head. So people that had covering on, you know who you're dishonoring here. Who do you dishonor? You're dishonoring The Messiah, your head and the
obvious question is why, but the simple reading is,
if you put a head covering on you're dishonoring the Savior and now those who believe that's okay for men to cover their heads during prayer are often quick to point out, "well this is not anywhere else in the Bible, its only here in Paul's writings" not found in the Thor, not found in anybody else writings and for that reason they feel as though they can reject that concept. Now, I just have one question for those of you who believe this. Do you believe that Paul is a liar?
Do you believe he's speaking lies, he's
teaching falsehood when he says, you dishonor The Savior by putting a head covering on your head or do you believe he's a man of truth because no middle ground you can't say well he is, if he's telling lies at any point in the scripture then the rest of it needs to be tossed out because nothing he says is worth anything because then you can start picking and choosing and say well he's lying over here, but not here. We still have truth over here, but he's lying over there. That's not the way were supposed to operate. It's a scripture, you have to make a decision as to whether you fully accept what Paul is teaching or you completely reject Paul. If even one teaching is false you have to throw the whole thing out because who knows what else might be wrong. His integrity is completely gone at that point. If you toss his letter out well okay you're going to have to toss out Luke and the Book of Acts because Luke wrote the Book of Acts and Peter, 1 Peter, 2 Peter says that Paul's letters are scripture and so you might as well just gut the whole New Testament and throw it in the garbage because there's nothing much left. I've noticed that there's some resistance, you know well, this is new stuff and there's a teaching ministry out there saying that if there's anything besides what's in the Torah it's not to be followed. I completely disagree with it. We're commanded to baptize in the name of Yahshua, The Messiah. That is nowhere found in the Torah. Were commended to partake of the body and the blood of The Messiah that's nowhere expressly commanded in the Torah and neither commandment that can be found expressly in the Torah. It's not anywhere and so why do we have to be so hard against anything else that might be new. I understand Yahshua's our mediator. He died and rose again. This event is bound the result in some things that you may not have heard before. I never said anything that Torah's abolished. I'm only saying there are some things that are new based on this new event and scriptures says the head of every man is Messiah and man dishonors The Messiah when he covers his head during prayer. Simple as that, that's the simple reading it doesn't have to go any further, but we will. I dig in further. Yahshua said, he who does not honor The Son does not honor The Father that's in Him and so when you dishonor The Messiah you also dishonor The Father.
Now is it a sin to dishonor The Messiah?

Yes it is, well if putting on a head covering is an
act of dishonoring The Messiah then putting on a head covering during prayer would be a sin because you're dishonoring The Messiah.
You might say doing something else make an
obscene gesture toward heaven, is that dishonoring him? Off course it is dishonoring him. Does it say in the bible that it's dishonoring Him? Well no, but there are things that you can do to dishonor him that are not expressly commanded and we have to understand why something would be dishonoring. Obviously an obscene gesture would dishonor The Messiah. You can't find a specific scripture that would say that, but we know that's a disrespectful thing to do and so be disrespectful toward The Messiah and so my point is this that they understood, first century believers understood the head covering and what is was all about and Paul was sent by Yahshua himself and Yahshua said most assuredly I say to you. He who receives whomever I send, receives me. That's Paul, He sent Paul out unless you don't believe Luke, but Paul was commissioned by Yahshua himself in Acts 9 and we must receive what he says or we're going to reject the one Yahshua sends and he who receives the one Yahshua sends, receives Yahshua. I should not have to defend Paul's letters I really shouldn't to me it sickens me that I have to defend his letters because I don't feel I should have to I really don't, but there are some people who have gone so far in the Torah that that's crazily the way they've gone I'm sorry to say "crazily" it's just, I totally disagree, but is this scripture actually even talking about a head covering? Some people say no. They say well the word head covered here you know, this is talking about covering up The Messiah spiritually meaning ignoring his that your disregarding The Messiah and so your presents, ignoring him as a mediator and you're dishonoring him that's the idea behind it. trying to cover him up and so the word head covering is not a literal head covering you put on your head but a euphemism or spiritual way of saying
If you were prophesying and you're dishonoring The
Messiah while you're prophesying because it says having your head covering while prayer or while prophecy if that's what you were doing, if you were dishonoring The Messiah while you're prophesying why would there ever be a prophecy coming out of your mouth. Why would Yahweh ever say okay I'm going to give him this prophecy while he's dishonoring my son.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
Would it be like a paradox he's saying, well if you prophesy while you're dishonoring The Messiah then you're dishonoring The Messiah. If you prophecy while you don't regard The Messiah then you're dishonoring The Messiah. Why would Yahweh send a prophecy from The Spirit when you're dishonoring His Son and so to me that does not make any sense? Secondly there's no historical evidence, you know they talk about shaving of the head, you know because we're talking about prostitutes practicing in Corinth first century and so if you were to shave your head somehow. There is a lack of historical evidence showing short hair was the distinguishing mark of a prostitute and so in Roman times Romancer was the center of prostitution bearing in the mind that pictures of prostitutes in Roman paintings commenced in Geography referring to temple prostitutes only applying to Reechoing as an existence several centuries before the time of Paul not at Romancer or Paul's days. The temple prostitute idea they were the ones that had their heads shaved and all that, that's not valid. Scripture itself connects it to a physical head when hair is mentioned in verses 5 and verses 15 not
saying a spiritual head in the sense of you know,
this is a, covering Messiah is dishonoring Him in some way. Here's the examples everyone who prays or prophesy's with the head uncovered dishonors her head that's one as the same as if her head was shaved. How do you do that, it doesn't make any sense. Is it proper for one to pray with Elohim head uncovered if a woman has long hair it's a glory to her. Hair is given to her for a covering. Talking about a physical covering in that instance.
The fourth reason head covering, I suppose not to
talk about it or to add on there. In verse 4 katakaphalay translated head covering as Septuagint in this location. Mordecai went back to the king's gate, but Haman hurried to his house mourning and with his head covered. Haman, what I meant to say, Haman had his head covered. katakaphalay in the Greek and remained praying and prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head katakaphalay same exact Greek phrase in both verses. So it is talking about a physical literal head covering. He is not talking about a women's head covering because Haman certainly wouldn't have worn a woman's head covering as someone claimed to be the case and so, now this same Hebrew word, this same
Greek phrase is also use to describe David putting
on a head covering. I don't know, it cannot be a woman's head covering. It cannot be this phrase meaning dishonoring. The Messiah's talking about a literal covering of the head. To me there's no way around it, to my you can try to say things and this bothers me in some among some Messianic's, they'll say certain things about Hebrew and certain things about either Greek or whatever, that's not true. They'll start striving through it and so whenever You got to look it up and you got to have some knowledge of how to look it up too, not just grab someone says well the Greek says or the Hebrew says I always look it up and a lot times more often than it should be it's simply not true what they things. I don't believe that is anyway a female head are telling you. covering I don't believe it's head covering meaning that ignoring The Messiah I do believe it's talking about the physical head covering and he tells us why. If a man indeed are not covered his head, Why? Why Paul? Since he is the image and glory of Elohim, that's why. The reason why men should not cover their head while What's that have to do with anything? praying or prophesying is because man is the image Well I'm glad you asked the image and glory of and glory of Elohim. Elohim. Who are you? That's the reason that is provided for us. You are created in Yahweh's image brothers. You're created in Yahweh's image, simple statement. There is no other reason provided for us than that. Yahweh therefore when you are praying and you are prophesying when there's communication going to Yahweh or communication coming from Yahweh this is a holy thing. He does not want you to cover up, what? His own image in his own glory while you were praying and prophesying. Now the problem is Adam, he dishonored Yahweh
trough not walking in his image.
Adam's image is not really Yahweh's image anymore, right? Because he is not loving. Adam has failed in love, right? Adam is a terrible example of Yahweh's image in His glory and actually that's the whole problem. That's the whole reason why Yahshua had to come, was because we failed to reflect the image of Elohim. I had one elder tell me at one time, if there was one verse that summed the whole Bible. It was, "Let us make man in our image," because
when the image was no longer Yahweh's image then
he had to do something about it. Either destroy us or send Yahshua The Messiah, the living image and the brightness of Yahweh's glory. The first born of all creation, the express image of His person to restore us to that image
and glory, right?
Does that makes sense? Yahshua came to restore us to the image and glory of Elohim. So that it's no longer we who live Galatians 2:20, "It is Messiah who live in us." And now we are a literal, Scripture says, "We are a part of His body." That means you no longer live anymore and The Messiah now lives in you and the life you now live in the flesh you live by faith and The Son of Elohim who loved you and gave himself for you and so, you have been restored to the image and glory of Elohim through the body of The Messiah, Yahshua. Therefore, when you cover that, you're dishonoring The Messiah who restored that. When you cover your head, you are dishonoring Him who restored you to the image and glory of Elohim and that's why He says, don't cover your head
since He is the image and glory of Elohim.
Okay, simple as that.
I mean, that's Scripture 101, I hope, but it's no

longer we who lives.
Now, I've got a more detailed study on this topic which we'll share in a minute, but what about woman? Well, notice it says, that woman is the glory of what? Of man. When did this happen? In the Garden. Yahweh took woman out of man to come out, to come
out of man and so he is the glory of man and so

the scripture says, "The rib, Yahweh, Elohim caused
deep sleep to fall upon Adam, he slept. He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place and the rib which Yahweh Elohim had taken from man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." She was made for him and from him and Adam said, "This is now bone of bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh and they were both naked. The man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
All right so scripture says, "For a man indeed
ought not to cover his head since he's the image and glory of Elohim, but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man." But I want you to know the head of every man is Messiah, the head of woman is man, and the head of Messiah is Elohim, right? So he says, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered dishonors his head, The Messiah. Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." Who is her head? Man, for that's one and the same as if her head were shaved. When you shave your head, just like you're trying to act like and conduct yourself like a man and you're bypassing man. You're going directly to Messiah and so you dishonor men by praying and prophesying with your head uncovered. You're dishonoring the authority that Yahweh placed in your life. If a woman's not covered, let her also be shorn, but it's shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered because if you're just going to, might as well just do the whole thing, go ahead, shave it all off, but you know that'll be shameful thing to do and so he pointed this out, "For man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of Elohim, but the woman is the glory of man and so she covers her head." Now, Adams glory is a lesser glory, right?
She's made from Adam, right?
And so, in a manner of speaking the thing being
taught here is do not cover up the glory of
Elohim, but do cover up the glory of man.
The glory of Adam because Adam's glory, we shouldn't
be seeing Adam's glory in his presence now. When you're covering your head, it doesn't mean that you're less than or that your worth as less or anything. It is out of respect, okay. So through that when you're covering you head,
the head covering is representing The Messiah
Yahshua and His covering over you. So now, some people say, "Well, the hair is really
what he's talking about here, Thomas," that's why
he says, "Shave the head and all these things." He's really talking about the hair and that's the most common belief today. He says, then he goes, "Judge for yourself is it proper for a woman to pray to Elohim with her head uncovered. Does not even nature itself teach you if a man has long hair it's a dishonor to Him. Woman has long hair, it's a glory to her for her hair is given to her for a covering" and they say, "There you go Tom, there it is. He's talking about hair."
Now, while that may sound plausible initially.
This interpretation poses a number of problems.
The word translated covering here by the way
is translated covering for a covering. The Greek word is also found here in Hebrews Chapter 1:10 to 12, it says, "You Yahweh, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain. They will all grow old like a garment, like a cloak you will fold them up." Talking about the cloak, "And they'll all be changed, but you are the same in years." So the hair is given as a cloak, same in Greek word.
All right, and you take it back to the Hebrew, "They
will perish, you'll endure, yes they will all grow old like garment like a cloak you will change them and they will be changed."
So here are the reasons why I don't believe He's

talking about hair.
First of all long hair by definition does not cover
the head any more than short hair, right?
I mean, it covers the back of your neck and maybe part of your back if you're wearing no clothes or no shirt, but an open back shirt maybe, but it doesn't cover your head, it just doesn't. I've never seen where long hair covered the head any more than short hair.
Whether you have short hair or long hair, the
actual head is still covered with hair and only the neck and back are covered when the person has long hair. How could long hair be a head covering?
That doesn't make any sense.
I mean, your head is your head. This is my head from here to here and this is my neck back here and so the long hair only covers my neck and I've seen a lot of men that kind of have their hair going down, a little bit down the neck does that mean they're sinning? No, no, they're not sinning and so I don't
really buy that whole thing.
Secondly, if a man took a Nazarite vow like Paul did Acts 18:18, for brethren did it in Acts 21:23, they would be at some point not be permitted to pray because they would have the long hair and so they can't pray without dishonoring the savior because long hair is supposed to be a head cover. That's pretty awful. Does that make any sense? No, it doesn't.
Now, whether a man has long hair, short hair, it
has nothing to do with him being the image and glory of Yahweh, for Yahshua The Messiah, it doesn't matter that his hair length is going to determine whether he is the image and glory of Yahweh.
Fourthly, scripture says First Corinthians 11:10,
"The covering is a sign of authority because of the Angels." How could you hair length be a sign of your authority?
I don't get it.
So, there are some huge, insurmountable problems with the idea that long hair is the head covering.
What it's actually telling us I really believe is
that the long hair does cover the neck and so there is a kind of by nature things showing you that you've got to have a natural covering going on there and so by that illustration in nature shows you should have a covering on your head and so I think that's the illustration he's actually using. Scripture itself teaches that the head covering principles. Here's the fifth reason I don't believe. If a woman's hair were a proper head covering, her long hair was a proper head covering, to cover the glory of Adam. Why would the glory of Adam need to be covered in the Garden of Eden before sin ever came? Did Eve have short hair? I mean righteous and holy was Adam on the day he was created. He was taken from Messiah so why would she have to have long hair? So that's another problem and suppose the hair was
given as a head covering to cover the glory of
Adam. The hair itself it says to be the glory of her, her glory. So why would Yahweh say cover up your glory Adam, but let woman's glory be manifest during praying and prophesying and so, this whole thing becomes a convoluted, this doesn't make any sense kind of assertion that suggest that long hair is the covering. I don't believe it, even though it's very popular to believe it, I don't believe it. I understand why initially you might think, "Well, maybe it is," but you got to dig deeper, you could understand the images and the glories and the different things that are going on here and so, you might even suggest the head covering should cover the long hair because that's her glory and probably that's the best thing to do. I could go on and go two weeks on this, but because it's modesty and dress and I'm not saying a woman has to wear a head covering all day every day, but when praying and if you're ever get a prophesy you better put one on your head. Now, if the prophesy was going to come, how would you know unless you already had one on your head. I mean, that's something to think about. If I was a woman I would wear head covering all day every day. I don't want there would be anything hindering in my prayer life and I know how it is. I've wore ball caps, I've wore straw hats while I mount the tractor. I've got not much hair on my head so I easily get sun burned there, but the moment I pray I got to take this stupid hat off. It's kind of hindering, it's kind of inconvenience, how much more so if a woman is supposed to pray with a head covering on. You don't bring a head covering with you to town, you got to find napkins somewhere. You look kind of silly putting a napkin on your head if you're wanting to pray before you eat or if you want to pray or anytime. You have no way to pray without dishonoring the line of headship that Yahweh has provided and so, my thinking and I won't make a commandment out of it. I don't force my daughters to do it or my wife to do it. It's best to keep a head covering on your head. It says pray without ceasing, right? So lines of communication are always open and free between you and Yahweh, Yahweh has a word for you and you have a word for Yahweh. The lines of communication are free with nothing hindering, nothing at all hindering. I'm not going to make a doctrine out of it saying everybody has to wear a head covering all the time, but if I was a woman, that's definitely what I'd be doing. I mean, a spiritual woman I would hope can hardly go an hour without praying. Now, I'd hope we reached that level in our communication, in our fellowship with Messiah. I hope we would get that, that point. So I know what I said is terribly unpopular. I mean, people just are up in arms about it, but that's what I see in scripture and anybody wants to show me something different I would be all ears to hear what that might be. I just don't see anything else in scripture and so, I can't teach anything other than that. I have to only teach what I see Yahweh's word actually saying and so, here is the head covering study. We shared a couple of years ago, almost a year and half. A study on, should men cover their heads in prayer, should women wear the head covering during prayer. Not the most popular teaching on my web site. I usually loose viewer ship after I share on the head
I think I know why, but it's what I see in Yahweh's words and I'm always open to anyone sharing with me something different than what I believe.
I'm open, but right now that's what I'm looking at
is scripture is teaching that woman should wear a head covering and men should not wear a head covering, at least during prayer and prophesying. All right, "Judge among yourselves, it is proper for a woman to pray to Elohim with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you man has long hair, it's a dishonor to him if a woman has long hair, it's a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering." What's it covering? It covers her neck, it doesn't cover the head, it just covers the neck, but if anyone seems to be contentious we have no such custom? What custom? Are you saying Paul that you don't have this custom where you don't wear a head covering if you're a man, you do wear head covering if you're a woman, is that what you're saying? Or are you saying the long hair and the short hair
question is a custom that's not really.
If you want to be contentious about it, we don't have a custom that men have to have short hair and woman have to have long hair. It could go either way because there are two things mentioned here. I suggest that the custom he's referring to is the idea that men should not have long hair and woman should have long hair and I'll tell you why, first of all what if a man had a Nazarite vow. is hair would have to grow out and so they can't make that a commandment when there's a Nazarite vow and actually Paul himself in Acts 18 took a Nazarite vow. For woman had leprosy or something they have to shave the head and see what's going on with her head. I don't believe that, that was a command that men have to have short hair, woman have to have long hair. That's generally how it is okay, but I don't believe how, how I don't see how I could possibly be saying, it's okay to forget about everything I said about the head covering because he said, "If you put a head covering on your head man, you are dishonoring The Messiah." Are you saying that assembly does not have a custom of giving The Messiah the due honor? Either, what he said was either the truth or it wasn't. He would be lying and say, "Well, it's our belief, our custom that it dishonors The Messiah" but I don't really mean what I say. I just, you decide whether or not. It's either true or it isn't. He was either a liar or he was telling the truth. I don't see him being a liar and so I believe he was telling the truth that a man with a head covering on dishonors The Savior, a woman dishonors her head when we're commanded to respect headship and so if tat' true then it's not just some custom that you do, you decide what to do. It is a command that you honor The Messiah and that woman reverence their husbands. So this custom he's talking about, I don't believe he's talking about head covering. It has to be this long hair or short hair which would have exceptions to what he's saying there. Other people suggest that "we don't have the custom of being contentious". I think that's little flip around words there, word play or something. I don't completely buy that idea, but that's one thing that people have suggested. Alright, so that's where I'm at with that.
Now, what Paul said, in First Corinthians 14, he
says, "Anyone thinks of himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that words, the things I write to you are the commandments of Yahweh." Is that true? I believe they are, they are the commandments of Yahweh and so if this is scripture and Peter says, it is scripture, I have to go along with this being the commandments of Yahweh as a result of The Messiah's work we're now His body, we're the body of Messiah, men who choose to wear head covering are causing the image and glory of Elohim to be covered and therefore they're dishonoring The Messiah. They're failing to get proper recognition to Yahweh's work in Him and we be a people who not only accept the good news that Yahshua lives in us, but are also acting like it and proclaiming this good news to all the world and so, when man obeys the principles of the head covering. First Corinthian 11, "He's recognizing Yahshua work in Him and in the heavenly high priesthood of Yahshua, The Messiah, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the priest that give us access to the true, Holy of Holies and so therefore brethren having boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Yahshua by a new and living way which he consecrated for us through the veil that's his flesh. His flesh is that veil, that's our covering and having a high priest with the house of Elohim. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from the evil conscience, and our bodies washed in with pure water." The new and living way, this is a new and living way. What's wrong with a new and living way? Nothing, because it's new doesn't mean it's bad. What Yahshua's saying, "Every scribe instructed concerning the Kingdom of Heaven is like a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old." Are we instructed? Properly. Do we accept what's new and what's old? Some people don't want to accept the old. Some people don't want to accept the new. Let's be a scribe about that. Our participation Yahshua's death and resurrection is a new principle that was never expressly taught in the Torah. First Corinthians 11, other scriptures show us the head covering issues directly connected to that very thing. If he lives in us don't dishonor Him in your prayer by covering up the image and glory of Elohim, Yahshua being in you. So, in light of these things, when a man wears a head covering during prayer he is actually, if he wears a head covering. You can say he's actually putting on a woman's garment during prayer because it's something a woman supposed to do is cover her head during prayer and so that would violate this also. "Woman should not wear anything pertains to a man nor shall a man put on a woman's garment for all do so are an abomination to Yahweh your Mighty One." I'm not saying it's bad to wear hat, but don't wear one during prayer because that's what a woman supposed to do and so you can make the case. That's a woman garment at that point. That's what the woman supposed to do. Now, Yahweh wants there to be a clear distinction between men and women. He doesn't want men to wear a woman's garment. He doesn't want women wearing men's garments. Yahweh created men and women differently and so we need to dress differently. Now, some church denominations and some believers like us have taken a position that pants are a man's garment and a woman should not be wearing pants. That was certainly the position imposed in Christianity in America until fairly recent years and so, with this we need to ask ourselves to what extent should the clothing cut styles of the culture around us dictate whether certain garments are supposed to be a man's garment and whether certain garments are supposed to be a woman's garment. That can change and vary from one culture to another from one generation to the next, it can change. Should culture have any impact on this particular scripture? It seems to me it should have some impact. If I was to fly to another country somewhere and only women wore gray shirts, would their scripture require me to change to a different colored shirt? I think so by principle it would because the principle here is he doesn't want gender confusion. It would certainly impact my witness and some in that particular culture may feel as though I'm trying to cross dress and hopefully most of us can agree with that idea. Now, what about today here in America or in the country you happen to live in. There was a time in our country here in United States where it was nearly unheard off that a woman would wear pants. The women who did wear pants were typically functioning in masculine type jobs, coal mining and so on and there are reports of women who joined the civil war and wore pants as part of their disguise. Some ancient culture actually will depict women wearing pants, but they were typically horse riders in the military. Historically there was a connection between horse riding and a woman wearing pants. At times that two seemed to go hand and hand, but there were exceptions. The Ancient Persians during the time that Israel was a nation 700 BC had women wearing trousers and in American and European history, I can certainly find examples of women wearing pants underneath their dresses. Now, in scripture we see examples of priests wearing trousers underneath their grab. Leviticus 6:10, "And the priest shall put on his linen garment and his linen trousers shall be on his body and take up the ashes of the burnt offering which the fire has consumed on the altar, he should put them beside the altar." He's got his linen trousers on here.
Also Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were said to have
worn trousers underneath their robes.
Daniel 3:20, "He commanded certain mighty men of
valor who are in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and cast them into the burning fiery furnace and these been, bound in their coats, their trousers, their turbans and their other garments were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace." I can't find an example of women wearing trousers underneath their robes in scripture and because of that some people might go, "Well, see, that proves that's a man's garment." It's kind of a weak argument thought, I mean, I have to acknowledge, it's a weak argument.
An argument from silence is always a weak argument
even archeologist will say, "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because you don't have something doesn't meant it wasn't there" and so, we need something more solid to grab on to if we're ready to conclude women should never wear trousers. Now, women did wear tunics and they did wear robes just as the men did and so it might be difficult to determine what the differences were between men and women's garments. We might guess that a woman did not wear trousers but that'll be a guess and not a matter of conclusive fact and actually the Persian culture did have women wearing trousers. Looking at the verse here, I decided to look more into the Hebrew and the actual Hebrew reads differently than this translation. "One shall not wear anything that pertains to a man." Pertains to, that Hebrew word is the Hebrew word keli. Keli is article, vessel, implement, utensil, objects, and all kinds of different ways it's
I don't see anywhere its translated garment. That doesn't throw you off.
So it's a bit odd because I can't find a single
instance where the scripture is talking about an actual garment sometime. Maybe there's one I missed somewhere. It's really commonly referring to vessels going to the temple, instruments, and weapons and here's a place Judges 18:16, the 600 men are armed with their kali of war who had their children danced by the entrance of the gate. Now that you could say would be a male thing. That's unique to men. These articles of whatever they are wearing of war and they got the weapons there. The literal meaning could actually be referring one dressing like a soldier with the armor on and the weapons of battle. Some actually have concluded that a woman should not carry a gun because of the scripture or any other kind of weapon, knife or whatever. But it seems to me that one where putting on a soldier's attire would've been the clearest sign of cross dressing in Israel. Since we can clearly see both and women wore tunics and wore robes, that does seem to be the principle because they didn't want woman dressing like a man or doing things that make her look like a man because if you look at the situation here in reverse a woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man nor shall a man put on a woman's garment. Now that is talking about garment there. A woman's garment, the word garment comes from the Hebrew word simla, wrapper, a mantle, a covering garment, garments, clothes, and a cloth. This is not only talking about women, the simla is not only something women wore. Men wore these simlas also. I looked in Wikipedia, the simla was the heavy outer garment or shawl of various forms. It consists of a large rectangular piece of rough heavy woolen material crudely sewed together so that the front was unstitched and with two openings left for the arms. Flax is another possible material. It is translated into Greek as Himation and the ISBE includes International Standard Bible Encyclopedia concludes it's closely resembled if not identical with the Himation of the Greeks. In the day it was protection from rain and cold at night, peasant Israelites could wrap themselves in this garment for warmth. The front of the simla could also be arranged in wide folds and all kinds of progs could be carried in it. It doesn't look like anything gender specific. It looks like some kind of robe that was made. Since both men and women wore the same garments essentially there must have been some differences in other ways like maybe colors. Maybe women wore certain colors like today women
wear pink and frilly things.
Textiles has covered up Masada, I found out where cream, pink and purple. Other colors were mentioned in Roman sources include gold, and walnut, and yellow and all of which came from plants and white was also worn because they had to use bleach to do that or some kind of acidic soda, some kind of soda that make it white. It's also possible they, of course they had sheep which had a light color, a brown and a black color. Maybe there was ornAmentation or some other attachment to the garments that identified themselves as female. Some suggest it was, their clothing was longer than, that of men. But whatever the case says, it's very unclear to me what it was and I've tried believe me, I've tried. I can't find historically what it is and I don't think anybody knows, but it seems to me the basic message here in this verse is Yahweh doesn't want women dressing like men and men dressing like women. This takes us back to the original question. Who gets to decide that? Because the only clear indication I can see in culture we live in where someone might get confused about your gender, maybe a man wearing a dress. The heart of the matter is Yahweh doesn't want gender confusion and we see a lot of that going on today, transvestites, cross dressing, all the blurring of gender lines. That all leads to homosexuality and Yahweh doesn't want that. Pants now are said to be masculine garment in some religious circles. But would a man wear a pair of pink chick jeans or caprice or pantaloons, I mean probably not. There is some differences in pant styles and maybe I'm just being culturally influenced but maybe that's okay because the principle here seems to be let's avoid gender confusion. Now there was a time in the United States culture
that women wearing pants was considered to be

A form of cross dressing and I don't mean just wearing pants underneath a dress which was not too unusual for one to wear something underneath a dress but just wearing pants alone without a dress. That was considered to be absolutely outrageous and improper and masculine because that's what men did. To some extent Hollywood actually had a major role in changing that and then after Hollywood kind of helped to normalize it, when men went out to war during World War II, the Industrial Revolution required factories to make airplanes, and bombs and tanks and while many men went out to war, women went to work in these factories and I don't particularly agree with this because I think there were enough men to do this, many were older unable to go to war for some reason, but these women would work the kinds of jobs that were harder to do when wearing a dress. So it seems to me it all started with Hollywood and then when they went to the factories in World War II they started wearing pants. World War I didn't do that. Katherine Hepburn, very popular female actress
starting in 1930s.
She is sometimes called the mother of modern feminism. She boldly started to wear pants in her moves and actually Wikipedia makes the statement that Hepburn's legacy extends to fashion where she was a pioneer for wearing trousers at a time when it was radical for a woman to do so. She contributed toward making trousers acceptable for women as fans began to imitate her clothing.
Now one woman's magazine, I'm not going to give you
the name of the magazine because I don't think the magazine is particularly moral, but I found this article and this is what it has to say about Katherine Hepburn. At the age of nine, Hepburn had her head shaved then ran and put on her older brother's clothes. I had a phase, phase as a child when I wished I was a boy because I thought boys had all the fun. She told biographer Charlotte Chandler and I know where I'm going Katherine Hepburn a personal biography. I did wish I could be a boy so I decided I wanted people to call me Jimmy. I just liked the name Jimmy. I told my family I want to be called Jimmy. This is a little girl mind you. An actress in the making, Hepburn's cross dressing alter ego was a part she played while her inexhaustible aggressive energy defined her screen presence, her fashion which no doubt was an expression of her androgynous sensibility. Androgynous referring to being mixed up between male and female. Raised more than a few eyebrows. In the early 1930s, women's fashion had not yet been liberated by the practicalities of World War II when women in mass took positions in business and industries while the men were at war. Women could be and were arrested if they wore pants in public and detained for masquerading as men. Katherine Hepburn was the patron saint of the independent American female. Mary McNamara wrote her eulogy for Los Angeles Times in 2003. Hepburn's films proved that independence and equality could be achieved within the heterosexual status quo even while wrestling with and adopting qualities of the opposite sex.
In 1933, Movie Classic Magazine ran the feature,
will it be trousers for the women and Hepburn was listed along with Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Mozelle Britton and Fay Wray as among the stars who have lined up on the side of trousers for women. The opening salvo of a 1934 article from Hollywood Magazine headline Hollywood goes Hepburn begins revolution, has hit the Hollywood ranks revolution of a startling world new order and Kathy Hepburn did it with her little overalls and a hatchet. Hepburn's audacious claims writer Jerry Layne transmuted Hollywood glamorous films into strutting Hepburn's. This is crazy. The cautionary tale of pants being the gateway drug to female perversion, Layne continues resulted in a parade of proud unpainted princesses with flaring nostrils and dungarees who start only frank obviously brainee, filled with the new take or leave it spirit.
She said "I have not lived as a woman.
I have lived as a man". Hepburn told Barbara Walters in 1981. "I've done what I expletive well wanted to do and I've made enough money to support myself and I ain't afraid of being alone". That's where it all started.
Now to me, that's disturbing.
Here is a photo of Katherine Hepburn. Looks pretty masculine to me.
I mean women with Hepburn's attitude and
personality often do it for reasons of security. They don't want to be vulnerable and have to rely upon men or lean on men for their security and so out of fear of being vulnerable they adapt more masculine traits and you might say it worked. They're not as vulnerable as they used to be. Women can go and take the same job most of any man can in our culture. Women have been liberated they say, but at what cost? Women are no longer home with their babies. Babies and children are sent to daycare centers. Children are sent to government schools to learn the ways of the world and get involved in the sex, drugs and rock and roll. Yahweh uniquely equipped women for nurturing, for nursing, for having the sensitivity to care for a child's needs. That's been rejected.
We see one of the most common distinctions
between men and women here in this restroom sign. You see the women have the dress and the men don't. I mean it's just a common sign for femininity.
I do have a full study on gender roles recently down
this past summer. Biblical masculinity and biblical femininity, July 23rd 2016 and July 30th on the Roman calendar and you can watch those studies and I do believe it's very important that we do grasp this.
Women wearing pants were obviously considered to be
a sign of rebellion. Early 1900s, a sign of a feminist agenda with women leaving their children and joining the workforce of women like Katherine Hepburn, her masculine attitude being communicated with her on screen persona to do what she expletive, well pleases to do ain't going to rely no man. Listen, I blame the men for not taking good care of their ladies. I blame the men. We were a stumbling block to the women in those ages, those times. Some extent we still are.
But it's just the way it is.
Today some of the controversy over women wearing pants seems to be a kind of distant or forgotten memory in our culture, but one thing is clear, one time in America wearing pants was considered to be distinctly masculine and women wearing pants was controversial because it was a form of cross dressing. That's a fact. It was considered to be cross dressing and today, what's the sign that helps us determine men and women? Is the dress. So there's some things about this that do bother me. Now, one could argue it's no longer the case. Women wear pants every day and it's not really seen as cross dressing and I'm not talking about pants underneath a dress I mean wearing pants alone and not a dress. Again, I'm not talking about wearing pants underneath a dress. I'm talking about wearing pants alone and not a dress. Let me ask you, how does your clothing make you feel? Do you feel feminine when you put on a pair of pants? Do you feel distinctly feminine? I received a very interesting email from a very Yahweh fearing woman I respect highly. She wanted to share a testimony as to why she started wearing a dress. She used to wear pants and that's just from woman to woman. This is something that she wanted to share. I want to share a testimony as to why we the females in the family started wearing dresses and skirts. I was very much a tomboy growing up. I hated wearing dresses and did everything boys did. I actually wondered why Elohim made me a girl because I had nothing in common with him. I like to play with cars, horses, and fish still like that. Work with dad's tools like getting grimy and working on my bike. Wore clothes from the boy's department at seers, I would never play with dolls, hated being in the house like very independent and strong. Make note I had zero homosexual tendencies. Fast forward, I've been married to Chad about 10 years and we were managing a cattle ranch in East Texas. For years I had been telling all the Pentecostal folks around me telling me I should wear dresses that they could tell me that from the Bible because both men and women wore dresses. I guess they both had robes and long tunics. One day I was coming home one day by myself, I had to stop to get one of many cattle gates before I got to the house. I got to the gate and the father told me loud and clear. You need to repent. These words just came strong in my mind I was taken by surprise. I said to repent for what father? He clearly told me you need to repent for wanting to be a boy. This really blew out of the water. I've never thought of that before. I broke down at the gate sobbing and repenting. I felt cleansed and at that very moment felt a strong desire to go find a skirt to put on. I wanted to look and be feminine for the first time in my entire life. Chad was super, super surprised but loved the idea. I felt from then on by no man's influence I should look and dress distinctly female. It was a huge change in our lives. Chad loved the results of me being less independent. I felt the father was wanting me to wear dresses full time and I wanted to. I have been wearing them now for 15 years. I wear them riding horses, working cattle and everything. All the years I defended women wearing pants, I now encourage to take hold of their femininity and dress the way Yahweh created them to be distinctly female. As we live in such a confused gender society even cross dressers wear dresses and not pants, they know dresses are for women regardless of how modest they may look, pants just look masculine. That's funny coming from me when wearing pants, it also makes a woman act different and walk different. Most women are unaware of it so there's my story. It was not a modesty issue in the beginning, we just want to dress distinctly feminine. I think it's interesting to read the history of women and pants. Here is one may be surprised how far it went back reading it you see the connections of women taking on a man's role and what wearing pants represents. I cannot express enough how wearing skirts full time has changed my life for the better. I had been so blessed by it. There is not been one day that I have desired to wear pants alone. We wear them under our skirts. Even swimming skirts below the knee. Something really happened spiritually within when wearing them. I pray they will never be taken from me. I'm trying to pinpoint exactly what it is and I can't maybe more joy, contentment, satisfaction, peace, a wonderful feeling of being confidently feminine, not just these things, but so much more I cannot explain. And so I pray Yahweh's women can experience this for themselves and give Him glory. If they wear them grudgingly it will not work because it's not from the heart nor desire. They have to lay it down fully at his feet and maybe as in my case be broke and repentful for not fully embracing the femininity he gave them. We are just not aware of the blessings he has for us when we walk in all his ways. A lot of women are really not wanting to hear these messages, but it has been embedded in our culture as long as we are old. I was not wanting to hear it for a long time. Praise Yahweh for pursuing me and not giving up on me and for blessing me in such a big life changing way. I thought that was a very good testimony. I appreciated that.
I'm not going to preach it directly and say as what
you better wear. I do want to say that it's certainly more distinctly feminine in an age where we need to communicate the differences between men and women and so I do encourage men to let your beard grow some and women to put your dresses back on because look where it all came from and what are we communicating maybe even to the older generation who remembers these things. Some people feel like I'm going to be able to attract a young man if I ever start putting on old fashioned dresses or something. What's going to happen with that and I put this little poll out there and see what my latest results are. I'm very curious. I have not seen the results yet. As to what men actually find to be more attractive. I've put this out there as part of our poll for today's broadcast. When you went to the, I've put a poll up there and I asked the following question. Do you believe a woman is more feminine, lovely and
attractive (not in a carnal way) when she wears
a dress? And I asked only the men to answer this question. I didn't want women to answer it. I only wanted men to answer the question. There were 78 responses to this question just from this morning. I have put it up there and the 78 votes that we got 96% said yes, she is more feminine, lovely and
attractive (not in a carnal way) when she wears
a dress. 96%, it's 96 out of a hundred on average believe a woman is more lovely, more feminine and more attractive (not in a carnal way) when she wears a dress. Only three out of 78 people thought otherwise and these are men of Yahweh. These are not worldly people, these are men of Yahweh and so if you want to be attractive to a man of Elohim, a man who loves Yahweh and therefore he's a accountable to a greater power than himself and he'll have to obey that scripture that says love your wives as The Messiah loved the assembly. If you want a man who will love you like Yeshua loves you, that's who you want to attract. Then be lovely, be feminine and put on a dress. That's my advice. I wasn't anticipating that, that's an awesome, I mean I agree, I mean I see, I personally believe that myself and so there we go, hallelujah. Now to some extent, we know that wearing pants
became more accepted in our culture because of the
attention that women were getting from men. Men are more attracted by sight than the women are and when I say attention I mean because what was previously a very private part of the body, a woman's rear end which is distinctively shaped compared to the man was now exposed whereas before it was not. Lustful men would then give women who expose that part of their body a lot of attention. Whistles and cat calls and attention sometimes even led to embarrassment, where the norm as women's jeans got tighter and tighter. It's the wrong spirit.
We have now a combination of cross dressing and lust
in our culture that led to women wearing pants becoming popular. That's The Spirit of the world. We've not received The Spirit of the world. We've received The Spirit that comes from Elohim. We don't want a feminine spirit and we don't want a spirit that confuses gender. It's so important in our culture today that we be a light in this area. Now, I know it's a major thing for some of you as I share these things. I'm not trying to pressure you or make you feel bad if you don't agree with me. I'm submitting all the best points I know of to support the idea of women putting their dresses back on, but I'm not going to look down on you if you see a different view. Men, be patient with your wives, with your daughters. We live in a culture that is so, so hostile to the things of Elohim and I'll tell you one thing though, my daughters, when they're in town they have these dresses on. They get more respect and more people complimenting their clothing. It's amazing and they're young, they are young girls, 11, 12, 13 and they get complimented and my wife has reported she knows the difference when she started putting on a dress, that men treat her like a lady. They're more like a gentleman towards her. They treat her with a higher level respect. More men were opening the door for her and holding the door open for her. Different things were happening and so our dress does communicate, the things that we wear do communicate certain things. They want to be the kind of people that lead people back to the way things should be. Let's Pray. Our Father Yahweh, I just pray in Yeshua's name.
You would lead us to a place where you want us to
be in the clothing choices that we make.
We thank you for your love.
We thank you that we're not defined by what people say of us, but you've already decided that we are a people of great worth, a special treasure for your glory.
We thank you that men, we are princes and women are
princesses. We thank you that Yeshua has called us and loved us in a way that is so very evident.
Help us to live our lives to glorify you.
Teach us and instruct us in the ways of holiness and purity and love and truth and father, forgive us if we have allowed the spirit of the world to impact how we dress or attitudes. Forgive us Father Yahweh if we've not put our trust in you and looked to you and to glorify you with both our bodies and our spirit which belong to you. We want to see your kingdom and your name being glorified on this earth as it is in heaven.
Establish your kingdom in our hearts right now.

Deliver us from the enemy who seeks to redefine who
we are, who tempts us to walk on the lust of the flesh and the pride of life which are not of you, but are of the world. For truly, yours is the kingdom and power and glory and majesty and truly, all praise, honor and worship belongs to you. Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh Our Mighty One forever and ever, in Yeshua's great name we pray...

This archive is from the Live Video Broadcast