ISRAEL IN BIBLE PROPHECY | home
Demons in the Church | Publisher's Note | Dedication | Contents | Proverbs 24:11-12 | Introduction | The Battleground | First Encounter | Old Testament Typology | Battle Doctrine | Who Says It's Legalistic? | Hazardous Theology | Spirits In My House | Lying Spirits | Magic Show | Witchcraft | Mediums & Psychics | Deceiving Spirits | Satanic Visions | Facing Reality | Epilogue
Demons in the Church
Who Says It's Legalistic?
Who Says It's Legalistic?
Women play an extremely important, and totally ignored, role
in the church. Their stand in the Lord is vital to the spiritual
health of the church.
As a type of the church, women have the awesome
responsibility of showing the spiritual condition of the
church to the unseen spirit world!
By what Christian sisters do, they show to angelic majesties
whether or not the church will be under the protection of Holy
Angels, or open to demonic attack. In later chapters we will
see how some of the saints who ignored this ordinance were
Now this is where we are going to get into an argument
about whether the Bible is the Word of God, or not. About
whether God means what He says, or not; and whether what
52 Demons in the Church
He says is true, or not. This is where we are going to hear all
eight "excuses," mentioned in Chapter 1. The typological
ordinance relating to the Bridegroom-Bride, and the two sup-
porting commands are as follows:
1CO 11:5-6 ...every woman who has her head uncovered while
praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and
the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not
cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is dis-
graceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved,
let her cover her head.
1CO 14:34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they
are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as
the Law also says.
1TI 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authori-
ty over a man, but to remain quiet (NASB) 37
Technicalities aside, these are very pointed and explicit statutes,
and the Lord did not put them in His Word to be argued
over in committee. If you don't like them, your fight is not
with the author of this book, but with the Word of God. These
commands have been in Scripture for almost 2,000 years, and
until this generation they were almost universally observed.
If these precepts were not part of God's eternal law for the
church, they would have been nullified somewhere else in
Scripture (just as the Levitical code was superseded by the new
covenant). But these commands have not been set aside
anywhere, so they stand today.88 Though the connection may
not be readily apparent, if we wish to see the church free of
37 There is a difference between the ordinance of 1CO 11:5-6, and the
submission commands associated with it. The head-covering ordi-
nance is a positive typological act we are ordered to observe. The
associated commands are symbolic acts we are ordered NOT to do.
Why? Because to disobey them would nullify the typological significance
of the ordinance itself. The submission of the church is what
this ordinance is all about.
38 2PE 3:2, 2TI 3:16-17.
Who Says It's Legalistic? 53
demonic influence, we need to see why these commands were
given to us, and understand what effect they have on the
unseen spirit world.
Believing that the Lord inspired the books of the Bible in the
order in which they have been passed down to us, passages
relating to these commands are quoted in the order they
appear in Scripture. There are many other allusions and
quotations, but these are the primary references. The 1st
Corinthians passage is quoted in its entirety, to preclude any
contention that verses were taken out of context to prove a
doctrinal point, or to avoid "difficult" verses. Verses central to
our study have been set in bold-face type. Note that all of the
commands are stated as firm directives, not suggestions. For
a complete exegesis of every verse, see the exegetical note at
the end of the chapter.
The Ordinance of Head-Covering
1CO 11:3-19 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of
every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or
prophesying, disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or
prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with
her whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her
hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair
cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the
image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8-9 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for
the man's sake.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on
her head, because of the angels.
11-12 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man,
nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from
the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all
things originate from God.
13-16 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God
with head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a
man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long
hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
54 Demons in the Church
But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice,
nor have the churches of God.
17-19 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you
come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first
place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist
among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions
among you, in order that those who are approved may have become
evident among you. (NASB)
Some folks just read over the above passage entirely. Others
avoid it like it had smallpox, but by the time we get to v.20,
everyone believes we're back in God's Word again. Ahhh, from
v.20 on through the rest of the chapter, we are reading about
communion. We can live with that; it goes along with our doctrine.
So how does the church deal with 1CO 11:5-6? Why,
that's easy enough to handle. To the original eight "excuses"
mentioned in the Introduction, nine more are added:
9. "I'll pray about it."
10. "That's for the 1st Century Corinthians."
11. "Oh, that's just Paul, and he didn't like women."
12. "I haven't been convicted of that yet."
13. "My hair is my covering."
14. "My husband is my covering."
15. "That's just spiritual, and not a literal covering."
16. "Only Corinthian harlots went around with their heads
17. "I'm a prophetess, and the spirit has not revealed that
to me yet."
The author has heard every one of those 17 excuses many
times, and if he has missed any, please write, so they can be
added to the list. God addressed them all in 2TI 3:16-17 and
2PE 3:15-16. Making excuses for rebellion is as old as man,
GEN 3:12, and is sin with a capital "S." It is with the enemy's
blessing that we delude ourselves. God isn't fooled. Those
excuses just cloak our defiance with argument ("If anyone is
inclined to be contentious," 1CO 11:16). But just as we couldn't
understand being born again until we were, neither can we
understand the spiritual significance of head-covering, silence,
or submission to the authority of the Word until we obey and
JAM 1:22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely
hearers who delude themselves. (NASB)
Who Says It's Legalistic? 55
So one has to ask: Which of the 17 "excuses" influenced you
or your wife to disobey God's Word? Did you know that there
is not a shred of historic or documentary evidence for any of
them? Some of them are ludicrous. For instance: the Greek
text declares that this is a physical, not a "spiritual" covering.
For the husband to be a physical covering, he would have to
perch on his wife's head like some strange species of flightless
bird. Then look at pictures of old Greek pottery. Did Greek
women have their heads covered in their art? Not at all.
Greek art shows that neither men nor women covered their
heads as a daily practice.
Besides all that, church history gives a very clear picture of
how the early believers behaved. Drawings in the Catacombs
from AD100 invariably showed Christian sisters with their
heads covered, and many early church elders affirmed head-
covering in their writings. Notable examples are: Clement of
Alexandria (AD150-220); Tertullian (?-AD200); Hippolytus (?-
AD236); Chrysostom (AD344-307); Jerome (AD345-429); and of
course Augustine of (AD354-430).39
Now look carefully at v.3. As that verse itself states, it is the
key to understanding this whole passage: "I want you to under-
stand." God the Father is showing to all creation His govern-
mental order. He is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of
man, man is the head of woman.
Is this sign only for us here on Earth? Study v.10. God's
governmental order is being displayed to angelic majesties.
EPH 1:18-23 affirms that truth. When a woman, as a type of
the church, covers her head, she is showing to angels the
submission of the church to God's Son. That is who this
ordinance is for, the angels! 1CO 11:10. Satan and his angels
were totally defeated at the cross, and a public display of that
victory is made with a seemingly "little" thing like a woman
covering her head.40
39 Tom Shank, "let her be veiled" (Eureka, MT, Torch Publications,
1991) pp43-49. David Bercot, Common Sense (Tyler, TX, Scroll
Publications, 1992) pp65-68.
40 LUK 10:18, JOH 12:31
56 Demons in the Church
1CO 6:3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? (NASB)
Even theologians don't fully understand God's purpose in all
this. But before Satan fell, he was one of the cherubs which
covered God's throne, EZE 28:14. Then Satan committed an
act of rebellion. He sinned against God's authority. In his own
words, "I will make myself like the Most High," ISA 14:14.
That statement is the ultimate in rebellion, the most monstrous
blasphemy. From his position of perfection, he chose to
rebel against his creator! Satan led a third of the angels, and
all mankind to rebel with him, REV 12:4. After Adam fell, all
mankind was bound in slavery to sin, and without hope.
Then came Jesus, and from the depths of sin, we turned unto
God. We submitted to the authority of Him against whom
Satan rebelled. We turned away from our rebellion against
God, and turned unto Him through His Son. We accepted the
blood of Jesus as the full satisfaction to God the Father for our
sins... the full purchase price needed to buy us out of the
kingdom of darkness, and transfer us into the glorious kingdom
of God's dear Son.41 These saints will judge angels.
Now you don't suppose that we are going to be sitting up
there in heaven, with a gavel in our hands, holding court over
Satan and his angels do you? Not likely. He with "the voice
of many waters," with "eyes like flaming fire," who sits upon
the throne of heaven is the only righteous judge, REV 20:11-12.
What we have here is the EVIDENCE by which God will judge
those fallen angelic majesties; and the evidence is this: Satan,
from a state of perfection, rebelled... we, who were in rebellion,
submitted to God:
It is that act of submission which judges Satan!
Through head-covering, women, as a type of the
church, visibly display that submission! They visibly
show "to the angels" the submission of the church to
Jesus Christ! 1CO 11:10
That's what it's all about; and that's why Satan so hates for
the church to observe this ordinance. It is a visible sign of his
defeat and ultimate judgment. And he will do all he can to
stop it! That is no joke, as a letter from a pastor's wife in
41 EPH 5:8, COL 1:13-14, 1PE 2:9, 1CO 1:27.
Who Says It's Legalistic? 57
"When my husband accepted the pastorate of Bull Creek
Church, he made our position clear, that we upheld the 1st
Corinthians verses on woman's head-covering. At the time,
there was no objection from the congregation.
The church began to grow, and new families were added.
One new family accused us of legalism and bondage. As this
family started to attend regularly, we found ourselves strug-
gling with a dying church. Those of our friends who had
been growing in knowledge and obedience, began to with-
draw from us, and from the Lord. We soon felt led of the
Spirit to move on. My husband set a date for his resig-
nation, and prepared his letter.
Unaware of our intent, just days before my husband was
to resign, a board member asked him, "Just where do you
stand on the covering?" Another one said, "Something has to
go, either you or that covering." A third called to inform us
that a pastoral review had been requested, and would be
held Monday. My husband moved his resignation up to
That Sunday my husband preached a short sermon and
read his resignation letter. We expected some tears, a few
hugs, and a sad farewell. Instead, angry church members
swooped down on us like vultures. Fists clenched, spouting
words of hate, they accused us of teaching bondage, of being
heretics, and of promoting the "false doctrine of the cover-
ing." Scriptural views were attacked in a venomous manner.
The attacks were so fierce that I believe they would have
stoned us, had it been legal to do so."
One doesn't need to wonder who sent those wolves into that
church. They came clothed in sheep's clothing, and rent the
flock, just as the Lord warned us they would, ACT 20:29. Were
those Missouri wolves demon-influenced? It is impossible to
believe otherwise. How about the rest of the people in that
church, were they saved? Good question. The Pharisees who
stoned Stephen acted exactly the same way, ACT 7:54; and
were they saved? Only the Lord knows, but the people at Bull
Creek weren't guided by the Holy Spirit of God, that's for sure:
GAL 5:22-24 ...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against
such things there is no law. (NASB)
58 Demons in the Church
Important as it may be, putting on a head-covering does not
accomplish submission to the Lord Jesus, any more than being
baptized or taking communion makes us Christians. The veil
or head-covering is just an outward sign of the condition of the
soul. It is the soul which was lost, and it is the soul that Jesus
came to save. So the covering is a sign to the fallen angels of
the salvation of a person's soul. Again:
Head-covering is a visible sign of the salvation of the
soul, seen by fallen angels and demons.
That ought to warn us of something! If demons do not see
that outward sign, what can they conclude: That the woman
not covered is either a disobedient Christian, or someone who
is not saved! In either case... access! The enemy has been
given legal grounds to attack.42 But attack what? Well, what
does that ordinance relate to? The soul, the mind, the will!
The very part of your being which makes you an individual!
Obeying that ordinance appears to lessen the enemy's freedom
to attack your mind. I don't know how it does, but I do know
what the brethren tell me. Several years ago, the author was
teaching a Bible class in another city. Kathy was hosting that
I am a registered nurse, with two children in their late teens.
I didn't come from a Christian family, so I don't know a
whole lot about the Bible. I am a divorced single parent,
who over time, got into drugs and alcohol. I eventually
became an alcoholic. I also had a lot of 'men friends,' with
new ones coming along every few days. My children were
sleeping around, and into drugs and the occult.
Then the Lord saved me, and my whole life changed. I
now hate what I used to do for fun. However, my family was
still a wreck. The children were rebellious, and I was afraid
they were going to go down the road that I had been on. You
saw the black-light and satanic stuff in my son's room, and
heard my daughter's rage. I was having the worst time
42 There are those who are ignorant of this statute, and "...where
there is no law, neither is there violation," ROM 4:15. Scripture
shows that God is gracious to those who are honestly ignorant of His
law, and will protect them. However, when demons see a woman with
an uncovered head, they will likely come to the conclusions stated
Who Says It's Legalistic? 59
imaginable with them. In that atmosphere, the temptations
to return to my old life were unreal.
Then I asked you to teach a Bible class to an AA group
that met at my house. I told you about all this, and you said
for me to cover my head. I thought you were nuts. But you
said to try it for 90 days anyway. If it didn't make a dif-
ference in my spiritual life, you said to take it off and throw
it at you, and tell everyone I knew that you were a fraud and
Well, I tried it like you said, and it didn't take 90 days. In
just two weeks you couldn't have pried that hat off my head!
The horrible feeling of oppression left me. The temptations
were easier to live with, and my home got more peaceful.
You wouldn't believe it. My children even went to treatment.
Shortly after that, Kathy moved without leaving a forwarding
address, so the author doesn't know the end of her story.
By now, some pompous theologian has probably convinced her
that head-covering (which benefited her so much) was legalistic
or old-fashioned. Maybe Kathy has been turned aside by one
of the other 17 excuses. Without the fellowship of like-minded
brethren, it would be a miracle if she is still hanging in there.
May the Lord be gracious unto her.
Another account, written by a Mennonite sister (edited here
for brevity) shows how observing this ordinance can cause a
disturbance in the spiritual world. Kay Miller tells of working
with a young girl who came from a broken home, had been
abused as a child, and was addicted to rock music. At a
special meeting, this young lady came to the Lord and her
repentance appeared genuine. Then she was asked about
wearing a head-covering:
"She was full of doubts and fears at the very suggestion, so
we didn't press the issue. But the turmoil within her contin-
ued. One moment she wanted to, the next moment she
didn't. Somehow she couldn't seem to lay the thought aside.
Finally, on her own, she asked for the veiling, and when one
of the sisters put it on her, she began to cry.
I asked her, "Don't you want to wear it?" She insisted that
she did, so I asked her, "Then why are you crying?" She
didn't know why - only that she felt so frightened. We asked
if we should take it off, and she said, "No," then, "Yes," and
then she didn't know. We decided to pray for her, and asked
60 Demons in the Church
the Lord to give her peace and joy about this - like the joy
she had when she first realized that her sins were forgiven.
But her crying continued, and her sobs became more
violent. Finally we decided to take the veiling off. Her
violent crying stopped, but she was not at all happy; in fact,
she was miserable.
I talked with her a while, and gave her a hug. She began
to cry again, and clung to me almost frantically. I said to
her bluntly, "You will just have to tell Satan to leave you
alone, in Jesus name," not knowing why I said it, or that I
was going to. She took me literally and said it out loud.
Then she began to scream it out with such violence that
some of the sisters went after the brothers to help us.
While everyone gathered in prayer she was delivered from
Satan's control. She became a different person. She asked
for the veiling again, and this time her face was radiant, and
there was no fear. The power of wearing the veiling is
evident. Even the demons tremble before it."48
That young lady was obviously oppressed by an evil spirit,
even after she was saved. Wearing the covering appears to
have exposed that hidden enemy. But God's ordinances are
not anything to play with. I have heard of some sisters who
(like Reuben, GEN 49:3-4) are unstable as water, putting on
and taking off their head-covering depending on the company
they keep. Demons see it, and take advantage of people who
are that irresolute. Pauline McDowell writes about her friend
"Jill is heavy on my heart. When she first came here, she
was a head-covering saint. I was drawn to her because of
her peace and joy. I saw in her something I wanted in my
own life. I watched her remove her head-covering, and begin
dressing like the world. She turned into a very unhappy
person, even unsure of her own salvation. I watched food
become her god, and, when she planned to commit suicide, I
personally got her in touch with a mental health person.
Jill, in her search for freedom from legalism, has put herself
43 Tom Shank, "let her be veiled" (Eureka, MT, Torch Publications,
Who Says It's Legalistic? 61
There was nothing wrong with Jill's mind, and she didn't
need psychiatric help. She was under spiritual attack because
she had knowingly gone against the Bible. Her disobedience
had given demons an open door through which they could
oppress her soul.
And by now you may be saying, "Skolfield, you sure are
making an awfully big deal about just one little statute, and
two teensy little commands which appear in only two epistles!"
Maybe, but when we stand before the Lord of glory, I can
hardly imagine Him saying, "You mean to say you took My
Word literally? Really, Ellis... don't you think you have over-
obeyed?" Absurd of course, but better to hear Him say
something like that than...
To see His eyes like fire burning,
To hear His voice like thunder saying:
"Why did you not obey My Word?
Stand over there with the goats."44
44 Several Months after the publication of the 1st edition of Sunset of
the Western Church, the author received a phone call, then a little
book from a William McGrath. A few pages had sentences and para-
graphs that were almost word for word duplicates of some of the
doctrine that is written in the first few chapters of this book. We had
never heard of each other, nor was Mr. McGrath's prior work known
to the author. What a wonderful example of how the Holy Spirit will
open the truths of Scripture to all, if we would only go to the Lord
with a teachable heart.
Mr. McGrath's work, Woman's Veiling, a Christian and Historic
Review, is replete with illustrations and pictures of different modes of
head-coverings from the 1st century on. This interesting work may
be purchased from its author for $2.00 postpaid: William McGrath,
8117 Magnet Road, Minerva, Ohio,44657. Other good works on the
subject include, David Bercot, Common Sense, (P.O. Box 6175, Tyler,
TX, 75711, Scroll Publishing) and; Tom Shank, "let her be veiled,"
(1484 Hwy. 93N, Eureka, MT 59917, Torch Publications)
62 Demons in the Church
1st Corinthians 11:3-16
1st Corinthians 11:8-16 is impossible to understand apart from the
governmental order expressed in V:3, and the significance of men and
women as types of Christ and the church, EPH 5:82. However, when
viewed in that context every verse becomes quite clear.
v.4 Christ is "...above every name that is named, both now and in
the age to come," EPH 1:19-28. As a type of Christ, man's uncovered
head shows Jesus' authority over the church. 1CO 11:4 is not about
hair. If it were, then only bald men could pray or prophesy. Since v.4
is not about hair, then neither is v.5 and v.6. Verse 4 is connected to
vs.5-6 by the conjunction "but." The Greek connective or adversative
particle, de (Strong's No.1161g, defined "now") is used here in the
vs.5-6 The church should be totally obedient to Jesus. When a
woman covers her head she typologically shows the church's submis-
sion to the Lord. Greek scholars state that the command for woman's
head-covering is expressed in the strongest imperative tense in the
Greek language. It is not stated as a suggestion. It is commanded in
the most absolutely imperative way available in the Greek language.
Why? Paul knew, and expressed it quite clearly:
If a woman does not cover her head, she shows the church's
rebellion to the headship of Jesus Christ. The Greek word here is
katakalupto_ (Strong's No.2619g, defined as "to cover up." It implies
a veil, or something coming down over the head). That her hair is not
her cover is proven by, "Let her have her hair cut (shaved) off," stated
as a command. She must either have her head covered (by something
other than her hair) or she must be bald. Head shaving for woman is
a universal and timeless symbol for harlotry, and in the OT, harlotry
was used symbolically to show idolatry, and a falling away from God.
The Lord is letting us know how serious this is. If a woman does not
cover her head, she is showing the church to be in spiritual harlotry...
in idolatry... in rebellion!
v.7-9 Typologically, the church is to glorify Jesus... not Jesus the
church. The church originates from Jesus... not Jesus from the
church. The church was created for Jesus... not Jesus for the church.
v.10 By this time, one hopes that we can hear the Holy Spirit when
He says: "Therefore a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on
her head because of the angels!" Head-covering is not for this
physical world at all. It is to identify a person's spiritual position to
angelic beings. It is a flag that proclaims which side we are on.
There are two kinds of angels, holy and fallen, and both kinds are
Who Says It's Legalistic? 63
about us all the time. If a woman does not cover her head, she is
showing her apostate or lost condition to holy angels and demons.
She is giving the enemy access to attack her mind. Since a woman is
"one flesh" with her husband, his spiritual condition is also being
vs.11-12 These verses show that God is no respecter of gender. Men
and women are equal before the throne of grace.
v.13-15 The Lord is giving us credit for a lot more spiritual insight
than we exhibit today. Here He is expecting us to understand the
spiritual significance of the previous 12 verses. It is a remarkable
natural phenomenon that a woman's hair will grow longer and faster
than a man's hair. Since the Lord Jesus is ever present, the woman
as a type of the church should continually hide her glory that the Lord
might get all the glory. God gave long hair to woman as His covering
and a wrap. The Greek word here is peribolaion (Strong's No.4018g,
which may be defined as "that which is thrown around"). The point
being, that a katakalupto_ is not a peribolaion. It appears that hair
was given as a natural wrap to all women on earth, but that wrap
does not constitute a katakalupto-, a prayer covering, which comes
down over the head. For women, heads covered or heads shaved are
the only two conditions permitted, vs.5-6. We are not excused from
obeying vs.5-6 and 10 by v.15! Many churches require that women be
veiled during all conscious hours of the day.
V:16 This is the only verse in this whole passage which could be
culturally interpreted. In the 1st century, neither Greek men nor
women covered their heads as a daily practice. Jewish men and
women both did. The extant pictorial records of both cultures are too
conclusive for debate. That only women should wear a head covering
was a practice peculiar to the church. That is probably what Paul
meant when he said, "We (the Jews) have no such practice, nor have
the (Gentile) churches of God." The NASB appears to translate the
intent of this verse more clearly than the literal KJV. But regardless
of how we wish to interpret vs.15-l6, they in no way negate the direct
commands of vs.5-6 and 10. The Lord did not inspire Paul to write 12
verses on head-covering, just to do away with them in one.
Another approach to understanding v.16, is to ask: Which question
is Paul answering? Looking up to verse 13, Paul asks, "Judge for
yourselves, is it proper for women to pray with head uncovered?"
vs.14-15 are parenthetic, and Paul answers his question in v.16 with,
"But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice,
nor have the churches of God."