WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
So, we left off at verse 7 two weeks ago. Between them I came to the realization that by belaboring every verse of the scripture I was getting caught up on points that were no longer applicable to the faith today and that our time will be best spent focusing of principles with direct application.
So, starting today – August 19, 2018, while we will continue to read every verse and touch on them I am going to start to try and summarize my thoughts on passages that are not as applicable as a means to aide in our application to our day and age – which is the reason God has gifted us with His word.
By the way, as a related aside, I pose the question over and over to people:
Where in the Bible does it tell us that its contents were written to us today?
Typically people struggle with a response because the Bible was written to them. But if they gave it some thought they might respond with:
“The Word of God is eternal and does not change.” Scripture supports this.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
1st Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1st Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Additionally, we read
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Now listen – these things are true. I agree with it – which is why we study the word of God – because the principles of it are eternal and unchanging.
But once these points are agreed upon, that the word of God is eternal, and that it is powerful we ARE FORCED TO ASK OURSELVES-
What are the Words of God? The responses to this are as varied as the views on the contents of the Bible itself. So let’s quickly speak to this:
We might begin by admitting that there is a broad spectrum of answers to this question.
On one end we have the uber conservative even zealous view that says EVERY SINGLE WORD in EVERY BIBLE are the words of God.
No matter the translation, no matter the language, no matter the version. John 10:12 in the Italian version of the NIV is as much the Word of God as it is in the KJV English. Period.
Others suggest that only the KING James is truly the word of God and from this stance we move left and get to the view that says nothing written are the real words of God no matter the translation.
There is the wide berth spectrum, right?
I would strongly suggest the following factors to help us understand the inspiration of scripture:
By the Spirit, the words in any Bible have the capacity to pierce us, and reveal to the human heart the will of God. The Words must be accompanied by the Spirit and when they are EVERY WORD can be seen as the Word of God.
Some of the Words in all Bibles are not the words of God. They are the Words of Man used to describe the things of God. We can say this because IF the Word of God is eternal, and there are words in scripture that are not eternal, then we know that they are not the Words of God. In other words, all words that are inspired by God to Man are certainly eternal, but not all words in scripture are God’s words to man. In this we are allowed, by His spirit, to discern and we can trust the Spirit is able to discern rightly.
My personal summation, in light of the aforementioned items, is that the words that reveal spiritual principles that are true past, present and future can be deemed the Word of God to ALL, whereas the words that had application to “them/then” must be seen as the Word of God to them. And in these situations, we can admit that the Words of God, by the Spirit, are not always eternal.
For example, I trust that God could tell (Speak words) to an individual today today, that are for the time, and are not universally applied nor are they eternal. So it was with some of the Words the Apostles spoke to the New Testament Church – they were for them then and so it was with the prophets of Old – their words were for them/then.
So finally, I think that the blanket statement: The Word of God is eternal and unchanging must be taken within some real context, and cannot be used as a general rule for everything that is in the Bible. This is where individual study by the Spirit comes into play.
I think this is a rational reasonable view of scripture and pray God endorses it by His Spirit.
Okay, so we will still go verse by verse but I am going to try and extract out principles from large blocks of scripture that otherwise have less application to us than they did to the apostolic church.
1st Corinthians 11.7-19
August 19th 2018
Milk
The BEGINNING OF BLOCK CONCEPT TEACHING AT CAMPUS
Quickly lets read from chapter 11 verse 1 through our first block today – verses 1-16.
If you remember, we start chapter 11 off with a verse that belongs to chapter 10 in my estimation and its where Paul says:
1st Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
And then at this point he starts in on his first point that comes out in chapter 11 – and it has to do with male/female roles in the church-bride of that day.
We’ve covered these verses but let’s read them again:
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
This is where we left off two weeks ago. Paul continues on here and gives some justifications for this thinking on this topic, and verses 8-10 are difficult as Paul writes:
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
So, after explaining that it is a shame for a woman to not be covered and for a man to be covered, because the Man is made in the image of God and the woman in the image of Man (something I still cannot make sense in my head – but whatever) Paul adds:
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
What Paul is referring to here is the order of creation. It is of great interest that in creating human beings God did not first create a woman and then have her give birth – which is how all people come into their world thereafter, right?
Instead, God created Man in His image (which I take to mean in the image of His characteristics – to be fair, to make choices, to create a diversity of unique things, to reason, to forgive, to show compassion over natural inclinations, etc).
But from Man came woman – a derivative of the creation and somehow therefore complimentary and perhaps naturally supportive or possessing a perfect interface – from the beginning.
To take from something to create something is to diminish the one in order to produce the other.
To me this implies the need one has for the other, and vice versa. The fall and the effects thereof threw all of this into a disorder but nevertheless Paul is speaking about the original creation here and basing his arguments on how things began he supports his conclusions for the way the church was to operate.
In verse 11, in perhaps what is a means to balance things out, he will speak to the natural order of things and admit that man, in this sense, all come from women, but here in verse eight he is speaking of the initial natural order God established.
To see verse 8-10 in this light ought to diminish the tendency toward personal slight some might take at the way he says things. He adds
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Again, just a reference to the actual reality of the creative order. God did not first make a female and then create a male for her. Like it or not, the order was reversed. This is not to infer an inferiority but it does directly speak to an established chronology. And it is this established chronology that Paul speaks to here.
Unfortunately, this chronology has been misunderstood greatly by males over the ages and instead of seeing women as side by side blessings to their lives many men have interpreted the order as inferiority – far from it – and this cannot ever be assumed.
Additionally, I think a literal Greek translation aides in comprehension because Youngs reads:
“for a man also was not created because of the woman, but a woman because of the man;”
Instead of
“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
“Because of” is better than. “for the,” in my estimation. In such a case we might see men and women as an automobile and as tires with the man being the actual car and the woman being the tires OR vice versa. Doesn’t matter. All we know is that God looked down upon his creation of Adam and said: “it is NOT good for man to be alone.”
The tires need a car or the car needs tires – without which neither will be able to function fully.
At this point Paul adds a line that has troubled Bible commentators for hundreds of years – verse 10:
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Let me tell you, this thing has brought out the imaginations of many. It’s pretty clear to see that a woman, by coverimng her head had power in the act over or in the presence of angels.
In fact, the covering itself is referred to as power. Because of this many think that the woman who covers her head during worship exercises power over the angels who might be present and looking in on her.
The trouble is this use of the term power in the Greek isn’t ever used anywhere else in scripture or in secular antiquites.
Whatever the reason Paul applied this term to describe a head-covering for a woman, the exact interpretation of the covering and power and angels remains a mystery.
At this point, however, Paul – as mentioned, rebalances the scales and says:
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Lest the man should assume to himself too much superiority, and lest he should regard the woman as made solely for his pleasure, and should treat her as in all respects inferior, and withhold the respect that is due to her. The design of this verse and the following is to show that the man and woman are united in the most tender interests; that the one cannot live comfortably without the other; that one is necessary to the happiness of the other; and that though the woman was formed from the man, yet it is also to be remembered that the man is descended from the woman. She should therefore be treated with proper respect, tenderness, and regard.
Neither is the man without the woman, etc. The man and the woman were formed for union and society. They are not in any respect independent of each other. One is necessary to the comfort of the other; and this fact should be recognized in all their intercourse.
In the Lord. By the arrangements or direction of the Lord. It is the appointment and command of the Lord that they should be mutual helps, and should each regard and promote the welfare of the other.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Isn’t God ingenious? The great equalizer, right? He’s like, “I’ll take Eve from Adam but from that point forward every man will come from a woman so neither will ever get to thinking that they are superior to the other.
And after establishing this balance he puts God clearly at the top, adding
BUT ALL THINGS OF GOD.
He established the creative order, then balances it out with equanimity, then puts God squarely over both parties with them (male and female) in positions of subordination.
At this point Paul returns to the topic of hair, hair length and head coverings, but wraps it all up with something that cannot be forgotten and that proves this is all culturally applied, saying:
1st Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Lest the man should assume to himself too much superiority, and lest he should regard the woman as made solely for his pleasure, and should treat her as in all respects inferior, and withhold the respect that is due to her. The design of this verse and the following is to show that the man and woman are united in the most tender interests; that the one cannot live comfortably without the other; that one is necessary to the happiness of the other; and that though the woman was formed from the man, yet it is also to be remembered that the man is descended from the woman. She should therefore be treated with proper respect, tenderness, and regard.
Neither is the man without the woman, etc. The man and the woman were formed for union and society. They are not in any respect independent of each other. One is necessary to the comfort of the other; and this fact should be recognized in all their intercourse.
In the Lord. By the arrangements or direction of the Lord. It is the appointment and command of the Lord that they should be mutual helps, and should each regard and promote the welfare of the other.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Isn’t God ingenious? The great equalizer, right? He’s like, “I’ll take Eve from Adam but from that point forward every man will come from a woman so neither will ever get to thinking that they are superior to the other.
And after establishing this balance he puts God clearly at the top, adding
BUT ALL THINGS OF GOD.
He established the creative order, then balances it out with equanimity, then puts God squarely over both parties with them (male and female) in positions of subordination.
At this point Paul returns to the topic of hair, hair length and head coverings, but wraps it all up with something that cannot be forgotten and that proves this is all culturally applied, saying:
1st Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Judge in yourselves: is it comely (or attractive) that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
After having appealed to a number of reasonable arguments Paul now seems to be saying, “let me appeal to your natural sense of what is proper and right” and this natural sense, we have to admit, would have been developed by and through customs and traditions because what was appealing to one culture may or may not have been appealing to another.
We know that Grecian women, except their priestesses in the Temples, were accustomed to wearing veils in public. And I think Paul is speaking to this custom here.
Then he adds another appeal, saying in verse 14
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
The word nature (foosis) speaks specifically to the natural propriety of things – like what is male and what is female.
In our day and age these natural ideals are a bit muddied by what are ironically called natural men and women but Paul appears to be suggesting that the nature of a Man is that He does NOT have long hair and if he does it was a shame.
Apparently the shame was due to appearing like a female and therefore many cultures frowned upon men with long hair.
Now, some translators suggest that this term nature refers to tradition or custom, and others suggest that it means reason of experience but the term seems to mean that within the conscience of Man there is a deep internal sense of what is proper and right – sort of like conscience.
Aristotle does speak of the Lacedemonians, Greek freemen, who wore their hair long. And in the time of Homer, there were long-haired Greeks. Of course a number of pagan peoples did not find long hair on men unacceptable.
Another reason that long hair on a man was considered a shame is when it came to hunting or warfare long hair would prove to be a detriment to the males involved.
Among the Hebrews, long hair was regarded as disgraceful unless a Nazarite vow had been taken or on the occasion where someone allowed it to grow (presumably due to ego – as in the case of Absalom).
Paul adds
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Again we are speaking to custom but it is really an almost universal custom as most ancient cultures have placed great value on the long hair of their women and many of them have esteemed long hair on a man to be a sign of femininity.
Since we are on the subject it is believed that long haired Jesus was an image developed by the Catholics when they sought to make Him appear more meek and even effeminate. The fact that a Jew would only wear long hair if he had taken a Nazarite vow (which Jesus had not) it is probably that his hair was short – or at least shorter than the illustrations depict.
One of the reasons it is believed that he did not have long hair are due to Paul’s words here to the believers at Corinth for it is doubtful that he would have seen Jesus with long hair and then teach that it was a shame for a man to do likewise.
Paul now covers his bases, and after making a stance here on hair length he adds:
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Now this passage can be read in a couple of ways. He could be saying (which I think is unlikely):
“If anyone gets contentious over this teaching don’t make it a big deal because we don’t even have this custom in Jerusalem nor in the churches that I have established.”
More probably he is saying:
“Now, if any man rises up and makes an argument that it is fine for a woman to speak and pray uncovered, understand that no such custom exists in Jerusalem or in the Churches I have founded elsewhere.”
This latter explanation seems to fit better with everything else he has said.
At this point Paul launches into another topic that I personally believe has little application to us today but was an important subject for him to address in that day and age.
Now, at verse two of this chapter Paul wrote:
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
But here beginning at verse 17 there was an exception to his praise of them and their way of embracing the ordinances he gave them – and it had to do with the way they were holding/doing communion or the Lord’s table.
So he takes this part of his letter to address what appear to be some real irregularities with regard to the manner in which the people were approaching the Lord’s Supper.
From the words we are about to read it seems that instead of gathering together and being edified and united in Spirit by love and care for each other by the Spirit they had allowed for the opposite spirit to prevail – one where division and alienation of some seemed to prevail.
So instead of talking about the issue let’s read what Paul says about it beginning at verse 17
17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Let’s cover the first three verses before wrapping our time up together beginning at verse 17 where he writes:
17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
In verse two I praised you for embracing the ordinances, the practices I delivered to you but here in verse 17 he adds, but “in this” (that I am about to declare unto you) “I praise you not” (Why? He tells us, saying:)
“That ye come together not for the better but for the worse.”
In other words, being a believer and coming together should be a good thing but you all have turned it into something bad. Verse 18
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
When Paul says he partly believes it, he is saying that he believes there is some truth to the tales he has heard. Tales of what? Tales of divisions.
The Greek word here translated division is one we have discussed in the past – schkizma – and its root is skitzo -to rent, tear.
We have pointed out that renting is not a term God uses lightly in scripture – its typically a nasty term for a tearing that is abusive and destructive and that when God divides things it is typically dea-meritzo or a clean surgical incision not an avulsion or a tearing apart.
Whatever was happening here in Corinth was creating a tearing, a schizma, and was ripping up the gathering of believers there. So Paul will spend the rest of the chapter trying to prevent this from happening.
We remember that the only time the term schitzo is used in relation to God in scripture was when the temple veil was rent in two – that God schitzoed so as to make putting it together again impossible.
But when it comes to his believers he wants clean lines of separation (if separations are to occur) so that reuniting can be easily accomplished.
At this point Paul admits something that is really fascinating to me. He says in our last verse for today:
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
In other words, the existence of heresies are profitable to good people because they serve to show or prove those souls who are committed to God and His truth and those who are not.
It’s a great way to view difficulties as they crop up among believers, isn’t it?
And we will discuss the content and its application of the remainder of the chapter next week!
Q and A
PRAYER
