Month: February 2017 (Page 2 of 2)

The Lord’s Supper: What HE Said

February 8, 2017 / Allan Babcock

The wounded God. A contradiction in terms. How could God be wounded? And what does it mean about how we participate in the Lord’s Supper?

In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Paul reminds the church what the Lord himself said about the Supper.

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you . . . (1 Corinthians 11:23a).

Paul had passed on a sacred tradition. But how had he “received [it] from the Lord? He probably doesn’t mean Jesus personally spoke these words to him, rather that Jesus is the source of the tradition. Either way, the words throb with authority. Thus when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, we are enacting what he commanded.

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:23b,24).

Paul takes us back to “the night [Jesus] was betrayed, back to that upper room in Jerusalem, before Judas’ final act of handing Jesus over to the Jewish authorities.

This is the Jewish Passover, but Jesus reinterpreted the significance of the bread. “This is my body . . . ” Jesus was speaking what has been called “semitic imagery.” The bread didn’t substantially change into his physical body any more than the cup changed into the new-covenant blood. The bread signifies or represents Jesus body which will be given over to death.

” . . . which is for you . . . ” This bread represents my body which will be given over to death for you.” That is, in behalf of or in place of those eating the bread. The words echo Isaiah 53:12, where the prophet proclaims, “For he bore the sins of many.” So by inviting the disciples to eat the bread which represents his body, Jesus calls them to participate in his death’s benefits.

” . . . do this in remembrance of me” hints that the disciples (and the church) are to repeat this Supper. Passover reminded Israel of rescue from slavery; the Lord’s Supper is to remind Jesus’ followers of the salvation Jesus provided by his death.

Already we see how Paul uses this paragraph to reprove and correct the rich Corinthians who are humiliating the poor at the Lord’s Supper. All the suffering Jesus endured in his Passion was for others. So the wealthy Corinthians, feasting on the meal before the Lord’s Supper, must stop corrupting the meaning of the Supper and consider the plight of their poor brothers.

In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25).

At Passover, bread was eaten early on and this cup of wine “after supper.” Jesus identified that cup as “the new covenant in my blood.” The new covenant. The covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (626-586 B.C.) . . .

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, ” declares the LORD. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

The covenant binds together a new community of God’s people in whose minds the Lord writes his law, who belong to God as his people, who will all know him “from the least of them to the greatest” and whose sins the Lord no longer holds against them.

Again, the Lord’s Supper is not to be a one-time or even annual event. ” . . . whenever you drink it” implies regularly repeating it, as a means of recalling the new covenant ratified by Jesus blood and the community bound together by it.

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).

“For” indicates the reason given for regularly repeating the Supper. It is a proclamation of the Lord’s death for them. When Jesus’ words are read at the Supper, they proclaim his death. And when they eat the bread and drink from the cup, they proclaim the covenant his death ratified.

The Lord’s Supper words proclaim the salvation of a people. This makes the division between wealthy and poor participants particularly egregious. Christ’s body and blood are for them all—rich and poor. What the Supper signifies is what unites them–and what makes division a corruption of the gospel’s heart.

At the same time the Supper looks back to Jesus’ words and death, it looks ahead to Jesus’ return. Paul is thinking eschatologically. The church is to do this “until [the Lord] comes.” They await a glorious future as part of the people of God through Christ.

* * * * *

Jesus’ words remind us how offensive it is to be divided from our brother or sister at the Lord’s Supper. It’s the place for reconciliation–between us and God and between us and our fellow believer.

Rather than focusing on keeping unbelievers out, perhaps we should focus more on drawing believers together.

For then we will truly honor our Lord whose body was for our benefit and whose blood ratified the new covenant that makes us the new and one people of God.

https://theoldpreacher.com/walking-with-god-through-pain-and-suffering-7/

February 7, 2017 / Allan Babcock

“The other side of the sovereignty of God is the suffering of God . . . the main reason that …

Source: https://theoldpreacher.com/walking-with-god-through-pain-and-suffering-7/

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (7)

February 7, 2017 / Allan Babcock

“The other side of the sovereignty of God is the suffering of God . . . the main reason that Christians insist God can be trusted in the midst of suffering is that . . . God himself has firsthand experience of suffering.”

https://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-through-Pain-Suffering/dp/1594634408/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486412720&sr=1-1&keywords=walking+with+god+through+pain+and+suffering+by
+timothy+keller#reader_1594634408

With this astonishing proclamation, Timothy Keller begins Chapter Seven of Walking with God through Pain and Suffering.

Astonishing. First, because the sovereign God can suffer. Second, because he chose to suffer for us. Sadly, we’ve become so familiar with the suffering God that we’re barely moved.

Already in Genesis 6:5,6, God is shown to suffer. “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of man had become . . . The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” Can we imagine God grieved and in pain? Here’s more . . .

THE SUFFERING OF GOD THE SON

The Gospels depict Jesus suffering life’s ordinary pains. These climax beyond comprehension at the cross. His suffering echoes in his poignant cry, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Scottish preach Robert Murray M’Cheyne commented . . .

He was without any comforts of God—no feeling that God loved him—no feeling that God pitied him—no feeling that God supported him. God was his sun before—now that sun became all darkness . . . He was without God—he was as if he had no God. All that God had been to him before was taken from him now . . . . He had the feeling of the condemned . . . Ah! This is the hell that Christ suffered. The ocean of Christ’s sufferings is unfathomable (p. 150,151).

And M’Cheyne writes, the answer to Jesus’ question is: “For us.”

THE SUFFERING SOVEREIGN

Keller insists we must hold both truths as complementary—God suffers and remains sovereign. This is what makes his suffering so astonishing: he suffers voluntarily, motivated by love.

Peter Berger, Austrian-American sociologist says . . .

If God is no exception—if even he has suffered—then we cannot say he doesn’t understand, or that his sovereignty over suffering is being exercised in a cruel and unfeeling way, or that he is a cold king who lets things happen without caring about what we’re going through (p. 153).

For that reason, we can be assured that our suffering always has purpose. As a child who trusts his parent without understanding the reason for her actions, so we can trust God. He earned our trust at the cross.

EVIL’S FINAL DEFEAT

The difficult-to-interpret Book of Revelation speaks clearly about suffering and evil. “ . . . the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained” (Revelation 6:9) cry out for justice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth . . . “ (Revelation 6:10)?

Keller observes that by judgment we can punish evil, but not undo it. Yet, as Revelation envisions great judgments, it moves beyond toward the renewal of all things—renewal that springs from the worst evil could do against God at the cross. Yet God used that evil to bring about the greatest good. Divine irony!

Theologian Henri Blocher writes: “God entraps the deceiver in his own wiles. Evil, like a judoist {tries to] take advantage of the power of the good, which it perverts; the Lord, like a supreme champion, replies by using the very grip of the opponent” (p. 157).

True, Christianity doesn’t offer a full explanation for every instance of suffering. But it does give a final answer to it! Dostoevsky, the Russian author and philosopher, wrote . . .

I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, of all the blood that they’ve shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened (p. 158).

And John, the Spirit-inspired writer of Revelation wrote . . .

Never again will they hunger;
never again will they thirst.
The sun will not beat down on them,
nor any scorching heat.
For the Lamb at the center of the throne
will be their shepherd;
he will lead them to springs of living water.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.
(Revelation 7:16,17)

It seems to me quite disastrous that the idea should have got about that Christianity is an other-worldly, unreal, idealistic kind of religion that suggests that if we are good we shall be happy . . . On the contrary, it is fiercely and even harshly realistic, insisting that . . . there are certain eternal achievements that make even happiness look like trash (Dorothy Sayers, English author).

This is what the suffering God has achieved.

The Lord’s Supper: Splits

February 6, 2017 / Allan Babcock

At the church we planted in New Jersey, small groups met weekly in various homes. Once a month, each shared a covered-dish dinner climaxed by the Lord’s Supper.

That’s what the Corinthians did (though we don’t know how often). According to Dr. Gordon Fee the church gathered in the homes of the rich. Archaeology has shown that the dining room (the triclinium) in those homes would accommodate only a few guests. So most would eat in the entry courtyard (the atrium) which would hold about 30-50,

“It would be sociologically natural for the host to invite those of his/her own class to eat in the triclinium, while the others would eat in the atrium. It is probable that the language ‘one’s own supper’ (11:21) refers to the eating of ‘private meals’ by the wealthy, in which, at the common meal of the Lord’s Supper, they ate either their own portions or perhaps privileged portions that were not made available to the ‘have-nots’” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 534).

Therefore, after Paul’s mild reproof of the women without head-coverings in Worship (11:2-16), he sharpens his rhetoric and addresses the Supper abuse . . .

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good 1 Corinthians 11:17).

Paul’s praised them for maintaining the traditions (11:2), but can’t commend them for their gatherings together which are (literally) “not for the better, but for the worse.”

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it (11:18).

Unlike the division of favorite preachers (1:10-17), these divisions (schismata) occur when they “come together as a church.” So scandalous is their behavior, and yet apparently so credible the informants, “to some extent” Paul believes it.

No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk (11:19-21).

Divisions are not unexpected. Jesus warned, “Many will give up their faith at that time; they will betray one another and hate one another” (Matthew 24:10-12). These “differences” distinguish the God-approved, God-tested genuine believers from the false. The distinguishing mark is not their belief system but their behavior in line with the gospel.

The Corinthians supposedly eat the meal and the Lord’s Supper to honor the Lord in the presence of his Spirit. Instead they’re eating their own “private suppers.” By “go ahead with your own private suppers” Paul means they start earlier than the poor in the atrium. They also had larger meals as implied by, “As a result one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.”

The meal is designed to express their oneness in Christ. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body . . . “ (1 Corinthians 10:17). Instead it reveals how separated they really are.

Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter (1 Corinthians 11:22).

Paul’s questions cut. Don’t you have homes in which to eat and drink your lavish meals? Therefore, the second question: Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? Their behavior at the meal should show they value the church as one body in Christ. But by humiliating the poor, they’re showing contempt for God’s church as if it is valueless.

No way can Paul praise them in this!

So the meal represents their unity in Christ. Paul will remind them what the Lord himself said about that next time. For now, what can we take away?

* * * * *

We don’t abuse the poor at the Lord’s Supper. (No chance. We don’t eat a meal!) But we have another means of abuse: a broken relationship with a fellow believer. How often two feuding brothers in Christ eat and drink at the Table as if they’re not! Like the Corinthians, they show contempt for God’s church.

Should we, then, not participate? I’ve got a better way.

The Lord’s Supper is an ideal time for reconciliation. If I’m in conflict with a fellow believer, in private prayer during the Supper I can ask forgiveness for myself and give forgiveness to my brother. Then, after, I can go and ask his forgiveness for my blame in the conflict.

Conflicts in the church are inevitable. Relationships fall into a hard freeze.

But at the Lord’s Table, as we remember his sacrificial love for us, our hearts can soften, conflicts can melt, and we sinners saved by grace can be one again.

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (6)

February 4, 2017 / Allan Babcock

In Chapter 6, Timothy Keller takes what he’s written so far and begins to lay out what the Bible teaches about pain and suffering.

I’m broadly summarizing this book because, after reading it, I learn better by writing a general summary. I hope it benefits you too. You may even want to consider buying it.

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering by [Keller, Timothy]

https://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-through-Pain-Suffering/dp/1594634408/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485807775&sr=1-1&keywords=walking+with+god+through+pain+and+suffering+by
+timothy+keller

SUFFERING AS JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT

Suffering exists as God’s judgment against Adam and Eve’s sin. As a result, Genesis 3 describes a world of “spiritual alienation, inner psychological pain, social and interpersonal conflict and cruelty, natural disasters, disease and death” (p. 131).

But God’s judgment has purpose . . .

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us . . . For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God (Romans 8:18,20,21).

Suffering, therefore, is a form of justice. Once suffering climaxes in final judgment creation will be glorious.

SUFFERING AS INJUSTICE AND MERCY

Individual suffering may not be the result of individual sin. Nor are evil and suffering distributed fairly. So much so that Ecclesiastes’ author writes . . .

I saw the tears of the oppressed—and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—and they have no comforter.
And I declared that the dead, who had already died,
are happier than the living, who are still alive.
But better than both is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun (4:1-3).

Job is the classic example of the “blameless” man who suffered. Nevertheless, though humans often can’t see it, the universe has moral order, as the climax of the Book of Job reveals.

SUFFERING AS THE ENEMY OF GOD

When Jesus approached Lazarus’ tomb (John 11:38), he was “deeply moved” (NIV) or was “groaning in himself” (NKJ). Both translations are too weak Keller claims, suggesting the Greek means “to bellow with anger” (p. 137). Calvin explains, “It is death that is the object of his wrath . . . What John does for us in this particular statement is to uncover the heart of Jesus, as he wins for us our salvation. Not in cold unconcern, but in flaming wrath against the foe” (p. 137).

Even though God has decreed suffering as the consequence of sin, he hates it.

SUFFERING, JUSTICE AND WISDOM

Suffering and pain are not distributed proportionately; often the innocent suffer more than the wicked. Thus we are correct to cry out in distress and unfairness. Yet we must remember, because of sin against our Creator, suffering generally is just. Forget that and we fall into self-pity and turn against God.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

“The Bible teaches that God is in complete control of what happens in history and yet he exercises that control in such a way that human beings are responsible for their freely chosen actions and the result of those actions . . . To put if most practically and vividly—if a man robs a bank, that moral evil is fully his responsibility, though it also is part of God’s plan” (p. 140).

“In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will . . . “ (Ephesians 1:11).

Therefore, suffering isn’t an interruption to God’s plan, but part of it.

GOD’S PLAN AND OUR PLANS

“The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps” (Proverbs 16:9). Keller explains, “God plans our plans.” We make our plans, but they ultimately fit into God’s.

So Joseph explains to his evil-acting brothers, “You intended me harm, but God intended it for good, to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).

Jesus was crucified “according to the definite plan of God” (Acts 2:23), yet men put him to death and were guilty of lawlessness.

This is more than a ”theological” doctrine to be believed. It provides us with deep assurance, even in desperate times. The psalmist expressed it like this . . .

“I will cry out to God Most High, to God who performs all things for me” (Psalm 57:2, NKJ).

And Paul affirms it this way in “well-worn” Romans 8:28 . . .

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (NIV).

Keller concludes, “At the most practical level, we have the crucial assurance that even wickedness and tragedy, which we know was not part of God’s original design, is nonetheless being woven into a wise plan” (p. 144).

Head Coverings Redux

February 3, 2017 / Allan Babcock

I received a reply from a friend about “Women at Worship” (https://theoldpreacher.com/women-at-worship/). She asked if 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 was just for the Corinthian situation or is there application for us. I’ll offer what I can.

First, here’s the text . . .

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

In my view, the woman’s head covering was just for the Corinthian situation (as well as the other churches of God), but not directly applicable to us today.

When Paul writes “we have no other practice”, he uses the Greek sunaythaya, which is used of an established practice and so is translated “habit, usage, custom”. In 1 Corinthians 8:7 Paul writes, “Some people are still so accustomed to idols . . . ” John uses it in John 18:39–“But you have a custom, that I should release one man for you at the Passover.”

I take it to mean, therefore, that the head covering was a custom for them, not a moral law for everyone. It had significance in that culture, but doesn’t transfer to all cultures. Historically, this is how the church has interpreted it.

Now, about the more troublesome, “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” I tend to agree with Dr. Gordon Fee who comments, ” . . . by ‘nature’ Paul meant the natural feelings of their contemporary culture. After all, according to Acts 18:18 (“Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because of a vow he had taken.”) implies Paul had long hair. If Paul meant “nature” literally, he violated his own teaching.

Not all commentators agree, taking “nature” literally as the natural world as God made it. However, if Paul is establishing a “moral law” based on literal “nature, logic would then demand women wear some type of head covering in worship today.”

The application, as I see it, is that the woman maintain her hair and dress in a way that distinguishes her from the man. That, of course, will differ from culture to culture and is open to fairly wide interpretation.

Not the most satisfying explanation, I know. And, of course, our interpretation is hindered by the absence of anything related elsewhere in Scripture and our lack of knowledge of all that was going on in Corinth.

Nevertheless, for what my view is worth, I take 1 Corinthian 11:2-16 to address what was customary in that culture. Any application is indirect.

Not many Scriptures are “mysterious” like this one. We can be thankful that Gospel truths are crystal clear . . .

“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles . . . ” (1 Corinthians 15:1-7).

Women at Worship

February 2, 2017 / Allan Babcock

I’d be happier if 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 wasn’t in the Bible. It’s notoriously difficult to interpret and discusses women’s head-coverings, not a hot-button issue today! But, walking through the entire letter, we can’t detour. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write it for a purpose that transcends the first readers.

THE PROBLEM

As will be evident from the text, women are praying and prophesying in the church without head-coverings. This customary distinction between the sexes is considered disgraceful.

Dr. Gordon Fee surmises: “Probably this is related to their being pneumatikos (“spiritual”) and to their somewhat overrealized eschatology. It seems difficult to understand Paul’s answer unless their spiritualized eschatology also involved some kind of breakdown in the distinction between the sexes. Already they had arrived in the Spirit; they were already acting as those who would be ‘like the angels,’ among whom sexual distinctions no longer existed. As part of their new ‘spirituality’ they were disregarding some very customary distinctions between the sexes that would otherwise have been regarded as disgraceful” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 498).

Paul wants them to wear head-coverings . . .

BECAUSE IT IS SHAMEFUL NOT TO.

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head (11:2-6).

After praising the church, he sets out this foundational principle: “ . . . the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”. “Head” here refers to authority. This isn’t a matter of superiority/inferiority but role or function. If a man prays or prophesies with his head (literal) uncovered he dishonors his head (Christ). But if a woman prays or prophesies with her head (literal) uncovered she dishonors her head (the man).

Furthermore, if she has her head uncovered “it is the same as having her head shaved. In Roman society, a shaved head signified an unfaithful wife. So “she should cover her head.”

BECAUSE WOMAN WAS CREATED FROM MAN.

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (11:7-12).

God created both male and female in his image (Genesis 5:1,2). But he created woman from man and for man. So, as God-created, man is to honor God. Woman created from and for man is to honor man. The head-covering, therefore, signifies she is honoring man.

“ . . . because of the angels” may mean that angels, as guardians of the created order, are watching women who are disregarding that order.

That Paul isn’t subordinating women to men is clear from the interdependency that exists between them.

BECAUSE IF A WOMAN PRAYS WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED, IT’S IMPROPER.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God (11:13-16).

Here Paul appeals to their reason. By “the very nature of things” he probably means “the way things are” in their culture. Since a woman “by the very nature of things” has long hair “as a covering”, she naturally should not pray or prophesy without a head-covering.

Some are being “contentious”, and Paul refutes their probable claim that “other churches do it.” He tells them wearing head-coverings is the custom in all the churches

WHAT CAN WE TAKE AWAY?

If women are to be subordinate to men, men must be leaders. Blessed is the family (and the church) where the man sings to the Lord with all his heart, who lifts his hands in adoration, who prays aloud his praise, who exercises spiritual gifts. This is especially important today when many divorced women fill our churches.

Sadly, that’s often not the case. If the worship leader calls for only women to sing, then only men, the difference is night-and-day. Women sing out; men hesitate. Where are those strong male voices exalting the King?

I’m not dismissing the important role of women. Where would our churches be without them? Often they are most responsive to the Holy Spirit in worship. Often they are the first to lift their hands or pray aloud. They should complement men’s lead, not replace it.

Paul reproved the Corinthian women for removing their head-coverings. Maybe he should have reproved the Corinthian men for allowing it.