Category: The Word (Page 15 of 34)

Cultivating a sense of community in the church has probably never been a greater challenge.  Even greater is cultivating an environment where every member contributes to the spiritual health of the whole.  And, the bigger the church the higher the challenge.

Should the church even be a community with each member giving something to it?  The question underscores the challenge.  Despite what I see as gains in recent years, the church is still largely viewed as a meeting to attend.  The Bible (read “God”) sees it differently:  the church is what believers in Christ together are.  More radically, the church is the body of Christ.

Before I run on pontificating, let’s get to today’s text in our journey through 1 Corinthians (which, more extensively, is a journey through the New Testament).

ONE BODY, MANY MEMBERS

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.  For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.  For the body does not consist of one member but of many (1 Corinthians 12:12-14).

With “[f]or”, Paul compares the diversity of spiritual gifts in the one church with the human body.  The many-membered human body is one body.  “ . . . so it is with Christ”; that is, with the church, the body of Christ.

How do diverse people–“Jews or Greeks, slaves or free”–become members of one church?  Well, by completing a membership application and being approved by the elders. Right?  Not really.  Churches do that for legal reasons, but it’s not how people spiritually become members.

Well, then,  by agreeing to the church’s doctrine?  That’s crucial, but not according to Paul.

” . . . in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body . . . and all were made to drink of the one Spirit.”

By”baptism”–not in water, but “in one Spirit”.  By “drinking” (or being filled with) that one Spirit.  These are not two different experiences, but one, and refers to conversion or being born again.

God the Holy Spirit is the dynamic force of conversion.  He  “immerses” converts into the one body of Christ and is the one Spirit who fills (“drink”) all converts.  For Paul, the unity of many members doesn’t center in doctrinal agreement (as important as that is) but in their common experience in the Holy Spirit.  Yet, it is the same Holy Spirit who creates diversity:  “For the body does not consist of one member but of many.”

DIVERSITY

 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.  And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body.  If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?   But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? (1 Corinthians 12:15-19).

 Paul uses the diversity of the human body to point to the diversity of the body of Christ.  Foot, hand, ear, eye–each has its different function, but all belong.  Nor is the whole body composed of one member.  Members differ, arranged as God willed.

Implication:  so the body of Christ isn’t all tongues (the Corinthians exalted that gift above all others–see Chapter 14).  Members of the body of Christ have diverse gifts as God chooses.

Sadly, talk like this seems irrelevant to many churches today.  If they don’t deny spiritual gifts altogether, little time or place exists for them to be expressed.  Thus the church is weakened, as is the human body if the legs are paralyzed or eyes blind.  Or if, like the Corinthians, the church majors in one or two gifts to the exclusion of the others.

UNITY

As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.  The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”  On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together (1 Corinthians 12:20-26).

 The human body–with diverse parts, each necessary, including unpresentable parts treated with modesty–is a unity.  Diversity (which Paul has just stressed) isn’t an end in itself; diversity must function in essential unity.

Paul personifies body-members.  They “talk”!  But none can say, “I don’t need you.”  Perhaps certain church members with certain gifts oozed that attitude.  “But God has so composed the body . . . ”  He’s made no hierarchy of persons or of gifts.

Such hierarchy divides.  “But God has so composed the body” so that there be no division.  Here is where Paul draws the net tighter around the Corinthians.  While it’s true a bad toothache makes you hurt all over or headache-relief makes you feel better all over, Paul is clearly implying that this should be true of the body of Christ–that  ” . . . the members may have the same care for one another.”

SOUND-DOCTRINE CHURCHES

Sadly, what Paul appeals to as the church’s source of unity (namely, members’ common experience in the Holy Spirit) has become a source of division. The gulf between “charismatic” churches and non-charismatic churches is wide, with each largely caracituring the other.

That being said, I think it’s safe to observe that typically, “sound-doctrine churches” minimize the role of the Spirit.  As if the Spirit only “gifts” intellectually, they “center-stage” preaching to the exclusion of Spirit-led worship and the expression of spiritual gifts.  They find unity in doctrinal agreement, not experience in the Spirit (as Paul did).

So they often pass over an astounding miracle to be celebrated:  God the Holy Spirit actually lives inside Christ’s converts to express himself through those converts for their common strengthening.

That upbuilding–that unity–can’t be programmed.  Not by “professional” worship teams.  Not by doctrinal statements.  Certainly not by ecumenical movements.  Only the Holy Spirit can do that.  It’s up to us, then, to pray for the Spirit to sovereignly move upon us . . .

Without openness to the Holy Spirit, gathered worship becomes a pep rally (the worship team as cheerleaders) or a classroom (the pastor as professor).  Expectations center almost entirely on the “up-front” people.  Welcome to today’s typical evangelical church.

Different scenario with the Corinthians.  Spiritual gifts fascinated them to the point that Paul wrote to rein them in.  He writes 1 Corinthians 12-14, not to offer comprehensive spiritual-gifts-theology, but to pastorally correct the church’s abuse of them.

Paul had reminded them that all spiritual utterances do not come from the Holy Spirit, only those that acknowledge Jesus as Lord (12:1-3).  Now, in 12:4-11, he lists a variety of gifts, so the church will learn that the one Holy Spirit gives a diversity of gifts (not just tongues–the Corinthians’ gift of choice) for the good of all.

GOD-ROOTED DIVERSITY (12:4-6)

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.  There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.  There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

Gifts (charismaton), service (diakoniown), and working (energown) are different ways of expressing what Paul in 12:7 calls the “manifestation” (phanerosis) or “expression, demonstration” or “display” of the Spirit.  The distributions of the Spirit are many, but all come from the same Spirit, Lord and God.

Thus Paul pictures the Trinity.  But “Lord” (Jesus) has special significance since the Corinthians exuded spiritual pride over certain spiritual gifts.  “Lord” and “service” remind them that the spiritually-gifted are servants of all.

DIVERSE GIFTS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL (12:7)

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

By one sentence Paul captures the heart of chapter 12.  Each one can participate.  What are called “gifts” Paul here calls “the manifestation of the Spirit”–an expression of the Spirit’s presence among them.  And these Spirit-manifestations to each one are given, not for the good of the recipient, but for the good of all.

DIVERSE GIFT-LIST (12:8-10)

To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,  to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

Other gifts in other lists (1 Corinthians 12:28,29, Romans 12:6-8, Ephesians 4:8-14 and 1 Peter 4:10,11) show that this list isn’t exhaustive.  And who know how many more ways the Holy Spirit might manifest himself not identified in Scripture?

Looking at Paul’s list here, we want a technical explanation for what each gift is.  Paul doesn’t explain, so we’re left to deduce from what he does say elsewhere about some gifts and just plain guess about others.

The message of wisdom and the message of knowledge.  These are mentioned nowhere else, so welcome to educated-guessing!  Wayne Grudem (theologian, professor, author) suggests the first may be the ability to speak the right word at the right time, the second the ability to impart timely insight, both to others for their sake (Systematic Theology).

Faith.  Not saving faith (Ephesians 2:8,9), this is probably a supernatural “certainty” that God will reveal his power in a special way for a particular circumstance.

Gifts of healing(s).   Even a quick-read of the New Testament reveals that Jesus, Paul and first century Christians regularly expected God would heal physical bodies.  These gifts are Holy Spirit-manifestations to do just that.  The plural probably implies a variety of gifts and healings for a variety of illness.

Miraculous powers.  This probably refers to other kinds of miraculous workings apart from healing.

Prophecy.  “ . . . the evidence in [1 Corinthians 14) indicates that it consists of spontaneous, Spirit-inspired, intelligible messages, orally delivered in the gathered assembly, intended for the edification or encouragement of the people” (Gordon Fee, theologian and Professor Emeritus at Regent College).  It is not telling the future!

Distinguishing between spirits.  In 14:29, Paul writes, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.”  Perhaps this (the ability to discern the spirit/Spirit source of a prophetic utterance is what Paul means by this gift.  On the other hand, Grudem defines it as “the ability to recognize the influence of the Holy Spirit or of demonic spirits in a person” (Systematic Theology, p. 1082).

Different kinds of tongues. The Greek word, glosa, means the physical tongue or language. Unfortunately, translators have stuck with “tongues” when “languages” might have been more appropriate.  Grudem defines:  “ . . . a prayer or praise spoken (spontaneously) in syllables not understood by the speaker.”  Thus it is speech directed to God,whereas prophecy is directed to the people.   

The interpretation of tongues.  Hermayneea can mean “translation” or “interpretation”.  The latter is better here, since we have no indication that the “interpreter” is giving a word-for-word translation of the message in tongues.  Rather he is explaining what the tongues-speaker has said.  Together with interpretation, the gift of tongues “builds up” the church (14:5), functioning similar to prophecy.  Without interpretation, the message in tongues is unintelligible and useless for the church (14:28).

Sovereign Distribution (12:11)

All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Giftedness doesn’t depend on the recipient.  The Spirit is sovereign and he gives gifts/manifestations as he chooses.  But, whatever the gift, it is the work of the same Spirit.  Thus, Paul puts the spiritually-proud Corinthians in their “place”, humbled under the sovereign Spirit.

* * * *

Most of our churches today don’t share the Corinthians’ problem.  We don’t need to be told, “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good . . . All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines”(12:7,11). 

Why?  Because most of our worship gatherings are packed with singing, preaching, maybe praying, announcements and offerings.  The focus is “up front” and there’s no quiet time to “reach out” for what the Spirit may choose to do.  How sad when he has so much to give for the good of the church and the glory of the Lord Jesus!

So my conclusion today is a prayer-worship song.  What might the Spirit do if the church (even some members) faithfully prayed it?  And if we made time for the Spirit to “rain down”?

I’m not referring to a music genre.  I’m using Paul’s word in 1 Corinthians 12:1—“Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed.”  The word “gifts” is absent from the Greek (showing up in 12:4); hence, “spirituals” (pneumatikown).

Before we embark (the spiritual gifts topic continues through chapter 14), we should note the cessationist/continuationist debate.  Cessantionists believe spiritual gifts ceased with the death of the last of the twelve apostles.  Continuationists believe (duh) gifts continue and will until Jesus comes again.

This is more than counting angels on a pinhead.  If the gifts have ceased, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 have no meaning for us today (nor do Romans 12:5-8 or 1 Peter 4:10,11)—unless the cessationist is eliminating only the “spectacular” gifts like prophecy, healing and tongues (gets confusing, doesn’t it).

The links below present both positions well and are worth reading.  If the first one convinces you, no need to continue reading this post.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-am-a-cessationisthttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-am-a-continuationist

We don’t know if the Corinthians had asked about spiritual gifts (7:1), but we do know Paul wants them “in the know” about pneumatikown. 

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed (1 Corinthians 12:1).

 What he first wants them to know comes unexpectedly . . .

You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak (1 Corinthians 12:2).

Paul has in view their former experiences of “inspired utterances” as pagans.  Even though idols are “mute”, demons lurk behind them (10:20) and inspire the utterances featured in idol-worship.

Why, though, did Paul bring that up?  He wants the Corinthians to know that “inspired” speech in itself is not evidence of the Holy Spirit.

In one church I pastored, a dear old saintly woman invariably gave a message in tongues at the end of our worship singing. It came like clockwork and eventually distracted.  When I cautioned her about it, she left the church.  Were her messages from the Holy Spirit?  I don’t know.  But inspired speaking in and of itself is not necessarily Spirit-prompted.

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).

Paul is saying, “Since I don’t want you to be uninformed about things of the Spirit, and since you’re familiar with inspired utterances from your pagan days, I want you to understand ‘that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says, “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.’”

Did anyone, purportedly influenced by the Spirit, actually say, “Let Jesus be cursed”?  We’re not told.  But we can agree Paul is making at least three assertions.  One, the content of “Spirit-speaking” is crucial. Not its length or volume or “theatrics”, but its content.  And, by implication, the content must harmonize with the gospel.

Two, it follows, then, that the content of the utterance determines its source. If it harmonizes with the gospel, it’s Spirit-given.  If it doesn’t, it isn’t (no matter how it feels!).

And, three, only the Holy Spirit can inspire anyone to confess “Jesus is Lord”.  Anybody can merely mouth the words.  But only by the Spirit can a sinful human profess absolute allegiance to Jesus as his God and Master of the universe.

* * * * *

I’m a continuationist (or I wouldn’t waste time commenting on 1 Corinthians 12-14).  However, I’m not ignorant of excess and abuse in the charismatic camp.  Growing up in a Pentecostal church, for example, I saw the reverential place accorded a message in tongues, and how it sometimes became an automatic part of the worship order.  Worse abuses have occurred; but I’ve seen them mostly on TV, rarely in person.

I’m convinced some Christians are cessationist because of these abuses.  A second reason (in my opinion) is that some cessationist pastors actually fear giving people freedom in worship to respond to the Spirit (but I digress).

The important take-away for us is this:  the Holy Spirit will always exalt the Lord Jesus.  In fact, as Paul says, the Holy Spirit will enable one to say, “Jesus is Lord”.  This is astounding.  To say “Jesus is Lord” is to say he is the Yahweh (LORD) of the Old Testament.  To say “Jesus is Lord” is to say he is God.  To say “Jesus is Lord” is to say he is worthy of absolute allegiance.  To say “Jesus is Lord” is to say what every human will be finally compelled to acknowledge.  And only the Holy Spirit can enable a self-seeking, self-centered sinner to utter that confession.

Someone has said, “The Holy Spirit is the shy member of the Trinity.”  In other words, he doesn’t draw attention to himself, but to Jesus.  Spiritual gifts are another way God the Father has given us to glorify his Son.  They weren’t given to stir up controversy.  Nor were they given for a mere 70 years.  They were given to glorify Jesus in his church until he comes for us.

So, as we embark on Paul’s words about spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14, we don’t want to pursue them for their own sake.  We want to seek them for Jesus’ sake:  that he might be glorified in his church as we experience the dynamic of his presence among his gathered people.

Some believers vehemently bar unbelievers from the Lord’s Supper.  That, however, isn’t “the unworthy way” Paul discusses here.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Paul now applies to the Corinthians what he’s just said concerning the words Jesus spoke about the Lord’s Supper.

Bottom line warning: they’re eating and drinking “in an unworthy manner”–the manner he’d described a few sentences earlier . . .

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. 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 11:20-22).

That’s unworthy behavior at the Table where the Lord’s death is proclaimed–the death that brought salvation, the death that united them as the New Covenant people of God.

Thus, they are “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”  They’re desecrating the Supper.  They’re as guilty as those who had him killed.

Sound harsh?  That’s how sacred the Supper is.  Therefore, Paul urges . . .

Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup (1 Corinthians 11:28).

Paul begins this sentence with “But” (Greek, de), which the NIV doesn’t translate.  In contrast to eating and drinking unworthily everyone ought to examine themselves . . . “

“Examine” is the Greek dokimazo—“to try to learn the genuineness of something by examination and testing”  (The Greek-English Lexicon by Louw and Nida).  Paul admonishes each one to determine the genuineness of his/her faith by examining his/her attitude and behavior toward others at the Supper.  Paul aims this especially at the wealthy who are humiliating the poor.

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.  That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians11:29,30).

“For” indicates the reason for self-examination:  judgment!  “ . . . the body of Christ” refers not to Christ’s physical body, but the church.”  But what does he mean by “discerning (or, recognizing) the body of Christ”?  Dr. Gordon Fee answers . . .

The meaning here . . . [is] to distinguish as distinct and different.  The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal; it is the meal, in which at a common table with one loaf and a common cup they proclaimed that through the death of Christ, they were one body, the body of Christ; and therefore they are not just any group of sociologically diverse people who could keep those differences intact at the this table.  Here they must “discern/recognize as distinct” the one body of Christ, of which they all are parts and in which they all are gifts to one another (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 564).

Failure to recognize the body this way and they “eat and drink [God’s] judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” This judgment takes the form of physical weakness and sickness and even death (“fallen asleep”).

But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world (1 Corinthians 11:31,32).

Paul turns to a positive note.  If they were more discerning (11:29), they would not be judged as they are (11:30). This judgment, however, is not eternal damnation, but discipline (Greek, paiduometha—correction, guidance as moral discipline).

God disciplines (with weakness, sickness, even death) for a purpose: so that we will not be condemned with the world at final judgment.

So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together.  Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions  (1 Corinthians 11:33,34).

Paul offers two practical instructions.  “ . . . you should all eat together” (NIV) is better translated “wait for one another” or “welcome one another”.  In either case, Paul urges them (the rich in particular) to be hospitable to the poor by not feasting on their lavish meals before the poor even arrive.

Second instruction,  “Anyone hungry should eat something at home . . . “  In other words, if you must gorge yourself on your rich food, eat it first at home “so that when you meet together it may not result in {God’s) judgment.”

* * * * *

Unlike the Corinthians, we don’t humiliate the poor at the Lord’s Supper.  Our problem (at least one): we so personalize the “meal” that we hardly think of it as a community experience at all.

Yes we know we’re all being served and all eat and drink together.  But our methodology makes the Lord’s Supper rather like a group going to a Sonic Drive-In.  We all drive in, order our food through the parking space intercom, our food is brought out, and we each eat in the privacy of our car.  Okay, that’s a stretch.  But it makes a point:  our celebration of the Lord’s Supper is far more personal than inter-relational.

In one church I pastored, we tried something different.  Small groups met in various homes on a weeknight.  Once a month each group’s members brought a covered dish.  We climaxed the meal with the Lord’s Supper.  That setting maximized the meal’s community nature.  Not every church can or will do that.  But this text should challenge us to ask, “How can we decrease the privatizing of the Lord’s Supper and increase the community of it?”

Two other considerations.  At the start of the Supper the pastor urges reconciliation for any broken relationship.  Meal participants forgive a brother in personal prayer, then go to the brother afterward to affirm unity.

A second:  ask the Lord whom you should reach out to during the Supper.  Then, quietly go sit next to that person, whispering, “I just want you to know I appreciate you” or “I felt led to share Communion with you.”  (If that person is different from you racially or economically, the more meaningful will be your reaching out.  For only here is our hope for the unity of a violently divided humanity!)

Certainly the Lord’s Supper provides opportunity to reflect on the Lord’s death for us personally.  Apart from his bloody sacrifice, we’re lost, condemned sinners.  But the Supper is a meal at which we must affirm, not only out faith-unity with Christ, but our love-unity with one another.

“Because there is one bread, who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

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).

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.

I grew up in a church that forbade members from smoking, drinking, dancing and going to movies.  A good-motive, but a wrong-headed exercise–blanket rules for personal-conscience matters.

That all may seem largely irrelevant now.  But, in fact, the principles Paul sets out challenge every generation.

FIRST PRINCIPLE

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others (1 Corinthians 10:23,24).

The issue is eating market place meat which had been offered to idols before being sold to the public. The Corinthians arrogantly claim the right to do anything, because such matters don’t affect one’s relationship with God through Christ.  Rather than debate,  Paul introduces a concern they’ve overlooked:  “not everything is beneficial . . . not everything is constructive”.

Here, then, is his first principle:  “No man should seek their own good, but the good of others.”  Your conscience may free you to eat “idol meat”, but does it hurt your brother’s conscience?  Might it lead him into sin or cause him to fall away?  What will contribute to his good, his benefit?  What will build him up?

EATING AT HOME

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (1 Corinthians 10:25,26).

A Christian is free to eat market meat because it’s the Lord’s  meat, like everything in creation.  So the Corinthians needn’t ask if it’s been offered to an idol.  But . . .

EATING AT A NEIGHBOR’S

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours (1 Corinthians 10:27-29a).

You’re free to eat whatever an unbeliever serves—unless someone says, “This has been offered in sacrifice.”  Assume that “someone” who’s raised the issue is convicted by his conscience not to eat such meat.   That changes everything:  ” . . . do not eat it . . . ”  Don’t seek your own good but his.

SECOND PRINCIPLE

For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:29b-31).

This passage is notoriously difficult to interpret.  Here’s my “educated guess”.  Because the Corinthians have questioned it (chapter 9), Paul suddenly argues for his freedom.  He’s free to eat and free not to.

That bring us to the second principle Paul sets out:  “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

C. K. Barrett comments:  “I do not act to the glory of God if I give to an idol some of the honor due to God alone; nor if I cause scandal or ill-feeling in the church, or cause a fellow-Christian to fall from his faith” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians).

Putting it positively, to seek the good of the other in personal conscience matters is “for the glory of God.”  But when Paul adds the phrase, “whatever you do” he’s reaching far beyond personal conscience matters.  John Piper once wrote an article, “How to Drink Orange Juice to the Glory of God” (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-drink-orange-juice-to-the-glory-of-god).  Whatever we do!  Whatever we do should show God’s glory and give God glory.

THE EXAMPLE

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—  even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:32-11:1).

Paul urges the Corinthians to not use their freedom in a way that causes others to fall from the faith.  He offers himself as an example of a man who is “not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved”.  Then he makes the daring exhortation, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ”.  (Christ supremely sought not his own good but the good of many in his life and in his death.)  A daring call, because Paul invites the Corinthians to model their ways after his.

* * * * *

We can easily apply this to contemporary personal conscience issues, like drinking alcohol for instance.  Yes, I’m free to drink (no drunkenness!), but not if it causes someone else to “stumble” in the faith.

We can also apply this more broadly with probing questions . . .

. . . Do I seek the good of others, or selfishly seek my own?

. . . Do I do whatever I do for God’s glory?

. . . Do I dare invite others to “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ”?

Christ died to free us from our sins.  Christ died to free us from keeping rules to be righteous.  Christ also died to free us to seek others’ good, to live for God’s glory, and to encourage fellow believers to follow our Christ-following example.

“I’ve got to go to church this Sunday; I did some bad stuff lately.”  That’s “Christian Magic”.  As if going to church makes up for sin.

The Corinthians believed in Christian Magic (they didn’t call it that), especially when it came to the Lord’s Supper.  Somehow the Lord’s Supper would protect them from any harm eating idol-food in a pagan temple.

1 Corinthians 10:1-22 concludes Paul’s reply to the church regarding “food offered to idols” (begun in 8:1).  Here he absolutely bans eating idol-food in pagan temples.

ISRAEL’S EXAMPLE

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness (10:1-5).

Lots to speculate about here.  But this much is clear:  Paul warns the Corinthians of dreadful consequences if they, like old Israel, persist in idolatry.

The church and Israel share similar blessings.  The Christian life begins with baptism, so Israel, delivered from Egyptian slavery, underwent a kind of baptism in the Red Sea.  The Lord is present among the church by the Spirit; so he was present among Israel in the cloud.  The church is cared for by Christ; Christ provided for Israel in the wilderness.

“Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.”  Why?

IDOLATRY WARNING

Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.  Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.  And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.  These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it (10:6-13).

Why bodies in the wilderness?  Idolatry.  Paul quotes Exodus 32:6b where Israel  ate in the presence of the golden calf.  “ . . . got up to indulge in revelry”–a nice way of saying sex-play-worship.  So Paul admonishes the Corinthians, “We should not commit sexual immorality”.

All these things, Paul explains, “ . . . occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did . . . These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us . . .”  See those bodies in the wilderness?  Take heed!

IDOLATRY BAN AND WHY

Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.  I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.  Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?  Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?  Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?  No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he (10:14-22)?

Paul’s command is absolute:  “ . . . flee from idolatry.”  Escape.  Run away.  Since they pride themselves on their knowledge, he appeals to their reason for obeying his command.

The Lord’s Supper isn’t just a religious ceremony.  It’s a “participation” (Greek, koinonia—fellowship) in the blood and body of Christ.  By the Spirit, God is present.  As fellow believers, they celebrate their common life in Christ.  How can they think it okay to fellowship with Christ at the sacred meal, then fellowship at the table of idols?

True, an idol is nothing.  “But the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons . . . ”  So, eat idol-food in idol temples, and you fellowship with demons.  Demons?  Satan’s minions that oppress?  An idol may be nothing, but lurking behind them are spirits meant to do you evil.

But their harm isn’t the worst.  The Lord’s jealousy is.   “Will you continue to eat at both the Lord’s Supper and the table of demons and so kindle the Lord’s jealousy, as Israel did in the desert?”

IDOLATRY TAKE-AWAY

Well . . . no idol-food in pagan temples for us!  But how about “Christian Magic”?  Or, as bad, a “ceremony view” of the Lord’s Supper?

When I led the Lord’s Supper, I’d often remind everyone, “This is ordinary bread and juice. Nothing special about it.”  No “power” comes from chewing the bread-cube and swallowing the juice-thimble.

Yet the Lord’s Supper is far more than ceremony.  It’s where we commune with the crucified Christ.  How?  By the Holy Spirit.  With his help, I envision myself at the Last Supper.  I hear Jesus say, “This is my body.  This is my blood.”  I see myself at the cross.  Jesus agonizes in pain.  I hear him cry, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” I can almost feel him breathe his last.  And I remember . . . I remember he’s bearing my sin.  He’s loving me.  I can almost smell death–the cost of giving me life. 

How can I get involved with any kind of “idol” after that?