TOMS: I Corinthians 11

For an introduction to this series, click here.

August 4, 2007

The first part of this chapter with its discussion of hair and head coverings is frankly a mystery to me. I think we can derive some general principles from this, but there is so much here that is tied up in 1st century Greek culture, and most of that context is lost to us some 1900 years later. Thankfully head coverings and hair are not the issues they were 30 years ago. 

Paul begins the discussion with this: "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head." (11:3-6) 

Paul says that a woman should have her head covered when she prays or prophesies in the church, while a man should have his head uncovered. Later, Paul makes it clear that a woman's hair is given to her for a covering. Apparently, this was an issue in the Corinthian church, because (and I forgot to say this earlier) chapters 7-15 of this chapter are Paul's response to a letter he received from the church at Corinth, asking him some questions about things. I find it interesting that Paul does not have a problem with women praying publicly in the assembly. Most of our Baptist churches are not as generous in this area as Paul.

Paul continues: "For 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 was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." (11:7-12) 

This passage is one of the ones liberal theologians will always use to help prove their theory that Paul was sexist. The idea that God has different roles for men and women is kind of blasphemous to our enlightened, modern, 21st Century mindset. But that does not change the truth. It does not mean that men are better than women, any more than it means Christ is more God than the Holy Spirit, since Christ's role is above the Holy Spirit. Now what does "because of the angels" mean? I have no idea. 

"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." (11:14-16)

This passage makes it very clear that Paul is talking about hair, and not other physical coverings. There was a lady in the church I attended in Houston who always wore a black doily (that's the best way I know to describe it) on her head. It matched her dark hair and was usually hard to see. There are some people who interpret this chapter that way; I do not. It was never an issue, and so if a lady wants to do that and not make it an issue with those who don't, I see no problem. But clearly Paul is saying that the covering he is referring to here is natural hair, not some additional covering. Once again, as far as nature teaching us about men's hair, and what constitutes long or short, once again, I have no idea.

Next Paul deals with the Lord's Supper and with general eating in the church: "When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not." (11:20-22) 

Apparently these people were making a full meal of the Lord's Supper. Paul does not strictly forbid this practice, but he does condemn the way they were doing it: the rich people in the church were bringing their own food and were refusing to share it with everyone. This is terribly petty and selfish, not the way the church should behave.

After recalling what is written in the Gospels about how Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, Paul says this: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world." (11:27-32, ESV) 

My grandma who just passed away, dear saint that she was, was afraid of the Lord's Supper because of this passage. Most of the time she would not go to communion service. None of us is "worthy" of fellowship with God. This is not what this passage is talking about. We are to treat the Lord's Supper with the respect and seriousness it deserves. We are not to be flippant, but remember that the elements are a picture of the death of Christ for us. And we are certainly not to use the Lord's Supper as a way to show off our wealth and exclude other members of the church, which was exactly what some in this church were doing.

TOMS: I Corinthians 10

For an introduction to this series, click here.

August 3, 2007

This chapter kind of covers a wide range of topics. Paul starts out with a discussion of the meaning of the stories of the Old Testament: 
"Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil 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 rose up to play.' We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come." (10:6-11)

I have run into a couple of people who believe the Old Testament is meaningless for Christians. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can learn so much from the Old Testament. Those people were real and struggled through life just like we do. Whatever we can learn from their example is good. Paul says the most important lesson we learn is this: 
"Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (10:12-13) 

I had never realized that passage was connected with a passage about the meaning of the Old Testament. So many times we think we are the only ones who have gone through what we are dealing with right now. But God wants us to know we are not alone: we are never alone from His presence, and other people in the past have gone through some of the same experiences we have. Some were faithful and some were not. We can seek to copy those who were faithful and learn from the others' mistakes.

Paul next gives a warning against idolatry: 
"Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." (10:14-21)

Apparently, some of the Corinthians thought that since an idol is not real, they could go and participate in some of the rituals at the pagan temple. I'm not sure why, maybe it was for the entertainment value or, more likely, they went with their unsaved family members, just as a family tradition. Paul is saying this is a very dangerous thing, not to be taken lightly. Just because an idol is not a real god does not mean that there is nothing spiritual going on. There are demonic forces at work, and a Christian has no business being involved in something like that.

Finally Paul brings up the topic of Christian liberty again: 
"Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For 'the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.' If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice,' then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his." (10:24-29) 
"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." (10:31-33, ESV)

This is the ultimate teaching on doubtful things. We should do nothing that would make ourselves an offense. Sometimes this means forgoing something you might like to do. Not because there is something inherently sinful about it, but because someone else may be tempted to violate their conscience or an unbeliever may see no distinction between you and him. It is important not to use our own freedom to be an impairment to the work of God in other people's lives.

TOMS: I Corinthians 9

For an introduction to this series, click here.

August 2, 2007

This chapter continues Paul's teaching on not being an offense or a stumbling block to anyone. This is a very practical chapter. This chapter also gives us a lot of insight into the life of an apostle. Paul first talks about how he does not demand money for his services as an apostle: "This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.' Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?" (9:3-11)

People always get nervous when preachers talk about money. Here Paul is baring his soul a little bit, so we can see that he was just like most of us who worry about money and the way people treat us. It is kind of sad that Paul could not make enough money from the people he had taught through the years to make ends meet. But unfortunately that's the way life as a servant of the Lord is. Of course we know that Paul often had to stop and make tents to make some money.

Paul continues in the same idea: "Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" (9:12-16)

Paul does not want to be a burden on the churches he visits, and so he is willing to do without in order to preach the gospel. Now I don't begrudge people who make their living today from ministry. It's a tough life. But I think if more people were like Paul and did not have a list of demands (lots of people do this; your pastor just doesn't tell you) they would be better off spiritually, I think, and I think the Lord would probably bless more financially as well.

Finally Paul gets down to the real purpose of not being a stumbling block: to reach people with the Gospel: "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." (9:19-23, ESV)

You can't minister to people if you are an offense to them. Oh, you can go through the motions of a service, but if the people have a problem with you, they are not going to listen. You have to be real and you have to get down on the level of the people to whom you are ministering. This is what Paul means when he says he becomes all things to all people. Not that he joins them in their sin, of course, but that he does what he can to be like them, whether that means living like a Jew or as a weak person.

TOMS: I Corinthians 8

For an introduction to this series, click here.

August 1, 2007

This chapter starts a discussion of doubtful matters, always a fruitful discussion. There will always be things that we disagree about. Instead of criticizing or fighting people over them, we need to learn to consider our brothers and sisters in the Lord first.

The number one issue in the first century church was food offered to idols. The pagan temples would offer their meat very cheap after they finished using it for their ceremonies, and you know how church folks are when there are bargains to be found. Lots of people went down and bought the food, but others, especially those who had just been saved out of those pagan religions, were offended by that, saying that Christians should not eat that meat. Paul starts off in an interesting way, different than he handles the issue in Romans:
"Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.' For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords' — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (8:4-6)

Paul says very clearly that there is nothing wrong with eating food offered to an idol, since an idol is nothing but a statue anyway. But he goes on and acknowledges that some people have a problem with it:
"However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (8:7-13, ESV)

Our first consideration is the conscience of our brother, not our own desires. I believe this passage, especially the part when Paul says clearly that eating meat is OK, teaches that we should try to teach weak brothers what is right. But until we do teach them, or at least have helped them mature to the point that they will not be offended if they see us do whatever the controversial thing is, we should avoid it. This is a very fine line. It's hard to know exactly what to do a lot of times. For example, I know lots of people who will not eat in restaurants that serve alcohol. What do you do when you go to a place that does? Most of the people I know will not say anything, so that is good. But what if someone did? I think it is our responsibility to try to teach them and strengthen their conscience a little bit, but at the same time, it is always wrong to be a stumbling block. I don't really know the perfect answer to that.

Notice that Paul says it would be Ok not only to eat the meat, but to eat the meat in the pagan temple. That would be farther than what I would probably go if I was living in that time. If you read the New Testament carefully, there are very few outward things that are sin. More than 90 percent of the sins taught against are sins of the heart. We tend to look at the places people go and the things they do as being sinful, but that is not always the best barometer. I think God's priority list is a little different than ours. We need to work toward evaluating people the way the Lord does, and not hanging on to our own man-made standard.

One final thing: Notice very carefully that the person with the stricter personal standard - the one who has a problem with eating meat - is the weaker brother. This is an important distinction. Too many people are proud of their weakness, glorying in the fact that they have a long list of things they won't do and blasting those who violate that list. This is clearly a violation of Paul's teaching and the inside-out of what Paul said about being a stumbling block. If it is wrong for a strong person to be a stumbling block of temptation for the weak, it is just as wrong for the weak to be a stumbling block of intimidation to the strong.

TOMS: I Corinthians 7

For an introduction to this series, click here.

July 31, 2007

The first part of this chapter has to do with marriage and divorce. Paul has some surprising things to say: "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife." (7:6-11)

Actually, let us continue reading before I comment: "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" (7:12-16)

A lot of people have trouble reconciling this passage with what Jesus said about divorce. Jesus basically said that divorce is always wrong, except in the case of adultery. I think you have to look at the context. Jesus was confronting people who believed divorce was acceptable for any cause whatsoever, and He was trying to correct that. Paul was addressing people who probably took Jesus' words a little too literally, and he was going to correct their understanding that and soften it a bit. It is always true that divorce is never the ideal, but sometimes it is necessary. It is certainly not necessary as often as we see divorces in our churches, but it should not be ruled out in a situation of abandonment, danger or abuse.

Paul's overall message is one of contentment in whatever situation we find ourselves in: 
"Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God." (7:17-24, ESV)

A lot of people criticize Paul for this passage, saying that he approved slavery. This is not the case. He was just dealing with the facts of society as they were. He said that a slave should try to obtain his freedom if possible, but if that is not possible, do not try to rebel or run away, because that will only create more problems for the slave. The point Paul was making is that it is better to remain content, even with a poor lot in life, than to try to force a change that will only create more problems. God recognizes the dignity of all, even those whom the world does not dignify. Contentment in a bad situation brings more glory to God than fighting for earthly gain.

There is a long section here at the end of the chapter about people whom the ESV calls "betrothed." The King James renders it "virgins." I think betrothed fits the context better, because Paul says some very strange things otherwise. It is talking about women who are engaged or considering marriage.

This is really a long chapter, and I overslept. Sorry, but it's almost 7:30, and I have a lot to do.