Roles of Men and Women

Alright, I'm ready for it. Let's talk about last Sunday (8/26/07).

What are your thoughts about the roles of men and women (husbands and wives) in church? I'll post after a few go ahead. My sermon is available on the church site.

Specifically focusing on 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, but other texts are okay too.


Just Added!
I just read this interesting blog about the gender roles debate

WWJB ???

I Found This Cool Bumper Sticker?

Dean's Beans has this bumper sticker out to promote their fair trade organic coffee. At first, I just laughed about it. I'm not one to bicker about religious humor as long as it isn't sick humor (oxymoron?). Then it made me start to think... what would Jesus brew for real?!?

By all accounts, brewing the roasted fruit of coffea arabica began at least 1000 years ago, but probably not 2000 years ago. So Jesus more than likely did not brew anything. But the question remains: would He drink coffee today and if so, what brand?

What's the Point?!?!

You could read a lot into this bumper sticker. My read is that it is a push for their fair-trade coffee. Jesus could only enjoy a cup-o-joe if it wasnt made with the sweat and tears of slaves. The emperialist Tim says I wouldn't drink anything made from sweat and tears cuz it would be pretty salty. The Christ-like Tim says most of the coffee we drink IS made by oppressing the local farmers of the third world. We get upset when we hear Kathy Lee Gifford atrocities about little kids in Hondurna sweat shops. But we also don't audit the life stories and situations of the coffee farmers.


I'm not trying to be a bleeding-heart lib, nor am I trying to make Jesus out to be simply a 21st century ethics professor. Jesus taught the poor and downtrodden to be happy with their wage and to not get Him involved in sorting out their financial dealings with other people. He only made it a point to pay taxes when others made a fuss over it.


Should we be concerned with the source of what we put down "the hatch?" What would Jesus brew? Our coffee comes from Latin and South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, and some from Arabia. The farmers hardly break even on the transaction with the traders who act as middle men between the roaster (Folgers, Starbucks, and all the other brands) and the farmers. They can't argue with the traders who would just go to the next farm down the way. The trader wants to buy low and sell high. All-in-all we buy our $4 cafe lattes with chocolate drizzled ontop and the farmers see pennies for their work.


This brings us to Fair Trade coffee (and other products are moving this way too). You pay more for the coffee so that the farmer can actually move up the economic ladder or at least keep their heads above the water. According to Dean's Zine, Fair Trade farmers make three times what they would have otherwise made. Would Jesus insist on only drinking Fair Trade coffee? Or would He turn a blind eye to the subjugation of hard working (South) Americans?


At the end of the day, the sticker is less funny than I first thought...

Sinful vs. Foolish

I want to ask a question that I have been thinking about for a long time and I haven't come to any conclusion on yet. Here goes: is there a difference between a sinful act and a foolish act? Is there a difference between a righteous act and a wise act? There are lots of applications to the answer. "A fool spends all that he has." Is it a sin to spend all that one has?

So, I'd love to hear your insight. Give me reasons why you answer the way you did. I will go through with my rationale in the comments section. Peace.

Greek for 9/2/07

This Week's Text

1 Corinthians 11:17-34

We will study this text together at Morning Worship on Sunday, September 2, 2007

Introductory Thoughts

Nothing terribly controversial in this passage, however it is so crucial to our walk with Christ to participate in the Lord's Supper in a proper way. We all know that there are varying views on what exactly "happens" at communion. We are inwardly pursuaded of our own view. Perhaps the question we can talk about is "why are there varying views?" And now, the text:

The Text

Greek		Translation
17 τουτο δε παραγγελλων ουκ επαινω οτι ουκ εις το κρεισσον αλλα εις το ησσον συνερχεσθε 18 πρωτον μεν γαρ συνερχομενων υμων εν εκκλησια ακουω σχισματα εν υμιν υπαρχειν και μερος τι πιστευω 19 δει γαρ και αιρεσεις εν υμιν ειναι ινα [και] οι δοκιμοι φανεροι γενωνται εν υμιν 20 συνερχομενων ουν υμων επι το αυτο ουκ εστιν κυριακον δειπνον φαγειν 21 εκαστος γαρ το ιδιον δειπνον προλαμβανει εν τω φαγειν και ος μεν πεινα ος δε μεθυει 22 μη γαρ οικιας ουκ εχετε εις το εσθιειν και πινειν η της εκκλησιας του θεου καταφρονειτε και καταισχυνετε τους μη εχοντας τι ειπω υμιν επαινεσω υμας εν τουτω ουκ επαινω 23 εγω γαρ παρελαβον απο του κυριου ο και παρεδωκα υμιν οτι ο κυριος ιησους εν τη νυκτι η παρεδιδετο ελαβεν αρτον 24 και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν 25 ωσαυτως και το ποτηριον μετα το δειπνησαι λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εστιν εν τω εμω αιματι τουτο ποιειτε οσακις εαν πινητε εις την εμην αναμνησιν 26 οσακις γαρ εαν εσθιητε τον αρτον τουτον και το ποτηριον πινητε τον θανατον του κυριου καταγγελλετε αχρις ου ελθη 27 ωστε ος αν εσθιη τον αρτον η πινη το ποτηριον του κυριου αναξιως ενοχος εσται του σωματος και του αιματος του κυριου 28 δοκιμαζετω δε ανθρωπος εαυτον και ουτως εκ του αρτου εσθιετω και εκ του ποτηριου πινετω 29 ο γαρ εσθιων και πινων κριμα εαυτω εσθιει και πινει μη διακρινων το σωμα 30 δια τουτο εν υμιν πολλοι ασθενεις και αρρωστοι και κοιμωνται ικανοι 31 ει δε εαυτους διεκρινομεν ουκ αν εκρινομεθα 32 κρινομενοι δε υπο του κυριου παιδευομεθα ινα μη συν τω κοσμω κατακριθωμεν 33 ωστε αδελφοι μου συνερχομενοι εις το φαγειν αλληλους εκδεχεσθε 34 ει τις πεινα εν οικω εσθιετω ινα μη εις κριμα συνερχησθε τα δε λοιπα ως αν ελθω διαταξομαι Read on BibleGateway Research on ZHubert		This is my project for Tuesday morning. I will post it asap. For now, read it in NASB by clicking the link below. Read on BibleGateway

An Invitation

There are four views on what happens at communion.

1. Transubstantiation: the prayer of communion actually turns the bread into Jesus' physical body and the wine into the physical blood of Jesus so that the participant eats Jesus.
2. Consubstantiation: the prayer of communion brings the spiritual presence of Christ to be with the bread and wine so that the participant eats the elements and receives the spirit of Jesus.
3. Memorial: the prayer of communion beseeches God to strengthen the union between Him and the participant so that the participant remembers the cross and commits anew.
4. Spiritual Nourishment: Jesus isnt the element nor is He with the element, but communion isnt just a history lesson either. This would be a step between Consubstantiation and Memorial in which the worthy participant does "feed upon Christ to their spiritual nourishment."

Which one are you and why?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Luke 16

The Question

Is the following passage a parable or a real event?

The Text

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' 25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' 27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Luke 16:19-31 (NIV)

Let's Talk... Topic... THE FIRES OF HELL!

Here we have the all-familiar story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. We all hopefully know the main point of the passage: there is no "It's a Wonderful Life ... there are back again" scenario. Once you go to hell, it's too late for regrets.

Here is my question. Is this a parable or an event. Did it really happen? The woman and the lost coin is a parable that could happen. That parable didn't need to happen in order for us to understand the lesson. What about Lazarus and the rich man? Are they real people that died or are they characters in a story about eternity?

In a parable all the events of the story are make-believe, only the moral of the story matters. In an event, everything happened exactly how it is told. Bryan Huie does a lot with this question in his article. So let's look at the specifics of the story and see if that is the way it is.

• All we know about the characters is one lived luzuriously and one lived in squallor. Is this the reason for eternal destination? (v19-21)



• Those in heaven and hell can talk to and see one another. (v23-24)



• In eternity, the wicked still prey on the righteous (v24)



• In hell, people care about their undead relatives and friends (v28)

I don't think any of these things are true, but Jesus also never says that this is a parable. In v1-9 He tells another story that is likely a parable and not an event. Both stories begin with "there was a rich man..."

SO, what do you think about all this? Which parts are real and which are just part of the story?

The Biology of Sin and the Incarnation of Jesus

Introduction

The Reformation of God's Church initiated by Martin Luther in 1518 and continued to this day began out of a desire to begin and end on God's Word, the Bible. We believe and put into practice only those things that are expressly taught in the Holy Scriptures. This has been and remains to be a clarion distinction between the Protestant Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. With that being said, I begin today's discussion of the biology of sin and the Incarnation of Jesus.

How Does One Become a Sinner?

This is a hugely important question and (as all hugely important questions always are) is answered in wildly divergent ways. For most of Catholic Church history and all of Reformed Church history, the answer is: we inherit a sinful nature at the time of our conception just as the saint, King David expressed in his Psalm of confession "Truly I was sinful since birth, sinful since the time my mother conceived me" (Ps 51:5). Paul echoes this in his Spirit inspired discussion of salvation: "you were dead in your trespasses and your sins,... but He made you alive together with Christ" (Eph 2:1, 5).

The question of who I inherit my sinful nature from is one very different. Is it mom? Is it dad? Is it something biological, or does God pronounce me thus insofar as I am a descendant of Adam, the sinner? And if it is something that I inherit apart from anything I have done, how does Christ not inherit it?

I always heard that we are imputed with it due to Adam's fall in the garden, but that imputation is inherited through the male parent and not the female. The only proof for the male and not the female was a logical one, since Christ did not inherit a sin nature. He had no human father, but He did have a human mother, so obviously the sin nature is inherited through dad and not mom. It always bugged me that even the learned theologians are careful to spell everything out Biblically, except for this one, they prove it logically.


I'm No Techno-Biologist, But I Am a Thinker

I don't have a firm grasp on the intricacies of cloning or genetics, but I do know the basics human genes. Normal, healthy humans have 46 chromosomes. 23 from dad, 23 from mom. At conception the sperm's 23 get into the egg which holds the other 23 and oh-la-la, we've got a human embryo. One of the male sperm's 23 chromosomes is either an X-shaped or a Y-shaped and this determines if the offspring is a boy or a girl. Girls are all X's and boys are all X's with one Y. That is where my bio-knowledge ends.

We've been hearing a lot about human cloning these days. I am not up to speed on my news, so I don't know how far scientists have taken us, nor if they even should be going as far as they could. But I hear something about taking the guts of a sperm and the guts of an egg and frappeing them and putting the mush into an empty egg, making a baby distinct from mom and dad. This is just human-controlled conception.

Well, what would happen if you took 23 from an egg and 23 from another egg and frappe-ed and put it in an empty egg. Different from mom and mom. Life... 46 chromosomes. No dad. Theology time: has this human embryo inherited a sinful nature. No father from whom to inherit the sinful nature. We could have a whole strain of human that are innocent. I don't know if we can do this yet or if we could ever possibly do this, but I bet there would be a whole segment of the population that would want to (i.e. lesbians). I am also of the conviction that our view of inherited sin is currently lacking and will be thoroughly lacking whenever science surpasses this threshold.


Why Jesus REALLY Had No Sin Nature

Let's go over what we know about Jesus' Natures.

1. Jesus was born from Mary
2. Mary was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18)
3. The conception was caused by "the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (Lk 1:35).
4. She remained a virgin until after He was born (Mt 1:25).
5. His Father was God in a different way than God is our Father (Jn 8:41-47, Rom 8:14-17).
6. He was in the beginning with God and He is God. (Jn 1:1)

Does any of this add up to Jesus Christ being a biological descendant of Mary? The Bible is not a science book and it never claims to be. God desires us to accept the virgin birth of Jesus Christ on faith. But nowhere in the Scriptures can we make the case that He was OR He wasn't the biological offspring of Mary. He was carried by and delivered by her. A modern parallel might be the image of a surrogate mother, who carries a baby during gestation for a couple who can not physically carry a baby to term. She raised Him and nurtured Him throughout His youth and she followed His ministry and was at His execution. She should be admired and imitated for her faith in something we treat very casually.


The Celestial Flesh of Jesus

Menno Simons picks up on the lack of foundation for a Jesus-Mary relation and further develops a view called the celestial flesh of Jesus. This celestial body view is just that, namely, Jesus physical body was created in heaven and implanted into the empty womb of Mary. There has no Divine Sperm that impregnated Mary's egg. There was no miracle which took any of Mary's genetic material, but rather a miracle which ex nihilo fashioned the embryo within her womb.

Menno has written:

"Our doctrine and belief is that this same Word, Wisdom, and First-born, as we have confessed, in due time descended from heaven, and that He became a true, mortal man subject to suffering and death by the power of the most High and His Holy Spirit, not of Mary but in Mary, above all human comprehension."

and elsewhere

"We confess and say, and that in accordance with the Lord's Word, that the Scripture exempts none from sin but Him that is free indeed, namely, Christ Jesus. . . whereby it is plainly shown that He is not of Mary's flesh."

Menno received this understanding from Melchoir Hoffman, another Anabaptist. Hoffman wrote in Truthful Witness that

"We have now heard enough that the whole seed of Adam, be it of man, woman, or virgin, is cursed and delivered to eternal death. Now if the body of Jesus Christ was also such flesh and of this seed. . . it follows that the redemption has not yet happened. For the seed of Adam belongs to Satan and is the property of the devil. Satan cannot be paid in his own coin."

Menno makes a lot out of the phrase, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven" in John 6:32-33. What is this bread? you ask. "This bread is my flesh" Jesus replies (v51). Simple logic. Bread from heaven... bread = flesh... therefore flesh is from heaven. It is interesting that they all knew exactly what Jesus meant, for they bicker amongst themselves: "At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven.' They said, 'Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven''?" (v41-42).

Admittedly, the Anabaptist reformers get a bad wrap for this element of their theology. It should be noted that not all Anabaptists, nor even all Mennonites embraced Menno's and Hoffman's view of Jesus' Incarnation. However, I personally tend to lean that way.

Is this anything inconsistent with BFC doctrine? No, we say only this about His Incarnation:

"He took on Himself man's nature, with all of its essential properties except sin: Being conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, He embodied two perfect and distinct natures in one person. He is truly God and truly man, the only mediator between God and man" (BFC AoF 4-1).

Back to the Biology of Sin

Since the fact of Jesus' biological relation to Mary is suspect, how can we put much weight on it in order to prove the mode in which we inherit sin from our parents?

My mom and dad are equally riddled with sin. Their bodies are equally wasting away (as is all creation) by the consequences of humanities wickedness. When they conceived me, they were participating equally in the creation and defilement of me. It really is chauvinist to have dad assume all the guilt, mom is just as responsible.


Conclusion

Really, what I guess my conclusion and challenge is: let's not ask questions the Bible doesn't ask. I know your heart because I know mine, we will ask those questions, so if we do: let's not answer questions the Bible doesn't answer. When we go beyond the Word, we become as guilty as we make the Catholics out to be, who stand on councils and tradtions as co-equal with the Word.

Church Makes Life Too Busy?

I love maintaining my church website! Before I got my calling to the ministry, I was going to go into computers. So I still have a passion for all things techy. All that to say, I am a veracious consumer of other church content on the web. I see what others are doing to get ideas for our site. When I read about all the activities other churches are doing and then I look at my church calendar, I think to myself: "we aren't really doing very much." It bums me out that we could be doing more for the Lord and we aren't.

But I came across this statement from the President of my grad school in one of his missional journals. David Dunbar says "Over-programmed churches have turned their best people into the Christian equivalent of stressed-out soccer moms." You know the old analogy of the chicken running around with it's head cut off. I'm not so sure Jesus had it in His mind to keep us so busy at church that we wouldn't live in and among hell-bound sinners in need of the same grace God gave to us.

Hmm. So I asked my wife about. She says that she feels that way from time to time when she is juggling house work, kids, and church ministry. It's my job, so I never really feel that way.

But I wonder how you feel. Do you ever feel that church functions and ministry bog you down rather than lift you up? I think if we could do less at church it would free us to BE the church to our lost neighbors. Weigh in, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

God's Presence with Us - Exodus 32-34

God of Grace when We are Wicked
Last Sunday night, we talked about the God of grace, in our series, What God Is Like. We began our study looking at a conversation God had with Moses. It happens right after the people of Israel worship the golden calf at Mount Sinai. God set them free from slavery in Egypt, parted the Red Sea so that they could escape the Egyptian army, fed them and gave them water to drink in the middle of the desert, and their reaction is: "God has left us and killed Moses (neither is true) so let's make our own god that can lead us to the Promised Land."


A Divine Conversation
That is when God begins saying many new things to Moses. Reading from Exodus 32:34 "But go now, lead the people where I told you. Behold, My angel shall go before you." Whereas He used to say "I will lead you to a good land" now He says "you lead them" and "I'll send an angel to guide you there." Later He says in chapter 33, "if I would go up in your midst for one moment, I would destroy you" (v5). We begin to think that God is giving up on these people. Have you ever invested tons of time into a project and in the end, realize that it isn't going to pan out like you thought it would. Maybe a relationship that you dumped a lot of time and energy into and the two of you just couldn't fit well together. These things are common in our lives, but it seems to us that the Lord would be different. In our minds, God never starts something He can't finish and He never met a person He couldn't befriend. Now we read this passage in a careful way and the idea begins to enter our minds: "is God really that different than us?" "Is He bound to the same limitations in relationship that we are?" He concludes in 33:5 "let Me see what I am going to do with you." It is almost as if He needs to think about it for a while.


Your Presence with Us
So Moses, in his conversation with God, says "See, You say to me, ‘Bring up this people!’ But You Yourself have not let me know whom You will send with me" (Ex 33:12). Then he says "If Your presence does not go with us, do not lead us up from here. Is it not by Your going with us, so that we, I and Your people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?" (Ex 33:15-16). Moses wants to know how he is supposed to plug away. How could he do this huge task without God being with him.


Time for Honesty
Two things: 1) I can't do this life without God reigning in my heart and impulses and 2) every chance I get, I try to run my own life on my own terms. I have tried to make the best out of my life and screwed it up horribly. That is the whole point of salvation. We don't really need to convince people of their sin, everyone knows we are desperately needy. But now that God woke me up, cleaned me up, set me on His pathway, and guides me toward godliness: why am I so hungry to start making my own choices and not seek His choices for me? Do I think on the inside that salvation is just a way of starting over again? He fixed me and now says, "try again?" I know Biblically that that view is wrong, I know from this and every other passage in the Bible that we can't do it on our own. In my favorite cartoon show, Strong Bad created this one-legged dog character called Lil' Brudder who's catch-line is "I can do it on my own."


The Friend of God
Moses truly is the friend of God. Me, not so much. He is the first to say "if You don't go, I'm not going." We would tend to say, "thanks for not wiping us out, if You are going to bring us in with Your angel, could we, like, get a piggy-back ride, our feet are sore." We tend to think God's blessings are good enough. I don't need God's presence, all I need is His blessings. The fact is: the deeper into friendship with Him we go, the quicker our heart is to want Him. Thank God that I am not bound to remain in this state of mind. He will change my heart to want Him more than His blessings. A relationship with God is a lot like any human friendship. God has frequently portrayed His relationship with His people as a marriage relationship. Read Hosea or Ephesians 5:22-33 to see this illustration in action. So when I was first dating the woman that would later become my wife, I really liked kissing, I really liked being a boyfriend, "attached" and not "single." These are fringe benefits of the relationship, they are not the be-all of a dating relationship. Now that I am married, I see (and see more each day) that knowing this one person so closely and being one with that one person is FAR more valuable to me than the fringe benefits of the relationship.


A Closing Prayer
"LORD! Teach my heart to want You and nothing else. I don't want heaven, or mansions over the hilltop, or a Promised Land, or to be healthy wealthy and wise, or an inspiring church, or a good pastor-teacher, or manna or quail. I don't want the things that You provide, the things that surround You, the things from You. I Want You and Your presence."

Recent Study - Liberty

What is Christian Liberty?

At church over the last few weeks, we've been talking about Christian Liberty. Essentially, this point is: do whatever you want as long as God is cool with it. Too many unbelievers stay that way because they see Christians saying NO to everything. The fact of the matter is that there are very few "rules" for Christians and all of them are summed up in the chief rule, the law of Christ, "love God and love others like you love yourself."


So, Specifically, I Can...

So what can we do? Can we drink, smoke, play cards, dance, picnic, go to movies (even movies where people kiss), date, go to public school, work on Sunday? These are all things that Christians have for many generations in America have said NO to. Recently however, Christians, at least the BFC, have changed our mind on many of these things. Many of them used to be labeled "especially pernicious to youth." Which I never knew what that meant and as an ordained pastor, I still don't think I know what it means so thankfully we are no longer making that kind of statement.

Dan Kimball has a interesting article on the alcohol and junk food. Essentially he makes a good point, why are Christians cool with overeating but not drinking in moderation? The Bible is all about moderation. Even the qualification for ELDERS, "he must not be addicted to wine" (1 Tim 3:3). I love what he says about causing others to stumble

"When I often hear Christians say they don't drink in public because it may cause someone to stumble, and I ask them who is the 'some' that they mean. It always turns out to be they worry about Christians who would judge them for drinking, not someone actually struggling with alcohol and would 'stumble'. That seems to be unfair to the biblical text quoted and is then more about the fear of Christians than the original meaning of that verse. That's why its important to study the Scriptures on this issue."

That is so huge. We evangelicals really are a bunch of jerks at times. We spend so much time with each other that we really don't know anyone that would really stumble if they saw us drinking. So we've changed the meaning of Paul's statement to something other than what it meant... so "don't cause your brother to stumble" becomes "don't cause your brother to gossip about you." IF we really are free to drink, Biblically. And IF a brother in Christ sees us drinking. And IF he decides to tell someone (gossip). Why am I judged by someone else's conscience? I haven't done anything wrong. THe Bible permits me to use (not abuse) alcohol.


An Assignment

So here is a daunting, yet inspiring project. Go through the New Testament (Matthew -> Revelation) and write down all of the commands. It would be good to write the command and the reference. If you find a duplicate command, write the command once and include both references after it.

Why not the Old Testament? Aren't we bound to follow ALL of God's counsel? I'm lazy and don't even want to get into it now. Just do the assignment and like it! (Hopefully you hear the sarcasm here.) Seriously, it is a huge answer that Christians have been back and forth on forever. The answer is much larger than the scope of this post so I'll get to it later this week.


Listen Up Addicts

Now, in closing I need to make this statement since I am responsible for the outcome of souls: if you are an addict to something, God isnt cool with you even dabbling in your liberty. You aren't free to enjoy what others can. You have a track record of not enjoying that thing, but rather a track record of being controlled by that thing. So don't go away from this post thinking you could get back into some kind of moderate usage. Maybe after a lot of one-on-one counseling with a bonafide professional therapist or pastor, but even then I think your life would be fuller without that thing in your life at all.

Greek for 8/26/07

This Week's Text

1 Corinthians 11:1-16

We will study this text together at Morning Worship on Sunday, August 26, 2007

Introductory Thoughts

Some interesting things to say about men and women... more accurately: husbands and their own wives. Don't get caught up in the external manifestation of headship and submission. Wrestle with the heart of the issue. A woman that wear head coverings could have no respect for her husband. A woman that does not wear one could have immense respect for her husband. So before we obey or discard Scripture based on a behavior, wrestle with the heart of the matter. In our present culture, a respectful wife is ten times more noticeable than a covered wife. That being said, I'm cool with a woman if she chooses to OR if chooses not to wear a head covering. Let's be completely honest here: women have stopped respecting their husbands and men have stopped being respectable. And now, the text:

The Text

Greek		Translation
1 μιμηται μου γινεσθε καθως καγω χριστου 2 επαινω δε υμας οτι παντα μου μεμνησθε και καθως παρεδωκα υμιν τας παραδοσεις κατεχετε 3 θελω δε υμας ειδεναι οτι παντος ανδρος η κεφαλη ο χριστος εστιν κεφαλη δε γυναικος ο ανηρ κεφαλη δε του χριστου ο θεος 4 πας ανηρ προσευχομενος η προφητευων κατα κεφαλης εχων καταισχυνει την κεφαλην αυτου 5 πασα δε γυνη προσευχομενη η προφητευουσα ακατακαλυπτω τη κεφαλη καταισχυνει την κεφαλην αυτης εν γαρ εστιν και το αυτο τη εξυρημενη 6 ει γαρ ου κατακαλυπτεται γυνη και κειρασθω ει δε αισχρον γυναικι το κειρασθαι η ξυρασθαι κατακαλυπτεσθω 7 ανηρ μεν γαρ ουκ οφειλει κατακαλυπτεσθαι την κεφαλην εικων και δοξα θεου υπαρχων η γυνη δε δοξα ανδρος εστιν 8 ου γαρ εστιν ανηρ εκ γυναικος αλλα γυνη εξ ανδρος 9 και γαρ ουκ εκτισθη ανηρ δια την γυναικα αλλα γυνη δια τον ανδρα 10 δια τουτο οφειλει η γυνη εξουσιαν εχειν επι της κεφαλης δια τους αγγελους 11 πλην ουτε γυνη χωρις ανδρος ουτε ανηρ χωρις γυναικος εν κυριω 12 ωσπερ γαρ η γυνη εκ του ανδρος ουτως και ο ανηρ δια της γυναικος τα δε παντα εκ του θεου 13 εν υμιν αυτοις κρινατε πρεπον εστιν γυναικα ακατακαλυπτον τω θεω προσευχεσθαι 14 ουδε η φυσις αυτη διδασκει υμας οτι ανηρ μεν εαν κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν 15 γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν οτι η κομη αντι περιβολαιου δεδοται αυτη 16 ει δε τις δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι ημεις τοιαυτην συνηθειαν ουκ εχομεν ουδε αι εκκλησιαι του θεου. Read on BibleGateway Research on ZHubert		1 Become an imitator of me just as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you all that you all remember me also, since I commend you all, you hold fast to the traditions. 3 But I wish you all to know that Christ is the head of all men, so the man is the head of the woman, so God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man while praying or prophesying having down from a head dishonors his head. 5 and every woman while praying or prophesying [with] an uncovered head dishonors her head. For in the same way also is the one having been shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, also she should shave herself. But if it is dishonorable to shave or shear a woman, she should be covered. 7 For a man on the contrary is not bound to cover the head being a representation and a glory of God. But a woman is a glory of man. 8 For man is not from a woman but a woman from a man. 9 For also man was not made through the woman, but a woman through the man. 10 Because of this a woman is bound to have an authority upon the head because of the angels. 11 However, neither a woman [is] apart from a man nor [is] an man apart from a woman in the Lord. 12 For just as a woman is from the man so also the man is through the woman. But all are from God. 13 In these things you all judge. Is it proper for a woman to be uncovered while praying to God? 14 Does not even nature itself teach us that, on one side, if a man should have hair it is a dishonor to him? 15 And on the other, if a woman should have hair it is a glory to her? Since hair has been given to her as a covering. 16 But if a certain one thinks to be contentious, we have no other custom, nor the churches of God. Read on BibleGateway

An Invitation

You would be shocked to know how many people at my church have asked me or my wife: "what is Tim going to say when you get to this section?" Well before I say anything, what do you think about men, women, head coverings, and headship?