Corinthians 11
Outline:
I. \\#1:1-4:21\\ In Answer to Chloe’s Report
II. \\#5:1-6:20\\ In Answer to Common Reports
III. \\#7:1-16:4\\ In Answer to the Church’s Requests
A. \\#7:1-40\\ Counsel Concerning Marriage
1. \\#7:1-9\\ Principles for Married Life
2. \\#7:10-16\\ Principles for the Married Believer
a. \\#10-11\\ Saved to the Saved
b. \\#12-16\\ Saved to the Unsaved
3. \\#7:17-24\\ Principle of Abiding in God’s Call
4. \\#7:25-38\\ Principles for the Unmarried
5. \\#7:39, 40\\ Principles for Remarriage
B. \\#8:1-10:33\\ Meat Offered to Idols
1. \\#8:1-3\\ The Most Important Thing
2. \\#8:4-13\\ Our Actions Should Not Hurt Another
3. \\#9:1-27\\ Keeping Our Rights Should Not Be Our Goal
a. \\#1-14\\ Paul Had Surrendered His Rights
b. \\#15-18\\ Paul’s Point - Voluntary Sacrifice Brings A
Reward
c. \\#19-23\\ Paul’s Reasoning - For the Gospel
d. \\#24-27\\ Paul’s Challenge - It’s the Race That Counts
4. \\#10:1-11:1\\ Eating Meat Offered to Idols Is Idolatry
a. \\#10:1-5\\ All Who Were Blessed Did Not Benefit
b. \\#10:6-14\\ All Who Have Been Taught Did Not Learn
c. \\#10:15-11:1\\ All Who Have Been Warning Have Not
Heeded
C. \\#11:2-16\\ God’s Authority
1. \\#2-3\\ God’s Authority over Others
2. \\#4-6\\ God’s Authority Displayed
3. \\#7-16\\ God’s Authority Explained
D. \\#11:17-34\\ Abuse with the Lord’s Supper
1. \\#17-19\\ Divisions
2. \\#20-34\\ The Lord’s Supper
a. \\#20-22\\ What the Lord’s Supper Is Not
b. \\#23-34\\ What the Lord’s Supper Is
(1) \\#23-26\\ The Lord’s Supper was received of the
Lord.
(2) \\#27,29-30\\ The Lord’s Supper is an offense to
those who show contempt for it.
(3) \\#28,30-34\\So what should the Christian do?
Rules for Gray Areas (from Chapters 8-10):
1. If it causes anyone to stumble, don’t do it.
2. If you don’t know it is right, don’t do it.
3. If it smudges the glory of God, don’t do it.
As I began the last section pointing out the relevance of that
section, so I feel I must do with this one.
Question - Is our Bible a culture-dictated Book? By that I mean, are
the commands of right and wrong based on culture?
That is a loaded question. Obviously, large parts of the Old
Testament were directed to create a Jewish nation, a Jewish religion,
the Jewish law, and a Jewish culture. One cannot and should not deny
that.
But are all of the Old Testament commands cultural, and what about
the New Testament commands? Are any of them culture related\
commands, that is commands we should not keep on the basis that the
Bible was written to archaic cultures, 2 to 4,000 years old? My
answer is—-and I know it’s your answer as well-—NO. If time and
culture nullifies the commands of God, then we have no commands to
keep at all, for the thousands of years and thousands of miles
between us and the Bible being given would nullify them all.
Then, how do we determine what God intends us to keep in all
generations from what He intended only for the Jews?
I. The only culture that God gave cultural commands to was the
Jewish culture and the only place God gave Jewish cultural
commands was in the Old Testament.
A. We see that in at least two New Testament texts:
1. \\#1Cor 9:19-21\\
1Cor 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet
have I made myself servant unto all, that I might
gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I
might gain the Jews; to them that are under the
law, as under the law, that I might gain them
that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law,
(being not without law to God, but under the law
to Christ,) that I might gain them that are
without law.
a. In this section, Paul was describing how he became all
things to all men that he might win some.
(1) His point was that he sacrificed his rights and
himself for the sake of the gospel.
(2) Remember, he was trying to help those who
insisted on their right to eat meat offered to
idols that they should gladly surrender their
rights for the sake of the gospel.
b. Paul used as one example, his Jewish heritage.
(1) As a Jew, Paul was raised under the Old Testament
law.
(2) As a Christian, Paul was no longer bound by that
Law.
(3) He PREACHED and TAUGHT that to the Jews and
Gentiles alike, and was hated of the Jews for
it.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by
the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus
Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by
the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
18 For if I build again the things which I
destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law,
that I might live unto God.
(4) Yet, when he was with the Jews, he would BEHAVE
and ACT as a Jew so he could get close enough to
the Jews to win them.
(5) But when he was with the Gentiles, he would
BEHAVE and ACT as a Gentile so he could get
close enough to the Gentiles to win them.
(a) I am sure that certain Jewish traditions,
Paul always kept, but he sacrificed enough
of himself that he could mingle with and
witness to the Jews.
(b) I have heard some criticize Paul for what
they deem a "double" standard; but I do not
believe he set a double standard.
(c) He, just like you and I, was free from the
Law so he could live according to it when
it suited him and dismiss it when it did
not—the same as you and I.
c. \\#21\\ Paul’s phrase to describe behaving like the
Gentiles was that he lived "without law."
d. In that verse, Paul mentioned three relationships to
God’s Law.
(1) Being "without the Law" meant that Paul
sacrificed some of his Jewish culture,
traditions, and religious laws for the sake or
reaching others.
(a) For example, it was against the Jewish
religion to even go into the house of a
Gentile.
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them (Cornelius), Ye
know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man
that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of
another nation; but God hath shewed me that I
should not call any man common or unclean.
i. That command is not actually in the
Law, but it is what the Jews
practiced to keep from breaking
commands that were in it.
ii. Yet Paul often did just that:
Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a
seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which
worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord
opened, that she attended unto the things which
were spoken of Paul.
15 And when she was baptized, and her household,
she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to
be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and
abide there. And she constrained us.
Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his
house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced,
believing in God with all his house.
(b) Neither did Paul keep all of the Holy Days
required to be kept in Jerusalem, although
he did keep them when he could:
Ac 20:16 For Paul had determined to sail by
Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in
Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him,
to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
(c) Nor did Paul offer the sin sacrifices,
although he was arrested in the temple
practicing the Jewish rites of
sanctification for making a vow when he was
arrested by the Jews and sent to Rome.
Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next
day purifying himself with them entered into the
temple, to signify the accomplishment of the
days of purification, until that an offering
should be offered for every one of them.
(d) In addition, Paul did preached against
keeping the law, especially circumcision
and so refused to circumcise Titus:
Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up
again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus
with me also.
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
(e) But he did have Timothy to be circumcised.
Acts 16:3 Him (Timothy) would Paul have to go
forth with him; and took and circumcised him
because of the Jews which were in those quarters:
for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
(2) However in the same verse and sentence, Paul
wanted his readers to know that he was "not
without the Law to God…."
(a) By that, Paul meant that he did not break
God’s moral laws.
(b) He did not and would not commit adultery,
kill, steal, blaspheme and so forth.
(c) These moral laws of God were and are not
based on culture, but are the commands of
God to the world.
(d) They are imposed upon every person in every
time on every inch of the globe.
(3) Paul mentioned yet one more law that he was under,
"the law to Christ."
1Cor 9:21 …but under the law to Christ)…
(a) The Law of Christ are New Testaments
commands given by Jesus or through the Holy
Ghost to New Testament believers.
Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them
of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever
shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry
with his brother without a cause shall be in
danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say
to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the
council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool,
shall be in danger of hell fire.
(b) The main goal of most of these commands was
not to do away with the Old Testament laws
of morality and personal responsibility but
to strengthen and increase them.
(c) One of the Laws of Christ was to go into
every country to tell every soul about
Jesus.
Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them,
saying, All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
Amen.
(d) It was to fulfill that law of Christ that
Paul became all things to all people.
2. \\#Col 2:16-22\\
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat,
or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of
the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the
body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a
voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,
intruding into those things which he hath not
seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the
body by joints and bands having nourishment
ministered, and knit together, increaseth with
the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the
rudiments of the world, why, as though living in
the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;)
after the commandments and doctrines of men?
a. \\#Col 2:16\\ Paul clearly stated that we are not
bound to keep the Holy Days such as the new moon or
Sabbath or the meat and drink laws.
(1) \\#17\\ He testified that these were just
shadows, images, pictures of Christ and of what
Christ came to do.
(2) \\#18\\ That to attempt to maintain them is to be
"beguiled."
(3) \\#20-22\\ And since we are dead in Christ, we
are not bound by these rules of the flesh.
b. Filtering out these kinds of commands will eliminate
most of the Old Testament cultural commands of the
Bible.
B. What about New Testament cultural commands? Are there any
commands given in our New Testament to the church that we are
not obey because they are cultural?
1. I do not know of any.
2. All New Testament books were written after the
resurrection and except for the gospels, they cover time
periods after the resurrection.
3. Although the writers of the New Testament may have been
Jewish, their audiences were primarily if not entirely
Gentile.
4. If any commands of God written to Gentile churches are
made null because of the years and distance separating us
from them, then all of them should be; and we would have
not instructions at all.
C. Summary:
1. There are laws in the Old Testament that are cultural,
written to the Jews only for them to keep.
2. All of the rest of the commands are moral laws, laws that
deal with right and wrongs, which are commanded for all
people in all times and in all places to keep.
3. We can distinguish the cultural laws from the moral
commands of God filtering out Old Testament commands that
deal with sacrifices, holy days, diets, and Jewish
rituals.
4. I know of no other reasons to dismiss any command or
teaching of the New Testament.
II. \\#11:2-16\\ God’s Authority
1Cor 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also
am of Christ.
A. \\#1\\ "followers of me" - I think it is likely that this
verse goes with the thoughts of the last chapter as Paul was
then using himself as an example to the Corinthians.
1. However, it is always good to have some human examples of
the life of Christ so that we can physically see faith
lived out in everyday life.
2. That is one of the many purposes of the church.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember
me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I
delivered them to you.
B. \\#2\\ Paul praised the Corinthians for following at least
some of the "ordinances" he had "delivered them."
1. Some he had delivered while there.
2. Some he had delivered via epistle and messengers to them.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of
every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is
the man; and the head of Christ is God.
C. \\#3\\ God’s Authority over Others
1. "But I would have you know"
a. "But" is a contrasting conjunction here, indicating
that while Paul had taught them much and while they
had learned much, there was still truth to be taught
and truth to be learned.
b. Whether the truth Paul was about to teach was
something he had not taught them or whether it was a
truth they had not yet obeyed, Paul did not
specifically say.
2. "Paul had probably taught these truths before. Most
likely, the Corinthians had just not listened.
a. "the head of every man is Christ"
b. "the head of every woman is the man"
c. "the head of Christ is God"
3. First, none of these were literally laws given in the Old
Testament.
a. The first and third relate to Christ, but—to my
knowledge—there were NO OLD TESTAMENT LAWS given
concerning Christ. He was promised; but He had not
come, and I don’t know of any commandments given
concerning Him.
b. I don’t know of an Old Testament law that actually
commanded the men to rule over their wives or wives
to obey their husbands.
(1) I would say it was implied in several of the
Old Testament Bible passages—as well as in the
culture of the Middle East.
(2) But I do not know any COMMAND given that made
it a Bible law.
c. If a teaching of the New Testament was not given in
the Old Testament, how can it be dismissed as being
an Old-Testament cultural command?
(1) It seems like any New Testament command of that
sort would have to be considered a New
Testament command to the church and could not
fall under the category of Jewish culture.
(2) And I know of no reason to dismiss any New
Testament command or teaching due to it being a
cultural command.
4. Now can examine these to see if we can find a reason to
suppose they are cultural commands.
a. Was Paul speaking to or about Jews? No. To
Gentiles.
b. Was Paul using any part of Jewish religion in any way
(images, traditions, rituals, dietary laws, holy
days) to make a point to the Gentiles?
(1) No.
(2) He has not mentioned any Old Testament event or
illustration since \\#1Cor 10:19\\.
c. Is there any culture teaching in this text—except
for the command or teaching itself—that might make
us think Paul was responding to a cultural issue of
that time?
(1) No.
(2) In this section, Paul was teaching the church
what the church needed to know to be obedient
and respectful to God.
(3) So in the church age, as in every other age:
(a) the head of every man is Christ.
(b) the head of every woman is the man.
(c) the head of Christ is God.
5. What do these truths mean? I am going to start with the
third one first because I believe Paul put the third one
into the list to set the tone for the other two.
a. God the Father is the head of Jesus Christ.
(1) God the Father is not the Dictator over God the
Son.
(2) God the Father does use His power to abuse the
Son, but He loves and leads to Son so that the
will of the Godhead might be accomplished.
(3) It is Son’s chosen will to submit to the Father.
b. Jesus Christ is Head (Lord and Master) over every man.
(1) Jesus IS Lord and Master of every soul on this
earth, but He DOES NOT ACT AS DICTATOR TO ANY.
(2) Jesus does not abuse His own, but He loves,
leads, and protects them.
(3) It is man’s duty and obligation to submit to His
Lord.
c. The father of a daughter or the husband of the wife is
head of the women in his care.
(1) Neither fathers nor husbands are dictators over
those in their care.
(2) They do not to abuse them but love, lead, and
protect them.
(3) It is the woman’s duty and obligation to submit
to her father or husband.
6. If any person wants to dismiss any of these as being
cultural, that is up to you; but THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL
REASON FOR DOING SO.
a. While neither the Father not the Son are dictators
concerning obedience to them today, they will be
Dictators and Judges over mankind one days soon.
b. Do what you will, but understand there will be a
judgment.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his
head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth
with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:
for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also
be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be
shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
D. \\#11:4-6\\ God’s Authority Displayed
1. Paul taught there is a way we are to display respect for
the authority that God has set up, the authority that he
described in \\#3\\.
a. Men should show they are under God’s authority by not
his head covered when he prays or prophesies.
b. Women should show they are under Man’s authority by
always praying and prophesying with their heads
covered.
c. If a woman is going to pray with her head uncovered,
she might as well cut it all off, either cutting it
short (shorn) or shaving it all off.
2. Note first, Paul did not say why these things were true.
a. Paul simply said it was right.
b. Of course, Paul was speaking under the inspiration of
the Holy Ghost and so I would say his Authority was
God himself.
c. However in \\#1Cor 11:14\\, Paul will say that "even
nature" teaches us that "if a man have long hair, it
is a shame unto him…."
(1) The Greek word for nature is used 11 times in the
New Testament.
(2) Most of the time it is translated "nature," and
means the created world around us.
(3) Hear Paul probably meant that this practice can
be seen in all the cultures of the world; and,
perhaps then it was.
(a) Men had short hair.
(b) Women had long hair.
(c) That is just the way it is.
3. This is going to raise several questions:
a. Are women allowed to pray and to prophesy?
(1) Yes, they are; but they are not to preach, to
teach, or to exercise authority over men.
(2) I don’t know that it is even wrong for women to
pray in the company of men; but the Bible
specifically says it is wrong for them to lead
or exercise authority over men, which would have
to be the case if a woman was pastoring or even
preaching.
1Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with
all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to
usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman
being deceived was in the transgression.
(3) Yet, they pray and prophesy in the company of
women and children; but to show they are under
the authority of their husbands and fathers,
they should have their heads covered.
b. Are women to have their heads covered today or was
this Bible passage a cultural command, only valid for
Paul’s day or to those to whom Paul wrote?
(1) Let’s examine the passage to see:
(a) Was Paul speaking to or about Jews? No. He
was still speaking to Corinthians,
Gentiles.
(b) Was Paul using any part of Jewish religion
in any way (images, traditions, rituals,
dietary laws, holy days) to make a point to
the Gentiles? No.
(c) Is there any culture teaching in this text—
except for the command or teaching itself—
that might make us think Paul was
responding to a cultural issue of that
time? No.
(2) So should women today, out of respect for their
fathers and husbands, pray and teach the Word
(to children and other ladies) with their heads
covered?
(a) Well?
(b) I see no reason at all to even attempt to
dismiss what Paul said.
c. Paul went on to say that if a women prays or
prophesies with their heads uncovered, it is as bad
as if their heads were shaved.
(1) That means it is wrong for women to shave their
heads.
(2) Of course, this is not talking about cutting your
hair off during cancer treatments.
(3) But the act of a woman shaving her head is,
according to Paul and God, an act of rebellion
against God and His authority.
4. So Paul listed three acts of visible rebellion to God’s
rebellion in this section, all related to our heads.
a. A man who prays, teaches, or preaches with his head
covered is rebelling against God.
b. A woman who prays, teaches, or preaches with her head
covered is rebelling against God.
c. A woman who shaves her head is rebelling against God.
5. Are any of these cultural commands that Christians can
dismiss? Not that I can see from a Biblical prospective.
E. \\#7-16\\ God’s Authority Explained
1. Why is this so?
a. I cannot say that I understand all of this.
b. I can say that I do not have to understand it to see
what the Bible is telling us to do.
2. Reasons for covering and not covering our heads are given:
a. Because man was created in God’s image and woman was
created in man’s image.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:
but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman
of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but
the woman for the man.
(1) God created Adam from scratch, but He took a rib
from man to create the woman.
(2) God created the Eve for Adam not the other way
around.
(a) These do not mean that the woman is
inferior.
(b) Both the woman and man are the created
beings of God.
(c) But the purpose for creating two genders and
the order in which they were created do mean
they are DIFFERENT and expects us to show
that difference VISIBLY,
(3) It also means that when we are in the church,,
the man and the woman have a means of silently
glorifying God.
(a) The man can do so by NOT covering his head.
(b) The woman can do so by COVERING her head.
b. For the sake of the angels.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power
on her head because of the angels.
(1) The word "power" means authority, control.
(a) This is the same word Paul used in chapter
9 when he spoke of the rights he had given
up for Christ.
i. Some add to the phrase to make it mean,
“the woman should have a symbol of
authority on her head,” but that does
not clarify the meaning.
ii. If Paul had wanted the verse to say
that, it seems like the word he would
have used would be "submission;" as
in, "the woman should have the symbol
of submission on her head."
(b) It seems better that Paul was not advocating
the woman surrender control of her head and
its covering to anyone else, but that SHE
USE IT.
(c) It gives the impression that this is not a
decision for the husband or father to make.
i. It is her head.
ii. It is her decision to cover it or not.
(2) But regardless of what Paul meant, the reason for
wearing the covering seems to be for the sake of
the angels.
(God revealed to the prophets truths about Christ but they did not
see Christ…)
1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto
themselves, but unto us they did minister the
things, which are now reported unto you by them
that have preached the gospel unto you with the
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things
the angels desire to look into.
(a) Apparently, angels do not understand all the
freedom that comes with being a free-willed
creation.
(b) While it appears every angel had and made a
decisions to follow the devil or God, I am
not sure they ever had the ability to choose
that we do.
(c) For that reason, it seems they do not
understand man’s constant and persistent
decision to behave in ways that are
rebellious or dishonoring toward God.
(d) To the angels, this issue of a woman covering
her head while in worship—and perhaps in
more areas than that—is a no brainer!
(e) So Paul said that for their sake, men should
not cover their heads in worship and women
should.
c. \\#13-15\\ Because even the world around us teaches us
to do so.
(1) Here is where we see how much our world has
changed in recent years.
(a) Paul told the Corinthians to just look
around and then use their own judgment in
this matter.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a
woman pray unto God uncovered?
i. When you look around, it is proper for
a woman to pray with her head
uncovered?
ii. This was intended to be a rhetorical
question, but the world has changed
so much in the last 50 to 75 years,
our generation can no longer see the
answer Paul expected us to see.
iii. That is not to say that woman have
always covered their heads and men
never have, but it does mean that the
answer Paul expected was, "Godly
women do not pray, preach, or worship
with their heads uncovered.
(b) Paul also told them that “nature” teaches us
this as well.
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that,
if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory
to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
i. \\#15\\ Note that a woman does not
have to purchase an artificial
covering such as a hat for her
covering.
(aa) Her hair is a natural, God-
given covering.
(bb) If long hair for a lady is a
covering, then long hair on a
man is also a covering—and men
are not supposed to cover their
heads.
ii. The Greek word for “nature” is used
11 times in the New Testament.
(aa) It means of a certain kind, such
as the nature of angels, of
Jews, of men, and of women.
(bb) So Paul likely meant that if we
looked around, men have their
heads uncovered and women have
theirs covered.
iii. For those around in 1960s-70s, we
remember the furor that was raised as
the long hair on men swept through the
world.
iv. Extremely short hair on women never
caused the public outcry that long
hair on men caused, probably because
the long-hair movement proved that
people weren’t interested in doing
what pleased God.
(2) Regardless of what the church today thinks, Paul
clearly stated three things.
(a) For a woman to pray or preach without a
covering is wrong.
(b) For a man to pray or preach with a covering
is wrong.
(c) For a woman to shave her head is wrong.
3. If these things are NOT outdated for us because they were
cultural, then we are still bound by them.
a. So let’s ask ourselves those questions we asked about
men being the head of the woman to see if it could be
cultural?
(1) Was Paul speaking to or about Jews? No. To
Gentiles.
(2) Was Paul using any part of Jewish religion in any
way (images, traditions, rituals, dietary laws,
holy days) to make a point to the Gentiles? No.
(3) Is there any culture teaching in this text—-
except for the command or teaching itself—-that
might make us think Paul was responding to a
cultural issue of that time? No.
b. Then why do we not teach this in our churches?
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we
have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
(1) Most probably a bunch of someones was contentious.
(2) Since there is no law in the churches of God, the
preachers quit preaching about it, and the
people forgot it; but did God change His mind
about it?
(3) I don’t think so.
III. Another Issue of Like Contention - Men and women dressing alike:
Duet 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which
pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put
on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are
abomination unto the LORD thy God.
A. There is no doubt that this is in the middle of a Jewish Bible
passage; but before you dismiss it right out, notice two
things:
1. If I came in wearing a dress, hose, and high heels, would
you think it wrong?
a. Probably. Why?
b. Two reasons:
(1) Such dress is still considered homosexual
dressing—and that is one thing I am grateful to
the homosexuals for causing.
(a) God did not just say that a women is not to
wear man’s clothes.
(b) He also said a man is not to wear woman’s
cloths.
(c) So neither sex is supposed to wear what the
other sex is wearing.
(d) That is commonly called "cross dressing."
(e) In our world today, about the only things
left in a man’s wardrobe that if a woman
wore it MIGHT spark a little indignity are
a suit and a pair of Bibb overalls.
(2) It has not caught on in our as acceptable dress
yet.
(a) Joe Namath, renowned football quarterback
for Bear Bryant before moving on to the New
York Jets, either shocked or amused the
world by posing in a picture wearing panty
hose in 1973. That did not do it because
men wearing women’s clothing was acceptable
dress. He did it because it was not, and
made a lot of money for doing so.
(b) Yet, had our society accepted it, men would
be—and to some degree are, wearing ladies’
clothing in masses.
2. Notice also, God did not say don’t wear the other’s
clothes.
(1) God called it an abomination—not a sin or a
transgression of the Law, but an abomination.
(2) The Hebrew word for abomination is used 117 times in
112 verses of the Old Testament.
(3) Of those, 109 are abominations to God, 8 are
abominations to man.
(4) Of the 109 times God called things abominations, only
8 could in any way be considered connected to the
Jewish culture; but even then, by committing those
acts, men were either blaspheming God or disobeying
Him.
(5) I would say that the solid 101 times God called
something an abomination, with the other 8 times
only remotely being dismissible as Jewish culture,
make a strong case that what God called an
abomination was not cultural but moral in nature.
(See Excel sheet "abominations" under Carl 2022.)
B. Why then do we not preach, teach, and practice a clear
distinction between men’s clothing and ladies.
1. Some do.
(1) Some legalistically make it a demand.
(2) Some teach as I am doing today.
(3) Some just practice separation of dress.
2. Because some DO dismiss it as Jewish culture even though
God called it an abomination.
3. Because, like hair, it causes contention in the church and
there is no law about it.
(1) Some know what the Bible says and just won’t.
(2) Some want to argue about what women and men’s dress
is.
(a) To the last group I would say you should dress
so different that there is no confusion.
(b) Kathy, on her own before I met her, made up her
mind that she would only wear dress and
culottes.
IV. \\#11:17-34\\ Abuse with the Lord’s Supper
1Cor 11:17 ¶ Now in this that I declare unto you
I praise you not, that ye come together not for
the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in
the church, I hear that there be divisions among
you; and I partly believe it.
A. \\#17-19\\ Divisions - God allows divisions within a church
for a purpose, and I don’t think we have done very well with
them.
1. Divisions are NOT the will of God.
a. \\#17\\ Paul did not praise them for divisions.
b. The divisions were causing this church to get better,
but to get worse.
c. And Paul had already rebuked them for divisions once
\\#1Cor 1:11-12\\.
2. But the divisions did manifest the those who were sound in
faith and doctrine from those who were unsound.
19 For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be made manifest
among you.
a. Heresies are going to come; but in times of false
teaching, God’s "approved" servants will manifest
themselves.
b. Teaching of which beware:
(1) Wrong Teaching - Anyone can think they know
something and be wrong. These are not evil
people. They would change their teaching if
they knew.
(2) False Teaching - These are those who are wrong in
doctrine and in spirit.
(a) Perhaps they are too lazy to study and pray.
(b) Perhaps they are too stubborn, too
dictatorial.
(c) Perhaps they are too greedy or worldly.
(d) But whatever their reasons, their fault in
doctrine is more from their short comings
than their lack of understanding.
(3) Heretical Teaching
(a) The Greek word for "heresy" means "to
chose."
(b) The Greek word is not TRANSLATED but
TRANSPOSED. The Greek word is HERESY.
(c) These are those who have made the wrong
choice.
(d) They see a spiritual truth and make the
decision to go against it.
(e) It seems some deliberate, wrongful,
intention is involved in heresy.
c. One of the areas the Corinthians church had
deliberately gone wrong was in the area of the Lord’s
Supper.
(1) Hence, all heresy does not have to be about
salvation.
(2) Heresy seems to be to have a clear Biblical truth
and to choose to go against it.
B. \\#20-34\\ The Lord’s Supper
1. \\#20-22\\ What this church was calling the Lord’s Supper,
was not it.
20 When ye come together therefore into one
place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
a. The only thing Corinth had right about the Lord’s
Supper was they all came together to one place.
(1) The Lord’s Supper is not about individuals having
their own.
(2) It is about the body of Christ coming together to
be one with Christ.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other
his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is
drunken.
b. Neither is the Lord’s Supper intended to be a carnal
feast.
(1) Drunkenness is always a sin.
(a) Sin will never be a part of anything
associated with God.
(b) In fact, the Christian life is about staying
as far from sin as possible.
(2) The Bible does not condemn eating meals together,
even as part of the Lord’s Supper.
(a) A genuine meal was the setting for the first
Lord’s Supper.
(b) It was probably the settings for all Lord’s
Suppers until recent years.
(c) But if that is the setting, the hungry
people should certainly be fed!
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink
in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame
them that have not? What shall I say to you?
shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
c. Paul offered no praise to Corinth for this behavior.
(1) His statement was not an approval to get drunk
and eat selfishly at home.
(2) His rebuke was that IF this is the way you do
live, don’t bring it into God’s house.
2. \\#23-34\\ What the Lord’s Supper is.
a. \\#23-26\\ The Lord’s Supper was received of the Lord.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which
also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus
the same night in which he was betrayed took
bread:
(1) \\#23\\ "the same night in which he was
betrayed"
(a) That was the night Jesus had His "Last
Supper" with the disciples.
\\#Matt 26:17-29, Mk 14:12-25; Lk 22:7-38\\
(b) That was also the night Jesus ate the
Passover with His disciples.
(c) And that was the night Jesus was betrayed.
(2) \\#24\\ The bread is it picture of Jesus’ body.
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it,
and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is
broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(a) Jesus’ body was broken for us.
(b) Jesus’ body must be eaten, made one, with
us.
John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the
last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is
drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
i. We are no more eating the body of Jesus
at the Lord’s Supper than the
disciples were eating the body of
Jesus at the Last Supper.
ii. We eat and they ate BREAD.
(c) Once Jesus’ body is ate and one with us, we
will never hunger again.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the
bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never
hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.
(d) We are to eat the bread in REMEMBRANCE of
what Jesus did for us.
(3) "After the same manner… the cup"
25 After the same manner also he took the cup,
when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye
drink it, in remembrance of me.
(a) The bread pictures the body of Jesus while
the juice pictures the blood.
(b) The cup represents the blood that was shed
to dedicate the New Testament.
i. The New Testament is the New Covenant.
ii. We are not under the Old Covenant made
with the Jewish nation.
iii. The New Covenant is both very different
and very similar to the Old.
(c) One thing both covenants have in common.
i. They were both dedicated with blood.
aa. (Exodus 29-30, Numbers 7)
bb. \\#Heb 9:11-12\\
ii. The wine is a picture of that blood.
(4) A symbol of remembrance for the saved.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink
this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he
come.
(a) The Lord’s Supper will keep the memory of
what Jesus did for us fresh "till he come."
(b) Thus giving the impression that once Jesus
returns, the Lord’s Supper will no longer
be practiced.
b. \\#27,29-30\\ The Lord’s Supper is an offense to
those who show contempt for it.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and
drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
(1) To partake of the Supper unworthily might mean
either:
(a) With known sin in their hearts.
(b) With disregard for what the Supper stands
for or for what the Lord did for us.
(2) \\#27\\ "shall be guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord"
(a) No one knows exactly what that means.
(b) No one with sense wants to find out.
(3) \\#29\\ This verse makes the judgment sound even
worse.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not
discerning the Lord’s body.
(a) The word for "damnation" does not have to
mean to be damned into the Lake of Fire.
(b) It means condemnation.
i. The description of what will happen to
those eating unworthily makes it sound
like this is only something a lost
person could do.
ii. Saved people should know better!
iii. Yet, not all of the saved DO know
better.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among
you, and many sleep.
(c) Weakness, sickness, and death are the best
sounding judgments that Paul mentioned here.
c. \\#28,30-34\\ So what should the Christian do?
(1) ¿We should participate in the Lord’s Supper.
(a) The Lord commanded the disciples who
commanded us.
(b) To skip the Lord’s Supper instead of
confessing and repenting of known sin is
not very likely to stay the hand of God
against us!
(2) We should examine ourselves for sin.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
(a) The Christian should use this opportunity to
search out sin in their lives and repent of
it.
i. This is one of the Lord’s purposes in
giving this special service to us.
ii. It is God’s method of regular and
mandatory revival.
(b) Notice that this examination is to be done
by the believer for himself, not by the
church, the pastor, or any other.
(3) We should judge ourselves.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should
not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of
the Lord, that we should not be condemned with
the world.
(a) \\#31\\ Although translated the same in our
Bibles, there are two different words for
judge used here.
i. We are to judge ourselves, that is to
discern, to content with, to separate
somethings.
ii. That we might not be judged with the
world, that is to be avenged,
condemned, sentenced by the law.
iii. \\#32\\ But if we are judged (avenged,
condemned, sentenced), it will be the
Lord’s chastening (discipline,
teaching, learning).
(b) God is not telling us we should punish
ourselves but that we are to get the sin
out of our lives.
(c) While we often use the words "punishment"
and "judgment" interchangeably, God does
not.
i. Judgment is what God pours on sinners
because they have offended Him.
ii. Punishment is disciple God gives to His
children to teach them to behave.
iii. From our perspective, there are times
when we may not be able to tell the
difference.
(4) \\#33\\ If we are going to eat at the church,
wait for everyone.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together
to eat, tarry one for another.
(5) \\#34\\ But do most of the eating at home.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home;
that ye come not together unto condemnation. And
the rest will I set in order when I come.
<Outline
Index> <Close Window>
