Shall we turn in our Bibles now to
1 Corinthians chapter 11.
Paul here in the first verse said, Be
ye followers of me, even as I also
am of Christ.
In the previous verse, he spoke about how
he was not seeking his own prophet, his
own glory, but the prophet of the whole
body of Christ.
And then he said, be followers of me.
The word followers in the Greek is mimiktai,
which we get our word mimic.
Be mimickers or be imitators of me.
Follow the example that I have set.
That is, don't seek for your own prophet.
Don't.
But seek for the prophet of the whole
body.
Don't just be looking out for yourself, but
look out for one another.
Be sensitive to one another's needs and be
looking out for each other.
Now he said, I praise you, brethren, that
you remember me in all things and you
keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto
you.
So Paul is giving them praise for the
fact that they did remember him, that they
were keeping ordinances that he had established among
them.
But I would have you to know that
the head of every man is Christ and
the head of every woman is the man
and the head of Christ is God.
And every man praying or prophesying having his
head covered dishonors his head.
Now, Paul is establishing here sort of a
chain of command.
The word head here being the idea of
authority.
And so the husband, the authority over the
wife, Christ, the authority over the husband, and
God, the authority over Christ.
This, of course, gets into issues which are
being debated today in our society as we
find all of these ERA type of movements.
I do not believe that the Bible has
ever taught that God favors the man over
the woman.
The Bible does teach that God made man
first and then from man formed the woman.
When God looked at man and said, it
is not good that man should live alone.
And so He made then the woman from
man that she might be a helpmeet for
him.
Now, some people misinterpret that.
The helpmeet, the word meet is an old
English word fit, a help that is fit
for him.
Created for him.
No way does it signify a subservient position.
But just God saw that man by himself
could never make it.
And thus the woman created, as God said,
for the man.
Now, the woman is weaker than the man
in a physical sense.
I had a mental picture of these women
and, of course, I guess it's become quite
a thing for women to get involved now
in bodybuilding programs.
And I personally think that men involved in
bodybuilding programs get to the place where they
look grotesque.
You know, those bulges and all.
They're just, they get grotesque.
But for a woman to be bulging in
the wrong areas is also grotesque.
And I think it's rather sad that to
develop an identity of sorts, to try and
show that they are capable and all, that
they, you know, get involved in this bodybuilding
kind of a thing.
That isn't really, to me, the best use
of a person's time.
He is establishing the chain of command.
However, I do think that there is something
worth noting here.
The authority over the man is Christ, even
as the authority over the woman is the
man.
And I feel that if the man, the
husband, is not under the authority of Christ,
then the woman has to jump the missing
link.
I do not believe that God intends that
a godly woman be under the authority of
an ungodly man.
Under the authority of the man only as
he is under the authority of Jesus Christ.
God never meant marriage to be a slavery
kind of a situation or a tyranny kind
of a situation where some big oaf rules
over his wife.
With force or whatever.
And I am totally opposed to that kind
of a interpretation or understanding of the scripture
that a woman thinks, well, he's my husband,
I've got to be in submission to him.
Yes, as he is in submission to Christ.
Now, we are dealing with an eastern culture.
And in this eastern culture, the women wore
veils.
And the veils many times were across the
bridge of their nose, tied in the back
and went all the way to the ground.
Now, in some of the eastern areas, it
was even more than that.
The veils covered their head and they had
just slits for their eyes.
And of course, they wore these bulky clothes.
And how could you know you're really in
love when all you can see is just
the eyes, you know.
I mean, when you got married, it was
really an interesting thing, I suppose.
However, this veil was a protection to the
woman.
It was a covering for her, which was
a covering of protection.
And no man would approach a woman, accost
a woman, flirt with a woman who was
covered with a veil.
I mean, that was almost death for the
man, to touch a woman or to approach
her in an overt way when she was
covered with her veil.
For a woman to go out without a
veil was an open invitation for the men.
It was sort of a declaration, I'm available.
But for a veiled woman, no man would
dare to approach her.
And thus, it was a covering.
Today, still in Eastern cultures, especially in the
Muslim world, of course, the women in Iran
are really, a lot of the more liberalized
women are really chafing under Khomeini because he
went back to the old veils.
And you see these Orthodox Muslim women now
with the black covered, you know, all you
can see are the eyes again.
And many times on our tours to the
Middle East, the liberated ladies from America, not
understanding the mindset of the Oriental, will go
over there with sleeveless dresses or things of
this nature, and they don't know what it
does to some of these men who are
used to not seeing a woman except she
be totally veiled and have many times been
accosted by these men because it's just a
part of their whole cultural background and thinking.
So, Paul is dealing definitely with a cultural
situation when he addresses the subject here of
head coverings or veils.
And every man who prays or prophesies having
his head covered dishonors his head.
That is, a man was the idea made
in the glory of God, and it would
be dishonoring to God for him to cover
his head while he prayed or prophesied.
Now, that's interesting coming from Paul, considering that
in Orthodox jewelry today, they all wear their
little hats whenever they come into any sacred
place of prayer.
Those little or any kind, you don't have
to wear one of the little hats, you
can any kind of a hat, any kind
of a covering, but they won't let you
into the, they won't let the men in,
say, to the Western Wall or those areas
unless you do have your head covered.
So, coming from Paul, it's an interesting thing
that he would speak of the men with
their heads uncovered, and it would be a
dishonoring thing to pray with his head covered.
But every woman that prays or prophesies with
her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that
is even as one as if she were
shaven.
So, Paul then speaking of the woman, it's
dishonoring, in a sense, to her husband, her
head, if she would go unveiled.
Now, evidently, the women in Corinth were feeling
that liberty that was theirs in Christ.
We are no longer under a yoke of
bondage, for in Christ we are all one,
neither male nor female.
Barbarians, Scythian, bond are free.
So, they were beginning to come without veils,
and it no doubt created some problems.
And Paul said, you know, it's dishonoring to
your husband, because living there in Corinth, they
were living in the center of pagan licentiousness.
The temple of Aphrodite was on the Acropolis
above Corinth.
The priestess within the temple of Aphrodite, some
1,000 of them, would nightly come down
into the city of Corinth.
They were prostitutes, and the temple was supported
by their prostitution.
And they could be recognized in that they
didn't wear veils.
So, the women in Corinth, who were then
beginning to feel liberty in Christ, I don't
have to wear that dumb veil anymore, not
being understood by the world, were opening themselves
to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus
dishonoring their husbands.
And so, Paul is encouraging them to continue
with the customs of wearing the veils there
in Corinth.
For a man indeed ought not to cover
his head for a much as he is
in the image and the glory of God,
but the woman is the glory of man.
That is, God created man in his own
image, and from the man he took the
woman.
For the man is not of the woman,
but the woman is of the man.
Neither was man created for the woman, but
the woman for the man.
For this cause ought the woman to have
power or the authority, the veil upon her
head.
And then he said, because of the angels.
Now, I wish he hadn't have said that.
Because I was able to follow him pretty
well up to this point.
But what he meant, because of the angels,
is something that the theologians have discussed through
the years.
One suggestion.
Now, we know that when we gather together,
the angels of the Lord gather with us.
And it has been suggested that the angels,
being creatures of rank and order, respect the
order of God, and they like to see
the orders and the rankings of God followed.
The second suggestion is that there are also
evil angels present, and a woman without a
veil is attractive to them.
Now, I sort of reject the second idea.
Because nowhere in the New Testament were angels
are mentioned in this sense.
Are they fallen angels?
So, I would prefer the former, but I'm
not satisfied with it.
I really don't know what he's referring to,
to tell you the truth.
Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman,
neither the woman without the man, in the
Lord.
In other words, as far as the Lord
is concerned, we're all on an equal par.
And the woman is not without the man,
the man is not without the woman.
We are both necessary for each other.
For as the woman is of the man,
even so the man also by the woman.
But all things of God.
So, I was born by my mother, is
what Paul is saying.
My mother was necessary for my existence being
here.
So, the woman was taken out of the
man, but yet it's reversed now.
And God is established then, male and female.
And they're all a part of God's divine
order.
Now, judge in yourselves, is it comely that
a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Is it proper?
Is it the right thing?
One thing we should definitely note here, in
light of 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul said,
let the women keep silent in the church.
And if they would learn, let them ask
their husbands when they get home.
Paul evidently is not at all prohibiting the
woman to, I mean, assigning her to total
silence in the church.
Here she is recognized as having a right
to pray.
Here she is recognized as having a right
to exercise the gift of prophecy within the
church.
He's not saying anything contrary or against her
praying and prophesying.
Only, should she be doing it without avail
in the church of Corinth.
So, he said, doth not even nature itself
teach you that if a man have long
hair, it is a shame unto him.
Now, during the hippie movement, when a lot
of the fellows decided to let their hair
grow, this was a scripture that was brought
up quite a bit by the Bible thumpers
down in the South, who were so opposed
to these young men having long hair.
And I, in traveling around the country, was
a guest on some of the radio talk
shows.
And some of these irate people would call
in.
And the thing that was really bothering them
were these young people with long hair, because
they had pictures of our baptisms and a
lot of young men with long hair and
all being baptized.
And it really bothered these people for these
young men to have long hair.
And so, they would call in and, you
know, they would make their crude remarks and
then quote this verse of scripture.
And so, the Lord did a very interesting
thing.
He called me to defend these young men,
their right to have long hair.
I always figured the Lord had a sense
of humor.
And I would point out to these irate
callers that, first of all, Paul said, does
not nature itself.
It doesn't say that God is teaching this.
It said that nature is teaching it.
Does not nature itself teach you that it
is a shame?
It doesn't teach you that it's a sin.
See, they were trying to make a sin
out of this thing.
But it doesn't say God says it's a
sin.
It says nature said it's a shame.
Now, long hair is a relative term.
My barber this morning signaled me in service
and, you know, I do go to the
barber.
And it's coming over my collar in the
back and it's time.
But long is a relative term.
And if you look at some of the
presidents of the United States, they had long
hair compared to, you know, the 40s and
50s looks where the guys had the crew
cuts and all.
So, long is a relative term.
And I have seen some fellows whose hair,
I would say, was indeed a shame.
You know, flowing hair down to their waist.
And nature tells you, hey, what a shame.
And I see them with their long locks,
you know, and I just sort of say,
what a shame.
But in reality, when I try to comb
what I have, I also say, what a
shame.
So, nature teaches you to have long hair.
If you don't have any hair, it's all
a shame.
So, that's all it is.
But if a woman have long hair, hey,
that's another matter.
It's a glory to her, for her hair
is given to her for her covering.
But if any man seems to be contentious.
Now, have you got a big deal over
this?
Paul said, hey, we don't have any such
custom in all the churches.
Thus, it was not intended to be a
universal rule for the church, as some of
the churches sought to make it a universal
rule.
And for years, the women had to wear
hats and all when they went to church.
But Paul says, we don't have any such
custom in all the churches.
If you want to argue about it at
all, no big deal.
There's no such custom in all the churches.
It was something that did relate more to
the church in Corinth.
Now, I praise you that you, you know,
kept my ordinances and all, but there's something
I don't praise you for.
What I'm going to talk to you about
now.
For when you gather together, sometimes it's for
the worse, not for the better.
For first of all, when you come together
in the church, I hear that there are
divisions among you.
And I really partly believe this.
For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be made
manifest among you.
So when you come together, therefore, in one
place, this is not to eat the Lord's
supper.
For in eating, everyone takes before the other
his own.
And one is hungry while the other is
drunk.
Now, in the early church, they had a
beautiful fellowship.
It seemed that it happened every week.
And in this beautiful fellowship, they had what
they called the agape feast.
Today, we call it a potluck.
We've got a crude name for it.
They added a beautiful name of an agape
feast.
And our various fellowship groups in the church
that have their potlucks, probably a good idea
to start calling it an agape feast.
That's much better.
A love feast.
In these love feasts, which were like a
potluck, everybody would bring their dishes, and then
they'd pool it all together and all would
eat.
But there were some piggish fellows who would
make their way to the front of the
line, and they would just take more than
their share.
So oftentimes, there would not be enough food
to go around.
And so some people were left hungry, while
others had more than they could handle.
And it seemed that the wealthier people were
those that were just sort of pushing their
way ahead, and the poor people who really
were needing it.
Actually, you see, the church in those days
had many slaves, and a lot of them
never did have a decent meal, except for
the agape feast.
That's the only time they really had a
decent meal.
And yet, these people were not really sensitive
to the needs of the poor, and they
were going in and just filling their plates,
and the poor were being left hungry.
And so Paul said, that's not good.
Don't you have your own house to feast
in and to drink in?
Do you despise the church of God?
And do you shame those that are poor?
Those that have not actually became embarrassed and
ashamed.
And these people were sort of making it
that way.
I do remember when we used to have
our church picnics, and we had our houses
where a lot of the young people were
living.
You remember those days of the mansion Messiah
and the Lord's house?
And house of Psalms and these various houses
we had.
This one time at our picnic out at
Orange County Park, one of the houses brought
to the picnic a large pan of beans.
You know, put it in the potluck, and
then the kids all headed for the steaks.
That's good that we ate beans that year.
Because a lot of them hadn't had a
steak in a long time.
And so, Paul said, look, a lot of
you have your own homes.
You can eat and drink in your own
homes.
You shouldn't really make these people feel embarrassed
or ashamed because of their financial plights.
What shall I say to you?
Hey, I don't praise you in this manner.
He's actually rebuking them for this.
Now, in talking about the Lord's Supper, this
agape feast, and they would always end the
agape feast with the Lord's Supper, partaking together
of the bread and the cup.
And so, Paul said, as 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.
Now, this phrase here, for I have received
of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you.
This should be a phrase that every minister
of Jesus Christ should be able to use
every time he stands up to talk to
the church.
I have received of the Lord that which
I have delivered unto you.
That should always be the origin of the
message that we bring.
God having spoken to our hearts, and now
we impart that which God has spoken to
us.
As we mentioned this morning, the first work
of the Spirit in our lives is subjective.
The second is objective.
God works in me that he might work
through me.
I must partake in order that I might
impart.
That which I have received from the Lord,
I also delivered.
That is always the true order in which
God works.
And that should always be the concern of
every man of God who stands before the
people of God as he talks to them
of the things of God.
That which I have received of the Lord,
I also delivered unto you.
That the Lord Jesus, the same night in
which he was betrayed, took bread.
And when he had given thanks, he broke
it and said, Take, eat.
This is my body which is broken for
you.
This do in remembrance of me.
There are those who interpret the bread to
be transubstantiated into the actual body of Christ
by some miracle.
However, it is important to note that when
Jesus said this, he was still in his
body.
And thus, it had to be a spiritualization
so that the bread becomes representative of the
body of Christ.
To me, it represents the body of Christ.
But it is not changed by some miracle
into the actual physical body of Jesus.
And the same is true of the cup.
That it becomes to me a very poignant
reminder of the body of Jesus broken for
me and the blood of Jesus shed for
my sins.
I'm to do it in remembrance of him.
After the same manner also he took the
cup after their supper and he said, This
cup is a new covenant in my blood.
This do ye as often as you drink
it in remembrance of me.
For as often as you eat this bread
and drink this cup, you do show the
Lord's death till he comes.
Note he did not tell us how often
we were to do it.
In the early church, it seems that in
some of them, they did it once a
week.
These agape feasts were usually a weekly affair.
Some churches today observe it once a week.
It doesn't really matter how often you do
it.
It just does matter that every time you
do it, that you do it in remembrance
of him.
Showing the Lord's death until he comes.
Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink
this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be
guilty of the body and the blood of
the Lord.
Now, he's talking about they're coming together and
they were getting drunk at these feasts.
They were gorging themselves at the agape feast
getting drunk and then going right in and
partaking of the body and the blood of
Jesus Christ in the sacrament of communion.
A person when he is drunk oftentimes loses
a lot of his inhibitions.
He's not fully aware of what's going on.
And to partake of the Holy Communion in
this condition would be to do it in
an unworthy fashion.
And this is what Paul is warning against.
When I was a child, they interpreted this
as, you know, you've got to be worthy
to partake of the blood and body of
Jesus Christ.
And if you take of it unworthily, hey,
you're drinking damnation to your own soul.
And there was more than once, boy, I
let the cup go by.
You know, I was really afraid to drink
because I thought, man, I'm not worthy.
Because the problem was they usually served at
Sunday morning and I didn't get saved until
Sunday night.
Again, every Sunday night.
I really did well for the statistics of
those pastors.
But I was always concerned about my unworthiness.
And when I really stopped to think about
it, I think, man, I'm not worthy to
partake of the body and the blood of
Jesus.
And so many times I would pass on
communion.
But my worthiness is not something that is
predicated upon my goodness, my works, my efforts.
But it's on the grace of God and
my believing in Jesus Christ.
And thus I partake freely today because I
believe in him and I rest in his
grace.
If you talk about truly being worthy, in
that sense, never.
I never have been.
But by the grace of God, I stand
through faith in Jesus Christ.
But what Paul is referring to here is
the manner in which they were eating and
drinking.
And it was disgraceful.
Paul is rebuking them for it.
Therefore, whosoever shall eat the bread and drink
the cup of the Lord in an unworthy
fashion or unworthy way shall be guilty of
the body and the blood of the Lord.
So let a man examine himself and so
let him eat of that bread and drink
of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth
and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the
Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly
among you and some have even died.
There is another possible interpretation for this that
I have heard suggested and it does have
merit.
And that is partaking of the Lord's body
without discerning the Lord's body.
And because people partake of it not discerning
the Lord's body many are weak and sickly
and some have even died.
The suggestion has been made.
What does the broken bread truly symbolize?
Jesus said, this is my body broken for
you.
What was meant by that?
When was the body of Christ broken?
We read that because it was the preparation
for the Sabbath the Jews came to Pilate
that they might have permission to break the
legs of the prisoners that their bodies would
not be hanging on the Sabbath day.
And so Pilate gave them permission.
And they broke the legs of both of
those thieves on either side of Jesus.
But when they came to Jesus they saw
that He was already dead so they did
not break His legs in order that the
Scripture might be fulfilled, not a bone of
Him shall be broken.
You see under the law you could not
offer to God a lamb for a sacrifice
that had any broken bones.
And so in keeping with the type of
the Lamb of God for the sin of
the world He could not have broken bones.
So one of the soldiers of course took
his spear and thrust it in his side
then into his heart to make sure that
he was dead.
And when he pulled the spear out there
came out blood and water.
Now if they did not break His legs
that the Scriptures might be fulfilled not a
bone of Him was broken then what did
he mean?
This is my body broken for you.
When was the body of Jesus broken and
how was it broken?
And there is one event related to the
cross that the Scripture in the New Testament
only refers to in the Gospels.
And Pilate took Him and scourged Him.
The scourging was a method of interrogation by
the Roman government.
And those that were to be crucified were
usually scourged before their crucifixion.
They were tied to a post where they
were leaning over so that their back was
exposed and stretched out.
And a Roman soldier would take a whip
in which were embedded little bits of glass
and lead and he would lay the whip
across the back of the prisoner.
And the idea in interrogation was that the
prisoner would then call out a crime that
he had committed.
And every time they'd lay a stripe on
his back, if he would cry out a
crime, they would lay it a little softer
and a little softer.
But if he would not confess to a
crime, then each time they would lay the
whip across his back, they would lay it
on harder and harder until the back was
completely ripped to shreds.
It looked like hamburger.
By this method of interrogation, the Roman government
was able to solve a lot of their
unsolved crimes.
It was a common practice.
You remember when Paul the Apostle was caught
in the temple by the Jews and they
were trying to kill him when the captain
of the guard, Lysias, came down with a
bunch of Roman soldiers and rescued Paul.
And when they got back up to the
steps of the Antonio Fortress, Paul said, can
I speak to these guys?
And he said, do you speak Greek?
And he said, of course I do.
He said, aren't you that Egyptian?
He said, no, I'm a Roman.
Or he said, I gave his background.
And he started talking to the people in
Hebrew, which the captain Lysias could not understand.
And as Paul was talking to the people,
suddenly they went into a rage.
They started throwing dirt in the air.
They started calling out.
They started ripping off their clothes.
And Lysias said to the soldiers, get him
inside quickly.
And then sort of turning in a matter
-of-fact way, said, scourge him to find
out what he said.
Interrogate him with the scourging process.
And so as the guys started to tie
Paul to scourge him, he said, is it
lawful to scourge a Roman citizen who has
not been condemned?
The guy said, are you a Roman citizen?
Paul said, yes.
So he ran and he told the captain
Lysias, he said, hey, that fellow is a
Roman citizen.
And so he came to Paul and he
said, are you a Roman citizen?
And Paul said, you bet I am.
He said, hey, I bought my citizenship.
Cost me quite a bit of money.
How much you have to pay?
Paul said, I was free born.
And so he was fearful and he untied
Paul and did not scourge him because there
was a law that no Roman citizens could
be scourged without charges first having been filed
against him.
But it was the third degree, the Roman
method of interrogation.
Now Jesus, according to Isaiah, as a lamb
before her shearers is dumb, so he opened
not his mouth.
Pilate scourged him.
He had laid upon him 39 lashes or
stripes.
This was no accident.
This was something that was prophesied in the
book of Isaiah.
When Isaiah prophesied of his death, he said
he was wounded for our transgressions.
He was bruised for our iniquities.
The chastisement of our peace is upon him.
And with his stripes, ye are healed.
So through the broken body of Christ, we
were healed.
He suffered for us.
So that he who eats and of the
body of Christ, not discerning the Lord's body,
does not take and receive that healing provided
for through the suffering of Jesus.
And for this cause, a lot of people
are sick.
A lot of people are weak.
Some have even died.
You could have been healed if you'd only
appropriated the work of Jesus Christ.
But they have not discerned the Lord's body
when they took the broken bread.
I think that there is a lot of
validity to this position.
There are those that object to it, but
I really feel that an honest evaluation of
the Scriptures does lend a lot of validity
to that position.
I personally take it.
I believe that there are a lot of
people who could be healed if they would
just appropriate that work of Jesus Christ.
Now, Paul told us to examine ourselves when
we eat the bread.
Take a look at yourself.
For if we would judge ourselves, he said,
we would not be judged of God.
It's a very serious thing, the partaking of
the body of Jesus Christ and of the
blood of Jesus Christ.
We should really examine our hearts before we
do so and always do it in a
very reverent and worshipful manner.
When we are judged, we are chastened of
the Lord.
So, Paul is probably talking about some of
the sicknesses and the weaknesses that people have
as they have eaten and drunk in an
unworthy manner.
And so, when we are judged, God chastens
us for what purpose?
That we would not be condemned with the
world.
Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to
eat, wait for one another.
Don't rush to the head of the table
and fill your plate and disregard others that
are there.
Wait for each other.
And if any man is hungry, then let
him eat at home.
That you come not together under condemnation to
just, you know, gorge yourselves.
And the rest, he said, I'll take care
of when I get there.