Satan doesn't have to get you to become a mass murderer.

 Satan doesn't have to get you to become a mass murderer to defeat you. In fact, all he has to do is get you to give up, and that's partially why Jesus " was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart." (Luke 18:1)

Is the world beating you down? Does Satan want to get you to grow weary of doing good and just throw in the towel? Don't let him! I may be a surly curmudgeon myself, but I'm always willing to lend some of my stubbornness to help someone overcome, and lots of people are even better at that than me!  Pick a prayer partner, too. It's a fantastic thing to have.  

Confessing your sin and praying for one another—a tough struggle!

I used to hide stuff from facebook, because I didn't want my brothers and sisters to know what I was doing. It was shameful.  I know of a couple of people who, like I did, lead double lives. They try and hide stuff, too, while keeping the spiritually good stuff—you know, assembly and whatnot—very public.  I would have grown much faster if I'd had the guts to practice James 5:16, 

"Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."

Do you have the courage to admit your struggles? Do you know what a relief it is to be able to open up to someone and say, "This is killing me—it hurts so bad and I feel like I just can't!" I got to do that at family camp, and man that was a relief. It builds confidence. Oh, and just as a freebie, if you're praying for someone, you'll be keeping him at the top of your mind. 

If you can't forgive or forget, pick one.

Are you good at record keeping? Have you ever had a falling out with someone? Maybe it was ages ago, but you still don't talk? Maybe it was SUPER-SERIOUS FACEBOOK OFFICIAL and you even blocked them for whatever reason and thought, "Aha, me and Mark Zuckerberg will teach 'em!?" 

God said love "keeps no record of wrongs." When will you tear up that record and start fresh? After all, the second greatest command is to, "love your neighbor as yourself.’" (1 Cor 13 & Mark 12)  

Food for relationships.

 Starving to death has to be one of the worst ways to die. In relationships, starvation can also occur, and often because our relationships aren't being fed. That's why "Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work." (John 4:34)

Are you and your romantic partner eating?    Do you wake up every day and say, "The Lord has made this day for me, and I need to be about His business?" I love Paul's approach in Acts 22:10 where he said, "‘What shall I do, Lord?"  That's a great way to keep feeding any relationship! :)

Starting over after failure—are you overwhelmed?

Ever been in a situation where your progress is just pathetic? Where you're horribly outmatched? Where it's all so vastly overwhelming and pointless? Maybe a relationship that tanked and building a new life just seems impossible?

When the remnant Jews saw the foundation of Zerubbabel's temple, they wept. It was pathetic.  It was nothing like the glory of the first temple. How could the possibly build again? Yet God said, "Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit...Who dares despise the day of small things?" 

When you're recovering and the work seems insurmountable to even get back to where you used to be, remember not to despise the small things. Keep placing one stone at a time, and realize that it's not by your might, nor your power, but God's Spirit, which has the power to create a universe and more. 

How to Prevent a Tsunami of Bitterness or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love.

BQ:  What should you do if you feel yourself becoming upset with someone? Proverbs 17:14 says, "The beginning of strife is like releasing water;  Therefore stop contention before a quarrel starts."

Don't even let that floodgate open. Once it does, the angry words that surge out erode the walls of a good relationship, leaving lasting scars. When I feel like I'm being hurt, I go to Luke 6:28, which says, "bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." When I'm praying for the good of someone, I find that I can't get angry. If possible, I try to have them pray with me.

BQ: Have you ever had a brother or sister in Christ that you couldn't stand? That feeling isn't good, but it is a blessing because it's like a klaxon going off to warn you that your spiritual health is damaged. 1 John 2:11 explains, "But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes."

While an unkindness may cause you to feel anger in response, God tells us, "Be angry, and do not sin: do not let the sun go down on your wrath." (Eph 4:26) Don't let a feeling of quick anger be anything more than that. Put a damper on it immediately, and focus on walking in the light with whoever has hurt you, so that you don't end up by yourself in the darkness.

BQ: Have you ever called someone a bad name? Told them to go to hell? The second we let that bitterness toward a person exist, God isn't even interested in us trying to follow Him in other ways—not until we fix the flaw of inner hatred.. Instead, he tells us,

"Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Mt 5:22-24) 

If you have a brother or sister that you're not reconciled with, don't let it ride. Give your best effort to love them. Suck up your pride and be kind. You might not win your brother, but you will have tried your hardest, and you will be able to say that Romans 12:18 applies to you. "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men."

How Do We Find Peace When Someone Hurts Us?

Have you even been deeply hurt by another person?

Has your world been turned upside down in an instant because of someone else's sin?

Sadness, anger, confusion and despair are certainly some of the natural reactions, but what should Christians do with these feelings? It would not be healthy to repress them, nor should we allow them to become destructive forces in our lives. But HOW do we find PEACE???

The answer is in giving our troubles over to our Savior. He loves us and gladly carries our burdens. When we have hard times, we MUST share our sorrows with God in prayer. We must LISTEN to Him, TRUST Him, and LOVE Him. In doing so, we just might find it easier to love those around us, even when they hurt us. We might even find the kind of compassion that Jesus felt toward us when He gave His life for us-- when we were yet sinners who did not love Him. And ultimately, we must believe that He not only forgives us, but helps us forgive others as well.

In the book of Psalms, King David freely expressed his many troubles and frustrations to God, but always knew God loved him and was with Him. His words still offer great encouragement:

"Cast your burden on the LORD, and he will sustain you; he will never permit the righteous to be moved." Psalm 55:22

"In God, whose word I praise, in the LORD, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I shall not be afraid. What can man do to me? I must perform my vows to you, O God; I will render thank offerings to you. For you have delivered my soul from death, yes, my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of life." Psalm 56:10-13

"Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me, for in you my soul takes refuge; in the shadow of your wings I will take refuge, till the storms of destruction pass by. I cry out to God Most High, to God who fulfills his purpose for me. He will send from heaven and save me; he will put to shame him who tramples on me. Selah. God will send out his steadfast love and his faithfulness!" Psalm 57:1-3

We don't have to carry our burdens alone. God is strong!-- He will take them.

We don't have to suffer our hurts alone. God is kind!-- He will comfort us.

Let Him! ...and you will be on the way to finding peace. 

Can a man wear a hat while praying?

Part 1: A General Look at This Hairy Issue

Someone once said that a man was sinning because he said a prayer while wearing a hat. I did some research, and my very rudimentary notes are below. Please note: the article’s picture is nonsense.

The Origin

The thought mentioned above comes from 1 Corinthians 11:4, which says, “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.” OUCH! Hats are right out! But…is there more to the story?

Yes, and it’ll take a little bit to work through. “Having his head covered/has something on his head” is, however, a commentary, and not a translation. Translated accurately the phrase is rendered, “having something down from his head.” What the “something” is is neither stated nor implied in in this exact verse.

So Is It Actually About Hats?

What does this mean? The answer is revealed later in the text, in 1 Cor 11:14-15, which says,“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?“

Long hair hangs down from the head. God said that a MAN should not pray with this “covering,” but did not exclude women from wearing it while praying. Why? Because long hair was considered appropriate for women, in my understanding, at least. (And I believe that there ARE cultural considerations in the texts, so as not to cause people to stumble.)

Speaking of which, God was focusing on men having hair that was shorter, and women hair that was longer.: “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.” (1 Cor 11:5)

The word here translated as “unveiled” is “akatakaluptos.” It carries no meaning of “garment” or “hat” in any sense, and instead means “not completely covered.” Without the first “a” in the Greek, it would mean “covered completely.” Why would Paul discuss this with those at Corinth specifically? The reason, if one studies the history of the situation, seems to be because the female prostitutes at the Acrocorinth’s temple to Aphrodite wore their hair cropped. God desired the people of Corinth to be free of such associations.

So…Not a Garment? AKA: The Ancients Say WHAT?

It seems that Paul was not speaking of any kind of garment, because he said in 1 Cor 11:15, “For her hair is given her instead of a covering.”

This is, in fact, the only time in the section that Paul mentions a garment of any sort, using the word “peribolaion.” Furthermore, even here he states that the woman’s hair takes the place of it.

1 Cor 11:6 says, “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.”

The wording of this section says that the “covering” will be “cut off,” or “shorn.” How often do we “cut” hats off of our heads? Hopefully never, unless we’re being unwise with super glue. 

The ancients accepted Paul’s dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul’s words: 

“The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes … cropping is to be adopted … let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets.”

Significantly, the words “hang far down” strongly resemble Paul’s words “having something down from his head.” The above is from Clement of Alexandria and was written in the second century.

So Why This Detail?

So what is the point of all of this? Is there any lesson for Christians today in this? I think so.

Any time that Christian men or women adopt styles of clothing or hair that are associated with immoral behavior, we need to revise what we’re doing. God is not strangely concerned with hats, but rather our behavior. Don’t dress like a prostitute (if there is such an outfit), don’t go out to bars and adopt associated behaviors…these would all be modern corollaries to the situation in Corinth. 

A Note on the Order of Creation and the Impact of Culture

Now Paul does day, “for this reason,” and mentions the creation argument (man created first, women deceived, etc.), which I feel that we can latch onto sans much context. Maybe culture has nothing to do with anything, and all women need to have very long hair; even if they’re older or going through cancer treatments.

Personally, I think this process of thought makes some basic mistakes with reasoning and logic. If you’re unfamiliar with how these terms are related, keep read, otherwise skip to the next paragraph. Reason and logic are two concepts which are intrinsically tied together. Reason is a way that we work through a problem, through a set of deductions, to get from point A to point B. We reason our way through things. Logic is the rules we apply to reasoning. It’s the fundamental parameters that we apply to working through a problem. But if our logic is flawed, our reasoning will never bring us to the correct answer, no matter how good the reasoning seems. Simply put, reasoning is a system, and logic is the rules applied to that system. 

It seems seems that some people miss the point of the cultural argument just a bit when they rely entirely upon what I’m calling the “order of creation argument.”

First of all, just because an author cites a moral principle to defend a specific practice doesn’t mean that a practice necessarily becomes moral. For example, if I were asked by someone whether or not a Christian wife should take her husbands last name, or to keep her own last name, in order to show her independence from her husband, I would defend her taking her husbands last name. I would also probably do so using arguments similar to those Paul uses in 1 Cor. 11, like the creation order and the roles of men and women. If, however, I was in a culture where the wife did not take a husbands last name, I would not demand that a wife do so, because the cultural action doesn’t carry the same moral significance.Think of this another way using the example of foot washing.

1. Christ commands the Apostles to wash each other’s feet.

2. Every principle from which Christ derives this practice is a permanent and universal principle, i.e. the necessity of Christ cleansing us, the Lordship of Christ over his disciples, the command to follow Christ’s example, and the necessity of serving one another.

3. If the constituent premises from which a practice are derived are perpetual and universal, then the practice itself is perpetual and universal.

Conclusion. The command to wash one another’s feet is perpetual and universal.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that if a premise of an argument carries a specific attribute, then the conclusion must carry the attribute as well. This seems to be similar to the fallacy of composition.The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). So, if one says, “all of these bricks are rectangular, therefore the wall they build with these bricks will be rectangular,” one would be in violation of this rule of logic. Simply because one constituent part carries a particular attribute, it does not follow that the whole carries this particular attribute. Simply because all constituent parts carry a particular attribute, it does not follow that the whole carries a particular attribute. Sodium, if ingested on its own will kill you. Chlorine, if ingested on its own will kill you. Sodium Chloride (table salt) if ingested as a compound is necessary to human life. 

An attribute of the constituent parts cannot be carried over to the composite whole. Your argument essentially runs like this. Every premise that the Apostle builds his case off of is a permanent and universal truth, therefore, when combined together, whatever is deduced from these truths must be permanent and universal as well. This does not logically follow.

Think back to the foot washing example. There are some Christians today that would make this exact line of argumentation. What would your arguments be against this line of thinking? What lines of reasoning could you use to refute this position that I could not in turn use to argue against head coverings?

Another way of thinking about this is by thinking of all the various bodily gestures that are used by various cultures to express insult or contempt. Brushing your hand from your chin, making an “o.k.” sign or extending your middle finger might be completely meaningless in one culture, but highly offensive in another. If we, as Christians, are in those cultures where such signs are offensive, the universal obligations on Christians, such as loving all men, living in peace as far as we are able, and avoiding offense, bind us to not use those gestures. If we were in a culture where those signs carry an opposite meaning of approval, we are free to use them accordingly. It would seem to me that to use this line of argumentation, and demand that whatever is derived from a universal and moral principle is therefore universal and moral, would undermine the use of Christian wisdom and discernment. After all isn’t part of the point of the book of Proverbs that the same universal and moral principles need to be applied differently depending on the context and circumstance?

Also, it needs to be noted that as a supporter of a cultural interpretation, I am not arguing that Paul is asking Christians to take their dress from pagan Greek “worship services.” In Deuteronomy 12: 29-32, God explicitly commands the Israelites not to look around them at the “worship practices” of the pagan nations and borrow from them. I don’t think Paul would ask Christians to do that either in their assemblies, but I also believe that we fundamentally undermine the point of our assemblies when we see them as vertically-oriented “worship services,” and leave off the horizontal orientation, person-to-person, unto edification, as God has specified. 

Anyway, Paul is asking them to use the common dress practices from their everyday lives inside assembly as well as outside of assembly. It is of worthwhile historical note that the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist confession, and the Savoy Declaration all defend the phrase, “There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,” by citing 1 Cor. 11: 13 & 14. Although I think that this misses the point of assembly, it helps understand how culture plays an influence on our perceptual filters.

All three of these Reformed confessions see head coverings as an action, “Common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence.” It should also be noted that out of all three of these documents (and also the Westminster Catechisms, and Directory for Public Worship), this is the only circumstance where the subject of head coverings even comes up.

Part 2: Another Perspective

1 Cor 11 gets a ton of people in a tizzy. It’s hard to understand. But hey, even 2 Peter mentions that somethings written by our “beloved brother Paul…are hard to understand.” (15-16)

But what about this stuff! Can a guy wear a hat while praying? What about women? (Uh oh…why are women praying and prophesying in this passage, anyway?)

Someone once remarked that, in terms of ancient (ie, what we might call “Old Testament”) usage, having disheveled, messy, unkempt hair and an “uncovered head” are one in the same thing. Ie, the issue was typically about the hair.

1 Corinthians 11 is similar to Leviticus 10:6 in that some passages render the Aramaic para’/פָרַע as “do not uncover your heads” (KJV), though many believe that it is better rendered as “Do not let your hair become disheveled” (Berean Study Bible), or, ‘Let not the hair of your heads go loose” (JPS Tanakh 1917).

It is pointed out that either of these translations can be used, but Leviticus 13:45 and 21:10 illustrate that this is not a matter of hats (covered vs uncovered) when used in such a manner, but of the hair. Respectively, those verses say:

A.) “The person who has a case of serious skin disease is to have his clothes torn and his hair hanging loose, and he must cover his mouth and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean!’

B.) “The priest who is highest among his brothers, who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair hang loose or tear his garments.”

We can see how this relates to what was apparently the standard for women in Numbers 5:18 :

C.) “And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse.”

Having messy hair was not appropriate for women or priests, and was certainly not considered one’s “best before the Lord.” If a man dresses or keeps his hair in a feminine way (pigtails?), that also shows a disregard for the natural order, as appointed by God.

I think that verses 13-16 mostly solve our issues with this passage, or could solve it, if we keep in mind how “uncovered” is used as seen previously. Using that, read the following:

D.) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering. But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.

I personally believe, as Paul said, that it was a tradition that they had, based on cultural circumstances. Prior to the passage, Paul remarks on men not being effeminate.

In some cases, this could be due to hair (say, wearing pigtails and lipstick), but in other cases, in our culture, long hair isn’t—when special forces guys let their hair get longer, I don’t think that anyone would accuse them of not being manly. 

I don’t think it has to do with hats, though oddly the later-codified Mishneh Torah (Jewish explanation of the Torah) stipulates that it is wrong for men to *not wear* an actual hat of some sort while praying. This may have evolved from the Jewish custom of wearing a special turban in the tabernacle, eventually becoming a symbol of piety for the Jews. 

I could argue either way, but personally I’m persuaded by the cultural/ordering view, and its relation to hair. 

Lastly, for giggles, I’d like to add this interesting note from the Traveling Rabbi:

Above: Hair Covering Example: Wig and Scarf
Women have many ways to cover their hair. In this photo my friend wears a wig, or sheitel, while I wear a scarf, or tichel.

Igrot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer, Vol. 1, 58:

The actual Talmudic prohibition is against Jewish women going out with their hair unkempt, so if only a few strands are visible one cannot infer that all the hair is unkempt. Therefore, these strands are not a problem. There is an amount called a tefah, which is about 8-10 cm, or half the width of the head. You are permitted to show just under 1 square tefah of hair. (Usually a good rule is 2 finger widths.)

We then had a nice discussion about some other issues, such as women who shave their heads. Some hassidic women do this after marriage so they never risk showing their hair. They wear a head covering at all times and wear fancy wigs just for their husbands. However, this practice has been discouraged by modern poskim, unless you are a member of one of these sects.

One of the reasons hair is covered, aside from because G-d said so, is that it is considered to be one of the most sensual parts of a woman and one of the most sexually attractive parts. A married woman does not need to show this to men other than her husband. Also, a head-covering can indicate to other men that she is married. Also, like tzitzit for a man, a woman’s head-covering reminds her of Hashem’s presence… and even more than that, reminds her that she is married.

We also talked about the mystical significance of hair, which some say represents creativity and the creative force. Men are conduits and bring that creative force down from shemayim (heaven) but women need to contain and refine it. Therefore, a woman covers her hair to contain and control her creative forces, allowing her to take her husband’s creative forces and shape them into something more useful.

With love and a little smile,

-Luke

Can women speak in the assembly?

Please note that this is one of several ways of non-bindingly examining some confusing scriptures. There are a plethora of ways to look at every piece of the Bible, but only two are presented here. Furthermore, regardless of the number, only one is correct. Please do your own research and look at more than just this point of view.  There are at least 4 others that I can think of immediately. 

BQ: We're going to start off by looking at 1 Cor 14:34-38 (NASB) in depth. We'll refer to this text for a whole series, so keep it in mind. Let's get rolling:
 

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."

These verses seem to imply that women can't speak in assembly. Is it deeper than that? Yes.  Here Paul seems to say that women must not speak. A few chapters before, in 1 Cor 11, he gave various rules about both men AND women speaking, however.  Verse 5 shows that women did indeed speak, saying, "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved." 







BQ: We're looking at 1 Cor 14:34-38. Yesterday we saw that women were talked of as both prophesying and praying. Why does 1 Cor 14 say they must not speak? Let's look at some translation issues. Verse 34 says, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." The part where it says "the women" here comes from Greek, " αἱ γυναῖκες, which is "hai gynakies," or more rudimentarily,  "hai gune."  In most standard translations, the "hai" is not correlated with an interlinear reference, but it is indeed there. What differences does it make?

The word for "women" in this case, is also the exact same word for wives. So it can also be read as "The wives" are to keep silent in the churches. This makes sense, because how can an unmarried woman as her non-existent husband? She can't! Tomorrow, we look at "hai."






BQ: We saw that 1 Cor 14:34-38 was applied via Greek and context to wives. The word "αἱ/hai" is also used. This is the feminine form of "Οἱ/hoi." 

Why does it matter? Because the Greeks had a LOT of ways to translate "the." Hai and hoi are very often translated as "those," not the.  If you have various translations on hand, you can examine the following verses and see that some translate it as "the," and others as "those." Look up some verses such as John 6:14; 8:26, Romans 8:5, 1 Cor 10:18; 15:18; 15:23, Gal 3:9; 5:24; 6:13, 1 Thess 5:7, 1 Tim 3:13, and 2 Tim 1:15 and 3:6.  

Let's look at just John 6:14. First, the NASB: "Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”

Now the KJV:  "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." 

Now let's apply that to 1 Cor 14:34. "THOSE wives are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."

Makes a difference, doesn't it? 






BQ: So if someone were talking about "those wives" in 1 Corinthians 14:34, why would they have wanted them silent? We saw that in earlier chapters they were indeed taught to be speaking, and, like men, to be doing it without bringing dishonor. What, then, was wrong with these ladies?

Well we have to ask, "what wives?" To ascertain this, we need to look at the context. The verses proceeding this are talking of spiritual gifts, and especially speaking in tongues, so we need to go to the section mentioning spiritual gifts primarily, and in this case, it's in 1 Cor 12. Let's see if anyone was misusing spiritual gifts and in need of being made to shush:

"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.  You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.  Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." (1-3)

It is indicated here that some were using false spiritual gifts to curses Jesus—truly wrong. Could this be it? You decide, but the original Greek will reveal an entirely new aspect of the discussion.






BQ: Yesterday we saw that 1 Cor 12 had a section mentioning some saying, "Jesus is cursed." The interesting thing is that, in the Greek, there are no punctuation marks to add the quotations. In fact, it's all UPPERCASELOOKINGCAPITALLETTERSWITHOUTPUNCTUATION.  The translators themselves had to determine where to put the periods, question marks, and quotations. I've attached a picture to make it easier to visualize. 

​
Some translations, such as the NASB, don't bother to insert quotation marks very often. Let's look at an example. 1 Cor 6:13 says, "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body." (NASB) Or it says (NRSV): “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,”and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

Notice how the quotes make a difference? One shows that Paul is enlightening and attacking what the Corinthians have said, showing their error through comparison and contrast. But is that what he's doing? Let's see more tomorrow.







BQ: Yesterday we saw that MAYBE Paul was really refuting some things that the Corinthians had written to him in correspondence. But how do we know that they ever told him anything ludicrous? How do we know that it was almost a point-counterpoint style of writing? Well, if we read 1 Cor 7:1, we see that indeed he was having a dialog:

 "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.""

So they were indeed writing him, telling him about the issues that they had as a congregation. 1 Cor 3 mentions the divisions within the assembly, and how immature they were, so Paul had to do some teaching. Tomorrow we'll look at more evidence of this.






BQ: We saw that, in 1 Corinthians, Paul was addressing some of the issues that the assembly there had. We saw that the originals had no punctuation, so translators have added it where they thought was best, and some just didn't bother at all. Let's look at another verse where quotation marks make a difference. This time, we will pull from Rotherham's translation to look at 1 Cor 6:12, which says:

"All things, unto me, are allowable, but, not all things, are profitable: all things, unto me, are allowable, but, I, will not be brought under authority by any."

The word there is "allowable," or "permissible." Now let's look at it with the point-counterpoint quotations added:

"“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything." 

Think about it—does God permit ALL things? No! When viewing this as Paul corresponding with the Corinthians about their immature points of view, it makes more sense. We'll see why that's important in regards to women speaking tomorrow.






BQ: So we saw that Paul was often chastising the Corinthians for their poor behavior, and now we're going to apply that to...1 Cor 14:34-38. Examine it like this:

QUOTE "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." UNQUOTE 

PAUL RESPONDS: "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.  But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."

That changes things significantly, doesn't it? Corinthians saying that women must not speak, as the "Law" says, but must be quiet. We'll see more tomorrow.






BQ:  So we looked at women speaking and saw some evidence that Paul was writing in a point-counterpoint style when speaking of women not speaking, and instead of telling women never to speak, and contradicting himself, as he wrote earlier, he was rather saying that it was not ok to say that women must not speak. But why do we think that Paul was refuting some nonsense by the Corinthians? Isn't that a little bit too easy?

Verse 36, where the attribution of Paul speaking was inserted, says, "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?" (NASB) However, in some versions it says, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (KJV)

 Why does that "what" exist? It's because the original Greek has a symbol that is called a "rhetorical eta." It looks like a little n with ears on top (ἢ), and when used by itself, means something like, "What nonsense!" or "That's ridiculous!" or "How absurd!"   

So, immediately after saying that women must not speak in the churches, Paul exclaims, "That's ridiculous!" and follows it up by sarcastically asking if they have some special revelation. Makes a difference, doesn't it?






BQ: But wait, is this "rhetorical eta" used anywhere else by Paul? Well indeed it is, in addressing the Corinthians, who as we saw had written him a pile of silliness and were very immature. Here are some examples:

1 Cor. 10:21-22—"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. [RHETORICAL ETA Nonsense/that's gargabe/ridiculous!] Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?"

1 Cor. 11:13-14--"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?" [RHETORICAL ETA Nonsense/that's gargabe/ridiculous!] Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering."

We see here that it isn't a one-off thing. Instead, it's used by Paul to make a point when something is patently absurd.






BQ: Something else to consider is the fact that, in the following places, Paul quotes the Old Testament Law: 1 Cor 1:19;31; 2:9; 10:7, 14:21. In 14:21, he quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 and says, "In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me."  

In each case where Paul (and thus God) quotes the Law, he inserts the actual scriptures. Let's look again at 1 Cor 14:34, which says, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."

Notice that Paul does not actually quote the Law here. Why is that? It's because the Old Testament never says this at all. In fact, the closest one can get is a Pharisically-created rabbinical tradition being espoused as "Law," which is in fact never uttered by God. 






BQ: So we've examined that. What other evidence is there that women may indeed speak in the assemblies? Let's look at some of just a few women who spoke publicly and had the approval of God:

1. Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her (Exodus 15:20).

2. And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time ... and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment (Judges 4:4,5).

3. So Hilkiah the priest ... went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum ... and they communed with her (2 Kings 22:14).

Clearly, the prophetesses of the Old Testament exercised their gift publicly, even the priests and the king being subject to what they said. So tomorrow let's see if women had to just zip it in the New Testament. 






BQ: So we saw that women could speak in public in the Old Testament, now how about the New? Yep:

(1) And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel ... which departed not from the temple ... and spake of him (Christ) to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem (Luke 2:36-38).

(2) The apostle Peter, on Pentecost, cited the Old Testament scriptures which prophesied that in the times of the new testament, "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17).

(3) "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea;  that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the [b]saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well." (Romans 16:1-2)

Note that "deaconess" can also be translated as "servant," but in whatever case, she had an important and independent role. Furthermore, extra-Biblical resources indicate that women performed somewhat official functions, with Pliny (close to Paul's death) writing of the early church, "After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavour to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate  in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition."

Many consider those two females to have been the equivalent of Phoebe, but this is supposition.






BQ: Is there anything else that makes women stand out in the New Testament? Yep.

(1) "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,  who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles;  also greet the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia.  Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you.  Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom 16:3-7)

Of those mentioned, Junias is the only uncertain one. Junias was considered by the majority of the early church "fathers" to have been a female, and in all the Greek manuscripts, it is denoted a feminine. With that said, it is a name somewhat like "Leslie," and can be either masculine or feminine.   

Still, consider that Mary and Priscilla were also mentioned, and that Priscilla is rather stunning, as she is most often mentioned before her husband. This is not at all normal for the culture and Greek, and would be similar to us getting a piece of mail to "Mrs. and Mr. Lastname."






BQ: We saw one look at Priscilla, but I felt that it was important to mention something that one commentator wrote:

"Amazingly, she is mentioned first, even ahead of her husband, and first of all those whom Paul was about to name. From this it has been concluded that she was more active and successful in Christian work than her husband Aquila; for not merely here, but in Acts 18:18,26, and 2 Timothy 4:19, the same preeminence of Priscilla is indicated; however, in Acts 18:2,1 Corinthians 16:19, Aquila is mentioned first.

There were doubtless very good reasons why this couple should have headed the list of all whom Paul desired to salute in Rome, and some have supposed that Prisca was of the Roman nobility; but we cannot believe that anything of that nature would have carried any weight whatever with Paul. There were qualities of character and service involved in the bestowal of such honor as was given this great Christian woman, an honor above even that of her husband; and it is natural to think of their laying "down their own necks" on Paul's behalf, an action in which Prisca might well have been the principal participant, encouraged and supported by her husband." (—James Coffman) 






BQ:  We've seen that women were very active in the New Testament, and that they were not forbidden to speak. However, it is true that the Old and New Testaments place man as the head of woman as a principle. (Gen 3:16, 2:18, etc.) Furthermore, some positions were given only to men, such as the positions of evangelist and elder. For example, "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife." (1 Tim 3:2)

If we were to make a woman an elder, it would "usurp authority from a man,". The idea of "teaching a man" as a violation of that law, or speaking in the assembly answering questions as part of the audience is, however, far-fetched. Did Priscilla usurp authority over Apollos when she (and her husband) taught him the word of God (Acts 18:24). Nope!  

In fact, women are told to speak, and not just in songs, hymns, and spiritual songs, but also praying and prophesying—yet in many congregations, they are not found praying for fear of "stepping out of line." I have even met some Christian females who would not teach an un-baptized male because they could not "teach a man."  It's a horrible state to be in, and one that undermines our effectiveness for God. 

There is much more that can be said about this subject, and I will probably post more research in future BQs, but for now, I've run out of time, and air traffic controlling calls. 

Starting the day right.

BQ: When do you pray? I like to start my day off right by  by praying, and two great people in the Bible were known to do the same thing. King David wrote in Psalms 5:3, "In the morning, O Lord, You will hear my voice; In the morning I will order my prayer to You and eagerly watch."

What's really encouraging to me is that Jesus did the same thing! Mark 1:35 records that, "In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there." 

If you want to start your day off right, start it with prayer. :)

Prayers that are heard.

Prayers
BQ: Because you pray does not mean that you're heard—whose prayers does God hear? In whose name/through whom should we pray everything? Let's start with a short verse.  “We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him." Jn 9:31

A: Is 59:1-2, Psa 66:18, Jms 4:3 THEN
Jn 16:23-24, Col 3:17, Jn14:6

It is interesting to note that the "sinner's prayer" is not in the Bible and does not save you. In fact, it doesn't even make you "part way" saved. Which would be akin to being "part way" pregnant—you either are or you aren't.
(PN8)

To avoid temptation.

BQ: Have you ever met someone you really would have rather seen get hit by a bus than turn from his/her obnoxious ways? I think that most of us get that feeling at some point, much like Jonah did. What's a great way to overcome anger at someone?

A: Matthew 26:41 has a great answer: "Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation ; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

There are all sorts of temptations that this helps with, but we'll stick with anger. When I feel myself getting angry at someone, I stop and pray for them to become more like Christ. When I keep my focus on hoping that the transgressor will grow into a great friend, it's hard to stay angry at them. 

Prayer helps with a lot of things. It really forces us to come out of the worldly mindset and to remember what our spiritual goals are. A side benefit is that, by putting away the fleshly reaction, your reputation will remain above reproach. : )