1 Timothy 1:6-7

"Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions."

Every time I read verse seven, I think about my time in a Christian college's dorm. There were many confident assertions made about the Bible there, but in many cases, the debaters barely knew what they were talking about. Their problem was immaturity.

The way to a mature walk with God is through love. In your dealings with other people, are you hoping they will look well upon you? Do you want to look smart or to look like you are further along then they are? If those are your goals, you will be easily lead astray into meaningless discussions. You will talk without understanding and think you sound good. But as 1 Cor.13:1 teaches, you will be a meaningless noisemaker.

If, on the other hand, you want your relationships to be valuable, you must be driven by love. Seek to understand God's love for you. And as you understand that love, share it with others by living example and verbal testimony. That will be a faithful stewardship of your faith, and it will protect you from lofty-headed worthlessness.

1 Corinthians 16:15-18

"Now I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints— be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence, for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such men."

Biblical leadership looks very different from the corporate model. The top down structure of the business world elevates the leader to a position of superiority. And if he lords it over his underlings, that's just his right. But in the church, the business pyramid is flipped on its head. The leader is the servant of all. He is to lift those he leads up before the Lord.

Paul tells the Corinthians to subject themselves to their leaders. And yet, there seems to be no condemnation of Apollos for not doing what Paul wanted him to do. Believers are supposed to subject themselves to their leaders. But their leaders are not to demand submission.

What does the servant / servant-leader relationship look like then?

• There is no superiority or inferiority. No person's position, wealth, or influence make him better than any other person.
  
• Spiritual leaders are to lead by serving. And their service is very valuable both to other leaders and to the church at large.
• Believers are to voluntarily put themselves under the direction of their spiritual leadership. But they are not to blindly follow their leaders. Those under leadership are still responsible to think and make decisions for themselves, before God.

1 Corinthians 14:33b-35

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

What does it mean that “women . . . are not permitted to speak in church”? If we take these two and a half verses in isolation, they seem to indicate that women are not permitted to say anything at all in church services. But that cannot be true because chapter eleven, when dealing with head coverings, puts guidelines on how women are to pray and prophecy in church. So in what sense should women “keep silent in the churches”?

I believe that the key to understanding the prohibition lies in the immediately preceding verses. The previous verses addressed how to keep prophets accountable. If there was a prophecy that contradicted revealed truth, the others were to call the contradictory prophecy and prophet into question. I submit that the restriction forbidding women to speak applies specifically to this necessary challenging of contradictory prophecy.

If a woman believed that what was being asserted as truth was really false, she was not to publicly call it into question. Instead she was to ask her husband at home. Notice how the prohibition is linked with the need to be in submission: "they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission." It is possible to converse, pray, or explain submissively. But challenging an assertion is not usually an act of submission.

This fits perfectly with the likelihood that the prohibition was a prohibition from publicly challenging men. Perhaps this was due to the cultural realization that it would have shamed a man to be corrected by a woman. Whatever the motivation, it frees women to participate in church while clarifying that everything should be done in a way that recognizes and respects authority.

1 Corinthians 12:24b-26

"But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together."

I don’t believe that the church today attains this level of unity. Do I suffer when another suffers? Do I rejoice at the advancement of others? Or have I so misunderstood my role in the church, that I (and others with the same mindset) am so fractured that I am not acting like part of a body at all. When I stub my toe, my whole body is unhappy, and when I am given a good massage, my whole body relaxes. But when one in the church is blessed, do I have to fight jealousy? When one is suffering, am I disinterested? If I'm not unified with the other members of the church, then this is not what God intended.

God wants us to be such a part of each other’s lives that we are looked at and seem as one. Our care and involvement goes to such levels, that we are actually a single body. This is accomplished by the more gifted/honored parts of the body reaching out to those who lack, in order to lift them up. This may involve financial assistance, but I believe that it goes far deeper than that. You don’t just want their physical needs to be met, you want to see them elevated to a place of spiritual maturity, and you are so involved in seeing that happen that when they succeed, you rejoice as if you have succeeded; when they are hurt, you weep as if you have been wounded; and when they fail, you lament as if you have failed.

1 Corinthians 11:33-34

"So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come."

This chapter’s final words on the Lord’s Table wrap things up by addressing the subjects of unity and respect. The call for unity comes in the directive to observe the ordinance together. In the book of Ephesians, the church is described as one body with many members that are to be walking together in unity. We get a glimpse of that in these verses. The ordinance is to be observed by everyone at the same time. It is something that you all do together.

And the motivation for this unity is the respect that you have for other believers. You should not to be eating feasts in front of the hungry because, unlike most of the world, you care about the hungry, especially if they are believers. It is perhaps surprising that the respect is not for the Lord Himself. Surely that is a part of the equation. But here we see that God is keenly interested in our being rightly related to one another.

If we fail to walk in unity and respect for other believers, especially while participating in the Lord’s table, we will be judged. Our relationships with others are important to God.

1 Corinthians 11:20-22

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

The Corinthians’ way of observing the Lord’s Table was so far off that they were told that they weren’t actually observing the Lord’s Table at all. They were coming to church, and they were eating, but they were not honoring the Lord. Their error was two-fold: 1) they were simply eating. They weren’t properly remembering the Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection. 2) And they were selfishly eating their own meal without any thought of what other people had to eat.

How can you possibly remember the Lord and His sacrifice with a large meal that you eat around hungry believers who have nothing? How can you keep everything to yourself, when Jesus gave everything He had for you? To act this way is to "despise the church of God." You don’t love them, you despise them. Rather than edifying, the Corinthians’ aberrant behavior was humiliating the poorer believers in the congregation. And Paul had nothing positive to say to them about what they were doing.

So how might this apply to me? After all, all the churches I’ve ever attended observe the Lord’s Table with far less than you would eat at a meal. Furthermore, when we have a large meal, everyone almost always has access to the same amount. So are we without fault here? Have we corrected all the mistakes the Corinthians were making at the Lord’s Table? I think that we have both corrected the first mistake but made the second mistakes but in a more subtle (though slightly less damaging) way.

All churches I have attended treat Communion with great respect. Sometimes entire services are devoted to the Lord’s Table, and whenever we partake of the elements, we are careful to remember the Lord’s death. So in this matter, I believe that we have corrected the Corinthians’ mistake.

But our obedience is less complete in the irradiation of our selfishness. Today if we have meals at church in America, we don’t eat in front of hungry people. But this may be partially due to the fact that our churches tend to be divided along economic lines. Many wealthy churches have no one who lacks in their congregation. I say that this is slightly less damaging because you are not humiliating those who are less privileged. In fact, if someone came into a church who lacked, he would probably be able to eat like everyone else. However, some of our churches have become so economically divided from one another, that the poor person wouldn’t even consider going to the church in the first place. This is a problem.

1 Corinthians 11:17-19

"But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized."

How pitiful it would be for a Christian to faithfully go to church week after week, even multiple times a week and for God to say to him, "Your going to church was a waste of time," or perhaps closer to the text, "Your going to church hurt your walk with Me." Such a statement would be devastating, but the seriousness of these instructions warrants the severity of the warning.

The Corinthians were observing the Lord’s Table (or communion) in a fashion that was so damaging that it made church attendance counterproductive. Before addressing the specific problems with their observance of the Lord’s Table, Paul shows us the foundational problem—divisions among the believers.

Verse eighteen says, "when you come together as a church, . . . there are divisions among you." They were coming together, and yet they were not together. The divisions mentioned in earlier chapters were among factions within the church. Groups of believers had aligned themselves with this or that person. But here the divisions are social and economic. People were allowing what they had to make a clear distinction between them and their fellow believers.

There are some distinctions that are natural and beneficial. For example, there are some people in churches who passionately follow after God. When they come to church, they sing from their heart, and throughout the week you can see that God has done something special and humanly unexplainable in their lives. Other people in churches profess to know God, but when you look at their lives, you cannot see anything different in their lives from the life of an unbeliever. That kind of natural distinction must be recognized because it helps us know how to better minister to the different types of people in our church. However, separating believers on the basis of something as spiritually irrelevant as economic status, is in no way beneficial. In fact, those kind of distinctions can make church attendance worthless.

1 Corinthians 11:10-12

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Men have a strong inclination to be corrupted by power and authority. This tendency can easily lead an authority figure to take advantage of those under his leadership. Caring more for his personal comfort than the wellbeing of those he leads a boss, government official, pastor, or husband can think of himself as important and others as unimportant—after all he is the one who makes the decisions. God makes it clear in these verses that we are equal before Him.

Though women were made for men, men would not be around without women. We need each other. The man who thinks himself better than women because of what the Bible says about men and women in not treating Scripture properly. God made us so that we needed each other and more importantly He made us so that we need Him. God is the superior one. He is the creator and sustainer.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9

"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

We need to acknowledge the truth and give heed to it, even if it flies in the face of our culture. Husband and wife are equals before God, our culture accepts this, and later verses testify to this truth. But these verses show us that equal does not necessarily mean the same. God had different reasons for creating men and women, and because of God’s design, men and women have different roles and find deeper fulfillment in doing what each was designed for.

Recognizing man’s need, God created woman for man. She was designed to complement or complete him. In a marriage relationship a woman who supports her husband publicly and privately does bring glory to her husband. The husband also has a responsibility to make the wife better by leading her in the right direction, but man’s primary responsibility is to glorify God. This is the wife’s responsibility too, but one of the main ways she does this by honoring her husband.

The wife wearing a head covering is a symbol of her recognition of this relationship. The symbol is important, but the underlying relationship and heart attitude is far more important.

1 Corinthians 11:4-6

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head."

Men should never wear head coverings in worship, to do so dishonors Christ. But when women worship publicly, they should wear a head coverings to honor their husbands. The head covering is not the hair itself but some form of covering that goes over the hair—this much textually is indisputable. What is fairly disputed, however, is if the practice is still normative today. I believe that it is, and I will consider the scriptural reasoning further as I work through the next several verses.

This passage of scripture seems so clear to me, but not everyone has come to the same conclusion. In fact, I am in the minority among today's conservative Bible believers. Therefore, it is important for me to note that disagreement on this issue is not a source contention. It is also important to note that the external form, while important, is not as important as the underlying imperative for the husband and wife to be properly related to one another before God.

1 Corinthians 11:3

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God."

This verse introduces the issue of head coverings, a sign of submission, by indicating that submission is necessary. We all are in some kind of leadership role—whether by human appointment, divine design, or simply by practical default. And in that leadership role, we have people following us.

The husband, realizing the headship he has in the marriage relationship, could easily think that he is better than the wife. But the fact that one is in a position of leadership or authority over another does not necessarily indicate superiority. This is the main point of the verse, but I think that it is an important truth that can legitimately be supported by the verse. The main point is simply to clarify the the position of husband, wife and God.

1 Corinthians 10:24-30

"Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For 'the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.' If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice,' then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?"

Christian liberty is not about Christians being allowed to do whatever they want to do. Doing what you want is seeking your own good (or at least your own perceived good). That is what is natural, but it isn't Christian liberty. Christian liberty involves your willingness to seek the good of your neighbor instead of your own good.

Consider the inspired example. There is nothing wrong with eating any meat even if it was formerly involved in a temple sacrifice. If someone gives you some meat, you are allowed to eat it without any concern about its origin. But if you are with someone else and they are bothered by the idea of eating meat once offered to idols, you should not eat it. "But why should I do that? I am right. He is wrong." Yes, but you want to do him good. Abstaining is the right thing to do.

What are the universal principles?

1. What you want isn't the most important thing.
   
2. It might be right for you to temporarily surrender a perfectly acceptable practice for the good of another.
3. Offending the conscience of another Christian can damage them.
4. Surrendering your rights is not the same thing as allowing your conscience to be manipulated.
5. While you should seek to avoid offending individuals, you shouldn't let public opinion rule over you.
   

1 Corinthians 9:19

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them."

One thing I’ve learned from my time in Europe and Asia: people are very different from one another. I mean they are way different. Whole societies view things and see them the exact opposite way that my home society sees them. Beyond that there are huge differences of value and perspective within a culture. When dealing with other people who see things differently, we are not bound by their view, but if we want to minister to them, we need to put ourselves under their system of thought as much as is allowable biblically.

1 Corinthians 9:3-7

"This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?"

Why would Paul defend his rights here if he intends to surrender them? So why waste these five verses? It seems to fit with the previous chapter on Christian liberty. He has stated that, out of love, a Christian may need to surrender his rights for the good of a fellow-Christian. And now Paul gives an example of how he has done this himself. He goes through several things that were well within his rights to do. Then he explains that he has chosen not to claim these rights "rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ" (9:12).

So why take the time to enumerate his rights? Why show that he is giving something up? I don't believe that it was done to make other people think better of him. It was done to set an example—to show that you can sacrifice your rights for the good of others. He sacrificed certain foods. He sacrificed relationships that most people desire (and that most apostles had). And he sacrificed the remuneration that was rightly his for the ministerial work that he was doing. His example shows us that the things you give up don't have to even be morally questionable things. Love your brother, and be willing to surrender your rights for him.

1 Corinthians 9:1-2

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord."

The non-inspired heading for this chapter reads, "Paul surrenders his rights." It could just as well read, Paul defends and surrenders his rights. Before surrendering what was rightfully his, he made it clear that he could have justly claimed it. The Corinthians had called his position and his privileges into question.

Of all people, the Corinthians had cause to recognize Paul's authority. Perhaps they recognized it in others, but Paul's refusal to insist that his rights be given had lead them to take him for granted. It is sad but not surprising that someone who did so much for the believers would be taken for granted. We need to recognize the value of what those close to us have done for us and give them the respect that is due them. Otherwise, we will be guilty of gross ingratitude.

1 Corinthians 7:39-40

"A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God."

One family member of ours has the words "until death" engraved on the inside of his wedding band. Laurel and I have joked about this repeatedly saying things like "until you die" and other heart-warming affirmations. But "until death" is what we all pledge when we get married. We are bound, and nothing should break that bond (except death).

I suppose that some people might look at such an arrangement and believe it to be to restrictive. It's true that before you enter the marriage, you should carefully consider the life-long commitment that you are making with seriousness, care, and sobriety. But after you are married, you should treat this bond with a joyful sense of security. It should never be used to take your spouse for granted but should give great confidence in your relationship with you spouse.

If your partner dies, you are free to remarry without any sense of guilt, abandonment, or betrayal. Upon death, you are no longer bound to your former mate. You may marry whoever you wish (provided it's in the Lord).

Again we are told (I think for the last time) that it would be better for such a person (widow or widower) to remain single. Actually it says that the newly widowed will be "happier" if they do not remarry. In some cases and in some places this may be true even today, but it was especially so during the aforementioned persecution.

1 Corinthians 7:36-38

"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better."

It is not a sin to get married (not even during a time of persecution). Again the decision to marry in time of persecution or not to marry comes down to what is best in your situation. It is the larger situation, the persecution, that makes refraining a better option in the first place. And it is the specific situation, your being unable to refrain from marriage, that overrides the call to refrain from marriage in the first place.

We can see from these verses, that sometimes your circumstances influence what is best for you. This could easily be used as justification for situational ethics. But an important distinction must be made. In situational ethics, the situation determines right and wrong. But in this passage, the situation influences what is best; it has no bearing on right or wrong. It is never wrong to marry in the Lord (if you are single). Therefore, the situation does not alter morality. The situation can help us determine what is best, but it never effects moral absolutes.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35

"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."

This is a rather puzzling passage. It seems to be arguing against marriage on the basis of the devotional division it causes. It seems to be saying that single people can be entirely devoted to the Lord (without any major distractions), but married people's devotion is naturally divided between the Lord and the spouse. In the past I've discounted this argument by assuming that it was said because of the persecution of the day, but I now think that past line of reasoning was flawed.

I believe that the persecution is a factor here, but more than that, the passage seems to be addressing what normally happens when people get married. And yet, I do not believe that the verses teach that it must be this way. These words are written, "not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord." We are not being told to abstain from marriage. We are being told that marriage can distract you from devotion to God. Don't be distracted. And if marriage is going to distract you, you probably shouldn't get married.

1 Corinthians 7:29-31

"This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away."

Our time on the earth is very short. I think that this reality would be felt more strongly by those facing persecution (even death) for their faith. Knowing our end and the earthly trouble that is before us, we should take a note from the founders and avoid entangling alliances.

During our short time on the earth there are many things that can distract us. And if we allow them, they can keep us from having the right focus. Family, sadness, joy, possessions, and business can all keep us from service to the Lord. The trouble that can come from these things can become so distracting that we loose sight of the Lord.

For some people, the answer is to avoid these things all together. But the verses don't command this. Instead the verses tell us to be as though we didn't have such things. I do not think that this means that we ignore our responsibilities but that we put them in their proper place (a place or insignificance relative to the Lord).

1 Corinthians 7:25-28

"Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that."

Avoid unnecessary trouble. Marriage is honorable and can bring glory to God. But in times of persecution, marriage can bring worldly troubles. If you are being persecuted, that persecution is going to be more painful for you if you have a family that is affected by it. This does not mean that it is wrong for a person to marry under such circumstances. It may be the right thing to do. However, you should know what you will be facing so that you can avoid unnecessary and unexpected trouble. If you are unable to deal with or unprepared for the persecution, it might cause you to crack. Therefore, know what you are getting into, and avoid unnecessary trouble.