You know, funny things happen in church from time to time.

How about Gayla snoring & I’m the only one not hearing it because I’m talking.

The look of panic Dewy has when he notices nobody is coming to the front to give a

Communion Meditation then he realizes it was his turn.

There’s a story of one beloved lady who always fell asleep during church, but had the curious ability to almost fall over, yet not fall

over.

She would lean to one side, then the other, and then forward.

She entertained many a child over the years.Most everything that happens at church is not

funny.

Paul has already mentioned a number of very serious issues facing the church at Corinth.

As we move into , we see that Paul is addressing several problems concerning the worship practices of the Corinthian community.

In the first section, , Paul discusses the issue of head coverings, which apparently was triggered by something the

Corinthians had written him about.

In the second section, , Paul reacts to a report he had received about

divisions occurring in their celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Throughout this chapter, and the rest of the section that goes through , Paul’s purpose is to encourage the Corinthians to conduct themselves in worship in a manner

that respects God’s order of things, is motivated by love, and conducive to the

common good.

As accustomed as most of us are to worship that is sober and orderly, it is hard for us to

even visualize what was happening at Corinth.

So, let’s work hard to try to understand exactly what was happening in Corinth, and then see

what we can learn from their mistakes.

ESV

From what Paul writes to the Corinthians, it seems that they have appealed to Paul’s own teaching in order to argue for certain practices

that seek to erase the distinctions between men and women in worship- practices of which

Paul now expresses disapproval.

Paul’s reply no doubt came as a surprise to some of the Corinthians.

Rather than endorsing the freedom of the women to pray and prophesy without a head

covering, he instructs them instead to maintain the discipline symbolized by head coverings.

Paul’s arguments about this subject are very difficult to understand for three reasons. First,

his line of argument is – by any standard –labored and convoluted. Second, we are not

sure how to interpret some of the key terms in his argument.

And third, we have to admit that there is a great deal we do not know about head

coverings at Corinth and in the Greco-Roman world at large in the first century.

We know that heavy veils were worn by women at Jerusalem and throughout the East

generally.But there is good evidence to the effect that Greek and Roman women did not always

follow the same custom.

Paul begins by praising the Corinthians for their general fidelity to “the traditions” he had

delivered them.

Paul then called attention to the order of authority and submission which heaven has

established and insisted that the Christians at Corinth respect that order.

Christ is God’s equal in nature and essence, but He became subordinate to the Godhead

for the sake of a particular function. In the same way, woman is man’s equal in

nature and essence, but she is subordinate to him for the sake of a particular function.

Women are to be subject to men and are to respect the leadership God has given them in

the affairs of the church.

The appropriate signs of their acceptance of God’s order of authority at Corinth would be for

the man to keep his head uncovered ( ) and for the woman to keep her head covered

in worship settings ( ).So what was the cover?Was it a traditional veil?

Or was it just a way of wearing her hair?

In light of , in which Paul is clearly discussing hair, and in which he affirms that a

woman’s long hair is “,” some have suggested that the

whole passage deals not with wearing a veil, but with having the hair bound or unbound.They would explain that to have the head

‘covered” would mean to have the hair tied up on top of the head rather than hanging loose.

For women to have loose hair in public, was conventionally seen as shameful, a sign

associated either with prostitution, or with women caught up in the ecstatic worship

practices of the cults associated with pagan worship.

Therefore, for men to renounce their authority in relation to women by adopting the head covering would have been wrong, just as it

would be wrong for women to challenge male leadership by refusing to have their head

covered.

I do not want to address the issue of women leading in prayer or prophesy, because that doesn’t appear to be the issue that Paul is

addressing in these verses.He will have something more to say about that

in .Obviously, there were women praying and

prophesying one way or another, but the focus was on the fact that they were doing so with

their head uncovered.That is a given.

So the issue here in seems to be the issue of clear role distinctions and clear

lines of authority and submission.

Regardless of the particular application at Corinth, the trans-cultural principle about male leadership and women’s submission to men in the church must be taught and respected in all

times and places.

A woman’s submission to her husband and to the male leaders in the church is not a denigration of her status before God. To the contrary, by respecting those

relationships she is demonstrating her obedience to God.

The respect both men and women have for God’s order of things on this point is not a tool for suppressing women, rather it is a humble

acknowledgement of the context God has designated for her as man’s complement and

helper in all things.

Complementary roles of leadership and submission are necessary both for maintaining

marriages and building churches.

As women look to Christ, they find a perfect model of willing submission.

Jesus’ absolute submission to the Father in no way diminished His personhood, worth, or

dignity.

Paul argues that man was prior to woman in creation and is “ ”; thus he honors God by being in submission to

Him.

Woman was created from and for man and is “ ”; thus she honors her

relationship with him by being in submission to his leadership.

I’m sure some would be very disappointed if I didn’t say anything about the phrase “

” in .Among the many guesses about Paul’s

meaning by commentators, perhaps two are worthy of mention.

Some have suggested that Paul regards uncovered heads of woman as sexual

provocation to evil angels, but surely, if Paul had intended to express this rather bizarre

idea, he would have offered a somewhat fuller explanation.

More likely is the hypothesis that Paul thinks of angels as being present with the worshiping

community and therefore the community ought to behave in a manner worthy of the presence

of these heavenly “dignitaries.”This view also leaves me curious because The

Lord who it far greater is in attendance. ESV

Now, lest anything said to this point be taken as being negative toward woman, Paul

immediately affirms her worth and mutual dependence with man on God.

There is to be a genuine partnership between the sexes with a mutual respect and mutual

submission in spite of their very different roles. ESV

Paul’s final argument against the rejection of the head covering for women is essentially a

sociological one.

Paul appeals to their own sense of propriety in light of the community practice and in light of

nature.

Paul’s point here seems to be that “nature” recognizes a distinction between the sexes.

The point is not to prescribe precise hair lengths or clothing styles but to uphold the

necessity of clear role distinctions between the sexes.

Paul concludes the section with a statement for anyone who would object to what he has

said.

Having commended them earlier in the chapter for their general regard for his

instructions to them, Paul now has little to commend about their behavior with regard to

their practice of the Lord’s Supper.

The divisions he mentions here do not seem to be the same as were mentioned earlier in the

letter that had to do with philosophical, personality, or doctrinal differences, rather

these appear to be purely social.

In any case, the meal that should be the symbol and seal of their oneness has in fact

become an occasion for division and an occasion for some of them to shame others.

What we have to keep in mind is that the Lord’s Supper in the early church was not

some kind of spiritual, liturgical ritual celebrated in a church building.

At this early date in the church, there were no separate buildings for Christian worship.

The Lord’s Supper was an actual meal eaten by the Christian community in a private home.Therefore, the sharing of the symbolic bread and cup of the Lord’s Supper occurred as a

part of a common meal.

It may be hard for us to imagine the wealthier Corinthian Christians acting in such an overt

snubbing of the poor, but in the context of their first-century Greco-Roman culture, they saw

their actions as completely normal.Archaeological study of Roman houses from

this period has shown that the dining room of a typical villa would generally have three couches & could accommodate only 9

persons, who would recline at the table for the meal.

Other guests would have to sit or stand in the atrium, which might have provided space for

another 30 to 40 people.The host of such a gathering would, of course,

be one of the wealthier members of the community.

It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the host’s higher-status friends would be invited to dine in the dining room, while the lower-status members of the church (such as freedmen and

slaves) would be placed in the larger space outside.

Under such conditions, it was not at all unusual for the guests in the dining room to be

served better and more abundant food and wine than the other guests – just like first-class

passengers on an airplane receive much better food and service than others on the

same plane.The wealthier ones may also have been able

to arrive sooner than the poorer ones who couldn’t get away from their jobs, and by the time the poor showed up the food was gone

and the wealthy ones were gorged and drunk.

The main point Paul is making is that the church’s common meal should symbolize unity through an equitable sharing of the food and

drink.Paul’s remedy for the problem is to focus their attention back on Christ and the meaning of

the Supper.Paul is not giving the Corinthians new

information; rather, he is recalling to mind the story told them about Jesus’ redemptive event,

a story that they themselves should repeat every time they gather at the Lord’s table.

The most striking feature of Paul’s re-narration of the tradition is the emphasis that he places upon memory – twice he instructs them to “

.”The Passover meal for the Jews was instituted by God to be a “day of remembrance for you,”

in which Israel recalls God’s deliverance of His people from bondage.

ESV

In the same way, the Lord’s Supper is to be an occasion for the people of God to remember God’s action of deliverance through Jesus’

death.

Paul then calls them to “ ” and not take the supper in an unworthy manner.

As we take the supper we ought to think of the literal body and blood of Jesus that was given

on our behalf.Certainly those who have not given their lives to Christ in baptism should not partake of the

Supper.Certainly it should be a time when we examine

ourselves and our lives in light of God’s call.

All of these are true but are not the kind of things that Paul had in mind as he wrote to the

Corinthians.The unworthy manner that they were taking the Supper had nothing to do with personal sin, or an irreverence for the elements, and

had everything to do with their mistreatment of fellow Christians.

For Paul, “ ,” means recognizing the community of believers for what it really is – the one body of Christ –

without divisions and without social distinctions.

What lessons from do we need to work to apply to our lives?

Let me offer a few.First, we need to understand that there is no

place in the church for unisex.There is a difference between males and

females – God the creator made it that way. We are not the same, and we are not

supposed to be the same.Men are supposed to look like men and

women like women.

God has also created us for different roles.

These God created distinctions between men and women should be honored in the church.

To blur these distinctions is to bring chaos and needless shame upon the church.

Second, at the same time, we need to understand the mutual interdependence of the

sexes.

Both sexes are equally special and valuable in God’s sight.

Both sexes need each other.

We complement each other. Just because God has granted the leadership role to males in no way makes them better, nor gives them

permission to dominate.

The greatest male leaders in the home and in the church are the greatest servants who put

the needs of their followers ahead of their own – Jesus is our prime example.

Third, we learn that this passage rebukes the person who is contentious.

There must be order if the Christian community is going to function healthfully. But that doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree

on everything.

If your conviction on a particular matter is not your highest priority, then adapt to the will of

the majority.

If your conviction on a matter is of the highest priority and does not agree with the majority,

then you have to, after lovingly and graciously stating your case, peacefully remove yourself

from that community.

If your conviction is strong enough, don’t compromise it but hold it in a way that doesn’t

destroy the body.

Fourth, we learn the importance of the Lord’s Supper for our unity and focus. Strangely, we

are indebted to the Corinthians for messing up their celebration of the Supper.

If they had not messed things up, then Paul would not have had to correct them, and we wouldn’t have this marvelous insight into the

Supper.We must be sure that our observance of the

supper expresses the church’s unity as God’s people.

All people must be treasured and treated equally as brothers and sisters.

Our focus must be on the memory of what Jesus has done for us and we must remember that He did it willingly – what a marvelous gift.We must never forget our desperate need as

sinners and Jesus’ graceful gift.We are a people called to live in a way that

responds appropriately to such divine generosity.

Finally, the Lord’s Supper also becomes an occasion for us to ponder God’s judgment. Sinless perfection is not a prerequisite for

eating the bread and drinking the cup, if so, then none of us could ever come to the table.

Nevertheless, we should never approach the Supper in a casual manner, rather we should soberly consider our life, Christ’s sacrifice and

our treatment of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

God does take sin seriously and sometimes acts to discipline those who defy His will.

So as we bring this lesson to a close, let’s be asking God to help us understand and respect

His order of things.

Let’s be asking God to help us love and appreciate Christ and the people who make up

the body of Christ.