Christ's Law

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:3 . . But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

It never seems to fail that somebody will actually attempt to refute Paul's
statement by quoting another of his own statements.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were
baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor
Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal
3:26-28)

(chuckle) Paul pitted against Paul; the clash of the titans, only in this event, both
titans are one and the same titan. Yes, both genders are one in Christ; but then
Jesus and God are one also, yet there is a hierarchy in the Divinity because "the
head of Christ is God"

NOTE: Beware making this a gender issue because it's not that. This particular
arrangement is based upon seniority, i.e. primogeniture. (Gen 2:21-22, Gen 3:16,
1Tim 2:13)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:4-5a . . Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered
disrespects his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head
uncovered disrespects her head

That's a little tricky seeing as how the word "head" can refer to a skull and/or a
superior; so to clarify this a bit, I'm going to revise some of the above a little.

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disrespects Christ. And
every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disrespects Adam."

Some of the world's women have made disrespecting men their life's work; and
nothing makes them happier than finding ways to chafe one. When they become a
Christian, it's imperative they give up that particular ambition.

This issue isn't really a gender issue, it's a progenitor issue.

The woman wasn't made directly from the dust of the ground like the man was. She
was constructed with material taken from the man's body; which makes him every
woman's father. So that when women disrespect men, they are actually
disrespecting their paternal ancestor; which is a shameful thing to do in any
culture; not just the Christian religion.

Christian women aren't required to cover their hair all the time; only whenever they
pray and/or prophesy; especially in the presence of men.

No doubt this is very disagreeable with a certain number of Christian women whose
heart's ambition is to assert their independence and demand equality. Well, if they
don't want to cover their hair when praying and/or prophesying out of respect for
the principal of seniority, then they should at least woman-up and do it out of
respect for Christ's feelings about it; after all, he's supposed to be every Christian
woman's lord and master. In other words; this is more a test of one's loyalty than a
test of their politics.

● John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

● John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who
loves me.

● John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who does
not love me will not obey my teaching.

● John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do what I command you.

According to 1Cor 14:37 and 1Thess 4:1-2, the apostles' doctrine is Christ's
doctrine; it's a domino effect all the way to the top.

● Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:5b-6a . . it is just as though her head were shorn. If a woman does not
cover her head, she should have her hair cut off;

It's tempting to construe these rules as demeaning to women; but we're getting at
something fundamental here that goes all the way back to the first few chapters of
Genesis.

Women, by nature, are far more alluring than men. And that's okay @ home and/or
out in the world where they're allowed to pour on the glam and look amazing. But
in the presence of God, they ought to dull their shine a bit due to Adam's seniority
in the grand scheme of things which, in the long run, professes a Christian woman's
belief in intelligent design. (The principle underlying this rule is quite a bit different
than the reasons why conscientious Muslim women wear hijabs.)

"If it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover
her head." (1Cor 11:6b)

If Christian women would be somewhat embarrassed to show up in church with a
man's haircut, then they have only one other option; and that's to show up in
church with a women's. But in order to retain their femininity in the presence of
God; they are simply going to have to tone their allure down a bit by obscuring
their hair with something or heaven will have no choice but to assume the worst
about them.

NOTE: Christianity's hierarchy is based upon primogeniture, i.e. the man was
created before the woman; plus she was constructed from the man and for the
man; and thus owes her existence to a man; and her role is a supporting role
rather than a starring role. These rules are no doubt unacceptable to modern
feminists, but if we attempt to appease their discontent we'll only end up
disappointing our superior in Heaven.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:7-10 . . A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and
glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from
woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for
man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a token
of authority on her head.

* There's probably as much disagreement about the identity of the angels in that
passage as there is about the sons of God in the 6th chapter of Genesis.

But according to Ps 8:1-5 and Heb 2:6-7, the angels are a step above human life so
for sure women rank below celestial beings just as they rank below the image and
glory of God.

Well anyway; whoever these angels are, or whatever they are, they're apparently
indignant when they see women in church acting as though they're equals with men
in the presence of God.

Christians have simply got to come to grips with the reality that women are not
equal to men in the divine order of things. No, they will always be daddy's little girl.
Ergo: women aren't from Venus after all; no, they're actually the daughters of Mars
(so to speak).

POSIT: Paul meant that hair coverings are optional when he said: "But if any man
seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God"
(1Cor 11:16)

REPLY: Apparently the Jews' synagogues, and all the rest of the Christian churches
in the Roman world, required their women to attend worship services with
something on their heads. Were the Corinthians' women allowed an exemption,
they would stand out as heretics.

"Judge in yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" (1Cor
11:13)

The answer of course is NO; it isn't proper-- it's insolent, inappropriate, and
irreverent; plus it's conduct unbecoming for women professing Christ's divine
prerogative to tell his followers how to be a Christian.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:27-30 . .Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A
man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and
drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a
number of you have fallen asleep.

The Greek word for "unworthy" basically means: irreverently; which Webster's
defines as: lacking proper respect or seriousness. In other words "sacrilege" which
is gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing.

"sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" is very similar language to 1Cor
6:18, which states: The immoral man sins against his own body. There, as here,
we're not talking about suicide and/or homicide; were talking about desecration;
which Webster's defines as: to violate the sanctity of, to profane-- viz: to treat with
disrespect, i.e. irreverently and/or outrageously.

"A man ought to examine himself" is an imperative to make double sure that one's
heart is in the right place when consuming the elements (a.k.a. species). Some
people gulp them down as if they were nothing more than a snack of hot wings and
cold beer during a Super Bowl game instead of a sacred reminder of what God's son
endured to ransom their souls from a second death in the lake of brimstone
depicted at Rev 20:11-15. Those people have to expect that a very indignant father
is going to come down on them for that-- maybe not with sickness, maybe not with
death, and maybe not right away; but eventually with something; and really, who
can blame Him?

NOTE: Observance of the Lord's supper isn't a mandatory requirement; so if you
are a bit nervous about going about it in the wrong way, then don't take chances,
instead: play it safe and pass on it.
_

 

[grace2]

Christ's law:

His laws are all written in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Revelation.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 11:33-34 . . My brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for each
other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together
it may not result in judgment.

The command doesn't frown upon things like church banquets, men's' breakfasts,
ladies' luncheons, and/or potlucks per se. What it's criticizing is a lack of
congregational unity. Here's some comments leading up to that verse.

"Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not
for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a
church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there
must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized
among you.

. . .Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat The Lord's
Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is
hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or
do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I
say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you." (1Cor 11:17-22)

Their lack of courtesy and unity during church functions was nothing short of
hypocrisy seeing as how The Lord's supper speaks of sacrifice rather than
selfishness, elitism, and hoarding. In other words; seeing as how Christians all
share in Christ's blood equally-- and deserve Hell equally --then everyone should be
given equal treatment at church regardless of age, gender, skin color, intelligence,
income level, nationality, what side of the tracks they live on, or social status.

None of Christ's body parts are untouchable as if Christianity is a caste system; nor
are any expendable and/or non essential. God forbid that there should be some sort
of value system in a gathering of people for whom Christ suffered and died equally
for each one. That just wouldn't be right: it would be an insult to the principles
underlying The Lord's supper.

"Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying: Drink from it, all
of you." (Matt 26:27)

If Christians are all drinking from the same cup, then they should all be, at the very
least, eating the same food and not be overly concerned about where they sit
and/or who they sit next to and/or who they're seen with. And they should also
make double sure that everyone gets enough to eat and that no one gets left out
and nobody gets more than his fair share. And they should all sit down together at
the same time. I just hate it when people don't wait for each other. Some get back
to the table and start in gulping, slurping, clattering, and clanking while others from
their table are still in line.

And they should also take into consideration the possibility that a number of their
congregation are in assistance programs like TANF and SNAP. In other words; don't
just bring enough food from home for yourself; but, if you're able, bring enough for
those among you who can't bring anything at all. And for heaven's sake, don't bring
a side dish of gourmet food along just for yourself. Leave your special gourmet stuff
at home. There's just no excuse for flaunting your "sophistication" around church
thus giving everyone the impression that everyone else's tastes are below yours.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 12:24-27 . . God has combined the members of the body and has given
greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no schism in the
body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part
suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

In the beginning, Man was made in the image and likeness of God, which is a
degree of kinship with deity that makes all of us equals on the human plane. It's
likely because of the image and likeness of God that the Golden Rule is so
appropriate; same as capital punishment is so appropriate for murder. (Gen 9:5-6)

In other words: the Golden Rule gives your fellow man the respect and dignity that
the image and likeness of God deserves. I believe the very same principle applies to
fellow members of the body of Christ. (cf. Col 3:10)
_

 

[grace2]

.

In other words: the Golden Rule gives your fellow man the respect and dignity that
the image and likeness of God deserves. I believe the very same principle applies to
fellow members of the body of Christ. (cf. Col 3:10)
_

As long as you worship trine god, your preaching means nothing.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:1a . . Pursue charity

The Greek noun for "charity" in that command is agape (ag-ah'-pay) which, in most
cases, is a very easy kind of love to practice. Though agape may, or may not,
include the sentiments of fondness and/or affection like the Greek word phileo (fil
eh'-o), it always exemplifies benevolence; defined by Webster's as the disposition
to do good, i.e. kindness, consideration, generosity, courtesy, lenience, tolerance,
patience, sympathy, assistance, civility, friendliness, etc.

Agape love does no harm to its neighbor. (Rom 13:10)

In a nutshell, agape love allows us to be nice to people without particularly liking
them.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:1b . . eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

This particular prophecy genre is different than prognostication. This relates to
inspirational speakers.

"Everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, their
encouragement, and their comfort." (1Cor 14:3)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:13 . . anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret
what he says.

If Acts 2:1-12 is the model; then a genuine Spirit-endowed tongue should be an
honest to gosh real-life working language instead of incoherent blabber that's
intelligible to no one, not even the speaker.

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under
heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment,
because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

. . . Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking
Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?
Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,
Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene;
visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-- we
hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

Mozart composed some amazing music; but had he not arranged the components
sensibly, it would likely grate on people's nerves instead of entertaining them; sort
of like when an orchestra verifies the pitch of its instruments just prior to a
performance. The discordant din that the orchestra makes is a cacophony instead of
a rhapsody.

"Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how
will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the
notes?" (1Cor 14:7)

Modern tonguers typically don't compose anything pleasant to the ear. At least if
they would chirp like birds their speech would be a discernible song instead of an
unintelligible squawk.

I was informed by a Charismatic friend that he prayed in a tongue because he
couldn't express his deepest feelings any other way. Mind you this was an American
adult of almost fifty years old; educated in America and spoke, wrote, and read
English-- his native language --his entire life. So I asked him how it is that his
command of English was so poor that he could only express his thoughts in a
language that not even he himself could either identify or understand?

"If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do?
I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my
spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." (1Cor 14:13-15)

In other words: there are Christians out and about blabbering incoherently because
they choose to, rather than because they have to. With just a simple act of their
own will they could easily switch to something composed with real words.

Why on earth would a grown-up prefer incoherent blabbering? Isn't that the way
small children communicate? Well, I can excuse small children because they're
uneducated. But shouldn't supposed educated adults be just a bit more mature with
their language and grammar than small children?

The true gift of tongues is very handy for communicating with foreigners. But in our
day and age, Charismatics typically don't communicate with anybody, either foreign
or domestic . As a result, Charismatics are looked upon with the same disdain as
the kooks that hurl themselves on the floor, faint, scream, writhe, shout, and dance
with rattlesnakes.

Well; not too many sensible people care to accommodate kooks, so if you're serious
about influencing people for Christ, I highly recommend sticking to an intelligible
language. Here in my country, English is a good choice because most people can
understand it without requiring the services of a translator.

And for heaven's sake, please do not allow yourself to be drawn to participating in a
tongues meeting.

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some
who do not understand, or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are
out of your mind?" (1Cor 14:23)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:22a . .Tongues are for a sign

The sign isn't intended for the benefit of believers, but rather, for non-believers.

"Not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." (1Cor 14:22b)

The purpose of any tongue is communication.

"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what
you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." (1Cor 14:9)

So if a tonguer is speaking a language nobody understands, they've actually
created a barrier to communication; viz: a regression to the tower of Babel; and
you can see for yourself how destructive that was to unity (Gen 11:1-9).

* Webster's defines "regression" as: movement backward to a previous, and
especially worse or more primitive state or condition; viz: backwards thinking.

Since tongues are for the benefit of unbelievers, then it's de facto that a tongue
should be a valid language that the unbeliever himself speaks and understands (cf.
Acts 2:4-11). Somebody who exercises a tongue for any other reason has missed
the point; and they're behaving like a little kid with a toy.

"Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your
thinking be adults." (1Cor 14:20)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:27-28 . . If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at
the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no
interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to
God.

Tonguers (folks with the actual gift) are not permitted to speak all at the same time
like a mob of howling political protesters. One of the reasons why I get so annoyed
by talk shows like ABC's The View is because everyone talks all at once like a bunch
of undisciplined dogs barking and yapping in a kennel. And the way they interrupt
each other back and forth before the other can even finish a sentence is one of the
very things we teach children not to do. You'd think those supposedly mature adults
grew up without supervision the way they conduct themselves in a conversation.

NO! tonguers (folks with the actual gift) are to take turns; speaking one at a time,
rather than an entire congregation of tonguers barking and yapping like dogs in a
kennel whenever they "feel the Spirit" moving them. And if there's no one to
interpret, tonguers are not permitted to speak at all. If Christians the world over
followed those rules, it would put the charismatics out of business right quick.

FYI: These directives regulating the exercise of tongues in a church meeting were
written by the apostle Paul-- a duly authorized agent speaking on behalf of
Christianity's Christ.

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the
things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1Cor 14:37)

Therefore, when Christians proceed to defy the rules regulating the exercise of
tongues, they are in shameful rebellion against the very lord and master of
Christianity; and yet, ironically, many tongue violators still have the chutzpah to
pass themselves off as the Lord's Spirit-filled followers. However; a follower can be
defined as someone who gets in step and/or falls in line rather than going off
reservation to do their own thing.

"Rebellion is as the sin of divination; and insubordination is as iniquity and
idolatry." (1Sam 15:23)

"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do
not the truth" (1John 1:6)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:29-32 . .Two, or three, prophets should speak, and everyone else should
weigh carefully what is said. If a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down,
the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may
be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets.

Though God endows certain Spirit-selected people in church with the gift of
prophecy (1Cor 12:4-11) it is not He who endows them with the compulsion to talk
all at once and/or talk out of turn. Chaos prevention is their responsibility; not His,
no matter how inspired they might be, nor how important they think their
information is.

* Actual prophets channel God's thoughts; viz: they speak as the voice of God.
People with opinions don't speak as the voice of God at all; they speak as
themselves. True prophets are revelators; people with opinions are little more than
a nuisance; they muddy the waters and if not kept in check will quickly derail a
Sunday school class and drag it off onto perpetual debating that never gets to the
bottom of anything.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:34 . . Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
to speak; but must be in submission (i.e. defer to the men)

It could be argued, with some merit, that this rule applies only to tongues and
prophecy; but Paul expands its scope in a letter to his friend Timothy.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first
formed, then Eve." (1Tim 2:11-13)

It's important to note that this is neither a gender issue, nor a competence issue,
nor an intelligence issue when it's so obviously a seniority issue. For that reason it's
contempt for one's betters when Christian women step up to lead Christian men in
a Christian congregation.

FAQ: Doesn't 1Cor 11:3-10 permit women to pray and/or prophecy just so long as
they cover their hair?

REPLY: There is a limit to that privilege. In other words: Christian woman are not
allowed to pray and/or prophecy in the hearing of a mixed congregation; i.e. where
Christian men are present.

FAQ: What about women like Anne Graham Lotz and/or Tara-Leigh Cobble? Aren't
they out of order?

REPLY: The rule is limited to congregational meetings. It doesn't include public
venue's, e.g. forums, street corners, town squares, coliseums, stadiums,
convention centers, radio, television, an/or social media like YouTube, X, and
Facebook.

FAQ: What about Deborah in the Old Testament book of judges? Exactly how was
she an exception to the rule, if indeed she was?

REPLY: Things are quite a bit different now with Christ at the helm, i.e. Christ's
association with his church trumps Deborah's association with the Jews. I do not
recommend using her, or any other woman in the Bible, as an excuse to defy
Christ's edicts in matters pertaining to the management of Christian congregations.

NOTE: Debbie was neither a priest nor a member of the Sanhedrin; her
involvement in the Jews' affairs was limited to her position as a judge, viz: the
Temple's sacred business was none of her business; that was strictly a man's world.

* Paul appealed to "the law" as the basis for 1Cor 14:34. Normally when Paul
speaks of the law he's referring to the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon
with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Exactly where in the covenant that women are forbidden to preach, or teach, or
usurp authority over men in matters of religion, I don't know. However, it's quite
obvious that the covenant is very sexist, i.e. women are not permitted in either the
priesthood or the Sanhedrin.

* The law doesn't always speak explicitly about certain things. Sometimes the law's
rules and procedures imply principles that we call "the spirit of the law". For
example Jesus' critics were educated experts in the black and white letter of the law
relative to the weekly routine sabbath but they were as illiterate as mannequins in
regard to applying the spirit of the sabbath. (Matt 12:1-13 & Mark 3:1-5)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:35 . . If women have questions, they should ask their own husbands at
home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

What's an inquiring wife to do if her husband is spiritually inept? I'd suggest that
women married to spiritually inept Christian men, and/or women married to non
Christian men, and/or unmarried women; seek assistance from one of the ladies in
church known to be somewhat of a Bible expert.

But for safety's sake, she shouldn't seek assistance from another woman's husband;
even if he's the pastor, or a deacon, or an elder; it's not only disobedient, but that's
also how rumors (and other things) get started.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:37-38 . . If anybody thinks he's a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him
acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

If your Sunday school, or your catechism class, is being chaired by somebody who
disagrees with the Lord's commands regulating women's place, or the use and
abuse of tongues, and/or the speaking of prophecy; then believe me you have a
serious problem because it indicates that your church's management practices are
secular instead of inspired.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:38 . . But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

When a spiritual influence refuses to accept the apostle Paul as a duly authorized
agent speaking for Christ; then do not try to fix them. Instead, regard the influence
as severely compromised; and avoid speaking with them about your religion. In
point of fact: it's probably best to regard them as feral creatures. (Matt 7:6)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 14:39 . .Therefore, brethren, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid
speaking in tongues.

That rule applies only to people who actually have the gifts of tongues and/or
prophesy because according to Rom 12:4-6, 1Cor 12:10, 1Cor 12:29-30, and 1Cor
14:5 not everyone does.

So then; it's okay to speak in a tongue, and it's okay to prophesy, but both must be
done not only according to the rules, but also as if by adults in possession of their
faculties, i.e. grown-ups.

"Let all things be done decorously and in proper order." (1Cor 14:40)
_