Christ's Law

[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 instructions regulating women's subordination, 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 leader is humanistic rather than
inspired.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

In other words: if your spiritual influences refuse to accept the apostle Paul as a
duly authorized agent speaking for Christ; then his believing followers are under
orders to regard those influences as self-propelled rather than Spirit-propelled, i.e.
uninspired.
_

 

[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 with intelligence and grown-up
behavior.

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

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 15:34 . . Come to your senses and stop sinning. For to your shame I say
that some of you don't have the knowledge of God.

That directive is in connection with some of the Corinthians' insistence that dead
people stay dead and never recover.

"Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some
among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1Cor 15:12)

Apparently some of the Corinthians couldn't see that Christ's resurrection is
evidence that it's possible for dead people to recover. A measure of that blindness
exists even today among people who insist that Christ's crucified dead body didn't
recover. They insist he rose from the dead with another body: a so-called glorified
body; and some even insist that Christ returned from the dead as a spirit being
rather than a human being, and others postulate that his post crucifixion
appearances were done as an angel disguised in a fully functioning human avatar.
But if any of that were true, then Christ's prediction at John 2:19-22 would be
easily invalidated.

According to 1Cor 15:51-53 and 1Thes 4:13-17, the natural remains of Christ's
followers will first revive as they were and then be transformed into something very
wonderful during a flight up to meet the Lord in the air.

There is really no sensible reason to not believe that Christ underwent the very
same process, i.e. his crucified remains were first returned to life just as he
predicted; and then forty days later, at some point during the flight up to heaven as
per Acts 1:9, his revived mortal body underwent transformation into an immortal
superhuman body.

According to 1Cor 15:34, people who believe Christ's crucified dead body is still
dead aren't fully conscious; viz: they're like someone in a stupor; i.e. dazed.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 15:56-58 . .The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is The
Commandments; but thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ. Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing discourage you.
Always give yourselves fully to the work of The Lord, because you know that your
labor in The Lord isn't futile.

When I was a growing Catholic boy, The Commandments kept me anxious about
my afterlife future. Well, no more; not since I discovered that Jesus' crucifixion
somehow manages to insulate people from The Commandments' ability to ruin their
chances for happiness in eternity.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we
like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and The
Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:5-6)

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,
God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the
written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to
us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." (Col 2:13-15)

In light of those two passages. I have to agree with the angel the night Christ was
born that his was a message of "great joy". (Luke 2:10)

Now; just imagine if somebody had it in the back of their mind that they might be
giving The Lord unreserved quantities of their time, talent, and resources in a
thankless endeavor only to end up being condemned anyway as per Matt 7:22-23.
Well, Paul assured the Corinthians that Christ's work on the cross, and in the grave
and out of the grave, guaranteed that wouldn't happen to them-- their future in a
better life was in the bag; therefore they needn't fear that in the end their work for
The Lord will be judged all for nothing.

Ironically; and at the time of his writing, the Corinthians were not all that spiritual.
(1Cor 3:1-3). However; though their work in The Lord was being performed by
Christians whose spirituality was basically substandard, they were still useful; which
tells me that it isn't necessary to be a super saint before one can begin serving
Christ. Just serve him as best you can and pay no attention to your location on the
curve: keeping in mind that loyalty and reliability count more than quantity.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 16:1-3 . . Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the
Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set
aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come
no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of
introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.

The "God's people" to whom Paul referred were Jewish Christians whose church was
located at Jerusalem. They were having it pretty rough in the early days of
Christianity.

Lest somebody should get the wrong idea, that wasn't a tithe. Christ left it up to
each individual in Corinth the amount that they felt like donating towards the Jews'
relief effort.

"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or
under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2Cor 9:7)

Tithes are not gifts; no, tithes are demanded rather than donated out of the
goodness of one's heart. I don't give the government my taxes; no, they wrest
them from me by force of law; viz: I pay taxes against my will, both reluctantly and
under compulsion; and I have absolutely no voice in the percentage of my income
that they take. When it comes to taxes: I am not cheerful; no, I am grudging. Well;
that is not Christian giving. No; Christians have a faith that works by love, not by
law. (Gal 5:6)

NOTE: It would be interesting to take a poll among America's churches just to see,
out of curiosity, how many have a program for assisting Jewish Christians over in
the modern State of Israel.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 16:13a . . Be on your guard, stand firm in the faith, be men of courage; be
strong.

The Greek word for "men of courage" is andrizomai (an-drid'-zom-ahee) which
basically means to act manly; defined by Webster's as: (1) having qualities
generally associated with a man; viz: strength and virility, and (2) appropriate in
character to a man.

Well; we sure don't want the Christian women in church to become so-called strong
women; i.e. she-males. Masculinity is appropriate for men; but definitely not for
women. We want them to stand firm in the faith in a feminine way rather than a
man's way.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 16:14 . . Do everything in love.

The Greek word translated "love" in this instance is agape (ag-ah'-pay) which
doesn't necessarily indicate fondness or affection like the word phileo but does
always indicate benevolence; defined by Webster's as the disposition to do good,
e.g. generosity, charity, altruism, compassion, and sympathy, i.e. thoughtful, cordial,
affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, hospitable, considerate, tactful,
diplomatic, accommodating, cooperative, kind, courteous, lenient, tolerant, patient,
helpful, civil, and friendly, etc.

I would imagine that "everything" includes the business of managing a Church.

If a church officer's management practices tend to be more Machiavellian than
Christian, then maybe he really ought to consider stepping down and finding
himself a seat in a pew rather than a chair on the board. I mean it; this is not
something to take lightly. 1Cor 16:14 isn't optional; it's mandatory.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 16:15-18 . .You know that the household of Stephanas were the first
converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I
urge you, brothers, to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the
work, and labors at it. I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus
arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you. For they refreshed
my spirit and yours also. Such men deserve recognition.

Paul and his associates depended pretty heavily upon the hospitality of local
believers for accommodations and daily necessities. Congregations do well to follow
the examples of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus either by opening their
homes to missionaries or by funding their stay in a motel, providing them with
some pocket money, and possibly a rental car. (Universal gift cards would be useful
too.)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 16:20 . . Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Kissing was a common form of greeting in the old world; and still is in the Middle
East and certain parts of Europe; but here in America-- a super-sized
racial/cultural/ethnic amalgam of customs from all over the globe --it's wise to
dispense your kisses with discretion. Some of us don't even like to be hugged, let
alone bussed; and if you should perchance try to make physical contact with an
autistic Christian, you're liable to cause them a panic attack; so go easy on the
touchy-feely stuff.

The people to whom Paul referred as "one another" are one's fellow born-again
Christians. We're not required to be cozy with unbelievers. You can be courteous to
them, yes (cf. Matt 5:47) but reserve especially warm greetings for your siblings;
viz: those who've undergone a second birth as per John 1:12-13 and John 3:3-8,
and thus share your adoption into God's home as per Rom 8:15-17.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 16:22 . . If anyone love not The Lord, let him be accursed.

One's love of The Lord is exemplified by loyalty.

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

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

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

Does a Muslim have to be a terrorist to be accursed? No; they only have to be a
loyal follower of Muhammad ibn `Abdullāh instead of a loyal follower of Jesus
Christ; same goes for Atheists, Nonreligious, Baha'i, Buddhists, Chinese
Universalists, Confucianists, Jains, Kabbalah mystics, Shintoists, Spiritists, Taoists,
Zoroastrians, Jews, Sikhs, and Hindus-- they're all accursed and there is nothing to
be gained in arguing about it.

How many people am I talking about? Well, as of mid 2014, worldwide there were:

550,000 Scientologists
1,500,000 Mormons
8,200,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
18,479,257 Seventh Day Adventists
7,794,000 Baha'i
515,951,000 Buddhists
451,292,000 Chinese Folk Religionists
8,424,000 Confucianists
974,597,000 Hindus
5,567,000 Jains
14,142,000 Jews
1,673,590 Muslims
2,819,000 Shintoists
24,918,000 Sikhs
14,183,000 Spiritists
8,660,000 Taoists
196,000 Zoroastrians
828,594,000 Nonreligious
692,111,000 Agnostics
136,483,000 Atheists.

The grand total of just those categories alone is 5,3387,550,257

If those figures are in the ball park, and if classical Christianity is the reality; then a
minimum of at least 75% of the earth's 2014 population of 7.2 billion people didn't
love The Lord.

NOTE: Scientology, though not actually a religion, has an IRS tax status as such.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are Christians in the popular sense, yes, but not
in the classical sense.

Joseph Smith's movement is a spin-off; in other words: there's some classical
Christianity in Mormonism, but comprises only a portion of Mormonism. The rest of
it is extreme, to say the least.

Neither do Jehovah's Witnesses qualify as Christians in the classical sense. Charles
Taze Russell's movement is a spin-off too. There's some classical Christianity in the
Watchtower Society's doctrines, but comprises only a portion of Russell's doctrines;
and his slant on it is very peculiar.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 2Cor 2:6-8 . . The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for
him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be
overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for
him.

The cause for which Paul wrote that piece was a guy in the Corinthian church
sleeping with his stepmother (1Cor 5:1). Paul had instructed the congregation to
not only hold the man's feet to the fire, but also to ostracize him.

Some time had passed since then, and the man was apparently regretting his
actions, and broken off the illicit relationship with his kin, so it was time to let him
back into the group. No doubt the humiliation of it all had a tremendous impact
upon his attitude-- probably upon the congregation's too because at first their
attitude wasn't all that good about it either. (cf. 1Cor 5:2)

Here in America scolding and ostracizing a church member would probably just
make them resentful rather than repentant. (cf. Ps 51:17)

FAQ: Does 2Cor 2:5-10 support the Watchtower Society's shunning and/or
Scientology's disconnection?

REPLY: Those organizations practice vindictive forms of ostracizing that oftentimes
destroy friendship bonds, destroy family ties, and even destroy marriage vows.

Christian ostracizing is pretty much limited to fellowship, i.e. congregational
functions, e.g. worship services, communion, prayer meetings, banquets, etc.
Cutting off all contact puts Christians in jeopardy of failing to comply with Christ's
instructions per Matt 5:44-48. (cf. 2Thess 3:14-15)

* A rough-hewn example for us to think about is located in the 15th chapter of
1Samuel wherein king Saul disobeyed God's instructions to utterly destroy Agag.
Afterwards Saul entreated Samuel to accompany him to church but the prophet
refused until the king fully admitted he was in the wrong.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 2Cor 2:10-11 . . If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have
forgiven-- if there was anything to forgive --I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for
your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his
schemes.

One of the opposition's tactics is to create disunity in a church. Sure enough when
that happens-- as when one portion of the congregation believes in judging and
ostracizing while the other doesn't --people start taking sides and the church will
end up divided into cliques and factions. According to the lord and master of New
Testament Christianity, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Paul mentioned that his extension of forgiveness was "in the sight of Christ". There
exists some controversy as to the exact meaning but I think it's just saying that
Paul's forgiveness of that man was done in accordance with Christ's approval; to
the end that the Corinthians all go along with it, i.e. stand together as one in their
compliance with the apostle Paul's decisions.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 2Cor 5:20-21 . . We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were
making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to
God.

There's two different aspects to reconciliation. One is a criminal justice kind of
reconciliation (Rom 5:6-11, Rom 6:3-11, 1John 2:2) and the other is a fellowship
kind of reconciliation. (Gen 4:1-7, Gen 5:22-24, Gen 6:9, Gen 17:1, 1John 1:3-7)

For example, a man and his wife may not be speaking to each other; and sleeping
in separate beds; but they're still married: they're just not getting along; in other
words, they're out of fellowship with one another. It's God's wishes that His own
walk with Him in fellowship while they're waiting for their departure; and the
Corinthians weren't doing very well at it.

In order to restore diplomatic relations between themselves and their Father above,
that congregation had to knuckle down and deal with sin in their midst in
accordance with their master's wishes rather than their own. Compare Josh 7:2-26
where Moses' people couldn't win anymore battles until they first dealt with a sin in
their midst.

It's ironic that a fully functioning Christian church like the one at Corinth was in
need of reconciliation with God. How many Christian churches are just like that
today? They pride themselves in being Spirit-filled congregations, yet their
congregational attitude is completely out of touch with Christ. Yes, Christian
congregations are oftentimes out of touch and need to come to their senses and
reconnect or else they risk becoming like the church at Laodicea where the central
figure of Christianity is depicted outside the building banging on the door trying to
get someone's attention to let him in. (cf. Rev 3:14-22)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 2Cor 6:1-2 . . As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in
vain; for He says: In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I
helped you. I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

Salvation is a project similar to tearing down a house and building it back better.
Well; the Corinthians had undergone the demolition phase in concert with Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection; but they were stuck in the rubble, so to speak.

Well; Paul said, in so many words; that they shouldn't wait till afterlife to begin
building back better, rather, God wanted them to begin now, in this life.

"For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do--
living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry."
(1Pet 4:3 cf. Rom 6:1-14)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 2Cor 6:14-18 . . Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath
light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he
that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with
idols?

. . . For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said: I will dwell in them,
and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore
come out from among them, and be ye separate-- saith The Lord --and touch not
the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye
shall be my sons and daughters --saith The Lord Almighty.

That commandment clearly forbids intermarriage between Christians and non
Christians. Failure to comply is not only grossly disobedient, but it's unwise and can
have tragic results; for example:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to
them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they
married any of them they chose." (Gen 6:1-2)

If we posit that the "sons of God" were believers and the "daughters of men" were
not; then it would appear that back in Noah's day, believing men threw caution to
the wind and built themselves harems of unbelieving women. What happened to
those believing men when it came time for the Flood? Well, for one thing; they had
lost their piety.

"The Lord then said to Noah: Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I
have found you righteous in this generation." (Gen 7:1)

None of the other sons of God in that day were righteous; hence they weren't
invited aboard the ark. All of those men-- whose women were chosen based solely
upon sensual allure sans any spiritual prudence whatsoever --perished in the Flood
right along with everybody else.

Another incident is located at Nehemiah 13:23-31; which led to the break-up of
homes. Were Nehemiah to do so in our day, the media would crucify him child
abuse. But Nehemiah wasn't the one at fault. His people had entered into illegal
marriages; consequently their families became collateral damage.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 2Cor 7:1 . . Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us cleanse ourselves
from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of
deference to God's will.

Webster's defines "deference" as affected and/or ingratiating regard for another's
wishes. Deference is the opposite of resistance, rebellion, defiance, indifference,
stubbornness and/or doing things your own way.

Contaminations of one's body would include things like drug addiction, alcoholism,
adultery, promiscuity, gluttony, eating blood, etc.

Contaminations of the spirit likely refers to things that influence one's thinking
and/or have an effect upon the personality; for example: Critical Race Theory, the
political philosophies of Carl Marx, Mao Zedong, and Vladimir Lenin, Planned
Parenthood, Liberalism, LGBTQ Sex Education, etc.

** The promises are those listed at 2Cor 6:14-18.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 2Cor 8:11-15 . . If the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what
one has, not according to what he does not have. Our desire is not that others
might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.

. . . At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their
plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: He
who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have
too little.

** The equality we're looking at here has nothing to do with private property, nor
the distribution of wealth; viz: we are not looking at politics, so please don't
attempt to defend and/or promote Socialism with that passage.

It's inevitable that some churches would be disadvantaged compared to others. For
example: here in the USA's big cities, churches have no lack of resources to take
care of themselves; while small town churches are barely scraping by. The
charitable thing for the big-city church to do is take a small town church under its
wing, like any normal person would a needy relative. The idea here is to moderate
the small church's disadvantages and keep things closer to a level playing field, so
to speak, i.e. fair vs. unfair.

NOTE: "if the willingness is there" tells me that church officers should not pressure
and/or shame their people into sharing their abundance, viz: should not attempt to
break down their resistance; like talking people into buying cars and vacuum
cleaners, so to speak.

The directive is an excellent passage for debunking the so-called Faith Promise;
which is a popular scheme for seducing congregations into pledging money they
don't have while expecting God's providence will somehow provide it. That is not
the Lord's way. By means of Paul, the Lord says to help out with what you already
have, not what you hope to have later; I mean: it is not His wish to copy ENRON's
mark-to-market accounting practices and/or futures trading with pork bellies and
soy beans.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 2Cor 9:7 . . Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not
reluctantly or under compulsion for God loves a cheerful giver.

Towards what end is the giving spoken of in the New Testament? To finance
ambitious building programs? Well; Christians back then met in homes. Did their
contributions go towards obtaining more homes to meet in? No.

Within the context of the New Testament, giving in the early church was charitable.
It met needs rather than expenses; and those needs were typically congregational
rather than universal; viz: their charity went towards those amongst themselves
and/or other congregations that were hungry, sick, injured, homeless, alone,
helpless, missionaries, full-time-church officers, orphans, widows, abandoned,
and/or oppressed, etc.
_