Disorders in public Worship

1 Corinthians

G. Disorders in public Worship

Read 11:2. How is this different from the tone of the first 10 chapters?

What does he praise them for?

a.Women’s dress

Read 11:3. What topic does Paul now address?

Commentators differ on the meaning of “head” here. Some say it means “source” or “origin”, while others say it means “authority” or “superior rank.” In Ancient Greek usage authors use it over 1000 times - never is it used as “source” - but “authority” is found. In Ephesians 5 “head” must refer to authority, so here also.

Who did God place over women?

Is this only talking about marriage?

Are women the only ones who have “authority” over them? Why do women have a problem with this?

Isn’t Jesus equal to the Father? How could this verse say that the Father is head of the Son?

Before we read the next verses, we had best review what the customs were at that time. There was a custom that reflected a recognition that man was the head of the woman. That custom was to keep their heads covered. Only the sleezy women would go around without their heads covered.

Read 11:4. What kind of a message would it send if the man had his head covered?

Read 11:5-6. Whose head would the woman be dishonoring if she worshiped without her head covered?

A or D: The woman’s liberation / equal rights movement takes honor away from men.

Toppe says, “Women who did not cover their heads might as well go a step farther; they should shear or shave their heads as adulteresses did. Adulteresses were compelled to do so as a penalty for their sin. It is evident that a married man would also be disgraced if his wife affected the style of a common prostitute, or ever appeared as an adulteress. (101)

Read 11:7-10. What is another reason that man shouldn’t cover his head?

Is Paul saying that woman is not the image of God?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 5:2 - he called THEM man.)

What does Paul point to in order prove the order of man and woman?

What does this tell us about this order?

In what way would you explain, “woman was made FOR man?”

The following verse helps to explain vs. 10 -

Isaiah 6:2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.
Explanation

Read 11:11-12. What is the basic principle Paul states here? Why does he state it?

Toppe: Male chauvinism might unduly subordinate women if headship were the only consideration in the relationship of the sexes. There are other considerations. For one thing, each sex is incomplete without the other. Mutual dependence unites the two sexes. They are biologically linked together. Woman would not have come into existence if man had not been created first. Ever since creation, however, man comes into being only if he is born of woman. Scripture also points out that spiritually man and woman are equal. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) (103)

Read 13-15. Who does Paul leave ultimate judgment in this case to?

What should they use as their guide in this case?

Is the “nature” of things the same today as it was back then?

Read 16. What does Paul call this whole recommendation?

Since it was a custom, what didn’t Paul want to do?

The NET translates this verse: “if anyone wants to argue about this, we do not have such a custom - nor do the churches of God.” What is the difference between this and the NIV? (Can be translated either way.) Does it matter which way it is translated? (Either way it’s a custom - isn’t a divine regulation.)

Toppe: This custom is not the only way in which a woman can acknowledge such headship. She can accept it without observing the custom. It was a custom Paul supported, but this custom was not essential for maintaining the proper role of women. Our Augsburg Confession agrees: “. . . as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered, provided only that no offense be given.” (105)

b. The Lord’s Supper

Before the early Christians ate the Lord’s Supper, they joined together in a type of potluck called an agape, a simple meal of brotherly love. “Before eating, the guests washed their hands, prayer was offered, and the Scriptures were read. After the meal a collection was taken for the widows and orphans, the kiss of charity was given, and communications from other congregations were read and answered.” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary: 26) It appears that these meetings ended up becoming more harmful than good.

Read 11:17-19. What was happening when they met together?

Does this happen yet today?

What does Paul mean by vs. 19?

Paul goes on to explain what kind of divisions were taking place. These were different from the ones listed in chapter 1.

Read 20-22. What was happening before they ever got around to eating the Lord’s Supper?

This gives us a good idea of one the divisions in the congregation were - the rich vs. the poor. The congregation had to decide where to meet - houses couldn’t accomodate everyone who wanted to come - so the agape meals usually ended up in the rich persons’ homes. In addition to this, the slaves didn’t have as much time to spend at the meal and couldn’t always get to the meeting on time. When the rich people held the meetings, they could have the best and the most food as they held the meetings around their own time frames - leaving the poor to go without food.

How did Paul say this effected their Lord’s Supper?

How so?

Fredrick notes: The purpose of the Lord’s Supper was to unite. They must have had a wrong practice for it not even to be the Lord’s Supper. They were only holding the Supper for a social status instead of to unite the members in faith.

Toppe: This unseemly conduct at the agape made it impossible to receive the Lord’s Supper properly, since it followed immediately after the agape. (106)

Since the Corinthians were so mistaken over the whole purpose of the Lord’s Supper, Paul had to reiterate what the Lord’s Supper was all about.

Read 23-25. How did Paul learn about the Lord’s Supper?

Chemnitz: The highest authority of Paul’s testimony lies in the fact that he did not receive his description of the institution form the other apostles, so that by his ownapostolic authority he might change, transpose, or interpret certain of the words. Rather the Son of God Himself after His ascension in glory so repeated and taught the insititution of His Supper to Paul that at the same time, both by repetition of the same words as well as by the change, transposition, and explanation of certain words, He might show in what way He wished the institution to be explained and understood. (The Lord’s Supper: 120)

What is present in the Lord’s Supper?

Why did Jesus establish the Lord’s Supper?

What does Jesus want us to remember about Him?

What are the words of comfort in the Lord’s Supper?

What does vs. 23 mean when it says “do this”? Do what? (What Jesus instituted. Why don’t we break the bread? Could - only way Jesus could distribute it was to break it. Breaking bread couldn’t really represent anything.)

1. The consecration

2. The distribution

3. The thanksgiving

Toppe: Each time we receive the Lord’s Supper we proclaim to both Christians and non-Christians that Christ gave his body and shed his blood to redeem all mankind. We remember his death, that pivotal, that crucial event upon which the salvation of every man, woman and child depends. The frivolous Corinthians at their disorderly agape feasts were not remembering. (109)

Do you remember what the problem was with the agape feasts?