Keep sharing good news without ads.
Sunday Night, August 5, 2018 PM August 5, 2018 PM Michael Dirrim Pastor
And about the women covering their hair, their heads, all that, would that be men covering their heads or not covering their heads? And some of that would be done?
I'm going to ask you old timers a thing or two. When a young man walks into the church with his hat on, how does that work for your spinal cord? Why? Well, yeah, but why? It's tradition, isn't it? You just never know when a young man might be, well, if a young man is going to pray somewhere or preach somewhere, he'd do it in a church building, right?
Take your hat off. Part of tradition. It's embedded in the culture. You take your hat off when you walk inside a church building, because that's where you pray and that's where you preach. Take your hat off, because you're a man.
And of course, we don't have it in our culture and our tradition right now, do we, for women to wear hats at church? Not in our particular neck of the woods or in our particular kind of church background.
But that was definitely something that was done, right? OK. So why don't we do it now? And why don't we have signs on the door to let people know that's how we roll? Why don't we have that as a dress code?
Good question, Norm. Well, as Ken pointed out, I think when you read through this passage, some of it is kind of difficult to understand. And especially when you get to the end and he says, but if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor have the churches of God.
I don't understand it, Paul. You just went through all of this line by line and then basically said, unless it's a problem, of course. And I don't know if that's a problem. I guess what that means or not.
So I've stared at this more than once, Norman. It's hard to come away with anything as strong as binding for how a church should function. This is the way, you know, if someone wears a hat and they walk into the church, you knock it off, a man.
Or then all women are required to wear hats. If they forgot theirs, you hand them out at the door as they walk in. Make sure you're. So I just don't see anything as binding as all of that. But I do, the underlining doctrine here, the teaching here, I think is what Ken pointed to in his prayer, and just talked about in general, about the God-given roles that we have.
And you can, I think that's why this scripture is very profitable for us, for doctrine and reproof and correction and training in righteousness, is that these roles of authority are being addressed. And we are to recognize them as good, and that we are to pursue them in ways that would be pleasing to God.
So for instance, in verse 3, it says, but I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man. And the man is the head of a woman, or wife, as the ESV translates it. And God is the head of Christ.
That makes all the difference in the world. God the Father is God. God the Son is God. God the Spirit is God. God is one. The basic truth of the Trinity, the Father is not the Son, and He's not the Spirit.
And the Son is not the Father, and He's not the Spirit. And the Spirit is not the Father, and the Spirit is not the Son. But there are three, and yet one. One in essence, the three in person. And we see that God the Son is in submission to God the Father.
Co-eternal, co-glorious, co-worthy, but He submits to the Father. Does this make God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, less divine? Does it make Him less worthy? These are the heresies of old that's still propagated today.
But simply because we see a role of submission, are we saying anything about that person in particular as far as their value? And Christianity says again and again, no, no. And even as Paul writes and talks about man being the image and glory of God, but the woman the glory of man, he does not thereby deny that man and woman were made in the image of God.
Indeed, that's what Genesis says. God made them male and female, husband and wife, and created them in the image of God. But what, and even pointing out that God made, how God made man and how God made woman.
He made man from the dust of the ground, and then made Eve from one of Adam's ribs. And pointing out in the nature in which God designed humanity, that there are some roles that are part of the design of living in the image of God.
And that's a good thing. That's a good thing. And do we see that men are not autonomous and able to do whatever they want? Who are the men to be subject to? The man, Christ Jesus, right? And they are to take that role in leading and serving their families in that way.
And so it's not that men are not submissive, but women are. That's not what that says. And in fact, the distinction between the two, and aren't we glad there's a distinction. It's okay that there's a distinction between men and women, right?
There's a distinction between the two, but both are called to these roles of submission in their own way to the glory of God. And Paul is, again, referring to some of the natural things we observe, that a man walking around with long hair is an oddity at best.
And then a woman who shaves her head, and in Corinthian times, it would have indicated that she was a prostitute, but the way that she would cut her hair or shave it bald. So Paul is just pointing out some things that are common to the observation as illustration.
But as far as, it's like, is the covering something other than the hair, or is the hair the covering? And then all the practical considerations, but what if this, and what if that, and so on and so forth.
So I think the important thing is that there is the obvious elements of men leading their families, submitting to Christ, and women, wives submitting to their husbands, and all of us submitting to Christ, whatever our situation is, that those, that needs to be obvious amongst us.
And I still don't have all the particulars, solved on this passage. I really don't. But I'm still trying to figure out, is the covering the hair, or is it something else? And I can't tell. And then I don't know what to do with the last verse.
I mean, that's where I'm at. But it certainly, but certainly Paul is calling for an orderliness in a disorderly church. And a lot of that comes back to us embracing the roles that God has given us as good.
Does that help?
Stephen, did you have something real quick? Okay. Good, all right, Brother Jerry. Okay, well, and so Brother Jerry's pointing out.
That there is etiquette for politeness in society. Joel's not here, so we can pick on him, but when he's in the room and a lady walks in, he stands up, that's lost, except for Joel. That's lost in our society.
Joel was bringing it back. And I think that there's something to be said for those things, also to remember that so much of the DNA of our culture is embedded in the scriptures and our Puritan heritage.
So that makes sense that, yeah, it's where it comes from, that's right. And then also, you can also tell that if you were in a different cultural context, it'd be very rude for us to do some of the things that we think are polite.
Wouldn't it? It'd be very rude for us to do some of the things we think is polite. And then I remember when there was a young man from Lebanon had come and visited us, I don't know, about a year ago or so, and his name was Jad.
And he came and visited and we had him over for lunch. And as soon as he walked in, his shoes were off. You know, he took his shoes off, you know, that's just that that was what was polite for him to do.
That passage, what's the spirit of the passage? Tell that in the culture that we're in. As Terry said, you know, we do these things because it's polite. In a different culture, we greet each other with a holy kiss.
But we definitely greet each other in the spirit of greeting, okay?
Sure, that's right. Yeah, that very specific instruction, isn't it? One of the one another's in the New Testament, greet one another with a holy kiss. Yeah, so, you know, and if you're in France, that works out well.
And if you're in Russia, it works out really well. But it's, but that's not retained. But do we not follow what that text is saying when we greet one another warmly? And affectionately, right? Good example.
Yes, with the kin.
Egalitarianism, in other words, to say that men and women are equal in everything, including wellness, is a whole. Mm-hmm, thank you, Brother Ken, that's a good point.
We should know this word, fungible, often used in terms of financial interests. Gold is fungible, meaning you can turn it into money anytime you need to, right? It's one of those substances that can be turned from one thing to another thing without any problem at all, okay?
I think the push that Brother Ken is talking about is turning human identity into making it fungible. Could be anything. You can, you can, you can be anything. And the press towards that leads into all manner of insane positions, so much so that those who are steeped in identity politics are now hating the monster they've created.
But the truth is that we're not fungible, or made in the image of God, and not everybody can be something. Like, for instance, not everybody who is a part of a church can be an elder, or a deacon. There's a description about who that kind of person is, and it's not just, all men can be elders, or all men, no, not even all men can be elders.
Not even all men can be deacons. And that's not bad, but there are roles, and there's an identity there, and the way that God made us and then gifted us, we're not fungible, yeah. The bigger the monster you make, the more it eats you, so I mean, that's the problem, right?
So that's the, now, let's take the sense of that insanity to what degree things have gone, okay? And then, a passage like this in 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't seem so outlandish. Isn't it nice to retain the design that God has made?
That it's okay to embrace that design, and celebrate that, and fold that into the way in which we worship, and the way in which we live together. You know, look at the wisdom of God. Now, this would be considered absolute folly.
This is so backwards. Maybe it's just closer to the original, right? Versus twisted and falling apart. So, anything else?
When you go to church, you know, here, most people, they're already splotched. I go home, and they don't go back on, so it's time to get back on the chair. As far as a hat, I mean, is it okay for me to be wearing a hat?
I don't even think twice about it. I mean, I can be sitting on my couch, you know, reading the Bible, and praying, and a hat on, and it's like, it's part of it.
Now, this is why it comes down to, but if anyone's inclined to be contentious, we don't, we have no such practice. But I think what it comes down to, it has to be a matter of conviction. Like, for instance, I cannot pray with a hat on.
I just can't, I can't. But also, that my mentor can't preach in anything but a white shirt, and rag me for preaching in colored shirts. She's good natured, you know, but some of this is gonna have to be a matter, comes down to a matter of conviction.
My brother, his casual was, you know, a button-down, long-sleeved shirt with khakis. That was his casual, until he moved to Hawaii, and had to throw out his entire wardrobe, because everything's different.
So, obviously, some of this is cultural, but I think what the emphasis here is, is that we are not flippant about the roles that God has made for us to embrace, and that we're not casual about God. Because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. And that if we're flippant, if we're casual about God, we'll be flippant about who he made us to be. And that's definitely, that's what's anti-Christian.
That's what's anti-church. And again, so, that's the underlying principle you have to hold on to, no matter what it looks like. I mean, and again, you just look at churches all around the globe, and you're gonna have all these different styles of dress, and everything else.
So, it's a good point. We're not having meetings, the elders aren't having meetings about your hat, so you're, it's okay. Good question, James? Yeah, so, when we, in 2 Samuel, chapter 22, there's a psalm of deliverance.
You can also read it in psalm, it's psalm 18. If you look on the Psalter, you can find it, number 18. And I think, in the context, where is it located? It's near the end of, somewhat near the end of David's reign.
The chapters 20, really, going back, I've preached through this section before, and it really is 21 through 24, kind of hanging together as a group, kind of showing the crowning achievements in the end of David's reign, and the culmination of a lot of the promises of God that have come to pass.
So, obviously, he's morally compromised in terms of what he did with Bathsheba, and murdering Uriah the Hittite. He's morally compromised in failing to deal with the rebellion and the sin in his own family.
And there are not so credible things that he's been doing in his kingdom as well. So, obviously, we see that David is, overall, he's a man after God's own heart, and he's a sinner, and he's in need of a savior.
So, we've really seen a lot of that. And, again, any time the Bible puts a very close magnifying glass on anyone, except for Christ, we find a lot of flaws in them. Now, you'll notice how it begins. And David spoke the words of the song to the Lord in the day that the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.
So, that's the historical context. It's listed here after the defeat of Goliath and his brothers, the major enemies. It's listed here. We also, a little bit later, we have a list about chapter 23 is David's last song, and then the description of all his mighty men, and then, and coming into David sinfully numbering his people, and the plague that came, and David standing between God and the people, offering the sacrifice on the threshing floor where the future temple will be built.
This is kind of a wrapping up section for 2 Samuel. Now, this psalm, when we read it, we should be immediately mindful of how God uses David in the Old Testament, and how he is viewed from the New Testament perspective.
David, obviously, is no perfect person, but in the work of David, Christ is made very, very clear in the Old Testament, and he obviously was the first God-approved king of the nation of Israel. Saul was more of a judgment upon Israel than anything else, but David was the one that God had chosen, anointed through Samuel.
David was also called a prophet. In the New Testament, he's called a prophet, and attention is drawn to the psalms that he wrote that prophesied of the Messiah. He's also, he wasn't a priest, but he did some priestly things.
He led the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, and he was offering sacrifices as it went. You find that David was an incredibly wise man, and we all think about Solomon's major moment where he has the two prostitutes, and whose baby is it?
You know, well, cut it in half, and then the real mother says, no, no, no, no. Solomon got that from his father, David. David did the same thing with Mephibosheth and his servant in the aftermath of Absalom's rebellion.
David was the one who originally came with that model of wisdom. So when we look at David, just with all those mediatorial roles so bright in David's life, you get these pictures of Christ, and then David says some things about himself in a personal first-person pronoun in his psalms that it's just unfathomable to think of it actually being David.
It has to be somebody else, which is Peter's point when he's preaching at Pentecost. David said this and this, but that really couldn't be about David. It has to be about somebody else, right? And I think that's what we have here in this psalm.
I mean, just think about when we're reading, when he writes in verse five, the waves of death encompassed me, the torrents of destruction overwhelmed me, the cords of Sheol surrounded me, the snares of death confronted me.
In my distress, I called upon the Lord as I cried to my God. From his temple, he heard my voice, and my cry for help came into his ears. Then the earth shook and quaked, and foundations of heaven were trembling.
And were shaken because he was angry. Smoke went out of his nostrils, fire from his mouth devoured, coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also and came down with thick darkness under his feet.
He rode on a cherub and flew, and he appeared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness canopies around him, a mass of waters that clouded the sky. From the brightness before him, coals of fire were kindled.
The Lord thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice. And he sent out arrows and scattered them, lightning enrouted them. Then the channels of the seas appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare by the rebuke of the Lord at the blast of his nostrils.".
I remember that happening earlier in Samuel. Parts of that sound like what happened when Christ died on the cross. He says, he delivered me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me, for they were too strong for me.
They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support. He also brought me forth into a broad place. He rescued me because he delighted in me. The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands, he has recompensed me, for I have kept the ways of the Lord and have not acted wickedly against my God.
For all his ordinance were before me, and as for his statutes, I did not depart from them. I was also blameless toward him and kept myself from iniquity. Therefore, the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to my cleanness before his eyes.
David might be able to say that about maybe in general, kind of in general about parts of his life, but again, he's a prophet. He's a prophet. What was said about Isaiah's children was actually ultimately said about the Messiah.
What David is saying here ultimately has its expression in who Christ is. So I think that that's gonna be very important to keep track of. There's some pondering to do on it, but I mean, honestly, when you look at the way the New Testament reads the stuff that David writes, I said, well, that was Christ.
That was Christ. I thought it was David. But that's part of the mystery that's revealed in Christ's coming, and him opening up the eyes of the disciples on the road to Emmaus and the apostles, and teaching them how, hey, this is what it's all about.
So I think that's what we have going on there.
He didn't have the help of the human saints. The scripture says, believe in God, and if you have God's word for it, then they operated that way. But today, he's got the Holy Spirit.
Well, it's definitely different now than it used to be, isn't it? In this way, Jesus said about John the Baptist, even though he was the greatest of all the prophets, the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he, because we live on this side of the cross.
We're far more privileged than anyone who lived before to have the revelation of the gospel. It's such a blessing that we have that. And as far as what the Holy Spirit was doing in the old covenant, he was doing pretty much the same that he's doing in the new covenant, except there's not as a full manifestation.
And so, for instance, we have the inspiration of scripture going on in the Old Testament. We have people being regenerated in the Old Testament, being born again by faith and repentance. Those things are evident in the Old Testament as well.
And we have the Holy Spirit empowering the servants of God for the work that he has for them to do. But there's no denying that living on this side of the cross is a great blessing that's incomparable.
I'm much better to live on this side of the cross than the other one, but God is still faithful to save us through Christ. Well, appreciate the discussion tonight. I hope it's been profitable and encouraging to you.
Let's go ahead and close by singing the doxology. Praise God from...
