Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 2.29 → restored 4.75
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
This Bible reading, and the subject of it is the gathering of God's saints and the symbols. This very important chapter of the Word of God. The gathering of God's saints and the symbols. First Corinthians chapter eleven. And we're glad to have with us to conduct it our brother David Gilliland, known to us all, and we're glad to have him, and he doesn't need any more introduction. But trust that our brother will experience health and liberty from the opening to the close of the Bible reading. Now, shall we read the passage?
First Corinthians chapter eleven, uh and we commence the reading at verse two. I'll say a little about verse one just in a few minutes. First Corinthians chapter eleven and verse two. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. 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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head, but every woman that prayeth or prophesyeth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head, for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn, but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman.
But all things are of God. Judging yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a woman have long hair, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you, and that partly believe it, for there must al- be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say unto you? Shall I praise you? In this, I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And when he had given thanks, he brake it and said, Take eat, this is my body which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me, after the same manner also he took the cup, and when he had supped, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood.
This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. For as oft- often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause, many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, tarry one for another, and if any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation, and the rest will I set in order when I come. Now we trust the Lord's help in understanding. I think I, just before I start into the opening proper, I need to say just a brief word about why we have omitted verse one. Those who were not able to be here on Saturday may find it a little strange that, uh, today we have, we have dropped one verse from, uh, from the passage that was indicated on the program.
Now, the reason for that is very simple. Our brother Mr. Curry made it very clear on, uh, Saturday that verse one of chapter eleven is actually the concluding verse of chapter ten, and he showed us how it meshed into the concluding arguments of that chapter. So for that reason, in fact, if you look at the end of chapter eight, the apostle makes a personal reference. He says, if meat makes my brother defend, I will not eat while the world standeth. When you get to the end of chapter nine, he makes a personal reference, I keep under my body. When you get to the end of chapter ten, this verse, he again makes a personal reference in our verse in eleven, chapter eleven, verse one, even as I also am of Christ.
When you get to the end of this chapter, he says, the rest I will set in order when I come. So we're not leaving out an important verse of scripture, it's just because of the way the sections hold together. So in these thirty three verses that we have before us then, I think it's interesting to notice the, the great scope of this chapter. We've been reminded in prayer of its importance. There'll be a part of the chapter when we're going as far back as creation, and there'll be another part of the chapter where we'll be reaching forward to the Lord's coming. So First Corinthians chapter eleven takes us back to history, and it puts the telescope of hope to our eye.
And in between time in this dispensation, God has a local testimony that reflects creation and anticipates the coming again of his son. And of course, central to the chapter will be Calvary, so that there's a very comprehensive scope to First Corinthians chapter eleven. And it lets us see that assembly testimony is not something peripheral. Assembly testimony is integral to the unfolding of God's program throughout the ages and the centuries of time. Now, I'll say a little bit then about the subjects in the chapter.
In the first section, almost two equal sections, you'll notice verse two says now. Verse number seventeen says now. The next Bible reading will commence in chapter twelve verse one with now. So the apostle clearly sets out the divisions. The first section, the first now, from verse two down to verse number sixteen, we have the members of the assembly. Then in the second section, with this second now, in verse seventeen, we have the memorial of the assembly, the remembrance of the Lord Jesus. Now, associated with each of those subjects in the chapter, we have symbols.
As far as the members of the assembly is concerned, there will be with them the symbols of headship, the uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman. Those two symbols will indicate headship. The man is in authority, so his head is uncovered. There's nothing on top. I don't mean that literally. The woman is under authority, so there is something on top. So the symbols of headship are in connected with the members of the assembly. In the second section of the chapter, we have the symbols of remembrance.
Again, there are two. There's the bread and the cup. There's actually a meeting here yesterday morning at eleven o'clock, and before a hymn was sung, before a word was said, if you had come in here at one minute to eleven, you'd have seen those four symbols on display. The sisters, the women folk had their heads covered. All of the brethren had an uncovered head, eloquently speaking of the truth at the beginning of the chapter. On a table that sat here was bread and a cup separated. Again, telling of a death that had taken place, had already taken place, so that these symbols speak.
They don't speak verbally, but they speak visually, and you don't need to have something said. These are things that can be seen before anything is ever said. So the members and the symbolism of headship, the memorial and the symbolism of, uh, remembrance. Now just keep in mind, and we'll come more to it, that in the beginning of the chapter, the Corinthians, they were blurring distinctions that should have been kept visible. They were blurring the distinction between man and woman, and God intended that male and female should be evidently, obviously distinct.
They blurred what should have been kept visible. In the latter part of the chapter, they highlighted a distinction between rich and poor, and that was a distinction that should have been obscured. So we're just like human beings, we swing from one extreme to the other, blurring what should have been highlighting, highlighted, highlighting what should have been invisible. Now, the third thing that I want to mention, the scope of the chapter, the subjects of the chapter. I want to say a little bit about the setting of the chapter. These two subjects that we will be dealing with in detail, where do you see them practiced?
What is the context where the uncovered head of the man, covered head of the woman, the bread and the cup, what is the context for these to be seen? Now, there's an interesting expression here. At the end of the first section, in verse number sixteen, we have churches of God. And then in verse number, verse number twenty two, again, the apostle says, despise ye the church of God. Now, just keep in mind that the context where each of these is to be seen is in the local assembly. It's in the church of God. You say, well, what do I do if I'm praying at home?
Does my wife scramble for a scarf? Well, if she does, that's fine. If that is her sensitivity, if that is your practice in a domestic setting, that's fine. I'll not be criticizing you, but I do believe that First Corinthians eleven has nothing to do with a domestic setting. It is churches of God. What about the supper? When you say we would like to have a supper, s- the Lord's Supper at a summer camp. No. We would like to have the Lord's Supper on a holiday cruise. No. We would like to have the Lord's Supper on the elements, as they talk about, at a hospital.
No. Both the instructions at the beginning of the chapter and the instructions at the end of the chapter are to be carried out in the setting of the Church of God. Now, I want to say a little bit more, and I'm deviating for a second here. I'll tell you why just in a moment. What is meant in the New Testament by the Church of God? That beautiful expression that either singular or plural occurs a dozen times. I think maybe some of my brethren mentioned in passing, I don't remember which, that he believed, and I certainly concur, that in every occurrence of that expression, it refers to the local assembly.
It's not the church which is his body in the Ephesian sense. The Church of God is a clearly defined company. Saints in a district, gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, clearly delineated, clear boundaries, a way in, a way out, reception and excommunication, guided by the word of God, overseen by the spiritual administration of faithful shepherds. The Church of God refers to saints gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus. You say, but you talked about that last year. We did indeed, and we might as well have talked into the air.
So I'm repeating it. Since last year, despite what was clearly taught in chapter one about the Church of God, on more than one occasion, by more than one brother, in more than one venue, it has been taught in the fair soil of Northern Ireland that the Church of God is a term which includes all the believers in a district, whether they gather or not. Now, Brendan, that is not only wrong, that is dangerous. Well, let me just prove that, and you get it clear, especially it's great to see so many younger people here. The holidays have facilitated that.
Queen Elizabeth has done us a good turn in that way. You get very clear that in the New Testament there's a distinct fellowship of testimony called the Church of God, and as far as God is concerned, he recognizes no other collective testimony. You say, but what about the Christian businessmen's fellowship? I don't know, for it's not in the Bible. But you say, what about the state registered Christian Nurses Fellowship? They do a lot of good. I couldn't tell you, it's just not in the Bible, and if it's not in the Bible, I'd not really be interested in it. No, all of those parochurch fellowships, dear believers, they are not found in the scripture, and to have Christian policemen gathering together is a denial of local church testimony.
And Christian nurses, because the purpose of assembly testimony is that social distinctions and employment distinctions don't count. So those things are not only non-assembly, they are anti-assembly. And with a Bible in your hand, you say you're a sort of rough. With a Bible in your hand, I would say do not allow any of those parasitical para-church fellowships to drain away your energy. In chapter fourteen of this book, the Apostle Paul says, the whole church is gathered together, and there comes in a man that's unlearned or an unbeliever. Now, the unlearned man's a believer, but he's not in the church. Because the whole assembly is together.
What would you say is all the believers in a district, whether they gather or not? That is utter nonsense, and it leads the way to total confusion. So the context, this beautiful expression, churches of God in the first section, church of God in the second section, give us the setting of the instructions of this particular chapter. Now, what about these two sections that we will be reading? I'll say three things about each one of them, and that will be, that will do for introduction. I want to give an analysis of each section. Then I want to speak a little word about the approach which the Apostle Paul takes in each section, the masterly approach as he comes to his subject.
And then I want to say a little about the abuse which each section of this chapter has sadly suffered over the centuries. As far as the first section is concerned, let me just highlight the following features. We will go through them far more in detail in discussion. Verse number two, where we commence, we have the praise that the apostle expresses. It's good to give commendation. It's a delight on an afternoon like this to scan the audience, to see so many women with their covered heads. That's a delight. It's godly order exhibited, exhibited. Let us give praise wherever it can be given. The praise he expresses. Then in verse two, verse three to verse six, we have the principle which he expounds.
Now he says there's a principle of headship. He declares it clearly in verse number three, the declaration of headship in verse three. We will say a lot more about it when we get to it. Then we have the denial of headship in verses four and six. Now he says the man is head, and the woman is in subjection. If she appears with her head uncovered, that's a denial of headship. If he appears with his head covered, and he says, I'm under authority here, that's also a denial of headship. So the principle of headship is expounded, declared in verse three, denied by the man in verse four, and by the woman in verses five and six.
But you say this is rather new teaching, Paul, this whole subject of a head covering, it's very revolutionary. It's re- oh no, he says, the principle that I have expounded is only following a pattern that was established. You say, when was the pattern established? Well, he said that pattern was established as far back as Genesis chapter two. And he said, when God created the man and when he formed the woman, he established a pattern. Adam was first, Eve was second. She wasn't secondary, but she was second. In creation, Adam and Eve were equal in person, but they were not equal in position, and they were not equal in role.
So the apostle says, in the church, the pattern of creation is not cancelled. He said, in the church, the pattern of creation is confirmed by the way man and woman appears. The principle expounded, the pattern established in creation. Then from verses thirteen down to verse number fifteen, we have the propriety exhibited. He said you can judge yourself. He said even, even natural instinct. He said your appreciation of what is proper tells you that it's a, it's a shame for a man to have long hair. He said you don't need a course of theological training to teach you that.
Doth not even nature teach you? He said, let nature be your teacher. He personifies nature, nature as the teacher, and he says there's something repugnant about a man with long hair. But he said the very thing that looks so much out of place on a man, his long hair, he said that's the very thing that dignifies and beautifies a woman. So what is so out of place in one is perfectly in place in another. And nature, sometimes down the street here or in other places, I meet fellas with a hairstyle similar to my own and a ponytail eighteen inches down their back.
And, uh, I'll not tell you what I think, but I just consider it to be slightly inappropriate, just slightly inappropriate, much less disgusting. It's a shame. It's a shame. And he said, any right thinking person, not rebelling against God's natural order, knows it's a total shame. See a woman with her long hair. It's a credit to her. It's her glory. It's a gift. He said, her long hair, number one, it's a glory. Number two, it's a gift. And he said, when she puts on the second covering, she's actually only confirming the first covering. Her long hair is a covering, then she puts on another covering.
I might say that the apostle is not, uh, he's not here telling women to have long hair. He's assuming that they do have it. The apostle here is not arguing for the long hair of a woman. He is arguing from the long hair of a woman, and he said, if she has long hair so appropriate in nature, she shouldn't find it irksome or bothersome or in any way burdensome if the Lord asks her to put on a second covering. From the one, he moves to the other, and it's all proper, a propriety.
The final verse of this section is a practice existing. He said, you go through all the churches, and he said, go through all the apostles. We apostles and the assemblies have no other custom, neither the churches of God. It's accepted practice throughout the world of assembly testimony. So for those four reasons, the principle expounded, the pattern established, the propriety exhibited, and the practice existing. He said, cover your heads, Christian women, Christian men, uncover your heads. He said, men, be like men. And he says, women, be like women.
We live in a world where the great concerted activity is to try and upset God's order of creation and to blur the difference between the genders and all this thrust given to unisex and civil partnerships and all of these things, totally repugnant according to the Bible, and according to the Bible, an abomination in the sight of God. It must be pleasurable to heaven. It must make the heart of angels to rejoice, to look upon a gathering like this and see the principles of First Corinthians eleven clearly. And dear Christian sister, what you're doing by covering your head and by your long hair is contributing and reflecting God's order.
It's an order that touches God himself. It touches angels. It touches Christ. It will introduce the world to come. And I say, may God help us to appreciate the far-reaching significance of this. Now, very quickly, the next section, I'll just say a word on it because the time is going. From verse seventeen to verse twenty two, we have the irregularities at the supper. They were taking their own feast, and the rich were feasting liberally and sumptuously, and some of the poor Christians were left with hardly a bite to eat. One was hungry, another was drunken. The apostle says, I can't praise you with this, the irregularities at the supper.
Then from verse twenty three to verse twenty six, he speaks about the institution of the supper. He said, if you have gotten into such a mess, it's not because I didn't tell you. For he said, I deliver to you that which I also received. He said, I handed over the package. So he said, I want you to think about the institution. We'll talk a little more about that. Then from verse twenty seven to the end, we have two instructions for the supper. Wherefore, verse twenty seven, examine oneself. Wherefore, verse number thirty three, he said, consider others. Those are the two instructions that come in at the end of the chapter, identified by and hung upon the two conjunctions wherefore in those respective verses.
So that's very bony, brief, skeletal outline of the text. Now, just quickly, this will only take just a, a breath or two. The approach to the, of the apostle. I find it fascinating that when he comes to deal with each subject, he goes back to the original. When he deals with the matter of head covering in the first section of the chapter, he goes right back to creation. He said, that's the headline topic. You say Genesis three? No. I read books that tell me this business of headship came in with the fall.
The apostle didn't go to Genesis three, he went to Genesis two. This predates the fall. The irregularity of sin is not in view here. It's divine order untarnished. The devil upset the order. He went to the woman first. But God had an order in Genesis. When he comes to the supper, he says we'll just go back to the very night when it all started. So he said, if you want to keep right down the line, he said, keep your eye on headline copies, whether it's the headline of original creation or the headline of the original institution. And he said, as you go down the line, make sure that nothing comes in that would contradict what was established at the very beginning.
Now the attack upon these two passages. Just let me say a word here. The first, of course, has been greatly attacked. We live in a world where hardly any group now subscribes to the display of headship as we have it in this beautiful chapter. And, uh, the rise of the feminist movement in the sixties, and, uh, in fact, just give me a minute here. It's not just secular feminism, it's evangelical feminism. I could bring you at least a hundred books written by men. You say they don't believe the Bible, they don't care about the Bible, they're liberal in their thinking, they're irreverent.
No, these are men that believe in the eternal deity of Christ, sonship, incarnation, impeccability, atoning death, second coming. Men that we could stand shoulder to shoulder with on every basic doctrine, and yet when it comes to First Corinthians eleven, they can't take it. They say that was something badly out of date, away back, away back in a corner of the first century, and sure we believe that that subjection and differences in headship needs to be expressed, but there must be another way we can ex- we don't need to go to some kind of an old head covering. There's another way. Well, all I would say is this, if you're going to jettison the two symbols at the beginning of the chapter, you'll never need to jettison the two at the end.
If we don't dismiss the covered and uncovered head, let us not dismiss bread and the cup and vice versa. Evangelical feminists, they dilute this passage and distort it, and hardly anyone believes it now in every religious body in Christendom. It's almost universally discounted. We are glad, we are up against it, dear Christian. If we hadn't the Bible for it, we are most definitely and certainly a small marginalized minority. Well, so be it. It doesn't matter how small the minority is, if the Bible is beneath their feet, they can stand with absolute confidence.
So that by evangelical feminists, some of these passages are greatly undermined. Then there are legalists. I could take you to a place not in the United Kingdom, where if a sister is to be received in the brethren will put a measuring tape on her hair. And, uh, I don't know, I just couldn't tell you the length. And then, uh, she might be measured again. And the length could be a criterion for reception, and it could also be a criterion for communi- excommunication. Well, I would say to the dear brethren, take your wee measuring tape and throw it in a bin. Throw it in the bin.
The Apostle Paul would be horrified at such legality. May God save us from that. The apostle never intended such a legal, harsh thing in this particular chapter. We will see more of exactly what he did. Then people ask me, but David, how long is law? That's a great question. That's not a feminist talking. That's not a legalist talking. That's a minimalist trying to get away with as little as possible. Just how near the edge can I go and still keep within the verses? No, dear Christians, may God help us to be none of those, neither legalists nor feminists nor any of those other kinds of minimalists.
Just be realist and take the Bible. Then the Supper, just one word here. The Supper has suffered from extremes as well. We've got the big extreme out there, the Eucharist, and the means of grace, and the sacrament, and the Mass. And they say that this transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and it has been desecrated in a very, very serious way in one particular number of areas of Christendom. That's one side that is totally against the back. Then there's another extreme in a different category. I read an article recently, and the man was saying, now listen, when we come together to remember the Lord, we must only take the burnt offering aspect of the death of Christ. I'm not well up in those things, but I read it as carefully as I could and did my best to try and grasp what he was talking about.
And he said, when we give thanks, we should only thank God for what Christ means to him. The burnt offering aspect of his, we shouldn't think about our blessings. If I could speak reverently and border on irreverence, I'll say this, brethren, the first person that made a mistake in that and broke the two rules was the Lord himself. For he said, my body for God. No. My body. For you. But you say you don't mention your blessings. You talk about the lovely character of Christ. To be sure we do. But you don't think of what we have derived.
The Lord again didn't cooperate with that rule. He said this is shed for... remission of sins. So he made the first mistake. I don't know how the brethren are going to sort out the Lord, but I leave that to them. No, dear Christians, I'm glad to sing. We sang it there the other day. We bless our Savior's name. Our sins are all forgiven. To suffer once to earth he came, and now he's crowned in heaven. So that I hope you have taken longer because of a number of things that I wanted to mention, and we can now go to the passage and study it verse by verse, section by section, and we look to the Lord for his help.
Now, I don't think we need to spend undue time on verse two where the praise is given to these Corinthians, but the apostle did find, despite all their irregularities, some items of praise. In the second half of the chapter, he says, I praise you not, but he did find something at the start. David, could I mention something in chapters eleven through to chapter fifteen and about verse eleven, There are things taught there in relation to the proper functioning of assemblies that are found in no other part of the New Testament.
Am I correct in saying that, David? That's very good, Brother Lennox, and that just highlights what we were learning over the weekend. We were thinking about the gospel in chapter 9 and baptism and so on in chapter ten. and now in these chapters, as our brother has pointed out, we're going into the ordering of assembly life and public meetings and so on. So it's a very valuable part of scripture from the standpoint that our brother has mentioned. Brother David, just two words in verse two, the word ordinances, then delivered. As far as I can see, they're basically the same word, are they? Mm. They're basically talking about things that are handed over. So why are they duplicated?
Are these little words as I? Is that the key to it? It's just the word. We, we sometimes say, and I'm not disagreeing with this, that there are two ordinances given, baptism and the Lord's Supper, and that that'll be all right for Janet. But the word ordinances in this verse is far wider than those two things. And I take it it's all the teachings which the apostle had communicated to them. He had delivered them to them because those teachings had first of all been delivered to him by the Lord. So there was a twofold delivery, and what he had, he was just the middle man handing on what originally came from the Lord. Father Gilliland, I take the liberty to thank you for your opening remarks.
Thank you. The headship of man in relation to the woman, the headship of Christ in relation to the man, the headship of God in relation to the Lord Jesus. If the headship of man is denied, does that involve denial of the headship of Christ and the headship of God? Mm. Good. Well, if I can ask. Mr. Yitna, could you answer that yes or no, first of all, and then explain? No, no, I can't. No, I will not answer that until we get to verses four to six, if you don't mind. Mr. Hess has highlighted an exceedingly important point, and he's speaking about the denial of headship.
Now, with his kind permission, I don't want to go to the denial of headship in verses four and six until we have examined the doctrine of headship in verse number three, And when we've examined the doctrine, I will, if I forget, he can remind me, I will very clearly declare my mind on on what he has meant. But there will be so many questions. I wanted to get this one at the outset, but I'll come back again with your permission. I could imagine that. Now we'll, uh, Brother David. Sorry about that. Uh, verse number two. you remember me in all things. If they remembered him in all things, all that he taught them, why did they go so wrong?
I just don't know, Brother Brian. It could be, I took verse two to be a very general, General. a very general thing that they had, they had, they had had a number of men came into Corinth, my brother mentioned, that were trying to blot out Paul of their remembrance. So forget about that, it's only an upstart, that fella. But they hadn't done that, many of the Christians, and yet there were still irregularities that remembered him and appreciated his teachings and the gospel that he brought. Now, had you any other particular thought in mind? No, your statement that this was general, I think it's important to see that because it's an obvious question. Uh-huh. Um, but if this is just a general statement that they remembered Paul, they appreciated him in a general way, but did not follow the details of his teaching.
That's it. So that brings us actually right to verse number three. I would have you know. It's a great thing. It's a great thing that Christians not only do what's right, but they know why they do it. Paul says, I want you to know. Now, I would say we have a large number of believers, Christian women here, commendably wearing head coverings, so on and so forth, and maybe quite a few of them don't really know. Now, they would never think of turning up and not wearing a head covering, never in their wildest dreams, but they don't know exactly why. The point is this, dear, uh, Christian believer, that associated with your head covering are the richest and the greatest of Bibles after it.
And once you get to know why, then I think you'll not only do it, but you'll do it with delight, and you'll do it with appreciation. Sorry, brother McBride. Ordinances and teachings that the apostle got these directly from the risen head. Mm-hmm. He didn't have to borrow any of them from the other apostles, so his ministry wasn't in any way secondhand. No, it wasn't. It wasn't at all, Brother McBride, and at the same time, his ministry wasn't out on a limb. Because when we get to the end of the session, he says, we have no such custom, so that he agreed with the other apostles. Now, verse three, I, I want to mention just a couple of things here in general.
I, I think it's important, we want to highlight a few points, Mr. Our brother, Mr. Nesbitt, mentioned questions that'll be asked. I want to highlight a number of things to think about. First of all, what does it mean, head? What does that actually mean? I want our brothers help on that. Then, secondly, why does the apostle mention the head of every man is Christ? We might have thought that he would start with the woman. The head of every woman is the man, the head of man is Christ, the head of Christ is God. He breaks the sequence, and I want to think about that. And another thing in the verse, I would like to think about the scope of the verse. Whatever this matter of headship means, it reaches up to the very persons of the Godhead.
So this is the general statement of this very far-reaching great doctrine of headship. Now help us, dear brethren, with what does it mean when it says the head of the so and so and such and such and the head of. Well, we agree, do we not, that it's being used, uh, metaphorically? In other words, it's, uh, with regard to authority, surely. Sure. Yes. Surely so, like we use it in a, in a metaphorical sense. We talk about the head of a school. Mm-hmm. The headmaster, the headmistress, those are maybe getting a little bit old fashioned now. Headmaster, he- we talk about the head of a country, the person in authority, and that's what we're being told here.
The man is in authority over the woman. Christ, God is an authority over Christ, and Christ is an authority over man. So there's a hierarchy of headship, and this is an order that God has established. If this order wasn't followed through, the universe would ca- would fall apart. This is order. If you don't have this order, the whole thing will fragment and disintegrate. Do you think that Assembly orders, should headship not be in display relative to the whole human family? Yeah. That's, that, that's, that's another thing that I wanted to mention in verse three.
What is the scope of headship? The head of every man. Every man in this planet. And in the day to come, the Bible tells us God will head up all things in Christ. There'll be a universal order introduced because of the principle of headship, so that this is not only a little thing for a local assembly, it touches the universe. Now, every man doesn't acknowledge Christ as head. No. But in here, there should be absolutely no question. It's our privilege to acknowledge his authority. But in the wor- in the world, man has rejected that headship. I said, surely, sure we will not have this man to Exactly, yes.
And sadly, it- it's gone down the ladder, hasn't it? Exactly, it tumbles just. Brother William. Just to, uh, follow on from your comment from Ephesians chapter one, when in the ages to come he will head up together in one all things in Christ, both which are in the heavens and which are on the earth, even in him. Would I be right in suggesting that that is the coming, uh, dispensation of the millennial reign of our Lord Jesus Christ? Christ, the head of the church in the heavens, perhaps Israel, the head of the nations on the earth, and the angels of God ascending and descending. Those angels will, in that coming day, be very interested in headship. They are today interested in twofold sphere, in the assembly and in the home.
There's quite a wide range of headship connected to the Lord Jesus. He's head of the church, he's head of the body, he's the head of every man. Psalm eighteen, he's the head of nations. Psalm one hundred eighteen, he's the head of the corner. So that headship is associated with Christ, and it will be seen over a large sphere until the universe is touched. Now, the reason, just so that, for we'll have to keep moving, the reason I think the apostle starts with man and says the head of every man is Christ, is simply to show that if man is a head, he needs to keep in mind that he has a head. Mm-hmm. His headship is not tyrannical.
His headship is not autocratic, because above him there is another head, the Lord Jesus. Sorry, John. Yes, David, you just mentioned the, the first point that I was going to raise about the order. Uh-huh. But just, could you tell us why that it's not said here that the head of every man is the Lord Jesus, and the head of the Lord Jesus is God? Why is it Christ that's the title that's used? I, I, I was thinking, John, I was thinking that likely, I didn't think of that because we have the Lord, headship and lordship and so on. I was thinking that in this particular section, it was the submission of the Lord Jesus to the headship of God that brought him into this world to be our savior.
And so it's Christ, it's the Redeemer, it's the Savior, it's the Savior, as we sing on the Lord's Day morning, he bowed his head so low underneath our load of woe, and his headship, mind you, I should, we should appreciate that, dear believers. Christ's recognition of headship. I think it's Merle Ferguson I heard say one day that Christ's recognition of headship put a crown of thorns on his brow. So a sister shouldn't find it irksome to wear a head covering on her head in recognition of headship. Is it important, David, to is emphasized in the second. Second. Is it important to see that in headship here there's no thought of inferiority?
It's an accepted position to advance the purpose of God. Now that, that's a vital, a vital thing that our brother Brian has just mentioned. I think that's why it says the head of Christ is God, because one of the big things that gets people's hackles up, as they say, oh, you mean if man's head over me, it means I'm inferior. It's a, it's an insult. It's diminishing my personal dignity. You mean I'm inferior? He's head and I'm subject, and they just rebel. It nearly puts, it nearly puts, gives apoplexy to the feminist movement. No, says Paul. Headship symbolizes, signifies authority and order. It does not signify inferiority because Christ is not inferior, and God is his head, and the woman is not personally inferior to the man who is her head.
She's equal in person, but different roles. And the Lord, you know, I was at a meeting there recently, and a beloved brother, he thanked the Lord. He said, Father, we thank you for taking a body and coming to die for us. Well, that just grated on me altogether. The Father never died for me. That's a role that was reserved for the Son, for Christ. And so Christ is introduced here because in recognition of his Father's authority, the Father never left the throne, but the Savior came in obedience and submission and died for us. Now that's a anything else in verse three?
It's just that you mentioned the the headship of Christ in connection with the church in Ephesians and Colossians. That headship is quite distinct, I take it. This, this headship is, is over man as an individual, not collective as in the church. Yes. I'm sure, sure, I can see that. It's not, it's not an organic headship. Yes. And it's an administer. See what our brother said, the head of the body in Ephesians, Colossians is organic. Every member linked with the head, but every man's not linked with the head. No. This is not organic headship, this is administrative headship, which, as we have heard, is much with now, just a week before. Would you say that to emphasize that it's not inferiority, when you come further over into Timothy, I will therefore that the males pray everywhere publicly, and then in like manner also, so that the place of the sister and her adornment and so forth is on equal status with the place of the man.
Very good, brother Bruce. Now, another wee thing just that I want to mention. There's a, there's a, a way of translating verse three It's followed by the ESV. I see that most of our brethren have quite a craze and a crush on the ESV. It's appearing now frequently in our magazines, and it seems to be carrying the day, and some would nearly die for it. I'm sure it's a very laudable translation in some places, but here it is absolutely faulty. And a translation that would be faulty on such a point of attack as First Corinthians eleven, I would treat it very warily. Yeah. Now, what they say is this: the head of every man is Christ, the head of the wife is her husband.
It is not husband and wife in this passage, it is man and woman. So just watch your great ESV study Bible. You'll have to study carefully, just and don't swallow. It's a study Bible, it's not a swallow Bible like any other. No, versus. Sorry. Sorry. Could you just clear up another thing? Because in a lot of commentaries now, David, they're telling us that head means source. Could you clear that one? Aye, that's enough. That's what they're all trying to make out, that the word head means the head of a river is the source of a river, and they say that when it says the man is the head of the woman, it doesn't mean that he is authority, it means he was her source because God took the woman out of the man.
It's source, it's not authority. All of that, all of that is just total nonsense. Thousands and thousands and thousands of different uses of the word head have been examined, and it hardly ever means source. They're just upset, they're pulling, grasping at straws to try and bolster up a, a theory to undermine this. Now, verses four to six, we still have to keep in mind the question Mr. Nesbitt asked. That's the declaration of headship. Man is head of the woman, and then it extends to other spheres. Now, verse four, he says, seeing that it's true, if a man prays or prophesies, that's, I take it, speaking to God or speaking for God, public participation in the assembly, those cover both forms of communication.
He says, if a man prays or prophesies and has his head covered, he dishonors his head because he's not taking the place that God gave him. God intends him to stand with a non-covered head as the head in the assembly. He doesn't want him to make a woman of himself. If he covers his head, he's taking the place that God gave to a woman. It's a shame. He says, don't be doing that. He says, you're the head of the woman, so he says, don't be putting yourself down. Similarly, now we come to verse number five and six. He says, if a woman does the opposite, she takes off her head covering, she's equally disgraceful, for she's taken the place of a man.
So he said, God has made men to be men, and he has made women to be women. And he said, anything that reverses those two established points, he said, is a total denial of headship. Now, I knew Mr. Nettl would come back and to answer his question, he wanted me to answer the question. His head, he dishonors his head, she dishonors her head. I take that primarily, but it's kind of a second, primarily to be his own head, because he's making a fool of himself. And I also take a woman appearing, he says she's like a woman that's shaved. A woman that comes into the meeting shaved with all her hair is not making a dishonor of the man, she's making a real shame of herself.
So I take her head and his head to be the person's own head. They're stepping out of the position that God intended for, and of course it reflects, it reflects negatively on the order of headship. Now go ahead, brother. If the woman denies headship, is she denying the headship of man and the headship of Christ also? Are they all linked together? They are, they are all right, although I think in this verse it's not so much that she's denying headship, she's denying her own subjection, which of course is because of headship.
But she uncovers her head, she says, I'm not going to take the position of being subject. I'm going to want, she ain't going to be equal to any man. See, this man told us that male and female don't matter in Christ. So I'm going to step up to be his equal in the public meetings. And she on the apostle says, you're making a fool of yourself as a disgrace because you have stepped out of your place of subjection. And, and I'm sorry, go ahead. The head of every man is Christ. And if the man has his head covered in the assembly fellowship, he's dishonoring his head, and I take it his head to be Christ. That's what the passage tells us.
The head of every man is Christ, and if he covers his head, then he's dishonoring his head. So there are two views. There are two views of these verses, not widely different. The one thing to make clear, dear Christians, there's none of us either the view that Mr. Nesbitt's expressing or the view that I prefer without dogmatism, and I don't discard, discount his view altogether. There's none of us in any way teaching that it's allowable for the Christian woman to have an uncovered head. There's no difference in the bottom line of the teaching, where we are just wondering. You see, I take it that if you had a, a, an army major with his peak cap and his braid, and he stepped out on the parade ground one morning with the wee beret of a new cadet, he wouldn't be dishonouring his superior, he'd be making a fool of himself.
For instead of standing in the dignity of his major hood, he would have stepped out of that position of authority, and he would have stepped into a position of rejection like a just a new recruit. Fool himself, disgraced himself, and I take that to be the main teaching of this particular section. I also thought that the woman with her head uncovered, she is denying her head, but the head of the woman is the man, so I take it primarily it's the man denying the headship of Christ, his head, the woman denying the headship of man, her head. Now, I have heard what you said, but I won't be yielding one, one, one tiny little iota on what I believe.
Thank you very much. I reciprocate what you say entirely. I would just, I would just like to say, I would like to say that I'm one hundred percent behind what WJ has said, and I find that the other argument is actually weakening, weakening a very serious, solemn subject. That is, if he's dishonouring his own head, what, what's it matter about anybody else? If it's only his own head he's dishonouring, whereas he's dishonouring Christ, and when you've got the dishonouring three times in this passage, verse four, verse five, and verse twenty two— it all affects others. Now, this teaching, to my mind, is in keeping with the previous chapter of affecting others.
I take the passage to be teaching that men should be men, and if a man starts to act like a woman or appear like a woman, he's not standing in a position of authority that God has given men. We have an awful lot of jellyfish men. In the assembly, men should be men and women should be women. The man in authority, the woman in subjection, and if that is in any way reversed or obscured, God's order of headship is not reflected. Now we've heard what has been said. I think we could maybe move to the next section on our brother Ferguson. I don't want to rush you on, but I thought verse seven would help us. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God.
But the woman is the glory of the man, she's not the image, and on as on looking as angels look on the company to see the only glory that is unveiled is the glory of the Lord, and what is man's glory is put out of sight. That would do us, brethren, good. See, I, I don't take the passage to be teaching that at all. Not at all. I don't think there's any glory in this passage that has to be hidden. Glory is to be displayed. I mean, God-given glory. May, may I ask a question? Yes. I don't want to be thought of as a jellyfish man, so, so I, I mean, I, I make it clear that I believe the context would teach us that, uh, you know, I agree with WJ.
But I do want to ask a question. Uh, I mean, we do, do appreciate that, uh, these passages ha- have in view the assembly, but I was thinking of Philip's four virgin daughters who prophesied, which inevitably would be the home sphere. Do you think that it would have been appropriate then, if they they were prophesying, for them to have their heads covered? Certainly, I wouldn't see this passage, uh, you heard from my comments, Yeah. any bearing upon it. I take that to be a private sphere, and as Jewish ladies, they might have had their head covered. Yeah. Uh, I see that as a totally, a totally different context altogether. Sorry, got it, Brad, just for just one second, Brad. No, I was going, it's a related thing, but maybe a little bit obscure.
Why in the Old Testament did the priests have to cover their head, and in the New Testament, the men don't have to cover their head? Mm. What I was thinking was the priest had to cover his head because there was a visible indication of the presence of God. There was the Shekinah, a visible indication. And where there was that visible indication of headship, he had to cover his head. Now there is no visible indication of headship for the man, so the man uncovers his head. If the man covers his head, he is saying there's someone here is taking the place of Christ, and in that sense he dishonors his head. The woman, she covers her head because there is a visible indication of headship in the man.
But he's there. Yes. See, I see all that, read all that, thought about all that. There's nothing that I've heard is new, has taken me by surprise. All of that, with respect to my beloved brethren, and we're moving on, all of that reads into the passage. The reason the priest covered his head was nothing to do with headship, it was reverence. This is a different telling, and there's nothing about a visible head. You're reading into the passage. It's just a man be a man with his head uncovered, a woman be a woman with her, and if they reverse that, it's a disgrace because they're taking a place that God never intended for them. Sorry, William, your turn. When the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle, to get back to Brian's point, the priests did more than cover their heads, they actually left.
When the glory of the Lord filled the temple, the priests left, and I take it the reason is that where the glory of the Lord is present, it is not under competition. That which speaks or even hints of man's glory has to go. Now, what the apostle, I sug- I feel is suggesting here is this: he does not want any sign of man's glory, namely the sister, to go. He's asking for it to be covered so that the glory of Christ stands absolutely peerless and without competition. Yeah, I, I don't see the passages teaching that at all. I want to raise the point that our brother McBride has already raised. The woman's the glory of the man, and the glory of the man must be covered in the assembly.
No. Yes, the glory of that. It doesn't say that. The woman is the glory of the man. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God. Why does man not cover his head? The image and glory of God must be displayed in the assembly. Exactly. And the woman is the glory of the man. She must be covered, for the glory of a man has no place in the assembly. Now you can have your thought, but I'm expressing mine for the benefit of a rising generation. Well, I hope this will touch a rising generation as well. The glory of man is to be head. God made Adam as a ruler, his image and his glory, and when God made Adam, his glory was the glory of headship.
He gave Eve a glory. What was her glory? It was the glory of helpership, and she displayed her glory by being a helper in the place of subordination. He displayed his glory by being a ruler in a place of... In the assembly, the man shows his glory with an uncovered head. I'm an authority. The woman shows her glory. She doesn't supplant him. She supports him. She doesn't compete with him. She complements him. She has the glory of helpership, and that's shown with her covered head. He has the glory of headship, and as the image of God, he's in a position of rule.
And he says that's reflected in creation, the order of creation, the objective of creation. She was made from him, she was made for him. I see nothing in this passage about glory having to be covered. Nothing whatsoever. Is glory displayed? Sister, what is your glory? You say I take off my head coat and I show I'm as good as any man. No, that wouldn't be a glory. That would just... Your glory is to have a covered head and acknowledge I accept the place of helpership. Dear brother, what's your glory? With your uncovered head, you say I accept the place of headship that God gave at the beginning. Might I just say that Paul said, God forbid that I should glory, so I feel it is a safer view that all glory of man should be covered.
Tot- a totally different word altogether. Nothing to do with the word here. The word here has to do with the display of glory. The word that our brother uses to do with boasting. There's no boasting in the assembly. Not at all. God forbid that I should boast. Glory, boast. But this is a different word. There's glory to be displayed. The glory of manhood and the glory of real womanhood. Now, that will maybe do with that verse, and just maybe before I leave that, verse number seven, a wa- a man ought, ought not. Now, link that with verse ten. My dearly esteemed brother, Mr. Ferguson, went back, but it should be going forward.
For thi- this cause the woman ought. Now, I know if a a congregation of people that would once have been very similar to what we have here, and the overseers had a, a meeting, and they said that now, um, they wouldn't want to force this, it would just be optional. If a lady's own conscience, she wanted to wear a head covering, maybe it could stretch a point to have it at the remembrance meeting, but the other meetings in the assembly, don't worry, we leave it up to your conscience, and we leave it up just to be optional. Now remember, dear my deary beloved, this is not optional, it's obligatory. A man ought not, a woman ought to cover her head.
This is not a matter of conscience, this is a matter of clear commandment that's very clear, so that I come into the assembly and we see these glories on display as well as headships on display. Sorry. I can see, I can see your reasoning, but I honestly do find it difficult to see how you can put a man being a man being more important than the glory principle. Mm-hmm. Well, then tell me this, brother, because we're coming. Does a woman then need to cover her hair? No. No, I just think it's the head. Oh, but you have to, because her hair's her glory. Yeah. If you can't have any glory in the assembly, if man's glory's not nice, I don't think woman's glory to be seen.
She'll have to cover her hair. But her hair's her glory. If he has to be hidden because he's man, her glory will have to be hidden as well because she's woman. I don't believe a word of that. Well, do we not accept that the, the idea here is a veil, and uh, and the head would not only be covered, but the hair as well? I mean, The, the interesting thing that I found that in this passage, the word veil never appeared. So the apostle, which he had a word for veil, used it freely sang in those three. He never even thought it worthy of implying here. And he used a rather, I'll call it contorted, periphrastic, something down on the head or from the head.
And I think he left open the type of covering, and I take it very clearly, dear believers, it's the head of the woman that needs to be covered, not her hair, because she shows her glory by covering her head. I'm here as a helper, under authority. I'm not here as equal, and she showed her own glory by her hair. Neither man's glory, God-given glory, I mean, nor woman's glory ever needs to be covered in the assembly. Now. Could you tell us, David, in verse six, three words, shame, shorn, shaven. Would you define them for us just now? Well, the shorn, the shorn, brother Brad, is what we would call the shearing of a sheep.
I just, and the shaven would be as clean as the palm of my hand. Now, I never met a woman with shorn hair. And I never met a lady with shaven hair. If it's shorn, it's as close, what is it, number two? is it? Number one? I, I don't look for those numbers. If it's shorn, it's as close as a number one. If it's shaven, it's absolutely clean, as clean as a man's face. So you never would see in the assembly a woman that has shorn her as close as a sheep's or shaven, completely bald. But he said, if a woman can't accept this symbol of headship, just let her go be consistent and dispense with the other covering altogether.
If she won't have this covering, and he says when he does that, she knows it's a shame, it's a disgrace, it's a total disgrace. Well, he says, if it's a disgrace to covering, completing the task with one covering, it'll also be a disgrace to dispense with the other. Brother David, I'm just going to make one observation from Psalm number forty five, and it is simply this, that the bride in Psalm forty five, we are told that her glory was within. In other words, it was covered by those garments with which she was supplied f- exclusively for the eyes of her husband only. See, all those Old Testament passages brought in here from the tabernacle and all of that, I see that as having not the only Old Testament passage the apostle wants is the one that he brings in from Genesis two as established, and you can bring in as many from extraneous passages as you care to bring in.
I will still maintain those are additional to the passage. Now we go, we've had the principle of headship, we've had the pattern established, the principle expounded, now the propriety exhibited. He shows there's no inequality in the Lord, and there's, the woman is not only the man's wife, but she's the mother, verse twelve. But now in verse number thirteen, he says, judging yourselves, is it a comely that a woman pray to God? He says, does not even nature teach you that if a man of long hair, it's a shame, but if a woman of long hair, it is a glory to her, it is given for a covering. So he says she already has a covering, and she shouldn't find it a big deal, a big burden to add on another covering.
And the covering that she already has is her long hair as a permanent covering. It's not as an alternative covering, it's a permanent covering answering to the other covering, and it is, sorry to keep you waiting there. Good. Uh, not a theological question. Mm-hmm. Who is primarily responsible in an assembly to teach clearly that the man should have a proper haircut and an uncovered head, and the woman should have her hair, long hair. And I'm glad you got rid of the measuring tapes because anyone who knows anything about the female company knows that the hair of every woman doesn't grow the same length.
So I take it a woman's long hair is its natural length of growth. Who's responsible primarily to teach those truths? That's a, that's a difficulty, and it's taking us outside the passage, in a sense, but I'm glad to just say a word about it. It's a difficulty that I have. There are two sides. There are brethren, and I have heard them thumping this passage to score points and to hurt people and to cut the head off them. And many of those beloved brethren have about three points in their sermons, and every time you hear it, this is one of the three. Now, that's an abuse of the passage that should be abandoned. On the other hand, there are assemblies, and I would say that First Corinthians eleven hasn't been read for years, and a new generation has come in.
And now, when you hear this, this will be me just right down into the front row here now. Listen, brethren, the problem, say this quietly and not, the problem is not read by many overseeing brethren is, because he has a good wife sitting at his side. Amen. And he would be heart afraid to read it, because every verse he would read, the appearance of his wife would be a contradiction to all that he would say. Now, I say to sisters, you live, adorn yourself, carry yourself in such a way with long hair, with a covered head in the assembly, in a way that will give solid ground to your husband's ministry, if as and when the Lord directs him to give that.
So that's a valid point. Now, just the last, the long hair, maybe I should say this. You say, well, why if a woman has a covered head, why does she need this other head or long hair? And what's so beautiful to her is so distasteful in a man. You know, if God has given her a badge of sub- subjection, I think it's very kind that he has given her one that beautifies her. It doesn't demean her. It doesn't diminish her. There is nothing enhances the appearance of a woman like long hair. Now he says, listen, he says, you're long hair, but you say, does this long hair symbolize anything? Now I said already, and I still, that he, the apostle wasn't teaching long hair in this passage, he was assuming.
But I want to say this, I believe that a sister's long hair, which is not a sister, it's a woman in this passage, but a sister's long hair is a symbol of her subjection in the natural sphere. Then, when she steps into the assembly gatherings and goes into another sphere, the woman who already has a badge of subjection in the natural sphere, she adds on another covering for the spiritual sphere. So the church is confirming what God has given in creation. While you're on the thing with long hair, I'm glad you're throwing out the measuring tape, et cetera.
I don't see there's any need for it, for the reason is actually right in the passage, in verse fifteen. Uh-huh. Her hair is given her. Who gave it? God. And God called it glory. So even if the objection is often raised of the wee African woman whose hair, if it's stretched out, may only measure an inch and a half, two inches, she's wearing what God gave her. She's perfectly scriptural. If a woman have long hair, you know, I, I heard a brother try to convince me not so very long ago that a sister lets her hair grow all, what do they call it, rats and tails. I don't know much about that, all of the rats and tails until it becomes just a tittle tattle of the whole, uh. Oh, we said, don't we say that's part of their approach. Part of their approach.
I thought it was a disgrace to talk such utter nonsense. It's a head of healthy hair given to her by God, cultured and cultivated. Let us not get away into measuring tapes thing and legalistic affairs. The woman should have long. I- I- I'm concerned, you know, I'm concerned. And here again, I'm in serious trouble because I have to move to this next. I haven't a schedule like now to love it, brethren. This is so important. I, uh, I have two brethren waiting here, but I just want to say this. I notice a wee thing coming in here, and I'll two things. I'll call them the subtraction and the addition. Many dear sisters are working at the subtraction.
Hair go. And then they don't long have the hair gone till they have a few additions. What do they call this stuff, the stuff they hang there, bling, bling or something, bling. And they have to have it. I'll say to your sister, watch the subtraction. And if you live in a s- place of submission according to the Bible, for certain you'll not need the additions either. There's the removal of the hair, there's the addition of jewelry. I'm not saying that to hurt any single person here. We have the... Listen, what are we interested in? You say keeping gospel halls open. Well, I have no interest in that at all. I'm not out to keep gospel halls open. We want to keep assembly testimony what God intended it to be.
Assembly testimony, bearing testimony to the Lord Jesus, to creation's order, to God's order. Sorry, William, just I'm not sure if he was first. Brother George, you haven't been in yet. It's Mike before in the alphabet, before M. Verse six, Brother David, and verse fifteen. I think the brother covered it here. Two different words, is that right? Yes, yes. One is a natural, and it's a woman that gets that. Yeah. And fifteen, the woman puts on something on top of that. Our brother, just before Brother William speaks, verse number fifteen has been greatly used. Her hair is given her for a cover.
And many of those dear gentlemen that I spoke about feminists say, oh, let's see, there you are, she's got her hair as a covering. Yeah. She doesn't need another one. The passage says it is given her for a covering. Now, I think the, it's a different word, as our brother George has pointed out, and I think the way it should be translated is this, the preposition ante. Her hair is given her f- as a covering, answering to. Answering to what? Her long hair answers to the other covering that she puts on when she comes into the assembly meeting. One covering corresponds to the other, so that I believe she has a twin token of headship in the assembly gatherings.
When she's in the natural sphere, it's that. And I don't believe she needs to cover her lower head. Don't believe it. I've been in places, I've heard in Bible reading where they said women have to stuff it all up in under their hat or whatever they want to do. I don't see any trace of that in the past. Man stands in his glory as the head, she stands in her glory as the helper. Now, brother William. It might be a pity just to miss verses eight and nine. Uh, the woman we're told is of the man, and then in verse nine we're told that she is for the man. I hope I'm not wrong in this, that this is a reference to Eden's garden, and if you said to Eve, would you like to act independently of Adam, had she been thinking wisely, she might have said, no, I won't because I'm off him.
I owe my existence to him. We owe our existence to Lord Jesus, don't we? Adam fell asleep. Our Lord Jesus died, and we emerged from his suffering at Calvary. But secondly, the woman owed her, she says the woman is for the man, she owes her destiny to Adam, but that it is to reign with him, and we owe our existence to our Lord Jesus when he died for us. We owe our destiny to him when we will reign with him in that coming day. Very good, very good. So there's no, there's no independence, but there's a necessary interdependence, man and woman from creation and in the congregation. The both of them are very, very true. Eve was made to support Adam, but the trouble was when the serpent came, she supplanted him. She acted as if she was head.
She took the first place and took the first bite. She became first, and instead of supporting him as a helper, she supplanted him, stepping into the place of headship. David, just before you move on, is the head covering just limited to assembly gatherings? Could you give us a wee bit of help for that? Because we're in a situation sometimes when the, it is discarded in many circumstances. I, I see that, by the way, and that'll bring us exactly to verse number sixteen. You see, I'm hearing constantly about, but what about, what about, what about a house gathering? I know they gathered, the whole church gathered in the house. They say, what about a house gathering? What about a women's gathering? What about a young people's gathering? Well, that's all right.
The trouble is I don't see any of those gatherings in the Bible. So I have no problem. Whatever they do there is not any of my concern. I'm never there. It's just, I said, we have no such custom. Neither the church. I read a book this morning said, oh, but this was Corinthian. Then he said this was cultural. This was not Corinthian. Paul says it's every assembly. This was not cultural. He said it's creatorial. He said this has been established by God. Man is a place, woman is a place, and apostolically and assembly-wise, we're absolutely at one in that.
No, you just would have to leave that delivered, brother. But, um, I take it that this disorder was only known at Corinth, therefore, because the other churches didn't follow that. Yeah. Brothers. What about the wedding day in the gospel hall? Should the bride and should all of those that are there, women folk, have the hair covered? Well, right, that's a fine question, Brother Sam. I, my next question would be, what scripture would you use for having a wedding day in the gospel hall? Well, I wasn't married in the gospel hall. There you are. There you are. Well, I was, and we're both managing, right? Now, we go into this section.
Now, listen, I should answer that refer. Listen, listen, listen, just to be fair. If a young sister comes to the brother and she's getting married, she's been in the seventy six seven years, getting married to a young man of family fellowship, gonna have a wedding next June, and ask me, can I have the hall? No problem, dear, you can have the hall. But don't forget, if you're gonna have your wedding in the hall, because the hall, the hall's not consecrated, but the hall is identified with the public principles of testimony. You will have to observe the principles of the assembly. So at my wedding, I'm going to bring in an organ. You can bring in an organ under a banana tree if you like, but not in the assembly, the place where the assembly meets to be identified with. But you say, well, I'm going to do this, I'm going to wear no head covering, and there are these things, a wee wisp of a thing on the top of their head and a cockatiel type of a thing.
It's, it's covering. It's covering, dear Brendan, it's covering, and if it's not an assembly meeting, I would really think we have no directions for it, and we would have very, very little interest. Now, the Lord's Supper. Brother David, before you move on, could I just say, to sum up the section that you've been on, you have headship and relationship, and you have representation, and you have rule in that particular section that you have dealt with so particularly. That's excellent. That's a- now I tell you, just to summarize before, brother, there are four reasons why the system, the woman is head covered by the const- constitution reason. God has constituted a hierarchy of headship, verses three to six.
Secondly, there's the creation reason. Thirdly, there's the comeliness reason. He says, look, it doesn't even look right if she has her head. And thirdly, there's the custom reason. He says, we have no such custom. So for those four reasons, constitution reason, the creation reason, verses seven to ten, the comeliness reason, verse thirteen to fifteen, and the custom reason in verse number sixteen— the head is cut. Brother Sam. Verses, eh, fourteen and fifteen, eh, doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is shame unto him, but if a woman have long hair, it is her glory, for her hair is given her for a covering.
If you were to look into the Heps in the Newberry Bible, it'll show you that that is active, and in many cases it is translated, if a woman wear her hair long. And why does she do it? Because it's in conformity to divine ordinance. If a man wear his hair long, why does he do it? It is just the very opposite. He doesn't care, doesn't deny, doesn't remain, he doesn't mind denying that which is of God and that which is of scripture. One further thing is that her hair is given her for a covering, and that's in the perfect tense. It wasn't given to her to be dispensed of, to be taken, to be put on or taken off.
It's something that's God given, and she shouldn't tamper with it in that way. Well, thanks, brethren, for all your help on that very, very important passage. And remember, dear sister, this business we're talking about head covering, it's not a wee bit of peripheral brethren tradition. It is very central Bible teaching. So we're obeying the word of, and if all Christendom turns against us, may God grant in all humility of mind, we will seek his help to do and display what he has requested. Now, this, the supper. First of all, we'll just spend very little on this section, the irregularities at the supper, and I'll summarize this, and we'll take a couple of minutes.
You look us from verse seventeen, come together, and then verse eighteen, come together, and then verse nineteen, verse twenty, come together. Now, he speaks about the failure of their meetings. He says it's, it's not for the better, it's for the worse. Then he speaks about the factions. He says, when you come together, there are divisions. And then he speaks about their feastings. He said, instead of it being the Lord's Supper, in verse twenty, you're eating your own supper, and you're embarrassing and exposing people that are poorer. Now, he said, I can't praise you for that. So that's the irregularity that was taking place on the occasion.
And I think the reason you get come together three times, twice later, is because the apostles say in the very meeting that is calculated to express fellowship, he says it's actually becoming an occasion to express friction. He says the rich ones are sitting up as large as light, and the poor ones are just treated like second class Christians. Now help us quickly on that, beloved brethren, and uh, then we'll get to the institution of the summer, which we want to spend a number of minutes on. Brian Malcolm. This expression you've mentioned, when you come together, seven times we find it from, eh, Here. Here right through to the end of chapter fourteen.
Why did he not bring it in, in before, like in chapter ten, and with the head cover- covering and so on? Why, why did he wait until it's the supper? I appreciate that very much. Well, that's a question many have raised and wondered, so that only now we come to public meetings. Now, the simple reason, I think he, what I've said there, he brings in this business of coming together, repeats this as our brothers made seven times. A great word of fellowship, because in coming together, instead of expressing fellowship, they were expressing division. Division between tongues and prophecy, division between rich and poor, and he says, you're defeating the very purpose.
Instead of eating the Lord's Supper, he said, it has become an occasion that doesn't fulfill the objective at all. Is that why, brother David, verse nineteen, there must be also heresies among you that are sect schools of opinion among you, and those that are approved, they may be criticized, but they're standing aside and saying, no, we will not have that. Like Solomon going to divide the child, it proves reality. So, uh, as you're saying, brother, we don't like crisis, we don't like difficulties, but it shows the man, it displays, it displays. It's not the crisis doesn't make the man. It shows it. The crisis manifests the man. reveals it.
Once these divisions come in. Now, just a little bit before we go on, dear Christians, because I think it's self-explanatory, these verses. We need to watch that we don't have the same thing. I take it, I take it that many of the Christians in the assembly court would have been working on this, we'll call it the Sunday, first day of the week. The richer members would have a no problem with the commitments of employment. These slaves couldn't get away, couldn't walk out to their master and say, we have a remembrance meeting to go to. You say, what? So they had to wait till the evening, and by the time some of the poorer Christians arrived, some of these wealthier Corinthians had a whole big spread, and they wouldn't even give these poor slaves a bite. And he says it's showing, it's showing you a lack of love.
He says it's communion. We read in the previous chapter, it's communion, it's fellowship. He says instead of it being an occasion of communion, he says you're just showing differences and divisions. Now go ahead if you have anything to say, and if not, we'll go into the institution. All I say is this, I think we need to be careful we don't show division. Is, is it true that- Just hold a second, brother, please, just I finish. Somebody said to me, and I didn't like it, didn't like it, and I didn't ask him what he meant. Oh, he said it's all right in our assembly. That was an expression. It's all right in our assembly, he says, if you belong to the BMW group.
Now, if you drive a BMW, the Lord bless you. The only group I have been in would be a Mondeo group. But, you know, there are some assemblies, and it's not like this, but there could be a division. The house and the kind of clothes that you wear. The Lord's Supper become a fashion parade. The kind of car you drive, the kind of house you live in, and there could be a little fellowship within a fellowship, and some of those internal fellowships inevitably leave a number of believers just out on the edge, and they feel unwanted, uncared for. We will read in our brother bakers, the same care, one for another.
Now we need to watch, dear Christians, that we don't allow class distinction to get in. We're at, we're them, these other people. That's a very shameful thing. That was happening with Corns, and it could just be repackaged in a slightly different form. Sorry, brother. The way it's worded, there, there needs be schisms among you. Oh. God actually allows schisms at times in the assembly so that those whom he approves might be brought to the fore. For very often, natural relationships will, will cover over wrongs, whereas approved of God, and I take it that'll follow into the verse of verse twenty— that ye cannot eat the Lord's supper because of these things.
You make them through the ritual, but you're not actually, you can't eat the Lord's supper. That's it, I appreciate, and the word approved in verse number nineteen is very closely linked with examine himself. So that's how you become approved. You examine yourself, and that helps you to know how to work in all these difficulties. Now we'll leave the irregularities. One drunk and another hungry, you hardly believe it, and the whole purpose defeated, and people going away hurt and shamed and despised. You see, you're doing here what you should be doing at home. Mind you, again, dear Brendan, I'm back to the thing we touched on just so we'll just give it a... I'm not against a wee cup of tea and biscuit.
You're going to get a an apple or a pear or something here, it'd be great in a few minutes, but always watch in assembly life that the social is kept to a minimum. You say, but you're going to be too hard. No, no. The problem with it is this. I have seen time and time again, once it starts, it nearly takes over in no time until it becomes, and you know, you know all if you had a, a spiritual scriptural meeting, just a plain meeting with no frills attached, you could hardly get people to come, but it was a bit of a banquet over there at the door. More interested in the natural than they are in the spiritual. We knew that was happening at Corinth. Now, this lovely section that we'll give quite a few minutes, verse number twenty three to verse twenty six.
Now, he said at the supper, there are dozens of things we could emphasize, but there are three here. He says, I want you to think about the atmosphere of it. It was the night the Lord was betrayed, and he says, that doesn't sit comfortably with your attitude. He says, think about the atmosphere of it. He says, secondly, think about the aim of it. He says, the aim of this is to remember him. And he says, the way that you're behaving will nearly make it impossible to remember him. People will be so hurt, they'll not be thinking about Christ at all. Then he thinks of the announcement of it. He says, you make an announcement every time, verse twenty six that he's coming. He says, the way you're behaving would nearly seem to me that you've lost the outlet.
The atmosphere in verse twenty three, the aim twenty four and twenty five. and the announcement in verse twenty six. So help us on this, dear brethren, for we need help. Am I right in saying that this is the first written account of the institution of the Lord's Supper Uh. to be circulated? It's, you know, because it was written before the Gospels. Lately, as far as like, unless some of the Gospels were written very early, which I don't think we have any proof of. And the apostle says, I delivered that which I received. He said, I handed over the whole package. I didn't leave a bit out, I didn't add a bit in. I delivered to you that which I also received. He says, you have add- added a lot in.
No, he says, just do what I told you. Now, I want a general help here because of, I frequently hear it said we come to remember the Lord's death. Now, who's going to be an offender for a word? I don't like that attitude at all, but dear beloved brethren and sisters in Christ, we do not come to remember the Lord's death. We come to remember him and to proclaim his death, so that we not don't just exclusively, although in a central way we think about Calvary, not just his death, but we think about the person who did die. Mm. And all the glory of his person was communicated to the greatness of his sacrifice.
Just keep... all the time I hear, brother Job say, well, thank you for the privilege of being here today to remember the Lord's death. We remember his person, don't we? His pathway and all his All those things. Ah, that's it. Yeah. Which will come to his death, of course. Oh, definitely, yes. The, the very symbols like are focusing Yes, that's on, on Calvary. And every contribution then, David, should be to engender a remembrance of him. The hymns, you know, sometimes hymns are sung and the Lord Jesus is hardly mentioned. Sometimes scriptures are read and almost like a, a practical exhortation given. But whether it's the scripture reading, whether it's the hymn giving out or whatever, it all should be engendering our attention on him.
All pa- now it's only, uh, I'll come to our brother just a second. It's only in Luke's gospel that you'd ever know it was to be repeated. You read Matthew and you read Mark, and it never mentions in those two, do this to remember me, in remembrance of me. When you get to Luke, it's said once. When you come here, it's said twice. Do this in remembrance of me. So it's really emphasized. I think that at Corinth they couldn't remember the Lord with all these goings on. It upset and distracted them, as our brother Bran has said. Brother Back. I'm near scared to come in, David. I really am. But I'm just going to come in just to give you a little alliteration of these verses that might be of help, David.
We've been considering from verses seventeen to twenty perversion. Mm-hmm. Now, in verses twenty three to twenty six, we're dealing with the pattern. And then when we come to verses twenty seven, twenty eight, we have there the thought of preparation. Now, I agree with you entirely in relation that you can go farther than the cross, that you can go farther in worship than the burnt offering. I believe that you can touch every offering. I was brought up in a school that you weren't allowed to go by the cross until after the breaking of bread.
I believe that right from the commencement of the meeting, you could trace the life of the Lord from eternity to eternity. Has that school closed down yet? Has pretty small. I hope so. I hope so. I was at a meeting once, and the first man thanked the Lord for his deity, God's head, the everlasting word. The next man came to Bethlehem, the manger. The next man came to the life of the Lord Jesus, and I tried to give a word of thanks. I didn't, but I caught on afterwards. I thank the Lord for dying and so on. Then the next man came to his miracles, and then the next man came to the triumph, and then the next man came to give thanks for the bread and went to the cross, and I only dawned on me then that I had broken the rules seriously, because I was not there for a progression of worship.
But you say, sure, it's the worship meeting. No, it's not the worship meeting, no. You say, what sort of a meeting is it? It's the remembrance meeting, and you never want to forget that not one of us would ever be here had it not been for the fact the Savior loved us and died at Calvary. Just keep that constantly before, and let our hearts be melted. Brother David, I'm glad you have raised the point of remembrance. I don't like to hear my brethren rising and thanking God that we have the privilege in other Lord's Day here to keep the Lord in memory. Where it's, it's, it's not a memorization, it's a remembrance.
This is the word that's used in Hebrews uh on verse three. With those sacrifices, there is a remembrance of sins every year. It means a vivid calling to remembrance. We are not gathering to the Lord's name on a Lord's Day morning in memory of Christ who lived and died and rose again and evermore lives. We're here to remember him, vividly calling to remembrance the death of Christ, the sufferings of Christ, all that was accomplished upon the cross.
I'd like you to further expand on that. No, I fully appreciate what our brother has mentioned. Very often I just put together in my mind what he has just said. The use of this word remembrance in these passages, these institution passages, Luke and Paul here, first Corinthians 11, and the other use that our brothers mentioned in Hebrews ten. The Jewish ceremony, as he, our brother said, called vividly to mind sin. We call vividly to mind the one who put them away. So the two remembrances complement each other on their own. Now, it's not a sacrament. You see, I've seen people get in, and a brother goes to the table, and he lifts it up with a whole hoo-ha of a thing, and all that, and he lifts the cup and consecrates the elements.
I was only in a place like that once at the other end of the town here. And, uh, not at all. All of that is a sacrament, something superstitious. It's just a simple remembrance. Only bread and only wine. But you say when the meeting's over, is the bread not consecrated? No. What about the wine that's left in the cup? Is it not? No. Absolutely not. But you say you shouldn't think about the blessings that we have received. The Lord said, take. Take. But you say we are there to give. He said, take. Take. I know the different readings in this passage, but so he said you can think about what you are given.
And then another thing, I- I've really, I hear about brethren, my beloved brethren again, oh, they say, you know, uh, we- we offer up Christ to the Father. No. Don't ever come across that kind of stuff. We don't offer up Christ to the Father. He did that once. He offered himself once. It's not a priestly formula where we are re- In fact, I was in a, I was in a bookshop down south once, and there was a video playing, I was browsing a book or two, and this video, it happened to be, uh, a Roman Catholic priest, obviously a very well-educated man, a great communicator.
So I listened just for a couple of minutes, and he was talking about the Mass or the Eucharist, and he said about what they view, the Roman Catholic view, and the Protestant view. He said the whole difference is a hyphen. So I thought, this is a big thing. It's just a hyphen. He said, as far as we are concerned, we re hyphen, the the bread and the cup re hyphen presents, it represents Christ. He's re-offered, but he said as far as Protestant teaching is, it just represents the Lord Jesus. He's not represented. He's, the Lord said the seed, the field is the world.
No problem. The field represents the word. The seed is the word of God. The birds are the devil. Just those simple, that's all we're thinking about. This is my body. This is my blood. So just keep those things in mind with others that our brethren might want to mention. Could you just give us half a minute, David, on the New Covenant? Per- perhaps one of the neglected aspects of the Lord's Supper. I surely, the cup of the New Covenant. Now, I take it that this is one of the things that our brethren were mentioning. We go far in our thinking, right to the New Covenant in its full blessings, even for Israel. Now, we enjoy the New Covenant, but we don't exhaust it.
We enjoy it now. That New Covenant is in existence. Israel will come into the good of it. It was initiated at the death of Christ. When he died, that covenant was established because the covenant victim had died, and it will carry right into the future, the restoration of Israel. Part of the blessing of that covenant is the forgiveness of sins, and when I take the cup, I remember that under the auspices of this new covenant, I enjoy the forgiveness of my sins. So. I was just going to say, David, as you know, the first time you read of bread and wine is in Genesis fourteen, ah and it was two things. It was a celebration of a victory, and it was the preservation from the com- com- compromise of Sodom.
And so it's the same for us. It's a celebration of a victory, and it is a preservation in relation to the world, from the things of the world. I think that's a great thing that our brother has mentioned, because we're saying we don't come just to remember our blessings. We do that, but we remember the person and so on, the Lord Jesus. At the same time, while we, I think we'll all admit that the weekly rem- as often as the weekly remembrance of the Lord Jesus has a great preservative on the Lord's people. Yes. There's nothing like coming to the cross. And isn't it interesting that there's a a character to the Passover, they have to eat it in haste, Uh-huh. with the shoes on their feet and so on, but we sit down, they sat down, Okay.
you know, and it's a time of, of memory of the Lord. So, so we think about a far greater Exodus. Exactly. And a far greater love. That's right. And a far greater leader than Moses. I, I, I always thought that the New Covenant was made with Israel, according to Jeremiah. We certainly commend to the blessings of it, but a covenant was never made with the church. No, I didn't say that. No. No, no. No, neither did I didn't. We're in the blessings of it, but we don't exhaust it. We don't, the covenant, you don't make a covenant with a church. We are in the good of the new covenant as believers, not as members of his body. Sorry, brother Juran. Sorry, we're men are neglecting the right hand side here.
David, this is maybe slightly different, and I don't want to be controversial. The bread, it doesn't say unleavened bread. I'd like to take that off. On the cup, is it grape juice or is it wine? Ah, well, I, I, what about these fellas? No, we're not getting into that because it's too late. They were, whatever it was, they were getting drunker. So it was a, ah, listen, I listen, listen, listen. On the bread, I want to say this. The bread is not a type of Christ, it's a symbol. You say, but what's the difference? If it was a type, it would have to be unleavened to be a type of us. But look, listen, brethren, a type always implies the reality's coming. And we're not at the Lord's table to think about the reality's coming.
We're there to remember that it has come. He has already been there. So it's a symbol. It's not a tape pointing forward. It's a symbol, and we don't need to worry about that. Gerald, just sorry. Just a simple question, uh, David. When does the remembrance end? At what point in the meeting does the remembrance end? Now, just to give you an idea why I'm asking that question, often many brethren feel that when the cup is on the table, that's the time for ministry. And all sorts of subjects. Can you help us there, David? When does the remembrance end? Well, it's hard for us, Gerald, just to say exactly for Acts twenty, for example, what the Apostle Paul preached on until midnight.
You know, I don't think, uh, I'll put it this way. The Lord instituted the supper, and then he gave great ministry. Now, his ministry, on the first time, was most practical. The upper room ministry, talking about the world and the foes and fruit bearing, his ministry, and I think if we take our pattern from the Savior, we cannot go very far wrong. Now just, brethren, we'll come to the last section, and I don't want to go through it in detail. Wherefore, this is, he says, wherefore examine yourself. For he says there's a danger involved. He said you could be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And he said it'll bring chastisement.
There could be a discipline involved. He says, in fact, many are weak and sickly. But he says the fact that you suffer chastisement as saints is a proof that you'll not suffer condemnation as sinners. So that chastisement is disciplinary, but it's also preventive from ultimate judgment. Consider, examine yourself. That's the first wherefore, verse twenty to thirty two. Then the second wherefore, wherefore consider others, tarry for one another. Um. David, I was going to mention, uh, taking, looking at the section again as a whole, we have the thought of congregation when you come together, as you mentioned already a number of times in this part particular section.
Yes. So you have not only congregation, but location into one place, and I think that's important. Mm-hmm. And then you have commemoration. We show forth, we remember the Lord, and we have proclamation. You do show the Lord's death that he come, and you have examination, let a man examine himself, and you have consideration at the end of the passage. And anticipation as well, the Lord's coming, and then the collection as well in chapter sixteen. Now there's a number of points that our brother raised there. I didn't mention ye do show the Lord's death. Now, personally, and I can't leave time for discussion, I don't think this Greek word is ever used for showing visibly.
It's an announcement verbally. So that there must be a verbal statement that we are here thinking about the Lord's death. You say, but you, the fact that we do this, listen, everybody sees it's a visible thing. The word show, it's not the word he showed them his hands and his feet, something visible. This is something verbal, usually translated preach. And my beloved brethren told me you don't preach at the Lord's Supper. Well, the Apostle Paul said, ye preach the Lord's death till he come. Sorry, bearing in mind that what you said about, uh, uh, the, the whole church being gathered together, uh, there are several people who would lift up that, lift up that expression, let a man examine himself, and put the responsibility on the individual as to whether he or she should break bread, irrespective of whether they're in the company.
But, but the ones who have to examine themselves are actually those embraced in the fellowship. Mm-hmm. Yes. Yes, and I take it the ones that were examined themselves especially, all were the rich that were coming with their big dinners, never thinking of anybody else. And he says you're eating on, be eating and drinking unworthily is not being unworthy to eat and drink. No. No. Eating and drinking unworthily is behaving at the supper in such a way that your behavior is unworthy. It's not talking about coming to the supper, it's your behavior at the supper. And if you behave in a way that makes other Christians feel out of it, feel bad, bit of a show off.
He says you could invite the Lord's discipline, and that is a very solemn thing. Now, there's another side that I want to mention. Just, just to say, is the expression till he come, is that anticipation of the Lord's coming, or is that the length of time we have to carry this out until he come? The, the little word until usually links with a measure of time. I don't think there's so much anticipation of the rapture. Well, that that will certainly be the true. I'm inclined to think, Brother Bruce, it's both what you have said, because when he comes, we no longer need bread and cup. When we see him at the rapture, we will no longer need the symbols and the emblems, for we will have himself.
There's a side of things just where our beloved brother here will pardon me. They give me a bit of a liberty here that they shouldn't give. I want to speak about preparation for the supper. A brother brought that word in. Examine yourself and tarry for one another. There's some people, if you waited till they landed there, you'd never get started. But tarry one for another. Try and all be together in good time. Anyway, I want a wee bit of help, brother, just in the closing four or five minutes. Um, I'm concerned about the quality, the atmosphere of some of our remembrance meetings. I go to the brother and say, come for a few weeks gospel meetings, yourself and another brother goes and give out the tracts, and you have thirty prayer, all say good exercise in prayer.
We prayed Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday night. It was great, great. We give out the tracts on a Saturday, and everybody's very keen these gospel meetings start on Sunday for a number of weeks. Well, you go on the Lord's Day morning, and there are some times, dear brethren, I say to myself, we have had it here. It's so cold, it's stiff, it's harsh, it's icicles, not a man to get up, and you sit and toil through an hour and a half, and they'll expect you in the gospel reading to preach with power and souls get saved. We want to get blessing from God. But the same men sat in the morning and wouldn't give any thanks to God. Now, I say I'm talking about assembly.
We're not talking about First Corinthians. I'm talking about assembly testimony, dear Christians. Dear brethren, all of us. We should give great attention, examine ourselves, judge ourselves, do whatever you want to do. We should give great attention to this fact that we might have better morning meetings. Because I feel that's where a big lot of our fault is. There are some of our remembrance meetings absolutely threadbare and pathetic. And when you go to the prayer meeting at night, the brethren, you couldn't get in. One press, another press, third one press, fourth, and that's great, but you could have got in in the morning all right. Yeah. You could have got in three times. Now, I wonder if we don't give our hearts to God, open our hearts to him, Nabi, he'll not open his hand to us when it comes to the blessing.
We should be careful. I- I'd love to have an assembly, sorry, just only say, I'd love to go to an assembly where, apart from the numbers, apart from the skilled brethren, apart from the wealth of the Christians, status or anything, and on the Lord's Day morning, it would just do your heart good to be there. That's what we want to aim at. All the technicalities will do us no good unless we get the atmosphere and the appreciation. Sorry, Mr. But I'm glad you've raised that. I was almost afraid to raise it. The Book of Malachi, when the worship was withheld, the blessing was withheld. Now, for years, I didn't have the privilege of going from assembly to assembly on Lord's days.
I was always occupied in certain areas. Mm-hmm. For a number of years, I'm convinced that the greatest contributing factor to the lack of blessing amongst us in the gospel is the lack of worship. I'm absolutely shocked at some brethren who can pray well in the prayer meeting, but they have no worship, they have no thanksgivings, long waits during the remembrance, even to the point of embarrassment. I would call upon all the brethren here who participate in Assembly Fellowship, let us devote ourselves to the worship of God.
I, I concur with that fully. A brother was asked when does the remembrance end. I knew his question. You know, I still believe what we were taught as young believers is not bad advice. When one meeting ends, start getting ready for the next one. Amen. And listen, brother. Oh, you see, I have to, have to scramble. I'll lie in a wee bit Monday, Sunday morning, I get up by ten o'clock, I read a verse or two, Matthew twenty seven or something. That's not working. You need to be preparing, and if we're, listen, if we're enjoying Christ through the week, it'll not be a big effort when it comes to the Lord's Day morning. These big efforts, and there's hardly a brother to read a scripture, a wee nugget. They talk about don't give ministry. I don't call giving a wee nugget or concerning Christ ministry.
Just a wee sweet thought contributing to the remembrance, as our brother has said, or a short Thanksgiving. Twenty three minute Thanksgivings are wonderful performances. Twenty three minutes, some, maybe one or two, you're broken the record, but that's the record as I know it. It's all time for the Olympics, so there are record holders here. And all I'll say as we finish, time is up. The apostle says, when you say these things are not very important, he says, I want to tell you, verse the end of verse thirty four, He says, the rest I will set in order when I come. He says, their things can wait. But he says, this matter of the head covering and this matter of order at the supper, he says, that can't wait.
He says, these are so important to the integrity of testimony. I'll deal with them now. And he said there are other lesser matters. Don't let anyone ever say, ah, sure, that's just a wee bit system. Don't worry about those things. Dear Christians, these are vitally important. May the Lord help us to reflect them to his glory. Amen. Oh, sorry, Terry, I didn't see. Brother Terry is going to give the final word here. Maybe you should talk about this privately. Uh, we read about the bread in the cup, the bread in the cup, the bread in the cup, and then we read about not deserting the body. Is that the assembly, David? Or is that I, I think, I think lately, I know there's a difference in reading many s- many manuscripts just say not discerning the body, and many think that this means that the rich were eating and they didn't discern the unity of the Christians in the assembly, and others read not discerning the Lord's body.
I just wonder, Terry, I wouldn't go that many, but there's such an emphasis on lordship in the passage that I'm inclined to think it stays to the end. It's the Lord's body. The man takes that, and it never grips his heart that I'm handling something that represents the most solemn matter upon earth. I didn't say that before I give thanks. Many of us, what's the difference between headship and lordship? The brethren were merciful, didn't ask that question. I'll take it in summary, dear Christian. Headship refers to order. God has established an order in the universe that will be seen, but ahead of time is seen in the assembly with man and woman.
Headship is order. Lordship is ownership. So that he makes a claim upon those whom he has redeemed and as risen Lord, his ownership should be reflected. We should reflect both. May God grant me do that for his. Shall we pray? Our Father, we bow in the precious name of the Lord Jesus. We thank thee for these very valuable scriptures that we have considered. Quite a number of matters have been mentioned, matters that are, that are precious to us in relation to public testimony, referring to male and female, referring to the meetings, referring to godly order. We ask that the matters may be impressed upon our hearts and that they may be reflected in the various assemblies represented here.
We thank thee for the congenial atmosphere of this gathering. We pray for our brother in the remaining Bible reading. We have recollections of very, very special Bible readings when thou didst help him in the past. We pray that thou wilt help him doubly this afternoon, and when it comes to seven o'clock, that we will be able to say that the Lord has drawn very near. We ask for grace and blessing, as now we give thee thanks for physical refreshment in the Lord Jesus' precious name.