Hi all,
I've been working a new job with graveyard hours so I haven't had the mental power to log onto the internet. I just sleep as much as I can. Today's my day off so I forced myself to check in. You're all welcome to read the updates I posted at http://ahtelluwat.lifewithchrist.org
I got a comment there as well about 1 Corinthians 12:22-26. I read the verses in context and I say that they're not talking about how to treat a real human body but how we're to treat the different member's of Christ's body. But, one could argue that since the dressing of the human body is apart of the symbolization here then it should be used as a guideline for how we're to clothe our physical "less than presentable parts". How would you all respond?
Ah, there you are, glad to hear from you again. I am also glad you decided to visit us again in your new tight schedule.
You do have a great thing going on now. God does seem to be blessing you. I hope your relationship will build back up again. Yes, it is hard to keep a relationship going when one of the two are so busy that the other feels squeezed out, but apparently this has been resolved. I am sorry about the loss of your mother, but as you said, she is in better hands (not that yours were lacking).
I know your mother wants you to have a full life and would rather it be this way.
Sounds like a great job too.
I could not find your comment on 1 Cor. 12:22-26, but I can give you my oppinion here. (Could you hyperlink it or copy it here?)
From what you did write above, you are correct, it is about the church. However, Paul did use the human body as an example. Yes, there are parts of the body, even then that were considered as "not presentable". (example: Using the left hand is considered as dirty) But they are still very important. And the body of Christ is no different. What we as humans call "not presentable", God gives more glory. What we call "the least of the bretheren", God calls "The Greatest".
And that causes me great fear (spiritually speaking) to look around and decide who I think is "the least". So I need to treat all people as great and therefore give even more honor to all.
Jesus refered to the "least of the bretheren" but he did not point out who it was. We as humans would have to decide who the "least" was, and who are we that we should put ourselves up on a pedestal and call others "least"???
If we are to be the least, then Jesus said to take care of the least as well, so we should take care of ourselves, not abuse ourselves. That, of course, does not preclude self sacrifice.
As humans, we do tend to categorize our "possessions" and by categorizing, we make them our possessions. But the early church did not allow themselves to keep possessions and hold back anything. Yes, they did own things, but they did not "possess" them above the others. They did not categorize them where one thing is important and the other is not. (One mans trash is another mans treasure). It's all treasure and still, all trash. It was given as treasure, yet, counted as trash (for example: their lives). Their brothers and sisters in Christ is all important and equally valuable (none are trash though ).
You may want to read the book of Philemon. It's about a runaway slave who met up with Paul while Paul was in prison. Under Pauls teaching, the slave became a Christian. Now Paul had a responsibility by law to send the slave back to the owner (slaves were not considered by mans law as "human", they were "property"). But before Paul sent him back, he also sent a letter to Philemon and the church (slick dude) to notify him that the slave in spirit is now his equal! Yes, the man is still his slave, but now he is also his brother in Christ! He said that he is a "man" and a "brother"! What a paradox! How do you handle this? Rules are being changed. The church is setting new standards.
This is grace beyond human understanding! This "piece of property" is not only the "least of my bretheren", he is now my equal!!!
Now what part of your body do you want to hide in shame?
Hey Boyd,
That was beautifully written. I agree with all that you said. Thank you. I am going to hyperlink it to my diary so other visitors can read it.
What do the rest of you think? How would you respond to someone who says 1 Corinthians 12:22-26 is talking about a clothed body therefore it should be a guideline for how we are to dress? In the AMP...
1 Corinthians 12:22-26 But instead, there is [absolute] necessity for the parts of the body that are considered the more weak.
And those [parts] of the body which we consider rather ignoble are [the very parts] which we invest with additional honor, and our unseemly parts and those unsuitable for exposure are treated with seemliness (modesty and decorum),
Which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so adjusted (mingled, harmonized, and subtly proportioned the parts of) the whole body, giving the greater honor and richer endowment to the inferior parts which lack [apparent importance],
So that there should be no division or discord or lack of adaptation [of the parts of the body to each other], but the members all alike should have a mutual interest in and care for one another.
And if one member suffers, all the parts [share] the suffering; if one member is honored, all the members [share in] the enjoyment of it.
I would think that, since Paul doesn't specifically say which part is which, the good and the "unseemly" ones vary from person to person.
Some may have an ugly "gut" that sticks out, that could be "unseemly" to some. Others might have a withered arm or hand that would be "unseemly". Some women might have big ears that would be "unseemly" but easily hid by long hair. Methinks it's things like this that Paul is talking about. Else, why wouldn't he mention some particular parts?
After all, you have to remember that where the nude olympics were held were an easy walking distance from Corinth. They'd been head there for about 800 years at the time he wrote his book to the Corinthians. Nudity was very accepted. Athletes were probably in such good shape that they had no "unseemly" parts.
Paul NEVER says a word that good Christian boys should never participate in the olympics. He was well aware of them, from his description of a runner casting aside any load that would beset him.
I do not think that Paul would have agreed with a follower of Jesus competing in the Olimpics in the old days as these were not just competitions rather a worship of Zeus. Paul would not have encouraged the worship of a deity other than God.
However that did not mean that paul was against athletic competion. We think that the only competition was the Olimpics? These athletes would have competed in events between the Olimpcs and these would have also been in the nude as that was the accepted custom of the day for sportsman.
Tevita
Tevita
Paul clearly preaches against worshiping other gods.
September 22 2004, 6:59 AM
Today, preachers would have attacked the Olympics activities because of its nudity (without a clear Biblical basis). Paul NEVER mentions anything against this, but he does preach against worship to other gods.
You are correct, running nude was normal then. Even working nude at times. Paul mentioned the runner in a race, but did not address the "Olympics" directly.
But the analogy to remove those things that hinder us in a race does imply that we lose everything of this world for Christ. You cannot get any more "naked" than that! If ANYTHING hinders us from Christ, lose it!
...that Paul (and Jesus) just didn't have occasion to mention in those writings that survived long enough for us to read them. That doesn't automatically mean that we can attribute particular meanings to the silence.
The original Olympic games were possibly THE major event in ancient Greek life, and would have been familiar to anyone in that country. Since they were an integral part of the sacred festivities in honor of a pagan god, I seriously doubt that Paul would have endorsed Christian paricipation. But...we can't know for sure, can we?
What we do know is that there were numerous instances where Paul adapted his preaching and teaching to the local customs in order to gain a hearing. That was likely what he was doing when he used the analogy of a runner.
On the other hand, that's an intriguing comment that highly conditioned athletes may not have had any unseemly parts. Certainly the Greeks thought that was the case, as they considered the finely developed human body to be the highest form of beauty. But it was only the male body that was portrayed nude; women were always shown with at least a thin veil over their bodies.
Paul clearly is using the body as an example here. Putting the I Cor 12:22-26 into context by reading the verses around it, you see that he starts the chapter by talking about spiritual gifts.
He then (vs 12) mentions "the body" and equates that to the body of Christ, not the physical but the church, and talks about how the no particular Spirtual Gift is more important than others.
He ends the chapter in verse 27 by talking about the Body of Christ again.
My understanding on this particular chapter as it related to the Corinthians is that as a Church, they were quite proud and everyone was trying to build themselves up.
Within the church, you had some people saying "I was given the gift of teaching but you were only given the gift of prophesy" or something like that. In spite of this chapter, you hear the same kind of stuff in the church today... "I am a soloist, but you only play drums." (not quite spirtual gifts but the same root cause). Most would call it "EGO".
Pauls point, in the section that is being discussed, is that all parts of the body are important (ok, maybe not the appendix but who knows), even if I don't view them as such. Boyd brought up the Left Hand, I would also add the feet to this list. Why? Because the feet, while lending to mobility, was constantly getting dirty. The left hand....
I was talking to someone once, I think a missionary, who told me that you need to be careful when dealing with people. The left hand was the hand associated with cleaning after using the toilet. Without the ability for the people to wash like I and most of the "First World" have, that can spread a lot of problems around.
We had an Indonesian family from the Mollucus worshiping with us for a few years while the father was working towards his Phd in Marine Biology. The youngest child was born in Australia and the others had been very young when they arived here. When asked what was the hardest thing about going home the mother of the family said teaching the children not to use toilet paper but to wash using their left hand and a tap. Wiping using toilet paper in that culture was considered dirty, as only water has the ability to clean. lso the left hand is then not used to handle food both in its preparation and while eating.
Now imagine the trauma of a left hand amputee from such a culture!!
Tevita
I learned about the use of water instead of toilet paper in India where many of the toilets had no paper. Now, I use water and only use toilet paper for drying off. Does a MUCH better job, and I haven't had any rectal bleeding problems since (from rubbing with toilet paper).
And we think we're civilized!
Asians (and Muslims) have the right idea. Water works better. Just scrub the used hand with plenty of soap and water after. Then, you can shake hands without fear of spreading anything.
Hand and water works best. Finish with paper towel just dabbed on to dry, and thorough washing of hands, of course. If one hand has a sore, have to use the other one.
I used to ride to work in Bombay area. There was a field that had some shanties at the edge of it. Kids would be playing in the field in the late afternoons when I was being driven back. In the mornings, I'd see men toting small buckets of water to do their daily thing in the field. Didn't see that they had anything to bury it, just the bucket for their cleanup. I hope there was a heavy stick or shovel out there in the field for burial, because of the kids playing there in the afternoons.
I would start with paper, then go to water and then end with paper again.
I hate the concept of the west being the "civilized" part of the world. We are ALL sinful fallen people who will never be perfect on this side of heaven.
Apparantly Boyd that was the original wat the hands were named. The poor left handed people were persecuted for using their left hand. In some cultures they still are.
Tevita
If He is writing your name in the Lambs Book of Life and Jesus is seated on the right hand of God, which hand do you think He would write with? And I would have bet(figure of speach) that Boyd was left handed. Got to run, for real we are a target again. The eye is forcast to pass about twenty miles east of my farm"Soggy Bottom Farms". Bearone
I hadn't read this completely before I posted my other message. I agree with your answer.
My daughter attends a Luthern college, Concordia, here in River Forest, Il. She took a Bible class and had a lot of interesting things to bring home. Paul apparently was not very fond of women, which is why he did not want women involved in any leadership positions. Paul is also quite the chauvinst when he tells the wife how to treat her husband. I often wonder how Paul felt about Mary Magdelene, and her professed love for Jesus.
I don't understand how Paul could be called a chauvinist in telling a wife to love and respect her husband, when he also tells the husband to give everything of himself to his wife, up to and including being willing to die for her.
As for women in leadership positions, if I'm not mistaken, women could teach children, but were not to ever be put in a position of authority, such as a teacher, over a man. Since boys became men at 13 (right?) they would only take instruction from another man at that point.
The whole idea came from God putting the husband as the head of the household. The way I see it, the teaching kind of rolled downhill. The husband set the tone, how he expected things, then the wife followed his lead.
It can all be taken wrong by todays very P.C. society, but if done the way God spells it out, without our egos getting in the way, it works out great. We each have our own part to play, and if we play it, great. Too often, though, I think we all want to be the boss, and side-step the "chain of command".
As a man and as a husband, it's easy for me to say all this, right? I'm the boss, so I get to have it all my way, right? Right?
Not hardly. If you read the commands God gives to men/husbands, the responsibilities, it's very humbling. Not only am I responsible for my families welfare, I'm supposed to set the example in all my actions.
You want to make a Christian man feel like a heel? Ask him how he's holding up to the responsibilities God has set out for him. I certainly know I fall WAAAYYY short.
But Myra loves me anyway. Don't know why, sometimes, , but she does.
To make a long story short (too late!), I just think it comes down to differant roles. God has a set of tasks spelled out for each of us, and I think if we're honest, we'll find they're the things we're most suited for. The kicker, though, is that we need the other half of ourselves, our mate, to be able to do them to the best of our ability. He certainly knows what He's doing, dosn't He?
Both Christ and Paul were pretty revolutionary for their time when it came to Women. Christ will willing to associate with women, many which did not have the best character.
As Kevin pointed out, Paul was pretty daring as well. From what I understand, in the 1st century and even later, women were more typically treated as property. Tou have Paul say to men, "Love your wife as Christ Loved the Church" was incredibly daring for the time.
If you want to see how different things were in Paul's time, take a look at the culture surrounding the middle east. The court system looks the other way if wives and daughters are killed because of (real or percieved) infidelity. Men and sons have been "expected" to sew their wild oats.
Okay, now I take the soapbox. So women were abused 2000 years ago. Still abused today in many societies. Can we say Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, on and on and on.
My disagreement with you will be the thinking that a woman cannot be a leader in the church. That may have been applicable to the society in Paul's day, but not today. You say that a women can instruct a boy until the age of 13, but not beyond? Why?
The role of the husband is no less burdensome that a wife. Who has to go through childbirth? In I Timothy 2:11 Paul instructs the women to learn in silence in all submission. How is that applicable today? Society has not changed all that much in that men are still the heads of companies, more so than women. Even in the nursing profession, I have seen men climb the ladder much more quickly than women. From what I have read and heard from modern ministers, the common theme is that marriage is a combined effort, with both spouses giving equally to the marriage. If there are churches believing otherwise, I would suspect they are the minority.
Jesus viewed us all equal and did not carry the common beliefs that Paul and the other disciples carried in regards to women. Paul even states more in I Timothy that women must keep silent since they came from Adam, and it was the woman who deceived man. Boy, now that has got to be one of the strongest statements written. The fall from grace was not the fault of the woman. Both Adam and Eve fell to temptation.
I'm not going to sit here and argue (that's not what I'm trying to do anyway ), it all just boils down to differances in opinion, and usually those can't be swayed easily.
So, the two things: I never said that women can't teach males beyond the age of 13. I was simply stating what was the custom of the time.
It wasn't Adam and Eve that fell into temptation. Adam is charged with the fall, because he didn't stop Eve from eating of the fruit (He was standing right there, y'know).
And yes, Jesus does consider us all equals in that we are all sinners. As far as equality on any other subject, methinks I'll best keep me mouth shut.
God Bless
Kevin
...just as hardheaded in Virginia...
nuttin' but love, and I mean it
You are right, womens rights were and are still being abused. The only thing I was trying to point out is that because women are so much better off, both inside and outside a church setting in yours and my case, it is dangerous to try and equate the theology and doctrine of the bible directly into today society without knowing context, however it is commonly done.
Lets change the subject to one more friendly to this site for instance. In our clothing compulsive society, many Christians are suprised that there is any mention of nudity in the Bible without it being evil. As Boyd's site and many others point out, nudity was more likely an everyday occurance in many cases. With this in mind, you look at passages like Saul prophesying naked or David dancing naked (or nearly) in a whole new light and are able to see that it is a matter of worship in both cases, not lunacy, which is what many thought.
I was taught in most of my history classes and when studying the bible that context of a passage is essential to understanding and then applying to my life today. (That last sentence is something I strive to remember also.... I can't apply to Bible to your life, that is between you and God).
Have you seen the passages in Leviticus where the rules were given about clothing, etc? Start reading in chapter 20:11. The issue of nakedness is discussed, and looked upon very harshly. Is this possibly a set of instructions to keep the Jews separate from the pagans? I wonder if the other tribes practices nudity. I have a Nelson Student Bible that provides explanations in footnotes, and one explanation for all of the rules passed to the children of Isreal, is that they needed to develop self-discipline and the laws were to remind them to keep God in mind. They did seem to be a group of undisciplined folks during their wandering in the desert.
Of course, I agree, that we are to apply the message of the Bible to ourselves. I am fortunate to have ministers in my church that take the Bible and make sense of it for us. There is a series on the book of Revelation that John Ortberg did a couple of years ago that I want to purchase. I didn't get to hear all of the sermons. The one point I do recall John talking about is the code that Revelations was written in and the purpose of that code. Here again is a book that many people take very literally, and yet a lot of it was not meant to be interpreted that way.
The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren is a great book. I have been going through that book for the past year. I didn't do the daily reading like Rick had recommended, cause I just sometimes need to spend a longer time on some of the chapters. Willow Creek sold the books for $5 at the Christmas programs. My daughter has now started on the book. I had a good friend give me my copy.
Talk to you later...
Yes, "The Purpose Driven Life" is a good book. As far as Revelation, I do know most of what many of those around me say (Hal Lindsey and others), however I am not sure I agree with them on the timing of things (that is a different discussion that I am unwilling to go into in a written medium). On the other hand, I hope they are right and the other alternatives are not.
As far as Leviticus goes, I am confused.... I looked at the passage you pointed to and found many verses on sexual impurity but nothing on clothing except for one verse. The search I did on the key word clothing did turn up quite a few references in Leviticus however.
Bornnude,
My Bible, which is a Nelson Student Bible, New King James Version, clearly has verses in Levitucus chapter 20 that talks about nakedness. I think you would have to do a search on nakedness, not clothing....
Leviticus 20 (King James)
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20 (NIV)
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
I never got into that detail: how can one uncover the physical nakedness of his father by sleeping with his wife?
That does not make any sense. So nakedness in this context must be something else. It is more of "show someone up", "expose" him in public, destructing his integrity.
But the tricky part would be, if one takes this interpetation to understand Genesis 3.
After Adam and Eve ate the fuit they suddenly minded their physical nakedness because they have lost their integrity.
And Jesus has reconstructed our integrity by closing the cap between us and God thus we no longer have the spiritual need to cover up. In consequense by sticking to clothes as christians we might dishonour what Jesus did for us.
Am I too fundamental?
The phrase "uncover the nakedness" in Lev. is a euphemism for "have sex with". Chapter 20 is basically rules against incest, the first time those rules were instituted.
You have to remember, those people were pretty uptight, and to come right out and say "have sex", would be like saying the same thing to the white-haired little old lady who sits behind you in church. "Those things" just weren't talked about, so to just come right out and say it, the person reading might have just vapor-locked and keeled right on over!! So it had to be said more P.C. (see how far back THAT goes!). It's like saying "do it" today.
Look up the story about Noah and his sons. Remember, Ham "saw the nakedness" of his father, and it got ugly from there? My Bible says Noah got peeved when Noah discovered "what had been done TO HIM" (emphasis mine). In a culture where entire families lived together, I find it very unlikely that the simply act of seeing ones father would cause such a stink. I think ole Ham did something just a bit more uncalled for, know what I mean?
As far as for Lev. chap. 21:9-11, I don't see any referance to nakedness, only that the priests were not to uncover their heads or tear their clothing.
I have interpreted the passage to be referring to the Church, in Paul's time, as a whole, represents the body. We are all members of the church, with different strengths and weaknesses, yet bonded by the Spirit. In verse 26 Paul points out that if one member suffers, then all members will suffer with it also. We are to take care of each other, recognizing the needs of the weak. Paul is probably also referring to the times when he has been jailed and tortured. In order for the church to survive back then, there had to be a strong bond among the members. I really think Paul was directing this to each Christian, reminding them of the importance of their bond with each other. In verse 27, it is more clearly stated that we are the body of Christ, and members individually.
It is also possible in verse 23 that Paul is referring to a member of the church that is held up to be honorable, but in reality, Paul knows the true heart of that member. I do think that Paul wrote a lot of his letters in code, to protect the carrier from any prosecution should they be stopped. This was still a very volatile time for the church.
Any takers?
First off, excellent observations by all.
Second, a bit of whimsy struck me about the language of hands:
Don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.
One hand washes the other.
I have to hand it to you.
Give me a hand, will you?
Hands down we win!
Show your hand.
I offer you my hand in friendship.
The right hand of fellowship.
The back of my hand to you.
Hands across the water.
Cool hand Luke.
Great handoff!
On the other hand...
Biting the hand that feeds you.
Enough! I'm handing the serious work back to you all.
I was told by our pastor about Jesus saying "If they strike you on your right side, turn to them your left side".
People think this means "get struck and be walked over" or "don't strick back".
What it actually means is, "Make them (or force them) to treat you as an equal".
When a person is struck on their right side, that means the person who did the striking (with their right hand) had to use the back side of the hand, swinging from left (your right side) to the right, striking you across the face with the back of their hand. It would be hard to use the palm of your hand that way. So you are treated with a slap by the back of the hand, researved only for lowly people or slaves.
In order to make them treat you like an equal, you show your left side of the face, asking them to slap you by the palm of their right hand instead. "I am NOT a slave or lowly person, you treat me as an equal if you insist on slapping me."
Jesus was saying, "You are better than that." Jesus was talking to the poor, the beaten down, the sick, the lame, the slaves, the servants, the women, the laborers, the low class. (Sorry women, I had to lump you in there because at that time, women were not legal citizens as men were, they were treated as property just as slaves and cows were...thank God that has changed!)
).
