Comments for February 27

2 v. 1 - It seems that the meat offering (which didn't involve meat) was made to smell nice by the frankincense. It was important that the 'sweet smelling savour' was literal and not just figurative. Do our 'offerings' reach God as a sweet smelling savour, when we pray for His forgiveness? Do we put the effort and personal expense into adding the 'frankincense' to them so that they do?

1:3 'of his own voluntary will' shows that it is a freewill offering, like that of Jesus.
1:4 The putting of the hand on the sacrifice marks association with the animal which was to be offered. However the animal did not have the enough value to make it a representative of the man. This required the death of a man - Jesus, who gave himself
1:9 'sweet savour' These are the occurrences in Leviticus. Leviticus 1:9 13 17 2:2 9 12 3:5 16 4:31 6:15 21 8:21 28 17:6 23:13 18
The occurrence in 2 Corinthians 2:15 is instructive because it explains what the 'sweet savour' typifies. It is the life of the faithful believer.

2:11 no leaven or honey was to be used in any meal offering. Leaven is a corrupting influence - see Matthew 16:6 and honey is naturally sweet, Christ, who is typified by the offerings, was not naturally sweet. He had to subject his fleshly mind to the will of his Father.
2:13 and every oblation ... salt Mark 9:49 Colossians 4:6 Salt is an item which, in Colossians 4:6, adds to the 'speech' of the one who is walking 'in wisdom'. It is the preservative which 'seasons' right speech. That it is used in sacrifices marks that the animal, of itself, needed something added to make it acceptable.

1 v.3 - There were a number of levels of sacrifice, and a number of criteria decided what size of sacrifice you should bring, but the concept of voluntary will must have had a bearing on it, as it is stated in this verse. God is always interested in what we choose to bring Him, rather than our maybe reluctant response to what we believe to be a command. This concept of a willing mind is one that we should develop. 1Chron.28:9, 2Cor.8:12

Leviticus follows on from the book of Exodus but we should not think it fits chronologically at the end of the book of Exodus. In fact all the contents of the book of Leviticus were spoken whilst Israel were at Sinai - 7:38 25:1 26:46 27:34. So the contents of this book fit within Exodus 19-40.

2:4 The word translated 'oblation' 07133 is also translated 'offering' [2:1] 21 times in Leviticus so whilst we might not be familiar with the word 'oblation' the way that the Hebrew word is used elsewhere in Leviticus shows us simply that the oblation is an offering.

1:17 That the bird was not divided indicates that it was opened so that it's inside could be seen - 'all things are naked and opened' (Hebrews 4:13)

2:13 The seasoning of sacrifices with salt highlights the effect of salt - it both preserves and brings out the flavour - see also Colossians 4:6

2:2 That the burning sacrifice is referred to as a ‘sweet savour’ is a recurring phrase in the law. However we would do well to realise that burning flesh is not an appealing smell to humans. So we understand that whilst destroying the flesh is not pleasant for us it is for the Father. Of course this analogy relates to our lives.

Lev 1  There is no specific reason for the burnt offering. (It was voluntary) The offering appears to be the desire of the offerer. To be accepted by God, the means of achieving this would be complete dedication and destruction of the flesh, as the animal consumed on the fire. V.9, 13, 17  The priest shall burn it upon the alter.

Burnt offerings were made on a purely voluntary basis.
There was an opportunity for all to participate regardless of wherewithal.  In descending order of wealth, the offerings were:

-Bullock
-Sheep (or goat)
-Fowl
-Grain

However, Yahweh demanded only the best produce to be offered.  With the grain offerings no leaven or honey were permitted.  These commodities allowed fermentation which is associated with corruption (Matt 16:6).

Salt was to be included in the offerings, however.  Salt is a sign of the covenant.  The nature of salt is that it is hygroscopic (i.e. takes moisture from the air).  In doing so, it symbolizes the absorption of the Word (John 4:10-14).  Thus, those who lose their desire to absorb the Word become useless spiritually (Matt 5:13).

And so we can conclude that we ought to gladly volunteer our best offerings to Yahweh by way of service (2Cor 9:7).  They should be without corruption and be fully persuaded by the Word.  Then we shall remain in covenant relationship with our God.

I think our 'Frankincense' is our sincerity of heart that then is what makes our offerings and our prayers 'A Sweet Smelling Savour' to our Heavenly Father

Lev 2:12-16  Salt had to be included with every sacrifice.  If there was no salt, then you couldn't offer to God.  Is that why Jesus said, "Ye are the salt of the earth"? (Matt 5:13) In that sense we complement Christ's sacrifice.  He was the sacrifice, we are the salt.  God now accepts us through Christ Jesus.

2:3 The fact that a portion of the meat offering being appropriated to the use of the priests distinguishes it from a burnt offering, which only they were allowed to partake.

1:13    Whilst the sacrifice was to be ‘washed with water’ the animal was not dirty. Nor was it a procedure to wash away blood. The washing was to signify the need for cleaning which was required even though the animal was without blemish. Nothing that man offers is acceptable in itself. It has to be sanctified by God. This was achieved by washing according to His instruction. Likewise we are cleansed by the ‘washing of the word’ Eph 5:26 even though we stand righteous through our faith.

2:1        That the meat – meal – offering had to be according to God’s dictate is typical of all the sacrifices. They had to be according to Gods specification, not according to the inclination of the offerer. Likewise we must offer ourselves in accordance to His requirements, not our own convenience.

2:13 The salt contained a preservative quality, hence it became an emblem of incorruption and purity. It therefore stands for the opposite of corruption in nature. To require salt in all meat offerings was an indication that their acceptability depended on their being offered with a hearty, pleasant, zestful, loving intelligence. A listless, savourless offering is of no pleasure to God. We are reminded of the words of Jesus. Mark 9:50

1:17 But the bird was not ‘divided’ echoes the way that Abraham was involved in the covenant sacrifice in Gen 15:10

2:2        It might seem an obvious point but is worth making anyway. All sacrifices had to be taken to Aaron’s sons to be offered. Even though the offerer was wiling there was the need for a mediator between the offerer and God. Jesus mediates the new covenant – 1Tim 2:5 Heb 8:6 – our sacrifices to God would be of no value without our involvement in the new covenant in Christ.

1:9,13 The inward parts and the legs of the sacrifice had to be washed.  Washing is a process to make clean. Yahweh is demonstrating that His people should cleanse themselves of all evil (Isa 1:16). The inward parts pertain to spiritual cleansing (inner purity) (Psa 51:6). The legs indicate a continuing walk in the ways of Yahweh (2John 1:6).

The description of verses 9,13 is reflective of Jesus (Eph 5:2).

1:3 Sacrifice is just that, there must be a cost to the offerer as David explained – 2Sam 24:24 - but that is not sufficient. The attitude of the offerer must be right also. Paul highlights this point when writing to the Corinthians, on this occasion about money but using a basic principle – 2Cor 9:7

Leviticus is derived from Greek and means Book of the Levites. Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate used this term, and it has been accepted by more modern versions. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the book is called Vayikra which means and He called.

2:1 The grain offering of fine flour represented Jesus. After offering this sacrifice, Aaron and his sons had to eat what was left. Nothing was to be thrown away. Bread represents the body of Christ; whose body also represents His household. Aaron and his sons were priests; the members of Christ’s household are priests-in-training. The same respect must be given to Christ’s body as was indicated under the Law. No part of His body is to be discarded. The sacrifice under the Law was a memorial (2:9). The household of Christ remembers Him by the breaking of bread each week.

Lev 1:3-7,9 - v3 the burnt offering was about dedication to God and Christ was totally dedicated to God - the offering was the total consumption of a life to the purpose of God; v3 Christ was an unblemished male from the herd; v3 Christ yielded to His father's will (of his own free will) v4 to offered what he could afford (himself) as an atonement; v5 Christ was slaughtered, the sprinkled blood reminds us how Christ's sacrificed blood covers many just as many share the cup of wine each first day of the week; v6 cutting into pieces reminds us of how by his stripes we are healed and that Christ's sacrifice is for many just as many share the broken bread symbolic of his sacrificed body; v7 the wood and altar echo the crucifixion of Christ; v9 the washing the legs and inner parts is like a cleansing baptism that effects our walk and inner being.

Lev 2:12,14 - The Meal Offering refers to the dedication of labours as did the Drink Offering and together they formed the bread and wine foreshadowing Christ's poured out blood and offered flesh. V12 the usage "firstfruits" is from the Heb word "reshith" (7225) and it means "first or principal". V14 the usages of "firstfruits" are from the Heb word "bikkur" (1061) and it means "first or earliest fruit, ripe, hasty fruit". In the March 15th readings on Leviticus 23 re the Feast of Firstfruits, which took place at Passover, we have from David Simpson 2004, Peter Forbes 2002-3 and others more information about the firstfruits. Christ was the firstfruits.

1:8-9 Sacrifice does not stop with giving of one's time, for example. Once one has committed oneself to making the sacrifice, whatever it is, there is a responsibility to perform the sacrifice diligently and not in a slap dash way. So, for example, if one offers to take someone to the meeting it is part of the sacrifice to ensure that nothing is done to cause concern to the one being offered the ride. So one would always arrive to take the person at a time that they are comfortable.

Abraham was about to offer Isaac as a burned offering, which foreshadowed Jesus' sacrifice. So we know that Jesus' death on the cross signifies a burnt offering. One might wonder "who offered Jesus"? It certainly wasn't the people, because they rejected him. It was in fact God who brought Jesus as His offering; a male without blemish, of God's own flock of Israel, and of God's own free will (1:3, Heb 10:5).

1:5   You will see often that a sacrifice had to be killed ‘before the Lord’. Of course the Lord would have been able to see the killing of the sacrifice wherever it was done. The instruction was for the benefit of the offerer. He needed to realise that the sacrifice was especially for God and so should be offered at the place where he met with Israel. Whilst we have no set place where we bring our sacrifice – our commitment to God – we must still be aware that our service is a sacrifice to Him even if others benefit from what we do.

2:10  We learn –24:9– that this is to be eaten by the priests in the court of the tabernacle.

Leviticus 1 – introduces us to the details of the burnt offering.  From the details given we can conclude that this offering was a sacrifice of dedication to the Lord. This offering was fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus.

The burnt offering points us forward to the sacrifice of Jesus and his example of dedication to do His Father’s will.  This is an example for the Ecclesia and all its members.

Leviticus 2 – introduces us to the details of the “meat offering” (KJV).  See Strong’s <4503>, meaning ‘apportion’ or give ‘donation’.  From the details given we can conclude that this food offering was prepared and burnt on the altar by the priest to the Lord for a memorial.

As a Priest, Jesus prepared the bread and shared it with his brethren. Jesus life of service rose as a sweet savour unto the Lord.  

Lev 2:11

“No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire."

Honey was excluded from the burnt offerings because it was used to produce fermentation. Leaven, or fermented dough, likewise, was excluded. Yet, both could be offered with the firstfruits (verse 12; 2 Chron 31:5). Fermentation was a symbol of the working of corruption in the human heart.

2:1-2  Notice that the sacrifice had to be prepared and then taken to Aaron. No last minute preparation here.

Lev 2:11

“No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD (Yahweh),shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.”

The book of Leviticus is a set of rules that God gave to Moses on how His people may have fellowship with Him, how they are to live up to their being His chosen people, and how they are to please Him and walk with Him. Many think these sacrifices, which ceased a long time ago, are simply relics of bygone days and that they have no meaning for us today, but that is not true. There is much we can learn from the Old Testament sacrifices, all of which found their fulfillment in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. The sacrifices teach us the truths about ourselves, our relationship with God, and with each other. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us as the “called out” ones to carefully examine God’s requirements as it applies to us. 

In this passage, we note that both leaven (yeast) and honey were forbidden in the meal offering. In the New Testament pride and hypocrisy, malice and wickedness are compared to leaven, which if it is found in us will certainly spoil the acceptableness of our spiritual sacrifice. For further notes on leaven, please read my notes on Matt 16:6,12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1.

Honey, as the leaven of yeast, by its very nature is a symbol of corruption and its influence corrupting, because of its ability to ferment like leaven. Being already naturally sweet, it has no place in the refining and purifying effects of the Law which the sacrifices symbolized. The Gentiles used honey in their sacrifices, and Homer spoke of honey as the sweet nectar of the gods, but the message is goes beyond this. Honey is naturally sweet. Honey does not need to be refined to bring out its sweetness. However, sugar is refined sweetness; sugar cane and sugar beets are processed in a way that brings out their sweetness. God does not accept natural sweetness; He wants attributes that come from the refining fire. All of God’s children need His refining fire (cf. Mal 3:1-6) to purge us and cleanse us. The Refiner’s fire does not destroy indiscriminately, does not consume completely, it purifies; it burns up the impurities while leaving the silver and gold intact.

Some of us may have come across folks who are naturally sweet and who have the natural tendency of honeying over any problem. They ladle honey over any situation, rather than facing the facts and the situation. They have this confectionary conviction always talking about “love, love, love.”  Yes, God is love, infinite love, inexpressible love, eternal love, unfathomable love. God is love, but this is only a half truth. God is also a God of justice who will by no means clear the unrepentant (cf. Num 14:18). God is love and a God of wrath. We are told to speak the truth in love or speaking the truth with love that we may grow in the truth (Eph 4:15). A honey attitude is loveless “truth,” which will only hinder our growth and cause us to suffer from spiritual diabetes.

These two ingredients were forbidden in the meal offering. God does not want the leaven of ritualism, rationalism, and worldliness. God does not want the natural sweetness of honey to sweeten the real taste of anything. Christ, the antitype of the meal offering, denoted freedom from these corruptions (cf. 1Cor 5:6-8). The words Christ spoke were not sweetened to please those that heard him (John 3:34; 6:60; 8:28; cf. Psa 18:7-10). Without question, we need the Refiner’s fire (Job 23:10; 1Pet 1:7; 4:12-13; Rev 3:18) to present our bodies as living sacrifices pleasing and acceptable to God (Rom 12:1-3)!

1:7      In speaking of the laying of the wood in order we have an echo of Abraham – Gen 22:9 and it is seen again in 1Kin 18:33. 

1:6   The word “flay” <6584> is elsewhere translated “stripped” e.g. 1Sam 18:4. So maybe the seeming casual description of what happened to Jesus –Matt 27:28 – has more to it than meets the eye. Namely that it speaks of the preparation of a sacrifice.

1:13   There are many times in the Law of Moses when procedures are undertaken which really seem superficial and unnecessary. Washing “the inwards” – that part of the animal which was not see – is one such event. Psa 51:6 shows that God is seeking truth right throughout one’s life.

1:7,9    When Israel were instructed about the “burnt sacrifice” that was to be a willing offering the use of two phrase from Genesis 22 – “lay the wood in order – Gen 22:9 and “burnt sacrifice” – Gen 22:2 taught the faithful Israelite that there was more to pleasing God than offering animals.

2:4,5    The three different ways in which a “meat offering” could be prepared reflect the different ways in which we can offer service to our Father. Just as there were different acceptable ways a meat offering could be offered there are many different acceptable ways in which we can offer our Father service.

Lev.1:1-4 The Lord’s first command coming from the now completed Tabernacle was for Israel to bring their own burnt offerings to the Lord in order to be accepted and for atonement. This was a voluntary offering. Such is the requirement of the Lord from each of us. When we commit ourselves to the Lord through baptism, to be accepted, we must embrace His commandments. Jesus said “Thou shalt love the Lord our God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.”(Matt.22:37-38). 

2:13 Salt in the sacrifices was to teach Israel that their sacrifices had to be offered when they were at peace with their fellow Israelites. Jesus –  5:23-24 – teaches that our attitude to others impacts on our “sacrifices”.

Corn in the days of the publication of the KJV is a general term that in that time meant grain.  Many people will put the mention of corn in the Bible as proof that the Bible was written after maize corn was discovered in the Americas.  

1:3 “without blemish” is a regularly used phrase in Leviticus – around 17 times. The fact that is used so often might dull our appreciation of how important it is. The phrase is used in the New Testament on two occasions  - Eph 5:27 where it speaks of how we are to be, by implication, and 1Pet 1:19 where it describes why Jesus’ sacrifice was effective.

1:9 The word translated “inwards” is translated “within me” in Psa 51:10. Thus we see that the washing of the “inwards” speaks of the cleansing of the “inner man” – his mind. The cleansing of the inwards was not seen by the offerer. In like manner the cleansing of the mind does not necessarily have an outward show. But both are seen by the Father.

1:8 The way in which a sacrifice was to be offered is specified, even down to the way that the parts of the animal are to be put on the alter – “in order”.

Thus we see that any sacrifice to God is not seen in a slipshod attitude. Rather it is seen in a careful preparation. This must be true of our “living sacrifice” – Rom 12:1

2:3,10 We notice that some of the offering that was offered to the Lord was to be for Aaron and his sons as well. Here we see the principle that is spoken of – 1Cor 9:13-14 - with respect to those serving God ((the apostles) had the right to “live of the gospel”

LOOK TO THE LORD

I am told that the Hebrew in the first two books of the Old Testament has an interesting pattern in it. Every 49^th letter is made up in a skip letter sequence that spells TORAH (in Hebrew, of course). This pattern only occurs in Genesis and Exodus. However, if we skip over to Numbers and Deuteronomy, we find a different pattern. It is the same word TORAH (the Hebrew word for the law), but this time it spelt backwards HAROT every 49^th letter.

That leaves Leviticus. It’s like the first two books are pointing forward to something important and the latter two are pointing back to something important. But we don’t find the word TORAH in Leviticus. Instead, in a 49 skip letter sequence (7 x 7), we find the YHWH, the memorial name of God encoded through the text. The message is that the law points to God whatever way you look at it.

With this in mind, it is highly appropriate that Leviticus begins with the law of the burnt offering. The burnt offering is the offering that was completely dedicated to God and speaks of our complete commitment to him. It also speaks of God’s complete devotion to us shown in Jesus Christ. Jesus gave up everything in life while he lived so that we could see and learn the way to God, and then he gave up his life completely so that we could have life.

As we read Leviticus, let’s look for God in it. Let’s see his love for us, and the pattern of devotion we should have for him.

v.14 is very comforting, isn't it? There are a number of other passages that offer the same comfort. Ps.78:38,39, Job 10:9. Although God demands an attitude from us that we always try our best, he nevertheless is aware of our shortcomings, especially that of the flesh which we inhabit. Ps.89:47

Psalm 103 This wonderful Psalm gives a number of reasons why we should bless the Lord. We should reflect on each of these reasons as we read the Psalm.

v.1,2,20-22 - The phrase 'Bless the Lord' comes a number of times. This seems an odd concept, as we have nothing we can give to God which He would consider a blessing, not in the sense in which His blessings to us cover our needs -as He has no needs of that sort. But He does have desires and it is His stated desire that all should come to repentance. Therefore by humbling ourselves to obedience, we bless Him in furthering His desire to save us, which, conversely, can only come about by Him blessing us.

:10 The Psalmist recognises that God has been merciful to him. This attitude is reflected [Ezra 9:13] by Ezra. The context in Ezra 9 shows that this is not simply a statement about our lives generally. Ezra had specific sins in mind when he echoes the words of the Psalmist.

:13 That the Lord pities His children is presented (Malachi 3:17) again when speaking of those who 'spake often one to another' (Malachi 3:16). So we can know which of His children He will spare. Will we be among them?

Against the background of the way in which God cares for His creation we learn that His mercy is seen in the provision of Jesus. Verse 17 is quoted by Mary (Luke 1:50) in response to the wonderful news she received.

103:8 David is re-stating the character of God as revealed to Moses (Exo 34:6) and uses this understanding to reassure himself about how God will treat His servants.

Psalm 103  A beautiful Psalm reflecting on the fatherly aspects of a God who is merciful and forgiving.(V.13) Those who have been blessed with children will appreciate what David is saying. 

This is a psalm of great consolation.  We come and go but Yahweh is everlasting.  And yet He is merciful in overlooking our sins.  He knows we are weak and incapable and yet He has pity on us.  He offers us life where we deserve death.  How great is our God and worthy to be praised!

The son's repentance and father's forgiveness

This psalm reminds me of the parable of the lost son. It's a psalm, perhaps the psalm, about forgiveness. In v5 it says:

"[God] satisfies your mouth with good things".

In Luke 15 vs 16 and 23 we see the hunger of the son which contrasts the state of a man before and after he repents and returns to his father. The parable paints a picture of complete forgiveness with no half measures, and it's the satisfying of hunger (by the preparation of the fatted calf) that confirms to us that his father has indeed forgiven him. In v13 of the Psalm, we similarly get the most wonderful reassurance of God's grace:

"As a father pities his children, so the LORD pities those who fear Him. For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust".

David is able here to even ask the angels in God’s presence, to praise Him (Psa 103:20-21).  Of-course they will. They always have and they always will.  But when he wants to praise and honour God to the uttermost, he not only says that the inanimate works of creation praise God, but even asks the angels to do so too. There is no limit to which we can go, when we honour God’s Name.

103:15-16          The transient nature of man is to be seen against the majesty of God as seen in his character outlined in this Psalm.

V.3-5 - Here we have our hope: v 3 we have the forgiving of sins; v 4 redeeming life from destruction (KJV) the pit (NIV) and crowning with mercy; v 5 youth being renewed like an eagle.... the eagle lives to a great age and as he grows old his beak becomes too long to eat so he flies alone and breaks it off by pecking a rock and he loses feathers during the fasting until the new bill grows and he takes food and his new feathers grow so he appears renewed like a young eagle (perhaps an echo of the new bodies received upon resurrection).

103:15 The transient nature of man, as outlined here in the Psalm, is seen in James 1:10

103:3 In saying that God ‘forgiveth all thine iniquities’ the Psalmist is recalling God’s assurance  in Exo 34:7

Ellicott’s commentary says that “this psalm has been compared to a stream which as it flows gradually acquires strength and volume until its waves of praise swell like those of the sea”. I think this is a great way to think of this psalm, this sublime piece of poetry. Notice how the poet gives a very personal flavour right at the beginning “Bless the Lord O my soul.” Then after taking us on a dizzying journey and showing us the great love and mercy of Almighty God, he ends with the same words  “Bless the Lord O my soul.”

103:1-5 There is great value in, from time to time, sitting back and simply recounting to ourselves the wonderful things that God has done for us. It is all too easy to take His benefits for granted.

103:12 As far as the east is from the west shows the magnitude of God’s mercy. east and west never meet no matter how far one goes.

103:4   God’s loving kindness and tender mercy echoes the goodness and mercy of Exo 34:6-7

David's Illness

There are clues in this Psalm indicating that David suffered illness at the same time as struggling with the guilt of his sin:

v3 "who heals all your diseases"

v4 "redeems your life from destruction"

v5 "so that you youth is renewed"

This is never mentioned outright in the narrative part of the Bible, but alluded to more than once in the Psalms.

103:17  The whole of this Psalm extols the greatness of God in his provision of things which are needed by the natural man. However here the ‘mercy spoken of relates to eternal salvation as can be seen in the way in which this verse is quoted by Mary in Luke 1:50 when she extols God for the promise of Messiah.

Psa 103:12– God’s mercy was revealed to Moses (see,Psa 103:7) and expressed in the declaration of His Name (see, Psa 103:8) and Exo 34:6-7.  God’s mercy to failing humanity continues to be expressed in the verses that follow (v.9-13).  

Psa 103:11 links beautifully with Exo 25:17.  The length and breath of the mercy seat are revealed but there is no dimension given for the depth.  Similarly, God’s mercy cannot be measured just like the distance between the heavens and the earth.

1. Psa 103:1-2 - "soul" <5315>. Psa 103:4 - "life" <2416>.

2. Psa 103:3,10-12 - mercy and forgiveness of sins.

3. Psa 103:4 - "Who redeemeth (<1350> means redeem and also performing the role of a kinsman) thy life from destruction" - perhaps refers to the Lord's resurrection.

4. Psa 103:7 - "ways" <1870>, "acts" <5949>.

5. Psa 103:10 - "sins"<2399>, "iniquities" <5771>. Psa 103:12 - "transgressions" <6588>.

6. Psa 103:17-18 - everlasting mercy to those who keep his (new) covenant (Jer 31:34;Matt 26:28).

7. Psa 103:20-21 - all angels do God's bidding and don't sin or die (Luke 20:34-36;Rom 6:20-23).

103:17  This verse is quoted – Luke 1:50 – by Mary, further demonstrating that this Psalm speaks of Messiah.

 Psa 103:8-14

INSIDE OUT

Have you ever been to a Sunday morning or Worship service, where your heart hasn't really been in it?  You go along and sing the songs, listen to the prayers, hear the Bible readings, but don't really connect, and your mind is far away on other things.

My guess is that to a greater or lesser extent, we have all done it.  It's like we praise God on the outside, but inside we are far away.

David said this: "Praise the Lord, O my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name" (Psa 103:1). David was not going to be satisfied with lip service when it came to praising God.  If David was going to praise God then it had to come from the heart and bubble out from within.  He didn't want to make a show on the outside, when his heart was cold.  He wanted all his innermost being to be involved. 

We need to aim for the same thing.  It's good to make the effort and warm ourselves up from the outside in, but far better to come to God overflowing with thanks and praise from the inside out.  By remembering all the ways God has worked in our lives and in the world around us, by being thankful for all he has done, we can begin to overflow with praise from the inside out.

103:20-21    In speaking to the angels to “bless the Lord” and speak of them as those “that do his pleasure” we learn, incidentally, that the angels have a will of their own – but always do His will. Oh what a wonderful position to be in! Just like the redeemed after the resurrection – Luke 20:36

Psa 103:11,12

“For as the heaven is higher above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.”

There are plenty of scientific discussions as to just how high heaven might be above the earth. They keep discovering a new quasar, or a new galaxy that is beyond anything we have ever known or could have imagined. They tell us it is 8 billion light years away, ten billion light years away… They do not realize that they keep on expanding on God's mercy! You got to love the Astronomers!

If we’re travelling east, how far would we go before we get to the west? Dr. John Wilbur Chapman, a Presbyterian evangelist was once asked during a Sunday morning service how far is east from the west. He replied by quoting a German mathematician when he was asked the same question: “Men, you cannot measure it, for if you put your stake here and east be ahead of you and west behind you, you can go around the world and come back to your stake, and east will still be ahead of you and west will still be behind you.” In other words, they never meet! We can fly east from the west and never reach west and vice versa. So why not say west to east? Because, our forgiveness is dependent on being in Christ who came to us from the east (Matt 2:2).

It is interesting that the Psalmist, David, used east to west. Why not north to south?   If we travel north, we can only go so far until we are going south – they meet! If we travel south, once we pass Antarctica we’ll be headed up north again cycling back-and-forth between the two poles, a distance of 12,500 miles or 20,116.8 km between them. We can fly to the north pole, but once we get there, we can only go south. North and south poles are measurable; east to west is not.

What a testimony of absolute forgiveness to those who reverence and serve God. He puts our sins entirely away as if we never committed them.

103:5   The way in which the Psalmist speaks of strength being renewed is seen again in the way in which the prophet speaks – Isa 40:31

103:2   The Psalmist, is speaking of blessing God, is living out the injunction in Deut 8:8-11

East and West also relates to the conquest of sin - morally in Gethsemane and physically at Golgotha - each within sight of the Holy of Holies - the way to which was opened thereby.:hence Psa 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

By Brother Paul M Hart

103:20 Do we think of the angels being familiar with the Scriptures or do we think that they always receive direct words from God?

103:4  The sentiments expressed here are also found in Psa 25:6

103:7  We take it for granted that God has made His ways known through various individuals that He sent. However we should not assume that we have any right to know. It is through His graciousness that we know anything about Him and His plan. His word, the Bible, is the only source of information about Him and His plan.

103:22 Psa 19:11 speaks of the heavens declaring God’s glory. This is rather like what David says here. If Creation can glorify God surely, as the verse continues, so should we.

103:5 we no more expect our vigour as we get older to return than we expect, as believers, that our life will be easy. The Psalmist is looking to the time of the resurrection to eternal life

103:10 The magnitude of “He hath not dealt with us after our sins” is maybe not fully appreciated until we recognise our sorry state – dying creatures who He blesses with all we need in this life and, in addition gives us a hope for the future. David catalogues some of those current blessings (103:3-6). We do well to reflect on such benefits regularly and remember the conditional mercy “of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting” ( 103:17) but only to those who “do His pleasure” (103:21)

103:10 It is not just that God has not given us what we deserve. It was whilst we were in such a sorry state that Jesus died for us. We were not righteous when Christ died! – Rom 6:6-10

103:6 Vengeance belongs to God who will repay – Rom 12:19 -  so for that reason we should not seek redress on our own behalf. God, the faithful judge, will deal with all wrongs in due course. Our job is to leave matters in His hands knowing that he is a better judge of motives than us.

v.5 - Here we have women joining in the worship - and the only requirement is that they should be covered. There are a few examples of women doing this - Luke 2:36, Acts 2:17,21:9. The shaving of the head was what a woman entering the camp of Israel had to do for a month to humble her and prepare her for marriage to someone in the camp - Deut.21:10-13. To avoid this process, the new covenant allows for a head covering for women instead.

:23 If it were not for Paul's introduction to the 'Last Supper' we would probably never think of introducing it with 'the same night in which he was betrayed'. The reason why Paul does this is that there were those at Corinth who, like Judas, had other things on their mind at the breaking of bread. Judas wanted to leave to get the money promised him. There were those in Corinth who were more concerned with their own pleasure that remembering the death of Jesus.

11:18 In speaking of 'divisions' Paul is returning to the point he made (1:11, 3:3) - so important is the matter. Disharmony at a basic level impacted on every other action of the ecclesia.

1Cor 11:12  For as the woman is of the man. (creation) Gen 2:22 even so is the man also by the woman. As the woman was first formed out of the side of man, man has ever since has been formed in the womb of woman.

V.1 Paul emphazises that he is to be followed because he follows Christ.  Christ is our leader and we are all followers.  We should be careful not to be persuaded by knowledgeable, influential brethren unless it enhances our position in Christ (1Cor 3:4-6, 1Thess 5:21).

11:7 If the husband is the ‘image’ of God in type in the marriage this makes clear how he should respond to his wife.

The number of sisters not wishing to wear a head covering has increased in recent years.  Unfortunately, the Women's Movement has persuaded the modern woman that she is equal to man and must assert her rights. This sentiment has crept into the ecclesia.  Paul, who is not a favorite of the Women's Movement, is showing Yahweh's view.  There is a divine hierarchy in terms of headship: God >Jesus>man>woman.  Man, being made in the image of God should not have his head covered.  Uncovered, he honors his head, Jesus (vs.4,7).  Woman was made for man (her head).  Therefore in recognizing the authority of her husband, the woman should have her head covered (v.10).  An angel is always present with us as an individual, covenanted believer.  And so, imagine the cluster of angels that must be present when these believers meet.  Angels represent Yahweh, and so believers are, de facto, in the presence of Yahweh. Thus, it is a shame for a woman to be uncovered in His presence. For a woman to defiantly insist on being uncovered is an act of insubordination and rebellion which will be addressed in the day of judgement. 

a) What a godly man Paul was! He was able to say that his readers should be followers of him (1Cor 11:1). It seems that just a Christ is a stepping stone to God, so Paul is to Christ. He’s a wonderful example.
b) When we take the bread and the wine we do shew the Lord’s death until He come (1Cor 11:26). This word “shew, or show” is the same as in 1Cor 9:14 “preach”. In other words we show forth, or proclaim, the Lord’s death.

11:1 The call to the Corinthians to be followers of Paul echoes 1Cor 4:16 - but it was not the sort of following that others sought as Paul wishes his ‘followers’ to imitate Jesus.

V.9 Paul uses another argument, going back to creation. (Gen 18:21-22) Just as spiritual Israel, the bride, is made for Christ, and yet in both the natural and the spiritual creations, the bride, while made for the bridegroom, in fulfilling that end, attains her own true glory and brings shame and dishonor on herself by any departure from it. (1Cor 11:4,6)

PROCLAIM THE LORD'S DEATH

11:2     Notice the repeated ‘I praise you (not) :2,17,22 The brethren and sisters in Corinth were remembering the death of Jesus – but in most inappropriate ways.

Some contend that v.15 suggests long hair is a sufficient covering for a woman. However, Paul is just contrasting the acceptable state of hair for a man and woman in vs.14 and 15. In v.15, the word covering comes from the Gr. peribolaion which describes something loosely thrown around, like a cloak. Thus, long hair is becoming for a woman. However, the word used for covered in v.6 comes from the Gr. katakalupto which means fully covered. Paul is saying that a woman’s head should not only be covered, but completely covered, hair and all. This should give pause to those women who think it acceptable to throw on a hankie-sized piece of headgear.

For Paul to devote 13 verses to the subject of head coverings suggests this was a very important issue. Much of the debate nowadays seems to be centred on whether or not women should wear hats, but perhaps the main issue was actually to do with the men? To understand the subject better we need to look back to the traditions in force at the time. Then both Jewish men and women worshipped God with heads covered. The Romans also (men and women) worshipped their gods with heads covered, but the Greeks worshipped their gods with heads uncovered. As the Ecclesia at Corinth would be made up of people from various traditions, it could be there was a mix of practices, and so Paul needed to lay down rules so everything would be done in an orderly manner, and equally importantly so those looking at the Ecclesia from the outside would see this to be the case. For the women the rule to wear a veil would not be so hard, as it was the accepted practice for everyday life. Indeed it would be seen as a shocking thing for a woman to appear on the streets without a veil. Tantamount to having her head shaved, which was the punishment for prostitution. The main change was for the men, who now they had put on Christ were not to worship with head covered, thus showing their reverence for him, and acknowledging Him as their head. How does this translate to our day? Well certainly it is still very important that all things are done decently and in order, not just for us, but also for those that look at us to see the example we set. Verse 10 may help those who are not sure, where the RV has the words "a sign of authority." Perhaps as the men and women are now one in Christ and the men no longer wear anything to show authority, the women now have this role on behalf of both the men and the women? Galatians 3:28 tells us "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ."

1Cor 11:3 The relationship between the man and woman and Christ is, to us, such a clear thing. However to the Corinthian – and to many cultures today – it was not. Evidence the way that Paul speaks about it elsewhere, focusing on the husband wife relationship – Eph 5:22-33. For us, however, the fact that we understand the principle is not sufficient We must, in this society which is so focused on equality between the sexes, clearly demonstrate the Christian pattern understanding clearly why we are doing it.

V.16 We have no such custom is Paul's plain retort to the contentious individual who espouses the idea that it is all right for men to have long hair; for women to pray or prophesy (engage in acts of worship) with their heads uncovered; or for men's heads to be covered while worshipping.

To eat the Lord's supper, whilst nurturing divisions, is denying the whole reason for that meal. Jesus used most of those last hours before his death to encourage unity and selflessness. So Paul says "you're not eating the Lord's supper, but something else" (v20).

1Cor 11:3 - the head of Christ is God - Christ is not God, he is subject to God.

11:10 The word ‘power’ <1849> carries the sense of ‘authority as can be seen where the same word is used as ‘power’ – 1Cor 9:6 as the RV margin renders it. So the wearing of the covering is a recognition by the sister of her relationship. Given that the relationship we have with Christ is wonderful it follows that we should joy to manifest that in our lives.

11:28-29       In talking to the believers about examining themselves lest they eat and drink unworthily Paul is continuing his point about shewing – 1Cor 11:26 – Jesus death with understanding.

11:4-6 Paul is not presenting a new idea here. Rather he is, by appealing to the Genesis record particularly in verses 7-9 showing that the principle he is laying out dates back to the creation and Eve and Adam’s sin and their subsequent pattering of the relationship between the church and Jesus.      

11:16  Paul elsewhere – 1Cor 4:17, 1Cor 7:17, 1Cor 14:33  - speaks of how things are done in other first century churches. This is not to use them as a precedent for how to behave. Rather it is to show the Corinthians that they are not a special case but, in unity, they should behave like the other churches.  A lesson we might take to ourselves. Whilst we might have freedom of action we should always consider how others of our community will react to our use of o our freedom.

11:13  Paul is not leaving the issue of  head covering should be left to personal preference. In asking them to “judge in yourselves …” Paul implies that they should be able to work out for themselves what was right and proper They should have been able to do that after working through the significance of the creation of Adam and the making of Eve from his side that Paul has just laid out for them. 1Cor 11:7-12

11:29 Those who eat and drink unworthily answer to those – 10:5 – with whom God was displeased in the wilderness.

1Cor 11:3

“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.”

It has been said, “Love at first sight is nothing special. It’s when two people have been looking at each other for years that it becomes something special.” No body picks a perfect mate. A successful marriage is not so much about meeting the right person, but becoming the right person. This involves continual change, and the more couples walk in the Light, the more they will change into conformity with the will of God and of Christ. The husband is the head of the wife in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the ecclesia and gave his life for her (cf. Eph 5:25).

This verse by no means teaches that women are inferior to men. There is no loss of dignity by submitting leadership to the husband (cf. Gal 3:28). What it does teach is the principle of authority in the family. The structure given here between God and Christ is the same in marital relationships between husband and wife. Marriage is more than just a contract between two people. It is supposed to mirror the relationship between Christ and the ecclesia (Eph 5:24). In marriage, the husband reflects Christ while the wife reflects the ecclesia, and the individual members of the ecclesia, in kind, as the apostle Paul wrote, are also to submit one to the other (Eph 5; 1Cor 12). The husbands’ leadership is to lead as Jesus lead, and this is the ultimate submission to Christ, the ultimate model for husbands to follow.

In Eph 5:21 it says, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” In what sense does the husband do the submitting – accepting or yielding to the authority or will of another person? What this does not mean is that the husband is advocating his responsibility of leadership in the home. What it does mean is he helps his wife bear her burdens, supporting one another in reverence to God; he makes it easier on her in meeting her needs, sacrificing his own desires, if need be (vv. 25,28-30; cf. John 10:11). Jesus also said:  “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt 11:28). A Christ-like husband is to be there for his wife, and puts his wife’s needs above his own in self-sacrificing love. This is servant leadership (cf. John 13:14-16).

11:1   Could we invite others to follow our example because our life is so in tune with Jesus’?

11:31-32          If we are willing to analyse our behaviour now and make the necessary changes in our behaviour not then the judgement seat will not be a place to be feared. Not that if we analyse our behaviour we will never do anything wrong. Rather we will be striving to be more like Christ which is what the Father is looking for.

11:23  In saying that Paul had “delivered unto you” the details about the “Last Supper” we appreciate that the Corinthians had already read about what happened on that evening. This is a clear indication that at least one gospel record was available by the time that Paul communicated with the Corinthians and that they had seen such a copy.

1Cor 11:24-26

“… Take eat: this is my body… This cup is the new testament in my blood… For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.”

The following is in reply to a correspondent from Brethren E.W. Browne and A.T. Jannaway given in 1927:

“Your remarks upon Matt. v. 32 and xix. 9, and the whole of 1 Cor. vi., are admirable. We hope to quote from them later. To misinterpret one passage of Scripture and slur over others is a papal method. A ready example occurs to the way the Romish Church seeks to establish transubstantiation—‘This is my body,’ say they, and shutting their eyes to all else, they insist that the memorial emblems are the actual body and blood of Christ. A similar misinterpretation is now in evidence over, ‘Dare any of you.’ It is a solace to find some who can rightly divide the word of Truth.”

11:2      In talking about keeping ordinances “delivered” we might conclude that Paul had left them a written document laying out the principles of the gospel. The same word is used to speak of a letter being delivered to gentle ecclesias from Jerusalem – Acts 15:30. Not that the document was that letter. It was probably one of the gospel records.

11:27 “unworthily” is not speaking of the believer who has sinned during the previous week. Nor it is speaking of the believer whose mind wanders during the “lord’s Supper”. It is the one whose whole life is self-centred as were some in Corinth at this time.

1Cor 11:5

A reader writes: “Thank you for your well considered comments – I always find them very helpful. We in ----- have a problem at the moment with a brother and sister who are challenging head coverings and sisters role in the ecclesia. They have highlighted 1 Cor 11 v 5. 1Co 11:5  But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. As part of their argument, they have challenged us to explain why this does not mean that provided a sister is wearing a head covering she can pray or speak in the ecclesia. They state this:

‘A direct reading of this passage appears to define praying and prophesying by men and women
specifically and exclusively as the circumstances when head coverings are relevant. This is often
simply ignored in the traditional symbolic interpretation. Or when it is recognised then the
possibility of women praying or prophesying is dismissed by citing 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1
Timothy 2:11-12. A simple and straightforward reading of this passage would appear to indicate that either women can pray and prophesy with their head covered, or if they can’t pray or prophesy then there would be no need for them to cover their head.’

I have been unable to give a good answer to this – I believe that the verses in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 are commands that sisters should not speak in ecclesia which then leads to an apparent contradiction in 1 Cor 11:5.’

I would appreciate knowing your understanding of this.”

My reply: … IN 1Cor 11:5, Paul used the natural custom of the Corinthians to teach them a spiritual lesson. A married woman in Corinth had to have her head covered to show she is married. If she did not, it would shame her husband. In addition, the Roman men used to cover their head when praying to their pagan gods. While these customs do not affect us, the apostle Paul’s teaching does. He tells us plainly in verse 2 to remember what he taught and keep the ordinances as he delivered them! He used the customs of their day to clarify to the Corinthians the gender and role distinctions in going back to creation showing this comes from God. It had nothing to do with diminishing women’s roles in Christ. It was about who has authority over who (1Cor 11:3) and we are expected to respect it.

Paul identified the problem the ecclesia was experiencing regarding head coverings brought on by some of the contentious Corinthians and identified it as being heretical (1Cor 11:9). The ecclesia was gathered for the Lord’s Memorial Service! In no way is Paul saying that if women wear a head covering they may speak and prophecy during the Memorial Service! This would contradict what he said in 1Cor 14:34,35 and what Timothy taught in 1Tim 2:11,12 (cf. vv. 13,14) in women keeping silent - no exception! Scripture does not contradict, or take out of context another Scripture, but magnifies it! The point Paul was making to the Corinthians is that even IF women were permitted to speak and prophesy during Meeting like the men, they would still have to wear a head covering in the ecclesia, which, otherwise, would still be considered shameful. The head covering is the issue and this was and is non-negotiable!

The common thread with these passages deals with the subjection and proper conduct of women in the ecclesia as shown in covering their head and keeping silent, the husbands/men having authority over them, who, in turn, are under authority to Christ - all being in subjection and under authority to God! Paul is not teaching in 1Cor 11:5, that a sister is only to wear a head-covering in the ecclesia IF she is praying and prophesying, in other words, as long as she is wearing a head covering, it's alright for her to take the role in the ecclesia that was specifically assigned to men by the Elohim! This is what we are to believe Paul is saying according to this brother and sister!

The verse they cite does not teach what they allude to, covered or uncovered, but actually contradicts and adds to the apostle Paul’s teaching on this subject when he explains further on in 1Cor 14:34, that women are, indeed, to, "keep silence in the ecclesia: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." And Timothy, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." No exception given!

God’s ordinance/law on our role distinctions does not change, because He does not change, and we do well to keep them in the manner prescribed by Him. It is a dangerous precedent to take one verse, ignore the others, and establish a principle from it, itself being based on a wrong premise and then claiming Paul taught it!

I agree with you and your explanation is very good! We do what we can, but at some time we must keep in mind Christ's Parable of the Sower (Matt 13; Mark 4; Luke 8) wherein the seeds we sow may just fall on bad soil. Contentiousness is not healthy for any ecclesia.

1Cor 11:5

reader further writes: “I was very interested by your explanation of 1 Cor 11:5. I had not heard that before. The most common explanation i've found is that this verse is not talking about an ecclesial meeting, whereas 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 plainly are. The suggestion therefore is that when sisters are praying or prophesying outside the ecclesia they should still wear head coverings. I was swayed toward this explanation but was not entirely happy as I think that 1 Cor generally is about our behaviour in the ecclesial meetings.Your explanation overcomes this problem but I know our B&S will suggest that its inference and not what the verse actually says. They conclude their argument with this statement -
‘We can start with 1 Corinthians 11 and the other Bible passages which refer to women praying and prophesying publicly and then try to understand 1 Corinthians 14 & 1 Timothy 2 in light of these. Or we can start with 1 Corinthians 14 or 1 Timothy 2 which appear to say that women should be silent and then seek to explain 1 Corinthians 11 and women praying and prophesying in light of these.’

I think that I would start with the second point as being indisputable and then try to explain 1 Cor 11:5.  I am trying to find all the explanations I can and I think yours will be very helpful in sorting this problem out.”

My reply: I see what is happening here, and that is private and public worship are mixed up. In looking at the context of the entire chapter, the 1Cor 11 disputations deal with the proper decorum for approaching Christ at the Memorial Service.  To believe otherwise is to isolate the one verse from the entire chapter and place it in a context of its own! The 1611 KJV translation here is rather ambiguous and definitely requires looking into very closely.

There is public worship and then there is private worship. In public worship both men and women may pray and prophesy with the exception that the women must have their head covered. In private worship, women must still have their head covered, but are not permitted to usurp authority over the men in praying and prophesying during the Memorial Service. This is where other translations shed some light:

THE AMPLIED BIBLE reads: "And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved. 

THE PASSION TRANSLATION 1Cor 11:4,5 reads: "Any man who leads public worship and prays and prophesies with a shawl hanging down over his head, shows disrespect to his head, which is Christ. And if any woman in a place of leadership within the church prays or prophesies in public with her long hair disheveled, she shows disrespect to her head, which is her husband..."

This is what transpired in 1Cor 11 and Paul admonished and corrected them for it. Furthermore, he pointed them to the law as the example to follow (1Cor 14:34), He referred them to the moral code of conduct. Our roles did not change under Christ, and it was the Priests (men) who lead the worship, never women! 

THE AMPLIFIED BIBLE: "The women should keep quiet in the churches (ecclesia), for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place , just as the Law also says." (Gen 3:16)

There is a place of leadership for men and women publicly, but only the men may assume that role during the Memorial service. We are setting a dangerous precedent in reversing the women's roles!

11:7-8 Paul twice quotes early Genesis. image” quotes Gen 1:26. “Woman of the man” quotes Gen 2:23. Thus we see that the two account of creation are but one. Paul makes no distinction.

1Cor 11

A reader writes: “I enjoy reading your comments on the daily readings,  and was very interested in today’s comments from 1Cor 11 on the subject of head covering. I have for a long time held the view that  Sisters are to have a ‘HAIR COVERING’ as opposed to a ‘HEAD COVERING’.And I believe that one of the main reasons is found in 1Cor 1;29 which tells us that at no time is it permissable  for ANYONE to come into  God’s presence having their GLORY/HAIR on display, as though they are trying to compete with God’s Glory. I believe that 1Cor 11 telling us that if a woman intend to go into God’s presence she has two choices cover her HAIR/GLORY or cut it of, there are no other choices offered."
My reply: I have heard different arguments against sisters not having to wear a head covering, but never this one. For clarification, I assume by “ANYONE,” you mean any sister, and not brothers with long hair. Firstly, you make the distinction between hair and head covering. Secondly, you state sisters have two choices: cover her hair/glory, or cut off her hair, after which her head may remain uncovered at the Memorial Service! Scripturally to “cut if of” is to apply a razor to her head and be bald – shaven!

An understanding of the background of Corinth will help in understanding Paul’s admonition in 1Cor 1:29 Corinth was in a strategic position, a very important city. Its inhabitants comprised of Romans, Greeks, and Orientals. They were very intellectual, materially prosperous, but unashamedly morally corrupt! The Corinthian ecclesia was struggling with divisions, immorality, idolatry, and this head/hair covering was a part of their contention too, all of which Paul was trying to correct. The Corinthian ecclesia, even after Paul’s second brief visit to Corinth did not change them. They continued to glory in their flesh! To apply 1Cor 1:29, “glory,” with 1Cor 11:15, “glory” is to take it totally out of context, a great travesty and injustice to the apostle Paul’s teaching on submission, which is what the head/hair covering symbolizes!

You distinguish head and hair covering, but what is the difference between them? Is not the hair on our head the subject of Paul’s discourse? The head/hair covering is one and the same, its context being between long and actually no hair. Our hair covers our head (unless bald), but Paul is talking about a covering of submission for women; whose head is the man, whose head is Christ; whose head is God. It is about sisters’ submission to the man, to Christ, and to God, as it was the woman who was first deceived, not the man, and you do not address this at all, which is actually the crux of this issue.

The glory of God is one thing, the glory of women’s long hair is quite another! We do not cover our head and hide our hair so we won’t “compete with God’s glory.” This makes no sense to me. How can a sister’s uncovered long hair compete with the Most High God, the Great Ail Shaddai, the Omniscient. Omnipotent, Omnipresent? The fact is, God has declared He will not share His glory with anyone, so what makes anyone think sisters can if they do not cover their long hair during Memorial Service (Isa 42:8; 48:11)? It is absolutely immoral to even think it possible to grasp the kind of glory that belongs to God only! It is not time yet for us to share in His glory let alone believe we can compete with it by our hair (Rom 8:14-30; cf. 1Pet 4:13)!

Furthermore, 1Cor 11:6 is not saying that if a woman has short hair/bald, “shaven,” that she does not need to cover her head. Whether long hair (glory to her), or shaven (shame to her), it is dishonouring (1Cor 11:5) to pray with no head covering! There is only one choice if we are to be obedient: a woman must have her head/hair covered. This, in context, is the apostle Paul’s teaching, regardless of what some ecclesias and churches teach.

11:33-34 Paul is not advocating a casual attitude to time keeping. Rather he is expecting the believers in Corinth to respect and take account of the circumstances of each other. So the wealthy will not flaunt their wealth by being ostentatious.

11:29  we might wonder whether Paul s speaking about the body of Jesus or the body being the group of believers. The first thing we need to understand is that Paul’s words were designed to resolve problems, not to create them.

So maybe it is the case that the way Paul writers is designed to encompass both meanings.

11:33 Paul’s instruction “tarry one for another” is not giving believers licence to be casual about the way and time they meet together to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus. Caution is required lest we be either too slack in our timings or too demanding of others whose lives might be more challenged than ours.