The Forum
This department is provided for the free and courteous discussion of biblical and spiritual problems which may be considered edifying to the people of God. Letters concerning such matters are requested.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Gentlemen:
My attention has been drawn to the answer of D. McC. to S. B. that appears in the current number of Food for the Flock. A review of the article in question and the letters leads me to agree with S. B.
In spite of the author’s claim to “study in depth” and to “principles of interpretation,” there are certain features of First Corinthians he has not sufficiently considered. The first part of the Epistle covers the conduct of church members outside the church not “therein” as states the original and as quoted by S. B. The incestuous act was outside the church, so were the court cases, the social invitations and the marital separations, etc.
The second part of the Epistle has to do with conduct in the congregational gatherings of the church. In this part of the Epistle, we read repeatedly, “When ye be come together.” The point of transition is not clear until you reach chapter 11:17. Is therefore the premise upon which the author places his logic not questionable?
Why does the author confuse the Lord’s table of chapter 10 with the Lord’s supper of chapter 11? Is not the whole Body in view of chapter 10; whereas it is the local church that is in view in chapter 11?
The Lord’s table is mentioned in the Old Testament as well as in the New, but the Lord’s supper is exclusively New Testament truth.
The headcovering is a sign of authority, that is authority invested in headship. By a head covering a woman shows her submission to headship. Headship is as applicable in the domestic sphere as anywhere else (Eph. 5:22-24). Is it proper to teach that the sign of headship should be shown in the religious and not the domestic aspect of life?
The author would do well to reconsider the Epistle as a whole, and also his “original stand” as he calls it.
Yours truly,
D. S.