In this sermon, the preacher emphasizes the importance of the Word of God and its relevance in our lives. He explains that instruction can be given through precept, example, or inference, and that all forms of instruction are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. The preacher also addresses the question of how the Old Testament relates to the New Testament. He cites Matthew 5:17, where Jesus states that he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. The preacher explains that Jesus fulfilled the prophetic types and sacrificial system of the Old Testament through his life and death.

I have observed on this particular topic, and I'm wondering if you have too, is that most of the popular literature that we have access to basically looks at the issue from the perspective of 1 Corinthians chapter 11. In other words, if you're like me, a lot of the first brochures and pamphlets that I got came from Anabaptist type sources, Mennonite sources. And they pretty much focus on this issue as though it was strictly a 1 Corinthians chapter 11 issue. Have you found that to be the case yourself in your investigation? Pretty much? Well, you'll find out in the way I'm approaching it that I look at it a little bit differently. In fact, this is the title I decided to give to this segment of our Bible study, namely, Understanding the Headcoat in a Whole Bible Approach. And I've underlined whole Bible because as I have looked at this issue, I've come to believe that it is a far broader issue than just can be contained in one passage of scripture, 1 Corinthians chapter 11. I've come to believe that if you're really going to get a proper understanding of this issue, that you actually have to consider a number of scriptures. And many of them are Old Testament scriptures, such as Genesis chapter 2, 21, 23, 24, Genesis 24, Numbers 5, Isaiah 3, 16 through 26, and several others. Now, if you were perhaps to look those passages up in the Bible, you might want to ask me right off the bat, what do some of these have to do with the head covering? We'll just have to keep coming back to find out. Because we'll be looking at all or most of these scriptures in the course of this study in light of what they have to say to us concerning this issue. Now, why is it important that we look at other scriptures other than 1 Corinthians chapter 11? Well, actually, if 1 Corinthians chapter 11 was the only passage that had anything to do with this issue, then that's all we have to look at. But you know, it's very dangerous for you or for me if we're studying any particular issue from a biblical perspective to leave out any scriptures in our investigation, isn't it? Let me give you a case in point. Look in Luke 14 verse 26. And now imagine if you were doing a study on the relationship between parents and children, and this was the only verse you studied, what conclusions might you come to? And the verse says this, if any man come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea, in his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Now, I would suggest that if you were studying that issue from a biblical perspective, and this was the only passage you looked at, you might possibly come out with some erroneous conclusions, mind you. Some very seriously erroneous conclusions. It's very important for us to look at all the scriptures that have to do with a particular issue. And I'm kind of hoping I don't disappoint you, because maybe some of you came here thinking tonight that I was going to jump right into 1 Corinthians chapter 11, and that's what you were expecting, but I can't do that. I honestly can't do that. If I do that, I will not fully proclaim to you God's word on the subject. It's very important that we start at the right place and progress through the study before we get to probably what y'all are waiting for, 1 Corinthians chapter 11. We will get there, but there's a lot of ground I have to cover before we do so that when we get there, you'll have a lot of foundational information that will help you to properly assess the passage. If I skip that, you're liable to end up with some erroneous conclusions. Because frankly, I'll tell you, 1 Corinthians chapter 11 has some ambiguities in it. And many people will not buy an Anabaptist argument because of those ambiguities. But I think if we take a whole Bible approach, we can remove those ambiguities from a scriptural perspective and not leave it up to our own opinion as to how to resolve them. That's why it's important that we look at all the scriptural information on the subject. So that's what we're going to do in the course of this study. We will start with the Old Testament and we're going to work our way right on through into the New. However, before we do that, we have to do this. I've come to feel that on the issue of the head covering, that many times we have, as individuals, certain thoughts about certain issues that we bring to a passage like 1 Corinthians 11. And we may not even be aware we're doing that. But because we've already reached some conclusions, we read 1 Corinthians 11 in a certain way. Or we read other scriptures. This doesn't just apply to the issue of the head covering. These are issues that, while not specifically dealing with the head covering, nevertheless form a foundation for the way you're going to resolve the issue in your mind, such as how do you handle Old Testament interpretation? We're going to look at Old Testament scriptures. What part should they play in our understanding of the head covering? There are some that relate to the head covering, but how you use Old Testament scriptures to make decisions concerning ethical issues will determine how you look at the Old Testament scriptures we're going to use here today. It's very important what we think about that issue. The role of culture in biblical interpretation. That's a biggie. Many people will say you don't need to wear a head covering because that's just a cultural issue. And for that matter, just about any issue in the Bible that a person doesn't like, you might use the cultural issue to say I don't have to do that. So how we use culture, the role of culture in biblical interpretation, your thoughts on that will influence how you look at the head covering. The authority relationship between man and woman. We don't have any women's livers here today. I'm certain of that. But if we did, they'd really struggle with the head covering. Because the head covering is all wrapped up in what you think about how men and women relate to one another. So we need to understand what the Bible says about that. And issues of modesty. I would suspect that very few of you here have ever thought of the head covering in terms of modesty. I want to show you, I hope, that there is a connection, and there's a connection between these two boxes here. And I want to demonstrate that before we even get to the Old and New Testament scriptures. But these issues here kind of lurk in the subconscious. What you think about these issues. And I think you'll see as we go through this study, what you think about these issues will influence what you think about the head covering. So it's important that we address these things. It's important that we be biblical in these areas. It'll help us tremendously to come to the right conclusions concerning the issue we're going to address here first. Now let me say this. I don't claim to have all the answers. And perhaps I'm the one that's in error. But I can assure you that what I think about these issues has influenced my view of the head covering. And it will influence yours too. Now, one thing I want us to do in this study is, where it is directed, I still want input. I consider this to be a learning endeavor that should involve all of us. And I'm going to ask you questions. And I, anytime you hear me say something and I don't make any sense, you just say, raise your hand and say, Tom, you don't make any sense. Explain that again. Please don't hesitate to do that. I want you all to have that liberty. We're such a large group. I feel more at liberty to give that to the men and the older boys that may be here, that freedom. So you men and older boys that may be here, if you're having some questions and you want something clarified, you ask me. And maybe you've got the word. Maybe I've missed the boat here. And you can raise the issue and maybe you'll correct me. So I want that free flow of ideas. I just want you to know that. But anyway, what we're going to do first is we're going to look at these issues. And then we're going to go into the Old Testament scriptures, then the New Testament scriptures. And we will get to 1 Corinthians chapter 11, because it is the most important scripture concerning the issue of the head covering. But it's very important that you deal with this first before we get there. Any questions so far that you'd like to ask me? Does this make sense to you? This may be a little bit hazy at this point, but hopefully I'll clear it up over the next few weeks. If there's anything I've said that you want to ask questions, go ahead. What I want to look at then today is I want to look at the principles of biblical interpretation, Old Testament interpretation. That'll form the bulk of our study here this evening. I guess you could call that the heading for our study. How should we use the Old Testament scripture in New Testament times? What does the Bible say about that? The way I want to do it, first I want to look at what our Lord has to say about that issue. Come with me to Matthew 5, beginning in verse 17. Probably in all of the New Testament, maybe, well, I think probably in all of scripture, this is the key scripture regarding how we should relate and understand the Old Testament. Let me begin reading in verse 17. Again, this is what our Lord has to say to us, so it's important that we understand it. He says this, Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach them so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Let me ask you a question. Jesus said, Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. Now, what do you think he means when he says, I have not come to destroy? Anybody want to give some thoughts, Steve? The word actually in the Greek is the word kataluo. And if you are in Bible school, that luo is the word that they use to teach you the Greek pencils. You learn luo, lue, lue. You are conjugating a verb and it means to loose. And the word kata, which is appended to the front of it, is the word that kind of means down. And we will run across kata when we get to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. But kataluo, luo means to loosen down, literally. And it is translated destroy in this case. To loosen down, I guess to tear it apart, more or less, is what the emphasis is in the word. So how do you think we can destroy the law? I think Steve has hit on it, but what does that mean? To destroy it, in context. In context he is referring to obedience, isn't he? He says, for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be filled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. For whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. So I think the very context itself kind of shows us what our Lord had in mind, doesn't it? He is saying that how could you destroy the law? It is by not obeying it. By acting though it has nothing to say to you. That it is of none effect to you. If we do that, then for us, we are destroying the law. And Jesus said, I didn't come to do that myself. I didn't come to set it aside. I didn't come to ignore it. I didn't come to treat it as though it wasn't important. He said, I didn't come to do that. I came to fulfill it. Now what does that word mean? What does it mean to fulfill the law? And again, Steve, you made a good comment. Would anybody else like to say anything? Because a lot of scholars have jumped on that word fulfill and they've made the verse say something I don't feel it does. Anybody want to comment? Okay. Well, the word in the Greek is the word plurolo. And it's an interesting word. It literally means like to cram a net. Like if a fisherman's out there fishing and he plurolos, he fulfills his net, he's got a cram full of fish. In other words, to fill it up. That's what the word means. Well, the question is, how did Jesus fill up the law? What did he do? Somebody tell me, what did he do? It's an ambiguous term. I mean, somewhat ambiguous. In what sense did he fulfill it? Anybody want to jump in there? Now you look like you've got a comment. No, I don't. Okay. Two things I think he did. In the Old Testament, you have many prophetic types. You have the Lamb, right? Jesus was what? The Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. The whole sacrificial system, right? Jesus fulfilled those types in the sense that he was the embodiment of all the things represented, right? He was the anti-type. Is that a familiar word that you have? The type is the picture. He was the fulfillment. He was all that the picture pointed to. And so when he came, he came to make reality to those pictures that were taught through the ceremonial law in the Old Testament. So in that sense, he fulfilled the law. He was the embodiment of all those figures and all those pictures that God used to teach Israel concerning their coming Savior. But he also fulfilled the law, and this seems to me to be the burden of this part of the passage, in the sense that he obeyed it, right? Isn't that the emphasis in this whole part of the section of Scripture? That he obeyed the Scripture. He was saying, you'll be great in the kingdom of heaven if you do that too. So he fulfilled it in the sense that he was the fulfillment. He was what the pictures pointed to, and in the sense that he fully kept the law himself. In that sense, he fulfilled the Old Testament law. But if you interpret that word fulfilled, and some people do, they say, okay, Christ came, he fulfilled the law, all those pictures, now it's all done away with. That's what they say. But is it right to make the word fulfilled, destroy? Isn't that what we're doing? That's the interpretation. And he said he didn't come to destroy the law. He established it in his ministry. And furthermore, he says, we should do that too. We should keep the law as well. And if we do, we'll be great in the kingdom of heaven. And this is the key verse in the New Testament for this whole subject, as to how we relate to the Old Testament law. If we keep it, we'll be great in the kingdom of heaven. If we don't, we'll be least. Right? Is that what the passage says? Any disagreement? Any comments? Have I missed the boat here? And this is our Lord's teaching, right? So this is his doctrinal teaching, the central doctrinal passage on this subject. But I want to also look at how Jesus used the law himself practically. Look in Matthew 4 verse 1. This is the account of the temptations of our Lord. It says, then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted 40 days and 40 nights, he was afterward and hungered. And when the tempter came to him, he said, if thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up unto the holy city and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple and saith unto him, if thou be the son of God, cast thyself down. For it is written, he shall give his angels charge concerning thee. And in their hands, they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against the stone. Jesus said unto him, it is written again, thou shalt not tempt the Lord by God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. And saith unto him, all these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, get thee hence, Satan, for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord by God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him." Now, Jesus was having an encounter with the devil. How did he deal with him? Did he, now he was the son of God, he had authority in and of himself to tell the devil, get lost, didn't he? But is that how he dealt with the devil? Old Testament scripture, right out of the law. And it was the law of God that Jesus used in his battle with the devil to defeat him and send him packing. Jesus practiced what he preached. He had total confidence in God's law. He knew of its power and strength because God was behind it, and he used it that way to defeat his enemies, his spiritual enemies. Look in Mark 7 verses 5 through 13. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. How be it in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, For well ye reject the commandment of God, but ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother, and whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother. Make him the word of God, of none effect to your tradition, which ye have delivered, and many such like things ye do. Now, this law that Jesus appeals to is very offensive to modern men. This is one of the laws that many would use to say, The Old Testament has nothing to say to us today. Because it is so offensive. What law is he referring to? He is referring to Exodus 21, 17. You might look there for a second. Exodus 21, 17. It says there, He that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. Now, that is kind of, that is kind of strong, isn't it? Jesus is not only taking one of the hardest laws for, I guess, I don't know how hard it would have been 100 years ago to receive, but in modern 20th century America, the idea that if a child was to say, Curse his father or mother, that that would be something worthy of death. Most people would recoil from that, wouldn't they? And yet, Jesus took this very law and he confirmed it. And he even confirmed the penalty. And he rebuked the Pharisees for setting it aside for the sake of their traditions. Again, I think we see just how Jesus himself regarded God's law. He took it all seriously. Even the civil penalties. Look in Luke chapter 18 for a second. Beginning in verse 18. And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one that is God. Thou knowest the commandments. Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor thy father and thy mother. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. Now, here again, I mean, what must I do to be saved? And how did Jesus respond? He said, What does the law say? What does the law say? Now, of course, we understand, or at least I don't want you to think I believe that you're saved by words. You didn't come here to hear me preach and teach you that. I'm not going to do that. I believe we're saved by grace. But if you want to be saved by your efforts, guess where you can still go and try it. You can go to the law and try it and see if you can do it. It's still, and was to Jesus, that perfect standard by which if you want to be righteous with God, that's where you've got to go. If you go to the book of Romans, you'll see that Paul says, We know that the law is holy and righteous and just. It still is. And if you want to be saved by works, that's where you're going to have to go. You're going to have to go to Sinai. Well, now, how can that be unless the standard is perfect? Can't. It's still perfect. That's the way Jesus looked at it. The moral law is still valid. Let's go to one other passage, which is another passage. It's a primary passage where if you were to deal with Anabaptists, Mennonites, they would take you. Because if you know much about Anabaptist theology, you would know that they would strongly disagree with everything I've been sharing with you so far this evening. They basically would say that the Old Testament has nothing for us today definitively. It might be good for non-authoritative illustration purposes, but as far as teaching you authoritatively right and wrong, that's really not where we should look. We should look to Jesus in the New Testament. And maybe I'm overstating the case. Well, that's not necessarily perhaps what they all would say, but that's the drift of Anabaptist theology. And one of the passages that they would take you to would be this. Look in Matthew 19, verses 1 through 9. This is our Lord's teaching on divorce. And let me say something about this whole subject of divorce and remarriage. It's a very difficult issue. In the days of our Lord, it was a difficult issue. That's why they asked Him the question. If you were in the days of Jesus, you would have found parties that were divided over what the Old Testament actually taught on this subject. Some said it was only right to divorce your wife for adultery. Others said, well, you can divorce her for any reason at all. So, apart from what you think about the issue of Old Testament interpretation versus new, this is a difficult issue. But let's see what our Lord said. And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there, beginning in verse 2. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a word of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your heart, suffered you to put away your wives. But from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. And whosoever marryeth her which is put away, doth commit adultery. Now many will look at a passage like that and they will try and pit Moses against Christ. And they will say that here Jesus is he's going against the teaching of the law and of the Old Testament and he's pitting himself against Moses and he's giving us a new teaching on divorce. Well I guess the first question I'd ask, well how in the world could that possibly be in light of what we read he said in Matthew chapter 5? Is that really, is that really how we should understand this? I will note this, when Jesus is dealing with this issue, where does he go? He goes to the first book of Moses. He goes to the first book of the law, Genesis. And he appeals to the law, to the Old Testament. He's debating this issue with the Pharisees. He doesn't come up and start a new doctrine of Jesus. He explains the meaning of the Old Testament law. And that's the foundation of his whole teaching on divorce and remarriage. Now you and I may not fully understand how we reconcile Genesis with later books in Deuteronomy. I mean the Pharisees were having trouble with that. But understand Jesus as a teacher was not leaving the law and starting his own doctrine. He was reasoning from the law with the Pharisees. And to make this really clear, there's an interesting passage in Luke, look in Luke 16. I can't begin to address this issue because I have a six message series on divorce and remarriage and I don't think we want to do that right now. It's not an easy subject. Maybe someday we'll look at that issue. But you have to understand it from my perspective, I don't pit Moses and Jesus. I think that's an improper way to even begin addressing that issue. We assume that they love one another and they're in harmony because Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the law and the prophets. And so I've got to seek to harmonize what the New Testament and the Old Testament say on this issue and don't start out from the assumption that they're pitted against one another. Now it may be hard for me to harmonize all that, but that's still the context in which I think we have to address the issue. And this is really made clear to me in Luke 16, in verse 16, beginning in verse 16. Luke 16, 16. Listen to this. The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God is preached and every man presses into it. Now look at verses 17 and 18. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one fiddle of the law to fail. Now where did we read that? Back in Matthew. Now look at the very next verse. Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Isn't that interesting? Do you think he's trying to tell us something? He's telling you that what I'm teaching you on divorce and remarriage is not contrary to the law. Now again, it's not my point here to explain to you how that can be, because that's a difficult issue reconciling all that the Bible has to say on the subject. But I hope I've given you enough to at least see that however we approach an issue like that, we don't approach it from the idea that Moses and the Lord are at odds with one another. It ain't no party. God is, he doesn't change. I am the Lord. I change not. And his ethics are eternal. His moral principles don't change. And so to say that they have is to say that God has an immutable character. And that's not so. The law of God, the moral law of God is forever. Whatever moral law is found, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, it's for us today. It's good for our instruction. But what if somebody wants to argue that all this took place before the cross? That yes, that was the Old Testament and everything was being faded out and now it's different, Christ has been crucified, he's risen, now we're in the New Age, the new covenant. And some would argue that way. Look in Matthew 28 verses 19 through 20. This is the Great Commission. Notice what our Lord said. Now this is after the resurrection, right? This is as our Lord is getting ready to be taken up into heaven. These are the last words of our Lord on earth, his charge to his disciples. He tells them this, Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. What were the disciples to teach? They were to teach everything that Christ had taught them while he was on earth. He doesn't indicate that now. He doesn't say, teaching them to observe all things that I am about to teach you now that I've been resurrected. He says, you teach the things I taught you. That's what you're to share with all men. So again, I would say, the continuity is there. Christ upheld the law during his life. He taught the law during his life. And he says to his followers, to those who he had appointed to be leaders, you do likewise. If you think I've missed the boat there, I'm open to be corrected. Anybody like to maybe qualify that even? What do you think, Steve? That sounds okay. I want to go on, though. That's our Lord's teaching. Again, though, the challenge might be made that, well, yeah, but Christ rose and the Spirit of God came, and that affected things, and now we don't exactly teach things or do things the way that happened either in the Old Testament days or during the lifetime of our Lord. So we want to deal with that by looking at what the Apostle Paul taught about this issue. What does the Apostle Paul teach? Look in 2 Timothy 3, beginning in verse 15. This is our Apostle Paul's doctrinal contribution to this issue. And this is a very familiar passage, I would suspect, to all of us. Beginning in verse 14, speaking to Timothy, Paul says, But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now, tell me, what scripture was Paul referring to? He said, Timothy, all, you know, all scripture. He says that from a child you've known these scriptures. What scriptures is he referring to? You might have thought the New Testament. Steve? What's he referring to? Well, all scriptures, but I would point this out. He says you've known these from a child. The bulk, and at the time this was written, the New Testament wasn't even together. He's referring to scriptures you've known from a child, and all scripture. Certainly the New Testament is involved, but the great bulk of the emphasis in the passage is the Old Testament. It has to be. And he says the Old Testament scripture was given for what? It was given to be profitable for doctrine, for reproof. In other words, I should be able to look at the Old Testament passages and come to you and admonish you if you need admonishing, for correction if you need to be corrected, and for instruction in righteousness. In other words, I can look at the Old Testament scriptures and learn how to be a righteous person. And the scriptures are so good that they're able to make me perfect. And again, the bulk of the emphasis at the time that Paul gave this was for the Old Testament. That's his view of the Old Testament. Well, what did that mean for Paul practically? Let's see how he used the Old Testament in his ministry. Look at Ephesians 6, beginning in verse 1. Children, obey your parents and the Lord, for this is right. Honor thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. Now, where did he get that? Where did it come from? Where? It's the Ten Commandments. Now, did Paul say, because I'm an apostle and the Spirit of God lives in me, I command you to obey your parents? We live in the New Covenant age and the Old Testament doesn't speak to us anymore. So I'm telling you now, as Christ's representative, obey your parents. No, that's not what he says, is it? He's saying, you do this because Scripture tells you to. This is the first commandment with a promise. And that's why you should do it. In other words, my word has authority to you because God's already said it. It's the word of God. I'm not telling you something new, you know it. It's the first commandment with a promise. Therefore, you obey it. So we see that Paul does not hesitate to use the greatest of all the commandments, and probably most people wouldn't have a problem with that. The Ten Commandments. If we're going to obey anything, it would be the Ten Commandments. If we saw anything in the Old Testament we were going to obey. Well, now let's look at another passage. I find it to be a very interesting passage. Look in 1 Corinthians 9, beginning in verse 8. Excuse me, verse 7. Who groweth a warfare at any time in his own charge? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man, or sayeth not the law the same also? For it is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that tradeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or sayeth he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that ploweth should plow in hope, and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? And if others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless, we have not used this power, but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? And they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. What law does Paul use here? Is it one of the Ten Commandments? It is part of the law. It's thou shalt not muzzle the ox that tradeth out the corn. Now how important a commandment do you think that is? I'd say that's one of the least of the commandments, wouldn't you? And yet Paul doesn't hesitate to use that as an argument to say you ought to pay your preachers. Now, I also note an even more interesting thing is that he takes a ceremonial law. He takes the law that says that the priests in the Old Testament were to eat of the offerings that were given. Now that was ceremonial law. But he sees moral principle even in that. So Paul not only used the case law of the Old Testament, even right down to perhaps, if that's not the least, it's got to be closed. He also took a ceremonial ordinance and he saw there's a moral element in the ceremonial ordinance and he even used that as a foundation for teaching that preachers should be paid. Let me ask you a question. Some pastor stood up in front of you and he was teaching you on why you should pay your ministers and he didn't have this in the Bible and he argued this way. What would you think? And most pastors will accept this because they want to be paid but I just don't know that if that wasn't the case that they would be overly impressed with these arguments. But they're valid arguments. I mean, Paul was using the Old Testament properly. I mean, would anybody dare say that he wasn't? But what does he do? He uses the case laws of the Old Testament and in fact, it's interesting what he did because what he did was he took this case law and he looked at that case law and he said, the underlying principle is this, that the laborers were of his high. He took the case law, went to the principle behind it, then he reapplied it in another direction. That's how he used the Old Testament. He made it, instead of saying it has no relevance, he took that law and made it relevant for his people. He found the applications that legitimately applied for his time and his circumstances and he made them. That's what he did. That's why he said he can say all scripture is given by inspiration of God and it's profitable. These Old Testament teachings can teach us that we need to pay our preachers. If we'll just open our eyes to see it. That's how he used the Bible. That's how he applied his doctrinal understanding. And I don't know what to do about the ceremonial law issue. He did it and I would say that that's a valid approach too. But that's, for me personally, that would be difficult. But it can be done. You can do it right because Paul did it and so it's a legitimate way to approach the Old Testament. Well, that's how he used the law. He didn't hesitate to appeal to the greatest of the Old Testament laws. He didn't hesitate to appeal to the least of the Old Testament case laws. Well, let's look at some of the other ways he used the Old Testament. Book in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. Beginning in verse 1. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples. To the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither the idolaters, as were some of them, as it is written, the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Now Paul not only used Old Testament law, but he would actually look at the illustrations, the history of the Old Testament, and he saw moral instruction in those illustrations and historical examples that he says the reason God put them there was for us. For us. Right? Isn't that what he says? For our example. So he used the law and he used historical illustrations, didn't hesitate to use these things to make points of instruction for his people in the New Testament era. One other point I'd like to bring out, he reasons from inference. Now if you look at the great confessions of faith, they'll acknowledge that we're not only instructed by the direct commands of scripture, but that there are inferences that can flow out of those scriptures that also instruct us and bind us. For instance, Paul sees thou shalt not muzzle the ox that tradeth out the corn. Well he infers from that that we have to pay our preachers. Right? That verse doesn't specifically say thou shalt pay preachers, it says you'll feed oxen. But he infers from that a legitimate inference that because we're to feed, we're not muzzle the ox, we should therefore pay and feed our pastors. Look in 1st Timothy 2, 11 through 15. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use self-authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed in Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. Now he tells women that they're to learn in silence with all subjection. What is the basis of that commandment? He goes to the Old Testament and he appeals to the passage in creation, where it indicates that Adam was first created and then Eve. Does that say anything about teaching? Does it? But he is inferring from that Old Testament teaching that since Adam was created first, that women should be silent and men should talk in public. But that's an inference, isn't it? He doesn't directly appeal to an Old Testament or a New Testament scripture that says women should be silent and men should lead in public. He makes an inference from an Old Testament passage. So these are all valid ways to use the Old Testament. We can use the moral case laws, we can use the Ten Commandments, we can use the illustrations from the Old Testament, and we can use them, and if we do it properly, we can draw inferences even from these Old Testament teachings and come up with valid principles by which to live our lives here and now. This is the way the Lord did it, and that's what Paul did. Is that right or is that wrong? I mean, how do you feel? Have I missed the boat? Do I need to qualify something? This really is, it may seem kind of strange thinking, what does this have to do with a head covering? But it really is very important. It really is very important. This is a foundational study today, because what we're dealing with here not only relates to the head covering, it relates to a lot of other things we might consider in this Bible study, because it gives you a mental framework by which you're going to interpret scripture. When I start bringing Old Testament scriptures, how are you going to look at them? Some people would literally not even consider them because they're in the Old Testament. They would carry no weight with them. So I hope you see that I'm not wasting your time here. I hope you don't feel like I'm doing that. This really is an important study, and it's important that we agree, at least on the fundamentals of this issue. So if you want to qualify some things I've said or express your concerns, please do. That's wonderful to have total agreement. I'm not used to that. Well, here's my conclusion. Paul said to us in 1 Corinthians, interestingly, this is in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, so we will look at 1 Corinthians chapter 11 a little bit. But he starts that chapter saying, be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. We see that Paul took that quite literally, didn't he? He saw how the Lord approached the Old Testament scriptures, and he approached them in exactly the same way, didn't he? But he's saying to us, we're to follow him as he followed the Lord. That's a chain of action that goes from Christ to Paul to us. And so I'll just read this to you because this is kind of a summary of all that we've covered today. In the study of ethical issues, we should consider the total teaching of God's word, both in the Old Testament as well as the New. Instruction may be given by precept, by example, or even by inference. However it is given, it is still God's word to us and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. And that summarizes what I'd like for us to get here this evening. Let me emphasize though this, I did underline the word ethical. Because it is true, if you look at a passage like Galatians 4 verses 10 through 11, that there's another side of the issue that we need to keep before us as well. There Paul said, You observe days and months and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor and vain. He's referring to the Old Testament ceremonial law. The commandments to observe all the Sabbath ordinances, like the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, all these days that they had to observe, and a lot of the laws there that were typical and pointing to the work of Christ. And you had people in the days of Paul that were actually saying Christians had to obey even those commandments. There is, and theologians have recognized the concept of ceremonial law. And Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law in that he was the fulfillment and he was the embodiment of all those pictures. And since he's come, those laws don't have to be obeyed by us in the church. But there's ceremonial law. But when we deal with ethical, moral issues, Old Testament law and New Testament law, all that instruction in my estimation is for us today. That is profitable for us. And it speaks to us. And it should guide our conduct in our lives. Any comments? Like I said, this is very foundational. We have to agree on how we're going to look at the scriptures, don't we? Hopefully, it sounds like we're pretty close. Anyway, that concludes the first lesson. That concludes the first lesson. Let me get, well, the next thing I'd like to look at, what I would look at next week is, again, one of these foundational issues, namely the cultural argument. And I have found, particularly on this issue of the head covering, that that is a real big, big issue. In fact, if you look in what commentators say on 1 Corinthians 11, you'll find that those that say that has nothing to speak to us today, you don't have to do what it says, they will use the cultural argument. They will say that this was for the time of Paul, it had significance back then, but it doesn't speak to us today in the 20th century. So it's a very important issue that we have to consider. And again, it's one of these issues that affects not only an issue like the head covering, but many, many, many others as well. So again, bear with me. We will actually get to the passages on the head covering. But we do have to do these first. So that's what we'll look at next week. We'll consider the cultural argument, and then we'll take it from there. Let's pray. Father, thank you for this evening. Thank you for the time that we can study your word. Lord, we just pray you'd lead us into the truth. I don't want to believe anything that's in error, and I certainly don't want to teach my brothers and sisters anything that's in error. We just want to obey you and do what you have us to do. Lord, just continue to lead us and guide us. Give us a right understanding of how to divide the word of truth. Lord, make the Old Testament precious to us. I believe it has much to teach us that because of the age in which we live, we're not even aware of. I don't know enough of the Old Testament. I've been blessed with the study that I've done. It's been very enlightening, but there's a lot I still need to learn. There's many precious truths that it contains and much instruction for me. So give us that ability, Lord, to look at the Old and the New Testament, to rightly understand it, rightly divide it, to know what applies and to know perhaps what doesn't, and just use all this in our lives to make us like the Lord Jesus Christ. We do thank you for him. We just bless and praise his name this evening, for he is great and he is good, and we would honor him this evening as our Lord and our Savior. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.