Metaphor? Not applicable anymore?

[Channa]

He CCers,

First of all, thanks for reading.
Lately I've been thinking a lot about this and I don't get any good answers.
In the bible there're a lot of metaphors or things that aren't applicable anymore.
For example:
1) Mattheus 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
As protestants we don't take that literally. We say: it's a metaphor. But why? Why do we think it's a metaphor? Do we have a bibleverse that says that we don't have to take it literally?
2) 1 Corinthians 11:4 - Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Why we don't do that anymore? The same for womans,the bible says that womans should have long hair, why aren't these things applicable anymore?
I know that faith isn't about following the little rules, but I'm kinda confused. I've cut my hair a while ago and I haven't ever thought about what God was telling me what to do about my hair. Same as hats. I know that it doesn't really mather after all, but when Jesus prefer us wearing a hat, why nobody wears a hat anymore?

I don't want to attack our religion. bc after all this doesn't matter at all, but I just .. really want an answer

Thanks for reading, again and God Bless,
Channa
​

 

[Jeff_56]

abba(father)'s shalom(peace,joy,righteousness,wholeness,completeness,perfectness) to you and your family in yahshua hamashiach(jesus messiah) Channa,

as it is written in God's Word, the world is degenerating fast. it is getting more and more wicked and evil in every way almost,

just as it was in the days of NOAH, when only 8 people on earth were saved.

There will most certainly be more than 8 in the world saved today, and tomorrow as well, God Willing,

but society completely has moved farther and farther and farther away from JESUS and is OPPOSED TO HIM.

so the only one you can completely and faithfully trust is JESUS. this is more and more true every day.

everything and everyone is subject to testing to see if they or it is something good from God, or something of the 'self' or of the world or worse.

you might be blessed to find those who adhere to YAHWEH'S WORD in GRACE and FAITH in YAHSHUA ---- very few do and few meet them or receive them(us)......

ask the FATHER in HEAVEN to help you every day, to know and to do His Will Trusting Him Completely in Christ Jesus as HE IS FAITHFUL AND TRUE ---- HE will NEVER, NEVER , NEVER disappoint you nor fail you nor let you down.

 

[p_rehbein]

Communion is symbolic of the death Christ paid, the blood He shed for the remission of all sins.........for all.......I won't speak for the RCC, they have a different view of this...........

As for hair cutting................."little rules," simple "little rule" applies (in my opinion) IF you believe it is a sin to cut your hair, then for YOU it is a sin. If you DO NOT believe it to be a sin, then it is not.

 

[Utah]

Two things I know are not metaphors -- God's love and the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

That's as real as it gets!

 

[Channa]

Thanks for the replies! I wanted to add something to my thread, because of this comment >

..."little rules," simple "little rule" applies (in my opinion) IF you believe it is a sin to cut your hair, then for YOU it is a sin. If you DO NOT believe it to be a sin, then it is not.

Ofcourse I didn't mean that little rules don't apply. I just meant that little rules shouldn't be your focus (that's the way I see it)
And another thing Where stands that it the blood and the wine is symbolic?
God Bless!

 

[MarcR]

In Numbers 28, the appropriate offering for various occasions are enumerated along with the (meat) meal offering and drink offering for each. The meal and drink offerings together are known aas the (kiddush) sanctification offering.

When an animal (of the world) was to be sacrificed it had to be sanctified (made ready) for God's use.

During the Babylonian Captivity, the only offering that was available to present to God was worship.

By Rabbinic tradition, the worship on the new moons, Sabbaths, and appointed times of Leviticus 23 was sanctified with the kKddush .

1 Cor 11:23-26
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
KJV

this is my body refers to the meal offering of the kiddush
this is my body refers to the wine offering of the kiddush
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup i.e. at new moons , Sabbaths and appointed times

Jesus was not instituting something new; he was explaining the true significance of the kiddush and how it sanctified the offering.

 

[Elin]

He CCers,

First of all, thanks for reading.
Lately I've been thinking a lot about this and I don't get any good answers.
In the bible there're a lot of metaphors or things that aren't applicable anymore.
For example:
1) Mattheus 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
As protestants we don't take that literally. We say: it's a metaphor. But why?
Why do we think it's a metaphor? Do we have a bibleverse that says that we don't have to take it literally?
2) 1 Corinthians 11:4 - Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Why we don't do that anymore? The same for womans,the bible says that womans should have long hair, why aren't these things applicable anymore?
I know that faith isn't about following the little rules, but I'm kinda confused. I've cut my hair a while ago and I haven't ever thought about what God was telling me what to do about my hair. Same as hats. I know that it doesn't really mather after all, but when Jesus prefer us wearing a hat, why nobody wears a hat anymore?

I don't want to attack our religion. bc after all this doesn't matter at all, but I just .. really want an answer

Thanks for reading, again and God Bless,
Channa

Well, perhaps unchanging principles do not mean unchanging practices.

The divine principle of woman's submission to male authority was practiced with long hair and head veils (1Co 11:3-16).
The principle of modesty was practiced with no braided hair, no gold, no pearls, no expensive clothing (1Tim 2:9).
The prinipcle of prayer (Col 4:2) was practiced by men lifting holy hands (1Tim 2:8), praying with their heads uncovered and with short hair (1Co 11:4, 7, 14).
And the principle of God-created differences between the sexes was practiced by women not wearing men's clothing and vice versa (Dt 22:5).

The best I can offer is that each has to decide if obeying these Biblical principles necessarily means obeying these practices, and that what is seemly, becoming and edifing behavior can change from time to time and does change from culture to culture.

The important thing which is to be focused on is our actual practice of modesty, prayer, God's creation order of submission to the head of the marriage and to the difference between the sexes, in whatever honest way we do that from the heart.

 

[Elin]

He CCers,

First of all, thanks for reading.
Lately I've been thinking a lot about this and I don't get any good answers.
In the bible there're a lot of metaphors or things that aren't applicable anymore.
For example:
1) Mattheus 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
As protestants we don't take that literally. We say: it's a metaphor. But why? Why do we think it's a metaphor?
Do we have a bibleverse that says that we don't have to take it literally?

Regarding the Lord's Supper, I offer this for your consideration.

 

[Sophia]

The term "literal" refers to the "Letter".
We are to have a Spirit led hermeneutic (way of interpreting the message), not a Letter led her hermeneutic.
Sometimes the literal understanding is contradictory, and seems illogical to the physical mind,
but Truth is always in line with the Spirit, and is made clear through the Spirit.

Rather than thinking of the bread and wine as a metaphor, think of them as a physical way to express a spiritual reality.
What Christ was commanding was far more than setting a tradition, as the physical mind desires to take it,
but was Him explaining a deep spiritual truth.
Parables make up a good portion of the teachings of Christ, along with object lessons.

 

[Elin]

The term "literal" refers to the "Letter".
We are to have a Spirit led hermeneutic (way of interpreting the message), not a Letter led her hermeneutic.

The NT usage of "letter" means "Law," it does not mean "literal."
"Literal" is the meaning of "letter" apart from the NT.

The only authority for the literal meaning is the grammar of the Author, who is the Holy Spirit.
There is no setting of the letter (grammar) against the Spirit (its Author).
The "Spirit led" hermeneutic is the "letter led" hermeneutic, for the Spirit wrote it.
The truth of the Spirit is according to his letter (grammar), not apart from his letter.
The Spirit gives us understanding of his letter (grammar), not some other understanding apart from his grammar.

Sometimes the literal understanding is contradictory, and seems illogical to the physical mind,

Correctly understood, the literal understanding according to the letter (grammar) is never contradictory.
"The literal (grammatical) understanding is contradictory" only when it is misunderstood.

but Truth is always in line with the Spirit, and is made clear through the Spirit.

Truth is always in line with the letter (grammar), both authored and made clear by that author,
the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jon4TheCross]

When we eat and drink in remembrance, we should be reminded to eat (partake in His example), and drink (partake in His sufferings) willfully. Present our bodies as a living sacrifice.

I do not know the Biblical definition of short hair...so...I will cut my hair if anyone is offended at whatever length it is (which is love).

In regards to wearing a hat or having the head covered...I will not wear a veil, and for offense sake not a hat when praying...although...

1 Corinthians 11:15-17King James Version (KJV)

15*But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16*But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

17*Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

So...for the sake of love...it is not good to embarass someone in a gathering by singling them out for a hat. The gentiles were only told specifically...

Acts 15:27-29King James Version (KJV)

27*We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28*For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29*That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

 

[SeaBass]

He CCers,

First of all, thanks for reading.
Lately I've been thinking a lot about this and I don't get any good answers.
In the bible there're a lot of metaphors or things that aren't applicable anymore.
For example:
1) Mattheus 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

it's a metaphor. But why? Why do we think it's a metaphor? Do we have a bibleverse that says that we don't have to take it literally?

​

In v29 Jesus said "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

After calling the content of the cup His 'blood' in v28 He calls the content 'fruit of the vine' in v29 and it was this fruit of the vine that they would drink in the Father's kingdom, not literal blood. The content of the cup was fruit of the vine and the content never changed, Jesus used this metaphorical figure of speech when calling it His blood

 

[Angela53510]

How long you wear your hair - cultural. Paul was talking to a specific church in Corinth and showing that congregation the way they should walk. That does not mean it applies to today.

Communion - something that we need to do to remember the UNIVERSAL principle of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. Everyone needs to do it. Although I know of at least two Protestant denominations that do not, I think it helps us focus our minds and spirits on Christ.

 

[Mitspa]

I think in part its a matter of translation and context with the hair issue...

1Co 11:14 Does it not seem natural to you that if a man has long hair, it is a cause of shame to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if any man will not be ruled in this question, this is not our way of doing things, and it is not done in the churches of God.

1Co 11:16 But if any one is inclined to be contentious on the point, we have no such custom, nor have the Churches of God.


I think Paul makes it a matter of custom...That's my reading?

 

[Elin]

I think in part its a matter of translation and context with the hair issue...

1Co 11:14 Does it not seem natural to you that if a man has long hair, it is a cause of shame to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if any man will not be ruled in this question, this is not our way of doing things, and it is not done in the churches of God.

1Co 11:16 But if any one is inclined to be contentious on the point, we have no such custom, nor have the Churches of God.

I think Paul makes it a matter of custom...That's my reading?

Paul seems to be saying more than that.

He links the head covering, or lack thereof, in public worship back to the creation order (vv.8-9)
and the glory of God (1Co 11:3-16), making them a practice of that principle.

His argument is that
man is made in the image of God, and because God has set man at the head of creation, man
represents the glory of the headship and dominion God has over the world; and woman being
made from man in his image reflects the glory of the husband, and is also the image of God
because she is the image of man;
woman was made out of man, in subjection to her husband, and derives her glory from him
out of whom she was made (vv.8-9);
therefore, because she is intended to be in submission to the man, she should do nothing in
the church that looks like she is trying to be equal in authority.

At v. 16, we read: If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--
nor do the churches of God.

Paul states there is no other practice anywhere in the church regarding length of hair and head covering.
Long hair and head covering for women and short hair and uncovered head for men is the only way it is
done in the church.

The practice may be a matter of custom, but Paul is emphatic that the principle of headship and submission is not just a matter of custom, but of command.

 

[Jeff_56]

Thanks for the replies! I wanted to add something to my thread, because of this comment >



Ofcourse I didn't mean that little rules don't apply. I just meant that little rules shouldn't be your focus (that's the way I see it)
And another thing Where stands that it the blood and the wine is symbolic?
God Bless!

more realistically, remember Yahshua says "the words I speak are Spirit, and Life". i.e. not seen, without measure(unable to either be measured or seen physically) , true, reality, in fact more real than physical things that pass away; and NOT what the heresy says. that's VERY important to remember.

 

[Jeff_56]

it is of note that none of the modern (different from God's Word) customs or practices anywhere by the nations, peoples, multitudes or churches
have helped.

in that regard, and other evidence(s), doing what God's Word says to do is best.

even more than that, God says NOT to study and NOT to imitate other peoples or their customs or their ways, NOT to follow after them and NOT to study nor to start serving all or any of the other gods they serve. (and NOT to marry anyone in another (pagan) religion because they will lead you astray to serve other god(s)) .

 

[Mitspa]

Paul seems to be saying more than that.

He links the head covering, or lack thereof, in public worship back to the creation order (vv.8-9)
and the glory of God (1Co 11:3-16), making them a practice of that principle.

His argument is that
man is made in the image of God, and because God has set man at the head of creation, man
represents the glory of the headship and dominion God has over the world; and woman being
made from man in his image reflects the glory of the husband, and is also the image of God
because she is the image of man;
woman was made out of man, in subjection to her husband, and derives her glory from him
out of whom she was made (vv.8-9);
therefore, because she is intended to be in submission to the man, she should do nothing in
the church that looks like she is trying to be equal in authority.

At v. 16, we read: If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--
nor do the churches of God.

Paul states there is no other practice anywhere in the church regarding length of hair and head covering.
Long hair and head covering for women and short hair and uncovered head for men is the only way it is
done in the church.

The practice may be a matter of custom, but Paul is emphatic that the principle of headship and submission is not just a matter of custom, but of command.

Well I would agree, and good exposition on the issue, I was just trying to make a casual remark but it appears you have studied the issue out and have a good understanding ...

 

[Elin]

more realistically, remember Yahshua says "the words I speak are Spirit, and Life". i.e. not seen, without measure(unable to either be measured or seen physically) , true, reality, in fact more real than physical things that pass away; and NOT what the heresy says. that's VERY important to remember.

His words are the Spirit at work producing life.

 

[Elin]

Paul seems to be saying more than that.

He links the head covering, or lack thereof, in public worship back to the creation order (vv.8-9)
and the glory of God (1Co 11:3-16), making them a practice of that principle.

His argument is that
man is made in the image of God, and because God has set man at the head of creation, man
represents the glory of the headship and dominion God has over the world; and woman being
made from man in his image reflects the glory of the husband, and is also the image of God
because she is the image of man;
woman was made out of man, in subjection to her husband, and derives her glory from him
out of whom she was made (vv.8-9);
therefore, because she is intended to be in submission to the man, she should do nothing in
the church that looks like she is trying to be equal in authority.

At v. 16, we read: If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--
nor do the churches of God.

Paul states there is no other practice anywhere in the church regarding length of hair and head covering.
Long hair and head covering for women and short hair and uncovered head for men is the only way it is
done in the church.

The practice may be a matter of custom, but Paul is emphatic that the principle of headship and submission is not just a matter of custom, but of command.

Well I would agree, and good exposition on the issue, I was just trying to make a casual remark

I'm thinking now may be a good time to discuss how this submission of the wife to the husband works out in the practical order.

As the head, the husband can give the wife as much government as he wishes.

In the Christian home of today, I suspect that means husbands are in agreement with the wife calling a lot of the shots on the home front.

Absent mental impairments, when it comes down to something they absolutely cannot agree upon, after the wife makes her case, the head of the marriage makes the final decision, and the wife is to comply with it, trusting God in the matter.

And there is no better way to have God's blessing on the home than to live in obedience to this NT command.