[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618773]

Part2/2

Paul taught a distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant, illustrated in the fact that Moses put a veil over his face to hide the glory of God, whereas we in the new covenant see the glory of God unveiled. Thus, the pattern is established that God's glory was concealed in the old covenant system of things

But, but, but...the glory of God was seen by millions, leading the Jew on the Exodus journey. Everyday of Atonement the glory of God descended. At the dedication of the first Temple the priest's could not minister because the glory filled the Temple. Not a lot of hiding of glory going on here, is there? The glory of the NT was shown to a select few to confirm to them the revelation of a new way, the NT, when the Lord was transfigured before them. This glory-treasure the NT believer has in earthen vessells, hidden from view. It is an internal glory which is joy unspeakable but not witnessed by the eye. These small portions of the Word appear to speak opposite to that which you say. Certainly the NT way is the greater way but the glory is hidden fromeyes but not the understanding, which those who receive the Light see in their understanding.

but is now open and revealed in the new covenant system of things. With that in mind, we look to the commands regarding the priests under the old covenant, and we see this:

Exodus 28:4 KJV
And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

The old covenant priests wore a head covering when they officiated. This is consistent with Paul's reasons given in 1 Cor 11, that the man's head ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying because he is the image and glory of God. Under the old covenant, the glory of God was concealed, thus the priests wore a headcovering. Under the new covenant, the glory of God is not concealed, thus men are to be uncovered, in order to symbolise this new covenant reality.

I hope people aren't laughing at what you just printed. You've just stated that there is an exception for the priest to do contrary to the principle which God had started in the Beginning, by a command of God. This fanciful exposition should be buried because it is out of harmony with what is seen in the Beginning. The Beginning reveals principles which are the foundations which all other thoughts should be compared to. You know this to be true.

Rather this. Paul speaks of that which hangs down the head, v4, the Gk defn of the En word covered. If the mitre really is as some depict it, it does not hang down the head. It sits atop the head. This doesn't consistently show disagreement with the thought that something which hangs down the head is a dishonouring event. Priests do nothing dishonouring when obeying God to wear a mitre because they do not cover by 'hangs down the head' as shamed dishonouring people do.

We also see this in the old testament scriptures:

Isaiah 47:1-3 KJV
Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. [2] Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. [3] Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

Here, part of shaming a woman includes "uncovering (her) locks", that is, removing the headcovering. It is thus seen that in the old testament scriptures, it was inappropriate or "unseemly or uncomely" for a woman to have her head uncovered so that her hair was on full display. This is consistent with Paul asking "is it comely for a woman to pray uncovered" etc.

Sure. Agreed to be true in a cultural/custom context, but not in a spiritual commanding context. The virgin daughter of Babylon had no contact with any command of God requiring a woman to veil herself. Even if the Jewess of that time was commanded to wear a veil (she wasn't ever) the Babylonian wouldn't have known of this command. The argument you put forward, as showing support that Paul commands Christians to veil, is specious because it refers only to the pagan Babylonian. Do better in the arguments you put forward because they don't put you in good light.

These are two old testament examples that are CONSISTENT with Paul's teaching concerning the headcovering practice of the churches of God.

I'll have to disagree that consistency has been maintained.

Jews don't follow the old testament, they follow the Talmud.

And the interpretations of the Talmud aren't taken from the Torah, are they, said facetiously? You here use a smoke screen. But why do you dodge the question? I presume it to be because you have no answer, otherwise you would have given it already. My answer to this simple question is: The Jew, along with many other nations in many times, practise co/unco, not from a command of God which isn't there (especially true for any pagan nation) but from following the impulses of God-given instincts. But, said facetiously, this might be too simple (grey) for people who desire things to be complicated by commands (wanting black and white rules). You've heard of the K.I.S.S. principle, no doubt. Sometimes the simplist explanation is the one to hold. I do, in the instinct view.

Besides which Jews practice covered heads in synagogue for both genders, and that is a practice they picked up AFTER the first century AD as a response to Christian practice.

Are you saying that the Jewess started a covering tradition in AD, in response to a Christian-woman-covering practise? It sounds like this is what you say by your few words. If so, then the co/unco tradition the OT woman practised, which you say v2 refers to, was dropped at sometime but taken up again in response to the Christian woman's practise. Is this what you now say? Whats your point by making this point? You appear to be lost in a rabbit hole.

There is another thread on the forum concerning headcoverings where I detailed the history of Jewish, Greek, and christian practice of headcovering. You should look it up.

Plz provide a reference.

That is not a "logical explanation", it is only your hypothesis.

Well, hypothesises can be logical explanations. Why do you waste ink with things like this.

But in any event, it would be ILLOGICAL for you to say the practice Paul taught is based on "God-instilled instincts" while you also hold to the idea that people need not actually follow said God-instilled instincts.

It is logical to do so, and not illogical to do so, when using the understanding that God-given instincts are not commands of God though God-instilled. Instincts should not to be understood to be commands because they aren't authoritatively defined. Though ill-defined, when followed by the majority they become unwritten laws which should be heeded. Is it wise to act contrary to what the nature of Man tells him to do? If yes then we see it expressed in laws of abortion which 'OK's' people to act contrary to their instincts/nature. Man should follow and live by the God-given nature they have been given. It works best for all, if all follow that which God 'suggests by instincts'. Still, instincts aren't laws which must be followed at all times. God instills a mothering instinct in women, which some reject. God does not condemn them as sinners though acting contrary to God's intentions. God in fact is described as closing up the womb of some, contrary to his stated intentions that Man should multiply. If it is true that God instills co/unco within the nature of Man, which many apostolics contend is true, then he is seen commanding the Nazarite man and woman to act contrary to that which is natural for them to do. The Lord thus demonstrates that instincts are not commands which all must follow under threat of punishment for disobedience. The Lord thus commands contrary to the instincts which many apostolics say are God-instilled. It therefore is ok to not live by the instinct, though God has instilled them. If not so, then the conclusions of apostolics who think that God has instilled as a 'universal principle' (see the writings of David K. Bernard, among others) the desire to co/unco, then these must be re-examined and modified. God does not err in commanding the Nazirite to act contrary to the instincts he has instilled. Better to adjust wrong conclusions of the Nazirite than see God contradicting himself.

What you are saying in effect is that it is unnatural to do otherwise than as Paul taught.

Correct. I have said this and it concludes correctly what I have stated.

Therefore, to be consistent with your own statements, you would support Paul's teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

Yes. And I try to be consistent and have already said that Paul teaches that people should follow their instinctive impulses. But should some choose not to, not to make a big deal of it because instincts aren't commands. Because responses to instincts aren't ruled by time, I don't see co/unco to be only for times of worship. The instincts which bring co/unco are active 24/7 and should be yielded to 24/7. What Paul speaks of in v4,5 as a specific example, doesn't prevent the principles he speaks of from being active in other times. v4,5 is a specific case of a general principle. The specific does not rule over the general. This goes along with my contention that he speaks of both cultural and spiritual things in this same passage. v4,5 is mostly aimed at the cultural aspect. But God cannot be divorced from cultural aspects because God is involved in every atom of human existence.