[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618812]Man, oh man, oh man! I have so much to say in response to what Michael Marlowe has said. But I will not take the time here to repond to every point needing a counter-point. Much of what M.M. has spoken of has been addressed in my commentary, which I refer the reader to.

Anyone with enough patience and fortitude can find a view which shows agreement with their view. You have done so here, with Michael Marlowe, a well respected expert. The question still is, is his view God's view?

**
https://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html
**

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

If we consult Nature, we find that it constantly puts visible differences between the male and the female of every species, and it also gives us certain natural inclinations when judging what is proper to each sex.

M.M. is thus showing himself unfamiliar with what is very, very common the world over - the mouse and rat. Seeing a lone mouse or rat in their natural state would make it difficult to determine their sex, without an up close examination. It is not possible to say this of humans when without clothes - their creation-natural condition. Seeing a female and male rat or mouse alongside one another, might show some physical differences suggesting a sex difference, which might also be explained away by maturity. One could be slightly larger than another by maturity or by sex. Sex can only be determined by close examination. The exception to this is a pregnant, lactating mouse, obviously female. While what M.M. says is true in a general sense it is not true in every case. General appeals such as this should be true for every case, as he suggests. It isn't so with proofs from nature. If Paul appeals to nature in this sense, which he doesn't, then what was seen in the then commonly seen lion, teaches opposite to what he is believed to teach. Male humans would then have a larger mane than females. Paul uses 'nature' in another sense. Check the gk lex for this other sense.

(16) So Paul uses an analogy, comparing the woman’s headcovering to her long hair, which is thought to be more natural for a woman.

He says 'which is thought'. Thought by God or Man? In the context it is Man. And why is it thought by Man to be more natural? God gives Man his nature. Within this God-given nature are tendencies to do things a certain way. Ge3.16 points this out for both women and men. It thus is a scripturally backed concept. We today call these tendencies 'instincts'. Are you trying to prove my point by presenting such evidence? Apparently so.


Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming,

it interferes with vigorous physical work,

Many women are insulted by this. It is often said that women outwork men on any day. 'A man's work is sun to sun but a woman's work is never done.' That they don't usually do the heavy work that men are more suited to (its then left by women for men to do because they are better fitted to do it) they still outwork most men and do it with long hair. Men's nature steers them away from long hair from the start, it's not the work which steers men from having long hair. The same adjustments women make to work with long hair could be made by men. Its an empty argument that is made here, that this nature proves what God is said to be commanding. First show that the the Bible as a whole is commanding a veil, then deal with specifics such as work.

and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight.

But he makes another empty argument. Men aren't stupid and they know enough to tie it up, if they know they will be fighting. Duh. People reach far and wide for explanations such as this because the Bible doesn't present in plain view, what they contend it does. Instead of reaching far and wide for explanations such as this, they should adjust their view to fit what the Bible says, and prevent a need to overreach.

It is therefore unmanly by nature.

By God-given nature man has the testoterone which urges him to be physical when fighting. Women fight mostly with words because that is their nature. The nature of Man, with its instincts, pushes people to act in a certain way. Women like long hair. Men like short hair. But we are a long way from seeing that God commands that Man should do as natures pushes. Some say 1Co11 commands a veil. The whole of scripture does not present this view.


But a woman’s long hair is her glory. Here again is the word δόξα, used opposite ἀτιμία “disgrace,” in the sense of “something bringing honor.” Long and well-kept hair brings praise to a woman because it contributes to her feminine beauty. The headcovering, which covers the head like a woman’s hair, may be seen in the same way. Our natural sense of propriety regarding the hair may therefore be carried over to the headcovering.

Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says “her hair is given to her for a covering” he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning.

And we wait for a line of reasoning to back up this claim. And it doesn't come. This man must be a mentor of Esaias, who often does the same.

There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman’s head should be covered.

Agreed, when seen coming from the instinct within women. But where are the commands, if believed to be from God? Only a misinterpreted 1Co11 contains such commands. The rest of the Bible doesn't show these commands. Therefore, 1Co11 should be interpreted in such a way to agree with the whole of scripture.

And if there is something especially suitable about a woman’s head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair.

But why compare something which Man has concocted, the veil, with that which God has concocted, hair? The reasons they exist are so diverse they should not be compared. The veil may have been first thought of by a jealous man's idea that his woman should hide the beautiful hair she has from view while in public. Or instead, first thought of by a good woman's realization that her beautiful hair attracts unwanted romantic attention which she wants to avoid because of problems it might cause in her relationship. Whatever the reason was for the first veil, we may never know why. God creates Man with hair, whose only biological purpose is adornment. These two diverse sources prevent comparison between them. It thus prevents a woman's long hair from signalling to her that she should also wear a veil because of similarity. They aren't similar from their origins, though similar by location - the head. That is all they have in common.

Who says that 'there is something especially suitable about a woman's headcovering'? If God then we would see such indication by command throughout scripture. What we do see is the covering used as a custom of Man, not a custom of God. God never commands the keeping of the veil until a misinterpreted 1Co11. The whole of scripture, other than 1Co11, shows the veil as a custom of Man. Period. Therefore, 'there is something especially suitable about a woman's headcovering' comes out of Man's thinking and not God's.

But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also!

Because this makes no sense we know Paul doesn't actually want it done. Doing so would 'violate' both the nature of woman and the custom of the covering. Paul would prefer Co Christian's compliance with both. Because a veil is out of sync with the majority of scripture as a command, it then shouldn't be seen as a command all women of all time should feel a need to comply with. He only is calling the Co Christian woman to comply with cultural norms of their time. For example, let's look at modern day sware words. The b,c,f, etc, words are not found in the Bible yet are still considered to be culturally inappropriate words, and Christians call them sin words. Technically, they are not sin words from God's perspective, because he has not detailed them as such in his Word. Paul would today still say that these words are wrong to be used, though not technically detailed in the scripture. Yet, in another non-English speaking nation which has words which sound like the En sware words, Paul would not tell them to not use these words. To that language they are not sware words. Thus, some cultural actions are wrong for some but not for others. The same with the veil. Paul asks for the culturally appropriate to be done. Don't as a Co Christian show you side with those rebels in society who are against every cultural norm. History says that the Co culture was under attack by a cultural revolution.

It is an error to seek to formulate a view by concentrating on just some verses, in this instance, 1Co11, on a subject which covers all the times of Man's existence. The whole of scripture and life of Man should be examined to help formulate a view which addresses all the facts without contradiction. The veil view addresses and makes many good points but its view does not satisfy all the facts. It has holes which a God-provided view should not. God would provide a view without holes, agreed?