1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Can you explain what you meant when you said this:

"If any don't want to walk according to this, then don't make a big fuss over their refusal, because as a custom it is not a command. Neither the churches, nor we, teach this custom as a command for all to hold."

???

I believe Paul knows of and speaks of, in 1Co11, responses to human instincts. Covering and uncovering, in the woman and man respectively, are proper responses to these instincts, which responses may develope into societal customs/practises. (Some also add the veil, but not as coming from an instinct.) If anyone chooses to ignore their instinct and act contrary to it or a custom of it, they are only acting contrary to it and not to a command of God. The only Bible Paul held in his hand, the OT, didn't command co/unco and Jesus himself hadn't spoken of any such command for the church. Even so, it was seen practised by many nations as a custom. Because a response to an instinct isn't a response to a command of God it then doesn't matter whether it is strictly followed or not, even while acting contrary to the God-given instinct. It is therefore not now a command for the church, unless Paul is somehow seen as commanding now, introducing as command which is based on instinct. It can't be based on the OT which doesn't command it. Paul/God, in my view, should be seen as encouraging the Co/everyone to follow their God-given instincts, to co/unco. But if any don't for whatever reason, then don't make a fuss over their lack of compliance. It is only a proper response to a instinct, not to a command of God.