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

[Esaias]

"It should also be pointed out that even in Greco-Roman society, where long hair on a woman and short(er) hair on a man was the general norm, there were occasional outliers."

And yes, I did not forget about the Nazarite, but as that was already discussed I didn't want to belabor the point.

[Esaias]

Now, much has been said about Paul's basis for his teaching concerning headcovering. I have pointed out repeatedly that his stated basis is not social norms or customs, but rather Divinely established hierarchy. Yet, Paul does indeed mention social norms or customs in his remarks about "nature" and long hair. Some take this to mean that Paul's basis is in fact social norms, that is, "nature".

But this is error.

The basis or foundation for Paul's doctrine is not "nature" as used in the latter part of his teaching, but God's order of Creation. Nature (sociological nature) is brought in as a "second witness" or supportive illustration of the verity of his doctrine:

1 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

After giving his doctrine, and the foundational reasons for his instruction, he then says "Judge in yourselves" whether what he says is correct or not. He is saying the correctness of doctrine can be determined not merely by the simple "because I say so" as an apostle, but by nature itself. He then remarks how nature teaches long hair on a man is a shame, but on a woman it is a glory. He is saying that nature correlates with what he teaches. Thus, the lesson from nature is a supporting illustration of his doctrine. But being a supportive illustration, it is not and cannot be the foundation or basis of the doctrine. It is supportive.

The lesson from nature is not that men should pray uncovered and women should pray covered, but that long hair on a man is a shame and on a woman it is a glory. Thus, he concludes, "her hair is given her for a covering". That is to say, nature (again, sociological nature) is following the same basic pattern that he himself is teaching. He does not appeal to the sociological nature of headcovering in liturgical actions, but in regard to general hair length and the amount of "covering" males and females have in "nature". Thus, the lesson from nature is an analogy, where two things are compared because of their similarity. An analogy is not the very thing it is analogous too, obviously.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The lesson from nature is not that men should pray uncovered and women should pray covered, but that long hair on a man is a shame and on a woman it is a glory. Thus, he concludes, "her hair is given her for a covering". That is to say, nature (again, sociological nature) is following the same basic pattern that he himself is teaching. He does not appeal to the sociological nature of headcovering in liturgical actions, but in regard to general hair length and the amount of "covering" males and females have in "nature". Thus, the lesson from nature is an analogy, where two things are compared because of their similarity. An analogy is not the very thing it is analogous too, obviously.

It should also be pointed out that, contrary to some people's ideas (not expressed here in the thread, but the ideas are indeed out there), the practice of headcovering does NOT mean long hair on a man and short hair on a woman is perfectly fine. If nature teaches us what Paul says it teaches us, then it is (sociologically) unnatural for a man to have long hair and for a woman to have short hair. Before discussing the lesson from nature, he asserts that it is in fact a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. That was true then, it is true now.

Does the fact that today's society feels no shame in such Biblically shameful things mean they are not shameful anymore? No, of course not.

The Bible is God's Word to mankind. It is given to Israel so that the Church may teach all nations. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. When the Bible declares that something is natural, even sociologically natural, then it is just that. And societies that operate contrary to Biblical notions of nature are thereby identified as un-natural. And, they need to be corrected.

So, wearing a headcovering doesn't mean it's cool for a woman to chop her hair off, for example.

I would also point out that, even though the Bible here clearly teaches that long hair on a woman is good, and on a man is bad, the Bible does not say anything about hair length and "angels assisting or answering prayers", nor does it say anything about whether a person's prayers will be heard or not depending on their hair length. We should think of natural hair, not magic hair.

[Amanah]

Thank you Elder Esaias. Great indepth explanation.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

1 Corinthians 2:14, we should seek a Spiritual understanding scripture:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them, because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters].

The two verses referencing knowing by instinct depict a negative leading to destruction because instincts are irrational and unreasoning:

2 Peter 2:12 - But these [false teachers], like unreasoning animals, [mere] creatures of instinct, born to be captured and destroyed, reviling things they do not understand, will also perish in their own corruption [in their destroying they will be destroyed],

Jude 1:10 - But these men sneer at anything which they do not understand; and whatever they do know by [mere] instinct, like unreasoning and irrational beasts—by these things they are destroyed.

1 Corinthians 11 discusses the importance of maintaining proper order and respect within the church, particularly regarding head coverings during worship.

2 Peter 2:12 and Jude 1:10 describe individuals who are driven by instinct rather than spiritual understanding, leading to their downfall. In contrast, 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 encourages believers to judge or discern for themselves what is proper and respectful in worship, using their spiritual understanding to guide them, not irrational instincts.

A spiritual understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 recognizes that:

* Spiritual discernment is essential: Believers should strive to understand and apply biblical principles, rather than simply following instincts or cultural norms.

* Respect and order matter: The passage emphasizes the importance of maintaining proper order and respect within the church, particularly in worship.

The two verses referencing knowing by instinct depict a negative leading to destruction because instincts are irrational and unreasoning:

Just to make sure we are on the same page, plz define what you mean by instincts. Twice I've provided the definition I use, and now, here we are, with you using a use of instinct which I don't use - I presume.

I ask for this because the instinct a bird has to migrate, is God-given. It is not irrational, but necessary. Does God install irrational instinct features in either birds or humans? I would not describe such a feature as unreasoning. It is a God-given feature, installed by God and describing it as unreasoning is describing God as being likewise. What motivates your desire to describe God so?

2 Peter 2:12 - But these [false teachers], like unreasoning animals, [mere] creatures of instinct, born to be captured and destroyed, reviling things they do not understand, will also perish in their own corruption [in their destroying they will be destroyed],

Again, if you see a comparison with the instincts described in these verses as being similar to the mothering instinct, then what can be said? Mothering instincts do not render women as corrupt, nor fit to be destroyed. This leads to thinking these are two separate kind of instincts and the the need to define which kind. You really need to provide a definition of what you think these verses say about the instinct. The instincts I describe as seen in Ge3.16 are a woman having an instinctive desire to plz her husband. It also does not corrupt, nor render her fit to be destroyed. The instinct which humans have to cover the head when shamed also does not corrupt, nor render someone fit to be destroyed.

You do not provide a comparison which is apples to apples.

1 Corinthians 11 discusses the importance of maintaining proper order and respect within the church, particularly regarding head coverings during worship.

Followers of the instinct view do not present as Christians who are disorderly or disrespectful.

2 Peter 2:12 and Jude 1:10 describe individuals who are driven by instinct rather than spiritual understanding, leading to their downfall. In contrast, 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 encourages believers to judge or discern for themselves what is proper and respectful in worship, using their spiritual understanding to guide them, not irrational instincts.

Are what you saying that Christians should not allow any instinctive forces to be at work in their life? Why does God install them if God instructs to ignore them. Does not compute.

* Spiritual discernment is essential: Believers should strive to understand and apply biblical principles, rather than simply following instincts or cultural norms.

Spiritual discernment and applying Biblical principles are employed in discerning what the scripture says to decipher the instinct view. This should be obvious to those who have read it. Why would you imply otherwise?

Thinking through the responses you give would result in replies which are more logical.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I ask for this because the instinct a bird has to migrate, is God-given. It is not irrational, but necessary. Does God install irrational instinct features in either birds or humans? I would not describe such a feature as unreasoning. It is a God-given feature, installed by God and describing it as unreasoning is describing God as being likewise. What motivates your desire to describe God so?

Instincts are irrational because they are not based in the reason of the particular creature. I think you misuse the term irrational here. To say instincts are irrational does not mean that the instinct leads to an unreasonable action. Rather, it means that the instinct arises from a faculty other than the reason. The bird does not migrate because it reasons that it is better to do so. Describing instincts as irrational does not at all imply that God is irrational. Again, you have misunderstood the meanings and usages of the term. Jerking your hand away from a hot stove burner when you accidentally touch it is an instinctive reaction. It is not based on the reason, you don't touch the hot stove, then reason your way through a selection of different courses of action, determine what is best, then act on it. Rather, your nervous system bypasses your reason to cause an involuntary muscular action to protect your hand. It is in this manner that instincts are spoken of as "irrational" by pretty much everyone who discusses the difference between instinct and reason.

[Amanah]

Natural law is rooted in the idea that there is a God-given order to society, which can be discerned through human reasoning. This concept is closely tied to the notion of "the law of nature and nature's God," as mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence.

This perspective posits that natural law is based on the inherent design and purpose of human nature, which is oriented towards the common good and the flourishing of individuals and society. Natural law is thus seen as a moral framework that guides human behavior and promotes the well-being of all people. (Romans 1:20)

In contrast, instinctual behavior is driven solely by self-interest and immediate gratification. When individuals prioritize their own desires and interests above all else, life can indeed become "nasty, brutish, and short," as Thomas Hobbes famously described the state of nature. (Romans 1:21-23)

Without a moral framework like natural law, human societies can devolve into chaos and conflict, with individuals pursuing their own interests at the expense of others. This is precisely why natural law is essential for the establishment and maintenance of civil society.

By recognizing and adhering to natural law, individuals can transcend their instinctual, self-centered tendencies and work towards the common good. This, in turn, enables the creation of a just and harmonious society, where individuals can flourish and reach their full potential.

A great example of this concept can be seen in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul discusses the issue of head coverings for men and women during worship. When appealing to "nature" (Greek: φύσις, phusis), Paul is referencing the created order, rather than instinctual or brutish behavior.

In verse 14, Paul asks rhetorically, "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?" Here, Paul is appealing to the natural order of creation, which provides a moral framework for understanding what is proper and fitting for human behavior.

By referencing "nature," Paul is drawing on the idea that the created order reflects God's design and intentions for human life. This approach assumes that there is a moral and spiritual dimension to the natural world, which can inform and guide human behavior.

In contrast, brutish instincts or mere naturalism would suggest that human behavior is solely determined by instinct, desire, or self-interest, without reference to a higher moral or spiritual order.

Paul's appeal to "nature" in this context reflects his broader theological framework, which sees the natural world as reflecting God's character and purposes. This approach provides a moral and spiritual foundation for understanding human behavior and relationships, including issues like head coverings in worship.

Natural law provides a moral foundation for human society, one that is grounded in the God-given order of creation and accessible through human reasoning and confirms 1 Corinthians 11 as a command rather than a suggestion.

Humanity has proven that society cannot function without the rule of law which is based on God's commandments, which is why Romans 3:23-25 concludes that all have sinned fall short of God's glory. Mankind apart from God's commandments (the rule of law) follow their instinctual nature and live lives that are "nasty, brutish, and short."

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There was something about chatgpt in your quote block, which I never said anything about, and which cannot be quoted here because apparently the forum designers wanted everyone to have the opportunity to garble the quote function like Don has, so whatever that was about will not be responded to.

Esaias, I now provide for your convenience said chatGPT quote, (from its location in post 190) should you ever change your mind.

Quote by Don from chatGPT from post 190:

1) I asked chatgpt the following about about Esaias's statement: What does this mean: "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God."

Its unbiased answer: The statement "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God" means that the speaker is clarifying or emphasizing that their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 applies specifically to the "new covenant church of God" and not to others outside of this group.

2) I asked Meta Ai the following about about Esaias's statement: What does this mean: "I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God."

Its unbiased answer: This statement means that the speaker believes 1 Corinthians 11 (a chapter from the Bible) contains a command, but this command is specifically intended for the "new covenant church of God".

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I would like to know, does anyone here (besides Don) actually know what Don's actual understanding of 1 Cor 11 is? Has Don actually stated exactly what he thinks Paul is telling the church to do? And exactly what we, as Christians, should be doing with 1 Cor 11? The most I could get out of him after sifting through all the cavils and quibbles and bits was something to the effect that if anyone doesn't want to do what Paul is saying to do it's no big deal, nobody should "make a fuss" about it?

Good question, and thx for asking it. While having written a commentary (see link in post1) which uses many, many words, it doesn't condense into one neat little package such as Esaias and others would want.

Here's the first time to do so in a nutshell: 1 Paul wants the Christian to maintain the customs of their society. (Obviously, never to violate scripture to do so) 2. As Paul has implied by few words, he wants the Christian to follow the God-instilled instincts (but not as by command). Those doing so will be seen as giving proper respect for God's order of authority by regarding symbols, which is what Paul asks for.

Careful consideration of the instincts view will not show a view which violates scripture, logical reasoning, or history, or what is seen in Man's life but showing facts of scripture and life and OT history in congruency. No holes to trip in, such as are shown in the veil or uncut long views.

Plz note: While studying for personal want over 24 months a few years ago, some of the thoughts shown in my commentary popped into my mind out of nowhere. I believed this popping to be the work of the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ. I did not make active search for thoughts to be purposely opposed to other views, but come they did. Although the instinct view contradicts previously-formed views, they are not anti or un scriptural.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I discovered recently that if you put lipstick on a pig, it will absolutely strut down the modeling runway with all the pizazz it can muster.

This is hilarious and insiteful at the same time. Thx for the laugh of the day.