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

[Evang.Benincasa]

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?

You are correct in you assessment of Don’s interpretation of 1st Corinthians 11. Don, believes that Paul’s ideas concerning a covering is his own opinion during the first century. Paul also lets the reader know that if they have any argument over this issue they are to forget about what Paul has said and continue on their merry way. Anyone following Don’s postings would draw the conclusion that Don, believes that God also gives opinions to mankind. That the Bible maybe followed to be a good citizen if you happen to stumble upon a copy. If not God will grant you a pass and if you have good instincts, and you are a “right living” man you will be saved. Whatever that may look like. Don is apparently the judge. Don, is the result of years of being in a religion which he felt was unkind, uncaring, unloving, and most of all didn’t give him rule over others. For this cause he took his show on the road to straighten out the ecclesiastical Neanderthals. When he gets push back, he gets upset, and starts to name call. But, since he is the closest to the litter box, he doesn’t smell it. Then projects his own bad behavior on others. Accusing them of his own behavior. I could only imagine what his eschatology looks like, since most teach eschatology with artistic license, Don’s rendition would be a dumpster fire. Like everything else in Don’s bag of ecclesiastical magic tricks. Jesus and the Apostles just want to narrow the way, and close the door to destruction. While broadening and swinging wide the door to eternal life. While carnal immature human emotion may swoon towards this idea. The mature spiritual mind cannot understand how a deity would be so unfair. Don, isn’t the first to present the Gospel of Inclusion, and isn’t alone in his stinking thinking. But, has a lot of company in the world today.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Quote:Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Paul is seen to say v15, But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering., it causes conflicts (holes) with the veil view (which says the veil is the cover). A view should have a way to explain away this hole. Thus far, the holders of the veil view, Esaias and Amanah, have not done so. Silence is all that is heard. Why do these two, who usually have many words, why have they remained silent? Because their view does not have a come-back because it doesn't allow it.

What I have said is that 'Esaias is a giant on AFF'. This disagrees with the thought that I think it is his 'first rodeo'. Esaias thinks by using such smear tactics that he gets points against me with readers, because of his status as a giant.

Nice try, but this fails to be convincing. Every language has multiple words to refer to the same thing. Sea, the deep, ocean, the pond. But plz expand your commentary further and you may yet convince.

Well perhaps. Perhaps, to start with, you would now also give a lesson from nature, where nature teaches Man to pray or prophesy. The point of saying this is, your point, which is a good point, is read into the text by reading between the lines. There is nothing wrong with reading between the lines, for we all do it when we hope to make sense of what we read. Your point then may not be Paul's point, when it is an interpretation. Secondly, did this illustration show nature teaching Eve that her long hair had showed her that she should veil? Where was this veil before the invention of clothing, when she was naked. The illustration is reasonable to believe because it is good logic, but it does not apply to every situation, like Eve. A view which is God's view should apply to every situation. God does not make views with holes such as this. Therefore, the reading between the lines point is suspect because it doesn't jive with what is seen in the Beginning. It should be discarded. Therefore it is not the very same thing being commanded. That which illustrates something is not the very thing being illustrated. Paul is saying that since nature provides a "covering" for the woman this shows that nature is in alignment with and supportive of the need for the woman to have a spiritual covering when praying or prophesying. Except for Eve. Not that since nature provides a covering for the woman she doesn't need a spiritual covering.

Again, perhaps. Again, good logic, which fits the veil view well. What should be said instead is also logical, which is: That the OT hasn't commanded women (who should be showing respect for God's order of authority) to have a veil, which then shows the practice of veiling by Jews to be as a custom (which many nations far from God also held to. Has nature also shown these idolatrous nations the illustration from God, that long hair teaches them the veil? Not very likely, is it?) These two logical things in consideration, lead people with normal logic, like you and I, to choose which? The one which makes most sense, in light of both life and scripture.

What Paul does when referring to prayer and prophesy is showing a specific example of a general principle. One specific example does not over-rule that the general is also applied elsewhere. In the case of the veil, with the logic shown in the previous paragraph, it should lead to it not to be seen as commanding the veil. Paul is showing their custom, generally believed to be for public places applies to a church setting. Saying it applies to church (the specific) does not negate that it should apply to all places (the general). Paul wants them to follow the custom but doesn't command them to, because, though it is expected that all should follow customs, customs should not be seen as commands. They are only strong suggestions of society of how things should be.

Can 1Co11 be interpreted as commanding the veil? Yes it can, but is more logical to see it does not. That Paul does not command faces the facts in a better way. In the passage, Paul also uses a word the Gk women have used for 100s of years, uncut long hair. Some say that this shows Paul commanding all Christian women to have uncut hair. That which has been a custom is now said to be a command. This is also illogical. It shows God turning a custom, which many other nations also held to, into a command. Does not compute. Instead, a command would be added and the custom kept.


4. 1 Corinthians 11:5 KJV
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Again, you have shown logic which is impossible to argue against because it is good logic. But instead, what should be done first is to examine Paul's relationship with the OT, the only Bible he has and loves. It has made him who he is. What, from the OT, shows anything which leads Paul to the thought that God would command the veil? Answer: nothing. It does not command the veil. Logical arguments made about what Paul says about 1Co11 should first lay, as a foundation stone, what all other arguments could build on/agree with. First things first, and this foundation stone should be seen to come before other arguments. What is actually seen, is about there being no command: in the Beginning, in Age of Conscience, the Law. This should be part of this foundation stone because the OT is Paul's basis for his 1Co11 thoughts. After this is laid, then build on/find logical arguments which are in agreement with the OT/the foundation stone. The veil view turns things upside down, using its microscopic view of v5,6. It says v5,6 is the foundation stone which Paul uses, for the veil view. This is poor hermeneutics. The OT is the foundation stone of the NT, not the other way around.


5. 1 Corinthians 11:6 KJV
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Agreed. Again your logic is impeccable and no one should argue against it. Any who do are suspect. Paul, in my opinion, here brings together two things which history shows Co society held dear - the veil and long hair. He facetiously tells the Co women the impropriety of not keeping to both things which the majority hold dear. He does this, contrary to what you might say, because the veil and long hair are customs, not commands. Paul wants a keeping of the custom. The difference between your view and my view is: You interpret the veil as a command, which is out of sync with the OT. In a basic sense we are in agreement here. Paul wants Co women to veil.


The argument that "her hair is given her for a covering" is an old objection to the apostolic headcovering, which EVERY advocate of the headcovering is quite familiar with. The idea that "silence is their only response because blah blah blah" is quite silly. Don thinks this is some kind of "gotcha" moment, but that is because Don has apparently never encountered anyone who agrees with Paul on the issue of the headcovering.

. It had not been addressed in depth by me because the majority of apostolics hold to the uncut long view. My commentary was already of considerable length. But it had been touched on lightly. If it was overlooked, it was either because Don's post formatting is horrible Esaias doesn't ignore any detail, wanting to make me look bad, thinking the non-thinkers will hold it against the instincts view. That non-thinkers read AFF may be another fallacy Esaias holds. and doesn't contribute to reading everything he types, or else because his fundamental premises are so obviously wrong that it doesn't require exhaustive refutation of every minute detail of his ramblings.

Again we agree. But, plz show a command for the veil in the Beginning, where the very first steps were taken (in which direction?) to shut me up. This you cannot do. Sorry to point out that your own good logic doesn't support you when applied at the Beginning. Plz come over to the instinct view, which is in agreement with your own logic. Take a sip of the water which is clear see-through, showing agreement of the facts of the Beginning, the Age of Conscience, the Law, and when interpreted properly, the NT and life. It is clear from Beginning to End. Take this first step today.

Reader, plz note the multiple times I've shown I agree with Esaias. He is a brilliant, knowledgeable man, who is much more of everything than I, but who finds it difficult to say he agrees with others.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Reader, plz note the multiple times I've shown I agree with Esaias. He is a brilliant, knowledgeable man, who is much more of everything than I, but who finds it difficult to say he agrees with others.

Well, I tried to quote a part of your post, to reply to it and provide deeper investigation, but unfortunately, I cannot actually quote it because of your formatting.

[Esaias]

So, going off memory, since i can't actually quote the relevant part, it seems that Don is asserting that Paul is on the one hand instructing the Corinthians to practice the veiling of women while they are praying or prophesying, but on the other hand he is not 'commanding" anything, therefore there is no obligation being imposed upon the Christian in 1 Cor 11.

It seems to me that this is oxymoronic. If Paul is telling the Corinthians to do something, then he is "commanding" them to do something. So he can't be telling them to do something, while simultaneously telling them "do or do not, it doesn't matter". Because if it didn't matter, then why bring it up in the first place?

Also, in reading 1 Corinthians 11, it sure seems like Paul is establishing what can be called "universal truths". That is, Paul establishes as true certain things, that were true then, and are true today. They were true in Corinth, and they are true in Dallas, and everywhere else.

1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

This was true then, it is true now. It was true there, and it is true here.

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 KJV
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

This is a conclusion he draws from the previous truth. The condition is stated in verse 3, and the conclusion that results from the condition is stated in verses 4 and 5. The condition results necessarily in the conclusion. In Corinth in the first century, the condition was true, therefore the conclusion was true. Guess what? The condition is still true today, even in Texas. Therefore the conclusion is likewise true. That is to say, since the head of every man is still Christ, and the head of the woman is still the man, and the head of Christ is still God, then it follows that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered still dishonours his head, and every woman praying or prophesying uncovered still dishonours her head.

Paul's conclusions in verses 4 and 5 are asserted as being true. Paul does not attempt to "prove" them, he simply asserts them. Now, if we think of Paul as a mere man with no apostolic authority and not inspired by the Holy Ghost, then we can dismiss his conclusion as merely the unproven assertions of a nobody, with no authority. However, if we believe Paul to be an apostle, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, then his assertive conclusion is the assertion and conclusion of the Holy Ghost, and thus of God Almighty Himself.

Everything else in the apostolic teaching in 1 Cor 11 concerning head covering follows from this base. Since the base is still valid, then the instruction is still valid. It is unequivocally true that every man praying or prophesying today with his head covered dishonours his head, and every woman praying or prophesying today with her head uncovered dishonours her head.

Paul does not state as the condition or basis of his doctrine any supposed "customs" or "instincts" or "traditions of the pagan Greek culture". Rather, the basis for his doctrine is the assertion in verse 3 concerning a divinely ordained hierarchy of headship. Since a God-ordained hierarchy of headship is not dependent on any social culture, but instead flows from the will of God Himself for His people, then Paul's teaching is not to be viewed as him simply affirming a continuation of a pagan Greek cultural practice, but rather he is CORRECTING ERRORS in practice by pointing the Christians to the true and correct Divinely ordained practice. The fact that Paul introduces the discussion with "I am glad you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you" indicates he is discussing an apostolic church ORDINANCE. The fact he begins verse 3 with "But I would have you know..." indicates he is CORRECTING the church's failure to practice THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CORRECTLY. Namely, there were SOME in the church not following the ordinance, and the church had not corrected the issue themselves. The contents of both epistles to the Corinthians show that Paul is for the most addressing QUESTIONS sent to him by the church, about several issues. They were basically asking the apostle "What do we do about this and that and these situations?" and he is giving his apostolic answers, explaining the correct apostolic course of action. The church for the most part is doing things correctly, but there were several issues where apparently some of the members weren't completely on board with the apostolic program. We see this in his discussion of the Lord's Supper, his discussion of spiritual gifts and the conduct of the basic church meeting, the presence of sectarianism, the continued undisciplined presence of a known fornicator, etc.

So in conclusion, Paul's teaching regarding the head covering is just as applicable today to us as it was back then to them. The reasons still exist, therefore the expected response is still the same.

I notice Don is STILL going on about "where is the old testament command for the veil?" I honestly do not know why that is still being raised. The DISTINCTION between the old covenant congregational practice (ordinance) and the new covenant congregational practice (ordinance) was already discussed and made clear. This is essentially a liturgical issue, concerning praying and prophesying. Just as a change was made in the ordinances of worship concerning types of sacrifices, the order of the priesthood, and the focus of the Passover memorial meal, so too a change was made in the liturgical ordinance concerning the covering of the head during ministry and worship. That the new covenant congregation would have distinct ordinances of worship and liturgical conduct is only questioned by Jews and Judaizers, who believe any innovation (not sanctioned by the rabbis) is heretical. All Christians have ALWAYS affirmed that the new covenant liturgy is distinct from the old covenant liturgy, and therefore the specific worship practices of the two are distinct as well. There is some overlap, and similarities, and one is based on the other (since the new covenant worship is the spiritual substance of the old covenant types and shadows), but there are also distinctions and differences. The head covering is obviously one such area of distinction.

Again, since God can command something ANYWHERE in Scripture, then God can command something in 1 Corinthians 11, which is binding on us today. To suggest that "God does not command anything in 1 Cor 11 BECAUSE we see no such command in the old testament" is to beg the question, it is circular reasoning. There is no such requirement for any command of God in 1 Cor 11, that is, there is no requirement that God command something in the old testament in order for Him to command that thing in 1 Cor 11, nor is the lack of an old testament duplication of the teaching in 1 Cor 11 a proof or evidence that 1 Cor 11 contains no command.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618939] PART 1/2

Originally Posted by DoesNotCompute (by donfriesen1 and not by DoesNotCompute

Holes found in the uncut long interpretation of 1Co11.2-16. What the majority of apostolics believe of 1Co11 is herein labelled: uncut long.

1. Paul is said by uncut long to be talking about the tradition of co/unco in v2. How could a tradition of co/unco have developed during the OT when it was never commanded there? It is not logical to believe it to be just a NT tradition.

2. Paul says: v4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. And why does a man's covered head dishonor God? Paul gives the answer in v7 ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. Is it then not seen that the dishonour is, because the image of God is covered? It is a logical conclusion which is contrary to established theological views of the location of the image of God. It says the image of God is in Man's spiritual parts and not in the flesh. Because the majority of apostolics say that it is the long hair alone (without any other events) that dishonours God, it must then be seen that it comes from covering the image of God seen in the flesh. Concluding as uncut long does shows the image of God in the flesh, which is a silly thought.

3. Man and woman are equally the image of God. If a man's covered head (alone, without any other events) dishonours God then a woman's covered head should also be thought to dishonour God.

4. Holders of uncut long do not acknowledge that v5,6 refers to the veil, when the lexicographer says it does.

5. With man and woman being equals as the image of God, it would be thought that both should have a symbol for showing respect to God's order of authority. The uncut long view only addresses a symbol regarding the woman.

6. Condensed to its simplist form for the woman, the uncut long view shows what's most important for her is uncut hair, as opposed to being covered. Paul's focus is on the cover.

7. Condensed to its simplist, the uncut long view shows a woman's cover to be a spiritual cover, while the man's is a physical cover. As both equally the image of God it would be expected that there would congruency applied to the equals.

8. Paul says v13 Judge among yourselves, and v14 Does not even nature itself teach. If Paul commands from God then no appeals to nature or the ways of Man would be needed.

9. Uncut long says v15 shows an exchanging of the veil for uncut long hair. It is not logical that God would exchange an established social practise with a spiritual practice. If anything, the non-sinful social practise would remain unchanged and a spiritual practice added on top of it.

10. There are no commands found for co/unco from Creation till Paul. That this is true shouts something. Anyone not listening should remove the ear plugs.

11. Why does the pagan Gk have a word and a practise in their society, (komao -long uncut hair), which shows them using it for hundreds of years, when what they've been practising is said by uncut long to be a command of God? Does not compute.

My commentary deals with the holes in more detail, also giving a view of 1Co11 without these holes.


Esaias replies.

Don wants me to "rebut"

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages: re·but /rəˈbət/ verb 1. claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.

this post number 47 for some reason, which regards "holes found in the uncut/long view of 1 Cor 11".

Yet he seems to have forgotten that I do not hold to some "uncut/long interpretation".

Esaias would have you believe that I think that post 47 only applies to the holders of uncut long, when I had said to him previously, post 111, that most of the points also applied to the veil view.

While I agree that nature teaches that long hair on a man is a shame, but on a woman it is a glory, I do not believe that is Paul's intended subject of discourse. Rather, Paul is teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying. So why Don demands that I address a post that really doesn't have to do with anything *I* have stated is not clear to me.

But let's humour him for a moment.

Thx for addressing my challenge.

1. Paul is not talking about "the tradition of uncut/long".

There is not a lot of depth or even length here. A man of your caliber should produce more to refute my many words.

Paul should not be thought to think of traditions of co/unco. Why? Because it doesn't make sense that he would praise them in v2 for keeping traditions of co/unco and then in the remaining verses teach them about what he has just praised them for being faithful to. In verse 3 he says 'But', which contrasts what is old (traditions) with what is new (what new thing he will now teach them about co/unco. Paul is the first in the NT to speak of this subject, writing in 50 - 60 ad). Had they been traditions of the OT carried forward into the NT, then we would see commands in the OT which had made them OT traditions. They may have been just NT traditions. But when no NT commands seen pre-Paul, this then casts some doubt that they are only NT traditions. These 3 things should lead to conclusions that Paul does not refer to a tradition of co/unco in v2.

2. Don's second point is a mess, I can't even figure out exactly what he is trying to say. It seems to me he is trying to say Paul is being illogical in asserting the man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, because "logic" somehow demands the image and glory of God is not associated with the physical man's physical head? I have no idea what hole Don fell into here, but I can hear his voice echoing from the bottom, vaguely.

Perhaps a re-wording would be in order, which I will now attempt to do. Paul says in v4 that a man's covered head dishonours God. And why? The answer is in v7, he is the image of God. It appears that Paul says that the image of God is covered when the head is covered. The view which the majority of apostolics take agrees with this. Long hair dishonours God because it covers the head and the image of God, robbing God of proper glory. That the image of God is being covered by covering the head is a thought which is foreign to much of the Christian world's theology, which believe the image of God is in Man's spiritual parts and not the flesh. Are you with me so far, Esaias, or are we both in the pit of my echo chamber, shivering. Because it would be thought wrong to believe that the flesh is the location of the image of God, an adjustment must be made to what it is Paul is believed to be saying.

Does he believe that just because a man's head is covered that it dishonours God or does he believe that a covered head along with other circumstances are the reason? Why word the question like this? Because A) If Paul thinks that a covered head alone is the reason it dishonours, then we need to ask why he would say this. What does Paul know or see that leads him to say this? He loves the OT, the only Word he holds in his hands, the thing which helps form his thoughts and values. What does the OT show about a covered head dishonouring God. Has it ever shown a command for a man not to cover his head? Quote the reference now, for all who have looked, not finding it. Paul's Bible does not show that a covered head dishonours God in the way that uncut long says it - with just the presence of long hair. In fact the Book Paul loves, shows long-haired men greatly loved and used of God, even commanded to have long hair, which is the opposite to what we'd expect if God/the OT held the uncut long view. This should lead all to say that Paul would not conclude from by his Book, that a covered head alone brings dishonour to God. Added to that is this. When equals as the image of God, if a covered man dishonours God, then a covered woman dishonours God, if it is just the presence of long hair, alone without any other events, which detract from the glory of God. A view needs to be found which does away with this discrepancy. B) What is seen in the OT, the Book Paul gathers his values from, is many examples of men in shameful circumstances (shameful men do not bring proper glory to their God), covering their head. 2Sa15.30 is one of many examples. If Paul reads of these examples and forms his values from these many examples, which he would do as an OT rabbi/scholar, then what is seen in v4,7 would align with what is as a scriptural base, which scriptural base the uncut long hair view does not have outside of misinterpreted 1Co11. It has no OT support. Having OT commands and examples should have led to a search for a view which is congruent with it. And why does an OT man/woman cover the head when shamed? The same reason we do, wanting to cover the face when shamed. Out instincts tell us to so. It is not done as a command but as a response to instincts. (The ancient response to shame to cover the head, the veil/mantle, may have been by convenience because of their clothing, when a covering of the face may have sufficed.) Which of these views has the most scriptural backing? Find it and you'll find why Paul uses such few words with the Co, who were as well aware of the response to instincts as Paul was. The knowledge of these instincts was common to both, which necessitated no lengthy explanation by Paul, because they all were familiar with this as humans. Because Man is made in the image of God, Man should reflect at all times the glory of his creator. A covered man when shamed does not. A man with long hair is similarly covered as a veil would do. The cover of the veil was the symbol of the shameful event, and to wear something similar by long hair portrays a similar symbol, but not by command - by instinct. If the OT shows this symbol by instincts then those in the NT should follow suit. Paul should not be seen to command against long hair, because the Book he loves doesn't, but does show the presence of the instinct, which Esaias mocks and says isn't there.

3. Don directly contradicts the apostle.

Well, maybe. I did put in a little qualifier by using the word 'if'. If you'd like to send me to the pit because you missed the if... then who am I to argue. I am not a giant, able to defend myself against one who is.

Paul specifically makes a distinction between the effects and consequences and implications of the covering of the man and the covering of the woman. I'll stick to the apostle instead of joining Don down in his hole he is digging.

[COLOR="black"]That man and women are equally the image of God places them on equal footing in some regard. That they are unequal physically has no contention. That they are unequal socially has no contention. How is equality as the image of God demonstrated in regard to respect for the order of God's authority? If it is by commands, then where are the commands for all the people who lived previous to Paul and the 1Co11 words? What is contended by various views is that commands are required, which should be maintained to keep them in right relationship with God. Some contend the instinct, properly regarded, should be sufficient.

continued in 2/2 see post 206

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

PART 2/2. Continued from post 205.

I've tried to show that the instincts which are seen in both Ge3.16 and 2Sa15.30 are placed by God, and that the only Book Paul holds and loves, the OT, does not show a command for long hair or veil on a woman, nor a command against a covering for a man. The instincts placed by God were done by God for a reason, and the best for Man is to do them as designed by God. This does not mean that they are commands. When the instincts are properly regarded they result in seeing both man and women giving regard socially to God's order of authority by symbols. Giving regard to God by social symbols is a spiritual value. Symbols are spiritual values. Voila, this agrees with them being equally the image of God, as seen in the spiritual parts of Man. It only makes sense that both male and female should be said to show proper regard to the order of authority and for both to do so with symbols when they are equally the image of God. This is accomplished socially by proper response to instincts. A woman's relationship to her husband is largely a social relationship. It should be said to be seen to come from instincts because God has not ever commanded, until 1Co11 is misinterpreted so. When 1Co11 is misinterpreted, as uncut long and the veil view do, it leads to many rabbit holes, and should not be done so. Rather a view should be held, which doesn't lead to rabbit holes. This is found in the instincts view. The instinct view agrees with the facts which are seen in the whole Bible. The veil view and uncut long do not.[/COLOR]

And Esaias takes a pass on point 4. And we agree that the lex shows the custom of the veil in 1Co11, and Paul uses the veil-custom word, don't we Esaias?

All people who read 1Co11 make up a theology of it, even the veil view is made up. Esaias attempts to smear me when using words with loaded connotations - making up. Should Esaias get a pass on point 5, or not? Does holding the veil view give the man a pass from showing symbols? My opinion is no. Perhaps Esaias will respond.

The conclusions of uncut long, show that what is most important for the woman is whether she has uncut hair, vs having hair long enough to cover. Paul speaks of both long hair and cover.

Pardon me for disagreeing. I have not made this up in my deep, dark, echoing pit. The uncut long view says that the moment a woman determines that she will never cut her hair is when she covered. She may only at that moment have 1" hair, yet she is believed to be covered by the determination of her will. This is the uncut's long view in its simplist form, for the woman.

True, and accomplished only by an actual physical uncovering. Not so for the woman in the uncut long view. Boiled down to it, for the woman it need not actually cover, just be uncut. Thus unequal rules are applied to those who are equally in the image of God. One is accomplished physically, the other not entirely physically - by obedience to what is said to be a command - be uncut, not covered.

Education is a great thing.

If God commands a thing then no other appeals to anything are required. God said, 'Have no other gods before me'. He appeals to nothing other than his will. He gives no reasons. Just do it. If Paul would command in 1Co11 then he needs no excuses of reason, or appeals to nature, or anything other than what God wants. He certainly wouldn't ask the Co to judge among yourselves to see if your human opinions agree. When the Beginning, when the Age of Innocence, when the Age of Conscience, when the Age of the Law, when Jesus says nothing of co/unco, when the other apostles say nothing about co/unco, it shows that a command is unlikely. Co/unco is a custom which is practised in Israel without command, which same custom is also practiced by many pagan nations of many times, showing congruency with the idea that Paul refers to a custom and not command. I actually was awake for the geometry class, and we wonder if you were.

Amen, so true.

Well said. Good point. And then, what about judge among yourselves and that other long sentence seen above? Reader, don't hold your breath for an answer. Esaias would already have given an answer to this because this isn't his first rodeo. This is not the first time it has been put forward by me.

I thought my comment showed this as self-evident, that nothing further need be said to anyone reading. Obviously not, that I need to expand my words. The readers thank you for pointing it out and giving opportunity to explain.

How can you object to something you can't understand? Does not compute. The social practice of the veil is exchanged by the spiritual practise, in the uncut long view, according to its erroneous interpretation of v15. They believe that the word 'for' should be understood to mean 'instead of, in exchange'. Long hair is exchanged for the veil. While this meaning of 'for' is one of acceptable correct meanings, it is illogical to do so. See my commentary, post 1, which Esaias has indicated he has read. Pages11-15; p.32 @Someone is distorting; p.46 @para 2; p.116@ Found in Apostolic lit.

You take a pass here as well.

No? Not illogical to tell Christians that a custom practised for centuries has now become a tradition for you to hold by command? I'd say, its my opinion, that God would not transform a custom into a tradition/command for the Christian. (See 1Co7.17-24, where he tells the Co to keep the social standing they were called in. If he tells them to keep thier social position, then the keeping of a custom is not far behind, is it?) Instead, he would tell the Christian to maintain the customs of their country, and I'll give you an additional command to follow, if so. In Ro13 he tells the Ro Christian to keep gov't laws, which are only laws of society (from a governing body). Do what society tells you to do, he says in so many words, but for command sake? No for conscience sake. Paul does the same in 1Co11 with the veil custom and their custom of long hair. Thus, it would not make sense to say a custom has been exchanged for a spiritual command.

But, you know, the air in this pit may not be very good down here. It, along with the echos and darkness may be affecting my thinking. I may need to get some good air up around the gods where Esaias resides. Readers, you may notice I sometimes say nice things about Esaias, in all sincerity, because I think them to be true. And Esaias usually says bad things about me. What motivates him? What motivates me to make negative comments of him, as I've just done? The snide comments he makes, makes me respond in kind. My first preference is not to make any comments such as these. Criticize opinions? Of course. Of course. Necessary.

And so Esaias makes a non-response response. Esaias doesn't want to hear it, nor respond to a good point. Instead he diverts. Oh well.

Hey, what happened to your not commenting on uncut long?

Your referencing leads to an examination of both practises. Jesus showed footwashing as an example that there would not be big shots in his Kingdom. Is this how the pagan Greek practiced it and did Jesus then borrow it into the Church (if you believe it should be followed like communion)? Or did Jews also practice foot washing as a social custom and Jesus used a common practise (also of many nations) for illustrative purposes. You may be wrong to suggest that Jesus borrowed from pagan Greeks. He borrowed from Jews. Do you have evidence to show otherwise?

Does the comparison for hair stand up to the same scrutiny? The Hebraic Jews used Greek language for everyday life. That the LXX exists and the NT was written in Gk testifies to this. Paul uses a Gk word which reflects a long held Gk practice. Their women practiced long uncut hair. Because of this borrowing of language, Paul is said by uncut long to be teaching/commanding uncut long hair. It thus is shown that Paul turns a custom into command. (What isn't determined by the word komao, is whether uncut means so in a strict sense or in a practical sense. Most would see the Gk using it in a practical sense. That they had long hair didn't prevent trimming of it, which the uncut long prevents because it desires to be technical and not practical in its definition.)

Yep, Don does compute and does it well. Esaias fails to convincingly show errors of my reasoning. What should be done when truth is presented? Should it be accepted or rejected? Wise persons give it serious slow examination and acceptance when not refuted.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul does not state as the condition or basis of his doctrine any supposed "customs" or "instincts" or "traditions of the pagan Greek culture". Rather, the basis for his doctrine is the assertion in verse 3 concerning a divinely ordained hierarchy of headship. Since a God-ordained hierarchy of headship is not dependent on any social culture, but instead flows from the will of God Himself for His people, then Paul's teaching is not to be viewed as him simply affirming a continuation of a pagan Greek cultural practice,...

I want to point something out about this particular subject. A lot of people are under the impression that there is A "cultural practice" in view here. That Paul is affirming the Corinthians to maintain the social norms of the day so as not to be viewed as rebellious or antisocial or anarchistic.

But this is entirely wrong, and unhistorical.

In 1st century Greco-Roman culture, a variety of religious customs prevailed concerning head covering. In some cults, men and women both uncovered their heads in worship. In other cults, both men and women covered their heads. In yet other cults, men covered and women uncovered. And in yet other cults, men uncovered and women covered. To put it bluntly, there was no standard cultural norm regarding head covering in worship in Corinth or the rest of the Roman Empire.

Paul however establishes a very specific practice - the man is to be uncovered and the woman is to be covered when praying or prophesying. This is a specific practice, which he affirms to be the preferred practice for the Corinthian church, as preferred by him and his apostolic ministry team. He also asserts the uniformity of his practice with that of the rest of the churches of God, wherever they may be, whether in Judea, or Greece, or Asia, or Rome, or wherever. It is therefore undeniable that Paul is asserting a particular practice common to all the churches of God, irrespective of the "social norms" and common practices of any other particular cultures.

In other words, 1 Cor 11 presents a particular CHRISTIAN practice, regardless of what any other culture may or may not do or think. Therefore, the practice is universal for the churches of God, regardless of time or place or "local custom".

[Esaias]

Again:

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 KJV
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Paul says a man ought not to cover his head (when praying or prophesying). He gives the reason. That reason has nothing whatsoever to do with "local custom" or "cultural practices". Instead, the reason is that the man is the image and glory of God.

The man is the image and glory of God in 1 century Corinth, and the man is still the image and glory of God in 21st century Texas. Therefore, the man ought not to cover his head in 1st century Corinth, and he still ought not to cover his head in 21st century Texas.

The same applies to the woman. Paul asserts "but the woman is the glory of the man". He states WHY this is so: "the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." Those reasons were true in 1st century Corinth, and they are true today in 21st century Texas, Florida, England, The Country Formerly Known As Rhodesia, and Hong Kong, and everywhere else. Therefore, the woman ought to be covered when praying and prophesying then, and there, as well as now, and here.

Paul tell us us WHY the man ought to be uncovered, and WHY the woman ought to be covered. We have the reasons. We do not need to search for other reasons, because the Bible flatly tells us exactly WHY. And those reasons have nothing to do with social customs or cultural norms, but are based on how God created the man and the woman and thus what the man and the woman represent in a liturgical (spiritual) sense.

Since the reasons are still valid, the commanded practice is still valid.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=shag;1618943]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Don, I am reading what has been said and don’t have much to bring to the table, I’m here to mostly learn.
My point was a few pages back you took a shot referring (uncomplimentary) to Esias as the giant of AFF. While now commenting about being a man by not stooping to names or whatever exactly you said

But carry-on…

shag, I'm hoping you'll contribute sometime in the future. Calling Esaias a giant on AFF is a compliment. He actually is this giant. No kidding.

[Esaias]

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJV
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.

One of the issues here in determining what Paul means (as far as the lesson from nature is concerned) is the meaning of "nature". The problem is the word "nature" has a variety of meanings, depending not just upon the context but the author as well. The meaning of nature was a hotly debated topic among the Greeks for centuries, from at least the time of Hesiod onward. In fact, it is STILL debated by philosophers, politicians, orators, logicians, mathematicians, engineers, gardeners, and simple folk like us.

The root of the word stems from an Indo-European word meaning "to grow" or "to swell", and all of it's cognates and derivatives in the Indo-European languages have the similar semantic ranges of meaning. The idea was developed by Greek philosophers to include the idea of an internal efficient cause. And thus the English term "nature" is related to "nativity" or BIRTH. A thing's nature is something it has within itself supplied by itself, ie it is intrinsic or "present from its birth" so to say.

Many people both today and then use the term "nature" (phusis) to refer to for example the DNA or "intrinsic essence" of a thing. A cat meows, that is it's nature. It doesn't have to be taught to meow, it does it because meowing is intrinsic to a cat's essence or being. This provides a contrast to that which is artificial, that is, something which is what it is because of an external source, or "artifice" or skill being applied to it. Thus, a tree branch is "natural" whereas a broom handle is "artificial", even though both are technically the same thing - a piece of wood. The branch is what it is and looks like it does (has its form) by virtue of its own internal movement (growth), whereas the broom handle has its form by virtue of some craftsman shaping it (an external source of movement or change).

And so, many people holding to this view of "nature", when applied to for example people, think of "natural" as being that which stems from the DNA of a person, and "artificial" as that which stems from the will or choices of either that person or another person. So, if one has brown hair, dictated by their DNA, that is "natural". If however they dye their hair blonde, that is "artificial" (and thus un-natural) because they are blonde by artifice (choice and skill) and not by DNA. If left alone, they would be a brunette. It is only through human (external) intervention that they are blonde.

But applying this definition to Paul's statement quoted above is problematic. It is a simple observable fact that the DNA of both men and women will, if left alone and not interfered with, produce "long hair". Hair length is not NATURALLY different between the sexes. Short hair for men and long hair for women is obviously a result of external causes - namely the choices of the individual and the customs of society. If a man just left his hair alone, it would be as long as any woman's. A man has short hair precisely because he CUTS it short. Thus, short hair on a man would be technically "un-natural" and artificial, assuming "nature" means strictly that which arises in and of itself.

Of course, the ancient writers (and modern writers as well) use "nature" and "natural" in a variety of ways, depending on the subject matter and depending upon their own understanding(s) of the term. This is especially true when it comes to social customs and practices, which are a sub-division of the subject of politics. What is "natural" in a political or social sense is not necessarily what is "natural" in a biological sense. The fact that Paul speaks of "shame and glory" in regard to hair length indicates he is speaking politically (that is, in a social sense) rather than merely biologically. Nobody in the first century thought that a man's hair would just "biologically" be shorter than a woman's, because all men who had short hair had it because they cut it. So we cannot chalk up Paul's use of "nature" to a sort of archaic scientific illiteracy.

It seems that Paul is speaking about "the natural order of society". And in that natural order of society, long tresses on a man was shameful, whereas on a woman they were admirable. This is speaking, not about biology, but about social attitudes. But we cannot just leave it at that, because it isn't just "whatever social attitudes happen to be", but NATURE. That is, social attitudes that are considered "natural", as opposed to social attitudes that are considered un-natural, as Paul mentions in Romans 1 when he talks about societies "forsaking the natural use of the woman" etc as a consequence of apostasy from God's truth. While there certainly is a biological element in the discussion of social "nature", biology is not itself the thing being discussed.

That is to say, certain gender roles are according to nature (social order). The biology of the two genders provides direction to the social norm, but the biology is not itself the social order or norm. This seems to be the case in 1 Cor 11. That is to say, the social order or norm considered "natural" is affected by the distinction in gender, we might even say "controlled" by gender, but that is not saying the distinction is a direct immediate byproduct of simple biological gender (as shown above regarding how men and women will both "biologically" have long hair unless interfered with). In regards to the social order or "nature" in Romans 1, it will be observed that absent any external interference, fornication becomes the "social norm" or custom, even though that would also be against "nature". Nature not in the sense of raw biological nature, but in the sense of SOCIAL "nature". That is, in the case of nature viewed as a characteristic of society, what is "natural" is that which is intrinsic to the social order itself without an external interference (like sin).

So what then is the external interference that is contrary to natural society being discussed in 1 Cor 11? It is the attempt by a man to mimic the female's hairstyle in length. In this case, "letting nature take its course" is in fact contrary to what nature teaches us. That is to say, letting biological nature have its way would be contrary to sociological nature. Especially as humans are not mere unreasoning brutes, but rational creatures whose biology is meant to be subdued to the voice of reason, intellect, and ethics.

So in what way then does nature teach us that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him, but if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her? Paul says "for her hair is given her for a covering" or mantle. This is reminiscent of Paul's earlier discussion about being "covered and uncovered", and as each being especially appropriate to the respective sex. Women were expected to be covered, and not to be showing off anything, especially breasts, in public. Long hair on a woman is a product of her biology that provides a way for her to "cover up", and was viewed by society as appropriate or "natural" in a social sense. Whereas a man was expected to both engage in hard work and serve as a soldier, which often requires a certain amount of nakedness to put it bluntly. (Not talking about being buck naked, of course). Practically all cultures have more lenient standards for men than for women in regards to how covered they should be. A man, whether in ancient times or today, whose legs were exposed or even whose chest and back were exposed, would not immediately be a subject of "shame". Whereas a woman who was so exposed was generally considered as being "unseemly naked in public".

Why is this?

Well, to do a man's job (as mentioned above) requires a certain amount of strength, that is to say, muscle. Displaying one's muscularity was not considered necessarily inappropriate or shameful . Obviously, the context of the situation creates rules and exceptions, so that different levels of dress were demanded by different occasions. But the basic underlying thought is still there. A verse in the Psalms seems to speak to this same subject somewhat:

Psalm 147:10 KJV
He delighteth not in the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man.

The legs of a man would indicate the strength of the man, as a soldier. It would indicate his potential for combat and warfare, which is the special province of the male gender. Strong muscular legs indicates a strong athletic man, and thus is an indication of his masculinity.

On the other hand, women are not so. The physical features of a woman are not specifically designed for warfare and strenuous physical labour. Rather, the woman is considered the "gentler sex" or the "weaker sex", suited to more delicate labours. Her features are more indicative of her child-bearing capacity and mothering ability. This has always generally been a reason why women were covered more than men. A man who sees a man's muscularity is simply going to take notice of the other man's athletic potential and possible fighting potential. Whereas a man who sees a woman's feminine features is more likely to take notice of her suitability as a mate. Which in turn can lead to not just marriage (as would be appropriate) but also fornication and adultery. The woman's features must therefore be protected from open display more so than the man's, because of the potential social consequences.

So, for a woman to have long hair is a subtle nod to the social order and the social role of women, whereas for a man to have long hair was a subtle slight to the social order and the social role of men. Long hair having been established as natural (sociologically speaking) for the woman, a man who had long hair would generally be seen as being like a woman, and illustrating an un-natural social role.

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. Some philosophers adopted long hair (often as an intentional defiance of accepted social norms, like the hippies). Some wealthy aristocrats adopted long hair, usually to go along with their general debauchery and extravagance. Long hair is usually "admired" by women, even if it is on a man. But this is socially "un-natural" because a woman ought not to admire a man for a generally feminine characteristic. There are men who are naturally (biologically) considered "beautiful", and women are often attracted to their "cherubic faces, full pouty lips, and long eye lashes". But they would admire the same features on another woman, whereas not too many women would admire a sister who had power-lifter legs or a football player back or chest. So a woman admiring a man (or even being jealous of a man) for what are really somewhat feminine reasons would be to support an attitude that is contrary to the NATURAL social order.

And thus, even nature itself teaches us that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him, but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. The nature being spoken of is not mere biology or DNA, but the social order respecting the appropriate gender roles and what they signify, especially as indicated by hair style. This "sociological nature" evidenced by natural society's standards concerning male and female hair is an illustration of the appropriateness of Paul's apostolic teaching concerning male and female headcovering.

As a side note, this discussion of nature is not about "instincts", that would be to reduce "nature" to mere biological impulse. And for humans, "nature" is far more than simple biological impulse.