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

[donfriesen1]

Re: p230. Esaias makes a somewhat valid point. He points out that I say 'that A&E aren't commanded about showing respect to God's order by keeping co/unco and if they weren't then the Co also wouldn't be'. Esaias then says, turning the tables, that when I say that, then I must also believe that no one else can be commanded anything other than what A&E were commanded. He would say, for example, I must also then believe that if A&E weren't commanded about baptism then no one else can be commanded about baptism. This had been part of his explanation as to why there are no commands for co/unco in the OT, like those he says are in the NT.

But Esaias misses an important point of my conclusions. I'm saying there are no divisions between A&E and the rest of humanity which covenants and their circumstances normally create. A&E should be thought to be in the same place with the rest of humanity in regard to showing respect to God's order when they were outside of covenant. There is no division between them and us when they were outside of covenant. What God would expect of them he would expect of any other - and vice versa. At the time of their creation they were in a time when they were without covenant/commands and not shown to be in a separate division. But there is division between us and A&E regarding the command not to eat of the Tree in the Garden. We are not commanded not to eat of it in our covenant. Covenants create divisions by their commands, because what is expected in one covenant isn't in another.

Yet God still has expectations of those outside of covenant. When God created Man he expected that Man would love and reverence him just by their mutual existence, doing so without any such command. Therefore, God has valid expectations of Man outside of commands or covenants. They are rationally derived and expected without commands. Esaias says God has commands for co/unco which are only for those of the New Covenant. Thus Esaias creates a division between A&E and others. That which is expected about co/unco for NT folk isn't expected for others. Let's turn the tables on Esaias to see the conclusion which would result by Esaias's method.

Esaias says there is division between A&E and the rest of humanity by saying that which Paul commands in 1Co11 is for the NT alone. He says that God commands respect for his order of authority by keeping the command to co/unco. If so according to Esaias, turning the tables, then A&E would not be expected to give regard to God's order by co/unco because it wasn't commanded them. Not only that, but all those between the Beginning and the NT, 4000 years of Man's history, are not expected to show regard to God's order by co/unco. All those during that time, by Esaias's reasoning are not expected to show respect for God's order of authority because it wasn't commanded them. We know they were not commanded to keep co/unco because we have no record of it. Does it make sense to you that Esaias's conclusion is correct, that the first 4000 yrs Man need not show regard to God's order by co/unco? Do you agree that God had no expectations for those before the NT, that they need not show regard to God's order? It is totally illogical to think so. Esaias is wrong in his conclusion that God would only command for the NT if he is indeed commanding. Paul did write but not by command.

Others show they think that this would be a wrong conclusion. Apostolic writers commenting on 1Co11 show by quoting or referring to verses pre-NT, that they believed those in OT times also believed in co/unco, that they also believe that God's order and co/unco was active and relevant pre-NT. Thus, Esaias may be alone in his conclusions.

What Esaias has missed is that God expected A&E to show respect for his order of authority before any covenant was given. The moment A&E were created they were expected to show respect to God's order by co/unco and that without any command thereto. It is expected without command because it is rational to think that respect should be given to an obvious superior or when placed in an assisting position. The image of God within Man creates this expectation, doing so without command. A&E later entered into covenant (Hos6.7 Amp), when God placed them in the Garden and commanded something of them, but not before. Therefore they would have been expected, but weren't commanded, to reverence God's order of authority, that which Paul refers to in 1Co11, both before and after entering into covenant. God thus expects all of humanity, whether in covenant or not, to reverence his (order of) authority because it exists outside of covenant - by truth or rational thought given by God's image in Man. There is no division between A&E and humanity. Co/unco is not by command. Paul does not command.

By what means or method does the Lord expect Man to achieve this regard if he hasn't commanded and giving specifications thereto? It would be almost irrational to think that Man can understand this without some sort of instruction thereto. Have you read Esaias's words in p210? He gives a wonderful explanation of what 'nature' in 1Co11 refers to. It explains that God has created Man in such a way that the way he makes Man's core-nature, naturally leads in one direction. Thus, if God had made Man and placed him in another enviroment other than earth, then Man's core-nature would have resulted in Man living in much in the same way there as here. For example, though separated by confusion at Babel, societal and individual results were similar because the core-nature of Man directed in the same way though each group was segregated. This 'nature' is the method/means by which Man will show regard to God's order if Man lives in it. What Esaias refers to as 'nature' is what is indicated by the instincts of the iv. Outside of influence by Satan, Man will naturally follow the nature or instincts they are created with. It will result in A&E naturally showing respect to God's order by co/unco without command.

Co/unco need not be placed by thought into covenants because God hadn't for 4000 yrs and because it is incorporated in Man's nature. It is real outside of covenant. It had not been specifically included for the first 4000 yrs of Man's existence by covenant command for this reason. What would necessitate something which has existed without command or covenant for thousands of years to now be included in the NT covenant by command? What had changed about the 3 principals, God and man and woman, with a change of covenants, which would require something incorporated in Man's nature now to be commanded? It wouldn't. Esaias misses the point of how respect for God's order came about in the Beginning without either command or covenant. His points of thought, when saying that I then must also believe that no one else can be commanded anything other than what A&E were commanded are not valid to the discussion. Commands are parts of covenants. A&E weren't commanded about co/unco and the Co should not be thought to be commanded, to be in sync with the Beginning. Those who think Paul commands, do so with weak evidence, when what is seen in 1Co11 can easily, without conflict with scripture or rational thought, be seen as not commanding. Those who see Paul commanding, show Paul out of sync with that which he shows as his base for thought: what is seen of God's order in the Beginning. If God didn't command in the Beginning then emulating-Paul would also not command.

So, to answer my own question with a satisfaction which Esaias's answer doesn't give: 'Why doesn't the Bible show any commands for co/unco before the NT?', it is because God expects but doesn't demand respect/love from Man. This is God's way for all humanity for all time. He believes in and gives Man free will.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Readers, do yourselves a favor and read the last paragraph of Don’s post.

It’s all the same baloney of the doctrine of inclusion. Man has free will, and God knows man has free will. Therefore God gives man a pass, if a subject wasn’t mentioned 1 to three times prior to the New Testament. As I pointed out numerous times, Don believe s the God of the Bible is unfair, if the Gospel is exclusive only to believers. Therefore Don continues to promote a Gospel of Inclusion. Paul is portrayed as just giving his opinions, and only focusing on individuals in 1st Century Roman Judea. While Don, accuses Esaias, and Amanah of misrepresenting his thoughts. Don, is merely projecting. Because Don, is constantly misrepresenting Esaias, and Amanah’s thoughts.

Religion (in all its forms) have individuals who stay true to the tenets in an inner circle. Yet, as individuals move out from that inner circle, the religion morphs. While they claim they are restoring the religion to its original form. They look back at those in the inner circle they left behind as wrong. They themselves as the sighted guides. While the inner circle tries to reach out with reasoning from the sacred verses, the ones who left cannot hear, or see.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, is lonely

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Barb

Welcome to the thread, Barb.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

Again, this too is a reply.

It seems that I will be your only participant left in this thread.

You have been left with me.

[donfriesen1]

Re: illustration from nature. v14,15.

As also stated previously, I again say that I think that Esaias has given a wonderful explanation of 'nature teaches'. See p210,212 for his essay. That which he describes with the word nature, I describe as instincts. Thus, Esaias gives support to the iv while arguing for the vv.

Esaias explains that the way God created Man will always naturally lead Man to live in a certain way. So Man's nature will lead Man to live a certain way every time, unless interfered with. To use an example, mothering instincts will be in effect regardless of which enviroment a woman lives in. Whether a cold or hot climate; an East or West country; poor or rich; whether she lives on Earth or Mars. A woman will have this mothering motivation because it is part of her God-given nature. Some women overide the mothering instinct, interferring with it.

It is God who has provided Man with this nature.

While not stating that 'nature teaches' that Man should show respect for God's authority, Esaias says "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, the lesson from nature is an analogy, where two things are compared because of their similarity." He says that nature is showing an analogy between hair and the veil.

Thus, it is God who provides this illustration, because it is God who provided the nature.

But if nature/God has illustrated that a NT woman should veil, then that same nature/God also would have illustrated the exact same thing to the OT woman. Yet Esaias will also say that, what he sees as a command to veil, is only for the NT times. While also illustrating during OT times, God there does not illustrate to veil (because the OT shows no veil command). Does it make sense that God provides an illustration by the God-given nature for a command in one place but the same God-given nature illustration doesn't support a command in another? It would be thought to be the same in both places if supportive truth.

The first 4000 yrs of Man's history shows no command of God for co/unco, either for the veil or uncut long hair. God should not be thought to now command in the NT, because it is out of sync with God's foundational history with Man.

Rather this: Man's nature compels them to cover the head/face when embarrassed, doing so for both the OT times and the NT. A shame-covered man does not glorify his God. A woman's nature compels her to use long hair to satisfy the instinct which instructs her to please her man's desires for a pretty woman. It is the natural cover God provides her to show respect for his order of authority. It does so both for those of OT times and the NT, contrary to the illustration-idea, which doesn't.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You are alone here Don.

It’s just you an I.

[Monterrey]

Just you and I, building our dreams together......

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Just you and I, building our dreams together......

Welcome to the thread.