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

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618805]

Paul taught women ought to be covered, and men uncovered, when praying or prophesying. Simple.

When Paul is seen as commanding the veil in v5 as a spiritual cover that all should keep, it creates problems because the whole of scripture fails to present this as a view to be held. For this reason Paul should be seen addressing two issues in 1Co11: A) Christian compliance with secular cultural norms. B) Spiritual compliance with expected (not commanded) spiritual symbols. (What causes great confusion in this regard is the coincidence that they both regard the head.) When so done it removes conflicting thoughts (if he commands a veil in v5 - he really does refer to a veil in v5 - it conflicts with v15 where it could be said that God commands long uncut hair for the veil. Do you really want to hold a view with such conflicts? See my commentary for more detail not given here). I'd rather have a view of 1Co11 which doesn't present such conflicts. Hence, the instincts view. It reconciles the conflicts with its explanations. Any who persist in views that God commands either veil or long hair must live with the holes of these conflicts.

Come into the warm waters of the instincts view for a comfortable swim - no icebergs. But I may have got bias-blindness. Open my eyes and give me sight. Point out the holes/icebergs of the instincts view. While you're at it, if you hold to the uncut long view which Esaias doesn't, fill the 11 holes of uncut long, which I've pointed out it contains.

The rest is just people's attempts to not do what the apostle said to do. Interestingly, nobody had a problem with this until around the 20th century.

Do we now rely more on history than scripture for evidence to support our views? History is wonderful and needs to be kept in mind, but our main focus should be on interpretation of the whole Word on any given subject. The veil as a command does not have 'whole scripture' as a foundation. Surely you must agree.

What is seen in scripture of the veil must be see from a cultural/custom context to make most sense.

[Amanah]

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

4 Every man praying or prophesying with anything down over his head dishonors his head, 5 but every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.

The interpretation of this verse, and of the remainder of the passage, has varied widely among commentators because of their different ideas about Greek and Jewish customs of the time. I give an illustrated survey of the customs of Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the excursus on headcovering customs in the ancient world. To summarize the matter briefly here, I will only say that there is not enough evidence in ancient sources to conclude that Paul is advising conformity to Corinthian customs in this passage. On the contrary, ancient sources indicate that Greek women commonly participated in religious ceremonies without headcoverings. Nor does it seem that he is advising conformity to Jewish customs, in which women hid their faces in public. The use of headcoverings by women in daily life was common enough throughout the ancient world that we would expect Paul to make his meaning clear if he were requiring not only this but also the face-veiling. We would expect him to use a word or expression for the face-covering or veil (καλυμμα), at least, but that is not the case here. Instead, Paul uses only a very general word for “covered,” κατακαλυπτω, and he does not mention the “face” (τὸ πρόσωπον), only the “head.” (5) He is certainly not advising conformity to Roman customs of his day, in which male priests normally covered their heads for ceremonies. But clearly he is urging the Corinthians to observe an established custom of the Church. This custom was established by Paul in his Gentile congregations, probably after the example of the Jewish custom, but it was somewhat more liberal in its requirements than the stricter Jewish custom. Christian women were expected to cover their heads—but not their faces—in religious exercises, and especially in meetings. It is very doubtful that in this matter Paul would have cared much about what pagan women happened to be wearing on the streets of Corinth at the time.

It is necessary to emphasize here that in ancient cultures the symbolic value of clothing was taken very seriously. This was true not only of pagan cultures and cults, but of Judaism and Christianity as well. Jesus and the apostles could take it for granted that their disciples appreciated the significance of clothing. In Matthew’s version of the parable of the wedding feast, there is a dramatic confrontation about proper attire when the King asks a certain man: “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?” (Matthew 22:12) A modern reader is likely to find it strange that such importance is placed upon clothing, but the original hearers of this parable would not be inclined to sympathize with the underdressed man. They would think, rather, that the man who would not dress properly showed contempt for the King and his son, and obviously did not belong there. Indeed the man in the parable could offer no excuse for his own behavior, for “he was speechless.”

Some recent commentators have made much of the word “prophesying” in verse 5 (which Paul simply repeats from the expression in verse 4), and have argued that the inclusion of this word here proves that Paul allowed women to prophesy or speak independently in the worship service. These scholars must then dispose of 14:34-35 (“let the women be silent ...”) and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (“a woman should learn in silence”) in various improbable ways. But there is nothing in this passage which suggests that Paul is here giving instructions only for those who are speaking in the worship service. “Praying or prophesying” is simply Paul’s way of referring to the corporate spiritual exercises of the church when it is gathered, in which every member participates to some extent. He is not limiting the headcovering rule to individuals when they are actually speaking, so that a man who wanted to veil himself like a Roman priest for the meeting could do so if he never ventured to pray or prophesy independently, or that a woman who wanted to be bareheaded like a Greek priestess would only have to put on her headcovering if and when she ventured to pray or prophesy in the worship service. That is not the idea here at all. The idea is that the women should wear headcoverings when the church is gathered for worship, instruction or prayer. We may assume that the Corinthians gathered for prayer at various times, in addition to gathering for worship on the Lord’s day, and that some meetings were less formal than others. The passage before us does not focus on the question of whether or not women should be speaking independently in the worship service conducted on Sunday. For a full discussion of this question see the excursus on 1 Corinthians 11:5.

The word προφητεία “prophecy” in the New Testament refers to any utterance prompted by the Spirit of God or any utterance which is presented as such. It may be genuine or otherwise (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The following is quoted from another post in this thread. "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.

Don, you lost the debate. You believe the Apostle Paul was only making suggestions to the Corinthian church. This isn’t a new misinterpretation in Churchanity, but an old one. Where some believe Paul was dealing with a current culture of Hellenic Roman principles of modesty. You post the same arguments ad nauseam.

The Apostle Peter pointed out that the Apostle Paul wrote his epistles according to God’s wisdom, not man’s wisdom. The wisdom given to Paul by the Holy Ghost. The Apostle Peter goes on to say that in Paul’s epistles (100% of them) that there were truths which were hard for the unlearned and unstable to learn. Yet, would not only twist what Paul said, but also the rest of the Bible, to their own destruction.

Paul is instructing the church at Corinth and tells them that there should be no arguments about what he is teaching. 1 Corinthians 11:16 states clearly that what Paul teaches is the ONLY custom which all the churches follow. Hence the reason there would be NO contention concerning what he taught on the subject.
Which in short, the Apostle Paul wouldn’t be posting in this thread with you. Since he made it clear as crystal the first time he penned it.

[Amanah]

The commentary below reconciles vs 5&15.
Women didn't need to be taught to have long hair as a shorn head was commonly acknowledged as being shamed. Paul's teaching is that to be uncovered is equally shameful as being shorn.

Originally Posted by Amanah

**
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.

In the appeal to “nature” (φύσις) here Paul makes contact with another philosophy of ancient times, known as Stoicism. The Stoics believed that intelligent men could discern what is best in life by examining the laws of nature, without relying on the changeable customs and divers laws made by human rulers. 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. (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. 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, and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight. It is therefore unmanly by nature. 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. 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. 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 if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also! The argument here involves a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum in which there is an analogy made between headcoverings and hair. These verses make no sense otherwise. If by “uncovered” Paul means only a shorn head in the first place, as some would have it, (17) then his argument in verses 5 and 6 amounts to the nonsensical “if a woman will not refrain from cutting off her hair, then let her cut off her hair also.” For this reason Hurley, who does not want to think that Paul is requiring headcoverings here, has resorted to the idea that Paul is saying that a woman’s head is uncovered when her hair is not properly coiffed. (18) But this is very strange, and unlikely in the historical context, where cloth headcoverings and veils were so commonly used. Who can suppose that Paul is making no reference to these when he speaks of headcoverings?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

And so you would then say that women are commanded to wear a veil for these times. Plz say, if God commands a woman to wear such a veil during such times, what kind of veil is acceptable to the Lord. Plz point to some scripture which will indicate God's acceptable veil. Surely the Lord would not leave to chance obedience or whim of Man, for what he says is necessary by command to plz him, to avoid something as serious as sin. Or does he let Man determine that which will satisfy God's need-to-cover command? Plz indicate which scripture could be referenced that indicates that God says Man can choose which cover pleases the Lord. (One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One is a specific number which excludes. It specifies one to the exclusion of all others. Count all the 'ones' shown by Paul in Eph 4.4-6, a favourite passage of apostolics. Does Paul now leave the principle of specifics for a principle of many. You now get to choose which cover to use? Doesn't make sense.)

Here is another example of lack of understanding the Bible and the nature of doctrine. Don presumes that if God commands something, he will also specify everything that can be specified in regards to the particular command. But notice the following:

Ephesians 5:19 KJV
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Here, we are commanded to sing to one another. What psalms? What hymns? What spiritual songs? Which melody? These things are not specified. Does God tell us to sing but fail to tell us what songs, and what melodies, to sing? Obviously, we are to choose the songs, the melodies. God gives a command, and we are to fulfill that command. That which is specified is that which must be done, the means and mechanisms, if not specified, are to be figured out by the believer and the congregation.

Another example:

Numbers 15:38 KJV
Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

But how shall the fringe be made? What material? What design? How big? It was commanded, yet there were no specifics other than it be a fringe, in the border of the garment, and that it have a ribband of blue upon it. Beyond that, there are no specifications. Clearly, the individual and the congregation were to figure that part out themselves.

Yes, God actually expects His people to think about things and come to some decisions. God did not create robots. Look here:

Genesis 2:19 KJV
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Man was given responsibility, he was given a task (a command, if you will), yet he was allowed to participate in the decision making process. It was up to Adam to decide the names of the animals. If these things are true (they are), then it is entirely reasonable that God would command the head covering for women while leaving it up to the believer to decide on the cut, design, color, etc. In fact, this shows the wisdom of God, in that the command can be obeyed across all cultures and all times without imposing any particular local culture upon another.

Thus, in conclusion, the lack of specific instructions on the make and model of the headcovering in no way lessens the obligation of the believer to obey the instructions that are given.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Paul is seen as commanding the veil in v5 as a spiritual cover that all should keep, it creates problems because the whole of scripture fails to present this as a view to be held.

Sorry, but you already conceded this point, when you admitted God can command something ONCE, and it can be anywhere in the Bible.

Yet, you still persist AS IF that point was never addressed and dealt with. That is what renders this conversation pointless.

[diakonos]

It’s Groundhog Day.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618799]

These are some final thoughts for whatever they are worth. But, I'm done with this conversation as It's not progressing. It's just repetitive at this point.

Perhaps you'd want to answer the questions I've asked of you to answer, before you go. Also plz counter my objections which show that the veil view is weak from a scriptural perspective. That you haven't done so makes me wonder if there is nothing to answer with or to counter with. Why the silence? But if you do go, Amanah, thx for your inputs. Maybe a rest will give you the desire to re-continue here.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul discusses head covering, emphasizing obedience to God's Word over human traditions or instincts.

Obedience to God's Word over human traditions or instincts is always good advice. What exactly hasn't been made clear over many centuries. What does Paul speak of in 1Co11 and how do we 'obey' it? Does the Bible elsewhere command veiling? That no commands for it are found in the OT raises questions which need an answer. Plz provide one, if you believe that the OT women were commanded to veil.

Key Verses:

*1 Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

That Paul praises them for keeping these delivered ordinances calls into question why he takes the time to now re-teach what he just finished praising them for keeping. It testifies that he is teaching them a new thing, other than ordinances, and it doesn't make sense that he would here re-teach what they already obediently practise, does it? Right? Unless you hold a view which has nothing else to hang your hat on. Then a person would keep insisting that co/unco was a long held ordinance, even in the absence of good evidence.

*1 Corinthians 11:16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Had Paul believed co/unco to be a Biblical tradition then he would have contended that this Biblical tradition should be continued. He would fight tooth and nail, as you do for what you believe to be a correct interpretation of 1Co11. But he calls it a custom and he would not see it imperative that customs continue, because they come from Man. Because he believes and calls it a custom he tells them (reading between the lines) not to fuss if someone is contentious about practising a custom he suggests them to practise. This makes good sense.

Paul teaches that head covering is:

*Symbolic: Representing spiritual authority and submission (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).

Amen, but saying this does not show what the spiritual head covering was.

*Universal: Applying to all believers, regardless of cultural context (1 Corinthians 11:2, 16).

I disagree on the 1Co11 interprtation specifics of this point, while agreeing in general. In general, all commands apply to all people. To explain why not in specifics: though Paul calls for the Co Christian to maintain the custom of the veil, he may not call all Christians to use a veil. If the veil is believed to be a Biblical tradition (vs a custom of Man) and that OT believers veiled, then we have no evidence of a command for a veil which could develope into a Biblical veil tradition. We do see some examples of OT women veiling. It could be that they do so from custom, because it is unlikely to have become a tradition without a command of God to implement it. The OT has no command for women to veil, does it? Right?

*Divine: Based on God's created order, not human tradition (1 Corinthians 11:7-9).

Seen so in the first few ch of Ge, but was not commanded there, to be kept. It was first recognized as an expectation that all should follow, but not by command.

Paul distinguishes between:
*God's ordinances (1 Corinthians 11:2): Divine instructions.

Agreed, ordinances are divine instructions.

*Human customs* (1 Corinthians 11:16): Man-made traditions.

Agreed, customs have human origens.

Supporting Scriptures:

*2 Timothy 3:16-17: Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine.

Yes, of course.

*Matthew 15:9: Jesus condemns following human traditions over God's commandments.

Yes

*Colossians 2:8: Beware of human philosophy, empty deceit.

Amen, which includes misinterpreted scripture. Doing so amounts to substituting human thought for God's thoughts. If your view of 1Co11 has holes, then it is likely it is because it is a misinterpretation. God doesn't make doctrines with holes. People do by misinterpretation.

Believers should prioritize God's Word over:

1. Cultural norms
2. Personal instincts
3. Human traditions

Amen! All should agree with this.

I respond to all your points and hope you will do so to all mine.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by diakonos

It’s Groundhog Day.

lol

[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?