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

[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 Evang.Benincasa

I thought as much. You make accusations to everyone, accusations which have no evidence. But, you don't care. Because if you said it, then it must be true. Anyone reading this thread is totally convinced that you love to read your own posts. You need to reread what you posted to Esaias and apologize. Your ecclesiastical passive aggressive behavior is plain.

.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


All scripture is inspired and profitable for doctrine. Doesn't matter how many times it appears in scripture. However, some bible translations are more reliable than others. The KJV is the gold standard for comparison.

For example:

Numbers 5:18 translation variation based on which codex is used.

The difference between "uncover" (KJV) and "unbind" (ESV) in Numbers 5:18 stems from variations in Hebrew texts and interpretations.

Hebrew Words:

1. *פָּרַע* (parah): Means "to loosen" or "to unbind" (used in Leningrad Codex and most Masoretic texts).
2. *גָּלָה* (galah): Means "to uncover" or "to reveal" (used in some Masoretic texts and Textus Receptus).

Textual Variations:

1. *Leningrad Codex* (ESV's base text): Uses *פָּרַע* (unbind).
2. *Textus Receptus* (KJV's base text): Uses *גָּלָה* (uncover).

Translation Choices:

1. KJV follows *גָּלָה*, translating as "uncover."
2. ESV follows *פָּרַע*, translating as "unbind."

Interpretations:

"Unbind" implies loosening the woman's hair, symbolizing vulnerability.
"Uncover" depicts removing a head covering, which implies shame.

Excellent scholarly researching, Amanah. Much unlike posts 97, 99, 105; whose posters you put to shame. Plz indicate sources for the info you've provided.

My sources, pre-Amanah-research, were Strongs and BDB, among some forgotten scholarly writers. I now stand enlightened because of Amanah's research and will modify my views accordingly. See the revisions made in my commentary.

From knowledge gained after my commentary was first penned, it should now be said that the word para is the second best word to use, shown so because most He manuscripts use galah. Does second best then indicate that it should never be used? Of course not. Galah is the word preferred over para, said by consensus of opinion of those who study this in depth. Some He manuscripts use para, most the word galah. Galah means: to uncover, to reveal, to expose. Para means: to let loose, to break forth, to act in a disorderly manner. Galah, according to these experts, is the more suitable word to use. Therefore conclusions reached using para may need to be reviewed and revised to favour the defn of galah. With that said, I would invite the reader to determine which word/defn best fits the contexts of Le21.10 and Nu5.18, which appear in my commentary.

Le21.10 refers to times of mourning. The verse indicates that the Israeli norm for mourning was an uncovered head, which the high priest was forbidden to do. Was the cover the high priest used much like a veil? Did both men and women wear veils or did the men wear another cover which was removed during mourning? If the norm for a woman was to remove a veil for mourning, this may then indicate mourning times were an acceptable time for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered, breaking the command to cover with a veil when praying publically, if you believe that God commanded it. Or wasn't a mourning woman to pray publically? Thus, an internal controversy arose each time of mourning, for which expectation to yield to. Should she yield to the custom of unveiling for times of mourning? Or should she yield to the command not to unveil during public prayer, if it is believed that God commanded women to veil during public prayer. It makes most sense that no such controversy existed, when not elsewhere seeing any OT command asking women to veil during public prayer, as those who hold to the veil view of 1Co11 contend. If veiling exists as a custom, then she only breaks a custom and not a command. Where is there an OT command for a woman to veil? It does not exist. If what is seen with a removal of a veil during mourning, it must be seen that a veil was normally worn before mourning as a custom and not command. Le21.10 is specific. It applies only to the High Priest and not to women, whether using galah or para.


Nu5.18 refers to the times of a woman suspected of adultery - her head was to be uncovered for this examination. Does what is said in Nu5 clearly reveal either the veil or hair? If your belief is that a woman should veil, then it makes most sense that the veil is removed. If you think that a woman's cover is long hair, then you may think that the priest's unbinding her bound-up hair makes the most sense. Either way does not explain away the absence of an OT command to co/unco, whether using galah or para. Why doesn't the OT command the cover using either veil or long hair? It didn't command and neither would Paul in 1Co11.

What Amanah speaks of in her post, by referring to experts, speaks in a general sense but does not address specifically the use of either galah or para in Nu5.18 and Le21.10. But really, with or without a close examination of Nu and Le, does this detail about galah/para significantly change what is seen in the OT, in view of the absence of any OT commands for co/unco? Not substantially. The command for anything similar in the OT, to what is said that 1Co11 commands for the NT, is still missing from: the Beginning, Age of Conscience, Law. Amanah's research changes what is believed about both the instincts view and the veil view only very slightly.

My sources pre-Amanah-research:
A) Strong's Concordance:
The Hebrew word פָּרָה (parah, Strong's #6544) means:
To uncover or to expose: This verb can refer to physical or metaphorical uncovering, such as revealing something hidden or exposing oneself.

B) Brown-Driver-Briggs para: 1. let go, let loose, people, i.e. remove restraint from them, Exodus 32:25 (twice in verse) (E); compare Job 15:4 CheJQ, July 1897, 577 (תִּפְרָע for תִּגְרַע); unbind head (by removing turban, sign of mourning) Leviticus 10:6; Leviticus 21:10 (forbidden to priests); also, Leviticus 13:45 (leper), Numbers 5:18 (woman; all with ראֹשׁ; see NowArchaeology ii. 114; > denominative from פֶּרַע Gerber18 and others). - Source for A) and B): Blue Letter Bible.org

ChatGPT was asked 'explain why galah is preferred over para'. Answered: "The preference for גָּלָה (galah) over פָּרַע (para) in biblical Hebrew is largely based on the different nuances, usages, and contexts of the two verbs. Although both verbs can convey meanings related to uncovering or revealing, they have distinct connotations, and their usage is influenced by the specific context in which they appear. Here's why גָּלָה is often preferred over פָּרַע in certain biblical contexts:
1. Meaning and Nuance:
גָּלָה (galah) primarily means "to uncover," "to reveal," or "to expose," and it is often used in contexts where something hidden or concealed is being revealed. It is a more formal and widely used term in the Hebrew Bible to describe both literal uncovering (such as unveiling one's nakedness) and figurative revealing (such as exposing sin or revealing divine truth).
פָּרַע (para), on the other hand, means "to let loose," "to break forth," or "to act in a disorderly manner." It is often associated with the disheveling or loosening of something (e.g., hair, bonds, or control). In some contexts, it can also suggest breaking from authority or order, as in rebellion or an untamed state.
2. Contexts of Usage:
גָּלָה (galah) is more commonly used in contexts where there is a clear uncovering or revealing of something hidden, whether it is physical, like uncovering someone's nakedness (e.g., Gen. 9:22), or metaphorical, like revealing sin or secrets (e.g., Amos 5:12, Micah 3:10). The verb emphasizes exposure, disclosure, or the revelation of something that was previously concealed.
פָּרַע (para) is used in contexts involving disorder or untaming. For example, it appears in passages describing hair being disheveled (e.g., Num. 6:5, the Nazirite vow), or a person breaking free from restrictions or control (e.g., Exod. 32:25 where it describes the chaotic behavior of the Israelites after the golden calf incident). The verb suggests a loss of order or a state of disarray, rather than the unveiling or revealing of something hidden.
3. Theological and Cultural Implications:
גָּלָה (galah) is closely related to the idea of uncovering shame, sin, or guilt. This usage aligns with biblical ideas about God revealing or exposing human failings, which often has a moral or spiritual significance (e.g., God's revelation of sin in Isaiah 47:3 or Micah 1:4). It is often associated with the divine act of exposing something for judgment, often as a form of punishment or correction.
פָּרַע (para), while it can also mean to reveal, typically carries connotations of chaos, rebellion, or unruliness. This makes it less suited for contexts that require a neutral or purposeful revelation, such as the revealing of God's will or the exposure of sin for correction.
4. Frequency of Use:
גָּלָה (galah) appears much more frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible, especially in key narrative, prophetic, and poetic contexts. Its usage is broad and flexible, making it a more common choice when something needs to be revealed or exposed.
פָּרַע (para) is more limited in its usage and generally refers to specific, more disorderly situations. Its function in the text is more restricted to cases where chaos, disarray, or uncontrolled action is the focus.
5. Grammatical and Lexical Considerations:
גָּלָה (galah) is a more standard verb in the lexicon of biblical Hebrew for denoting the act of uncovering or revealing. It has a clear, recognizable form and semantic range that fits a variety of contexts where something hidden needs to be exposed.
פָּרַע (para) is a less versatile verb and is more specialized in its use. Its meaning is closely tied to specific situations like dishevelment or disorder, which makes it less applicable to the more neutral or formal contexts where גָּלָה (galah) is used.
Conclusion:
The preference for גָּלָה (galah) over פָּרַע (para) stems from the former's broader, more general usage to describe uncovering or revealing something hidden, whether physical or metaphorical. פָּרַע (para), while it can also imply uncovering, generally carries connotations of disorder, dishevelment, or rebellion, making it less suitable for contexts where a neutral or purposeful revealing is required. Therefore, גָּלָה is the preferred verb in most biblical contexts that involve uncovering or revealing."


[Double check info taken from Ai bots. Ten times I have corrected Meta Ai, with its thanks for my corrections and its admission of error. At times it even contradicts itself in one sentence. Challenging the results often results in changes to the supposed 'authoritative' answer.]

Plz note: When another scores a point or says something everyone should agree with, I will revise what I believe to include it. I'll also often say I agree with another posters points. This is unlike some others in AFF. They will not say they agree nor say that they will revise their opinion. What will be heard from them is silence. We are all attempting to come to a better understanding of God and his Word, and what happens here in AFF when we share should not be a contest to show who is seen to score the most points. True truth-seekers are only in it for truth, regardless of who brings it to the surface. Phooey on all other motivations and agendas.

[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.

[Amanah]

Scripture references:

- 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
- 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

By acknowledging the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, we should take Paul's admonition regarding head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 seriously, even if it may not be explicitly supported by other scripture passages.

I don't see scripture supporting a viewpoint of deciding whether or not to obey based on our gut feelings.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul teaches that a woman's long hair is a glory to her, and that she should cover her head as a sign of respect for her husband and for the Lord.

[donfriesen1]

This is what you will get when you embrace the instinct view, versus another:

1. A view which explains why Paul would teach something after he has just praised them for keeping all his traditions. v2

2. A view which recognizes that the word 'covered' in v4 means a veil, which view is in agreement with both the Gk word meaning and the OT examples of it, which would have been known to Paul.

3. A view of v5,6 which shows agreement with Gk word meanings and Gk customs. Shorn is seen to indicate 'cut-short', which is in agreement with Gk word meanings and Gk customs of the shame of it. 'Uncovered' and 'covered' were common words referring to the veil. The instinct view recognizes this knowledge and gives an explanation why these verses seem to be in contradiction with v15.

4. A view which recognizes that man and woman are equals in the image of God and any concepts of co/unco should apply equally to both as these equals. v7

5. A view which shows agreement with the Beginning, with v3, and with v8,9 - woman was made for man.

6. A view which shows both man and woman recognizing the role of symbols. Logically, both man and woman should show respect to God's order of authority symbolically. v4,10

7. A view which recognizes the social interdependency of man, woman and God. v8,9,11,12

8. A view which explains why Paul doesn't use apostolically-authoritative methods, instead using appeals to human customs and thought. v13,14.

9. A view which explains why long hair on a man is thought to be dishonourable, even while God is seen commanding men to have long hair contrary-wise. v14; Nu6 among others

10. A view which explains that the glory of a woman's hair comes from it appearance (and not from obedience to a command which doesn't exist). The view explains how this comes by instincts (known to Man by observation and scripture, Ge3.16) which also shows proper respect for God's order of authority. v3,15

11. A view which explains why Paul seemingly contradicts himself in his summary verse. v16

12. A view which doesn't take the 'no' out of Paul's statement/scripture. v16

13. A view which explains why Paul uses 'custom' instead, when he should have used 'tradition'. v2,16

14. A view which doesn't present conclusions which are contrary to long established incontrovertible theological views. God's image is not seen in Man's flesh. v7

15. A view which doesn't present a problem of not also seeing any commands for co/unco before the time of Paul's 1Co11 words.

16. A view which explains why 1Co11 seems to be commanding something which Gk's/others have been long keeping as a custom.

17. A view which makes sense with what is seen in both scripture and life. Instincts, when heeded, lead Man to co/unco and to show respect to God's order of authority.

18. A view which explains why something which wasn't OT commanded had become a custom of many nations and times including Israel (and not a tradition of Israel). What is seen scripturally and historically is best explained by instincts vs commands which aren't there.

19. A view which doesn't show a woman complying with God's order of authority using a spiritual compliance, while man's compliance is a physical compliance. As equals in the image of God they should be both spiritual compliance or both physical compliance.

20. A view which doesn't ignore some of the lexical works.

21. A view which doesn't see an illogical exchanging of a custom of Man (the veil) with a command of God (long uncut hair). v15

Plz refer to my commentary, post1, for fuller explanation to these statements.

[Tithesmeister]

I’m going to leave some information in this post. I’m not going to speculate (well maybe a little) about the value of the information to the discussion except to make an observation that it is contrary (or at least it seems to be contrary) to our inclination of what purpose the veil would serve in a culture far removed from ours today, both in time and geographically. (This purpose being for modesty, as is, I think the generally held belief.)

I brought up Tamar and the way she put away her widow’s garment, which evidently did NOT include the veil. And she veiled herself as perhaps a part of a disguise or maybe out of a custom. Read the King James Version below:

[13] And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep.
[14] And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
[15] When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.

Notice that Judah (erroneously) believed her to be a harlot. Why? Because she had covered her face. I find this to be interesting. Because?

1. We don’t usually think modesty and harlot belong in the same sentence. But Judah saw a veiled woman and assumed that she was a harlot.

2. She took off her widow’s clothes and put on a veil? Maybe her widow’s garment did not include a veil? While scripture doesn’t say so implicitly, it does seem to imply it. This would possibly imply that it was customary for a widow to be unveiled.

3. Judah, who was Tamar’s father in law, fathered a child with her, or at least impregnated her, which is an extremely intimate situation (to put it delicately) and never realized that he was with the very widow of two of his own sons, and the woman that he had promised his third son for a husband. Let that sink in. What are the implications?

Furthermore: we have the situation with Jacob and Leah. Jacob agreed to work seven years for Rachel. And Laban did this:

Gen. 29
[23] And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
[24] And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid.
[25] And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?
[30] And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

Jacob was all in love with Rachel. But he didn’t realize, after being intimate with her that he had been tricked, and it wasn’t actually Rachel that he was married to. It was Leah! He didn’t realize until the next morning?

What is going on here?!

I’m wondering if Leah was veiled in much the same way Tamar was and that is the reason Jacob didn’t realize who he was with. Maybe the veil was a custom and NOT a “holiness standard” as we tend to think.

Maybe it was a custom.

Which is how Paul refers to it.

1Corinthians

[16] But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I’m not saying it’s the case. But it sure seems hard to explain otherwise.

[Tithesmeister]

Of course, it has occurred to me that it could be another scenario entirely. That unmarried women would customarily be unveiled and married women would be veiled. Much like it is customary (in some circles, but not in others) for a married woman to wear a wedding band.

Not wearing a wedding band would, at least in a culture where it is a custom, be seen as disrespectful to a woman’s husband. It could imply that she is not really “all that married”. Even more so if she were going around town while not in the presence of her husband, and removed her wedding ring. Such behavior would certainly be interpreted as disrespectful of her head (her husband).

Just something to think about, as if it weren’t complicated enough already.

[Amanah]

The overall theme of 1 Corinthians 11 is the importance of maintaining proper order and respect in worship gatherings, particularly in relation to the Lord's Supper and the roles of men and women in the church.

In this chapter, the Apostle Paul addresses two main issues:

*The proper attire and behavior of men and women during worship, emphasizing the importance of humility, modesty, and respect for authority (verses 2-16).

*The correct understanding and observance of the Lord's Supper, warning against partaking in an unworthy manner and emphasizing the need for self-examination and unity among believers (verses 17-34).

Throughout the chapter, Paul stresses the importance of honoring God and respecting one another in the context of worship.

It would be inconsistent for Paul to negate his teaching by saying there is no such custom as doing what he taught. Paul is saying there is no such custom as being in disagreement/contentious with his teaching.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The overall theme of 1 Corinthians 11 is the importance of maintaining proper order and respect in worship gatherings, particularly in relation to the Lord's Supper and the roles of men and women in the church.

In this chapter, the Apostle Paul addresses two main issues:

*The proper attire and behavior of men and women during worship, emphasizing the importance of humility, modesty, and respect for authority (verses 2-16).

*The correct understanding and observance of the Lord's Supper, warning against partaking in an unworthy manner and emphasizing the need for self-examination and unity among believers (verses 17-34).

Throughout the chapter, Paul stresses the importance of honoring God and respecting one another in the context of worship.

It would be inconsistent for Paul to negate his teaching by saying there is no such custom as doing what he taught. Paul is saying there is no such custom as being in disagreement/contentious with his teaching.

I think not, honestly. Paul commends the saints at Corinth for following the ordinances as he has delivered them. What would be inconsistent, in my opinion is for him to then say you have NOT followed this ordinance.

Obviously, this is not an ordinance.

What would be inconsistent, is to talk about ordinances, and subsequently refer to an ordinance as a custom, all while speaking on the same subject.

Obviously, there is a difference between ordinances and customs. At least that’s the way I see it currently. And I haven’t seen anything conclusive that would suggest otherwise up to this point.

Also, unless I’m mistaken, you have suggested that a woman praying uncovered would dishonor God. I believe the passage says that she would dishonor her head, which has been previously identified as her husband.

That’s my understanding so far.