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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Sorry Esaias. I didn’t realize y’all were isolating 1Corinthians 11 from the Old Testament examples of veil use. I still think it’s interesting even if it’s not necessarily relevant to the story.

I’m not trying to take a side in the discussion, I’m just trying to learn. I think that the position that Esaias takes makes the most sense to me. I wish it were articulated more clearly by Paul, but I have an idea that in his time, and to the audience he was writing to, it probably made perfect sense.

I have also thought about the custom of removing our hats to pray as men. It does seem uncouth for a man to pray with a hat on.

Just another note to Dan? Just to keep it real, it really shouldn’t be on Esaias to prove you wrong. I think that would be an unrealistic precedent to follow. Typically, when we address doctrine, it is incumbent on us individually to prove doctrine by supporting it with scripture. After all there is only one doctrine that is true and correct. There are many opinions. And of course, as is usually the case in vetting doctrine, it is only possible for one view to be true. On the other hand it is possible for both to be wrong.

Or all three. I do think it’s important to pursue truth though. That is the beauty of the AFF forum in my opinion.

Well, I wasn't trying to isolate 1 Cor 11 from the Old Testament references to veils and coverings, per se. I was however trying to point out that Paul's doctrine was not simply a repeat of "old testament doctrine". I do notice that the Levitical priests were required to cover their heads when ministering in the Tabernacle/Temple. This at first glance appears to contradict Paul's doctrine. But when we consider Paul also taught that the glory of God was concealed or covered up as it were under the old covenant (symbolised by Moses having to veil his face when he was in public), whereas under the new covenant the glory of God is uncovered in Christ, it follows the same pattern. That is, the new covenant "ordinance" of the man being uncovered when praying or prophesying is a great new covenant contrast to the old covenant Levitical priestly ordinance.

As for the woman, if (as Paul points out) she represents the glory of Man, then she ought to be covered. Not because of anything about females in particular, but because of what they symbolically represent - the glory of the man - needing to be covered in the presence of God. That is, God's glory is symbolically uncovered, and man's glory is symbolically covered, when anyone is speaking either to or for God.

The old testament-era custom of women being veiled (pretty much all the time) when in public - which also prevailed not only in new testament times but all up through the middle ages and the renaissance and into the 1800s - appears to have been a social custom, since I cannot find a Divine ordinance anywhere in Scripture for women to be veiled "whenever out in public". Neither is there a command for men to be uncovered "whenever out in public". I think the Scripture indicates that women probably DID wear a headcovering of some kind whenever in public (otherwise the reference in Isaiah to Babylon as a woman being shamed by being stripped, including the removal of her headgear wouldn't really make much sense), but as far as I can see the INSTRUCTION is for "praying and prophesying".

The fact Paul speaks about "when praying or prophesying" indicates the tradition he is referring to is independent of any social custom, but rather has to do with worship. Which also is one of the reasons I don't think his point is simply about hair length, since that would be a matter that pertained all the time, not just when praying or prophesying.

I've noticed most people, who don't have some kind of tradition they grew up with about the subject, when they read 1 Cor 11 their first impression is usually that it is saying women ought to wear a headcovering during worship, and men ought not to. At least that has been my experience.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Tithesmeister;1618876]This topic of the custom of the veil leaves my head spinning because of its many angles and almost contradictory practices. My research indicates that during the days of (it is important to specify where and when. Customs change over time and are different in various locations, though having a same general name) Tamar and Judah, it was: 1. customary for men and women, widows, to remove the veil during mourning times. (Tamar was well past the time of mourning, yet a widow). 2. It was customary for a widow to veil, to signal she was a widow. 3. It was a custom that a widow might remove her veil when she wanted to move past widowhood. A woman had social expectations she would want to meet. A widow had discretion if and when and how to meet these expectations. All the information points to the veil as a custom and not ever as a command, which we can't find record of in pre-law scripture, nor in the yet to come OT law.

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, ...

I agree. Though not its intention, it also serves to symbolically show a woman's allegiance to her marriage. Why? Because it shows that she doesn't display her beautiful hair in public, which single or unfaithful women might use to attract the attention of males. If displayed, she signals 'I'm available to be approached' in some societies. I only assume these things to be true, not having an expert to confirm it. ...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....

Good observation.

...But Judah saw a veiled woman and assumed that she was a harlot.

. It could be said that Judah recognized her as a harlot because it was the custom for harlots to dress as Tamar now dressed. As a business person, a harlot must advertize clearly that something is for sale. Judah knew so, because the advertizing method was common knowledge.

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. ...

Reading betweens the lines often is done with some pre-conceived ideas, which make the lines read in whichever direction one is previously inclined to believe. ...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.

. I'd say that Tithesmeister just agreed with one of my points. Thx for the assumed vote.

[donfriesen1]

Macroscopically or microscopically? People look at 1Co11 and they pore over the details of its verses, searching its recesses to definitively discover the answer to what it is Paul speaks of. Each word is examined microscopically to help determine Paul's meaning. With all this good poring, let it not be forgotten that microscopically is not the only method to take. The topic can also be viewed macroscopically so - seemingly from a distance for a big picture, so to speak.

When did God first recognize that Man needed to show respect for the order of God's authority? Our understanding of God's omniscience leads us to say - forever. If the Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, then the Lord recognized Man's need to show respect for the order of authority from before the foundation of the world - from eternity. It has always been in his mind, as the omniscient eternal God he is. Yet, he is shown by some to wait till 1Co11 to command (the veil).

A microscopic method leads to examining v5,6 and concluding that the cover is the veil, because that is what the gk word means and it is then concluded by some that God commands its keeping.

A macroscopic view of the whole of the Bible shows that God has never commanded this showing of respect, nor commanded the veil, until Paul's words are interpreted to command it. Why would the omniscient God with eternal knowledge wait until 1Co11, some 4050 yrs after creation, to reveal a command? Or why would he wait till then to command the veil? He wouldn't and would have revealed the command to show this respect, right at the Beginning, the moment Man started their existence. The microscopic view is out of focus, out of alignment with the macroscopic.

What is actually shown at the Beginning is an expectation, for Man to hold this respect, but not by a command. This expectation starts the moment A&E are created. There are no commands shown in the Bible until the words of Paul are misinterpreted by some to command. The macroscopic picture does not show a big picture with a command, nor show a big picture of commanding the veil. Where are the commands pre-Paul, showing it macroscopically? But a microscopic view of 1Co11 does. Why would the Lord only show a microscopic picture of a co/unco command truth? Does not compute.

Knowing the wisdom and truth of God as we do, we would expect that both pictures would reveal the same truth of God, not just one. If God commands (the veil), then it would be seen both microscopically and macroscopically. What is seen both microscopically and macroscopically, is only the expectation that Man would show respect for the order of God's authority using the regard of symbols. This is seen at the Beginning, through the OT, and in 1Co11. Expected but not commanded. Macroscopically and Microscopically.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618878]

The overall theme of 1 Corinthians 11 is the importance of maintaining proper order and respect in worship gatherings,

How about A&E in Ge2? Were they exempted from needing to show respect for God's order of authority because they had no worship services? Did A&E not need to show respect to the order of authority, with regard to symbols? Did Eve have a command to wear a veil when clothing was not yet invented? (You might say she could have used a leaf. But this deviates from precisely following what is shown in v5,6; the source of the specified-veil view's conclusions. This also fails to explain why no command is seen for the veil in the Beginning, or in the rest of the OT.) The absence of a worship time, and the impossibility of using a veil, all indicate that the idea of it being just for worship times needs adjustment, inspite of the words of 1Co11 (They are a specific example which does not exclude the need to show respect for God's order of authority at all other times also. Logic tells us that respect for God's order of authority would be required for all times, and not only for any specified times). There's something wrong about a general rule not fitting every situation, which it is said by some to be covering. This requires a need to re-examine it, to adjust it, or find a view which doesn't have such irregularities as is shown here. 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.

Very true.

It would be inconsistent for Paul to negate his teaching by saying there is no such custom as doing what he taught.

Agreed, that this could be and is seen by many as true. But, for the following 3 logical reasons. 1. Those who contend that the use of the word contentious being near the word custom then indicates a contention custom, ignore that contentions are rarely, if ever, categorized as customs. It thus uses a wrong concept as an explanation. 2. The contentious are usually a minority and customs are usually practiced by a majority. Therefore, another wrong concept is applied. 3. Contentiousness is usually thought of as an attitude, not as a custom. Another wrong concept. [I googled 'contentiousness'. The following was at the top: 'Contentiousness is a noun that means the tendency to cause or be involved in disagreement or argument. Here are some synonyms for contentiousness: quarrelsomeness, litigiousness, and disagreeableness.' The synonyms are also attitudes.] Paul should not to be said to say that these Co's hold to a custom of contentions, because it causes a distortion of the concept he is trying to use. Why would anyone want to divert from these 3 norms of the use of words? The reason: to make Paul's words fit into what they think he should be saying. This is poor, weak exegesis. The best form of exegesis is to form a view which reflects what the writer actually says, without distorting it. Paul is saying there is no such custom as being in disagreement/contentious with his teaching.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is seen both microscopically and macroscopically, is only the expectation that Man would show respect for the order of God's authority using the regard of symbols. This is seen at the Beginning, through the OT, and in 1Co11. Expected but not commanded. Macroscopically and Microscopically.

So the sum total of Don's doctrine is "You can basically do what you want" in regards to 1 Cor 11. Another example of how Don thinks that the Bible need not actually be followed, as something to be obeyed. In the other thread he tried to claim that heathens didn't HAVE to become Christians in order to be saved, they could be saved by their "right living based on conscience". (Saved by "instincts", I guess?) Now, he has Paul teaching the church that God has certain expectations about respecting His order of authority, but those expectations aren't commanded and so if anyone wants to disregard those expectations "don't make a fuss about it because we don't command anyone to do what God 'expects' people to do."

So basically, it's up to you to do whatever is right in your own eyes.

It should be obvious to anyone who "respects God's order of authority" that such a doctrine is heresy, macroscopically and microscopically.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So the sum total of Don's doctrine is "You can basically do what you want" in regards to 1 Cor 11. Another example of how Don thinks that the Bible need not actually be followed, as something to be obeyed. In the other thread he tried to claim that heathens didn't HAVE to become Christians in order to be saved, they could be saved by their "right living based on conscience". (Saved by "instincts", I guess?) Now, he has Paul teaching the church that God has certain expectations about respecting His order of authority, but those expectations aren't commanded and so if anyone wants to disregard those expectations "don't make a fuss about it because we don't command anyone to do what God 'expects' people to do."

So basically, it's up to you to do whatever is right in your own eyes.

It should be obvious to anyone who "respects God's order of authority" that such a doctrine is heresy, macroscopically and microscopically.

Hence the reason I posted this….

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, how much of the New Testament do you believe that Paul just made up?

People who believe in a Gospel of Inclusion actually believe that the apostles were winging it. Paul mostly gave his opinions on how the church should operate. This is also how those who see Paul as a heretic view Paul as not teaching what Jesus taught. So, the only question one can ask is, “how much of the New Testament did Paul the apostle make up?

[Amanah]

In this passage, the Apostle Paul emphasizes the importance of having a spiritual understanding of Scripture, rather than relying on human instinct or wisdom:

1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Jude 1:10 warns against interpreting spiritual truths based on human instinct:

Jude 1:10
But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14 emphasizes the importance of seeking a spiritual understanding of Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than relying on human instinct (Jude 10) or wisdom.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Tithesmeister;1618879]

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.

Keen observation. Kudos to you.

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.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618880]1 Corinthians 11:2 KJV
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

1 Corinthians 11:17-18 KJV
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. [18] For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Paul commends them for following the ordinances (plural), regarding "all things". In "all things" they remembered him (that is, they followed his teachings and example). Yet, a few verses later, he reprimands them for doing the opposite, for not participating in the Lord's Supper properly. So obviously he can commend the church for following him, while at the same time rebuking those in the congregation who for whatever reason haven't gotten in line with the apostolic practice. Therefore, he can commend them, and then correct them, even about head coverings.

I agree. Good observation. This is good reasoning.
Quote:Originally Posted by Tithesmeister
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. I agree. This is good reasoning.




He does NOT speak of an ordinance, and then later refer to the ordinance as a "custom". Rather, Paul speaks of "ordinances" (literally, "traditions"). Then speaks of a contentious person and "such custom". That is, the contentious person is arguing for a "custom" or habit, rather than for a "tradition" or "ordinance". There is no such practice or habit or "custom" in the churches of God contrary to the ordinance that Paul expounded upon.

Gill's commentary"

we have no such custom, nor the churches of God; meaning, either that men should appear covered, and women uncovered in public service, and which should have some weight with all those that have any regard to churches and their examples; or that men should be indulged in a captious and contentious spirit; a man that is always contending for contention sake, and is continually cavilling and carping at everything that is said and done in churches, and is always quarrelling with one person or another, or on account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he to be suffered to continue in the communion of the church, to the disturbance of the peace of it.

Paul delivered traditions or ordinances to the churches he founded. These ordinances or traditions were congruent with the practice of all the churches of God.

As already stated in previous posts, I do not agree in some partial sense, while agreeing to the whole. While agreeing that the early church had uniformity of belief, I do not believe that what Paul presents in 1Co11 is part of that. Esaias will jump up and down saying it is included, but cannot present specific evidence that 1Co11 is included in this uniformity. Had it been possible, he would already have done so. What Paul speaks of in v3-16 is something new, which I hope I have clearly demonstrated. For the audience I will briefly repeat. Paul talks about traditions in v2. It is illogical to think that he would re-teach in v3-16 that which he just praised them for faithfully keeping. He then says 'but', contrasting what is new with the old. Using the word 'but' would then indicate a change of subject, a contrast. He then teaches in v3-16 the new. (I say this now, all while still acknowledging what Esaias said above near the start of this post, as good reasoning. Both my words and his are good reasoning) Paul taught something about headcovering, and it is obviously in conformity with the practice of the churches of God. Therefore, anyone who would be "contentious", who would argue against what Paul taught and against the practice of the churches of God, would be contending in favor of a custom or habit that was contrary to the churches of God and their practice. Obeying the apostolic instruction is the keeping of an apostolic ordinance. Disobeying an apostolic instruction in favor of some other way of doing things is contending for some "custom" or practice that is lacking among the churches of God.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618881]Quote:Originally Posted by 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.)
The issue of 1 Cor 11 is not about general modesty nor about "the purpose of the veil in a culture far removed from ours both in time and geography". The issue is about the churches of God and propriety in praying and prophesying. Paul does not refer the Corinthians to local "custom", but to Adam and Eve, to the order of Creation, and to the angels.

None of which have anything to do with "a culture far removed from ours in time and geography".

Plz explain Esaias, dear bro in Jesus, why Paul would command the veil. Plz point to the source for his thought that the veil would be commanded by God. Does it come from 1. the OT (the only scripture Paul reads), or 2. from a revelation from God, or 3. from life (life has led the Co culture to accept and practice the veil). The most logical choices are life or revelation from God, because the OT fails to mention a command for a veil, though OT women have practiced the veil as a custom. Wait. What was just said? OT women practiced the veil as a custom (not as a response to a command which isn't there). And Co, which is far removed by distance from Israel, Co women also practiced the veil as a custom. Is there a pattern emerging. Two separate witnesses testify to something and they may indicate that revelation is not the source of Paul's thoughts to command (if you believe he commands) the veil. Paul's words need not necessarily be thought to command but to suggest. Why think this? He has done so elsewhere. In Ro12 he tells the Ro's to obey gov'ts. Doing so doesn't elevate gov't laws to the same level as laws of God (as Esaias would have you think about doing the veil, that God commands it. The original source of the veil must be Man, because the only scripture Paul has, does not show a command as the original source for the veil. Its original source is Man, and God would then be seen as elevating a custom to a place of command), even though he wants the Ro to obey them. Paul is thus only suggesting that gov't laws should be done (for conscience, not sin's, sake). Gov't laws are laws of the society which made them. Gov't laws then are laws of society, much like customs are laws of society. Paul should be seen to suggest to the Co, like he suggests the keeping of gov't societal laws, that cultural laws should be obeyed. But he doesn't elevate cultural laws to the level of God's law anymore than he elevates gov't laws to laws of God. Thus, it is more logical to see Paul's source for asking the keeping of the veil being from customs, and not revelation. See my commentary where I present thoughts that show that revelation is an unlikely source for Paul's veil thoughts.

Besides which, the universal practice in all of Christendom for some 2000 years has been to practice what Paul taught.

While the possibilty of this historical fact is likely as true, it doesn't negate the thought that the veil may have been practiced for 2000 yrs as a misinterpretation of 1Co11, misleading these into this practise. Quoting historical views, while having some weight, does not provide evidence which should be looked for in the Bible. Is it audacious to say that 2000 yrs of misinterpretation are possible? Indeed! Indeed it is, but all the pieces of the puzzle must come together to make a picture. What pieces do the OT contribute to the veil-view picture? None? None for the veil as a command, but certainly as custom. Paul refers to the OT for the base for his thoughts. That the OT base of his thoughts doesn't present commands for the veil prods to re-think it as a command of God. 4000yrs of OT history should not be ignored while 2000yrs of a.d. history are accepted, should it? Has Esaias been poked by this prod? Not from what we have seen. Poke. Its now time for Esaias to respond properly to the poke. Accept that the evidence of scripture and of reason, doesn't show God commanding anything in 1Co11, let alone commanding the veil. Change your views, you can do it. It worked for me. Accept truth. This has only been dropped in Western countries in the last 100 years or so, although the remnants of the practice has remained still in a large number of churches in the West in one form or another. Thus, in most churches, men still remove their hats, and there is nothing thought unseemly about a woman wearing a hat or scarf or something during church.