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

[Amanah]

Don, you're stretching the interpretation of Tamar's story. Asking if Tamar was "shameless and showing submission" by wearing a veil is a misapplication of the narrative. Tamar's actions were a desperate attempt to secure her rightful place in Judah's family.

In fact, Judah himself acknowledges Tamar's righteousness in her actions, saying "She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah" (Genesis 38:26). This indicates that Tamar's actions, including wearing a veil, were motivated by a desire to uphold her rights and dignity within the family.

In this context, Tamar's veil was used for concealment, allowing her to disguise herself as a prostitute and avoid recognition by Judah. This use of the veil for concealment is distinct from the symbolic meaning of the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.

Furthermore, the fact that Tamar wore a veil in this context doesn't undermine the consensus view that 1 Corinthians 11 instructs women to wear a veil as a symbol of modesty and submission. The two contexts are distinct, and attempting to draw a direct analogy between them is disingenuous.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don, you're stretching the interpretation of Tamar's story... ...The two contexts are distinct, and attempting to draw a direct analogy between them is disingenuous.

*****************

Don, you're stretching the interpretation of Tamar's story.

Agreed.

is a misapplication of the narrative.

Indeed I am.

In this context, Tamar's veil was used for concealment, allowing her to disguise herself as a prostitute and avoid recognition by Judah. This use of the veil for concealment is distinct from the symbolic meaning of the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.

You specify here '1Co11' and don't include the OT. Do you by this admit that the veil wasn't a command for OT women to also use? Do you then admit that the OT use of the veil was by custom and not command? Readers, a word of caution about holding your breath for Amanah's answer. Her response may not come. For some people it is more important to have appearances of being right in their views than to acknowledge and embrace scriptural truth.

In this context, Tamar's veil was used for concealment, allowing her to disguise herself as a prostitute and avoid recognition by Judah. This use of the veil for concealment is distinct from the symbolic meaning of the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.

But it was known that harlot's used veils. It did not signify submission nor modesty. It is claimed, by those who say it was a symbol of a command of God, to do so. How is anyone to differentiate by appearance between individuals using the same symbol. If it is said that one circumstance is OT and the other is NT, then it admits that the veil wasn't commanded in the OT, or the comparison would then be valid. This may indicate that its origins are from Man. The vv says the symbol shows obedience to a command of God to veil, that it shows modesty and submission. The harlot uses this ('presumed by me to be identical') symbol to advertise her services. Does this sound like God, to throw confusion of symbols into the mix? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The same symbol can represent different things. A raised fist may symbolize defiance or victory. The question of the veil is whether God has take a symbol from Man and turned it into symbol of obedience to a command? Wouldn't the Lord use the same symbol of the NT also in the OT, on the same topic, respect for God's order of authority. Of course, especially when the origins or base is taken from the OT. What I do know is Paul's basis for 1Co11 thoughts is the OT. But God never commanded the veil in the times from which Paul has taken his base. The commands for co/unco with symbols should be there along with the base Paul took from it, but they aren't. This leads some to examine the conclusions that Paul commands the veil, and reject it. God neither OT-commanded the veil or the uncut long hair. This leads some to ignore the facts of the OT, when they shouldn't, to be honest to the OT. They are disingenuous with the OT.

But that was yesterday. Any today can be genuine with the OT, not disingenuous, and then say, that because the OT did not command the veil, I won't today continue to believe that God commands the veil. It is possible, with God, to make changes of mind, when truth is acknowledged.

attempting to draw a direct analogy between them is disingenuous.

Indeed it is. It was done by me in jest. Did you not think this when I had said in post 292 "Just saying - you know - to make the convo interesting"?

[Amanah]

We actually have no clue what prostitutes wore

Tamar's veil played a crucial role in her plan. The veil actually served to conceal Tamar's identity, allowing her to disguise herself and avoid recognition by Judah. It was likely her location (sitting by the road) and her willingness to engage in conversation with Judah that led him to assume she was a prostitute.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

We actually have no clue what prostitutes wore

Tamar's veil played a crucial role in her plan. The veil actually served to conceal Tamar's identity, allowing her to disguise herself and avoid recognition by Judah. It was likely her location (sitting by the road) and her willingness to engage in conversation with Judah that led him to assume she was a prostitute.

****************

We actually have no clue what prostitutes wore.

If we today don't, then Tamar certainly did. Why? Because of 3 deliberate acts. 1. took off her widow’s garments. 2. covered herself with a veil. 3. sat in an open place. She must have known, for whatever reason, that harlots dressed a certain way and sat in an open location, even if we today don't know how harlots acted or dressed. There was nothing haphazard about what she was doing.

and her willingness to engage in conversation with Judah that led him to assume she was a prostitute.

Well except that v15 says When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot. Contrary to how you say it, he first saw her as a harlot. And he opened the convo with, 'I want to have sex'. Not as you insinuate, 'he saw her, had a convo, then decided he would want to have sex with her'. Why would you want to make it say something other than what it says? People can read.


Ge38.14-16 So she took off her widow’s garments, covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place which was on the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given to him as a wife. When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face. Then he turned to her by the way, and said, “Please let me come in to you”; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law.

The ESV, your preferred version she took off her widow's garments and covered herself with a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. 15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 He turned to her at the roadside and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?”

[Esaias]

Don is wrong.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don is wrong.

[diakonos]

Guys, pearls before swine.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Guys, pearls before swine.

Yes, that’s exactly what’s happening here.

[donfriesen1]

Amanah's arguments for the vv shows her concluding that it is God's view for all to hold. It is: women must wear a veil, or something similar, for worship services. Note: She has said little, if anything, about the male's role to show respect to God's order of authority.


A) Her reasons and proofs are the following:
1. Paul plainly says so. v5,6
2. The tone of 1Co11 is commanding. Paul always taught authoritively, as commanding. p275, 280
3. That Man has a sinful nature necessitates God's response in giving his Word. Therefore, 1Co11 as a command fits this context. p280
4. The context of 1Co shows Paul addressing church probs. Therefore, the veil is only for church times. p129
5. Paul shows the consequence of not following his commands. p275
6. All the churches practised the same things. p55
7. OT women veiled: Rebekah's example. Law of Jealous husband. Tamar's example. p59, 62
8. Gk/He word meanings support the vv. post36, 54, 56, 103
9. Gk word epi shows spatial proximity of the cover on the head. p54
10. Paul uses the veil symbolically. Symbolism of the veil is of spiritual realities. p36
11. Symbolic nature of the veil isn't related to any particular culture. p36
12. Jewish culture valued public displays of reverence. (This almost contradicts 11.) p54
13. Nature gives examples in support of the vv. p36
14. History shows the vv as the predominant view. p288


B) Amanah's arguments against the iv are as follows:
1. Paul is not saying a woman needs to have long hair to look attractive. He is saying a woman needs to have a symbol of authority on her head. p54
2. Progressive revelation is the reason why no OT command for the veil is given. p63
3. A definition of gut feelings or carnal nature is substituted for the iv definition used of instincts. p147, 191, 217
4. Abortion shows women with instincts of killing. p249
5. Views of 1Co11, other than traditional ones, are showing hubris. p287
6. Novel arguments against scripture should not used. p291


C) Questions asked but not answered by Amanah:
1. Is it not possible that Paul in 1Co11 refers to shame coming from not meeting human expectations? p41
2. Did God expect Eve to wear a veil during times of worship, before the Fall and before the invention of clothing? p41, 61
3. Either long hair or a veil could equally fill the visual-representation symbol role, could they not? p61
4. No reasonable answer has been given by her to explain why the OT hasn't commanded the veil, nor even commanded co/unco. Progressive revelation fails to as an answer. p63, 292
5. What explanation can be given to reconcile v5 with v15? One says a woman should be veiled and the other that long hair is given for the veil? p68
6. Plz explain how "The commentary below reconciles v5&15." p94, 102
7. Though not asked of her specifically, she does not respond to the thought that tradition of v2 can not refer to a tradition of OT veiling, when the veil was never OT commanded which would start a tradition.
8. Amanah also offers no response to the thought that, if God commands the veil, that he is seen as changing a long held veil custom held in many times by many nations, into a command.
9. Amanah believes that nature provides examples which support the view that God commands the veil. For example: a woman's long hair. She also says that no certain covering is specified by God as the symbol. Therefore, a 4" doily or another symbol could be used, which may then fail as actually being a cover. These two concepts do not agree. One, nature's examples, is somewhat specific, and the other results in any/many symbols. p36, 235


D) It should be agreed that Amanah presents good arguments for the vv. When they are considered alone, they are good proofs for the vv.

Amanah correctly states, post 36, that Paul takes from Ge2, the concept of 'God's order of authority'. While showing this, does she also agree that God does not there show, in the same location where the order of God's authority originates, any commands to show this respect by symbols?

What the vv fails to do is provide a view which is in sync with the OT scriptures. The Beginning, the Age of Conscience, the Law all show no commands for a veil, when it should if the vv is God's view. What is seen, of co/unco and God's order of authority, in the Beginning should also be seen consistently throughout remaining history. It laid the foundation which all views should agree with and should be built upon. When the OT shows no commands for co/unco or even for a veil, this is consistent with what is seen at the Beginning - no commands. The first things, making precedence for what follows, should be considered first, when making a doctrine.

That much of history after Pentecost has held to the vv may only testify that a consistent misinterpretation of 1Co11 has been held through much of history.

That Gk/He word meanings have been used to support the vv is not surprising. All views do so and should do so. Doing so does not necessarily prevent a misinterpretation of facts. A misinterpretation of the scripture can come when any language is used.

Paul is seen by many as commanding in 1Co11. All should agree that this is by conjecture, when the words he uses aren't necessarily so seen. The word 'ought' is not necessarily a command.The gk grammar mood is not the imperative, it is not commanding. It could refer to cultural expectations. The way he writes can be correctly interpreted other than commanding.

Paul is seen to ask for a symbol. What is unclear as the symbol is of much dispute and discussion. If it was indisputably the veil then much discussion would not be had. That disputes exist shows a need for a view which addresses all the facts, putting them together, without holes in reasoning, showing consistency and agreement with all scripture and thought. If the iv does not, it has not yet been shown not to do so.

Amanah has shown little time has been spent to tear down the iv. What counter arguments she has put forward have been weak and answered to.

That Amanah hasn't responded to all questions may be showing that the vv has no answers to important questions. The view that God holds of co/unco would be both sensible, without holes, and would answer questions because God would not present something which doesn't. In my view the iv is God's view. But it is new and hasn't had a lot of testings. Time will tell.

[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.