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

[Esaias]

"Paul bases arguments put forward in 1Co11 from the first chapters of Genesis. If that is his scriptural foundation then it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1Co11 would also be seen there."

I'm going to try this one more time, Don. The bolded part of your statement, which I quoted above, is the point that needs to be examined.

1. Why do you think "it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1 Cor 11 would also be seen there"? What law of logic demands such a thing?

2. Do you believe that there are no commands of God to found in Scripture after Deuteronomy? If so, WHY?

3. Do you believe every command of God must be repeated at least twice, in two separate books, by two separate authors, in order to be valid? If so, WHY? Who says so?

4. Is it more logical to think that women ought to be covered, and men uncovered, when praying or prophesying, because of the reasons given by Paul in 1 Cor 11? Or rather because of some unknown unstated undefined "instinct" that you are hypothesizing is somehow involved?

5. Do you believe there was a uniformity of approved practice in the 1st century apostolic churches of God? Or do you rather believe different churches "did things differently" and the apostles were all cool with that?

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618766] Part 1/2.

Quote fron donfriesen1: "Paul bases arguments put forward in 1Co11 from the first chapters of Genesis. If that is his scriptural foundation then it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1Co11 would also be seen there."

I'm going to try this one more time, Don. The bolded part of your statement, which I quoted above, is the point that needs to be examined.

OK. But I'd say that all 11 hole-points I've made should be examined. I encourage you to do so, for yourself if not also for those you influence. Why not address all or at least some of the other points, too?

Or you could just keep posting mocking emojis, per post 50. Doing so shows you as elevating yourself to a place of authority made for comparison for others to line up to. Those failing to meet your comparison-points are then worthy to be mocked. And who is it that elevated you to this position but self?

The response from a dignified person would be to show how these holes are wrong. You refuse to do so. That you don't when you so often do in AFF, using your great knowledge base (I'm not being facetious here) is telling. Other readers of these threads see your lack of response here and wonder why someone such as you has not more to say here. I've made serious allegations, showing evidence in scripture and logic, and the best which someone of your experience comes up with is an emoji. You can do better but perhaps you can't, evidenced by your lack of responses. You don't because if you had something serious to respond with you would already have done so. But don't give up yet. You've got it in you to bring it forth.

1. Why do you think "it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1 Cor 11 would also be seen there"? What law of logic demands such a thing?

A I'll call it the law of consistency. If God commands Italians to be saved by Ac2.38, then it would be inconsistent that he would command the Japanese to be saved another way.

Some apostolics, I'd guess a majority, believe that God commands something in 1Co11. It is in regards to proper respect for his authority as creator. As creator he expects Man to maintain respect for the order of authority he has put in place.

When was the order of authority first put in place? It is logical to assume it was put in place the moment of A&E were created. Did God command it then? We have no record of God commanding it in the Beginning. There is no record from the Beginning that God commanded respect for him to be shown by the keeping of symbols, but it is said, by some, that such a command appears in 1Co11. But it is logical that the showing of symbols was expected in the Beginning if it was shown required in 1Co11, which 1Co11 shows. Yielding to the forces which the instinct gives (in this case, the woman's instincts to be nice looking) results in doing that which the man likes (by instinct he likes visually pretty things). By following her instincts a woman is shown showing respect by symbols (long hair) that which her man likes. Long hair shows she respects her man's likes. It is the symbol that was possible to be shown used in the Beginning. The opposite is also true. Any woman wanting to diss her man can do it by denying the long hair she knows he likes to see. Long hair thus symbolizes her respect for her man. Long hair from yielding to the force of the instinct is the symbol which shows she regards the order of authority God instituted without command.

Some things need no command yet are still understood, when God gives the ability to rationalise an understanding of it without a command. It is rational that Man reverence God. Man clearly knows this even without being commanded. It is known by rational abilities. The reason the story was recorded as it was in the Beginning is to show Man the source of reverence comes not by command but that which comes from deductive reasoning abilities. Adam and Eve verbally passed down their story, to share what had happened because it was important for them to do so. Alternatively, if you believe like some do, that God revealed it to Moses while on Mt Sinai, then it is God who reveals what happened at the Beginning, doing so because he felt it was important to tell the story the way it happened. Man there deduced reverence for God's order of authority. It was not known to them first by a command.

The topic of respect for God is not a light topic, because it also involves the glory of God, which is Man's primary purpose in life. Yet it had not been commanded in the Beginning, before the Fall, nor was it commanded immediately after the Fall. There is no record of any command for something this important, yet it is still logical to assume respect is expected, even without a command. The same for the glory of God. It was not commanded in the Beginning but rational to think it was expected without command.

There are no Biblical records for commands of respect to be shown by symbols in the Ages following: Conscience and Law - a huge period of time. The Law would have been a logical place for commands to now appear, for the nation God chooses to be a kingdom of priests, set at the crossroads of the world. Moses is seen commanding for God many, many laws having to do with externals/the physical. None are seen from Moses which are similar to commands which are said by many to be commanded in 1Co11. Strangely, not seen.

Man then exists for over 4000 yrs, without a command for respect for God's order of authority. Enter Paul and the NT. Paul is interpreted by some apostolics to be now commanding that which has not been commanded for 4000 years. The existence of a new covenant does nothing to change what had been expected by rational thought - respect for God's order of authority. The new covenant doesn't change one iota that Man is still expected to show respect to God's order of authority. It had been expected, without command, for 4000 yrs and continues to be expected in the NT. If any Man connected to God doesn't show this respect then they have massive issues of intellect or are controlled by expectations other than from God's rational ways.

Paul is a scholar and lover of all things having to do with the Word of God. The only Word he has are the OT scriptures. They form the values he believes and lives by. Had Paul seen commands for showing respect for God's authority in the Beginning, or in Conscience, or in Law, then we would rightly expect that he would now command the same in the new covenant. But the expert of the OT he is does not see commands anywhere there and he does not now command for the NT differently than what is shown in the OT, emulating what he knows to be the principles of God shown in the Beginning. Respect for the order of God's authority in the NT is by expectation and not by command, the same as it was in the Beginning and the Ages after it.

It thus is logical to say that Paul doesn't command.

B It is illogical to think that commands for co/unco would only exist for the NT. All the parts are equal in any Age - in the qualities they possess in relation to the topic. God hasn't changed. Man hasn't changed. Woman hasn't changed. The expected ways of relationships and expected respect are the same in any Age. If God has not commanded in the Beginning, (the logical place for the first appearance of commands on this topic, if anywhere) then what would compel a later needed addition of a command? None of the qualities of any player in their relationships has changed, showing a need to now command that which wasn't commanded then. It is known now as it was known then. It is a rationally deduced expectation without being commanded.

C The absence of commands for 4000 yrs speaks something. All need to listen to what this silence says. To ignore by saying that absence doesn't speak is unresponsible.

2. Do you believe that there are no commands of God to found in Scripture after Deuteronomy? If so, WHY?

I do believe that God has commanded after Deuteronomy. God has commanded after Deut differently than he had done there, and also the same, depending on the time and the circumstance. Plz explain why you ask this question because it doesn't seem to fit into this discussion.

3. Do you believe every command of God must be repeated at least twice, in two separate books, by two separate authors, in order to be valid? If so, WHY? Who says so?

No. God may speak once and it is truth, even though not ever repeated. But God graciously does repeat himself often, allowing for more surety and clarity of belief.

1Co11 is interpreted in a certain way by uncut long. This interpretation is then viewed as the interpretation that all previous God-fearers held from the Beginning onward. Where is the evidence that all previous God-fearers held this interpretation? It isn't there. By this method, the usual order of things is reversed. Usually the past (OT) is seen as laying the foundation for the future (NT). With the misinterpretation of 1Co11 it is seen otherwise. The NT is the foundation for what is said to be believed in the OT. Where is the OT evidence of co/unco seen, laying the foundation for the NT doctrine of co/unco? It isn't there. What needs to be done is to find a view of 1Co11 which is in agreement with the OT evidence, putting the horse (OT) before the cart (NT).

The instinct view does this. What is seen is that many peoples over many times practised co/unco without a command from God. If no commands are seen in the OT then why do Jews practise co/unco? Scholars say that many pagans in many times practised co/unco. Pagans certainly don't practise co/unco from commands which aren't there, which they wouldn't have known even if they had been in the OT. The logical explanation is the practises came from God-instilled instincts. Sometimes, if something fits the story then it is true. Instincts explains what is seen in history. It doesn't explain all of history because people do not always follow their instincts.

Part 2/2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Part 2/2.

You'll admit, I presume, that 1Co11 is seen by scholars as one of, if not the most difficult passages to get to a clear understanding of, with a view which all can agree on. The instinct view, in my estimation, provides an understanding which satisfies. To my mind it answers many questions and covers the bases. But as the author of it, thinking what I've received is from the Lord who opened my understanding to it, I'm biased. My rational mind tells me that I should lay aside my bias and consider any objections others may see in my logic. I'm listening. Plz explain why you think the reasons Paul gives is more logical than to think it is motivated by instincts.

That said, Paul writes of more here than just instincts, in my opinion. He writes of what is proper to do in a society. In Ro13 Paul tells the Ro to obey the rules of society. The rules are the things which human gov't has dictated to be followed. Rules of gov't are rules of society through a governing body. Do them, Paul says, for conscience sake. In Co, an unwritten rule of society was the propriety for a woman to appear in public with a veil. Prayer and prophecy times are public times. Follow the rules of your society, Co Christian woman, though you've found liberty from rules, in Jesus. 1Co10.23,24 is in the ch just before 1Co11. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being. Obey your society's rules.

Paul writes 1Co11 with few words, thinking that the Co will understand that which few words fails to convey to us. This is a time when history helps explain what scripture has failed to detail. My view thus is only an opinion, which another, such as yourself may not agree with. As pointed out in an earlier post, some views of 1Co11 have holes. In my opinion the instinct view fills the holes. Plz show how I am in error in filling these holes or in the instincts view's explanation of 1Co11. I realise that doing so will be based on the same method I use, opinion, and that no view has incontrovertible evidence.

Do you agree that Ge3.16 shows that both woman and man will have instincts? Do you agree that the OT shows an instinct of covering the head when shamed? This is scriptural evidence and not opinion, which is today still seen in Man. Man knows of instincts by observation of the actions of the majority. That alone is the proof that Man has instincts. I agree that instincts aren't clearly defined, having said so in my commentary, but they certainly are real, are not unknown as you say and clearly seen when the actions of a majority reveal them. The reasons why poll takers take polls is to show a majority view which singular examinations doesn't reveal. Polls and their results are real because they reflect majority views. The same with real instincts.

I having already addressed an answer to this question, which you no doubt have read. I'll repeat briefly what I've already said. No commands are shown in the OT for co/unco. This would prevent a co/unco tradition from forming in the OT Jew that would carry over into the Church. The long hair which was practiced was from custom and not command or tradition (there being no command). Customs may get their starts from instinctive impulses. Long hair in women comes from her instinctive desire to want to be beautiful for men, leading to a custom of long hair. If all the churches previous to Paul's writing of 1Co11 practised long hair then they had done so by customs which may have sprung out of instincts. Why customs vs. traditions? There are no recorded Biblical commands from Jesus, the 12, or the OT, that commanded the keeping of long hair. You may contend that they held uniformity of practise on long hair by tradition/command but you do so without evidence. It is assumed to be so by opinion alone. Doctrines should be based on evidence and not just opinion, no matter how logical that opinion is. The OT scriptures offer no evidence that your opinion on tradition is correct, though it is logical. The lack of OT evidence speaks against the opinion. Had we seen commands in the OT for co/unco then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Eph4.13 speaks against your uniformity thought that claims the apostles/churches were in agreement on all things. In another post you gave a beautiful talk on the uniformity of belief of the early church. But it fails to show what the details of it are. He6 and Eph4.5 speaks to the things they did agree on. Co/unco is not listed there. The early church no doubt had uniformity of believe on the basics and any claim that they held uniformity of believe on co/unco is opinion without evidence. Paul says v3But I want you to know which insinuates that it is new and may not be common.

Paul writes something important in 1Co11 or he wouldn't write. He wants all to know what he knows. The question for all readers of 1Co11 to answer is: What important thing does Paul write of? Is it OK to have a view of it full of holes? Most would say the less holes the better. Plz show how my conclusion in the instinct view is wrong beyond just saying 'It is wrong' or using mocking emojis. That such methods are used insults the time and intelligence which readers invest in reading this thread. Do better. You've got it in you to do so.

.

[Amanah]

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:

1 Corinthians 11:10 ESV
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

1. *Ἐξουσία (Exousia)*: In 1 Cor 11:10, "ἐξουσία" (authority) refers to a symbol of authority, not inherent authority (BDAG, 348). Paul emphasizes the headcovering as a visual representation.

2. *Κεφαλή (Kephale)*: The Greek "κεφαλή" (head) signifies "source" or "origin," not merely "authority" (BDAG, 508). Paul highlights Christ as the source of humanity.

3. *Ἐπι (Epi)*: In 1 Cor 11:10, "ἐπί" (on) indicates spatial proximity, emphasizing the headcovering's presence on the woman's head.

4. *Primitive Church Context*: headcoverings signified modesty, respect, and submission to authority (Bruce, 1961). Jewish culture valued public displays of reverence.

5. *Corinthian Church Dynamics*: The Corinthian church struggled with disorderly worship (1 Cor 14:33-35). Paul addresses headcoverings to promote order and respect.

*References*

- BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature)
- Bruce, F. F. (1961). The Epistle to the Corinthians (TNTC)

[Amanah]

Notes from my ESV study Bible

1 CORINTHIANS—NOTE ON 11:10 wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. More literally, a “wife ought to have authority [Gk. exousia] over her head,” where the word “authority” refers to a head covering, which was a symbol of authority. This probably means, in the context of the Corinthian church, that the wife should wear a covering over her head as a sign that she is under her husband’s authority. Others, however, suggest that a head covering is a sign of the woman’s authority to prophesy in church, or to participate generally in the church assembly. because of the angels. This probably refers to the invisible heavenly beings (6:3; Heb. 1:7) who are present with the Corinthians when they worship (cf. Ps. 138:1) and whose presence makes propriety in worship that much more important. The NT elsewhere uses the fact that angels are watching as one motive for obeying God’s commands (see 1 Tim. 5:21; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 1:12).


1 CORINTHIANS—NOTE ON 11:16 See 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 14:33, 36 for Paul’s appeal to the practice of other churches. no such practice. That is, “no such practice” as that of those who disagree with Paul (therefore some translations render this “no other practice,” giving about the same sense). Paul’s objective is to bring the Corinthians into conformity with generally accepted Christian behavior.

[Amanah]

1 Corinthians 11, focuses on the relationship between long hair and headcoverings. Women likely had long hair and covered their heads in public worship. The biblical text, specifically 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 and 1 Cor 11:13-16, emphasizes the importance of headcoverings for women during worship.

Linguistic analysis of the Greek words "κομή" (komē) and "κατακαλύπτω" (katakalypto) supports the interpretation of long hair and headcoverings. Historically, headcoverings signified modesty, humility and respect for authority, while long hair symbolized femininity.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You can do better but perhaps you can't, evidenced by your lack of responses. You don't because if you had something serious to respond with you would already have done so.

I'll call it the law of consistency. If God commands Italians to be saved by Ac2.38, then it would be inconsistent that he would command the Japanese to be saved another way.

So you're just making it up, then? Ok, if that's how you want to roll. Your example however is not equivalent to the subject being discussed. The issue is not are Italians to follow Paul's teaching on headcovering when praying or prophesying but Japanese are to follow some other teaching. The question was "what is the law of logic that demands Adam and Eve must have been commanded the thing that Paul commands if he uses Adam and Eve as an example to support his command"? Paul did not claim "Adam and Eve were commanded a certain way therefore we should follow their example", but rather that Adam and Eve were created in a certain order and according to a certain hierarchy, which hierarchy and order provide illustrative support for his teaching.

In another place, Paul referenced the law concerning not muzzling the ox who treads the corn as illustrative of his teaching about how apostles were to be supported by the churches they ministered to. Yet, the command in the law contains nothing about apostles being supported by the churches they ministered to.

Your "law of consistency" is not an actual law of logic. Consistency means harmony of parts to one another. Paul's teaching is consistent with his examples, as he himself explains and demonstrates. Your teaching however is not consistent with Paul's method of using examples elsewhere.

]I do believe that God has commanded after Deuteronomy. God has commanded after Deut differently than he had done there, and also the same, depending on the time and the circumstance. Plz explain why you ask this question because it doesn't seem to fit into this discussion.

If God can command after Deuteronomy, then God can command in 1st Corinthians.

No. God may speak once and it is truth, even though not ever repeated.

Then God may command in 1st Corinthians and it is valid even though it may not be repeated anywhere else in the Scripture. And thus your "law of consistency" and your claims that "because Paul's instructions aren't repeated in the Law or elsewhere therefore the passage in 1 Cor 11 contains no command" are admitted by you to be refuteed (by your admission of the point here that "God may speak once, and it is truth, even though not ever repeated."

1Co11 is interpreted in a certain way by uncut long.

"Uncut long"? Who is that? Anyways, Paul is teaching women are to wear a headcovering and men are to not wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying.

Where is the OT evidence of co/unco seen, laying the foundation for the NT doctrine of co/unco? It isn't there. What needs to be done is to find a view of 1Co11 which is in agreement with the OT evidence, putting the horse (OT) before the cart (NT).

Paul taught a distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant, illustrated in the fact that Moses put a veil over his face to hide the glory of God, whereas we in the new covenant see the glory of God unveiled. Thus, the pattern is established that God's glory was concealed in the old covenant system of things but is now open and revealed in the new covenant system of things. With that in mind, we look to the commands regarding the priests under the old covenant, and we see this:

Exodus 28:4 KJV
And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

The old covenant priests wore a head covering when they officiated. This is consistent with Paul's reasons given in 1 Cor 11, that the man's head ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying because he is the image and glory of God. Under the old covenant, the glory of God was concealed, thus the priests wore a headcovering. Under the new covenant, the glory of God is not concealed, thus men are to be uncovered, in order to symbolise this new covenant reality.

We also see this in the old testament scriptures:

Isaiah 47:1-3 KJV
Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. [2] Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. [3] Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

Here, part of shaming a woman includes "uncovering (her) locks", that is, removing the headcovering. It is thus seen that in the old testament scriptures, it was inappropriate or "unseemly or uncomely" for a woman to have her head uncovered so that her hair was on full display. This is consistent with Paul asking "is it comely for a woman to pray uncovered" etc.

These are two old testament examples that are CONSISTENT with Paul's teaching concerning the headcovering practice of the churches of God.

If no commands are seen in the OT then why do Jews practise co/unco?

Jews don't follow the old testament, they follow the Talmud. Besides which Jews practice covered heads in synagogue for both genders, and that is a practice they picked up AFTER the first century AD as a response to Christian practice. There is another thread on the forum concerning headcoverings where I detailed the history of Jewish, Greek, and christian practice of headcovering. You should look it up.

The logical explanation is the practises came from God-instilled instincts.

That is not a "logical explanation", it is only your hypothesis. But in any event, it would be ILLOGICAL for you to say the practice Paul taught is based on "God-instilled instincts" while you also hold to the idea that people need not actually follow said God-instilled instincts. What you are saying in effect is that it is unnatural to do otherwise than as Paul taught. Therefore, to be consistent with your own statements, you would support Paul's teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you're just making it up, then? Ok, if that's how you want to roll. Your example however is not equivalent to the subject being discussed. The issue is not are Italians to follow Paul's teaching on headcovering when praying or prophesying but Japanese are to follow some other teaching. The question was "what is the law of logic that demands Adam and Eve must have been commanded the thing that Paul commands if he uses Adam and Eve as an example to support his command"? Paul did not claim "Adam and Eve were commanded a certain way therefore we should follow their example", but rather that Adam and Eve were created in a certain order and according to a certain hierarchy, which hierarchy and order provide illustrative support for his teaching.

In another place, Paul referenced the law concerning not muzzling the ox who treads the corn as illustrative of his teaching about how apostles were to be supported by the churches they ministered to. Yet, the command in the law contains nothing about apostles being supported by the churches they ministered to.

Your "law of consistency" is not an actual law of logic. Consistency means harmony of parts to one another. Paul's teaching is consistent with his examples, as he himself explains and demonstrates. Your teaching however is not consistent with Paul's method of using examples elsewhere.

If God can command after Deuteronomy, then God can command in 1st Corinthians.

Then God may command in 1st Corinthians and it is valid even though it may not be repeated anywhere else in the Scripture. And thus your "law of consistency" and your claims that "because Paul's instructions aren't repeated in the Law or elsewhere therefore the passage in 1 Cor 11 contains no command" are admitted by you to be refuteed (by your admission of the point here that "God may speak once, and it is truth, even though not ever repeated."

"Uncut long"? Who is that? Anyways, Paul is teaching women are to wear a headcovering and men are to not wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying.

Paul taught a distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant, illustrated in the fact that Moses put a veil over his face to hide the glory of God, whereas we in the new covenant see the glory of God unveiled. Thus, the pattern is established that God's glory was concealed in the old covenant system of things but is now open and revealed in the new covenant system of things. With that in mind, we look to the commands regarding the priests under the old covenant, and we see this:

Exodus 28:4 KJV
And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

The old covenant priests wore a head covering when they officiated. This is consistent with Paul's reasons given in 1 Cor 11, that the man's head ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying because he is the image and glory of God. Under the old covenant, the glory of God was concealed, thus the priests wore a headcovering. Under the new covenant, the glory of God is not concealed, thus men are to be uncovered, in order to symbolise this new covenant reality.

We also see this in the old testament scriptures:

Isaiah 47:1-3 KJV
Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. [2] Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. [3] Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

Here, part of shaming a woman includes "uncovering (her) locks", that is, removing the headcovering. It is thus seen that in the old testament scriptures, it was inappropriate or "unseemly or uncomely" for a woman to have her head uncovered so that her hair was on full display. This is consistent with Paul asking "is it comely for a woman to pray uncovered" etc.

These are two old testament examples that are CONSISTENT with Paul's teaching concerning the headcovering practice of the churches of God.

Jews don't follow the old testament, they follow the Talmud. Besides which Jews practice covered heads in synagogue for both genders, and that is a practice they picked up AFTER the first century AD as a response to Christian practice. There is another thread on the forum concerning headcoverings where I detailed the history of Jewish, Greek, and christian practice of headcovering. You should look it up.

That is not a "logical explanation", it is only your hypothesis. But in any event, it would be ILLOGICAL for you to say the practice Paul taught is based on "God-instilled instincts" while you also hold to the idea that people need not actually follow said God-instilled instincts. What you are saying in effect is that it is unnatural to do otherwise than as Paul taught. Therefore, to be consistent with your own statements, you would support Paul's teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

Simply brilliant

[Amanah]

Other biblical examples

Rebekah Veiling Herself

In Genesis 24:65, Rebekah veils herself before meeting Isaac, demonstrating modesty and respect.

"Then Rebekah took a veil and covered herself, and when Isaac came, she veiled herself." (Genesis 24:65, NKJV)

Old Testament Law of Jealousy

In Numbers 5:18, the priest uncovers the woman's head as part of the ritual for suspected adultery.

"The priest shall bring her near and uncover her head." (Numbers 5:18, NKJV)

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Other biblical examples

Rebekah Veiling Herself

In Genesis 24:65, Rebekah veils herself before meeting Isaac, demonstrating modesty and respect.

"Then Rebekah took a veil and covered herself, and when Isaac came, she veiled herself." (Genesis 24:65, NKJV)

Old Testament Law of Jealousy

In Numbers 5:18, the priest uncovers the woman's head as part of the ritual for suspected adultery.

"The priest shall bring her near and uncover her head." (Numbers 5:18, NKJV)

And then, of course there is this.

Genesis 38

[15] When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.