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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Thx for your response.

Agreed, that he has not said this in so many words. That thought has been extracted by me from what most believe to be true in life. Ge3.16 says that a woman's desires shall be to her man. It can then be rightfully said that she has a desire to plz her man. One way is with long hair, which most people say men like. So, agreed, Paul does not explicitly say that a woman should have long hair to look attractive. He also doesn't explicitly say she should maintain respect for God's order of authority, though that is clearly what he means, when reading between the lines. Having long hair, as adornment for her man, is also found there between the lines, both in life and scripture. This then can be interpreted to mean that having long adorning hair is showing respect for God's order of authority. It is an interpretation of what is seen in life and scripture, which may lead to a view without the holes which are seen in some views. Does the instinct view have holes? Perhaps. I'm waiting for someone to point them out, if so.

Would you agree that Eve was expected to display a symbol, for her to show reverence to her man and God? If you don't then you should, for Paul is lumping all men and all women together under one label: men and women. What you believe is applied by Paul to women should also be seen applying to Eve. First cursory appearances of looking at v4,5 leads one to believe that Paul speaks only of times of worship. But what is concluded from this must also fit into the tenor of the whole of scripture. If God commands women to have a material head covering, then we would expect that Eve would also have been so commanded, to see a consistent God. We have no Biblical record of God commanding Eve to wear a veil. Perhaps you have an explanation as to why not. We also have no Biblical record of a command in the time from creation till Paul, that God wants women to wear a veil. Plz explain this absence, in light of the contention that Paul is thought to be commanding a veil during times of prayer and prophecy, if you would plz. This long, long absence is shouting something, hoping to be heard and given proper consideration. It signals that the conclusions made of v4,5 should be adjusted to make it fit with the whole Bible. Only looking at just the words of v4,5 produces a conclusion which is out of sync with the whole Bible. Paul does refer to times of prayer and prophecy, but it has not been established yet, without controversy or holes, how that this is achieved. The veil view has one large hole that stretches from creation till Paul. But perhaps your explanation will fill that hole.

Either long hair or a veil could possibly fill this visual representation symbol role, could they not?

Lexicons are opinions of Man and not statements of God. BDAG is not God's words. The battle rages on from scholars as to which opinion is correct. Which ever side one chooses will determine which outcome is believed. One choice may be as right as the other, both being authoritatively backed. Both fit the situation.

Most would say that either hair or the veil are spatially placed on the head. If Paul refers to hair in v4, as many contend, then Paul has spatially placed hair on the head also. What applies to women should be seen as applying to man. Hair is spatially on the head. Straining at a word in search of proofs to support a view should only be done as a last resort. Focusing on what the whole of scripture says should be the main point of our labours. When the OT fails to present the veil by command and/or by prominence of use, when it should to satisfying the contention of the veil view, then word definition support, such as used here, is implausible.

This is opinion from one man. This doesn't make it bad or good. It may be good opinion. Someone may find an opposing opinion and then it becomes a battle of opinions of Man. Biblical proofs are what is really needed when forming or proving a doctrine. Paul does speak of veils. Does he speak of them as customs or traditions? Had the veil been commanded and kept as a tradition then what is seen in the NT might possibly be an extension of a tradition carried over from the OT into the NT. When the OT shows no such veil command then it is not likely that it was an OT tradition and also unlikely that it was carried forward into the NT as a tradition. If anything, the veil was a custom of Man. Customs of Man are not commands of God. Your point here by quoting Bruce thus only shows support for a custom.

True.

Again, saying so does not present incontrovertible evidence what the expected covering for the woman is to be. Does Paul mention the veil in 1Co11? Yes. He also says that a long uncut hair is given for a covering. What is needed is a view which incorporates both of these facts into it, logically, and not ignoring either of them. The uncut long view and the veil view both do a good job at ignoring one of these facts. My biased opinion is that the instinct view incorporates both. I wrestle with my bias to defeat it with my reasoning abilities.


Plz explain why there are no commands in the Bible for a veil shown from creation till Paul, a time of over 4000 yrs, when the commands should be there to show God being consistent with all women in all times.

.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

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.

Note from ESV study Bible:

GENESIS—NOTE ON 38:15 When Judah sees Tamar, he assumes that she is a prostitute, for she had covered her face, thus effectively achieving anonymity. Since betrothed women wore veils, Judah’s belief that Tamar is a prostitute would not have been simply based on her covered face. Her lone presence by the roadside possibly contributed to his assumption; Jer. 3:2 links “waysides” with prostitution.

[Amanah]

Don's question:
"Plz explain why there are no commands in the Bible for a veil shown from creation till Paul, a time of over 4000 yrs, when the commands should be there to show God being consistent with all women in all times."

Don, you assume God's consistency requires uniform commands throughout scripture, ignoring progressive revelation. God's truth unfolds gradually.

Examples:
*Sacrifices: From Cain and Abel to Leviticus, practices evolved.
*Polygamy: Accepted in early times, later condemned.

Absence of explicit commands before Paul doesn't imply inconsistency. God's truth unfolds progressively, adapting to changing contexts while maintaining core principles.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

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.

Originally Posted by Amanah

Note from ESV study Bible:

GENESIS—NOTE ON 38:15 When Judah sees Tamar, he assumes that she is a prostitute, for she had covered her face, thus effectively achieving anonymity. Since betrothed women wore veils, Judah’s belief that Tamar is a prostitute would not have been simply based on her covered face. Her lone presence by the roadside possibly contributed to his assumption; Jer. 3:2 links “waysides” with prostitution.

Commentary is just that. It is subject to being wrong. If you think about it, what we are doing is commentary, and our commentary is a case of one or both of us being wrong, unless there are three commenting, possibly everyone is wrong.

But think about it in relation to our present culture. Would someone assume that they had seen a prostitute if she were wearing a veil? And her face was covered?

Probably not.

[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)

I think it is at best an assumption that Rebekah veiled herself out of modesty, respect would be an assumption as well albeit a more believable assumption.

Modesty: She was already in the company of a man, before they met Isaac. So if it were modesty, was she being immodest when she was with Isaac’s servant?

If it was a question of modesty, and to perhaps a lesser extent respect as well, wouldn’t she have been covered already?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think it is at best an assumption that Rebekah veiled herself out of modesty, respect would be an assumption as well albeit a more believable assumption.

Modesty: She was already in the company of a man, before they met Isaac. So if it were modesty, was she being immodest when she was with Isaac’s servant?

If it was a question of modesty, and to perhaps a lesser extent respect as well, wouldn’t she have been covered already?

Genesis 24:65 KJV
For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

Rules of modesty and propriety are not necessarily the same from era to era and culture to culture. Being unveiled in front of a servant was apparently not considered a big deal. Being unveiled in front of a great important man, specifically one to whom she was betrothed, apparently was a big deal.

I think it is also likely that the veil she put on was not just a headcovering, but probably covered the face as well. In fact, what we see here is most likely an example of the age old custom of the bride being veiled before her betrothed until the marriage ceremony is complete.

That being said, it does indicate something - the WOMAN took it upon herself to cover herself in the presence of the man. Isaac didn't veil himself when she showed up, she veiled herself when she was coming into his presence. Thus, the same basic principle is at work here as in 1 Cor 11: the woman is the one veiled or covered, and this is what is considered appropriate or "comely" in the presence of respected male authority, requiring certain rules of etiquette.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Commentary is just that. It is subject to being wrong. If you think about it, what we are doing is commentary, and our commentary is a case of one or both of us being wrong, unless there are three commenting, possibly everyone is wrong.

But think about it in relation to our present culture. Would someone assume that they had seen a prostitute if she were wearing a veil? And her face was covered?

Probably not.

But we are discussing 3000 year old ancient near eastern culture, not modern American "culture".

Of course commentaries can be wrong. And so can AFF posters. And...?

Not sure what your point is here.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The surety of opinion is overwhelming in this commentary, said facetiously. Probably is used twice. (Kudos to them for saying 'probably' instead of saying 'definitely'. If you think you are ambiguous it is better to indicate so rather than indicating you are definite.) An opinion is offered and followed by the counter-offering of another. No blame is placed on these commentators, when all readers seek to find a view of 1Co11 without holes which covers all the bases. Opinions of things thus must be expressed when looking for a view, which hopefully will be accepted by all without controversy.

That having been said, it is still needed to be explained by holders of the veil view, why v15 says that a woman's long uncut hair is given for the veil. This verse seemingly contradicts that which the veil view says is a good point. This verse is a huge problem for them. Better is to find a view which doesn't present holes such as this. Those who have read my commentary may remember the points I made concerning v15.

If the ESV view is the view you hold, do you not load the gun of the other side, who say that the cover is not just for times of worship? These verses about angels do not refer just to times of prayer and prophecy, which you seem to contend for, saying the apostle is saying when the veil should be present.

If you are going to quote verses that only mention angels, in contexts showing times other than times of worship, then why stop with just these verses and quote all the verses which only mention angels. Then you would have the appearance of having hundreds of verses showing support for your view. That you use such tactics shows you must be reaching for proof which otherwise isn't there. But such tactics must then be used by you, when the view you hold doesn't have Biblical support which can be called upon. Change your view and then you will find support for it in the Word, and won't need to use such tactics.


The following quote is a poorly constructed paragraph. Better support for your views would have been given had you taken more time with it.

These verses are strong evidence that Paul teaches everywhere the same, but doesn't yet show what it is that Paul teaches about co/unco. A person in my position would say that Paul teaches every church about the instinct view. A person who believes that women should wear a veil during worship times would say that Paul teaches that view in every church. Ditto with the uncut long view.

Actually it substantially changes the meaning when the Greek says 'such' and not 'other'. As shown in my commentary, which I now refer the reader to, some translators err in their translation methods. See page 98ff, which I won't repeat here, for this explanation.

No doubt this is true. Readers of 1Co11 continue to search for an explanation of it that doesn't have holes which another view can poke at. Hopefully the instinct view is one which doesn't have such holes. After examination by many it may be shown to have holes. As of yet I don't know that holes have been exposed.

.

[Amanah]

Don, I believe I Cor 11:2-14:40 is addressing issues related to corporate worship. But, 1 Corinthians 11:5 would apply anytime a woman prays or prophesies.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

.

Well I tried to quote your post but because of the way you format things I can't quote anything except what you see above.

Anyway, you claim your "instinct" view is what Paul taught, and that your "instinct" view doesn't have any "holes" in it, nobody has shown that.

Your claim is ridiculous. I refer the reader to simply review the thread. You are obviously convinced nobody has done anything substantial, so there's no point in being repetitive. Each reader will decide for themselves.