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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

They certainly are discussed. But why would Paul enter into a discussion comparing long hair and the veil? One is common to all peoples regardless of their location and era. The other is a cultural custom held in different ways by only some nations and times. It is hard to see Paul comparing them when he would know this. They are different topics which only have location on the head in common. Hair is a natural biological feature, given by God for adornment. The veil is given by Man to hide beautiful long hair, to prevent unwanted conflicts and jealousy resulting from unwanted romantic interactions while in public. One is given to look beautiful and the other to cover the first's beauty. These diverse purposes prevent meaningful comparisons with one another.

I agree on both points, saying they covered their heads with a veil while in public. This was a widely held Co societal practise and not just a practice of just the Co Christian. Do you agree?

Yes it does, in my opinion, and said so with a caveat of mine. Paul writes with few words and doesn't give much explanation as to the why he has said what he has said. This has led to the multiple opinions of what exactly Paul means. It could be assumed that he thinks the Co will perfectly understand what he says because they have both lived in the same societal context and are both familiar with what he would mean, even without specifying it by detailed words. He thus doesn't specify why a woman should wear a veil, whether it is for spiritual reasons or for cultural reasons. God cannot be divorced out of any cultural thoughts Paul makes, because God permeates all of life. Therefore when he references the veil, he says of the man, that a covered head dishonours God. The cultural and spiritual are intertwined because God is in everything of life. But for Paul not to show the why with details, is important to people who don't live with his background knowledge of Co society. These people then must decipher the few words that Paul uses, perhaps misapplying thoughts when not having the same background info as the Co/Paul had. What he says could be from a spiritual side or it could be from a societal side or both at once. Jude says, v23, to hate the garment spotted by the flesh. Both culture and spiritual issues are addressed in one statement. When Paul says 'judge among yourselves', or, 'nature teaches' (the natural way their society works) Paul should be seen appealing to their cultural norms, because this idea fits quite well into what is known of Co historically. (see my comments on 'nature' in my commentary: 27ff, 42ff, 69ff, 76ff) As a holder of the veil view, you have taken these Co cultural norms and said Paul turns these cultural norms into spiritual commands. To this I do not agree, because the Bible as a whole hasn't presented such a picture. Any interpretation of a part should fit well into what is seen of the whole. The veil view doesn't. Until Paul's words in 1Co11, misinterpreted as commands, the Bible has not shown a picture of the veil as a commanded covering. Plz quote the commands and I will shut-up. I brazenly say this because I know you cannot quote the commands. Spare yourself and don't waste a lot of time attempting to do so.

True.

Yes, historically and only from a cultural view point. A veil was never OT commanded of Man for these reasons. The OT is the only Word Paul possesses.

(is this a spiritual or cultural interpretation?) To which I, as a holder of the instincts view, would add that long hair also symbolizes that a woman respects her man's likes (men think long hair is beautiful). If she wishes to diss her man, then short hair is one method available to her to use. Thus, long hair symbolizes her respect for her man and for God, who has put the instincts within Man. (Men have a God-given instinct desiring pretty, which women know of. Her God-given instinct, seen in Ge3.16, is to plz her man. Long beautiful hair helps her plz her man's likes - admiring long beautiful hair. Men also have God-given rulership instincts, Ge3.16. God-given instincts, which are in both her and him, are dissed when his woman disses her man. This includes the dissing of his likes of her with long hair. This shows a direct relationship to God's expectation that Man should respect his order of authority, but focussing more on the woman.) This, i believe, is what Paul refers to in 1Co11. This is part of what the instincts view shows.

Paul's words in 1Co11, in my opinion, must be understood both from a spiritual and a cultural view point. Doing so harmonises what he writes, into a view without holes.

.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618773] PART1/2

So you're just making it up, then?

Yes, the name of the logic I used is made up. Whether I make a name up or take it from a professors book, it doesn't change the reality of the concept. If I'm at a party and see a group playing a game from a box I assume there are rules. If I walk across the room and see another group with the same box game, I think they will both be playing by the same rules. This is consistent logic.It is not taken from a book. It is the logic all take from life.

Ok, if that's how you want to roll. Your example however is not equivalent to the subject being discussed.

True. But most everybody reading it will get the drift behind the sentence,even if it doesn't come from a professor's book.

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.

The logic that most people use, will agree that, if Paul bases his arguments seen in 1Co11 on the first few ch's of Ge, then, if he commands in 1Co11 then these same commands would also be found in Ge. The players in both the Beginning and in 1Co11 are the same: God, man, woman. If the game is the same (it is - respect for God's order of authority) then the same rules would be applied in both places. They aren't, because the game at the Beginning doesn't show rules. That you proffer that God can command after Deut means you haven't gotten the concept yet. There are no rules shown at the Beginning. There are no commands for co/unco stated at the Beginning, the first time the game was played. Those who misinterpret 1Co11 say there are rules stated for the game - commands for co/unco. That there aren't any commands shown at the Beginning demands a logical explanation. One logical explanation could be that Paul's words are misinterpreted, that he doesn't command in 1Co11. The view that he doesn't command is supported by the evidence seen in the OT (the only Word Paul has and reads and bases his thoughts on): There are no commands in the Beginning, nor during the Age of Conscience, nor the whole time of the Age of Law, up until Paul's misinterpreted words. But I could be mistaken about the commands not being in the OT. I'm human. Plz point out any commands from Ge to Paul, which are similar to what is believed by some to be from 1Co11. But don't use a lot of time searching because they aren't there.

Alternatively, one might say that there was no game played at the Beginning, that God had no expectation that any must show respect for his order of authority. Following this reasoning then shows the reason no rules are shown at the Beginning is because there was no game. This would lead to the ridiculous assumption that somewhere in the middle of history God introduces the game called 'Show respect For God's Order of Authority' and in the middle of history now shows commands for co/unco. This is a ridiculous idea no one should buy into. But that is what is said if one believes that Paul is the first to command co/unco.

Paul says to beware, do not to be spoiled through philosophy. Philosophical arguments can be made which lead down long rabbit holes with many branch tunnels, leading to feelings of lostness for any who enter. If the philosophy that apostolics hold of 1Co11 is a misinterpretation, then there will be rabbit holes with branch tunnels. As I've pointed out in a previous post, I've shown at least 11 holes, which no one has filled yet. Well at least not to my satisfaction.

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.

But by example the Law shows those who minister the Law should be financially supported by those receiving the benefits of it. It is not without some form of support by command - titheing. The principle of this support for supporting ministers of God is the same regardless which covenant the Word is ministered in. The Word is shown giving them some form of this support. What isn't shown in the Word previous to Paul is any form of support for the misinterpretation of 1Co11. That it isn't there demands that the misinterpretation be examined and modified to bring an interpretation which is in agreement with the evidence shown. The principle of respect for God's order of authority is in effect whether there is a covenant in effect or not. Respect for God's order of authority operates outside of, or rather along side of covenants as a separate concept, doing so without commands for adherence. This is shown by how it is presented by the Word of God at the Beginning, the foundation of Paul's arguments. He should be seen to believe in, and apply the same principles he sees in the Beginning, to the arguments he uses in 1Co11. God did not command co/unco at the Beginning, neither does Paul in 1Co11. If so, then Paul is consistent, in harmony with Ge.

Your "law of consistency" is not an actual law of logic.

Agreed, but it is a logic which all Men use in everyday living.

Consistency means harmony of parts to one another.

Thus, the understanding that Paul is said to be commanding, is out of harmony with the whole of the Bible. You've proven the point I make. That the Bible as a whole previous to 1Co11 does not command co/unco shows the interpretation of 1Co11 that some hold is out of harmony.

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'd invite you to provide some specifics. By not doing so, you continue to use methods which say to others 'you're wrong' but don't provide details of their error. I'll now do the same, for all readers to take home with them. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong.

Does anyone have any idea what Esaias is wrong about after that charade? No.

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

Of course, but why do you mention kindergarten stuff? We are way past kindergarten talk. The question that has been put out is 'Does God command in 1Co11 when he hasn't in the Beginning?' All the parts are the same and their relationships to one another also the same. If he commands in one place then he would command the same in all places, to be consistent. That he didn't command co/unco in the Beginning, nor in any other time before Paul, calls into question whether Paul commands in 1Co11. It is inconsistent, out of harmony, in the light of all the previous scripture which doesn't command, to see him now do so in 1Co11. Plz put something out that is more than kindergarten in flavour. You should be able to do so.

Then God may command in 1st Corinthians and it is valid even though it may not be repeated anywhere else in the Scripture.

The question isn't 'could he have?' but rather 'did he?'

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."

By your line of reasoning, that it is Ok that God is seen not commanding co/unco in the Beginning, leads all readers to conclude that you believe that co/unco wasn't in effect in the Beginning because God did not command it there. Is that what you want readers to believe, that Paul bases his arguments for co/unco on a portion of scripture which doesn't also command those there to follow it, like he is now commanding? Does that make sense to your logical mind? Not to mine. Do you not want God to be seen that he is consistent in his methods? Co/unco exists outside of covenants, having come into existence before any covenant, even before the Adamic Covenant. It came into existence without a command asking for it to be honoured, being an inferred expectation. To be consistent God would continue to use the same method, using the same principle first seen used in the Beginning, not commanding something later which is first understood to be in effect by inferred expectation.

"Uncut long"? Who is that?

If you've read my commentary (you've inferred you have) then you know what this means. You again now use minor pointless jabs which contribute nothing to a discussion, wasting everyones time, thinking to score points from something as solid as air. Why not use the abilities you have instead of empty arguments like this?

Anyways, Paul is teaching women are to wear a headcovering and men are to not wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying.

What this sentence doesn't give is an explanation without holes that all can receive without controversy. It is my hope that the instinct view will do so, after careful examination of its claims is shown that it contains no holes, that all can agree with its arguments.

continued in part 2/2

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618773]

Part2/2

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, but, but...the glory of God was seen by millions, leading the Jew on the Exodus journey. Everyday of Atonement the glory of God descended. At the dedication of the first Temple the priest's could not minister because the glory filled the Temple. Not a lot of hiding of glory going on here, is there? The glory of the NT was shown to a select few to confirm to them the revelation of a new way, the NT, when the Lord was transfigured before them. This glory-treasure the NT believer has in earthen vessells, hidden from view. It is an internal glory which is joy unspeakable but not witnessed by the eye. These small portions of the Word appear to speak opposite to that which you say. Certainly the NT way is the greater way but the glory is hidden fromeyes but not the understanding, which those who receive the Light see in their understanding.

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.

I hope people aren't laughing at what you just printed. You've just stated that there is an exception for the priest to do contrary to the principle which God had started in the Beginning, by a command of God. This fanciful exposition should be buried because it is out of harmony with what is seen in the Beginning. The Beginning reveals principles which are the foundations which all other thoughts should be compared to. You know this to be true.

Rather this. Paul speaks of that which hangs down the head, v4, the Gk defn of the En word covered. If the mitre really is as some depict it, it does not hang down the head. It sits atop the head. This doesn't consistently show disagreement with the thought that something which hangs down the head is a dishonouring event. Priests do nothing dishonouring when obeying God to wear a mitre because they do not cover by 'hangs down the head' as shamed dishonouring people do.

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.

Sure. Agreed to be true in a cultural/custom context, but not in a spiritual commanding context. The virgin daughter of Babylon had no contact with any command of God requiring a woman to veil herself. Even if the Jewess of that time was commanded to wear a veil (she wasn't ever) the Babylonian wouldn't have known of this command. The argument you put forward, as showing support that Paul commands Christians to veil, is specious because it refers only to the pagan Babylonian. Do better in the arguments you put forward because they don't put you in good light.

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

I'll have to disagree that consistency has been maintained.

Jews don't follow the old testament, they follow the Talmud.

And the interpretations of the Talmud aren't taken from the Torah, are they, said facetiously? You here use a smoke screen. But why do you dodge the question? I presume it to be because you have no answer, otherwise you would have given it already. My answer to this simple question is: The Jew, along with many other nations in many times, practise co/unco, not from a command of God which isn't there (especially true for any pagan nation) but from following the impulses of God-given instincts. But, said facetiously, this might be too simple (grey) for people who desire things to be complicated by commands (wanting black and white rules). You've heard of the K.I.S.S. principle, no doubt. Sometimes the simplist explanation is the one to hold. I do, in the instinct view.

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.

Are you saying that the Jewess started a covering tradition in AD, in response to a Christian-woman-covering practise? It sounds like this is what you say by your few words. If so, then the co/unco tradition the OT woman practised, which you say v2 refers to, was dropped at sometime but taken up again in response to the Christian woman's practise. Is this what you now say? Whats your point by making this point? You appear to be lost in a rabbit hole.

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.

Plz provide a reference.

That is not a "logical explanation", it is only your hypothesis.

Well, hypothesises can be logical explanations. Why do you waste ink with things like this.

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.

It is logical to do so, and not illogical to do so, when using the understanding that God-given instincts are not commands of God though God-instilled. Instincts should not to be understood to be commands because they aren't authoritatively defined. Though ill-defined, when followed by the majority they become unwritten laws which should be heeded. Is it wise to act contrary to what the nature of Man tells him to do? If yes then we see it expressed in laws of abortion which 'OK's' people to act contrary to their instincts/nature. Man should follow and live by the God-given nature they have been given. It works best for all, if all follow that which God 'suggests by instincts'. Still, instincts aren't laws which must be followed at all times. God instills a mothering instinct in women, which some reject. God does not condemn them as sinners though acting contrary to God's intentions. God in fact is described as closing up the womb of some, contrary to his stated intentions that Man should multiply. If it is true that God instills co/unco within the nature of Man, which many apostolics contend is true, then he is seen commanding the Nazarite man and woman to act contrary to that which is natural for them to do. The Lord thus demonstrates that instincts are not commands which all must follow under threat of punishment for disobedience. The Lord thus commands contrary to the instincts which many apostolics say are God-instilled. It therefore is ok to not live by the instinct, though God has instilled them. If not so, then the conclusions of apostolics who think that God has instilled as a 'universal principle' (see the writings of David K. Bernard, among others) the desire to co/unco, then these must be re-examined and modified. God does not err in commanding the Nazirite to act contrary to the instincts he has instilled. Better to adjust wrong conclusions of the Nazirite than see God contradicting himself.

What you are saying in effect is that it is unnatural to do otherwise than as Paul taught.

Correct. I have said this and it concludes correctly what I have stated.

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.

Yes. And I try to be consistent and have already said that Paul teaches that people should follow their instinctive impulses. But should some choose not to, not to make a big deal of it because instincts aren't commands. Because responses to instincts aren't ruled by time, I don't see co/unco to be only for times of worship. The instincts which bring co/unco are active 24/7 and should be yielded to 24/7. What Paul speaks of in v4,5 as a specific example, doesn't prevent the principles he speaks of from being active in other times. v4,5 is a specific case of a general principle. The specific does not rule over the general. This goes along with my contention that he speaks of both cultural and spiritual things in this same passage. v4,5 is mostly aimed at the cultural aspect. But God cannot be divorced from cultural aspects because God is involved in every atom of human existence.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618775]

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)

Perhaps so. The question which hasn't been asked when posting this is: Why does Rebekah cover herself? She had been living where, until she takes this trip to meet her soon to be husband. She hasn't been living under the Law, which has not yet been given. What influences her to cover? Is there a command of God that calls her to cover? No. We have no scriptural record of it. If not scriptural commands, then it may be the influences of the culture she lives in, and not God's influences. My memory tells me that she had lived in a area influenced by the Ishtar Myth, pagan religion.

Someone needs to do their homework before providing proofs like this to support views that God commands the veil.

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)

Thus a language translation issue has unwittingly misled you. A look at the He lexicon shows a result not agreeing with your conclusion. The word means to loosen the hair, to dishevel it. It does not indicate the removal of a material veil. See my commentary for other scriptures which also use the He word, para.

[donfriesen1]

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.

Whatever the reason for Tamar's covering is, it wasn't done from a command of God. To quote this story does nothing to provide proof that God commands Christian women to veil. It is only an example of a cultural practise which comes from within Man, not God.

Where are the commands of God for the veil, shown from Ge to Paul? They aren't there. The evidence of the veil from the OT doesn't show proof that it comes from commands. A view of 1Co11 must be found which is in agreement with the evidence. The veil view needs to be modified to agree with the evidence.

[Evang.Benincasa]

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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by 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.

What is it that is seen in the Beginning that is seen progressing? Do I believe in progressive revelation? Yes and so should all. Paul in 1Co11 refers to creation order as his foundation base for his thoughts. The following is seen at the Beginning: 1. God exists 2. God creates Adam. 3. God creates Eve. Somewhere in the midst of this is God's statement that Eve is made for Adam (for Adam's purposes). As Adam was made for God's purposes, so Eve for Adam's. Logic has told Paul that what is seen at the Beginning demonstrates an order of authority. There are no statements in the Beginning stating anything about God's order of authority, other than 'Eve is made for Adam'. Paul is perhaps the only Biblical writer to deduce that what is seen at the Beginning has demonstrated an order of authority. If other Biblical writers have done so I am not aware of it, and admit that the possibility that other writers may speak of it, may be true. Thus, the only evidence we have of the order of authority has come through Paul's deductive reasoning of what he has seen in the Beginning. This has all happened in 50 AD in the mind of Paul and not by stated concept from the Beginning. How does what is not stated in the Beginning progress? There are no concepts, no commands, no statements made there that are available to progress from. The start of the concept happens within Paul's mind in 50 AD, unless it is believed that a concept from the Beginning can revealed to all without a command. This is actually what is seen. The concept of the order of God's authority only exists in the mind of those who see it when reading the events of the Beginning. It does not exist from a statement from God from any words he has spoken about the order of authority, other than Paul's. He puts on paper for all to see that which another may never deduce, making it plain for all then to also see. God has not commanded it or asked for it to be kept, outside of what Paul says, who also only infers that it should be kept, himself copying the methodology God used in the Beginning. It is not a command of God from the Beginning which can progress, though it is as real as the nose on our faces. But, if I'm wrong plz provide some evidence of this progression you speak of. If there is progression of a concept of God's order of authority, then we would see a procession from simple to more complex. Plz demonstrate this progression through the Ages, the 4050 years from creation til Paul. Plz show the progression of the concept of the order of God's authority adapting to changing contexts while maintaining core principles.

[donfriesen1]

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?

Very observant. Well spoken.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

We again see people's actions coming out of customs which haven't come from commands of God. If the Co had a custom of veilng, which I believe they did, then Paul only encourages the adherence to a custom, which principle is also demonstrated elsewhere by Paul in the NT. If any thinks that Paul commands an adherence to a local custom, changing a local custom into a command of God, then I'd be happy to hear the line of reasoning whci would demonstrate this. Saying that the Beginning shows Eve created for Adam, and Adam as the one to be respected by her, does not provide an example of a command, though showing a principle not a command. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek by principle not command. It was good for him to do so, but not commanded. It is good to do things from principles seen in the Word, though not commaded per se. The command for a veil does not exist unless 1Co11 is misinterpreted and seen as commanding. To believe that Paul does is out of sync with what the OT shows of veils -they are not commanded there. The principle of respect for the order of God's authority should be seen as a principle which has not been commanded, done nonetheless without command, unless 1Co11 is misinterpreted as commanding. Rather, it is simpler to see Paul encouraging the Co to maintain a local custom. Other than that, God is then seen elevating a local custom to a position of a command of God. If it can be demonstrated that a custom of veiling has developed from a command of God, then plz show the first command from times before 1Co11. Can examples of the use of this principle, that God changes customs to commands, be demonstrated from other areas of OT/Christian life? This might provide evidence that it is a principle that God uses in his dealings with Man.

[Amanah]

These are some final thoughts for whatever they are worth. But, I'm done with this conversation as It's not progressing. It's just repetitive at this point.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul discusses head covering, emphasizing obedience to God's Word over human traditions or instincts.

Key Verses:

*1 Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
*1 Corinthians 11:16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Paul teaches that head covering is:

*Symbolic: Representing spiritual authority and submission (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).
*Universal: Applying to all believers, regardless of cultural context (1 Corinthians 11:2, 16).
*Divine: Based on God's created order, not human tradition (1 Corinthians 11:7-9).

Paul distinguishes between:
*God's ordinances (1 Corinthians 11:2): Divine instructions.
*Human customs* (1 Corinthians 11:16): Man-made traditions.

Supporting Scriptures:

*2 Timothy 3:16-17: Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine.
*Matthew 15:9: Jesus condemns following human traditions over God's commandments.
*Colossians 2:8: Beware of human philosophy, empty deceit.

Believers should prioritize God's Word over:

1. Cultural norms
2. Personal instincts
3. Human traditions