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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Esaias, I'm still learning the ropes. Plz have patience with me. Here it is re-done should you want to repeat your response.

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618770]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

1 CORINTHIANS—NOTE ON 11:16 See 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 14:33, 36

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.

Paul’s objective is to bring the Corinthians into conformity with generally accepted Christian behavior.

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.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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, ....

I should have worded my response differently. Thx for pointing out my ridiculous claim. What I should have said is that others have not kept open the holes which they claim to see. What others have responded with has been countered with a response from myself, with me thinking the holes they pointed out have been filled. This puts into a more truthful light, eh?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

The following is quoted from another post in this thread. "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.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Brother,

My point has been made. Sorry if it was a bit vague.

We have two women in Genesis that veiled themselves. They are in the same time period. They married into the same family. One was considered to be a harlot. The other was Rebecca.

Notice though the difference in the reaction to these women wearing a veil. One has been suggested to have done so out of modesty and respect. The other was suggested to have done so as a disguise?

This is the challenge with trying to exegete this subject of the veil. Sincere people interpret it the way that they want to believe it. It is prime territory for conformational bias. Rebecca veiled out of modesty and respect. Tamar out of a need to remain anonymous.

I have my own idea. Maybe I’ll get into it. Probably not. Because I don’t see it being something that can be proven conclusively. And we seem to have plenty of hypotheticals.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother,

My point has been made. Sorry if it was a bit vague.

We have two women in Genesis that veiled themselves. They are in the same time period. They married into the same family. One was considered to be a harlot. The other was Rebecca.

Notice though the difference in the reaction to these women wearing a veil. One has been suggested to have done so out of modesty and respect. The other was suggested to have done so as a disguise?

This is the challenge with trying to exegete this subject of the veil. Sincere people interpret it the way that they want to believe it. It is prime territory for conformational bias. Rebecca veiled out of modesty and respect. Tamar out of a need to remain anonymous.

I have my own idea. Maybe I’ll get into it. Probably not. Because I don’t see it being something that can be proven conclusively. And we seem to have plenty of hypotheticals.

Actually there isn't a problem with "trying to exegete this subject of the veil". Paul taught women ought to be covered, and men uncovered, when praying or prophesying. Simple.

The rest is just people's attempts to not do what the apostle said to do. Interestingly, nobody had a problem with this until around the 20th century.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The following is quoted from another post in this thread. "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.

Don, you just can’t handle being challenged on your beliefs.
You believe that the scripture is filled with opinions of the writers. Your understanding has been borrowed from ideologies which also see God as flawed. A bungling deity who can’t properly relay His knowledge to His followers. Now, as far as you being mockable? Sorry, but you are the one who provides me with such good material. Also evangelist not mocking? Does evangelism mean giving a shoulder massage and back rub to anti Gospel nonsense? Ah, no. Don, I don’t know what church you attend or if you even still attend a church. I’m not trying to win you, convert you, or be a friend you. That’s an endeavor which takes two to make any relationship work. Which you have shown everyone that you aren’t interested in any of that. I’ve watched people post with you and show you nothing but respect and kindness. To only watch you come back at them with your disrespect. So, don’t DM me with your nonsense. Don’t play the victim, because there is way too much evidence showing your ecclesiastical passive aggressive behavior. You want to believe stupid stuff, have at it. You want to discuss stupid stuff be my guess. But don’t go wee wee wee all the way home when you are called out on it. You have been proven wrong in multiple threads. At least you could be a good sport instead of a sore loser.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618786]

Don, I believe I Cor 11:2-14:40 is addressing issues related to corporate worship.

Yes, he is.

But, 1 Corinthians 11:5 would apply anytime a woman prays or prophesies.

And so you would then say that women are commanded to wear a veil for these times. Plz say, if God commands a woman to wear such a veil during such times, what kind of veil is acceptable to the Lord. Plz point to some scripture which will indicate God's acceptable veil. Surely the Lord would not leave to chance obedience or whim of Man, for what he says is necessary by command to plz him, to avoid something as serious as sin. Or does he let Man determine that which will satisfy God's need-to-cover command? Plz indicate which scripture could be referenced that indicates that God says Man can choose which cover pleases the Lord. (One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One is a specific number which excludes. It specifies one to the exclusion of all others. Count all the 'ones' shown by Paul in Eph 4.4-6, a favourite passage of apostolics. Does Paul now leave the principle of specifics for a principle of many. You now get to choose which cover to use? Doesn't make sense.)

Does it make sense to you that God would let Man determine that which he is commanding? You are not a woman with small scriptural knowledge. It makes most sense that God would specify that which he commands. That no scripture indicates either this specific cover nor a scripture showing that Man is allowed to choose, should lead one to question whether he commands it, in light of the poor evidence shown that he commands it, and in light that the verses which are said to command it can easily be seen in another reasoned vein.

While you are in an explaining mood, plz explain why Paul says that a woman's long uncut hair is given for a veil, v15 for her hair is given to her for a covering. An explanation must be found, a view held, which satisfies both v5 and v15 at the same time. I believe the instincts view does so with its explanation. The veil view does not. It is time to replace a view with holes, with a view which has less holes or none that can't be explained/filled. It is time to leave misinterpretation and replace it with one which faces and explains the facts. The veil view explains poorly. Leave the veil view in the dust behind you.

Or at least make an effort to explain away the holes seen in the veil view. If they can't be given a reasonable explanation, then it may indicate that another view should be held instead.

Does Paul say that a woman should cover? Yes, of course he does. But he has not said clearly what that cover is. Their is a dispute among people, who claim truth as their motto, as to which view is the one to hold. A view must be found which satisfies what is seen in life and scripture. God made both. In my mind, the instinct view has the least objections and covers the bases. Believe it.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Tithesmeister;1618804] Thx for the exegesis, Tithesmeister. Good stuff.

Because I don’t see it being something that can be proven conclusively. And we seem to have plenty of hypotheticals.

I agree. If you haven't seen this link in my commentary, called "Doubtful Things", it is a short commentary on Ro14,15.1-7 on exactly this subject.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

[donfriesen1]

Evang.Benincasa;1618807

The following is quoted from another post in this thread. "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.

[Amanah]

**
https://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html
**

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

In the appeal to “nature” (φύσις) here Paul makes contact with another philosophy of ancient times, known as Stoicism. The Stoics believed that intelligent men could discern what is best in life by examining the laws of nature, without relying on the changeable customs and divers laws made by human rulers. If we consult Nature, we find that it constantly puts visible differences between the male and the female of every species, and it also gives us certain natural inclinations when judging what is proper to each sex. (16) So Paul uses an analogy, comparing the woman’s headcovering to her long hair, which is thought to be more natural for a woman. Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming, it interferes with vigorous physical work, and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight. It is therefore unmanly by nature. But a woman’s long hair is her glory. Here again is the word δόξα, used opposite ἀτιμία “disgrace,” in the sense of “something bringing honor.” Long and well-kept hair brings praise to a woman because it contributes to her feminine beauty. The headcovering, which covers the head like a woman’s hair, may be seen in the same way. Our natural sense of propriety regarding the hair may therefore be carried over to the headcovering.

Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says “her hair is given to her for a covering” he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning. There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman’s head should be covered. And if there is something especially suitable about a woman’s head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair. But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also! The argument here involves a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum in which there is an analogy made between headcoverings and hair. These verses make no sense otherwise. If by “uncovered” Paul means only a shorn head in the first place, as some would have it, (17) then his argument in verses 5 and 6 amounts to the nonsensical “if a woman will not refrain from cutting off her hair, then let her cut off her hair also.” For this reason Hurley, who does not want to think that Paul is requiring headcoverings here, has resorted to the idea that Paul is saying that a woman’s head is uncovered when her hair is not properly coiffed. (18) But this is very strange, and unlikely in the historical context, where cloth headcoverings and veils were so commonly used. Who can suppose that Paul is making no reference to these when he speaks of headcoverings?