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.

.