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

[Amanah]

Novel interpretation

Don, your insistence on promoting the "Instincts View" as a legitimate interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, despite overwhelming historical and scholarly consensus, raises concerns about hubris. For thousands of years, scholars and theologians have understood this passage as instructing women to wear a veil or head covering during worship.

Historical and Scholarly Consensus

The unanimous testimony of early church fathers, historians, and biblical commentators across various traditions confirms that the veil view has been the prevailing interpretation. This consensus is not based on blind tradition but rather on careful exegesis and attention to historical context.

The Dangers of Novel Interpretations

Your novel interpretation, which contradicts the accumulated wisdom of centuries, raises questions about the stability and authority of scripture. If individual interpretations can supplant the collective understanding of the church, where does this leave us? How can we trust the Bible as a reliable guide for faith and practice?

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof lies squarely on you to demonstrate that your novel interpretation is more plausible and faithful to the text than the veil view. Merely asserting that the Holy Spirit has revealed a new interpretation is insufficient. You must provide clear, compelling evidence from scripture, historical context, and scholarly analysis to support your claims.

Caution and Humility

In light of the overwhelming historical and scholarly consensus, I urge you to exercise caution and humility in promoting your novel interpretation. Rather than accusing others of being close-minded or traditional, I encourage you to engage in a more nuanced and respectful dialogue, acknowledging the accumulated wisdom of the church and the potential risks of departing from it.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Here are snippets from various biblical commentaries that interpret 1 Corinthians 11 as women using a veil as a head covering: ........

.........These commentaries, written by various theologians and scholars, all interpret 1 Corinthians 11 as instructing women to wear a veil or head covering as a sign of subjection to their husbands and to the Lord.

*********************

Thank you Amanah, you've been busy in the books. All should thank God for these writers, presumedly godly people. That they have taken the time to study the Word and share what they've learned we all should be grateful for.

Do any of just the above statements say with evidence that God commands the veil? No? Therefore it could be seen to be a cultural expectation. Quoting the above statements thus proves nothing. But don't give up yet. If you keep searching you'll likely find evidence that shows that God commands the veil in the NT. Then search some more and you might find evidence that the OT commanded it too. But I doubt it. It would be in easy reach and have already been quoted. Don't waste your time looking for something that isn't there.

I assume to think that you've taken the time to read and examine their writings. Have any of them taken the time to explain why the OT shows no commands for the veil? Plz post here a condensed version of what they've said, if yes.

a sign of subjection to their husbands and to the Lord.

That said (my comments above), the story of Tamar and Judah contains the word referred to by these writers. Check the LXX. Tamar used this article of clothing as a prostitute would. Was a prostitute shameless and showing submission when dressed thus? Did Tamar have a husband? No? Just saying - you know - to make the convo interesting.

[Amanah]

Don, you're stretching the interpretation of Tamar's story. Asking if Tamar was "shameless and showing submission" by wearing a veil is a misapplication of the narrative. Tamar's actions were a desperate attempt to secure her rightful place in Judah's family.

In fact, Judah himself acknowledges Tamar's righteousness in her actions, saying "She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah" (Genesis 38:26). This indicates that Tamar's actions, including wearing a veil, were motivated by a desire to uphold her rights and dignity within the family.

In this context, Tamar's veil was used for concealment, allowing her to disguise herself as a prostitute and avoid recognition by Judah. This use of the veil for concealment is distinct from the symbolic meaning of the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.

Furthermore, the fact that Tamar wore a veil in this context doesn't undermine the consensus view that 1 Corinthians 11 instructs women to wear a veil as a symbol of modesty and submission. The two contexts are distinct, and attempting to draw a direct analogy between them is disingenuous.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Novel interpretation... ...and the potential risks of departing from it.

*******************

Don, your insistence on promoting the "Instincts View" as a legitimate interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, despite overwhelming historical and scholarly consensus, raises concerns about hubris.

Good point. Or rather, I'm standing up tall with an interpretation that doesn't have holes. The scholars you've referenced haven't plugged the huge hole in the vv. Had they, you would have already mentioned it, because it has been previously asked for. Namely, the OT does not contain any commands for the veil, nor even commands for co/unco. These scholars need to find a view without holes to defend. Defending holes questions their abilities as scholars. If I have insistence, I would rather have it for something without holes. Plz point out a hole in the iv.

For thousands of years, scholars and theologians have understood this passage as instructing women to wear a veil or head covering during worship.

Amanah, that such historical data exists for Trinitarian doctrine does not validate it as truth. Ditto for the veil view. That contrary-to-the-iv historical data exists does not detract from the iv's legitmacy as a Biblical interpretation. What logic do you use that thinks history de-validates scriptural interpretative methods? History does not trump Bible. How does a teacher of the Word, you, come up with arguments like this?

The unanimous testimony of early church fathers, historians, and biblical commentators across various traditions confirms that the veil view has been the prevailing interpretation. This consensus is not based on blind tradition but rather on careful exegesis and attention to historical context.

Ditto for trinity baptism. Do you now say that trinity baptism is a legit scriptural baptism because early church fathers taught it? Of course not, because scripture is the basis for doctrine. History must agree with scripture to support scripture. I fear, and suggest, that the stance of modern apostolics holding to the vv relies more on history than it does on scripture. What is sadly lacking in the vv's use of history is that it fails to use the history of the OT in the formulation of doctrine. The reason being, the OT history does not support the notion (I've used a word loaded with negative meaning, notion, doing so to copy what some do when doing it for its effect. I usually purposely avoid doing so) that the vv presents. It does support the veil as a custom but not as a command. Plz comment on this, Amanah.

The Dangers of Novel Interpretations

and there are also dangers of misinterpretations, such as the vv and ulv.

Your novel interpretation, which contradicts the accumulated wisdom of centuries, raises questions about the stability and authority of scripture. If individual interpretations can supplant the collective understanding of the church, where does this leave us? How can we trust the Bible as a reliable guide for faith and practice?

Wow! You ascribe such great power to one man's interpretation of 1Co11, that you think it to provide instability for the authority of scripture. Lord help us if this is true in readers. What you've forgotten to mention is that the authority of the iv is from the authority of scripture itself. Therefore, using your reasoning, it thus would undermine and disprove itself. You can do better than this with your arguments contrary to the iv.

Merely asserting that the Holy Spirit has revealed a new interpretation is insufficient.

Of course. Most would agree. Assertions such as these are almost totally meaningless. They are only the testimony of a good man, if so. That's all. Doctrine requires much more proof to be presented than testimony alone.

You must provide clear, compelling evidence from scripture, historical context, and scholarly analysis to support your claims.

As you have said, the iv is the first for a 1000s yrs, yet you ask for scholarly support which you know doesn't exist when it is new. What scholarly support does Paul show for his 1Co11 words except his own (except when referring to scripture)? I do the same. You'll no doubt agree that I've used scripture and historical context to formulate the iv.

In light of the overwhelming historical and scholarly consensus, I urge you to exercise caution and humility in promoting your novel interpretation.

I have done so. Plz note the times I have said I have agreed with others opinions and then note the times others have said they have agreed with mine. You'll notice a great difference in the numbers, though I am one and they are more. This demonstrates my humility and says what of others, including yourself. Have you once said you have agreed with a point I made? Perhaps it should be you who needs to demonstrate the humility you expect me to show.

Plz note the times I said I've expressed 'an opinion', also demonstrating humility. Plz note the times I said that others have made a good point or have used good logic.

As to caution in promoting the iv, you'll remember that I've come to this thread begging for a critical review of it, asking for others to show the error of it by an examination of it, as to disprove it. I, previous to this AFF thread, pondered for 2-3 yrs what I thought was a revelation, before attempting to share it with others. I did this purposely to allow for a 'cooling-off period', an allowance of time to not dessiminate that which might be proved wrong if quickly distributed without caution. Of course you weren't aware of this time/caution because it was pre-AFF presentation. You're preaching to the choir here, ma'am, when you preach about caution. A half-baked idea can be easily received and spread by the undiscerning. I have exercised caution to that effect. After the 2-3 yrs I then attempted to have local preachers to critique it, one at a time, three in a row, to prevent a mass distribution of a potential false doctrine from being spread. None of them were interested to critique but did take the time to reject it without examination. Go figure, reject yet without examination. As you can see, I've been very cautious. You are much too late with a warning to be cautious. I'm miles ahead of you on that, m'lady.

Rather than accusing others of being close-minded or traditional,

Have I done so? Plz quote the post number for examples of my doing this. Readers will wait to no avail for these numbers.

acknowledging the accumulated wisdom of the church and the potential risks of departing from it.

It was perhaps 8-10 years after Pentecost that the accumulated wisdom of the church in not preaching to the gentiles, was dumped on by the Lord Jesus. This in spite of the Lord's clear commands to go to all nations, then forcing the Church's hand in another direction. Accumulated wisdom, even in the Spirit filled, thus is not to be trusted, scripturally shown to be true. If people today follow the accumulated wisdom of history then apostolics would believe in the Trinity and trinity baptism.

Man was made in the image of God, possessing the rationality and reasoning abilities thereby. This I have used in my responses to posts and in my commentary. Amanah refuses such rational argument and points of fact that I have made. But not all readers. They know the reasonableness of the arguments and scripture used to support the iv claim and some will accept it.

[donfriesen1]

Dictionary. Definitions from Oxford Languages. con·jec·ture. /kənˈjek(t)SHər/. noun. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. "conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied".

It is not wrong to use conjecture, but necessary to do so. If not used, then those who write would need to make long detailed explanations of every phrase or sentence. To make things shorter and convenient, assumptions are made that readers will be clued-in-enough to understand general statements without providing long detailed explanations. Readers will conjecture that when I use the 'Eg' below that it refers to 'an example', without me saying so, because it is common. And this is conjectured concluding.

Eg. Paul says, But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Paul says nothing here about the source of these words. It could have come from a convo with someone or a secular book. But almost without contradiction, it is conjectured that he refers to the OT, to the first few chapters of Genesis. Is it wrong to do so without facts? No. To 'prove' that this conclusion is right, it is said that it makes sense to do so because it makes the best sense of all conjectures, even without direct proof. Thus some, but not all, conclusions are right when based on conjecture without firm facts, just because it makes the most sense.

Eg. It is said of v2, that Paul is said to refer to a tradition of co/unco, even when v2 does not specifically mention co/unco. It makes sense to say so, because the context of the passage is the topic of 'co/unco'. It is a conjectured conclusion without firm facts.

Eg. It is said of v5,6, that Paul is said to command a veil. It makes sense to say so even though he doesn't actually specifically say so. It makes sense to see it this way because it shows use of a method scriptural writers usually use. It is a conjectured conclusion without facts to say that Paul commands.

More examples of conjecture from 1Co11 could be given, but that's enough.

An inherent weakness of conjectured conclusions is someone else may use the same facts and conjecture something else. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

Plz welcome to the Interpretation Family of Conjecture: the iv. It sees facts of the Beginning, the OT scripture, 1Co11, human nature, and it conjectures a conclusion, though the Bible does not specifically reference an iv. As with other views of 1Co11/Bible, it is a conjecture. It is one among many conjectures.

As scholars keep reminding us when formulating doctrine, all the facts of the Bible must be pulled into the doctrine-making cookie-bowl, to see how they affect the doctrinal-outcome cookie. Some conclusions look suitable to add to the mix when seen in isolation, but when examined with all the other facts and conclusions, it may not fit right.

For example, an above example - that Paul refers to a tradition of co/unco in v2 - doesn't look plausible as a good conclusion when the OT shows no commands for co/unco which could have started a co/unco tradition, even though tradition in the context of 1Co11 seems to fit. To think that Paul refers to a co/unco tradition of the NT instead of the OT, has weak evidence because he is the only NT writer to mention co/unco. This conclusion is a weak conclusion at best.

Readers of the Bible/1Co11 are then tasked with finding conclusions with the least amount of difficulties when using conjecture. It is hoped that the iv is seen to do so best. 1Co11 is written in such a way that conjecture leads to many varying conclusions. God is testing us - in more ways than one.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

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.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don, you're stretching the interpretation of Tamar's story... ...The two contexts are distinct, and attempting to draw a direct analogy between them is disingenuous.

*****************

Don, you're stretching the interpretation of Tamar's story.

Agreed.

is a misapplication of the narrative.

Indeed I am.

In this context, Tamar's veil was used for concealment, allowing her to disguise herself as a prostitute and avoid recognition by Judah. This use of the veil for concealment is distinct from the symbolic meaning of the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.

You specify here '1Co11' and don't include the OT. Do you by this admit that the veil wasn't a command for OT women to also use? Do you then admit that the OT use of the veil was by custom and not command? Readers, a word of caution about holding your breath for Amanah's answer. Her response may not come. For some people it is more important to have appearances of being right in their views than to acknowledge and embrace scriptural truth.

In this context, Tamar's veil was used for concealment, allowing her to disguise herself as a prostitute and avoid recognition by Judah. This use of the veil for concealment is distinct from the symbolic meaning of the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.

But it was known that harlot's used veils. It did not signify submission nor modesty. It is claimed, by those who say it was a symbol of a command of God, to do so. How is anyone to differentiate by appearance between individuals using the same symbol. If it is said that one circumstance is OT and the other is NT, then it admits that the veil wasn't commanded in the OT, or the comparison would then be valid. This may indicate that its origins are from Man. The vv says the symbol shows obedience to a command of God to veil, that it shows modesty and submission. The harlot uses this ('presumed by me to be identical') symbol to advertise her services. Does this sound like God, to throw confusion of symbols into the mix? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The same symbol can represent different things. A raised fist may symbolize defiance or victory. The question of the veil is whether God has take a symbol from Man and turned it into symbol of obedience to a command? Wouldn't the Lord use the same symbol of the NT also in the OT, on the same topic, respect for God's order of authority. Of course, especially when the origins or base is taken from the OT. What I do know is Paul's basis for 1Co11 thoughts is the OT. But God never commanded the veil in the times from which Paul has taken his base. The commands for co/unco with symbols should be there along with the base Paul took from it, but they aren't. This leads some to examine the conclusions that Paul commands the veil, and reject it. God neither OT-commanded the veil or the uncut long hair. This leads some to ignore the facts of the OT, when they shouldn't, to be honest to the OT. They are disingenuous with the OT.

But that was yesterday. Any today can be genuine with the OT, not disingenuous, and then say, that because the OT did not command the veil, I won't today continue to believe that God commands the veil. It is possible, with God, to make changes of mind, when truth is acknowledged.

attempting to draw a direct analogy between them is disingenuous.

Indeed it is. It was done by me in jest. Did you not think this when I had said in post 292 "Just saying - you know - to make the convo interesting"?

[Amanah]

We actually have no clue what prostitutes wore

Tamar's veil played a crucial role in her plan. The veil actually served to conceal Tamar's identity, allowing her to disguise herself and avoid recognition by Judah. It was likely her location (sitting by the road) and her willingness to engage in conversation with Judah that led him to assume she was a prostitute.

[Esaias]

Don is wrong.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

We actually have no clue what prostitutes wore

Tamar's veil played a crucial role in her plan. The veil actually served to conceal Tamar's identity, allowing her to disguise herself and avoid recognition by Judah. It was likely her location (sitting by the road) and her willingness to engage in conversation with Judah that led him to assume she was a prostitute.

****************

We actually have no clue what prostitutes wore.

If we today don't, then Tamar certainly did. Why? Because of 3 deliberate acts. 1. took off her widow’s garments. 2. covered herself with a veil. 3. sat in an open place. She must have known, for whatever reason, that harlots dressed a certain way and sat in an open location, even if we today don't know how harlots acted or dressed. There was nothing haphazard about what she was doing.

and her willingness to engage in conversation with Judah that led him to assume she was a prostitute.

Well except that v15 says When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot. Contrary to how you say it, he first saw her as a harlot. And he opened the convo with, 'I want to have sex'. Not as you insinuate, 'he saw her, had a convo, then decided he would want to have sex with her'. Why would you want to make it say something other than what it says? People can read.


Ge38.14-16 So she took off her widow’s garments, covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place which was on the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given to him as a wife. When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face. Then he turned to her by the way, and said, “Please let me come in to you”; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law.

The ESV, your preferred version she took off her widow's garments and covered herself with a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. 15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 He turned to her at the roadside and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?”