[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Yes,

Ok, I just wanted to be clear about what you are saying.

1. Because the original source of what he writes of can be seen coming from the instincts of Man. Instincts shouldn't be seen as commands.
2. Because the original source isn't seen coming from the OT - not commanded there. If not commanded there, why would it be commanded in the NT?
3. Because the way he has written isn't in a commanding style. He could be seen as sharing what he observes in societies/Man.
4. Because the words he uses aren't necessarily commanding words.
5. Because he loves the OT he then mirrors what he sees. The Beginning doesn't show respect for God's order by a command.
6. Because the NT foundation-makers, Jesus or the 12, never commanded it. No other NT writer says boo about the co/unco topic.
7. Because it was already seen practised by many nations but not by command of God known to them. It may have been by instincts.
8. Because he says co/unco was a custom, v16. Customs are only mutually-agreed-upon practices of Man. They originate from Man and not commands.
9. Because he writes to those in Co who are Greeks, Romans, Jews; on a subject they are all familiar with as a custom. (Said by presumption without holding evidence thereto) If what Paul writes of is seen in all of them by custom, co/unco may have come to their separate nations by mutually held human instincts. We know that the co/unco practise was not known to the Jew from OT scripture because it is not seen there by command. It is logical to see widely held similar practices originating in instincts and most definitely not by OT commands which aren't there. The source then may be instincts. Why would extremely worldly knowledgeable Paul then command for Christians that which he has seen in many nations as sourced from instincts. Does not compute.

Paul establishes that what is being discussed are the "traditions received" by the church from the apostles. He provides correction regarding the Corinthians' practice, to bring them into conformity with the apostolic traditions concerning head covering, the Lord's Supper, and the conduct of people during the meeting.

In regards to the head covering issue, he establishes as apostolic doctrine that every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonours his spiritual head, Christ. And that women praying or prophesying having their heads uncovered are doing something that is shameful and dishonourable.

He then establishes the reasons why the man should be uncovered and why the woman should be covered. Those reasons are:

1. The man is the image and glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man.
2. The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man.
3. The man was not made for the woman, but the woman was made for the man.
4. The woman ought to be covered because of the angels.

None of those reasons are cultural, or "instinctual", but are based entirely upon the hierarchical order of creation and God's government.

In addition to these stated reasons, he tells the Corinthians they can figure this out for themselves by simply looking to "nature". According to "nature", long flowing hair on a man is a shame, but it is a glory to a woman, illustrating the the concept of man = uncovered, woman = covered, which verifies or witnesses to the truth of his apostolic teaching.

He concludes by saying:

1 Corinthians 11:16 KJV
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Who would be contentious? About what would they be contentious? To be contentious means to argue against or oppose something, to "contend" or fight against something. So who would be contentious, and against what are they contending? The obvious answer is "the people who oppose Paul's teaching, and they are contending against his teaching". That is, the contentious ones are contending against the doctrine that men are to pray and prophesy with uncovered head and women are to pray and prophesy with covered head.

In response to the contentious ones, he says "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." What custom? Obviously, the custom the contentious ones are contending FOR, in opposition to the tradition Paul is teaching. That is, neither Paul and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, have the custom of men praying and prophesying with covered heads and women with uncovered heads.

To suggest that Paul is saying "we have no such custom as the tradition I just got done telling you to practice" makes absolutely ZERO sense. You acknowledge this when you say:

If Paul commands it would be illogical for him to then say 'do not contend for what I have just taught'.

You then jump the ship of reason and fall overboard when you say this immediately following:

What he says about the contentious shows that what he says is not a command.

No, for him to tell the contentious ones "we have no such custom" shows that whatever the contentious ones are contending for, they are contending for something the churches of God do NOT practice. And since he just got done spending half a chapter instructing a church to DO (practice) a certain thing, it is clear that the "custom" of the contentious ones must be opposite to that which he just got done teaching, and it is also clear that what he just got done teaching is in fact the custom (actually,"tradition", the practice) of the churches of God. Which means anyone not doing what he taught to do is practicing something other than what God's churches practice, they are out of step with God's people, they are not conformed to the practices of the Congregation of the Lord.