[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618447]
PART1

1.

Paul establishes that what is being discussed are the "traditions received" by the church from the apostles.

'From the Apostles' you say? What Biblical evidence could you present to prove this assertion beyond referring only to 1Co11? As such it is only an assumption. 'Traditions received' you say? If these traditions you speak of were received from the 12 apostles, they had received them from the Lord Jesus. But we have no Biblical record of Jesus, or the 12, speaking on the subject of co/unco. If I'm mistaken about this then plz quote the references. If the 'traditions received' refers to traditions coming out of the OT, then quote the OT scriptural commands which would provide a starting point for an OT religious tradition. You will not be able to do so. If instead you speak of a custom coming from the 12 or the OT times, then I agree that there is a possibility that this is so. Traditions come from commands of God and customs comes from the likes of people, in my opinion/definition.

2.

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.

It must first be Biblically established as a co/unco tradition or not, before it is correctly said that Paul corrects them. The horse before the cart.

3.

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.

It's safe for any to say it in the way you just did, because it basically is a repetition of the scripture words. What it fails to do is explain without dispute what Paul refers to. People continue to look for an explanation which best shows what he means without having contradictions of fact or reason. Your opinions have been presented without showing evidence for support. I had hoped to see more from one who has the vast experience and knowledge shown here in AFF posts. Opinions are a dime a dozen and almost worthless when provided without evidence to support. Nor have you taken the time to show the error of my opinions, if you think them wrong. I fault no one for not doing so because it would involve a lot of time, but would welcome anyone doing so, not yet having been done.

4.

And that women praying or prophesying having their heads uncovered are doing something that is shameful and dishonourable.

Also safe to say it that way, as just repeating what the Bible says without expounding on it for clarification. What wasn't established without dispute is whether the shame and dishonour comes from some lack of keeping a command, or whether failing to line-up to social expectations. I conclude it to be failing to meet social expectations. You've not shown why you think my conclusion is in error, not shown contrary evidence/reasoning. Paul specifies prayer and prophesy times but doing so doesn't limit that the times of shame/dishonour are only in these times. Its most logical, when the glory of God is considered, that shame/dishonour could be year round, not just these certain times.

5.

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.

Yet, a man's and woman's interactions are not only on a spiritual God-level but are mostly on a social level. Men/women must maintain God's order on a social level. When on social levels they then may also be cultural interactions. And then to say that instincts aren't referenced is to say that instincts aren't ever seen expressed on a social or cultural level. What would be said about God if they say God ignores the expressions of instincts humans show in life? It would show God ignoring that which he had himself installed in Man. Why then show instincts in Ge3.16? God thrives on paying attention to details (hairs on our head, jot and tittle) and must be seen as also referencing in some way the instincts he placed in Man. Who wouldn't believe this to be true? God's expectations of Man must then also coincide with social and cultural life influenced by instincts or God ignores what he himself has placed in Man.

What is said about God's hierarchical order is clearly referenced by Paul as referring to what had happened at the Beginning. All should hold to this hierarchical order as truth. Paul has not seen a command in the Beginning for a respect for God's order, because there is none shown there. He has deduced this respect-for-God's-order conclusion just from the facts seen there. Respect for God's order of authority had not been commanded by God and this need to respect it comes to Paul by logical reasonings from what happened. But this doesn't make it less real or less unnecessary for all to do. It is apparent to all that it needs to be done - deduced by all without command. It is a universal principle not based on a command but events. God never commanded the respect in the Beginning, nor should it be said that he commands it elsewhere unless he clearly has. To say now that Paul commands all to show respect for God order of authority, just because he makes reference to it, is saying more about it than the text indicates in v3. If God expected respect in the Beginning without command, then who would we be to now command that which he hadn't then. Does God need unasked-for human help in this matter? He apparently has enough wisdom to do such things the way he sees fit without help. God today expects respect for the order of authority with the keeping of symbols but not by command.

6.

In addition to these stated reasons, he tells the Corinthians they can figure this out for themselves by simply looking to "nature".

Why do you say that God will leave it to Man to figure out? God will usually by command figure it out for Man to do, if he wants all to do it in a certain way. What you have said here without realising it is, that Man should be able to figure it out from what is in them when it isn't figured out previously by command. Thus you end up saying that which I say comes from within themselves - instincts. Thank you for agreeing with me and making my point. God never commanded co/unco anywhere in the OT. Quote the command if I am mistaken to say this. He expected Man to figure it out.

7.

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.

1. You haven't clearly defined what you believe 'nature' to be. 2. It just as easy for a woman to cut her hair as a man. It is just as easy for a man to have long hair as for a woman (outside of social pressures which come from where? Human nature? Which comes from where? Instincts?). Why then don't they? Most don't because it is in their nature by instincts not to. I showed in my commentary, quite clearly I think, that when Paul talks about 'nature' that he refers to the way things are normally done, which could be said to be by following instincts. If co/unco was done by OT Jews it was done so by instincts alone, because there was no OT command for it. Paul's values have come largely from the OT scriptures. Plz quote the command from the only Book Paul loves that would lead him to believe that it would be 'nature' which shows co/unco to be based on scripture vs instincts.

[For those who haven't read the commentary, the following is said to clarify what I say about instincts. Ge3.16 says that women will have an instinct which will try to plz her man. Among her efforts is having long hair. Ge3.16 shows man has an instinct for rulership. He also instinctively likes nice looking things, which long hair on a woman satisfies. Any woman dissing her long hair disses her man's likes and rulership. She is out of order, by God's given instincts, to do so.
Man, men and women both, have an instinct calling them to cover when shamed or embarrassed. Perhaps more so for a man, who has higher needs for the respect of others. As shamed, a man does not glorify his Creator. He is out of order when not showing God glory, because it is his primary reason for being. The embarrassment-covering symbolizes a lack of giving glory. This is what I believe Paul refers to, in the man's cover in 1Co11. It comes by instincts. See the commentary for many scriptural examples of this.]

...continued on Part2.