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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Can you explain what you meant when you said this:

"If any don't want to walk according to this, then don't make a big fuss over their refusal, because as a custom it is not a command. Neither the churches, nor we, teach this custom as a command for all to hold."

???

I believe Paul knows of and speaks of, in 1Co11, responses to human instincts. Covering and uncovering, in the woman and man respectively, are proper responses to these instincts, which responses may develope into societal customs/practises. (Some also add the veil, but not as coming from an instinct.) If anyone chooses to ignore their instinct and act contrary to it or a custom of it, they are only acting contrary to it and not to a command of God. The only Bible Paul held in his hand, the OT, didn't command co/unco and Jesus himself hadn't spoken of any such command for the church. Even so, it was seen practised by many nations as a custom. Because a response to an instinct isn't a response to a command of God it then doesn't matter whether it is strictly followed or not, even while acting contrary to the God-given instinct. It is therefore not now a command for the church, unless Paul is somehow seen as commanding now, introducing as command which is based on instinct. It can't be based on the OT which doesn't command it. Paul/God, in my view, should be seen as encouraging the Co/everyone to follow their God-given instincts, to co/unco. But if any don't for whatever reason, then don't make a fuss over their lack of compliance. It is only a proper response to a instinct, not to a command of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I believe Paul knows of and speaks of, in 1Co11, responses to human instincts. Covering and uncovering, in the woman and man respectively, are proper responses to these instincts, which responses may develope into societal customs/practises. (Some also add the veil, but not as coming from an instinct.) If anyone chooses to ignore their instinct and act contrary to it or a custom of it, they are only acting contrary to it and not to a command of God. The only Bible Paul held in his hand, the OT, didn't command co/unco and Jesus himself hadn't spoken of any such command for the church. Even so, it was seen practised by many nations as a custom. Because a response to an instinct isn't a response to a command of God it then doesn't matter whether it is strictly followed or not, even while acting contrary to the God-given instinct. It is therefore not now a command for the church, unless Paul is somehow seen as commanding now, introducing as command which is based on instinct. It can't be based on the OT which doesn't command it. Paul/God, in my view, should be seen as encouraging the Co/everyone to follow their God-given instincts, to co/unco. But if any don't for whatever reason, then don't make a fuss over their lack of compliance. It is only a proper response to a instinct, not to a command of God.

So, you understand Paul to be saying essentially "if any contend against what I have just taught, don't worry about it because neither we nor the churches of God command what I just taught"?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, you understand Paul to be saying essentially "if any contend against what I have just taught, don't worry about it because neither we nor the churches of God command what I just taught"?

Yes,
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.

v16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. If Paul commands it would be illogical for him to then say 'do not contend for what I have just taught'. What he says about the contentious shows that what he says is not a command. He would definitely say to contend for a command or for a tradition that was based on a command. He also wouldn't call it a custom, which are based on peoples likes, if he believed it to be a command or any tradition based on commands. It is logical to see him say 'if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom' if believed what he writes is sourced on something other than a command, such as an instinct or man-made custom. If so, it might then be ok to contend about it.

Paul would like any to follow God-given instincts because it exemplifies respect for the creator of the instinct and also the order of authority thereby, but not as by command. Is God ever seen giving Man instincts as commands? They can be said to be suggestions as to how Man should be. God provides free-will even in instincts. But not in given commands. What is known about instincts can not be said to be commands of God.

If co/unco is a command then it should be clearly seen so. It isn't. 1Co11 is written unclear as a command, shown so by its many interpretations. God then has failed to be clear about a command, if it is a command. He should be said to have abilities which give clear commands, to give him glory thereby. An instincts view fits what is seen and may be the explanation of an unclear passage, which should be held by all just because it is seen as fitting. It provides clarity to what is seen for at least one man, this writer. But the writer's words haven't been examined by many experienced in critical review, seen acceptable by many experienced that a view of 1Co11 should be instinctual. Perhaps these reviews will come through AFF to form a consensus of it being a good quality view, suitable for all to hold as sound doctrine, which uncut long fails to do.

When we see where Paul is launching his thoughts from, it helps decipher what he says. I hope I have clearly shown that Paul's source is not revelation, nor the OT but is from God-given instinctive qualities of Man's nature.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, you understand Paul to be saying essentially "if any contend against what I have just taught, don't worry about it because neither we nor the churches of God command what I just taught"?

Esaias, this is how Don views the whole of scripture.

Don sees Jesus and the Apostles as holding to a set of opinions. If you follow them, ok. If not, then that is cool as well.