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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

.

Esaias has posted about animal sacrifices, to show my reasoning wrong. He presents an argument with incomplete facts.

Paul only had the OT as scripture. If Paul were to talk about animal sacrifices to NT people, then he would most certainly tell the whole story about it, if he wanted to be detailed and complete. He would start with what Jesus said. He came to fulfill the OT, not destroy it. His was the final blood sacrifice, the final Lamb of God, putting an end to them by his sacrifice of himself. Paul sees by deductive reasoning alone, that sacrifices are types and shadows of the real sacrifice of Jesus. There is no OT verse saying sacrifices are types and shadows. It is a deduced understanding to say it is a type and shadow.

When Paul talks about respect for God's order of authority in 1Co11, he portrays it as an OT concept. (The OT lays the foundation for the NT. What is established by the OT as truth, must not be seen to be contradicted by the NT. Truth first revealed must agree with and not be contradicted by that which comes later. Apparent contradictions must have explanations why they are not real contradictions.) If the OT shows 1+1=2, then the NT cannot say 1+1=3. What and how is the head-covering concept displayed in the OT? What is believed about 1Co11 must not contradict what is seen in the OT of it. It must agree with what the OT shows by edict and example; by command and by reason. Agreed?

What Paul does not do, is show that the OT shows that the veil was the OT commanded cover which showed respect symbolically, to God's order of authority. If you believe in the ulv: the OT also does not show OT commanded uncut long hair as the cover. The commands are not there. [Esaias believes in the vv (veil view). He has said in past posts that covering with a veil is only a new NT command. But why would Paul in 1Co11, refer to the OT for a concept, for a NT doctrine, if it was completely New? Does not compute. There would have been no need to refer to the OT.

But Paul did refer to the OT. It did not show a concept that the vv was OT held by command. Alternately, had the 1Co11 concept been given to Paul by revelation, then what need would there have been for Paul to refer to an OT concept? 'God has showed me this for the NT'. No OT referencing is necessary.

When Esaias says what he does, he demonstrates the need to do things which those starting off wrong do, because they started wrong. The ulv (uncut long view) also does this.

Because the ulv teaches that manly long hair is sinful, it must make up stuff about Nazirite men. They are said to be allowed to do something normally not done, allowing them to have special privileges as ascetics, to have the long hair thought to be sinful in others. But instead of showing this, the OT demonstrated by these holy prophets that long hair wasn't sinful. Had it been sinful, there would certainly have been an OT command against it, instead of Nazarite commands which showed it as holy. Can you point to one OT command that showed manly long hair as sinful? Neither could Paul. He would not NT teach that long hair was sinful, if the OT did not. He bases NT doctrine on OT scripture. Wrong views, of long hair on a man as sinful, lead to the need to show Nazirites with special privileges to sin. This is wrong. What starts out wrong leads to other wrongs. (Knowing that common sensibilities about manly long hair have been ruffled, I say the following. Provide some reasoned scriptural thought why the above is wrong, instead of only saying 'the guy is nuts'. That's what Word-people do when discussing the Word. Then deal with the common sensibilties later, appropriately.)

Wrong views, that the veil is only for the NT, results in seeing that the OT had no thought that those of the OT were to show respect to the order of God's authority by symbols, even while showing Paul showing it as an original OT concept. Anything first required for an OT concept would also have been required for the NT, when the concept was first seen in the OT. And when the OT does not show a requirement by command for the head-covering symbol, then the NT would not either. The NT concept of head-covering is an extension of the concept Paul sees as originating in the OT. Surely this is seen as true by all readers.

But this thought hasn't been accepted by any AFF person responding in this thread, because the OP of the thread is said to be nuts, incapable of putting forth a logical sentence anyone can relate to. He is nuts or the AFF posters in this thread are either purposely or unintentionally brain dense. Both cannot be true.

Hopefully, doing such bashing and argument making, will prod for a deeper level of thought than has been previously presented in nay-sayer postings. Paul shows head coverings as sourced in the OT, which does not show any, none, nada, head-covering commands to the OT concept. Certainly, all can agree to this as indeed also a Bible fact.

OT-sourced head covering concepts are not seen by Paul in OT commands which aren't there. They are principles he has derived using deductive reasoning of OT events, not of OT commands. God had not in the Beginning, or in the OT, commanded head coverings. God would not NT command when he had not in the OT. The concept is (only) a principle and not a command. When Paul saw the principles as coming through deductive reasoning and not commands, he would not command in the NT. He must be seen as teaching principles in 1Co11. Principles are not commands when not commanded.

Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek by principle and not by command. NT saints tithe because it is a good principle but not because it is a NT command. (Jesus showed the OT revealed the principle of one man/one woman marriages by example and not by command. This becomes accepted and erroneously said to be a NT command, when the NT only 'commands' preachers to only have one wife. Does Paul instruct or command one wife for preachers, when the OT has not commanded such? Would Paul knowingly NT command all, seemingly contrary to the OT lack of one-wife command and its common practice of multiple wives, while simultaneously trying to follow Jesus' instructions? Perhaps he only instructs the preacher, and doesn't command. It fits better to see him instructing.) Principles should be followed but they are not sin if not followed, when not commanded. The OT shows this as true by allowing multiple marriages, inspite of Jesus' assessment. A&E were not explicitly commanded to obey God, except in regard to the 'apple'. Yet they should reverence God's wishes and do uncommanded instructions, by principle. It is not a sin-command when God tells A&E to multiply - it is instruction/guidance. Those who never multiply are not judged as sinners. God gives A&E liberty and actual means, by free will, to walk in love and reason -- or not to. He wanted Man to walk by the principle of love and the guidance which deductive reasoning brings, as well as to walk by obedience to commands. Only fools do not follow the force of principle.

Paul must be seen in 1Co11 as giving instructions to follow an uncommanded principle. His love for the OT, building his life's values on it, would allow nothing else than to follow the ways commnded and/or exemplified by God. The OT does not command head coverings, of any sort. This principle of head coverings he saw by deductive reasoning, coming out of reading the OT event of creation/Beginning. He instructs the Co in regard to the then current cultural revolution concerning hair and veils, in my opinion.

If the OT does not portray manly long hair as sinful, neither would the NT. OT-loving Paul would not portray long hair as sinful if the OT showed it holy on holy men.]

Many today, take the OT concept Paul refers to, and using only NT scripture and none from the OT, show the woman's cover to be a veil. (Do you also see some incongruency in using only NT scripture to flesh out a concept sourced in the OT? The same can be said about another view, the ulv, and the woman's hair.) The OT commands nothing about the head-covering. Paul also would not do so as a lover of the OT. He is all about the OT Word, the only scripture he has for a basis for doctrine. When he formulates NT doctrine, he uses what the OT reveals to him as a basis. He does not speak more than what OT commands and deductive reasonings show him.

Am I the only one who sees Paul using the Word as a source for doctrine? No. And he only has the OT when formulating it. He only has the OT. What is today said to be seen in 1Co11, should also be seen in the OT, because that is Paul's source. When he can't ever be said to say that the OT reveals a veil as a covering symbol, then no one else today should either. We have access to the same info as he for source. The same for what the ulv says. What is today said about head-covering should be dug out of the same places Paul does: what is seen in the scriptural events through deductive reasoning. Firstly, of the Beginning. It shows through deductive reasoning, women/men with a nature instinctively motivating long hair on women (as the symbolic covering showing an uncommanded principled-reverence to God's ways and her husband). Secondly, that the male covering (which brings less glory to God) is scripturally OT seen in the covering which shamed Man instinctively places over their head; in many, many OT verses (your OT search will provide proof of this). If you choose to accept this scriptural example as your 'manly head covering reducing God's glory', then be prepared for the backlash from those whose long-held misinterpretation of 1Co11 as the 'manly long hair as the covering' does not allow you such scriptural interpretation. Walking in the Word has costs.

Many come to this thread, expressing opinions that the iv is wrong, silly, or nuts. They expect everyone to believe them, just because they are expressing opinions (while not showing a scripture or thought which shows support for their opinion! This is lousy hermeneutics in action). Readers will see the great length and many explanations of opinions with scripture, the iv has to show as its source. See post 1 for a link to my 1Co11 commentary. Readers are longing to see a scriptural view without the discrepencies seen in the vv and ulv. The iv claims to be it. The iv has not yet had good convincing efforts by contrary posters, showing it to be logically or scripturally wrong.

Readers are waiting for the AFF posters with great experience, to step up to the bat and knock one out of the park, against the iv. The OP of the iv has posted a compilation of their weak efforts. (See Post 305, 339, 340, 342 for this compilation. You will see there for yourself the effort put forth is weak. You will see the refutation of their efforts.) I've taken great time and effort to compile and hope for similar efforts from posters in attempts to show the iv wrong. Waiting. Been long-time waiting.

My guess is that efforts will not be made, because it is difficult to prove truth wrong using truth. It is difficult and foolish to attempt to prove truth wrong. You will not find truths to prove truth wrong. This may be at the root of why no serious efforts have been made by contrary AFF posters who are extremely knowledgeable in the Word. They can't do it. Something tells them they don't want to try.

Knowing that the iv hasn't been able to be refuted, should lead one to accept it; as a genuine, logical, scriptural explanation. Those who've examined it, then refusing it, do so for undescribed reasons, while not able to disprove its claims. Instead, they refuse it. This is sad commentary of Apostolics, whose mantra is 'we've got the Truth'. These reject something they can't or won't disprove.

It goes without saying, yet it is good to be reminded -- HAVE YOU PRAYED ABOUT IT?
[/COLOR]

[Amanah]

Don,

I wonder if you realize there are only a handful of posters left on AFF and your energies are in vain.

On a positive note, your post formatting is now awesome!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Paul didn't rebuke the woman who had the spirit of Python because she wasn't speaking the truth. She was rebuked because she was following them. Rather this: the mouth of the enemy must be stopped when the enemy sets themselves up as the authority who declares if another is speaking truth or not. The enemy of God can't be seen to be setting the standard of who is or isn't speaking for God, even if what they say is true. The disciples rebuked a man who was casting demons out in Jesus name, because the man was NOT a follower. Did Jesus say he was not a follower? No. He was not rebuked by Jesus for that reason. He was not rebuked by Jesus at all. Who was rebuked but the apostles, his own group. What theology was exhibited that gave opportunity for Jesus' rebuke of them? Pray tell, if the man actually cast out a demon, where had he gotten the power? Had God made a mistake by empowering him? The publisher-provided-heading of this passage in my Bible says this: "Jesus Forbids Sectarianism." Jesus said this man is on our side. Jesus also implies this man will be rewarded for what he did, not rebuked. While not saying he is part of our group, Jesus shows he is dangerously close to being so. Are you a sectarian EB? Why do you colour yourself as one? The portion of scripture immediately above talks of those who argued about being the greatest. Are you the greatest interpreter of scripture, EB? (Did you see what I did there? I used EB's favourite trick to paint EB. All I did was suggest it.)

Hey EB, do only Apostolic children who die in infancy go to heaven? Or do all infants who die go to heaven, even though they aren't born again? EB would have you believe that Jesus only makes room in heaven for the born again. [/SIZE][/COLOR] Yet, Jesus said leave him alone, for no one can do a miracle in Jesus' name and then turn around and speak evil of Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn't condoning the man's theology. What??? What does this story tell us of the man's theology? What negative does Jesus speak of this man? None. But gives negatives about the members of his own group. The members of his group are the ones receiving his negatives. Would Jesus speak negatives of our Evangelist EB? (did you see what I did there? I again used EB's favourite trick. Just asked a question without evidence. Or maybe there is evidence.) Just that the man wouldn't be actively suppressing what Jesus was doing. The tares will always grow up with the wheat, and when you know the truth then you can see exactly what a tare looks like. true. A sister in the church was helping a pastor's wife, and mentioned a situation where an individual hadn't been baptized in Jesus' name, and infilled with the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. The pastor's wife flipped out! Started to go on an ecclesiastical tirade (here EB shows a bias by using a phrase loaded with bias. All ecclesiasticals are evil.) on how there won't only be One God Apostolic Pentecostals in heaven. This is an individual who has been in the UPCI her entire life (don't try to guess who she is. Sadly, you'd probably come up with quite a few names.) Here is a sister who married to a pastor, and defending ecumenicalism in her old age. This didn't happen over night. This lady probably believed that non-apostolic babies went to heaven too. How horrible! How unChristian the thought! (don't forget the facetiousness used in writing this) (Did you see what I did there? I again used's trick. Guilt by association. This apostolic preacher's wife is obviously full of Satan, going to hell because she dares to believe other than as an ecumenical. (don't forget, this is facetiousness) This is a slow decay, and the sad situation is this Pentecostal sister never understood the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. She throws the baby out with the bath water and now see Jesus as inclusive, instead of exclusive. Of course Jesus is exclusive, sending people to hell. Just not how EB says, whose sectarian views send all non-apostolics to hell. (Did you see what I did there. I again used EB's trick on himself. I said he was a sectarian and we all know sectarianism is wrong. He is guilty when I only suggest he is guilty. But plz don't think that I say the church shouldn't preach Jn3.5/Ac2.38. It should. This is the message Jesus gave to believe and preach. Unlike EB , I believe that Ro5.13 shows that Jesus does judge those who have not heard the Word as if they have heard the Word. EB says in effect, that if you've never heard about the new birth, then tough luck, you fry. Don't be an EB, be like Paul, who shows hope for some who haven't been born again. See a commentary on Ro2/Jn3/Ac2 here: Just like Don, and all the other Donites out among us. They may not call it by name, but they all preach a doctrine of Inclusion. We prefer to see ourselves as not ignoring any portion of scripture to the detriment of others. Ro2/Ac2/Jn3 are scripture, all should be believed and none ignored. EB ignores. If you have the right view you can see them as complementary, non-contradictory. Preachers who barelyDon't forget to include Ro5.13 in it, which show us those who have never heard the Word aren't judged as if they did. To the point that their idea of the Gospel is just water baptism in Jesus name. Whether or not the baptized even understands why he or she is being baptized. Bypassing the initial sign of speaking in tongues, and opting out for something else as the initial sign of indwelling. Don, is religious. Most posters in AFF would admit to being religious to varying degrees. Do you practice true religion, EB[/SIZE][/COLOR] , or are you non-religious? Do we all remember Sean? They keep coming at us like an Ecclesiastical Freddy Kruger or an Ecclesiastical Jason Voorhees. No amount of scriptural reasoning will abate them, or persuade them to your logical outcomes. Plz consult post 342 to see the extensive (said facetiously) amounts of "scriptural reasoning" that EB has not done. What motivates the underperforming of yourself seen in the compilation, in this thread, Evangelist Dominic Benincasa? They we told a doctrine from a manual, and through the years they modified the rest.

Don, you are an ecclesiastical mental case.

Infants are innocent.

Your whole nonsense of people who haven't heard the Gospel going to heaven is based on infants born in sin. Therefore you, Roman Catholics, and Mormons are ecclesiastically confused. Do you call William Branham, Brother Branham?

Jesus wasn't inclusive. He was exclusive. His Gospel was only to those who would freely accept it. Anyone missing out on the Ark leaving port drowned. Anyone not leaving Sodom with Lot died. No Borneo headhunter is going to make heaven his home because he was right living as a headhunter. Your insane teachings on inclusiveness of God is unbiblical. No matter how much bolded font you type out.

[Esaias]

Dear readers, fat meat really is greasy.

[donfriesen1]

Readers, you may have noticed that iv naysayer posters have mentioned names of those they have interacted negatively with in the past. I have zero knowledge of these named individuals -- no idea what those named have said or done. Yet by mentioning their name in relation to me, it is evident that now, I am viewed by iv naysayers as identical to those named. Whatever negative feelings and opinions the iv naysayers have of those of the past, they have applied to myself today.

They then lump their past negative interactions, linking them with a new poster/opinions as equal with the experiences of these named individuals, instead of examining any new posters/opinions on their own merits. Oh well - c’est la vie - such is life.

In the words of a popular Disney-movie song -- Let It Go. Let the past go and face the new as if by itself. Weighing any new opinions with the only thing worthy - the Word of Truth, not the bad of the past, is the right thing to do. Things can be separated. Lumping need not occur.

[donfriesen1]

The OT has many verses which show that people had covered their heads when shamed. (The actual goal of covering the head is covering the face. But covering the head covers the face quite well.) Because of the many verses which show this, this becomes the OT context of what covering the head means. It results in defining, by proliferation of verses, what 'covering the head' means in the Bible.

⦁ 2Sam15.30 ...wept...his head covered...covered their heads...weeping
⦁ Es6.12 ...But Haman...mourning and with his head covered
⦁ 1Kg19.13 ...Elijah...wrapped his face in his mantle...entrance of the cave
⦁ Jer14.3,4 ...ashamed...covered their heads...they covered their heads
⦁ 2Sam19.4 ...covered his face, and the king cried out with a loud voice
⦁ Ps44.15 ...the shame of my face has covered me
⦁ Ps69.7 ...Shame has covered my face
⦁ Ps71.13 ...Let them be covered with reproach and dishonor
⦁ Ps89.45 ...You have covered him with shame
⦁ Ps109.29 ...with shame...cover themselves...as with a mantle
⦁ Jer51.51 ...Shame has covered our faces
⦁ Mic7.10 ...shame will cover her

Paul is an expert of the the OT. As a rabbi, he had extensive training in it. It is believed by some that Paul may have been a member of the Sanhedrin or that he aspired to be. One writer says that qualifications of a member required the memorization of the Torah -- the first five book. (I do not have a source for confirmation. Take it or leave it as true.) If true, then Paul may have been one who had memorized it, which would bring great knowledge of its contents. Another writer says, because he was educated by Gamaliel, he ended with an equivalent of 4 PHD's. (Again, I do not have a source for reliability. Take it or leave it for truth.)

Regardless of the extent of his education, we see from his NT writings that he has great knowledge and understanding of all things OT. He would have been aware of the covering of shame, not only from scripture but potentially also by social experience. Many people today also have had the experience of being ashamed or embarrassed, and may have witnessed someone or done for themselves the covering of the face or head at these times. It is not limited to males. It is a human response that comes from human instincts. It is part of the God-given nature of Man.

Therefore, when Paul says in 1Co11.4 that a covered man brings less glory to God, he should be seen applying what he has seen in scripture and in life. Shamed people do not glorify their Creator as much as if they had lived without shameful experiences. It is not the covering of the head which lessens the glory of God. It is only a symbol of the event. The event and the actions of any embarassment reduces the glory of God, not the symbol.

Elijah's actions and events are a good example of this. Jezebel threatened the man who had called fire down from heaven. Yet the man who has such power with God, runs for his life. He hides in a cave, where God meets him. He covers in shame. He has failed to bring God the glory he would have had if he had stood up to Jezebel. He has not trusted his mighty God for protection. He has not done anything sinful.

A person can have a covered head for reasons other than shame, and not be reducing the glory of God thereby. In a sense, men who are under a blanket, an umbrella, a tent, are covered but should not be thought to reduce God's glory by it alone, because it is men's shame-acts alone that takes away God's glory. A closer proximity to the head, ie long hair or a veil, does not increase the reduction of glory of God. A shameful event does.

People have long said that manly long hair is the cover which reduces God's glory. And which verse, other than v4 and v14, do they turn to for scriptural support? If Paul had been asked to quote an OT verse for support, which OT command/verse would he quote? There is none to quote.

The NT is not yet written when Paul writes. Thus, if Paul had taught, and had had Q&A afterward, which verse would he quote? The thought that long hair is sinful has no support other than Absalom. This man, before he rebels, is thought to be the best looking guy in Israel. Israel does not think this because they are taught long hair is sinful. Where are the verses if thought so? This, along with the lack of any command against long hair in the OT, does not show long hair as sinful.

What would Paul base the thought of long hair as sinful on, then? He has no OT support. Therefore he does not teach that long hair is sinful. v4,14 are misunderstood by those who use them to teach it is sinful. The totality of scripture does not support this view. These verses should not be viewed in isolation. We are constantly admonished by Bible scholars to read the whole Book to formulate doctrine, and not to use verses in isolation. Saying manly long hair is sinful uses 1Co11 in isolation. This is a wrong practise.

Other OT verses show honourable, holy men with long hair. Paul then would see their examples, while also seeing that there are no OT verses saying long hair is sinful. He thus, would not teach long hair as sinful if the OT does not. What then, of v4 and 14?

v4 must then be understood to mean something other than long hair as sinful. The only Bible Paul has, the OT, does not indicate it. It indicates by many verses, the cover of shame.

If v4 is misunderstood for these reasons, which it is in my opinion, then it is logical to see Paul refers to the cover-of-shame instead. Paul's love for the Word and knowledge of life would naturally lead him to to refer to the cover-of-shame he sees in the OT he loves.

What then of v14, Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? Clearly, it does not indicate long hair is favourable. It is a problem in the view that long hair is not sinful.

Bible scholars offer this advice when formulating doctrine. They say that it is a mistake to view a verse in isolation, apart from other similar verses on the topic. They say, that all the verses on the Bible topic should be read, compared with one another for consensus of what the Lord is trying to teach Man. If any verses are seemingly contradictory, then an explanation must be provided why they only seem to contradict. God can not speak contradictorily. Man can understand wrong and think to see a contradiction.

If the OT, the only Word Paul has, does not convey the idea that long hair is sinful, then what of v14, which speaks negatively of manly long hair. What explanation can be given for this seemingly contradictory verse. It needs to be reconciled, and reconciling will be done.

Because men have an instinct leading them to cover the face/head when shamed, they then have a naturally-given aversion to having the head covered. They have an aversion to having the covered head which reminds them of shame. Long hair is one such cover reminding them of shame. Men thus, have a naturally-given aversion to long hair.

But what of the woman, who also has a naturally-given instinct to cover themselves when ashamed? If she has this instinct, then why does she desire long hair, which provides her a head-cover similar to the shame-cover? The answer lies in competing instincts. When she has both instincts, the one which is stronger will prevail. People have an instinct to avoid pain. Women ignore the pain instinct when desiring the baby whose birth will bring great pain. The conscious desires causes one response to overide the other.

v14 should be understood to be referring to instincts. It is natural for a man to feel as he does. He feels the long hair cover is 'wrong'. But having these feelings does not indicate God thinks it is a sin. If Paul thought that God thought it a sin, then he would quote some verse where God had indicated it. God had not done so, in the only Bible Paul has - the OT. Instincts are not commands.

Seeing v4,14 in this light is coherent, in agreement, with what is seen in the only scripture Paul has in his hand. It provides a reasoned explanation of the facts of life and scripture. While much different from the long-held view that manly long hair is sinful (which has difficulties/inconsistencies when held) it nonetheless is a scriptural view. If you see inconsistencies in the instincts view, then please voice them, so others can be aware of them too.

If a majority-held Apostolic view of manly long hair as sinful is suspicious, what then is insinuated in what is taught for the woman? Is it also suspect? Should it also be closely examined?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, you are an ecclesiastical mental case.

Infants are innocent.

Your whole nonsense of people who haven't heard the Gospel going to heaven is based on infants born in sin. Therefore you, Roman Catholics, and Mormons are ecclesiastically confused. Do you call William Branham, Brother Branham?

Jesus wasn't inclusive. He was exclusive. His Gospel was only to those who would freely accept it. Anyone missing out on the Ark leaving port drowned. Anyone not leaving Sodom with Lot died. No Borneo headhunter is going to make heaven his home because he was right living as a headhunter. Your insane teachings on inclusiveness of God is unbiblical. No matter how much bolded font you type out.

Don, read.

[jediwill83]

The reformatting has made your position and reasoning much more understandable. Honestly it was like having a conversation with an LRAD going off. That being said you make excellent points in this about the nature of shame and our response to it along with Pauls context and where he would have been drawing that from.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The OT has many verses which show that people had covered their heads when shamed. (The actual goal of covering the head is covering the face. But covering the head covers the face quite well.) Because of the many verses which show this, this becomes the OT context of what covering the head means. It results in defining, by proliferation of verses, what 'covering the head' means in the Bible.

⦁ 2Sam15.30 ...wept...his head covered...covered their heads...weeping
⦁ Es6.12 ...But Haman...mourning and with his head covered
⦁ 1Kg19.13 ...Elijah...wrapped his face in his mantle...entrance of the cave
⦁ Jer14.3,4 ...ashamed...covered their heads...they covered their heads
⦁ 2Sam19.4 ...covered his face, and the king cried out with a loud voice
⦁ Ps44.15 ...the shame of my face has covered me
⦁ Ps69.7 ...Shame has covered my face
⦁ Ps71.13 ...Let them be covered with reproach and dishonor
⦁ Ps89.45 ...You have covered him with shame
⦁ Ps109.29 ...with shame...cover themselves...as with a mantle
⦁ Jer51.51 ...Shame has covered our faces
⦁ Mic7.10 ...shame will cover her

Paul is an expert of the the OT. As a rabbi, he had extensive training in it. It is believed by some that Paul may have been a member of the Sanhedrin or that he aspired to be. One writer says that qualifications of a member required the memorization of the Torah -- the first five book. (I do not have a source for confirmation. Take it or leave it as true.) If true, then Paul may have been one who had memorized it, which would bring great knowledge of its contents. Another writer says, because he was educated by Gamaliel, he ended with an equivalent of 4 PHD's. (Again, I do not have a source for reliability. Take it or leave it for truth.)

Regardless of the extent of his education, we see from his NT writings that he has great knowledge and understanding of all things OT. He would have been aware of the covering of shame, not only from scripture but potentially also by social experience. Many people today also have had the experience of being ashamed or embarrassed, and may have witnessed someone or done for themselves the covering of the face or head at these times. It is not limited to males. It is a human response that comes from human instincts. It is part of the God-given nature of Man.

Therefore, when Paul says in 1Co11.4 that a covered man brings less glory to God, he should be seen applying what he has seen in scripture and in life. Shamed people do not glorify their Creator as much as if they had lived without shameful experiences. It is not the covering of the head which lessens the glory of God. It is only a symbol of the event. The event and the actions of any embarassment reduces the glory of God, not the symbol.

Elijah's actions and events are a good example of this. Jezebel threatened the man who had called fire down from heaven. Yet the man who has such power with God, runs for his life. He hides in a cave, where God meets him. He covers in shame. He has failed to bring God the glory he would have had if he had stood up to Jezebel. He has not trusted his mighty God for protection. He has not done anything sinful.

A person can have a covered head for reasons other than shame, and not be reducing the glory of God thereby. In a sense, men who are under a blanket, an umbrella, a tent, are covered but should not be thought to reduce God's glory by it alone, because it is men's shame-acts alone that takes away God's glory. A closer proximity to the head, ie long hair or a veil, does not increase the reduction of glory of God. A shameful event does.

People have long said that manly long hair is the cover which reduces God's glory. And which verse, other than v4 and v14, do they turn to for scriptural support? If Paul had been asked to quote an OT verse for support, which OT command/verse would he quote? There is none to quote.

The NT is not yet written when Paul writes. Thus, if Paul had taught, and had had Q&A afterward, which verse would he quote? The thought that long hair is sinful has no support other than Absalom. This man, before he rebels, is thought to be the best looking guy in Israel. Israel does not think this because they are taught long hair is sinful. Where are the verses if thought so? This, along with the lack of any command against long hair in the OT, does not show long hair as sinful.

What would Paul base the thought of long hair as sinful on, then? He has no OT support. Therefore he does not teach that long hair is sinful. v4,14 are misunderstood by those who use them to teach it is sinful. The totality of scripture does not support this view. These verses should not be viewed in isolation. We are constantly admonished by Bible scholars to read the whole Book to formulate doctrine, and not to use verses in isolation. Saying manly long hair is sinful uses 1Co11 in isolation. This is a wrong practise.

Other OT verses show honourable, holy men with long hair. Paul then would see their examples, while also seeing that there are no OT verses saying long hair is sinful. He thus, would not teach long hair as sinful if the OT does not. What then, of v4 and 14?

v4 must then be understood to mean something other than long hair as sinful. The only Bible Paul has, the OT, does not indicate it. It indicates by many verses, the cover of shame.

If v4 is misunderstood for these reasons, which it is in my opinion, then it is logical to see Paul refers to the cover-of-shame instead. Paul's love for the Word and knowledge of life would naturally lead him to to refer to the cover-of-shame he sees in the OT he loves.

What then of v14, Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? Clearly, it does not indicate long hair is favourable. It is a problem in the view that long hair is not sinful.

Bible scholars offer this advice when formulating doctrine. They say that it is a mistake to view a verse in isolation, apart from other similar verses on the topic. They say, that all the verses on the Bible topic should be read, compared with one another for consensus of what the Lord is trying to teach Man. If any verses are seemingly contradictory, then an explanation must be provided why they only seem to contradict. God can not speak contradictorily. Man can understand wrong and think to see a contradiction.

If the OT, the only Word Paul has, does not convey the idea that long hair is sinful, then what of v14, which speaks negatively of manly long hair. What explanation can be given for this seemingly contradictory verse. It needs to be reconciled, and reconciling will be done.

Because men have an instinct leading them to cover the face/head when shamed, they then have a naturally-given aversion to having the head covered. They have an aversion to having the covered head which reminds them of shame. Long hair is one such cover reminding them of shame. Men thus, have a naturally-given aversion to long hair.

But what of the woman, who also has a naturally-given instinct to cover themselves when ashamed? If she has this instinct, then why does she desire long hair, which provides her a head-cover similar to the shame-cover? The answer lies in competing instincts. When she has both instincts, the one which is stronger will prevail. People have an instinct to avoid pain. Women ignore the pain instinct when desiring the baby whose birth will bring great pain. The conscious desires causes one response to overide the other.

v14 should be understood to be referring to instincts. It is natural for a man to feel as he does. He feels the long hair cover is 'wrong'. But having these feelings does not indicate God thinks it is a sin. If Paul thought that God thought it a sin, then he would quote some verse where God had indicated it. God had not done so, in the only Bible Paul has - the OT. Instincts are not commands.

Seeing v4,14 in this light is coherent, in agreement, with what is seen in the only scripture Paul has in his hand. It provides a reasoned explanation of the facts of life and scripture. While much different from the long-held view that manly long hair is sinful (which has difficulties/inconsistencies when held) it nonetheless is a scriptural view. If you see inconsistencies in the instincts view, then please voice them, so others can be aware of them too.

If a majority-held Apostolic view of manly long hair as sinful is suspicious, what then is insinuated in what is taught for the woman? Is it also suspect? Should it also be closely examined?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, read.

Readers may want to see my commentary on "RO2, JN3, AC2" for a better understanding why Evang. Benincasa speaks as he does.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing


Any comments/replies to it are best left in the AFF thread titled "John3 and Romans2: Part2".

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, you are an ecclesiastical mental case.

Infants are innocent.

Your whole nonsense of people who haven't heard the Gospel going to heaven is based on infants born in sin. Therefore you, Roman Catholics, and Mormons are ecclesiastically confused. Do you call William Branham, Brother Branham?

Jesus wasn't inclusive. He was exclusive. His Gospel was only to those who would freely accept it. Anyone missing out on the Ark leaving port drowned. Anyone not leaving Sodom with Lot died. No Borneo headhunter is going to make heaven his home because he was right living as a headhunter. Your insane teachings on inclusiveness of God is unbiblical. No matter how much bolded font you type out.

Don, read and contemplate this on the tree of woe.