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

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Tithesmeister;1618804] Thx for the exegesis, Tithesmeister. Good stuff.

Because I don’t see it being something that can be proven conclusively. And we seem to have plenty of hypotheticals.

I agree. If you haven't seen this link in my commentary, called "Doubtful Things", it is a short commentary on Ro14,15.1-7 on exactly this subject.

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

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Other biblical examples

Rebekah Veiling Herself

In Genesis 24:65, Rebekah veils herself before meeting Isaac, demonstrating modesty and respect.

"Then Rebekah took a veil and covered herself, and when Isaac came, she veiled herself." (Genesis 24:65, NKJV)

Old Testament Law of Jealousy

In Numbers 5:18, the priest uncovers the woman's head as part of the ritual for suspected adultery.

"The priest shall bring her near and uncover her head." (Numbers 5:18, NKJV)

I think it is at best an assumption that Rebekah veiled herself out of modesty, respect would be an assumption as well albeit a more believable assumption.

Modesty: She was already in the company of a man, before they met Isaac. So if it were modesty, was she being immodest when she was with Isaac’s servant?

If it was a question of modesty, and to perhaps a lesser extent respect as well, wouldn’t she have been covered already?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think it is at best an assumption that Rebekah veiled herself out of modesty, respect would be an assumption as well albeit a more believable assumption.

Modesty: She was already in the company of a man, before they met Isaac. So if it were modesty, was she being immodest when she was with Isaac’s servant?

If it was a question of modesty, and to perhaps a lesser extent respect as well, wouldn’t she have been covered already?

Genesis 24:65 KJV
For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

Rules of modesty and propriety are not necessarily the same from era to era and culture to culture. Being unveiled in front of a servant was apparently not considered a big deal. Being unveiled in front of a great important man, specifically one to whom she was betrothed, apparently was a big deal.

I think it is also likely that the veil she put on was not just a headcovering, but probably covered the face as well. In fact, what we see here is most likely an example of the age old custom of the bride being veiled before her betrothed until the marriage ceremony is complete.

That being said, it does indicate something - the WOMAN took it upon herself to cover herself in the presence of the man. Isaac didn't veil himself when she showed up, she veiled herself when she was coming into his presence. Thus, the same basic principle is at work here as in 1 Cor 11: the woman is the one veiled or covered, and this is what is considered appropriate or "comely" in the presence of respected male authority, requiring certain rules of etiquette.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Genesis 24:65 KJV
For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

Rules of modesty and propriety are not necessarily the same from era to era and culture to culture. Being unveiled in front of a servant was apparently not considered a big deal. Being unveiled in front of a great important man, specifically one to whom she was betrothed, apparently was a big deal.

I think it is also likely that the veil she put on was not just a headcovering, but probably covered the face as well. In fact, what we see here is most likely an example of the age old custom of the bride being veiled before her betrothed until the marriage ceremony is complete.

That being said, it does indicate something - the WOMAN took it upon herself to cover herself in the presence of the man. Isaac didn't veil himself when she showed up, she veiled herself when she was coming into his presence. Thus, the same basic principle is at work here as in 1 Cor 11: the woman is the one veiled or covered, and this is what is considered appropriate or "comely" in the presence of respected male authority, requiring certain rules of etiquette.

We again see people's actions coming out of customs which haven't come from commands of God. If the Co had a custom of veilng, which I believe they did, then Paul only encourages the adherence to a custom, which principle is also demonstrated elsewhere by Paul in the NT. If any thinks that Paul commands an adherence to a local custom, changing a local custom into a command of God, then I'd be happy to hear the line of reasoning whci would demonstrate this. Saying that the Beginning shows Eve created for Adam, and Adam as the one to be respected by her, does not provide an example of a command, though showing a principle not a command. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek by principle not command. It was good for him to do so, but not commanded. It is good to do things from principles seen in the Word, though not commaded per se. The command for a veil does not exist unless 1Co11 is misinterpreted and seen as commanding. To believe that Paul does is out of sync with what the OT shows of veils -they are not commanded there. The principle of respect for the order of God's authority should be seen as a principle which has not been commanded, done nonetheless without command, unless 1Co11 is misinterpreted as commanding. Rather, it is simpler to see Paul encouraging the Co to maintain a local custom. Other than that, God is then seen elevating a local custom to a position of a command of God. If it can be demonstrated that a custom of veiling has developed from a command of God, then plz show the first command from times before 1Co11. Can examples of the use of this principle, that God changes customs to commands, be demonstrated from other areas of OT/Christian life? This might provide evidence that it is a principle that God uses in his dealings with Man.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think it is at best an assumption that Rebekah veiled herself out of modesty, respect would be an assumption as well albeit a more believable assumption.

Modesty: She was already in the company of a man, before they met Isaac. So if it were modesty, was she being immodest when she was with Isaac’s servant?

If it was a question of modesty, and to perhaps a lesser extent respect as well, wouldn’t she have been covered already?

Very observant. Well spoken.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618775]

Other biblical examples

Rebekah Veiling Herself

In Genesis 24:65, Rebekah veils herself before meeting Isaac, demonstrating modesty and respect.

"Then Rebekah took a veil and covered herself, and when Isaac came, she veiled herself." (Genesis 24:65, NKJV)

Perhaps so. The question which hasn't been asked when posting this is: Why does Rebekah cover herself? She had been living where, until she takes this trip to meet her soon to be husband. She hasn't been living under the Law, which has not yet been given. What influences her to cover? Is there a command of God that calls her to cover? No. We have no scriptural record of it. If not scriptural commands, then it may be the influences of the culture she lives in, and not God's influences. My memory tells me that she had lived in a area influenced by the Ishtar Myth, pagan religion.

Someone needs to do their homework before providing proofs like this to support views that God commands the veil.

Old Testament Law of Jealousy

In Numbers 5:18, the priest uncovers the woman's head as part of the ritual for suspected adultery.

"The priest shall bring her near and uncover her head." (Numbers 5:18, NKJV)

Thus a language translation issue has unwittingly misled you. A look at the He lexicon shows a result not agreeing with your conclusion. The word means to loosen the hair, to dishevel it. It does not indicate the removal of a material veil. See my commentary for other scriptures which also use the He word, para.

[Amanah]

Don's question:
"Plz explain why there are no commands in the Bible for a veil shown from creation till Paul, a time of over 4000 yrs, when the commands should be there to show God being consistent with all women in all times."

Don, you assume God's consistency requires uniform commands throughout scripture, ignoring progressive revelation. God's truth unfolds gradually.

Examples:
*Sacrifices: From Cain and Abel to Leviticus, practices evolved.
*Polygamy: Accepted in early times, later condemned.

Absence of explicit commands before Paul doesn't imply inconsistency. God's truth unfolds progressively, adapting to changing contexts while maintaining core principles.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don's question:
"Plz explain why there are no commands in the Bible for a veil shown from creation till Paul, a time of over 4000 yrs, when the commands should be there to show God being consistent with all women in all times."

Don, you assume God's consistency requires uniform commands throughout scripture, ignoring progressive revelation. God's truth unfolds gradually.

Examples:
*Sacrifices: From Cain and Abel to Leviticus, practices evolved.
*Polygamy: Accepted in early times, later condemned.

Absence of explicit commands before Paul doesn't imply inconsistency. God's truth unfolds progressively, adapting to changing contexts while maintaining core principles.

What is it that is seen in the Beginning that is seen progressing? Do I believe in progressive revelation? Yes and so should all. Paul in 1Co11 refers to creation order as his foundation base for his thoughts. The following is seen at the Beginning: 1. God exists 2. God creates Adam. 3. God creates Eve. Somewhere in the midst of this is God's statement that Eve is made for Adam (for Adam's purposes). As Adam was made for God's purposes, so Eve for Adam's. Logic has told Paul that what is seen at the Beginning demonstrates an order of authority. There are no statements in the Beginning stating anything about God's order of authority, other than 'Eve is made for Adam'. Paul is perhaps the only Biblical writer to deduce that what is seen at the Beginning has demonstrated an order of authority. If other Biblical writers have done so I am not aware of it, and admit that the possibility that other writers may speak of it, may be true. Thus, the only evidence we have of the order of authority has come through Paul's deductive reasoning of what he has seen in the Beginning. This has all happened in 50 AD in the mind of Paul and not by stated concept from the Beginning. How does what is not stated in the Beginning progress? There are no concepts, no commands, no statements made there that are available to progress from. The start of the concept happens within Paul's mind in 50 AD, unless it is believed that a concept from the Beginning can revealed to all without a command. This is actually what is seen. The concept of the order of God's authority only exists in the mind of those who see it when reading the events of the Beginning. It does not exist from a statement from God from any words he has spoken about the order of authority, other than Paul's. He puts on paper for all to see that which another may never deduce, making it plain for all then to also see. God has not commanded it or asked for it to be kept, outside of what Paul says, who also only infers that it should be kept, himself copying the methodology God used in the Beginning. It is not a command of God from the Beginning which can progress, though it is as real as the nose on our faces. But, if I'm wrong plz provide some evidence of this progression you speak of. If there is progression of a concept of God's order of authority, then we would see a procession from simple to more complex. Plz demonstrate this progression through the Ages, the 4050 years from creation til Paul. Plz show the progression of the concept of the order of God's authority adapting to changing contexts while maintaining core principles.

[Amanah]

Don, I believe I Cor 11:2-14:40 is addressing issues related to corporate worship. But, 1 Corinthians 11:5 would apply anytime a woman prays or prophesies.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618786]

Don, I believe I Cor 11:2-14:40 is addressing issues related to corporate worship.

Yes, he is.

But, 1 Corinthians 11:5 would apply anytime a woman prays or prophesies.

And so you would then say that women are commanded to wear a veil for these times. Plz say, if God commands a woman to wear such a veil during such times, what kind of veil is acceptable to the Lord. Plz point to some scripture which will indicate God's acceptable veil. Surely the Lord would not leave to chance obedience or whim of Man, for what he says is necessary by command to plz him, to avoid something as serious as sin. Or does he let Man determine that which will satisfy God's need-to-cover command? Plz indicate which scripture could be referenced that indicates that God says Man can choose which cover pleases the Lord. (One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One is a specific number which excludes. It specifies one to the exclusion of all others. Count all the 'ones' shown by Paul in Eph 4.4-6, a favourite passage of apostolics. Does Paul now leave the principle of specifics for a principle of many. You now get to choose which cover to use? Doesn't make sense.)

Does it make sense to you that God would let Man determine that which he is commanding? You are not a woman with small scriptural knowledge. It makes most sense that God would specify that which he commands. That no scripture indicates either this specific cover nor a scripture showing that Man is allowed to choose, should lead one to question whether he commands it, in light of the poor evidence shown that he commands it, and in light that the verses which are said to command it can easily be seen in another reasoned vein.

While you are in an explaining mood, plz explain why Paul says that a woman's long uncut hair is given for a veil, v15 for her hair is given to her for a covering. An explanation must be found, a view held, which satisfies both v5 and v15 at the same time. I believe the instincts view does so with its explanation. The veil view does not. It is time to replace a view with holes, with a view which has less holes or none that can't be explained/filled. It is time to leave misinterpretation and replace it with one which faces and explains the facts. The veil view explains poorly. Leave the veil view in the dust behind you.

Or at least make an effort to explain away the holes seen in the veil view. If they can't be given a reasonable explanation, then it may indicate that another view should be held instead.

Does Paul say that a woman should cover? Yes, of course he does. But he has not said clearly what that cover is. Their is a dispute among people, who claim truth as their motto, as to which view is the one to hold. A view must be found which satisfies what is seen in life and scripture. God made both. In my mind, the instinct view has the least objections and covers the bases. Believe it.