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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.)

Here is another example of lack of understanding the Bible and the nature of doctrine. Don presumes that if God commands something, he will also specify everything that can be specified in regards to the particular command. But notice the following:

Ephesians 5:19 KJV
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Here, we are commanded to sing to one another. What psalms? What hymns? What spiritual songs? Which melody? These things are not specified. Does God tell us to sing but fail to tell us what songs, and what melodies, to sing? Obviously, we are to choose the songs, the melodies. God gives a command, and we are to fulfill that command. That which is specified is that which must be done, the means and mechanisms, if not specified, are to be figured out by the believer and the congregation.

Another example:

Numbers 15:38 KJV
Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

But how shall the fringe be made? What material? What design? How big? It was commanded, yet there were no specifics other than it be a fringe, in the border of the garment, and that it have a ribband of blue upon it. Beyond that, there are no specifications. Clearly, the individual and the congregation were to figure that part out themselves.

Yes, God actually expects His people to think about things and come to some decisions. God did not create robots. Look here:

Genesis 2:19 KJV
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Man was given responsibility, he was given a task (a command, if you will), yet he was allowed to participate in the decision making process. It was up to Adam to decide the names of the animals. If these things are true (they are), then it is entirely reasonable that God would command the head covering for women while leaving it up to the believer to decide on the cut, design, color, etc. In fact, this shows the wisdom of God, in that the command can be obeyed across all cultures and all times without imposing any particular local culture upon another.

Thus, in conclusion, the lack of specific instructions on the make and model of the headcovering in no way lessens the obligation of the believer to obey the instructions that are given.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618817]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.)

Here is another example of lack of understanding the Bible and the nature of doctrine.

The only one who has a proper understanding of scripture is Esaias. If any do not agree with Esaias they are wrong and disagreeing with scripture. Is this what you want us to believe, my brother in Jesus? Of course not. You wish to show that there are differences of Biblical conclusions, that I have errors in reasoning resulting in errors of conclusions.

Don presumes that if God commands something, he will also specify everything that can be specified in regards to the particular command. But notice the following:

You now here present good arguments which support your view. Kudoos to you from me.

Ephesians 5:19 KJV
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Here, we are commanded to sing to one another. What psalms? What hymns? What spiritual songs? Which melody? These things are not specified. Does God tell us to sing but fail to tell us what songs, and what melodies, to sing? Obviously, we are to choose the songs, the melodies. God gives a command, and we are to fulfill that command. That which is specified is that which must be done, the means and mechanisms, if not specified, are to be figured out by the believer and the congregation.

Your analogy fails because of the differences shown. It is God who commands singing of Psalms, Hymns, Melodies. God shows many Psalms, Hymns, Melodies to choose from. If your analogy was a good analogy it would show the Lord providing Man many veils to choose from. He hasn't specified even one, let alone many. You are not a dumb man, knowing names of laws of reason and logic, yet you present arguments like this even when you know it is unsound. What motivates such a lowering of yourself with such methods?

Another example:

Numbers 15:38 KJV
Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

But how shall the fringe be made? What material? What design? How big? It was commanded, yet there were no specifics other than it be a fringe, in the border of the garment, and that it have a ribband of blue upon it. Beyond that, there are no specifications. Clearly, the individual and the congregation were to figure that part out themselves.

Agreed, you shown good reasoning; to which I'll add another example. The Lord commanded Moses to tell the people not to approach Mt. Sinai, on pain of death. And how is it determined when a mount is approached, when it has no, none, nada, clearly defined borders to cross, which would cause their death. The Lord tells Moses to set boundaries. Moses (Man) is allowed to set the boundaries of that which he (God) has commanded. The differences of these two examples and the other example (what is said about 1Co11) is that God has clearly spoken a command in the two examples, but hasn't in the other. There are no clearly given words of God for what is said is a command of God - women must veil. There is no dispute that Paul (God) tells the Co woman to veil. What is disputed is whether it is a command of God. If seen as a command it causes conflicts with the rest of scripture. Your analogy fails to conclusively convince.

This is how the veil view causes conflicts with the rest of scripture: Paul bases what he says in 1Co11 on the foundation seen in the OT. Paul thus says that there is a foundation laid in the Beginning. And the foundation seen in the Beginning is his 1Co11 foundation, because he transfers it to 1Co11. If the foundation is seen, then what is built on this foundation? The structure said to be built on it, in 1Co11 is, by Esaias's view, 'that women should wear a veil'. When we look at the foundation in the Beginning, we don't see this same structure on the foundation there. There are no commands for a woman to wear a veil in the Beginning (no such structure). The structure shown in the Beginning on this foundation is this: Man is expected by some unwritten/unspoken law to show respect for God's order of authority. This expectation hasn't been commanded. It magically appears when Adam and later Eve appear. It is God who has built this structure and he has never dismantled it. If he has dismantled this structure then plz present some Biblical evidence thereto. Any who say that 1Co11 builds another structure other than the existing, are seen tearing down what God has built, trying to replace it or are adding an addition to it. This should not be done. Don't destroy or add to, the structure God has built or try to replace it with another. The original foundation and structure are secure, having been built by God to his specifications using his materials and his methods. The veil view attempts to undo that by saying that 1Co11 commands what God hadn't commanded at the Beginning.

Yes, God actually expects His people to think about things and come to some decisions. God did not create robots. Look here:

Genesis 2:19 KJV
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Man was given responsibility, he was given a task (a command, if you will), yet he was allowed to participate in the decision making process. It was up to Adam to decide the names of the animals. If these things are true (they are) Agreed., then it is entirely reasonable that God would command the head covering for women while leaving it up to the believer to decide on the cut, design, color, etc.

Sure...but. The question still needing an answer is: Did he?

Could he have? Most would say he could have, reasonable to assume he may have, but any who make doctrine from scripture don't want as a foundation stone 'he could have'. They want to see a stone saying 'he did'. What you present here as a foundation stone is 'he could have'. I agree 100% that God gives Man 'responsibility and the abiltiy to do' what God commands, allowing Man to figure out any broad command without detailed requirements, in their own way. What is missing/not seen in the Beginning, is any indication from God with words, that symbols are commanded to be displayed to show respect for God's order of authority. We have God's clear indication with words that he wants Adam to name all creatures. But no clear indication in the Beginning that he wants women to veil. Your explanation then shows that Man must first decipher without any command from God 1. a needed respect for God's order of authority; and then decipher 2. that a veil is that needed respect (in a time when the idea of veils/clothing does not yet exist). Could A&E decipher God's order of authority? Yes, because another human, Paul, is seen doing so. And he wasn't as near to the situation as they were. Could A&E have deciphered a need for a veil? I'd be interested to hear any ideas how they could. (Was it, as Michael Marlowe contends, that just because it is natural that a woman have long hair that she would then easily assume that a veil is also suitable/required? Did you hear the scoffing sounds just now?) I don't think they could have. Also missing in the Beginning is any expected word from God which indicate that God commands a showing of respect for his order of authority. Paul may be the first ever to give any indication of an idea that there is an order of authority. We today may only be aware of it because of brilliant Paul. Who else in scripture indicates anything specifically alike? I know of no one. (I believe, without being able to present evidence thereto, that a situation had arisen in loved Co which drove Paul to his knees, which resulted in his search for an answer. 1Co11 is the result.)

In fact, this shows the wisdom of God, in that the command can be obeyed across all cultures and all times without imposing any particular local culture upon another.

Indeed it would be so, if proved to be truth.

Thus, in conclusion, the lack of specific instructions on the make and model of the headcovering in no way lessens the obligation of the believer to obey the instructions that are given.

As shown from my arguments it isn't likely to be so. Your view has good points, which shouldn't be ignored, but has points which are out of harmony with the Bible as a whole. For that reason it should be set aside until a view comes along which aligns with the scripture as a whole, doing so with the least amount of holes and inconsistency. To date, I believe the instinct view to be that view.

[Amanah]

These are some final thoughts for whatever they are worth. But, I'm done with this conversation as It's not progressing. It's just repetitive at this point.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul discusses head covering, emphasizing obedience to God's Word over human traditions or instincts.

Key Verses:

*1 Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
*1 Corinthians 11:16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Paul teaches that head covering is:

*Symbolic: Representing spiritual authority and submission (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).
*Universal: Applying to all believers, regardless of cultural context (1 Corinthians 11:2, 16).
*Divine: Based on God's created order, not human tradition (1 Corinthians 11:7-9).

Paul distinguishes between:
*God's ordinances (1 Corinthians 11:2): Divine instructions.
*Human customs* (1 Corinthians 11:16): Man-made traditions.

Supporting Scriptures:

*2 Timothy 3:16-17: Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine.
*Matthew 15:9: Jesus condemns following human traditions over God's commandments.
*Colossians 2:8: Beware of human philosophy, empty deceit.

Believers should prioritize God's Word over:

1. Cultural norms
2. Personal instincts
3. Human traditions

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618799]

These are some final thoughts for whatever they are worth. But, I'm done with this conversation as It's not progressing. It's just repetitive at this point.

Perhaps you'd want to answer the questions I've asked of you to answer, before you go. Also plz counter my objections which show that the veil view is weak from a scriptural perspective. That you haven't done so makes me wonder if there is nothing to answer with or to counter with. Why the silence? But if you do go, Amanah, thx for your inputs. Maybe a rest will give you the desire to re-continue here.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul discusses head covering, emphasizing obedience to God's Word over human traditions or instincts.

Obedience to God's Word over human traditions or instincts is always good advice. What exactly hasn't been made clear over many centuries. What does Paul speak of in 1Co11 and how do we 'obey' it? Does the Bible elsewhere command veiling? That no commands for it are found in the OT raises questions which need an answer. Plz provide one, if you believe that the OT women were commanded to veil.

Key Verses:

*1 Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

That Paul praises them for keeping these delivered ordinances calls into question why he takes the time to now re-teach what he just finished praising them for keeping. It testifies that he is teaching them a new thing, other than ordinances, and it doesn't make sense that he would here re-teach what they already obediently practise, does it? Right? Unless you hold a view which has nothing else to hang your hat on. Then a person would keep insisting that co/unco was a long held ordinance, even in the absence of good evidence.

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

Had Paul believed co/unco to be a Biblical tradition then he would have contended that this Biblical tradition should be continued. He would fight tooth and nail, as you do for what you believe to be a correct interpretation of 1Co11. But he calls it a custom and he would not see it imperative that customs continue, because they come from Man. Because he believes and calls it a custom he tells them (reading between the lines) not to fuss if someone is contentious about practising a custom he suggests them to practise. This makes good sense.

Paul teaches that head covering is:

*Symbolic: Representing spiritual authority and submission (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).

Amen, but saying this does not show what the spiritual head covering was.

*Universal: Applying to all believers, regardless of cultural context (1 Corinthians 11:2, 16).

I disagree on the 1Co11 interprtation specifics of this point, while agreeing in general. In general, all commands apply to all people. To explain why not in specifics: though Paul calls for the Co Christian to maintain the custom of the veil, he may not call all Christians to use a veil. If the veil is believed to be a Biblical tradition (vs a custom of Man) and that OT believers veiled, then we have no evidence of a command for a veil which could develope into a Biblical veil tradition. We do see some examples of OT women veiling. It could be that they do so from custom, because it is unlikely to have become a tradition without a command of God to implement it. The OT has no command for women to veil, does it? Right?

*Divine: Based on God's created order, not human tradition (1 Corinthians 11:7-9).

Seen so in the first few ch of Ge, but was not commanded there, to be kept. It was first recognized as an expectation that all should follow, but not by command.

Paul distinguishes between:
*God's ordinances (1 Corinthians 11:2): Divine instructions.

Agreed, ordinances are divine instructions.

*Human customs* (1 Corinthians 11:16): Man-made traditions.

Agreed, customs have human origens.

Supporting Scriptures:

*2 Timothy 3:16-17: Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine.

Yes, of course.

*Matthew 15:9: Jesus condemns following human traditions over God's commandments.

Yes

*Colossians 2:8: Beware of human philosophy, empty deceit.

Amen, which includes misinterpreted scripture. Doing so amounts to substituting human thought for God's thoughts. If your view of 1Co11 has holes, then it is likely it is because it is a misinterpretation. God doesn't make doctrines with holes. People do by misinterpretation.

Believers should prioritize God's Word over:

1. Cultural norms
2. Personal instincts
3. Human traditions

Amen! All should agree with this.

I respond to all your points and hope you will do so to all mine.

[Amanah]

**
https://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html
**

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

In the appeal to “nature” (φύσις) here Paul makes contact with another philosophy of ancient times, known as Stoicism. The Stoics believed that intelligent men could discern what is best in life by examining the laws of nature, without relying on the changeable customs and divers laws made by human rulers. If we consult Nature, we find that it constantly puts visible differences between the male and the female of every species, and it also gives us certain natural inclinations when judging what is proper to each sex. (16) So Paul uses an analogy, comparing the woman’s headcovering to her long hair, which is thought to be more natural for a woman. Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming, it interferes with vigorous physical work, and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight. It is therefore unmanly by nature. But a woman’s long hair is her glory. Here again is the word δόξα, used opposite ἀτιμία “disgrace,” in the sense of “something bringing honor.” Long and well-kept hair brings praise to a woman because it contributes to her feminine beauty. The headcovering, which covers the head like a woman’s hair, may be seen in the same way. Our natural sense of propriety regarding the hair may therefore be carried over to the headcovering.

Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says “her hair is given to her for a covering” he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning. There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman’s head should be covered. And if there is something especially suitable about a woman’s head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair. But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also! The argument here involves a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum in which there is an analogy made between headcoverings and hair. These verses make no sense otherwise. If by “uncovered” Paul means only a shorn head in the first place, as some would have it, (17) then his argument in verses 5 and 6 amounts to the nonsensical “if a woman will not refrain from cutting off her hair, then let her cut off her hair also.” For this reason Hurley, who does not want to think that Paul is requiring headcoverings here, has resorted to the idea that Paul is saying that a woman’s head is uncovered when her hair is not properly coiffed. (18) But this is very strange, and unlikely in the historical context, where cloth headcoverings and veils were so commonly used. Who can suppose that Paul is making no reference to these when he speaks of headcoverings?

[Amanah]

The commentary below reconciles vs 5&15.
Women didn't need to be taught to have long hair as a shorn head was commonly acknowledged as being shamed. Paul's teaching is that to be uncovered is equally shameful as being shorn.

Originally Posted by Amanah

**
https://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html
**

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

In the appeal to “nature” (φύσις) here Paul makes contact with another philosophy of ancient times, known as Stoicism. The Stoics believed that intelligent men could discern what is best in life by examining the laws of nature, without relying on the changeable customs and divers laws made by human rulers. If we consult Nature, we find that it constantly puts visible differences between the male and the female of every species, and it also gives us certain natural inclinations when judging what is proper to each sex. (16) So Paul uses an analogy, comparing the woman’s headcovering to her long hair, which is thought to be more natural for a woman. Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming, it interferes with vigorous physical work, and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight. It is therefore unmanly by nature. But a woman’s long hair is her glory. Here again is the word δόξα, used opposite ἀτιμία “disgrace,” in the sense of “something bringing honor.” Long and well-kept hair brings praise to a woman because it contributes to her feminine beauty. The headcovering, which covers the head like a woman’s hair, may be seen in the same way. Our natural sense of propriety regarding the hair may therefore be carried over to the headcovering.

Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says “her hair is given to her for a covering” he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning. There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman’s head should be covered. And if there is something especially suitable about a woman’s head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair. But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also! The argument here involves a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum in which there is an analogy made between headcoverings and hair. These verses make no sense otherwise. If by “uncovered” Paul means only a shorn head in the first place, as some would have it, (17) then his argument in verses 5 and 6 amounts to the nonsensical “if a woman will not refrain from cutting off her hair, then let her cut off her hair also.” For this reason Hurley, who does not want to think that Paul is requiring headcoverings here, has resorted to the idea that Paul is saying that a woman’s head is uncovered when her hair is not properly coiffed. (18) But this is very strange, and unlikely in the historical context, where cloth headcoverings and veils were so commonly used. Who can suppose that Paul is making no reference to these when he speaks of headcoverings?

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618816]The commentary below reconciles vs 5&15.

Women didn't need to be taught to have long hair as a shorn head was commonly acknowledged as being shamed. Paul's teaching is that to be uncovered is equally shameful as being shorn.

1. Agreed, in the following regard, for hair: Long hair was thought to be shameful to be cut in Co society because the majority of people regarded long hair as beautiful, an adornment. Why would anyone want to cut-short what everyone thought was beautiful? Thus, the thought of cutting-short that which helped beautify was distasteful to most. If a woman's hair was cut-short or shaved, it was thought outrageous, and shamed the woman who did so because she has acted against societal norms and against her own beauty. These thoughts held by the majority had not come from a command of God. They had come from life. Instincts are part of life. Paul does not desire that women have long hair because he has seen an OT command for doing so. There is no such command. He desires women to live in accord with their God-given instincts.

2. Agreed, in the following regard, for the veil. The veil was thought to be needful in Co society because the majority of people regarded it needful. Why would anyone not want to veil when everyone thought it was needful? Thus, the thought of not veiling was distasteful to most. If a woman didn't veil, it was thought outrageous, and shamed the woman who did so because she has acted against societal norms. These thoughts held by the majority had not come from a command of God. They had come from life. Paul does not desire that women veil because he has seen an OT command for doing so. There is no such command. He wants the Co Christian woman not to act in a way which would be against societal norms. Wear the veil.

If any reader wants to find absolute proofs for any particular view then they can stop looking. They aren't there for any view. The way the Lord has chosen to write scripture has left this subject in such a way that there aren't absolute proofs. It thus is a test from God, of how we regard those who hold to a view other than ours. Do we still esteem them in high regard? Receive them into fellowship? Do we not despise them or judge them as less than ourselves. Do we not treat them the same, giving them seats of less prominence? See Ro14,15 for Paul's teaching of people who have opposing opinions on scriptural subjects. In the majority of apostolic circles, a woman with short hair isn't seen behind the pulpit, nor a long-haired man. (Jesus was baptized by a long-haired Nazirite, indicating approval. It is today thought abhorrent that any male preacher have long hair. No apostolic would want their kids baptized by a long-haired man or a short haired woman. These attitudes/practises have evolved which show apostolics acting scripturally-contrary to Paul's teaching in Ro14,15, because of a misinterpretation of 1Co11.

It is logical to assume that the view which would be held by the majority should be the view which is known to have the least amount of holes. I contend that the instinct view has the least objections. Any new view is first viewed with suspicion, because it is contrary to that which has been (long) thought to be truth but may get adherents to it, who are willing to examine it objectively. Thus the instincts view will be viewed with suspicion, even rejected by many, though being scripturally-derived.

My hope is that it will be looked at objectively and seen not to have the holes which are glaringly obvious in other views. NUMBER ONE hole, by a long shot, in both the veil view and the uncut long view are the absence of any OT commands similar to that which are said to be in 1Co11. Don't bother looking for them, for you won't find them. (What you will see is apostolics poring over the OT, finding verses which they then will twist and contort in such a way as to make them appear to fit their view. But close examination disproves their contention.) Any not seeing this absence-point as extremely relevant to the topic has willfully pulled the wool over their own eyes. Apostolics must not turn a blind eye to this truth. Explain for yourself, if not to this thread, why there are no commands for co/unco in the OT scriptures. Any who turn aside truth's such as these do so to their own harm.

Plz refer to post 100. The response there is also a response for your post here.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618816]

The commentary below reconciles vs 5&15.

Does not. See below. But if it said to, plz explain how so?

Women didn't need to be taught to have long hair as a shorn head was commonly acknowledged as being shamed.

Agreed, as a custom. And the veil view attempts to make the veil custom of v5 a command.

Paul's teaching is that to be uncovered is equally shameful as being shorn.

To quote MM, Michael Marlowe, 1/2) "There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted..." And 2/2) "(18) But this is very strange, and unlikely in the historical context, where cloth headcoverings and veils were so commonly used." Both veil and long hair are commonly known according to MM.

What is very strange and overlooked, because it is so stinking obvious, is that Co-society women didn't need to be taught either about long hair or about the veil. Yet here in 1Co11, we see the apostle telling them to do what everyone already knows as obvious. Paul is reminding them that what is known to them should also obviously be done by them. Where is it seen as obvious and why? In their pagan society; both long hair and the veil. These things are obvious in pagan Co society only because they are held customs, but not traditions based on commandments of God (which don't exist. Quote the OT commandments for either. Quote the NT commandments, other than what is misinterpreted in 1Co11 as out of sync with the OT. All agree that the whole of scripture must be consulted when making a doctrine. All agree that all of what is seen in the whole Bible must be put together in harmony in a doctrine. The veil view does not achieve this. The OT does not command veils. The veil view as a command is out of sync with the OT but not as an OT custom.)

Both long hair and the veil are obvious to the Co pagan and the Jew, as customs, and Paul wants the Co Christian woman to do both but for varying reasons.

To follow along using your/MM's line of reasoning (Paul wanting the Co to do what is obvious/common), Paul would now command both of these obvious things and not just the one. What explanation can you give for Paul only commanding the one, the veil, in light of both v5 and v15 and inlight that both the veil and long hair were common to the pagan/Co Christian? If Paul commands one he would also command the other. Better yet, in my opinion, he commands neither, though wanting the Co Christian to do both. If he commands both it produces an irreconcilable conflict. If he only commands one, then which? v5 or v15? Better is to see him not commanding at all. This then would show all, (the Beginning, Age of Concscience, the Law, the NT) as agreeing there is no command.

Believing that v5 commands the veil view then would show the veil-view/you saying Paul is contradicting himself in v15. Paul says, v15, that God has given long uncut hair for the veil for her hair is given to her for a covering. Which one is it? Is it the veil of v5 as the cover, or the long uncut hair of v15, as the cover? You will not be able to provide an answer to this question because of your veil views. You've said in your posts that what MM says reconciles 5&15, but just saying so hasn't proved anything. v5 is not reconciled with v15. Just saying so doesn't cut it. Try again. Or, do the easier - switch views to hold one without holes seen in the veil view. Leave the misinterpretation of the veil view far behind. Walk in truth. But the following is my guess as to what will happen with you. You will not want to change your veil-view and will fade-off because you have no answers to these objections. Truth asks us to follow, not fade-off in the opposite direction.

Paul actually says the words of v5 and they must not be ignored. What Paul says in v5 leads some to say that Paul commands the veil. What Paul says of the veil fits quite well with the customs of many nations of various eras. Paul should be seen by all as asking the Co Christian to maintain a custom of theirs. Plz provide a line of reasoning which would explain God turning an existing custom into a command, versus saying a custom should be adhered to. Saying God turns a custom into a command does not compute. Can examples be provided showing the Lord converting other customs into commands? They exist, but I won't now show how. To do so here would misrepresent the truth shown by Paul in 1Co11.

As pointed out in another post, MM outright contradicts the Word of God by contradicting Paul, doing so without explanation. Doing so should make anyone view MM with suspicion, closely examining his claims.

[donfriesen1]

Astounding depth of exegesis shown in posts 97, 99, 105. Keep up the good work shown here and we'll gradually drift back to the Dark Ages.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618812]Man, oh man, oh man! I have so much to say in response to what Michael Marlowe has said. But I will not take the time here to repond to every point needing a counter-point. Much of what M.M. has spoken of has been addressed in my commentary, which I refer the reader to.

Anyone with enough patience and fortitude can find a view which shows agreement with their view. You have done so here, with Michael Marlowe, a well respected expert. The question still is, is his view God's view?

**
https://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html
**

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

If we consult Nature, we find that it constantly puts visible differences between the male and the female of every species, and it also gives us certain natural inclinations when judging what is proper to each sex.

M.M. is thus showing himself unfamiliar with what is very, very common the world over - the mouse and rat. Seeing a lone mouse or rat in their natural state would make it difficult to determine their sex, without an up close examination. It is not possible to say this of humans when without clothes - their creation-natural condition. Seeing a female and male rat or mouse alongside one another, might show some physical differences suggesting a sex difference, which might also be explained away by maturity. One could be slightly larger than another by maturity or by sex. Sex can only be determined by close examination. The exception to this is a pregnant, lactating mouse, obviously female. While what M.M. says is true in a general sense it is not true in every case. General appeals such as this should be true for every case, as he suggests. It isn't so with proofs from nature. If Paul appeals to nature in this sense, which he doesn't, then what was seen in the then commonly seen lion, teaches opposite to what he is believed to teach. Male humans would then have a larger mane than females. Paul uses 'nature' in another sense. Check the gk lex for this other sense.

(16) So Paul uses an analogy, comparing the woman’s headcovering to her long hair, which is thought to be more natural for a woman.

He says 'which is thought'. Thought by God or Man? In the context it is Man. And why is it thought by Man to be more natural? God gives Man his nature. Within this God-given nature are tendencies to do things a certain way. Ge3.16 points this out for both women and men. It thus is a scripturally backed concept. We today call these tendencies 'instincts'. Are you trying to prove my point by presenting such evidence? Apparently so.


Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming,

it interferes with vigorous physical work,

Many women are insulted by this. It is often said that women outwork men on any day. 'A man's work is sun to sun but a woman's work is never done.' That they don't usually do the heavy work that men are more suited to (its then left by women for men to do because they are better fitted to do it) they still outwork most men and do it with long hair. Men's nature steers them away from long hair from the start, it's not the work which steers men from having long hair. The same adjustments women make to work with long hair could be made by men. Its an empty argument that is made here, that this nature proves what God is said to be commanding. First show that the the Bible as a whole is commanding a veil, then deal with specifics such as work.

and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight.

But he makes another empty argument. Men aren't stupid and they know enough to tie it up, if they know they will be fighting. Duh. People reach far and wide for explanations such as this because the Bible doesn't present in plain view, what they contend it does. Instead of reaching far and wide for explanations such as this, they should adjust their view to fit what the Bible says, and prevent a need to overreach.

It is therefore unmanly by nature.

By God-given nature man has the testoterone which urges him to be physical when fighting. Women fight mostly with words because that is their nature. The nature of Man, with its instincts, pushes people to act in a certain way. Women like long hair. Men like short hair. But we are a long way from seeing that God commands that Man should do as natures pushes. Some say 1Co11 commands a veil. The whole of scripture does not present this view.


But a woman’s long hair is her glory. Here again is the word δόξα, used opposite ἀτιμία “disgrace,” in the sense of “something bringing honor.” Long and well-kept hair brings praise to a woman because it contributes to her feminine beauty. The headcovering, which covers the head like a woman’s hair, may be seen in the same way. Our natural sense of propriety regarding the hair may therefore be carried over to the headcovering.

Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says “her hair is given to her for a covering” he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning.

And we wait for a line of reasoning to back up this claim. And it doesn't come. This man must be a mentor of Esaias, who often does the same.

There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman’s head should be covered.

Agreed, when seen coming from the instinct within women. But where are the commands, if believed to be from God? Only a misinterpreted 1Co11 contains such commands. The rest of the Bible doesn't show these commands. Therefore, 1Co11 should be interpreted in such a way to agree with the whole of scripture.

And if there is something especially suitable about a woman’s head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair.

But why compare something which Man has concocted, the veil, with that which God has concocted, hair? The reasons they exist are so diverse they should not be compared. The veil may have been first thought of by a jealous man's idea that his woman should hide the beautiful hair she has from view while in public. Or instead, first thought of by a good woman's realization that her beautiful hair attracts unwanted romantic attention which she wants to avoid because of problems it might cause in her relationship. Whatever the reason was for the first veil, we may never know why. God creates Man with hair, whose only biological purpose is adornment. These two diverse sources prevent comparison between them. It thus prevents a woman's long hair from signalling to her that she should also wear a veil because of similarity. They aren't similar from their origins, though similar by location - the head. That is all they have in common.

Who says that 'there is something especially suitable about a woman's headcovering'? If God then we would see such indication by command throughout scripture. What we do see is the covering used as a custom of Man, not a custom of God. God never commands the keeping of the veil until a misinterpreted 1Co11. The whole of scripture, other than 1Co11, shows the veil as a custom of Man. Period. Therefore, 'there is something especially suitable about a woman's headcovering' comes out of Man's thinking and not God's.

But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also!

Because this makes no sense we know Paul doesn't actually want it done. Doing so would 'violate' both the nature of woman and the custom of the covering. Paul would prefer Co Christian's compliance with both. Because a veil is out of sync with the majority of scripture as a command, it then shouldn't be seen as a command all women of all time should feel a need to comply with. He only is calling the Co Christian woman to comply with cultural norms of their time. For example, let's look at modern day sware words. The b,c,f, etc, words are not found in the Bible yet are still considered to be culturally inappropriate words, and Christians call them sin words. Technically, they are not sin words from God's perspective, because he has not detailed them as such in his Word. Paul would today still say that these words are wrong to be used, though not technically detailed in the scripture. Yet, in another non-English speaking nation which has words which sound like the En sware words, Paul would not tell them to not use these words. To that language they are not sware words. Thus, some cultural actions are wrong for some but not for others. The same with the veil. Paul asks for the culturally appropriate to be done. Don't as a Co Christian show you side with those rebels in society who are against every cultural norm. History says that the Co culture was under attack by a cultural revolution.

It is an error to seek to formulate a view by concentrating on just some verses, in this instance, 1Co11, on a subject which covers all the times of Man's existence. The whole of scripture and life of Man should be examined to help formulate a view which addresses all the facts without contradiction. The veil view addresses and makes many good points but its view does not satisfy all the facts. It has holes which a God-provided view should not. God would provide a view without holes, agreed?