So, going off memory, since i can't actually quote the relevant part, it seems that Don is asserting that Paul is on the one hand instructing the Corinthians to practice the veiling of women while they are praying or prophesying, but on the other hand he is not 'commanding" anything, therefore there is no obligation being imposed upon the Christian in
1 Cor 11.
It seems to me that this is oxymoronic. If Paul is telling the Corinthians to do something, then he is "commanding" them to do something. So he can't be telling them to do something, while simultaneously telling them "do or do not, it doesn't matter". Because if it didn't matter, then why bring it up in the first place?
Also, in reading
1 Corinthians 11, it sure seems like Paul is establishing what can be called "universal truths". That is, Paul establishes as true certain things, that were true then, and are true today. They were true in Corinth, and they are true in Dallas, and everywhere else.
1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
This was true then, it is true now. It was true there, and it is true here.
1 Corinthians 11:4-5 KJV
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
This is a conclusion he draws from the previous truth. The condition is stated in verse 3, and the conclusion that results from the condition is stated in verses 4 and 5. The condition results necessarily in the conclusion. In Corinth in the first century, the condition was true, therefore the conclusion was true. Guess what? The condition is still true today, even in Texas. Therefore the conclusion is likewise true. That is to say, since the head of every man is still Christ, and the head of the woman is still the man, and the head of Christ is still God, then it follows that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered still dishonours his head, and every woman praying or prophesying uncovered still dishonours her head.
Paul's conclusions in verses 4 and 5 are asserted as being true. Paul does not attempt to "prove" them, he simply asserts them. Now, if we think of Paul as a mere man with no apostolic authority and not inspired by the Holy Ghost, then we can dismiss his conclusion as merely the unproven assertions of a nobody, with no authority. However, if we believe Paul to be an apostle, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, then his assertive conclusion is the assertion and conclusion of the Holy Ghost, and thus of God Almighty Himself.
Everything else in the apostolic teaching in
1 Cor 11 concerning head covering follows from this base. Since the base is still valid, then the instruction is still valid. It is unequivocally true that every man praying or prophesying today with his head covered dishonours his head, and every woman praying or prophesying today with her head uncovered dishonours her head.
Paul does not state as the condition or basis of his doctrine any supposed "customs" or "instincts" or "traditions of the pagan Greek culture". Rather, the basis for his doctrine is the assertion in verse 3 concerning a divinely ordained hierarchy of headship. Since a God-ordained hierarchy of headship is not dependent on any social culture, but instead flows from the will of God Himself for His people, then Paul's teaching is not to be viewed as him simply affirming a continuation of a pagan Greek cultural practice, but rather he is CORRECTING ERRORS in practice by pointing the Christians to the true and correct Divinely ordained practice. The fact that Paul introduces the discussion with "I am glad you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you" indicates he is discussing an apostolic church ORDINANCE. The fact he begins verse 3 with "But I would have you know..." indicates he is CORRECTING the church's failure to practice THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CORRECTLY. Namely, there were SOME in the church not following the ordinance, and the church had not corrected the issue themselves. The contents of both epistles to the Corinthians show that Paul is for the most addressing QUESTIONS sent to him by the church, about several issues. They were basically asking the apostle "What do we do about this and that and these situations?" and he is giving his apostolic answers, explaining the correct apostolic course of action. The church for the most part is doing things correctly, but there were several issues where apparently some of the members weren't completely on board with the apostolic program. We see this in his discussion of the Lord's Supper, his discussion of spiritual gifts and the conduct of the basic church meeting, the presence of sectarianism, the continued undisciplined presence of a known fornicator, etc.
So in conclusion, Paul's teaching regarding the head covering is just as applicable today to us as it was back then to them. The reasons still exist, therefore the expected response is still the same.
I notice Don is STILL going on about "where is the old testament command for the veil?" I honestly do not know why that is still being raised. The DISTINCTION between the old covenant congregational practice (ordinance) and the new covenant congregational practice (ordinance) was already discussed and made clear. This is essentially a liturgical issue, concerning praying and prophesying. Just as a change was made in the ordinances of worship concerning types of sacrifices, the order of the priesthood, and the focus of the Passover memorial meal, so too a change was made in the liturgical ordinance concerning the covering of the head during ministry and worship. That the new covenant congregation would have distinct ordinances of worship and liturgical conduct is only questioned by Jews and Judaizers, who believe any innovation (not sanctioned by the rabbis) is heretical. All Christians have ALWAYS affirmed that the new covenant liturgy is distinct from the old covenant liturgy, and therefore the specific worship practices of the two are distinct as well. There is some overlap, and similarities, and one is based on the other (since the new covenant worship is the spiritual substance of the old covenant types and shadows), but there are also distinctions and differences. The head covering is obviously one such area of distinction.
Again, since God can command something ANYWHERE in Scripture, then God can command something in
1 Corinthians 11, which is binding on us today. To suggest that "God does not command anything in
1 Cor 11 BECAUSE we see no such command in the old testament" is to beg the question, it is circular reasoning. There is no such requirement for any command of God in
1 Cor 11, that is, there is no requirement that God command something in the old testament in order for Him to command that thing in
1 Cor 11, nor is the lack of an old testament duplication of the teaching in
1 Cor 11 a proof or evidence that
1 Cor 11 contains no command.