Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
But if a Christian did it, a sinner would balk at it, just like they mocked Tammy Faye Baker for her excessive makeup.
|
I forget, you're in Canada. lol
Point is, people recognise a headcovering for what it is, when they see it.
The other point is, Paul's teaching did not and does not depend on secular culture. The sinner folks in Corinth would not have freaked out about Christian women prying with their head uncovered, for the following reasons:
1. Sinner folks would not likely have been in a church meeting to begin with. Churches met in one another's homes, the gatherings were private affairs. While it is true that an unbeliever or unlearned one might come in, that was an exception, not a rule.
2. There were many varied and different religious practices throughout the Roman Empire, religious bigotry was not common. Some religious groups practiced orgiastic drunken parties as part of their worship. With such a milieu it is highly unlikely they would have been 'shocked' at seeing Christian women praying without a headcovering.
3. The practice of headcovering was varied, there was no 'Gentile standard'. Therefore, pagans would not have been shocked or scandalised at variety in the Christian congregational practice, either.
4. The only offense might have been taken by Jews. However, Jewish custom was not settled at that time. The practice of Jewish men covering their heads at prayer was a later medieval invention (see my previous post).
5. Paul never once referred to giving anyone offense in regard to this practice. The reasons he gives for his instruction on headcovering are rooted in Biblical precepts from the Law - he references the order of creation, the hierarchy of authority established since the Fall, the angels. He speaks of nature (not social custom) as teaching the same lesson (and nature is the result of God's creation).
6. He concludes by stating that what he taught is a universal Christian custom, it is the custom of all the churches of God. He said 'if any man be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God'. This means that whatever someone would contend for against Paul's teaching, had no support anywhere in the churches of God. In other words, the churches of God all, universally, practiced what Paul was trying to teach the Corinthians.
7. He even begins the discourse by referencing apostolic traditions/ordinances, things taught by the apostle - 'delivered' to the Corinthians - then correcting them on this instance. Thus, the headcovering was an issue relating to apostolic ordinances or 'practicing the faith'.
In short, there is simply no support whatsoever from the text indicating Paul was concerned about Corinthian sinners being scandalised by Christian women praying without a headcovering, and that if the scandal went away the need for headcovering would go away as well.
If the man was still created first, if the man is still the head of the woman, if the angels are still involved, then the woman still ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.
Linear Mode
