Quote:
Originally Posted by JOwen  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles
Thanks. Is that what Pastor Al says?
| No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest. | Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical. :-) |
The light of nature is referring to long hair, while the word ordinances really means "teachings", yet this is not even referring to the headcovering as Paul says "2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3. But I want you to understand that", therefore, he changes the subject when he speaks about the headcovering. I agree that the underlying principle in that passage is Biblical, but the literal application has expired. Note that in the next chapter Paul explains that rationale for covering parts of the body: "on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty" (1 Cor. 12:23), thus the reason why a woman's hair was to be covered is because the public display of it in that culture was seen as immodest. Moreover, I have yet to see any modern proponents of head-coverings make their women wear veils which fully cover the hair. A hat which merely covers part of the head, while the lady has two-feet of hair on display, does not conform to what Paul told the Corinthians.
Anyway, I have not got time to go into it further; see my RPW book for more.
