~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . . - a quick question. In your research travels, have you run across a good answer or comment to the 'argument's that says that God can't really be stating women are to be wearing a headcovering in I Cor. 11 because that is inconsistent with him removing the law and circumcision requirement so as to not be 'under a yoke of slavery' again (largely found in Galations 5.) In other words - many feel that how could God remove 1 form of something 'required' (circumcision) and then turn around and require something else - such as a headcovering. Do you catch my meaning? And then they conclude it's really just about submission of the heart, like circumcision is now, and no 'object' or symbol is required.While I don't myself believe this (and am a full-time practicing headcoverer for 30+ years) - I still come up short with a good response to this prevalent argument. It's become a pretty big deal in my life for reasons I'll be silent on for now and would sure love any help you could give. I think I've read everything out there on the Net - and just am not finding any solid answers to this one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please comment here or send me an email if you can. Thank you all again, so much, for your encouragement to me and to each other.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, if you have the chance to answer the question asked on the previous entry - "why wear headcovering to a soccer game?" - feel free to answer here as well. I am very behind in my work.
Please check the other Christian headcovering blogs, especially "Free To Cover" for more answers to headcovering questions.
5 comments:
Lisa, to my knowledge, I would say that headcovering was not given as a command in the OT as circumcision was. Headcovering, as far as I know, is a command that was first introdued in the NT. When God removed circumcision and other laws, they were OT laws. We are directly commanded in the NT to cover, not because it is a law, but because it is a symbol of something greater that is intended to act as a reminder to us.
If we are to do away with headcovering, then we should also do away with the Lord's Supper -- another symbol that is outlined in 1 Corinthians 11. Headcovering is not an OT law, it is a NT ordinance that should be observed just as The Lord's Supper is not a law, but an ordinance that should be observed. That's my best response to the question. Hope it helps!
It seems to me that at the heart of this question is the idea that if I don't think God would say something of a certain sort, then He must not really be saying it. This completely bypasses the fact that the most straightforward reading of the text is clearly pro-literal covering, not symbolic covering. And (although, I expect the people who make this argument would be horrified at this suggestion) the effect is that we are putting our own idea of God above His revelation of Himself in Scripture. It doesn't really matter if we don't think God would say something. The only important question for a believer is whether or not He actually says it.
ladies before me said enough...
I sense a video blog on this question coming up on Freetocover. Perhaps later tonight.
I agree with Jennifer. It is not a "law" like circumcision was. The New Testament contains "guidelines" that we should follow to bring us closer to God and help us live Christian lives.
Post a Comment