Originally Posted by RoadOfLife
Quote
In short, a headcovering isn't introduced in 1Cor 11 for the very first time. Headcovering appears in various other passages and contexts and thus Paul's teaching concerning women covering their heads isn't something novel or new nor bound to the culture of Corinth. It has an ancient precedence.

scratch1 Can you give me some passages/contexts that have to do with headcovering other than I Cor. 11
I believe the passage itself answers your question about other references to head coverings, which I will show you after I give you a quote from John Calvin, taken from his commentary on Corinthians:

3. But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: "Evil manners beget good laws." As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.

My reason for including the above quote from Calvin is because he gives a reason why this matter of headcoverings for women in public worship doesn't appear previously in the New Testament... i.e., it was never disputed and thus no mention of it seemed necessary. Most of the Epistles of Paul, Peter and John are 'apologetic' in nature, i.e., they address problems in doctrine and practice that plagued or would plague the Church.

Okay, so where in the passage does the answer appear that addresses your question? Here:

Quote
1 Corinthians 11:16 (ASV) "But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."
What Paul concluded his teaching on headcovering with was a statement of the universal practice among ALL of the churches. Thus this practice was not simply introduced into Corinth, i.e., a "cultural phenomena" unique to Corinth. In fact, not only was headcovering practiced, he even goes so far as to say that no one anywhere is argumentative (contentious) about it. In short, all of the NT churches at the time of Paul's writing this letter practiced headcovering and it was a universally accepted practice which no one even disputed until the practice was questioned and/or stopped in Corinth.

If I may once again point to David Silversides' article here: Is Headcovering Biblical? because it contains not only several excellent examples of sound exegesis of the passage itself, e.g., David Dickson and John Murray, but it also shows that the practice of headcovering was widely taught and practiced for centuries until recently among the Reformed Churches. Although it is possible that they were all wrong on this matter, is it likely that they ALL were in error?

Food for thought! [Linked Image]

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]