Not in direct response to your comments yet, but one other thing occurred to me this morning. I mentioned two examples of Jewish law/tradition that were dealt with at length by the Apostle Paul and shown to be no longer applicable -- circumcision and unclean meat. However, point Paul was making in both those cases was that gentiles should not be held to these traditions, yet in neither case did he forbid Jewish believers from continuing to practice them. It must not be demanded of anyone to be circumcised; however, he did not say that circumcision was forbidden. Anyone may be permitted to eat meat that was previously considered unclean; however, he never suggested that Jews be compelled to eat unclean meat. Overall, Jews were permitted to continue to act like Jews, and gentiles were permitted to continue to act like gentiles, as long as they both believed in Christ and Him crucified. So if this head-covering issue is, as you say, a case of a reversal of Jewish law, that it is absolutely forbidden for any Jew to continue to observe the head-covering as a sign of submission to God, then this issue is of paramount significance and stands starkly alone among all other teachings by Christ or any apostle. Something that significant and unique would have been dealt with, I think, with more than a single verse. This leads me to suspect that if we are reading this, only looking at the surface, reaching this unlikely conclusion, then we must be missing something. Now, I say that, acknowledging that this is the first thing in the morning. :-) So if I'm forgetting another issue that would add precedence to this one, please remind me.
