Now you are beginning to understand what I'm trying to say. I can usually communicate much more clearly than this. In fact, I just practiced this same debate earlier today with a man live and in person. He goes to a church where they strictly enforce the head-coverings issue, and he felt very passionately and stubbornly in favor of it. (at least as much as Pilgrim, here) But even still, we found ourselves on common ground, agreeing with each other, after only 20 minutes! It shouldn't be this hard! :-)
One thing is I think that in the debate between Pilgrim and I has gone so much into the details of the exegetical methods, the logic, the history, the dispute over what constitutes proof, that I've buried my original point. I've tried to state is as many ways as I can but the message keeps getting lost. The only reason I bring up the historical context is to show that the interpretation of this passage as church law doesn't make any sense, as you have just concluded yourself. We're half-way there! :-) That doesn't mean the holy inspired scripture doesn't make sense, only that our fully fallible and human *interpretation* is off. So let's re-examine the passage now with a more complete context, and see if we can find a interpretation that is completely consistent with the words of the text itself and at the same time is consistent with the context.
As for what the sensible and biblical interpretation is, since I have tried and failed to explain it eloquently enough to be understood, I think the best thing I can do about that is shut-up and refer to the post by Joe (dated 12/03/03 05:07 AM) where he so heroically transcribes page after page of the work of Charles Hodge on exactly that subject. I would call special attention to his first full paragraph, which gives an overview of the passage. If you like that sort of thing, I can also furnish similar commentary that takes an identical interpretation from Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and Jamison, Faucet, and Brown (the first three commentaries on my shelf, there are a couple more but not as notable or as theologically conservative). The latter two of those even appeal to the same point of historical, Messianic Jewish tallit use as I do! :-) Doesn't make it right, but it at least gives me some company, and scholars of historical proportions at that.
I respect, by the way, your honestly trying to approach an issue with as much reason and non-bias as possible. Too often, and I'm preaching to myself here, we get so caught up what we've always believed, that we get very dogmatic about it, and refuse to accept any new piece of evidence that we had not considered years ago when we carved in stone our position on "X." I had to go through that on this very issue. Years ago, I used to believe that women should wear head coverings, isn't it sad that they don't, someone should really tell them. But then a few years ago, as I was putting on a skull cap in Hebrew service, a light bulb went off over my head. I had to run back, research it, ask questions, and hold up my beliefs to the light of truth, and ended up convincing myself that I had been wrong in my interpretation for a very long time. Now this isn't that big a deal, so it wasn't that hard. :-) But I also did the same thing with predestination, formerly calling myself an Arminian, and now standing convinced of Calvinism. It's not easy, and sometimes it takes a long time, but it begins with an honest and prayerful search for truth. So I complement you on recognizing that first step, which is the first step not only in this minor issue, but also in the major ones.
