TaylorOtwell
Puritan Board Junior
I have a specific question about 1st Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul's appeal to the creation order.
If Paul's appeal to creation is to establish the use or non-use of a veil, why were the priests in the Old Testament required to have head gear to wear during their temple service?
I'm wondering if Paul's appeal to creation is to ground the moral principle of woman's submission to man (something not changed by coming to Christ), and once he grounds this moral principle, he advocates the cultural outworking of that principle in the use of the veil. I usually hear head covering advocates ground their position in Paul's appeal to creation, but I can't see how Paul's appeal to creation can be in defense of the material headcovering itself, as it is not something that was enjoined upon the OT church. Rather, I see Paul's appeal to creation as defending the underlying principle of the outward manifestation. Am I way off in coming to this conclusion? What are the weaknesses in this position?
As an aside, Wayne Grudem indicates in his article on the topic that the most recent research and discovery in ancient culture has demonstrated that the veil was used to symbolize marriage and was taken on by a bride at the wedding ceremony, and this is why the ESV translators chose to use "wife" instead of "woman".
*Edit* - In presenting this to someone who believes that head covering is applicable for all ages of the NT church, he stated that the hair was given as a natural covering in the OT and now that "shadow" (my words) has been fulfilled in the extra, material head covering of the NT. In a sense, it's almost like he views it as a new ceremonial law of the New Covenant. Do you think this is Paul's intent?
If Paul's appeal to creation is to establish the use or non-use of a veil, why were the priests in the Old Testament required to have head gear to wear during their temple service?
I'm wondering if Paul's appeal to creation is to ground the moral principle of woman's submission to man (something not changed by coming to Christ), and once he grounds this moral principle, he advocates the cultural outworking of that principle in the use of the veil. I usually hear head covering advocates ground their position in Paul's appeal to creation, but I can't see how Paul's appeal to creation can be in defense of the material headcovering itself, as it is not something that was enjoined upon the OT church. Rather, I see Paul's appeal to creation as defending the underlying principle of the outward manifestation. Am I way off in coming to this conclusion? What are the weaknesses in this position?
As an aside, Wayne Grudem indicates in his article on the topic that the most recent research and discovery in ancient culture has demonstrated that the veil was used to symbolize marriage and was taken on by a bride at the wedding ceremony, and this is why the ESV translators chose to use "wife" instead of "woman".
*Edit* - In presenting this to someone who believes that head covering is applicable for all ages of the NT church, he stated that the hair was given as a natural covering in the OT and now that "shadow" (my words) has been fulfilled in the extra, material head covering of the NT. In a sense, it's almost like he views it as a new ceremonial law of the New Covenant. Do you think this is Paul's intent?
Last edited: