sm

Mark,

Mark: “3. In relation to head covering- since the passage has nothing to do with mourning and is clearly dealing with husband/wife relationships it is easy to make the parallel. There is no benefit in bringing in all these other non related topics when the context of the passage is not dealing with those.”

From the links Cheryl provided, the head covering as a symbol of mourning was only one of several. Even though it is clearly dealing with the husband/wife relationship, it is not so easy for me to make the parallel as to why this would have been an issue of shame because I am so far removed from time and place. If by “non-related topics” you mean the reasons Cheryl gave in her links, I don’t know, but, I do know that the passage is dealing with head covering, and it is important to know why this would have been shameful to a wife’s husband. The text doesn’t tell us why it would “shame her head” and why a man’s “head” is shamed if he does cover. Is it covering for women binding today? If not, why not?