Why? Now I agree with you, but then again, this gets to the issue of principle. Why does this one endure? So far the others were more or less ceremonial things associated with the temple. This one seems to have a direct moral root.
-------------------
LEV 19:19 " `Keep my decrees.
" `Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" `Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" `Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Not applicable.
------------------
Some speculate as to why these were laws in the first place. But if we are not certain what they meant even then, how can we rule them out now? In other words, unless they are directly tied to the ceremonial law, how can we judge it?
GE 9:4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
Needs defining..... When God told them to kill this directive was waived...
----------------
true enough. In fact, I gathered from later clarification in the levitical law that self-defense, punishment as a governmental action etc. is permissible. In fact, even Romans 13 says the authorities do not bear the sword in vain.
1CO 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
1CO 11:11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.
May or may not be applicable. Paul's opinion?
This to me is where it really gets more interesting. This is a command in the Christian era. He uses theological arguments going back to creation. He also is making an appeal to the natural order (though I am not sure that it is really nature, men can have long hair, more likely the culture of the time, . Which makes ya wonder about the whole long hair thing on Jesus).
Finally he says that we (not just him, probably his ministry partners since he next says the churches), and the churches of God have no other practice. In other words, this was not an isolated teaching.
The whole goal here seems to be the SIGN OF AUTHORITY. The God given family structure , probably thinking of the words "he shall rule over you" at the fall, is being maintained. This overall thought is also consistent with his belief that a woman would not hold authority over a man in the church--because it would go against the family structure already determined by God.
So we see 3 main thrusts
1. theological--creation
2. nature (may be a false one)
3. practice of all the church
and one underlying...the family structure, related to number one above.
Now the question is, what would a Bible author have to say to make it plain that it was NOT a cultural argument or a personal opinion?
And finally, was there any principle?
I tend to think that this was a culturally enforced norm, but based on a principle, that of the God ordained family structure. The practice (covering your head) no longer conveys the message of submission to authority, but the family structure would remain.
---------------------
AC 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Paul's opinion and practical approach about dealing with new converts....
It was a practical opinion. It was more of James then just Paul's though from the text, though it seems that Paul, Peter and James were the key figures. It was also deemed to be not just their opinion. It was good to us "and to the Holy Spirit" they said when writing the letter.
I do think it was a compromise, in fact Paul did not even seem to be worried about food sacrificed to idols after this council. Though he was about sexual immorality. That one in fact some believe they took from Leviticus 18
LEV 18:24 " `Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled.
Because it included the gentiles then, some believe they would include it here. It is also from the same section that we already labeled as enduring regarding homosexual acts.
So we could say that the idols one was a compromise, the sexual immorality enduring, and the strangled animals? It refers back to Genesis 9. Is it assumedly still in force, or was that part of the already in place sacrificial service?
