Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
This is your presumption. The amount of "customs" that were decidedly not-Jewish are noteworthy and make a general reference that Paul was creating churches with Jewish customs in the Gentile world.
Besides, when discussing some of his "this way" kind of teachings, he stopped short and declared that there is no such custom in the churches.
So Jesus, and Paul, were busy throwing off the forms and customs . . . . except for assembly boundaries and what to do with those second-class women.
For a group that claims no more law, you sure have a lot of laws.
|
If you are referring to 1 Corinthians 11:16:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.
, your interpretation is wrong
Ellicott:
The argument, and the appeal to their own good sense having been completed, the Apostle now adds that if, after all, some one continues to argue the matter captiously, and is not satisfied with the reason given, the answer to such a one must be simply—We, the Apostles and the churches of God,
have no such custom as that women should pray and teach with uncovered head.
If we want to get technical and look at the Greek, the verse is related to this verse:
1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things,
and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Paul was delivering ordinances, laws, if you like to the churches. One of them was head coverings. This law was applied to all the churches of God (1 Corinthians 11:16).
The contentious ones would be those who disagree with Paul's instructions regarding women and head coverings.
Gill:
But if any man seem to be contentious,.... That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with reasons given, for men's praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, and women's praying and prophesying with their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and cavilling, ..