Here's a little advice. Don't apply modern definitions to ancient scripture. You need to use Strong's.
Yet that is what you did in post 256012:
First of all, this statement falls under the category of an ordinance...
"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
(1 Corinthians 11:2)
An ordinance is not a law. It is not even a statue. It is instead something that is ordinarily done in a culture; an ordinance—and ordinary practice.
Also adding your own English etymology which was faulty even for the English word.
Where you're getting confused here is that there are many different words in the original language that have been translated into the English "ordinance". Therefore, you have to sort out which are cultural practices and which are statutes and which are laws.
Agreed. I asked you to show me how you do this.
Sorting out these is not hard to do, it just takes a little work and God expects us to be passionate to do this work. It's actually very rewarding.
You can also check with other expert commentators and see what their homework has revealed.
You state that it is not difficult to determine what rule is to be obeyed and what is to be ignored without risk of sinning. However, a simple search on the internet provides a number of differing views concerning the validity of this simple ordinance. Some provide great detail as to why it should be strictly obeyed and others provide detail into why it can be tossed aside. I find the toss-it-aside arguments to be less well supported.
With Vincent's Word Study
"1Co 11:2 -
Ordinances - delivered
There is a play of two hundred words, both being derived from to give over. Ordinances is a faulty rendering. Better, Rev., traditions. By these words Paul avoids any possible charge of imposing his own notions upon the Church. He delivers to them what had been delivered to him. Compare 1Ti_1:11; 2Th_2:15."
(Vincent's Word Studies—VWS)
You entire argument hinges on the word tradition. Even the quoted paragraph doesn't provide a qualification for the word tradition. In fact, Vincent seems to be saying that Paul's use of the word/phrase "paradoseiv - paredwka" (ordinances-delivered) is actually all about ensuring the following requirement comes from an authority above Paul.
Further, Vincent seems to validate the requirement by Paul in the same section on Chapter 11:
(verse 5)This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the [C]hristian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man......
.....(verse 5)Paul means that a woman praying or prophesying uncovered puts herself in public opinion on a level with a courtesan....
...(verse 7)Man represents God's authority by his position as the ruler of the woman. In the case of the woman, the word image is omitted, although she, like the man, is the image of God. Paul is expounding the relation of the woman, not to God, but to man.....
....(verse 10) Power on her head (exousian). Not in the primary sense of liberty or permission, but authority. Used here of the symbol of power, i.e., the covering upon the head as a sign of her husband's authority....
....(verse 10)The key-note of Paul's thought is subordination according to the original divine order. Woman best asserts her spiritual equality before God, not by unsexing herself, but by recognizing her true position and fulfilling its claims, even as do the angels, who are ministering as well as worshipping spirits (Heb. i. 4). She is to fall in obediently with that divine economy of which she forms a part with the angels, and not to break the divine harmony, which especially asserts itself in worship, where the angelic ministers mingle with the earthly worshippers; nor to ignore the example of the holy ones who keep their first estate, and serve in the heavenly sanctuary.
Even if this is not about the head scarves per se, it is at least about the requirement of women to display their subjugation to men during the worshiping and praying. Using the one word...
...does not eliminate the requirement by Paul (actually God, if you assume that Paul's writing was under the inspiration of God) that women show they are under the authority of men. This is especially true when you consider Paul's injunctions regarding the role of women in positions of authority within the church and the relationship of wives to husbands.
Not really.
Your use of Vincent to introduce the idea that this is a tradition, failed to remove the possibility that God's authority is behind the requirement. Additionally, Paul's later statements and Vincent's categorization of them, lend great credence to the validity of this requirement....even today. Even if you can show that Biblical tradition (like wearing hair coverings) can be set aside, you have not defined the parameters under which that tradition is no longer valid.
Take the verses in question.
If Paul only meant that women should display their subservience to men during the worship service, does categorizing it as a "tradition" mean women don't have to be subservient to men any more?
When did the head covering become a tradition that no longer held authority? Right away? Within a year? Within 1000 years?
