Ps. 48-50
I wonder what was / is special about Jerusalem that made God choose it as His eternal dwelling place? The Psalms talk a lot about Jerusalem, The City of David, and Mount Zion, presumably all the same general location. And the end times prophecies in the Bible speak of this place as well. It is clearly important. But why?
Some think they can save themselves with their wealth. But Psalm 49:7-9 tells us, “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit.” We can’t afford our ransom price! Not even the Old Testament sacrifices can save. God did not command those sacrifices because He needed them. Psalm 50 points out that everything that is belongs to God. God gave those sacrifices as a representation of the sacrifice that HE would make on our behalf! Because only He can afford the price to ransom any of us. We need God. God does not need us.
So what does God really desire of us? “Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and perform your vows to the Most High, and call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me” (Ps. 50:14-15). What He wants is our hearts. He wants our commitment. And He wants our trust. That seems such a small price for such a costly thing. Why is it so hard?
1 Cor. 11:1-16
A good portion of this passage simply does not make sense to me. I have to believe that there is more to this than some requirement for women or wives to put something on top of their head in church. That seems a strictly legalistic thing from somebody who has been passionately preaching about our freedom from the law. I believe that many of Paul’s teachings, as with many of God’s laws in the Old Testament, were given to directly counter specific cultural practices of the day, so that those who belong to God would be set apart and seen as different. We don’t live and worship the way others do because we live for and worship the one, true, living God.
So back to the head coverings…The Message translates this passage as specific to husbands and wives and how they show respect for the authority over them, stating that authority transfers from God, to Christ, to husband, to wife. Paul’s admonition in this context, then, is for wives to be careful not to disrespect Christ by disrespecting their husbands and for husbands also to be respectful of Christ’s authority. What does this have to do with head coverings? I did some light research on that question and ran across a resource that fits with this reasoning. It suggests that cultural practices of the day that Paul would likely be trying to counter here would be as follows:
1. Pagan priests of the day pulled their togas over their heads when performing religious duties. Christian men should set themselves apart by not adopting this Pagan practice.
2. Women of the day used a head covering of some kind, like a thin scarf, as a social indication that she was married. It symbolized her modesty and chastity and submission to her husband. Thus, a wife who refused to cover her head publicly disgraced her husband.
In light of this, Paul’s words were not about head coverings specifically, but about head coverings as a symbol of respect or disrespect. This makes much more sense to me and fits much better with the rest of the New Testament message as I understand it. In or out of Church, respecting Christ directly and, as a woman, indirectly through respecting my husband, is an admonition I can take to heart.