The argument that requiring women to cover our heads is legalism

Heard from someone who argued at great length in an email that the idea of a head covering is "legalistic." He quoted numerous Bible verses all demonstrating Paul's arguments against the Law, works righteousness and so on, without ONCE quoting the passage itself that is ABOUT the head covering.

Once you recognize that Paul is indeed recommending that women cover their heads and that men should not, because his arguments are universal and not tied to custom, then calling the argument legalistic is to call Paul legalistic. The very apostle known for his teaching against legalism.

The blindness to this one little bit of scripture is sometimes breathtaking. Its being so misunderstood, misread, and in fact aggressively misread, has just got to be evidence that it is FAR more important than the vast majority are willing to allow. Sure looks to me like the devil is working overtime to obscure it -- to minimize and trivialize it for starters, then to confuse the meanings of every verse in it, and to summon all those verses about legalism against it.

Another point that ought to show the error of attributing Paul's teaching to his concern for local custom

The idea that local custom in Corinth was the basis for Paul's advocacy that women cover their heads in the assembly is wrong from many angles, but another proof of its wrongness that needs to be recognized is that Paul is ALSO telling men that they are NOT to cover their heads in the assembly. Not enough is made of this aspect of that passage it seems to me, no doubt because there wasn't any contention among the men about the apostle's teaching.

But to take Paul as basing his instruction to the women on custom and culture SHOULD also suggest the same basis for his instruction to the men. But one thing we all know is that Jewish men did and do cover their heads in prayer and worship, and Marlowe's research (link at top of page) shows that Roman men also covered their heads in their religious ceremonies.

Therefore, obviously Paul's teaching CONTRADICTS the customs of the time in relation to men. This ought to be recognized as undermining the idea that he cared one fig for custom at all, but rather was likewise contradicting the culture and customs practiced by some of the women in Corinth.

Clearly Paul was teaching a brand new "custom" which was shared among the apostles, whose authority he appeals to in verse 16, a new practice based on the Creation and God's definition of man and woman as shown in the scripture, brought out by the appearance of the Messiah in fulfillment of prophecy and exclusive to the Christian churches.