The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings and more

In reply to:

---

As for the case about coverings, one question we could ask ourselves, couldn't a woman wear a covering but still not be subject to her husband? If they can, then the purpose of the covering is defeated, and even made worse by entering into worship falsely.

---

To press your line of reasoning, we could also say that the purpose of baptism is also defeated when an unbeliever is baptized, eh? Fortunately, the argument is without merit for the "head covering", like baptism, is a sign of an immutable truth. In the case of the "head covering" it is a sign of the truth that women are to be subject; i.e., under the authority of their immediate head, their husbands. This truth Paul establishes clearly when he uses the order of creation in that section.


My reasons for embracing "head coverings" is upon exegetical grounds; nothing more nor anything less. I came upon the Murray article long after I had studied the much debated topic and come to a decision on my own. One can appreciate Murray's words, I would hope, even if there exists a disagreement on the topic.

In His Grace,