fbpx

Navigate / search

Should Women Wear Head Coverings?: A Response to Benjamin L. Merkle regarding Inconsistency

Response to Benjamin L. Merkle
The following article is a response to Benjamin L. Merkle’s paper entitled “Paul’s Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered“. It was published by ETS in 2006. Later in 2015 the Gospel Coalition published an abridged version entitled “Should Women Wear Head Coverings?”

In 1 Timothy 2:13-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, the Apostle Paul appeals to the creation order to explain and defend his teaching on gender roles in the church. Here’s what he says in each passage:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (1 Tim 2:13-14 NASB)

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head… (1 Cor 11:7-10a)

Since both passages appeal to the creation order, consistent treatment is needed. This means Complementarians should affirm that both practices and teachings are trans-cultural.

Dr. Benjamin Merkle (Professor, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) believes in complementarian roles and affirms the truths taught in 1 Timothy 2. However, he believes that head covering was a cultural practice that women do not need to implement today. His paper is a defense for why holding to these two positions is not inconsistent treatment. Read more

Share via

Losing Baptism: How the “Meaningful Symbol” view of Headcovering undermines Christian Symbolism

The “Meaningful Symbol” view teaches that we can replace the “headcovering” in 1 Corinthians 11 with a different symbol and still be faithful to the passage. We believe that if this hermeneutic is embraced, we may lose precious doctrines like Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

This video is based on an article we wrote here.

Share via

Should Single Women Wear Head Coverings?

Should Single Women Wear Head Coverings?

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul instructs women that they are to wear a head covering when “praying or prophesying”. The Greek word behind “woman” is “gynē” and it can be translated as “woman” or “wife” depending on the context. While almost all English versions of the Bible 1) Examples include the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, HCSB and NET versions translate gynē as “woman” in verses 2-16, the popular ESV version 2) The RSV also advocates this view by translating 1 Cor 11:3 as ‘the head of a woman is her husband' differs by translating some of the references as “wife”. This has led many to wonder if head covering is only applicable for those that are married. Behind the ESV’s translation decision, is an assumption that a woman wearing a head covering was a 1st century Roman symbol of being a matron (respectable married woman). It is our objective in this article to prove that Paul’s teaching on head covering is for all men and women, regardless of their marital status. Read more

References

1.
↑ Examples include the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, HCSB and NET versions
2.
↑ The RSV also advocates this view by translating 1 Cor 11:3 as ‘the head of a woman is her husband'
Share via

The Understanding Test

The Understanding Test

Have you ever engaged someone in a friendly debate only to hear them say, “That’s not what I really believe” or “That’s not what I mean?” I’ve said that to others and have heard that said back to me. This often happens when we learn about a position from someone who doesn’t hold to it. Though it may be unintentional, when we disagree with a position we will usually not present it in the same way as if we agreed with it.

So how do we know if we truly understand a viewpoint or doctrine? Do we really understand Buddhism and Islam? Calvinism and Arminianism? How about the various views on head covering? How would we know if we really do understand them? Read more

Share via

Can we symbolize our roles using a different symbol?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: Having your head covered today doesn’t have the same meaning it did in that time and culture. Using a different symbol would keep the spirit of the text and could more meaningfully symbolize our roles today.

This view would understand 1 Corinthians 11 essentially the same way we would, but proposes a different symbol than a head covering. In other words, they think only the principle is unchanging whereas the symbol itself can be modified. Joshua Harris, in his sermon on 1 Corinthians 11 proposed that we use wedding rings instead of a head covering. 1) ”Head Coverings” by Joshua Harris. Preached on Sept 2, 2007. Daniel Wallace listed some concerns with using wedding rings and proposed wearing modest clothing instead. 2) http://www.bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-apply-us-today Those are two of the most commonly suggested replacement symbols.

I’m concerned about the hermeneutic of separating the principle from the symbol and believe it can have dire consequences when taken to its logical conclusion. As you’ll see in a minute, this concern isn’t unfounded. A head covering is a visual picture of our gender roles and what scares me about the proposed hermeneutic is both baptism and the Lord’s supper are in that same category. They are symbols (visual pictures) that point to a greater reality. Read more

References

1.
↑ ”Head Coverings” by Joshua Harris. Preached on Sept 2, 2007.
2.
↑ http://www.bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-apply-us-today
Share via
Send this to a friend