Do Christian Women Actually Follow The Bible's Command To Cover Or Shave Their Head?

Question

Someone brought up some of Paul's commandments to women in the bible and so I checked it myself.

In 1 Corinthians 11:3-6 Paul says women rank below men and are supposed to keep their heads covered in church and if they refuse to do so, they have to have their heads shaved.

Also in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul forbids women from even speaking in church at all. He says it is a SHAME for a woman to open her mouth in church.

Then in 1 Timothy 2:9 Paul said that women are to dress "with shamefacedness" and cannot braid their hair, wear gold, or pearls, or costly array.

In Chapter 2:11-12 Paul said a woman must NEVER teach or have authority over a man.

He then goes on to blame the downfall of mankind on women and say that the way women are saved is through, "childbearing" in 1 Timothy 2:14-15.

Now this is NT not OT, so you cannot say it does not apply to you. Do any of you actually apply this literally to your life? If not, why not?

Also to add to my question, if you do believe women can be pastors, preachers, have authority and do not have to shave or cover their heads and can wear expensive clothes and gold and braid their hair and teach men and childbearing is not the way they are saved or cleansed for their sin... does this mean you disagree with Paul?

If you disagree or do not want to apply his commnads on this? Do you demand that others must follow his orders with regard to say...... gay people?

Just curious.

Answer 1

Many evangelical Christians will run from this because they know they are guilty of being two-sided on this matter. They will quote the socks off Paul when it comes to issues that play into their OWN personal prejudices like gays but completely ignore or try to sugar coat his views on or lessen his restrictions when it comes to women.

I am NOT one of those Christians because I am not a bible legalist or literalist. I know the bible was written by men, it reflects the thinking of that age and the culture of that age certain aspects of which in today's world would be considred ignorant or inhumane. This does NOT mean that the bible cannot also be Divinely inspired, which the bible IS, most importantly it points you to Christ.

Christ says we are to treat ALL the way WE would like to be treated. So, if a man would like to be treated the way Paul thought women should be treated, that is up to him.

When I read ANY OTHER opinion be it Paul's, Peter's or any other human sinner I always examine it against ONE measuring stick- the words of Jesus himself.
So I have no conflict with Paul's views on women or gays. The only thing that concerns me is Jesus' views on women and gays. Which I can see were vastly different from Pauls' own.

When you are a bible-literalist and turn bible writers opinions into rules, there is no way you can follow them all and fall into the same burdensome trap like those who had to follow the thousands of rules of the Mosaic Law. And as I am sure your question has amply pointed out, you run the risk of becoming a hypocrite like the Scribes and Pharasees.

Answer 2

I don't dislike Muslims. But the first verse you quote is for Jews, not Gentiles. The second was not a command to amputate body parts. The third was only a suggestion that women who live in areas where it's improper to pray or prophecy with hair uncovered should cover their heads. It is not a commandment to women to cover up all the time, in all cases. And the fourth is a suggestion that women should not chatter while learning in church. It isn't about women having to stay silent all the time. There are many instances in the Bible of women teaching, preaching the gospel, ministering, and prophesying. What I dislike is people misinterpreting and twisting the Bible.

Answer 3

Paul talks about the order of authority. The head of every man is Christ (Christ is head of the body of, which is the Church).

The head of the woman is the man. The statement denotes a functional subordination. Paul has been misunderstood here, and this does not mean male chauvinist, it means equality of the sexes. Like The Father and Son are co-equal, yet the Son is answerable to the Father.

The covering is symbolic, indicating the authority that exists above the woman, yet still under Christ. Again, prostitutes and vestal virgins shaved their heads to show availability to men on the streets. He is making a comparison here about covered and shorn and what it means. A respectable Christian woman should not go out in public dressed as a prostitute meaning she should not participate in public worship without proper dress.

The woman is the glory of the man, i.e., whatever dominion and authority she has is delegated. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman created for man. She came after.

Woman are to be submissive to the divine order of things.
As for the hair, men are not to wear their hair or dress in an effeminate manner.

For women, the Bible does not dictate "spirituality" by the length of one's hair. The real issue her is submission to divine authority. Some suggest that the long hair constitutes the "covering" of verse 5-6. However, it may be argued that the shorn head in verse 5 is equated only hypothetically with the absence of the covering.

There is no dispute here. In keeping with Paul's approach to Christian liberty, he hopes there will be a voluntary submission to the principles he has laid out in this chapter.

Answer 4

Daisymae nailed it. It's exactly as she stated and there is no contradiction or chauvinism. You must know the context of the time to understand what these writings meant. It's very easy to get caught up trying to equate modern day meanings to that time period. Take the time to study it out rather than believe non-sense. What you need to think about is that there can be several meanings applied to words or verses. But if it contradicts other scripture, it's been interpreted deliberately to do so. All scripture will build upon and buttress itself throughout the bible. Most of your points are completely off base. This is an authority issue and God sets it out plain and simple in Genesis. Paul knew that. You obviously don't quite get it. There is references in Paul's writings to women's contributions to the early church. Search them out.

Answer 5

I do agree with Paul. But if you read the entire verse about covering your head...at the end he says "if this is a point of contention, then we have no such command." This means...that if it's something that causes problems then we don't have to cover our heads.

Many women (including my mother) do cover their heads in church...and I have to say that it something that I have begun to wonder if I should too. I haven't quite gotten there though!

I do not think it's okay for women to be Priests and I've never had enough money to own a lot of expensive clothes...but I think the obvious meaning here is to adorn yourself with material things...flaunting your body and your beauty. So...again...I agree with Paul, that is not right. I try to look nice but not flashy.

So...being as how I agree with Paul on things...I also agree with him on the other things.

Answer 6

I think some of your interpretation is off kilter...
women do not "rank" below men, it is a matter of ROLE, not POSITION.
I see there's too much here to answer here, so I'll stick with just your original question.
Re-read the entire section..you will see the whys, and also find out that the hair counts as a covering.

Answer 7

Watch the Xians run like cockroaches.

The excuse will be 'oh that was just for the Corinthians' or 'that was just Paul's opinion'. Either the Bible is the unchanging word of god or it is not. Where is it written that you can ignore the commandment to cover your head? What man overrode gods book and said it was ok? huh? huh?

Answer 8

Just because some Christians don't follow some principles due to ignorance or anything else to that matter, that doesn't excuse the rest of us not to believe in God.

Answer 9

These types of questions arise fairly often, understandably. Some feel Paul’s writings prove to be a slight to women. But that is not so. Paul wrote at 1 Corinthians 14:33, 34: “As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations . . . “

Paul was discussing matters relating to Christian meetings. He underscored the objective of Christian meetings: that the congregation may receiving upbuilding. See 1 Corinthians 14:4, 5, 12, 26.

Actually, Paul’s instructions to ‘keep silent’ appears three times in chapter 14 and is addressed to a different group each time (not just to women) but the reason for the instruction is always the same: “let all things take place decently and by arrangement.” 1 Corinthians 14:40.

Verse 28 instructs those speaking in tongues. Verse 30 instructs those prophesying. And verse 34 instructs the women. It may be that some of the women were challenging what was said in the congregation and Paul’s counsel would help these sisters avoid such a disorderly spirit and humbly accept their position within God’s headship arrangement, especially when it came to their husbands.

Moreover, when the sisters kept silent in the congregation, they would be showing that they were not trying to be teachers in the congregation which was not permissible. Compare 1 Timothy 2:12. This did not mean Christian women could not speak in the congregation. Sometimes Christian women prayed or prophesied in the congregation.

Christian women ‘keep silent’ by refraining from trying to assume the role of a male and instruct the congregation.

Having said that, what, then, did Paul mean when he wrote that a Christian wife would be “Kept safe through childbearing”? at 1 Timothy 2:15.

What does the context reveal? Paul was divinely inspired to give counsel on the role of the Christian woman in the congregation. Earlier, at 1 Timothy 2:9 and 10, he wrote: “I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works.” Paul’s emphasis was on modesty, balance and to choose the personal adornment of good works. Patently, he was not telling women they could not braid their hair or wear pearls.

Continuing, Paul addressed the headship arrangement within the congregation, saying: “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 11:3) For the purpose of clarification, Paul is giving counsel regarding “praying or prophesying in the congregation.” It was when a woman was doing either of these things that she needed to have her head covered to show her respect for the headship arrangement. It did not mean she had to have her head covered at all times. Paul explains the basis for such arrangement by showing that although Adam was not deceived by Satan, Eve “was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.” This obviously does not mean that Adam was innocent – it simply means he knew better but disobeyed anyway. Neither does it mean that Paul is blaming the downfall of man on Eve as you disingenuously suggest. How could a Christian woman be protected against Eve’s error? Paul answers: “However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.” (1 Timothy 2:14, 15) What does that mean?

Although some translators seem to imply that a woman’s salvation is dependent upon her having children (see, for example, Today’s English Version which reads: “A woman will be saved through having children.”) that cannot possibly be Paul’s meaning for countless scriptures show that to be saved, one must come to know the true God, have faith in Jesus, and demonstrate that faith by works. Moreover, Paul did not mean that safe childbirth is guaranteed to believing women; sadly, some have died giving birth.

Paul’s additional counsel later on in 1 Timothy assists us in understanding what he meant. Some younger widows were ‘unoccupied, gadding about to the houses; gossipers and meddlers in other people’s affairs, talking of things they ought not.’ Paul counsels: “Therefore I desire the younger widows to marry, to bear children, to manage a household, to give no inducement to the opposer to revile.” 1 Timothy 5:13, 14.

If she is occupied with such things as ‘bearing children and managing a household,’ as she continued “in faith and love and sanctification,” she would not be inclined to conduct herself in a way that is not upbuilding. Hence, her spirituality would be preserved, or “kept safe.” (1 Timothy 2:15)

A careful consideration of all the scriptures you provided shows that, rather than being demeaning to women, Paul, under divine inspiration was simply giving counsel as to headship and proper conduct for all who claim to worship God.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 10

Ahh, but there where women prophetesses, deaconesses, teachers. fellow workers with apostles{All of these are found in the Bible, I do not need to make excuses}