Understanding the “Head-Coverings” in 1 Corinthians 11

Are Christian women neglecting the command for head-coverings in church? Many are convinced that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that women must wear garment head-coverings when practicing their faith around men. Yet, the text says that the covering is hair in verse 15, and the covering is not indicated to be a garment. The Greek text also confirms the covering to be hair as noted by James Coffman among other Greek linguists. A woman’s long hair “is given to her for a covering” (1 Cor. 11:15), and by not letting her hair down, this was the same as having her hair cropped or shaved. By not letting her hair be long, she was arranging her hair and claiming authority by social custom, and thus she dishonored the headship of God, Christ, and man. With hair being the glory of women, the Christian woman should let her hair hang down in subordinating to God’s headship and thereby glorified God, Christ, and man. The scriptures below will make these affirmations clear.

Remember that Christian women were instructed  in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 to be modest not adorning their hair with braided hair and with gold and pearls. The passage is clear that this behavior was immodest and insubordinate. By not letting the hair hang down, women would dishonor God’s headship. By braiding the hair up, women were or appeared to be in rebellion to subordinating to the birthright of men to lead and teach. Also, 1 Peter 3:1-6 applied this to a wife’s subordination to her husband where she was not to be insubordinate by arranging her hair and be adorned in gold. See, this was their custom and culture that powerful women of authority would dress as though higher than others even in pagan worship. Remember that women in this time led worship to Diana and Dionysus. The Diana temple contained vault safes (Morton, “Deceiving Winds”). Apparently, some Christian women still arranged and adorned their hair upon their heads rather than letting their long hair hang down showing the glory of God, Christ, and man (1 Cor. 11:15). The Spirit of Christ taught through the Apostles that a woman’s hair was to hang down in such a way that is modest and glorified herself, her husband, Christ, and God.

In 1 Corinthians 11, the Apostle Paul revealed God’s tradition for Christians to show cultural respect contrary to this ancient custom that was a rebellious and factious in promoting an authority over God’s headship. Likewise, Paul had previously addressed eating meat that may have been offered to idols and how a Christian may respond within a pagan culture (1 Cor. 10:24-33). The Apostle also taught that such social customs were not matters of contention (1 Cor. 11:16). Christians are to present themselves as humble and respectable to God by glorifying God first contrary to local practices of presenting social authorities. Today, long hair is still a woman’s glory from God despite that short hair shows no loyalty or claim to pagan or modern social authorities. A woman’s arrangement of hair today can still boast of wealth and power. Such must be avoided.

Consider what James Coffman had to say about a woman’s hair being her covering:

Verse 4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.

Having his head covered…
Here is where the misunderstanding of this passage begins. This clause, as rendered in the popular versions, is commentary, not Bible. As Echols noted:

“Having his head covered” is a commentary, not a translation. Lenski translated the sense correctly: ‘having something down from his head.’ What the ‘something’ is is neither stated nor implied in 1 Corinthians 11:4.

The logical understanding of this would refer it to ‘long hair,’ being long enough to hang down from the head, as clearly indicated by the apostles’ words a moment later: ‘If a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him’ (1 Corinthians 11:14).

The ancients accepted Paul’s dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul’s words.

‘The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes … cropping is to be adopted … let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets.’

Significantly, the words ‘hang far down’ strongly resemble Paul’s words ‘having something down from his head.’ The above is from Clement of Alexandria and was written in the second century.

The notion that Paul in this place referred to the [Hebrew: tallith] (shawl), or [Greek: yarmelke] (skull cap) worn by Jewish worshipers is refuted by the fact that the Greek New Testament does not indicate in this verse an artificial covering of any kind. This does not mean, however, that Paul would have approved of the use of either in Christian worship. ‘For Paul such a covering probably symbolized that the Jewish male continued in spiritual darkness, from which Christians had been liberated.’ We may therefore interpret this verse as a simple admonition that it was a disgrace for any long-haired Christian male to participate in praying and prophesying; and this interpretation certainly harmonizes with verse 14. History has certainly vindicated this view; because universal human behavior has departed from it only in isolated instances and for relatively very short periods of time” (emp. added).

Referring to coverings in verse 5, Coffman wrote,

With her head unveiled…
The word here rendered ‘unveiled’ is [Greek: akatakaluptos]. ‘There is no intrinsic meaning in this word which suggests either the covering material or the object covered; it is simply a general word.‘ (See under 1 Corinthians 11:15.) Only in 1 Cor. 11:15 does Paul mention any kind of garment ([Greek: peribolaion]) and even there he stated that the woman’s hair took the place of it.’ [Katakaluptos] means covered completely. [Akatakaluptos] means not completely covered. Thus again, the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment. To suppose that Paul here meant ‘mantle’ or ‘veil’ or any such thing is to import into this text what is not in it. We have seen that he was speaking of ‘hair’ in 1 Cor. 11:4; and that is exactly what he is speaking of here. ‘Not completely covered’ would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads. It is crystal clear that Paul is not speaking of any kind of garment; because he said in 1 Cor. 11:15, below, ‘For her hair is given her instead of a covering.'” (emp. added).

David Lipscomb addressed this very subject saying,

I understand that long hair serves as a veil or token of her subjection to authority; and if she has not long hair, she must cover her head when she approaches God in worship. I understand this to refer to her approach to God in private or in public assembly when others lead in worship. Many interpret this to mean that she is to do these things when she leads in public worship, but the Scripture says nothing of this” (Q & A, emp. added).

Within this previous context of hair being the “covering”, Lipscomb concluded this statement, “We understand verse 16 to say that the churches of God have no such custom as the women appearing in worship with uncovered or shorn heads.” The expectation was for women to have hanging hair in that society to show honor to the headship from Christ to God, man to Christ, and woman to man.

Still, some may ask about verses 5-6, which seem to imply that not having a garment for a covering is like a woman’s hair being cropped or shaved. Actually, these verses can be misinterpreted by readers to imply that a covering must be a garment when Paul specified that hanging hair is also a covering in verses 14-15. Let us not assume. A literal translation is,

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered [Gr. without hanging hair] dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered [without hanging hair], let her also be cropped. But if it is shameful for a woman to be cropped or shaved, let her be covered [with hanging hair]” (1 Cor. 11.5-6).”

Coffman said in agreement,

If Paul meant ‘hair,’ why did he use the word ‘covered’? The answer is that in the vocabulary of the Old Testament ‘to uncover the head’ was to shave off the hair. When Nadab and Abihu sinned (Leviticus 10:1ff), God commanded Aaron not to ‘uncover his head’ in mourning at their death; and this meant not to cut off his hair (the customary sign of mourning). Job shaved his head when he learned his children were dead (Job 1:20). Many examples of this usage could be cited” (emp. added).

“[I]f it is a shame to a woman to be cropped or shaven, let her be covered” clearly refers to a covering of hair as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:15, “And if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her long hair is given to her for a covering.

What about verse 10’s reference to angels saying, “because of the angels“? This is what can be known. Verse 10 is referring to authority, so looking to the context, see what is said about women having authority on her head toward God and man. The woman, who prophesies, receives revelation from God through angels to be able to prophesy (Heb. 2:2, Rev. 1:1) and the woman has her prayers delivered by angels (Rev. 8:3-4). This instruction has to do with the woman’s service in prayer and teaching before God. She is to apparently be serving with respect and modesty. Therefore, “every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Cor. 11:5). By not observing customs of respect, the Christian woman dishonors herself being that she is created to be the glory of man in addition to being created in God’s image. Remember verse 3, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” The woman is subordinating to the man by her modesty and covering. Her hair hanging down is her glory for she is the glory of man. This is how the Christian woman honors the headship of God, Christ, and man.

Again, I must say that if any are contentious about this, then we have no such custom (1 Cor. 10:16).

About Scott Shifferd Jr.

Minister, Dean Road church of Christ in Jacksonville, FL. Husband and father of four. Email: ScottJon82[at]yahoo.com
This entry was posted in Christian, Church of Christ and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

586 Responses to Understanding the “Head-Coverings” in 1 Corinthians 11

  1. To discuss Christ and Deity go here or I can make another post for discussion. Thank you.


  2. Michael R. Baggett says:

    Using 1st Corinthians 11:16 to teach that we shouldn’t argue about customs presents several problems for your position. First of all, if the custom you are referring to is the head covering as in veil; then, you have just admitted it was more than the hair. Second of all, Paul taught the same things everywhere in every church; if Paul is telling them to keep their own custom but we (apostles) and other churches don’t have such a custom; then Paul contradicts his won teaching found consistently throughout the letter to the Corinthians (See 1st Cor. 4:16,17; 17:17; 14:33; 16:1,2). Third of all, if Paul is authorizing an “existing custom” for Corinth, as some teach; then, you have just found an example of denominationalism (1st Cor. 4:16,17). The truth is Paul is saying that he doesn’t have a custom or practice such as that of a woman praying with her head uncovered (1st Cor. 11:13): a practice the contentious man would set forth. Paul has already taught earlier in the text in no uncertain term that a woman should have her head covered when she prays or prophesies (1st Cor. 11:5). She is to do this in direct relation to what is said about man being her head in verse 3 (Cf. 1st Tim. 2:11,12–over the man). She is to do this because of the order in creation (v. 7), and because of the angels (v. 10). Neither reason has anything to do with man’s custom. The commentaries and brethren you reference are clearly wrong. May God bless our own continued personal studies of these matters. I believed basically what you said in your article for about 30 years, but not any longer. Why? Because I seriously studied it and stopped repeating what I had always heard. The treatment of the doctrine of the head covering is the single most abused doctrines in the churches of Christ, for it is basically denied and ignored; yet, we beg others to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where it is silent. May we be consistent in our practice.

    • “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God” (1 Co 11.13-16).

      1) The covering is apparently foremost hair (and then maybe a garment if without hair).
      2) The headship of woman to man, man to Christ, and Christ to God is shown in this custom (1 Co 11.3, cf. 1 Tim. 2.9-11 & 1 Pet. 3.3-4).
      3) This custom is not a tradition from God, or Paul would not say if anyone is contentious, “we have no such custom”. Use the interlinear tool at BlueLetterBible to understand what “such custom” means: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Co&c=11&t=NKJV#s=t_conc_1073016

      • Michael R. Baggett says:

        So the garment covering could be a covering. Scott, are you saying that man is no longer the head of woman today because that was a custom? You might want to delete what you wrote, my brother. Just because Paul appealed to their judgment doesn’t mean they had a choice to accept the covering of women’s heads while praying! Paul had already clearly told them what he wanted to them to understand about this ordinance (1st Cor. 11:2-10). He gave solid reasons based in creation for the practice. In verse 16, he is simple saying if anyone still disagrees with what he has said, we don’t have a custom such as the one disagreeing, neither the churches of God. Paul ends this section on men not covering their heads in prayer and women covering their heads in prayer believing what he told the Corinthians to do in the first part of this text. Paul did not change his mind. The custom was not the head covering, but the practice of women not covering the head. That’s the only way to make the whole context fit and make sense, else it will clash with Scriptures such as 1st Corinthians 4:16,17, where Paul says he teaches the same thing everywhere in every church. Thanks for getting back with me.

        • Michael R. Baggett says:

          Scott, I misread what you were saying about the custom and the headship. Sorry I misquoted or paraphrased you. I stand behind the rest of my reply. Sure seems strange that Paul would say a man dishonor Christ by covering his head and a woman dishonors a man by not covering her head when praying only to basically take it all back at the end of the discussion. Seems like a waste of space. Guy N. Woods does not agree with your conclusions based on verse 16. He was perhaps the greatest the Church ever had, but he believed that Paul, the apostles and the other churches practiced the covering and that the contentious man opposed the covering for women in prayer. Certainly makes more sense to understand Paul agreeing with himself earlier than changing his mind. Don’t you agree? Check the RSV or NASV on this verse.

  3. Kate says:

    I agree that scripture does confirm that all churches must have uniform teachings and this is supported by the scriptures you have referenced (1st Cor. 4:16, 17, 7:17, and 14:33). With respect to the head covering Paul is quite clearly answers the question in 1 Cor. 13 “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” in 1 Cor. 11: 14 & 15 that a women’s hair IS her covering when he says “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering”. In verses 3 to 10 Paul is describing false teaching that existed in the Apostles day as indicated by the “but” at the beginning of verse 3. He goes on to describe his teachings in verses 11 & 12 when he says “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God”.
    I am going to be very cautious in using any scriptures from 1st and 2nd Timothy because I was surprised to discover recently that some Bible scholars believe there is sufficient evidence to confirm that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Jude were written in the second century and that Paul was not the author. Please review the documentation at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html to see for yourself. Also, in looking closely at some of the statement in these books I believe they don’t agree with other scripture which is more evidence they are not inspired books. Consider 1 Tim 2:14 where it states “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” which contradicts with what Paul states in Romans 5:12 “sin entered the world through one man”, and in Romans 5:17 “by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man”. This is also stated in Hosea 6:7 where it says “like Adam they have transgressed the covenant”. Another passage that doesn’t agree with other teachings is 1 Tim. 2:15 where it states “women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety”. Both men and women are saved by “grace through faith” Eph 2:8, “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” Titus 3:5. Certainly this must cast doubt in your mind on these books?

    • Kate,

      Be careful. You are going to get washed away in skepticism (Prov. 18.17). “Historical criticism” is a one-sided rationalistic approach to scholarship. The early Christians in the first century accepted the letters to Timothy. Irenaeus mentioned both of them. EarlyChristianWritings is not an authoritative source. He propagating outdated criticism. Look into canonical criticism and traditional positions. Study the early church writers. Read Irenaeus’s Against Heresies starting with books 2-5 and come back to book 1.

      We must start with Christ to interpret the Scripture, and not from a preconceived position of equality means equal roles. or that man is better than woman, etc. We must start with Christ. The received scriptures as the canon are innocent until proven guilty – a Biblical principle. For there must be witnesses against the accused to be found guilty.

      You think there are contradictions from 1 Timothy 2. Have you first sought to harmonize these passages? Reconsider. Does 1 Timothy say that Adam did not sin or that he was not deceived in the same way as Eve? Why Greek word is used to describe this deception? Does 1 Timothy 2.15 say “women” or “she” referring to Eve would be saved in childbearing? What was Eve’s command from God concerning filling the earth with children?

      Please consider accessing these sources: Eta Linnemann’s (1990) “Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology; Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical” – I recommend this simply for consider another position outside of both of us. Next, find a source like Carson, Moo, and Morris’ book (1992) “An Introduction to the New Testament”. Catch up on your scholarship. Biblical scholarship is moving right now. A thousand new Greek manuscripts have been discovered in the last 15 years totaling 6,000 manuscripts (cf. csntm.org).

      Do you believe that God will preserve His Word? Why disregard 1 Timothy, Jude, or 2 Peter? Some disregard John. Some of these critics say that the Gospels are anonymous and are written in the 2nd c. as forgeries. How do they know this? They don’t. They speculate and add more conjecture. Believe in Christ. He said that His words would never pass away (Mt 24.35, Mk 13.31, Lk 21.33). Christ said that He would send scribes (Mt 23.34). The Apostles’s oversaw the collection: http://godsbreath.net/2014/08/01/how-to-establish-the-canonicity/ & http://godsbreath.net/2014/09/12/how-the-new-testament-came-together/.

      Please, harmonize the Scriptures rather than disregard them. May God bless your studies.

      • Kate says:

        Inspired scripture never conflicts with itself because that would make God a liar which he is not. I don’t consider myself a sceptic but I am following the Biblical directive to test all things and hold fast to what is true. If we see verses that appear to conflict it may be the result of misinterpretation or uninspired text. Uninspired text can be the result of books being included as canon when they shouldn’t be, or additions and deletions from text, or improper translation. While the original Hebrew and Greek scripture is inspired, this doesn’t mean that all the books included in our Bibles or the varied translations are. This is why we must seek the truth with all our heart and soul because there is a great deal of deception that must be overcome to find the truth.
        I beg to differ with you on your comment that “the canon are innocent until proven guilty”. Before I became a serious student of the Bible I did accept that every book and every word in our Bibles was inspired because I was naïve about the extent of the deception that exists in the world at large. Now that I have some experience under my belt I have verified without a doubt that the King James Bible has added, deleted and changed text to support church doctrine such as the trinity. While I haven’t analyzed all the text in the Timothy books the two examples I found of uninspired teachings were quite damning. I will take a look at the books you recommended and look further into the Timothy books to get a complete picture of the teachings in these books and how they agree and/or disagree with Christ’s teachings.
        In God’s Word to Women by Dr. Katharine Bushnell paragraph 77 she states “The Bible, from its opening chapters, pictures woman as allied with God, in the eventual salvation of the world; paganism represents her as allied with the devil, for the ruin of man; this is one great mark of distinction between the true and false religions.” The statement in 1 Timothy 2:15 that women will be saved through childbearing sounds suspiciously like a Catholic teaching, and if this were in fact true then it only stands to reason that men could be saved by working the land. This would represent works which are not required to be saved proving again that this verse does not line up with Christ’s teachings. 1 Tim 2:14 where it states “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” it is definitely confirming that sin started with Eve when scripture confirms that it started with Adam. While Eve was punished for violating the commandment, nowhere does it say that Eve brought sin into the world but scripture does confirm that Adam did. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Eve confessed her sin and was forgiven whereas Adam blamed God and Eve and was not, or the fact that Adam received the commandment from God before Eve was created. Regardless of the reason, it is clear that God himself believes that Adam brought sin into the world, not Eve.

        I appreciate your comments and the kindness with which you deliver them. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

        • It is disappointing. I do not think you considered my points. Also, your translation of 1 Timothy 2.14 is very poor. What “translation” is that? Please use a formal equivalent translation. You have Paul accusing Eve of something not in the text.

      • Kate says:

        Consider also Proverbs 31: 10 to 31 where it talks of a wife of noble character and she quite clearly works outside the home and no mention even of staying home having children.

        • Michael R. Baggett says:

          The virtuous woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an exceptional woman. Yes, she worked at home and yes she sold item she sewed at home. “Her Children arise u, and call her blessed.” (v.28).

          • Kate says:

            Michael you are reading something into scripture that isn’t there when you say verse 28 where it states “Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her” means “she worked at home and yes she sold item she sewed at home”. Why are you fighting so hard to diminish the status of women in the church? It is not biblical and could impact on your salvation.
            When I have doubts about teachings found in scripture I pray to God through Christ for understanding. Just recently I prayed for God to tell me why Peter says that women are weaker in 1 Peter 3:7. The word weaker is from the Greek word asthenés defined as (a) weak (physically, or morally), (b) infirm, sick. As you can well understand this is a very important issue for women because to be morally weak is a dangerous condition and to say that all women have this condition is significant. In the NASB Greek text the word translated as weaker is the Greek word poieo which is defined as “to make, or make out of something”. So what was Peter really saying in 1 Peter 3:7? It appears that he is saying women were created from the man not that she is weaker and this changes the meaning of the verse entirely. This improved translation brings this verse in line with other scriptures that show equality among all of the body of Christ. My prayers to God have been answered with this information which shines new light on the subject.
            Scripture does confirm that all of mankind is weak and that there are weaker members but it is never on a gender or race basis that this is stated. Consider 1 Cor 4:10 where Paul states “we are weak, but you are strong”, and similarly in 2 Cor 13:9. Paul in describing the body of Christ and its many parts in 1 Cor 12: 12 to 27 is teaching that “members of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable” v22, and “God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.” v24 & 25. Paul sums up in verse 27 stating “you are the body of Christ” which is confirmed in Romans 12:5, Eph 1: 23, Eph 5:30, Col 1:24.

          • Most Christians understand 1 Peter 3.7 as physical weakness as in lack of physical strength. Men are generally stronger.

          • Michael R. Baggett says:

            Kate, I’m not fighting so hard to keep women down or keep them from certain roles in the church or home, but I’m simply stating principles of Scripture. One thing that 1st Corinthians 11:2-16 expresses clearly is there is a difference in men and women, and that is defined in the headship order as stated in 1st Corinthians 11:3. I would be afraid for my salvation if I denied this and the teaching of the New Testament, any of it, that regards the roles of women. I believe it. Herein lies our difference: you have admitted you do not believe all of the New Testament. We will never meet on common ground until we agree on the inspiration of the entire New Testament. Respectfully, Michael Baggett

          • Michael R. Baggett says:

            Well, the wife and the mother are told in Titus 2:4,5 to love their husbands, children and be keepers at home (home makers). 1st Timothy 5:14 teaches the young widows to marry, guide the house (under the headship of her husband–Eph. 5:22-25) bear children. While the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 is shown doing many duties, she certainly stayed home and cared of her young children. I don’t think there are many women who would work night and day like her. She was likely a prince’s wife or someone of high statue who was praised in the gates. Married women have the primary role of keeping the home. The idea that she function exactly in the role of the man is modern and not what we find in the Bible. When the home is abandoned, it doesn’t take long for God to leave too. Children need Mothers. Anyway, this was a little off topic. Let me say that men need women and children need women. When women get out of their assigned roles, everyone suffers. God bless.

    • Michael R. Baggett says:

      Kate, thanks for answering, but I don’t think many readers will take you very seriously since you confess that you do not believe all of the New Testament. What was the false doctrine you allude too? Was it women who wore head covering? There is no doubt there were two covering under consideration. One requires actions as uncovered and covered are verbs in 1st Cor. 11:4-7. The hair covering “a covering” Paul compares this too is a noun (1st Cor. 11:15). Regardless of which covering you believe in, I believe in both, Paul obviously believed in it.

      • Kate says:

        It is critical to not place any undue burden on born again believers as it states Acts 15:28 & 29 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you”. In 1 Cor 11 Paul was defending against teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees which were very much about keeping up outward appearances which Jesus rebuked them for in Matthew 23: 26 to 28 which a veiled head would certainly be. As to headship scripture confirms that Christ is the head in Eph 1:22, Eph 4:15, Col 1:18 proving that Paul is pointing out false teachings in 1 Cor 11:3 when he says “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman” because scripture would then contradict itself. Scripture confirms that both man and woman were made in God’s image in Genesis 1:26 & 27, Genesis 9:6, and James 3:9 proving the statement in 1 Cor 11:7 to be false because it says that man “is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man”. You are misinterpreting scripture and laying on a burden for women to cover their heads that will not lead them to salvation and in fact may keep them from it. You should test doctrine against what we know to be the truth before adding it to your teachings otherwise you are teaching false doctrine which you will be held accountable for with God.

        • Michael R. Baggett says:

          Let’s assume that the covering Paul tells women to use when praying is not a veil, but maybe only the hair. If a woman wears long hair when praying because Paul said for women to appear this way for worship and I taught women to do this today, would this be a false doctrine? The bottom line, Kate, is the conclusion causes Paul to teach false doctrine. Paul is not in conflict with anything Jesus taught or what they apostles told the Gentile churches in Acts 15. The inspired will of Christ was delivered bit by bit through the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles (John 16:13). What the apostles left us in these epistles, such as 1st Corinthians, are the commandments of Christ. Peter said that what Paul wrote is Scripture (II Peter. 3:16). Paul, himself, said that the things that he wrote are the commandments of Christ (1st Cor. 14:37). It is a dangerous conclusion to conclude that the things written to the Gentile churches in Acts 15 are the “only” things required of Christians. How to worship and how to appear, the covering, was not under consideration at the meeting at Jerusalem in Acts 15. Other necessary things are addressed elsewhere in the New Testament.

      • Kate says:

        One doctrine that can be proven false is that women are to be silent in the body of believers. There are two places this doctrine is stated – 1 Cor 14: 34 & 35, 1 Tim 2:11 & 12. I have already provided you with evidence that the Pastoral Epistles are widely regarded as not having been written by Paul so we must be cautious with doctrine found in these books that is not found elsewhere in the Bible, or opposes what we know to be Christ’s teachings. There is evidence that the verses in 1 Cor 14: 34 & 35 were not part of the original document of which there is a good summary on this site: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/is-1-corinthians-1433-35-an-interpolation . Consider also that verses 34 & 35 differ from what Paul taught in verses 26 to 31 where he told all the brethren (male and female) whether they have “a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation Let all things be done unto edifying” v26, “let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern” v29, and that “all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted” v 31. In Christ’s foundational teaching all born again believers must confess him before men. In order to do this they must not be silent. So silence could result in women not confessing Christ which would lead to their destruction. This is why we need to test everything to ensure it agrees with Christ’s teaching because otherwise we end up with false teachings which we know are from Satan because God never lies. While some say that text is innocent until proven guilty I believe this is dangerous because we are talking about potentially false doctrine, the safer route is to apply the concept that we do to potentially bad food in our fridge – if in doubt throw it out. For my purposes I have set this doctrine aside but will consider additional information to reevaluate my decision if new information arises.

        • There is no manuscript evidence to remove 1 Cor 14.34-35 or 1 Tim 2.9-13. These are found in the oldest writings & the majority. Only one heretically altered text moves 1 Cor 14.34-35. Read 1 Cor 14.34-37 as a whole.

          The scary part is that you are doubting what you to doubt to throw it out. So, you believe innocent until it is thought suspect to your humanistic standard, yourself, and then you throw it out as though guilty.

          You are saying these passages are of the spirit of Satan rather than the Holy Spirit. What did Jesus say of those who speak of the Holy Spirit as the spirit of Beelzebul? Test the spirits (1Jn 4.1-6).

          Reconsider male leadership. God is described as masculine. Jesus was a man, and so were His 12. The leadership of men & women are different. Does not nature show us that men and women have different roles from God? Let the men lead by serving in example without lording over anyone (Mt 20.25-28, Mk 10.42-45, Lk 22.24-27). Men should be the speakers and teachers of the Assembly. This is their God-given role of serving. Remember 1 Corinthians 11.3. Any other teaching has been passed along from misandry and pagan feminism. Please humble yourself to God’s Word rather casting out what you doubt.

        • Michael R. Baggett says:

          Here we go again denying the inspiration of parts of the New Testament. You are free to believe what you wish, but you will never convince me nor anyone else on this forum that we can ignore the passages dealing with women because you don’t believe they are inspired. The gay community will do the same thing with passages calling homosexuality a sin. I’m telling the truth.

          • Kate says:

            The Apostles stated that the wolves were among them during their ministries and I have provided you with some examples of false doctrine brought in by Satan’s seed. This is why the Apostles warned frequently about the deception and the need to test all things to ensure we are following sound doctrine. Some Churches, not wanting to question the predetermined Canon, have merged this false doctrine in with their church teachings and in doing so they have leavened the whole lump as stated in Gal 5:9. I believe this evil force is the mystery Babylon the Great of Revelation 17- the “great prostitute who sits on many waters”, that will be destroyed before the end.

            May God open your eyes to the truth setting you free from Satan’s lies! I will stop communicating with you now because I have warned you in keeping with Exekiel 3:19 and the choice is yours to make.

          • Michael R. Baggett says:

            That’s right, YOU have warned me. You have warned me based on your denial of what the apostles teach about women’s roles in the home and the church! I will put my faith in the written word. So long.

  4. CJ says:

    On Kate’s: Another passage that doesn’t agree with other teachings is 1 Tim. 2:15 where it states “women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety”. Both men and women are saved by “grace through faith” Eph 2:8, “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” Titus 3:5. Certainly this must cast doubt in your mind on these books?

    Is it really saying a woman will be “saved” as in Salvation or might it be “live through”, as in survive, childbirth?

    • mikebaggett@hotmail.com says:

      Men and women are equal in importance and stand on the same ground for salvation (Gal. 3:26-30). However, we have different duties or roles to play in our roles as males and females. First Corinthians 11:3 give the general principle of headships which must be observed. The man is the head in the home and the buck stops with him (Eph. 5:22-33; Titus 2:3-5; 1st Pet. 3:1-7). Man is to lead prayers and lead worship in the local churches (1st Cor. 14:33-40; 1st Tim. 2:8-15) God made it this way and, in fact, it all goes back to creation order (1st Cor. 11:8,9; 1st Tim. 2:13f). Man must do what God has called on him to do in the home and in the church to do God’s will after God’s assigned order. Woman must be content to let men lead and fulfill the duties which God has called her to do in the home and the church according to God’s will and God’s assigned order. These are certainly things which “accompany salvation.” We do what God wants for us because we love Him (John 14:15). Jesus says we are required to do the will of the Father in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 7:21). We have not right to call Jesus our Lord if we do not the things which He tells us (Luke 6:46). What Paul, and in fact, Peter write about women is not unreasonable nor is it unfair or sexist; it is the will of God. Note that Paul tells men to love the wife as himself and even give his own body for her (Eph. 5:25-22). Does this sound like a woman hater? Paul also gives women equal rights in the bedroom as the husband and the wife are to give each other their due benevolence, and neither owns their own body it belong to the spouse, guided by love and consideration (1 Cor. 7:4f). Does Paul sound like a sexiest? Peter says the husband and wife share in the graces of life (1 Pet. 3:7). The home is both the man’s and the woman’s castle. When we judge the writings of the apostles in light of the feminist society in which we live, it’s easy to look for outs and question the validity of the command. This is dangerous ground because the apostles wrote Scripture and it is the same as Jesus saying these very things Himself (1st Cor. 14:37; II Peter 3:16). God loves both men and women, but God established an order (1st Cor. 11:3). The nation, the home and the church will not be what it needs to be until men and women find their rightful places and accept such stations in life with complaining to the create about “why have you made me thus?” God bless.

      • mikebaggett@hotmail.com says:

        Should say, “…without complaining to the Creator about why have you made me thus?

        • CJ says:

          Oh my, I guess I’m not such an effective communicator…I was only asking… In your studies of that particular word ‘saved’, could it possibly mean ‘don’t worry, she will survive childbirth. even tho it looks like and she feels like she’s dying…I will bring her through it’. That’s all.
          I don’t agree one bit with Kate’s view. And I don’t at all see Paul as a woman hater and didn’t think I insinuated that. The feminist crap has made a terrible mess of the family unit. It’s just one more of Satan’s ploys to dismantle God’s precious creation.
          If everyone believed God’s Word the Bible for what it is and behaved accordingly, oh what a glorious place this could be!!!! But we just have to wait for that.
          But thanks for taking the time and all the references God will put it to good use.
          (ps–I am a woman.)

          • I think you bring a plausible answer worth considering. From the context, she, who is being saved, is Eve. Yet, the Greek for saved can me rescued or delivered in the physical sense.

            Do you then think the woman will be delivered because of the faith, love, holiness, and self-control of both the woman and her husband? I speak of 1 Timothy 2:15.

          • Michael R. Baggett says:

            I apologize CJ for misunderstanding your intentions. I guess I was answering the whole matter including the response from Kate. I understand 1 Timothy 2:15 to teach that woman has a special role that has a direct impact on her salvation. She should be faithful in all her duties as a wife and mother and in her domestic duties. Some see this as a reference to Christ coming through woman to save us all. Could be a double meaning, but I do think in the context it has to do with women being what they should be in Christ in their duties included in the faith.

  5. CJ says:

    Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s