04.02. Authority Over Her Head

Chapter 2 Authority Over Her Head

Let us look at 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and endeavor to understand the circumstances which occasioned the writing of this particular passage. Otherwise, even in the R.V. English, it conveys no intelligible meaning to the ordinary reader. Although, as Dr. Bushnell says, "we should not thoughtlessly assume that the Bible is to be read in the light of profane history, and corrected by it; nevertheless, when [it is] tested by well known ancient customs, or conditions set forth in reliable profane history, it will be found to ring true to contemporary facts. The subject of the wearing of the veil is not of great importance to Christian women today in Western lands, except that a true understanding of Paul’s words would show that he was always consistent in word and practice. Also, every portion of the Scriptures, being inspired and given for our learning, contains some deep and eternal principle applicable to every age.

It is necessary for elucidation to deal with this passage verse by verse. We find at the beginning one of Paul’s many "quotations’’ from the Corinthian letter." Now I praise you, wrote the Apostle, "that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them to you." According to Conybeare and Howson this is what the church at Corinth had said in their letter as they asked for some light on the question of the wearing of the Jewish Tallith, or veil, in worship in the Christian Church. The real purpose of this passage, says Dr. Lightfoot, was to stop the practice of Jewish Christian men veiling in worship, according to the custom of the Jews. It seems that the Jew veiled as "a sign of reverence before God, and of condemnation for sin.’’ The veil was called a ’’tallith.’’ The Romans also veiled in worship, and the Corinthian Church consisted largely of Roman converts. Then the question arose at Corinth whether the Christian women as well as the Christian men should veil. This question the Apostle now proceeds to deal with in his usual way of analogy and spiritual logic, seizing the occasion for teaching the believers at Corinth how to arrive at a "sound judgment’’ for themselves in the practicable application of spiritual principles to the facts of life.

1 Corinthians 11:3 : ’’ I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ." Chrysostom says, "He cannot be the Head of those who are not in the Body . . . so when Paul says ’every man’ one must understand it of believers." It is also important to know that the Greek word used throughout the entire passage for "man’’ is "aner" the adult male or husband, for according to the Oral Law of the Jews the married man alone was obliged to wear the tallith. "And the head of the woman is the man" obviously, the head of the wife is the husband. ’’And the head of Christ is God’’

1 Corinthians 11:4 : ’’ Every [Christian] man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.’’ Since the tallith was a sign of guilt and condemnation, when a Christian covered his head with it, a sign of condemnation, he dishonored his Head, Christ, who had atoned for all his sins.

"There is . . . now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus’’ (Romans 8:1). 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 : ’’But every Woman [i.e., wife, since he who wore the tallith was a husband], praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoureth her [matrimonial] head: for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. ’For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn’: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled."

Here we have the fact recognized without any condemnatory comment by the Apostle that women did pray and prophesy in the church. But why the reference to "veiling," and the dishonor to her husband as her "head’’? Here again the customs and the Oral Law of the Jews elucidate Paul’s language, together with the clue of "quotation," for Dr. Lightfoot says that in the words, "For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn," Paul " does not here speak in his own sense, but cites something usual among the Jews." And it is a fact that the Oral Law decreed that if a Jewess did not cover her head, she should be "shorn" the very greatest "shame" that was possible to a Jewish woman so much so that a Jew might divorce his wife if she was seen abroad with her head uncovered, and ’’ a Jew favourably disposed towards his wife’s profession of Christianity, and towards the practice of unveiling in worship, might be compelled by his relatives, or the Synagogue authorities . . . to divorce his wife if she unveiled.’’ In the light of these circumstances, therefore, the reasoning of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 is simple if read with the analogy of 1 Corinthians 11:4 in mind. The Apostle reasons that if a man dishonored his "head," Christ, by wearing the tallith when he prayed or prophesied a veil being a sign of guilt or condemnation so a "wife" who took part in the assembly with her head uncovered, might or would, according to the Oral Law of the Jews, bring dishonor upon her (matrimonial) " head." Therefore if unveiling her head in the church meant these consequences --i.e., "shame" as if she was shorn and all that it signified then "let her be veiled"; she was not commanded to unveil like her husband.

1 Corinthians 11:7 : ’’For a [Christian] man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." That the Christian man is referred to in the entire passage should be remembered as we read these words, for, as Dr. Bushnell remarks, ’’poor fallen sinful man does not bear God’s image and likeness simply because he is a male. It is the glorified Jesus Christ who bears that image and manifests that glory. It is only in Him that humanity takes that standing before God." The analogy again is simple. A Christian man ought not to veil his head with a sign of condemnation, for as a Christian he is "the image and glory of God," and should manifest the glory of his Head in heaven. The "wife" also is the "glory" of her (matrimonial) head, and should likewise reflect honor and not dishonor upon him. 1 Corinthians 11:8-10 : "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have authority over her head, because of the angels.... (R.V m. ).

1 Corinthians 11:10, Dean Stanley says, " in the difficulty of its several parts, stands alone in the New Testament." "But," Dr. Bushnell remarks, "the only difficulty is to make Paul say the precise opposite to what he clearly says here!" Her rendering of 1 Corinthians 11:8-10 makes them very simple. It runs as follows:

"For man is not originally from woman [as a despised and inferior source], but woman is from man Nor was the man created for the woman, [to help her], but the woman for the man, [to help him] For this [additional] cause ought the woman to have the authority over her head [to unveil it], because of her angels who always behold God’s face."

1 Corinthians 11:10, read in this way, consistently gives a logical climax to the Apostle s reasonings in the preceding verses, and the R.V. and its marginal note is very near Dr. Bushnell s reading when it says, "For this cause ought the woman to have authority over her head, because of the angels.’’ The words " a sign of" in the text of the R.V. are in italics, indicating that they are not in the original Greek but are supplied by the translators. The R.V. rendering, therefore, correctly does away with the fiction of "veil" as a "sign’’ of another’s authority. Yet the A.V. (1611), and even a recent edition of the A.V. issued with the express purpose of helping students in the understanding of the Scriptures, has a note in the margin saying that " power on her head" means ’’ the sign of her husband’s authority." How difficult it is for fixed ideas to be removed from the minds of men, even when there are indisputable and authoritative statements to the contrary! How the idea that "power" meant a ’’veil" came into the teaching on 1 Corinthians 11:10 is traced back historically by Dr. Bushnell to Valentinus the Gnostic and the rites of the gnostic initiation ceremonies, showing that the very first corruption of St. Paul’s meaning came from this objectionable source. But what about these angels in 1 Corinthians 11:10? The suggestions made in connection with this phrase are truly childish and unseemly, contrary to an understanding of what the atoning work of Christ has accomplished for redeemed men and women. Some expositors suggest some peril from the spirit world which demands a veil as protection for the praying woman, so that even in private prayer she is to be covered; whereas the only protection from the interference of evil spirits with man or woman engaged in prayer is reliance upon the atoning blood of the Lamb. From the highest spiritual standpoint, which was Paul’s normal condition of mind, the words mean that the woman should have unveiled access to God, as well as to her husband and the angels. This the text itself confirms in the original. The definite article in Greek, says Dr. Bushnell, often has the force of a possessive pronoun. The words in 1 Corinthians 11:10 thus will bear the translation " because of their angels." This could be taken in two ways. First, in the light of Christ’s word in Matthew 18:10, where He says of the "little ones" who believe in Him that ’’their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven," meaning that the ministering spirits called "angels," who are given charge over all believers (cf. Hebrews 1:14), have always unveiled access to God, and therefore those they minister to should have unveiled access also, being in higher rank (in Christ) than the angels who minister to them. Or the word " angels" may be used by Paul to denote what an old mystical writer, William Bromley, wrote a hundred years ago, that the spirit of the believer is called his ’’ angel," because it stands between God and our outward man, receiving directions from Him for [its] rule and government."

1 Corinthians 11:11-13 : "Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man with out the woman, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?’’

These verses contain Paul’s reminder of the oneness in Christ of men and women " in the Lord." He had been obliged to refer to each apart from the other, but the true spiritual position of both was one in Christ, neither able to do without the other in the economy of grace or in the world of men. So his final word is that, having reasoned the matter out for those he was writing to, they were now able to come to a conclusion and ’’ judge among themselves,’’ and decide, ’’is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled" (1 Corinthians 11:13). The removal of the interrogation mark placed to these words makes all the difference, and the removal is legitimate because, as Dr. Bushnell points out, there is no interrogative word in the sentence in the original Greek, nor does the Greek "alter the order of the words of a sentence to distinguish a question from a simple statement as we do in English." The interrogation mark alone changes the statement into a question in the English version.

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 : "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." A simple statement in these verses has again been turned into a question by the punctuation added "centuries later than when St. Paul wrote these words." The Apostle thus appears to make statements that are obviously contrary to the facts of nature and of history. For, as Dr. Bushnell says, ’’nature" does not teach that if a man has "long hair" it is "a dishonour" to him, e.g.,millions of men in China wear long hair, and ’’nature has never taught them that it is a shame." Furthermore, the Corinthians to whom Paul was writing boasted that they were ’’descendants of the longhaired Achaeans, celebrated in the Greek poem, Homer’s Iliad." It would therefore be a most strange question for Paul to put to them, while to Jews long hair in fulfillment of religious vows (Numbers 6:1-21) was a glory, not a shame. But why does Paul refer to hair at all? Again we need to understand Jewish customs. Perpetually Paul had to be countering not only the customs but the influence of Judaistic thought upon Christians only gradually emerging into apprehension of the full liberty of the gospel. The Apostle had just said that a woman should have "authority over her own head’’ to veil or unveil as she judged best. But the Oral Law had made unveiling so disgraceful a thing that Christian women would find it difficult to put away the veil, even when circumstances were favorable to doing so. The Apostle then meets this difficulty by saying. that the woman already had a veil that was a glory to her; her own hair and so she need not be ashamed of uncovering it, whatever the Judaizers might say.

1 Corinthians 11:16 : "But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Here is the conclusion of the passage, and it should be read in the light of all that has preceded it. In effect Paul says: if the women under specially difficult circumstances wish to veil, they are to have’’ authority over their head" to do so or not, as they please. But "if any man seemeth to be contentious" about it, let him know that as Christians and as a church we "have no such custom" of veiling. The summing up of the whole passage is given as follows by Dr. Bushnell. "Paul (1) forbids men to veil (since there is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus); (2) permits women to veil; but (3) guards against this permission being construed as a command by showing that ideally the woman should unveil before God, man and angels; (4) shows that there is special propriety in women unveiling when addressing God in prayer; (5) declares that (contrary to the teaching of the Jews) there is nothing for a woman to be ashamed of in showing her hair, for it is a ’glory’ to her; and (6) disavows veiling as a church custom." In confirmation of the correctness of this interpretation of the whole passage, Dr. Bushnell remarks that a "little historical evidence. . . ought to go a long way" in proving that the Apostle did not forbid women unveiling, for it is an undisputed fact in church history (see Dean Alford in comments on 1 Timothy 5:9) that "women sat unveiled in the assemblies in a separate place, by the presbyters," and were ’’ordained by the laying on of hands" until the Church Council of Laodicea forbade it in 363 A.D. three hundred years after Paul had written the Epistle to the Corinthians. Dr. Bushnell has much more to say than this on the subject, for she devotes two further lessons to tracing back through church history how the misinterpretation of Paul’s true teaching on the veil came into and colored the later versions of the English Bible.