Temporal Subordination and Head Coverings
The second principle to be recognized in the position of sisters of Jesus is also laid down by Paul : “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” (1 Cor. II:3); and in particular connection with the relation between husband and wife : "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the thead of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church : and The is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject wwmto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything” (Eph. 5:22-24).This relation between man and woman was not new with Paul. It goes back to the beginning of history, and is part of the legacy of the Fall : “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children ; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen. 3:16). The suggestion of subordination is not absent from the record of the creation of woman : “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Gen. 2:18). The subordination of woman to man does not infringe the oneness of their standing in Christ. It is a matter of temporal relationship rather than spiritual status : "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man ... nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. II:9, 11). The subordination of woman to man in their temporal relationship is reflected in ecclesial order : "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head : for that is even all one as if she were shaven" (1 Cor. II : 4-5).
It was then, as now, a custom among the Jews to pray with covered heads, whereas the Greeks performed their religious sacrifices with uncovered heads. At Corinth, where there were both Jews and Greeks among the members of the meeting, it was particularly desirable that the Christian attitude should be defined. The decision that the brethren should worship with uncovered heads was not so much a concession to the Greek believers as a ruling based on Christian doctrine, in particular, freedom in Christ as contrasted with Jewish blindness. The matter has its roots far back in the Old Testament: “And it came to pass, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai ...that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all of the people saw Moses, behold the skin of his face shone… and they were afraid to come nigh to him… And Moses talked with them… And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out. And he came out and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him” (Exod. 34 : 29-35).
On this the apostolic commentary is : “But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away : how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious ?”
“Seeing then that we have such hope. we use great plainness of speech. And not as Moses. which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could pot stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: but their minds were blinded : for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament : which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit : and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:7-8, 12-18).
The main thoughts of the Holy Spirit here are these :
- When Israel fix their eyes upon Moses, as they did personally at Sinai, and have done since in their stubborn regard for his law, a veil prevents their seeing the glory of God. At Sinai the veil was upon Moses' face. Later it settled upon the heart of Israel.
- When Moses came before the Lord to speak with Him, he took off the veil. If the Jews of the Christian dispensation would but turn truly to God, to true communion with Him, that is, through Christ, this veil would be away.
- The great operative power in the discover winning of this freedom is the Spirit of God, which repla Law of Moses as the directive of godly action in the Chris life and the destroyer of the shackles of sin.
- In 2 Cor the R.V. makes clear a further apostolic interpretation of Mosaic veil when it renders: “And not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing away". That is, that Israel might not see the glory fading away, as it did the longer Moses was away from the presence of God. The Mosaic veil still prevents Israel from seeing that the glory of God in the law of Moses is a fading glory. If only Israel would turn directly to God with the veil of the old covering done away in Christ, they would discern not a glory which faded, but one which was changed from glory to glory through the power of the Spirit working now and in the exceeding greatness of its work at the last Day.
Reverting to our text in I Cor. 11, for a man to approach God with a veil or covering is to dishonour Christ, his head, by the implication that he has not opened the way to God, that a barrier still remains, that one cannot see God by seeing the Lord Jesus. There may be a reference to the man's own head, which, as belonging to Christ, he dishonours by humiliating, especially in the visible presence of the subordinate sex. An additional reason why men should not worship with their heads covered is given in verse 7: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Cor. 11 : 7). The man represents God Himself, being made in His image ; he is the Creator's highest handiwork. As God is supreme in heaven, so is man upon earth. Woman, on the other hand, not being supreme upon earth but subject to man, cannot properly represent God who is supreme in heaven. It is not fitting that the highest representative of God upon earth should cover his noblest part in public worship.
At last we come to the position of the woman in particular "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head : for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered let her also be shorn : but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven let her be covered" (1 Cor. 11:5-6). Leaving for the moment the question of the public prophesying of women, it is becoming that in the visible presence of man, her head, woman should signify her subordination by covering her head. There was an additional reason for such a covering in a first century ecclesia, especially one like Corinth. Widows cut off their hair in sign of mourning. Prostitutes went about with uncovered heads and in many places an adulteress was shaved as a mark her disgrace. If, says Paul, the woman flaunt the oneness of her spiritual standing with man, by appearing with uncovered head she may as well go the whole way and dishonour her husband by regarding him as non-existent or herself as faithless to him.
If such local and passing customs had been the apostle's only reason for requiring that Christian sisters should be covered at worship, they could not be regarded as binding upon modern sisters of Jesus. But the fundamental apostolic reason, the headship of man over woman, constitutes an abiding sanction for past and present ecclesial practice. Startling or scanty headgear, whilst coming formally within the apostolic injunction, is more a revelation of character than a becoming way of covering the head.
A further and somewhat obscure reason for the covering of woman's head is given by Paul : “Neither was the man created for the woman ; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels” (1 Cor. II: 9-10). Of three or four possible interpretations of this Scripture, the following appear the two most likely : (1) In the first century, when angels actually appeared to notable men and women of God, such as Zachariah, Mary, Peter and Paul, not to mention the Lord Jesus himself, the brethren and sisters had a more vivid consciousness of their reality and presence than we have to-day. (An enquiry into our inability to discern their presence or even their ministrations might yield interesting results. Are our spiritual perceptions at fault? Are our eyes, like those of Elisha's servant in beleaguered Dothan, "holden” that we should not see them? Have we a right view of their nature and work? What is the relation of the work of God through them and through His Spirit, or has God, in this dispensation ceased to work perceptibly through angels ?) (2)"Because of the angels” can refer to the angelic arrangements at the foundation world when the woman was placed in subjection (Gen. 3:16). This explanation has some support from the context.
In the first centuries of the faith, angels were regarded as present at the worship of the brethren and sisters. In a Script in Timothy (1 Tim. 5:21), it is likely Paul has in mind the angels commissioned to be with the ecclesia in its worship. As late as the beginning of the fifth century, Chrysostom comments on our text: “Open the eyes of faith, and thou shalt behold a theatre of spectators : for if the air be filled with angels much more the ecclesia ..."; and again, "Knowest thou not that in the company of angels thou standest? With them thou singest, with them thou chantest ...” The seraphic attendants of Deity in the inaugural vision of Isaiah stood before the Lord with covered faces and feet, and, as H. L. Goudge remarks, "as models of reverence, the angels expect it of us”.
In verse 13, the apostle adds a further and compelling reason for the covering of a woman at worship. "Is it seemly to pray to God Himself in an attitude in the least savouring of disrespect ?" Modern freedom and fashions are not without their good points, but they should not govern the approach of sisters to their Maker. Again, “If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her : for her hair is given her for a covering" (verse 15). God Himself has indicated woman's proper attitude. Her hair has been given to her as a primary covering. It is well that in her dress she should be in harmony with her Creator. Any obduracy on the part of awkward Corinthians is now silenced by a final ruling. Their licence is contrary to apostolic as well as general ecclesial practice (verse 16).
In his treatment of this personal matter of propriety in Christian worship, Paul introduces a correction to any inclination on the part of brethren to use his decisions to emphasize their headship : "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman, but all things of God" (verses 11-12). The mutual dependence of man and woman is not removed but ennobled by their new relationship in the Lord. Moreover, man is not creator of woman; man, woman and their relationship are all of God.
