Finally, the last two MISFITS are unveiled regarding these passages of scripture. Hopefully, one will realize that the changes made due to Sex Bias have had profound repercussions to women worldwide; especially those that still have to “veil” today due to men’s interpretations of “scripture.” One must realize that men have kept women from translation and, have changed the original manuscripts, so that THEY can determine what the scriptures say regarding themselves and women. Without fail, men have made absolutely sure that they are written into scripture as the dominant and “most beloved of God,” people. Rest assured, that women would not make changes that would be to their detriment and cause the sexual exploitation, abuse and subjugation that women have endured throughout history as a result. Let’s look at the last two MISFITS. Here’s the passages, once again, in question:
1 Cor. 11: 1-16 – The usual sense (not ours) put upon these words by expositors, beginning with verse 3, we give in the language of Dr. Weymouth’s Modern English translation:
(3) “I would have you know that of every man, Christ is Head, that of a woman her husband is the Head, and that God is Christ’s Head. (4) A man who wears a veil praying or prophesying dishonours his Head; (5) but a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her Head, for it is exactly the same as if she had her hair cut short. (6) If a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair, but since it is a dishonour to a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her wear a veil. (7) For a man ought not to have a veil on his head, since he is the image and glory of God: while woman is the glory of man. (8) Man does not take his origin from woman, but woman takes hers from man. (9) For man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s. (10) That is why a woman ought to have on her head a symbol of subjection, because of the angels. (11) Yet, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman. (12) For just as woman originates from man, so also man comes into existence through woman, but everything springs originally from God. (13) Judge of this for your own selves: is it seemly for a woman to pray to God when she is unveiled? (14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonour to him, (15) but if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because her hair was given to her for a covering? (16) But if anyone is inclined to be contentious on the point, we have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.”
The Seventh MISFIT
Verse 14 purports to be a question asking, “Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame?” Now every candid person must answer this question with a “No.” It is not nature, but a barber who keep’s man’s hair short. In China, millions of men wear long hair, and nature has never taught them that it is a shame. Furthermore, the last time the Corinthians saw the apostle Paul before he wrote this Epistle, he himself had long hair (Acts 18:18); and to the Jew, accustomed to religious vows (Num. 6:1-21), long hair, religiously speaking, was more of a “glory” than a “shame.” Additionally to this, the native Corinthians would have thought this a strange question to submit to them, for they would boast that they were descendants of the “long-haired Achaeans,” celebrated as such on almost every page of that most famous and most ancient Greek Poem, Homer’s Iliad. Therefore we do not believe that St. Paul asked a question, here. His simple statement of fact, “Nor doth nature teach you,” has been changed into a question by the uninspired men who put in the punctuation marks centuries later than St. Paul wrote these words. As a question, this is a TREMENDOUS MISFIT. It contradicts a fact of nature; it makes St. Paul inconsistent in his practice with his teaching; it is an entirely unsuitable question to submit to Achaeans.
The Eight MISFIT
Verse 16, “We have no such custom.” What custom? Most commentator’s assume that this means, “We have no such DEFIANCE of custom, as women unveiling.” But this is not what Paul says, but the exact contrary. We cannot insert “defiance of custom” in the place of “custom” without introducing a contradiction. Paul is talking of some custom, which he repudiates. What is it? Veiling, of course; this is the only custom mentioned (unless it be that of wearing long hair, a custom for women; or wearing short hair, which was the usual custom for men,–and no one thinks it means these latter). Paul has been talking, almost wholly, of the custom of veiling, and he now says, “We have no such custom.” He renounces the custom. this verse cannot be easily reconciled with the teaching that St. Paul is here strengthening a prevalent custom.
Now we have discovered that every portion of St. Paul’s argument (if we change the punctuation of verses 13 and 14), and certainly his plain statement that women “ought to have authority” over their own heads, fits better to an argument for UNVEILING than for veiling. But there remain the statements in verses 5 and 6, where Paul says that the woman who unveils dishonours her head. Can they be explained to accord with the idea that St. Paul is not teaching the veiling of women? We promise a satisfactory explanation to that effect in due course. But before we leave our present topic, we must consider how at variance with COMMON SENSE and true religion as well as sound logic is the whole tenor and spirit of this traditional MISINTERPRETATION of St. Paul. So true is this, that after standing for its teaching, as to the main points (those that appeal to the vanity of the male sex, and the love of dominion over the female sex), the men apologize that such (worthy) points are not supported by worthier arguments on the part of St. Paul,– as though the Holy Spirit could not have caused the Apostle to set forth God’s GOOD reasons for veiling women, had God wished women to be veiled!
To impress the need of a more intelligent interpretation of this passage, we must give some further idea of what has been taught by commentators. If after this general survey you want to cling to the traditional misinterpretation, then it will not be for the lack of knowledge that something better is sadly needed.
“The image and glory of God.” The comments here must needs remind one of the words of the Psalmist, “Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity.” Dr. Agar Beet says, “Man is an outshining of the splendour of God. By looking at him we see in dim outline what God is.” Dr. Kling, “Paul indicates the godlike rule and lordly majesty which the position of man as the head of his wife involves.” He explains the meaning of “the woman is the glory of the man” thus: “In her management as his housewife, the exalted position of man is manifest.” Men would have made precisely the same sense out of the words, doubtless, if Paul had said instead, “The man is the glory of the woman.” Dr. Cruden says, “Since God would have the male sex to be a kind of representation of His glory, majesty and power, a man ought not, by hiding his face, . . . to conceal the glory of God shining in him.” Dean Stanley says, “Man, therefore ought to have nothing on his head which represents so divine a majesty–nothing on a countenance which reflects so divine a glory.” Dr. Adam Clarke says: “Man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God. . . So woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man.” . . .(to be continued)
— Katherine Bushnell, 1923
As always, I must stop for brevity’s sake. These lessons need to be easy to read and quick to read. I will continue the last parts of Bushnell’s lesson in the next article entitled “Sex Bias in the New Testament – The “Veil” – Part 4. If ever there was a Bible lesson that one needed to partake of, it would be these lessons on this topic of veiling that have caused women so much abuse throughout history and even today, the world over. Once I have covered the corruption in these passages, I will then show what Paul’s real teaching as to Veiling, is. Be sure to subscribe to my news feed so as not to miss these important lessons!