HEADSHIP BELONGING TO THE WILDERNESS POSITION
HEADSHIP BELONGING TO THE WILDERNESS POSITION
JT This scripture is proposed as bringing out the feature of headship that belongs to the wilderness position; hence the order in which it is given in this chapter, “that the Christ is the head of every man”, verse 3, which has to be taken as general, and then, “but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God”. That is the public position. Headship in Colossians and Ephesians is more inward, bearing on the words ‘Son’ and ‘eternity’; it has a more spiritual nature, dealing not only with believers, or those in the assembly, but including those in the millennium and those in eternal bliss. Headship runs through. But this epistle has to do with it in its public relations now, so it is said, “every man”. The types help us as usual; it is the position in the wilderness. The idea of the acknowledgment of headship is very slight in the wilderness, whether it be in Zipporah or in the later wife that Moses had; there is very little said as to what they were personally.
JS Does headship necessarily involve the body?
JT Well, we will hardly get to that part yet. It is ‘every man’ here, and the head of every woman is the man, and the Christ’s head is God. So that it is the general position in creation that is in mind.
AR In Colossians Christ is head of the body but in Ephesians He is head to the assembly.
JT Yes; Christ is “head over all things to the assembly, which is his body”, Ephesians 1: 22, which refers to the Person of Christ. It is part of His glory that He [p. 480] is Head of the body, the assembly. It says, “And he is the head of the body, the assembly”, Colossians 1: 18. But the particular point of the subject today is headship in this epistle, and how it bears on the testimony. We hardly come to headship of the assembly in this epistle. It is what is preliminary to it, and without what we get here we can hardly speak of headship in the assembly.
JS What then is in view? Is it subjection?
JT It is clearly subjection in each of us, but it is a public matter. It is a testimony that Christ is Head of every man. So that it is what comes under men’s eyes as a testimony; not simply what appears in the assembly in its varied functions, but the testimony to Christ’s rights over all men, and how it is the ordering of God that God is Christ’s Head, and the head of every woman is the man, whoever the man may be, or whoever the woman may be. It is a testimony to God in creation, and it stands now.
ANW It is not a matter of husband and wife then?
JT No; it is God, Christ, man, woman. So that it is universal.
WB-w When David was in the wilderness he first went to the cave of Adullam and four hundred men collected around him, and he became a captain over them. Would this feature of headship come out in him in that way?
JT Well, in so far as a captain would represent it. It is not simply military authority, but wisdom. The Lord is in the apostle’s mind as marking everything publicly.
APT How do you regard Michal, David’s wife, in relation to this chapter?
JT She never came under headship. In 1 Samuel we see David coming into publicity as slaying Goliath; that is, cutting off his head. That deals with headship,
but who came under David’s headship is a question. Perhaps the only one was Abigail. But we are speaking now of the assembly in relation to Christ, and primarily of the ordering of God and the position as it stands publicly. That is, if I am converted I revert to the ordering of God, that He is Head, supreme Head. Wisdom was in God in the creation and has been ever since. So that it is a question now of wisdom; how the creation is to be ordered and what testimony there is in believers as to this. I know well enough that the race as a whole knows nothing of God’s rights over it, but there is to be a testimony in believers now as to God’s rights before He enters on them in the millennium. As soon as you get converted you come to see that the creation stands in relation to God. It is all a question of wisdom. It is not even the household here, it is just the ordering of the public creation.
RWS Is headship functioning in Moses in Exodus 18: 2: “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her back”?
JT There is no evidence of headship there as I see it. The things that happen are between Moses and his father-in-law. It is a very disjointed situation. What happened in that chapter suggests what wilderness conditions are as in the assembly. Zipporah is only brought in as Moses’ wife; she does not do anything, nor do her sons do anything. It is a question of what her father does, and what Moses and he converse about.
JS Is Adam seen in this light in Genesis 2?
JT Well, in so far as the lower creation is concerned. But it is a question here, not of the cows or the horses, but of God, Christ, man and woman. When Eve was presented to Adam he named her, and said she was of himself, but that is all you get.
JS Is headship presented here abstractly to bring about order in the assembly at Corinth?
[p. 482] JT It is to bring out now what christians are representing. What testimony do we bear to this great truth? It is not a question of headship in the assembly, it is a question of headship in the public ordering of God, which will be manifest in every man in the world in the millennial day; but it is a question now of what testimony is presented to the world.
FHL How do you view Moses as king in Jeshurun in relation to this?
JT King is not head exactly. “And he was king in Jeshurun, When the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together”, Deuteronomy 33: 5. It has a bearing on headship, but that is towards the end of the wilderness. They were beginning to see how valuable a man Moses was, which did not appear in the early days. It is what we learn and come into by knowing God and God’s Christ. We begin to see how great a thing we are related to, what we are to learn by it, and how to reflect it in our own conduct.
AR Does Romans 5 fit in with what you are saying: “For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous”, verse 19?
JT That brings out the moral worth of the Person. It gradually grows on you what we have in Christ. What was He to God? How did He act toward God? So that the divine idea in the creation is reflected in the christian now. It is a question of bringing each of us into this matter, and whether we are reflecting the idea in a public way.
Ques Zipporah did not go back with Moses apparently. She did not respect him, nor was she capable of helping him in the passage of the Red Sea and all that follows. Is there any lesson to be learned in that?
JT It is what was defective in her. [p. 483] There was no aid at all rendered. How could headship come out? There was no wife there. Every Israelitish woman ought to have been subject to man, and not only to Moses, but to every man there.
AP-f Is that in contrast to what is abroad in the world now, women seeking equality with men?
JT That is right. The whole position is dislocated. There is a want of wisdom in the whole matter. Where is the wisdom in what is current? So that it is a very wide subject, and the bearing of it on the public side is what is in mind now.
Rem The apostle seems to be a model in this in himself. He says, “do all things to God’s glory ... Even as I also please all in all things; not seeking my own profit, but that of the many, that they may be saved”, 1 Corinthians 10: 31 - 33.
JT Yes; he brings himself in as a model throughout. We begin here with that. “Be my imitators, even as I also am of Christ”, chapter 11: 1. That is how the thing works out. The Corinthians were going on with certain things he had directed, and he praises them for it, but he says, “But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God”. And then he calls attention to this matter of covering and no covering, and the glory of God and of man, and of what is seemly; and that there must be no contention. That is how the passage stands.
Rem What the woman should observe is that even Christ is subject here; even Christ Himself became subject. If He became subject it is quite simple to understand the rest of the ordering. He is said to be subject to God; God is Christ’s Head.
JT That comes out fully in chapter 15 where He takes the place of subjection eternally. But here, as you say, God is Christ’s Head. That is clear enough. If you examine Christ’s history on earth you will find [p. 484] that out, and if you examine Paul’s history on earth you will find that Christ was his Head. So that the matter is brought out here publicly. It is the principle that is going to prevail and bring about a condition governed by wisdom, with which the creation began. When God made everything, wisdom was there, and it had a first place with God. Wisdom says she was God’s delight, so that things were done that way, and headship now is the development of wisdom. It is how things should be done.
JS Does verse 1 show the thing had taken concrete form in the apostle himself?
JT That is what we were saying, “Be my imitators”, verse 1. He had already told them he had sent Timothy to them, “who shall put you in mind of my ways as they are in Christ”, chapter 4: 17.
APT “The Christ” — what is in that?
JT Literally presented it could be ‘Messiah’, but in christianity it works out that God does everything by Him, and that involves wisdom. Even the Lord Himself takes the place of not knowing anything; He says He receives everything from His Father.
ABP Have we a concrete example of it working out in John 4? The wisdom is seen in the Lord’s words to the woman to put her in right relations to Himself and then He brings in God.
JT I think that is good. And she, when released on her own, so to speak, leaves the water-pot behind and goes into the city. She is governed not only by evangelical instincts, but by headship, by wisdom. She goes to the men. It is a question of bringing the men into accord with Christ. She says, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” verse 29. The men must be regulated.
ANW Is God Himself seen as working on this principle when He approaches the man in the garden? He addresses the man, and then the man exposes the [p. 485] failure of both the head and the woman by saying to God, “The woman, whom thou hast given to be with me”, Genesis 3: 12.
JT She ignored headship, otherwise she would not have listened to anybody but her husband. It is remarkable that Genesis 2 is alluded to in this passage, “For man is not of woman, but woman of man”, verse 8. It is remarkable how frequently in the New Testament we get an allusion to Genesis 2 as governing the present position. In 1 Timothy, Genesis 3 is alluded to, that the woman was in the transgression, but here it is the origin of the woman. So that it is clear that Eve missed the thing in listening to the serpent. Why should she listen to the lowest creature when she had such a being as Adam? So that the dislocation began and it is continuing; perhaps never more manifest than now.
AC Would you regard Rebecca in Genesis 24 in this light in her subservient position to Abraham’s servant?
JT She is ready to serve.
AC She says, “Drink, my lord!” Genesis 24: 18.
JT Yes; “I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have drunk enough”. Zipporah does not offer anything to Moses. She leaves him outside. Moses had delivered Jethro’s daughters out of the hands of the shepherds, and when they went back home to their father he said, “Why are ye come so soon today?” When they told him about Moses he said, “And where is he?” Exodus 2: 20. What about the man? Where is the man? He has been helping you, but where is he? I do not suppose Zipporah ever came into the recognition of headship, because she started wrongly. Eve started wrongly too; she did not respect the head. But Rebecca started aright.
Ques Would headship be seen in John 6 where the Lord says to the disciples, “Make the men sit down”, verse 10?
JT [p. 486] It was a question of wisdom. The lack of wisdom is the great defect among the brethren, what to do in a given crisis.
WB-w Abigail got light as to the folly of the head she was under. Nabal was a fool, and she recognised that the whole system was dislocated; she cleared herself of that and came to David.
JT She judged that, and I suppose in the book of Samuel she is the only one that did.
TNW When would you say verse 3 first applied? When God made Jesus both Lord and Christ?
JT I would say He was Head to every man when He was here. Whenever a man came into contact with Him, he got right. Whenever a woman came into contact with Him she got right. It is stressed as you run through the gospels how persons got right as soon as they came into contact with Christ.
AAT At the preaching, would you announce Him as Head?
JT Yes. He is Head of every man, every man in the world. It is the order; no matter whether men recognise it or not, there it is. It is a question of who is representing it, who is exhibiting it, so that it can be seen in some sense. It is how we are in our public relations, that is the point in this epistle; the saints in the public position where anybody can see them.
RWS Coming down to our own cities or towns, if a believer is asked to do something and says he cannot, and gives as his reason that he must be subject to Christ, is that the working out of it, or is it deeper than that?
JT It is a question of whether I am subject to the brethren, whether I can be subject to the brethren. It works out that way.
ANW I was struck with your carrying it out to others.
JT It is the dislocation of the whole position. [p. 487] It is not simply disobedience and lawlessness, it is dislocation. Wherever the elements in the universe are not governed by this order there is dislocation.
JHH David spoke about being base in his own sight; “and of the handmaids that thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour”, 2 Samuel 6: 22.
JT Quite so; Michal despised him. If I cannot respect a man, how can I be subject to him? It is not only a question of your husband, but of any man; we want to respect one another. Michal despised her husband.
JHH And it was at a very spiritual point. She despised him at a most spiritual point. She was ready to love him naturally, but not on spiritual lines.
JT It is said she loved him, but what kind of love was it?
AR Saul of Tarsus came under headship in the heavenly vision, and then he was told to go into the city. Would that fit in here?
JT That does fit in. The Scriptures are full of it. If you go back to creation, according to Proverbs you will see how wisdom had a great personal position there. Some say it is the Lord Jesus, but it is not so. Not that I would be contradictory of persons who have said it, but it cannot be so. Jehovah who is operating is Christ, and wisdom is a quality, as you might say, the nursling of His love; as if Jehovah, or God, gave such a place to wisdom because it is so essential to the continuance of what is in hand, to the universe. It is to continue and it was made in perfection because wisdom was there. If you bring that down now to man — the human race, or to households, the family institution — if wisdom has not its place there is dislocation. There is no dislocation in the heavens as far as we can see; all up there goes on functioning day and night. But when you come down to angels and to men there is dislocation with angels first; and now with men because man has [p. 488] brought in dislocation through want of subjection. But that is only the beginning of the trouble due to the lack of wisdom and lack of the recognition of the place wisdom has. Wisdom is present in the order of headship — God, Christ, man, woman; that is to say, in relation to the responsible elements of the human race. Unless headship is recognised there is dislocation. It is not simply subjection, but headship in this order.
JS In John 3 Nicodemus missed it, but in John 4 the woman gained the point. I suppose we see it concretely there.
JT I would not say Nicodemus missed it entirely. He missed the idea of new birth. I should say he came into it afterwards, because even in the council he says, “Does our law judge a man before it have first heard from himself, and know what he does?” John 7: 51. John the evangelist will bring out whatever is of God in a man, even if he waits until the last chapter but one. Nicodemus is justified in chapter 19. He was concerned about Christ, that He should have a proper burial. That is beautiful, because the prophets show that the intent was that He should be degraded in His burial. Nicodemus honoured Christ to that extent, at least.
Ques Is the thought of headship lost sight of in the world, and only taken on and realised by the people of God?
JT That is right; that is the point we are at. It is to work out at Corinth. Athens was the centre of learning at that time; the Greeks claimed to have wisdom, but it was not the wisdom of God. You get it in Paul; at any rate, God, Christ, Paul. The Corinthians are paying attention to Paul, that is the point he is making here. He says, I am praising you that you are keeping my directions; “but”, he says; that big ‘but’. There was a great want there, and then he tells them what it was.
CAM Did the Lord in speaking to the [p. 489] Pharisees indicate that they were not wisdom’s children?
JT That is just what we are bringing out. Paul says, “Be my imitators”; he was one of wisdom’s children, there was no question about that. “Wisdom is justified of all her children”, and Paul was one of them, and he is now endeavouring to bring the Corinthians into this matter. If they are wisdom’s children there will be no dislocation in their homes or in their businesses or in any public relation, or in the assembly viewed publicly; because that is the point, what is to be seen publicly.
ABP How do things work out practically in a home where, it may be, the sister is much more intellectual and more able than her husband?
JT The tax would be on her to be humble. There is something in the husband that she has not got. She may start with that for a certainty. There is something in him that she cannot have, and she has to find that out, because God has put it there. It is no question of qualification here at all. If God has said this is so I have to find out the reason. You may take any case you like, the woman will have to find out where that something is. God is asserting that there is something she has to recognise, and verse 10 says she has to have authority on her head; that authority is in the man, wherever he is.
APT The man was first.
JT The man was on the scene first. “For man is not of woman, but woman of man”. Where is Adam? We have to start there. Eve had to recognise that.
ABP There would be help in bringing out the apostle’s thought rather than in bringing forward personalities.
JT Quite so. God has not said this and formed creatures that cannot answer to it. Well, you may say, such and such a man is very weak. But still we have to remember what is there in the sense of wisdom and [p. 490] balance. Aquila and Priscilla are mentioned three times each. They would stake their neck; they are sacrificial people. Priscilla would never take the lead in the presence of her husband, I am sure.
ANW Do you mean to say that if the husband is really deficient the wife is not to take his place as head?
JT If she makes room for what is there, and if she looks for it, she will be sure to find it. In finding it she will have to judge herself and take a low place.
AR This also applies to what is going on between brothers and sisters?
JT Yes; what is going on between men and women.
ABP Are we not tested most in a practical way in the relations between man and wife?
JT That is where the thing is working out concretely. We are in the closest relations there. Refer back to Genesis, and what have you there? One man and one woman. It is a question of how they stand in relation to each other, and the governing thing is, woman is of the man.
ABP If in the case of a weak brother this abstract thing is recognised, and the sister seeks to be subject and the brother seeks wisdom from God, the natural thing will be reversed; God will give him wisdom, and the wife will see there is something in him that she never saw before.
JT That is it. We shall get regulated quickly enough if we recognise what is already clear. There can be no question of the headship of God and Christ.
JS Would not the virtuous woman fit in in that connection?
JT She shows that she looks after her husband’s interests, and that is what we are saying about the woman of Samaria. She looks after the Lord’s interests, and in doing that she goes to the men. She herself saw everything in Christ.
APT Our brother spoke about husband and wife,
[p. 491] but what about the sisters at Bethany — Lazarus and the two sisters? Is there something in that house in regard of this chapter? Is anything lacking there in relation to this matter?
JT I do not know that there is; the three would refer to the remnant of Israel, I suppose, from the standpoint of this chapter. Lazarus would be head of his family, in the sense of being one brother and two sisters. No doubt the Lord had in mind that he should be greater when he was raised than he ever was before. You can understand it would give him a great advantage in the house, and when the Lord came there finally you can see the advantage, because Lazarus had his place. There was no criticism with Martha any more; she serves. She does not complain that Mary is not serving. It does not even say whether Mary was serving. When the Lord went to that house first, Mary was sitting at the Lord’s feet and Martha complained that she was not serving. Now Martha is serving; she is doing it and she is not complaining about Mary, although there is no evidence that she was actually serving too. So that it is quite evident the condition has been bettered. And how did the betterment come in? John’s gospel brings out what God has effected, however little it be; he will stress that and omit other things.
AAT When the Lord went into that house, would He be Head?
JT As far as Martha was concerned, when He went there first He was not. She says, “Lord, dost thou not care?” (Luke 10: 40) implying that the Lord had not wisdom or He would have told Mary to get up and do something. There is nothing said about Lazarus at all in Luke; it is only John that tells us he is raised, and that he comes into his place, because he is one of those that sits at table with the Lord as if he were the one principally in mind.
RWS In verse 4, is the absence of [p. 492] covering in the man and the covering in the woman a public matter?
JT Yes; it is a question of what is in the assembly; what anybody would see that might be there. It would doubtless be different from anything they would see in any other congregation in Corinth. People would come in and say, The women are all covered, and the men are all uncovered; it is not so in the Jewish synagogue. I cannot say what it would be like in the heathen synagogue. But here it is a question of headship; God, Christ, man, woman.
RWS What about a brother praying in private prayer, for instance in a subway? Should he remove his hat?
JT I always do. What do you do yourself?
RWS I must confess sometimes I have, and sometimes I have not.
WB-w In coming into the meeting, a brother comes in and takes off his hat, and a sister comes in and leaves her hat on. It is how we come in and sit down with one another.
JT Yes; the man is the glory of God, and angels are looking on; and the woman is man’s glory; well, that should be covered. It is a sign of authority; the word authority would mean she was recognising what was above her.
WB-w You mean by the public side, when the brethren are coming together, and everyone sees what is going on?
JT Wherever there is prayer and prophesying, this is the order.
WR-n Some brothers do not wear hats at all; they have nothing to take off.
JT Well, they do not have them on in the meeting. Still, you wonder if it is not just copying the world’s way. Very often it is so.
Ques The apostle says in chapter 2 of this epistle, “But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery”, verse 7. Would that be the development of it?
JT [p. 493] This book makes a great deal of wisdom; the wisdom of the Greeks, the wisdom of this world, and the wisdom of God.
FNW You remarked before that we must recognise the principle of subjection to the brethren. Proverbs 8 says, “Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding give forth her voice? On the top of high places by the way, at the cross-paths she taketh her stand. Beside the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors, she crieth aloud”, verses 1 - 3. Do you look for that recognition in those seeking a place among the saints, the gates and the recognition of wisdom and headship?
JT Quite so. Wisdom is crying out. The book of Proverbs would be well worth looking into from this point of view, because wisdom is personified strikingly in Proverbs, and away back in the beginning of time. So that it is a question now of the children; and they, of course, would be christians. Wisdom is justified of all her children in the way they recognise how wisdom works, and how it flows down from God through Christ to the man and to the woman.
WB-w In the book of Proverbs there is a man speaking froward things, and a woman subtle of heart, and there is a young man going into the house of the foolish woman. Would that be just the dislocation that has come in?
JT Clearly.
ANW Would you say how this basis of shamefulness and comeliness is established?
JT Go down to verse 13: “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman should pray to God uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonour to him? But woman, if she have long hair, it is glory to her; for the long hair is given to her in lieu of a veil”. To what is the apostle alluding? Where is all this information acquired? Clearly the allusion is to the presence of the [p. 494] Spirit of God in relation to the testimony, and thus these things were developed. The christians at Corinth should know them. That is, I must begin at the beginning. The chapter contemplates Genesis 2, but that chapter does not say anything about long hair or short hair in the man or the woman. But I must begin there and follow the line, and see what developed in the way of seemliness in the race, especially in those that are identified with God’s testimony. Take, for instance, the fact that Adam was the first. It is said that Enoch was the seventh from Adam. What does that mean? There was another Enoch, he was Cain’s son. He was not the seventh from Cain, he was the first from Cain. But our Enoch is the seventh from his head. What does that mean? That means he is a learner; a learner retrospectively. He will not miss anything that God has done in relation to His testimony. That is, I suppose, what Enoch represents. Before he was translated he had this testimony, that he pleased God. That is, he walked with God three hundred years. What information would he acquire? Would God not bring to him something that was developed in Adam that Enoch should know? In the school of God, God would not only give historical things, things that are profitable to know, but you may be sure God would give fresh information to Enoch. He was a learner, and I think that is the principle that is alluded to here; that we are to know things. It is shameful at times how little is known. Every one of us should know. It is because of carelessness that we do not know.
JTJr In Matthew’s gospel we have divine instruction. I suppose the assembly is formed on this line, on instruction that comes from heaven.
JT Exactly. It is said that if a man is a farmer his God does instruct him. It is a remarkable thing. His God instructs him in relation to putting a seed into the ground. And Peter says a man is to dwell with his wife according to knowledge (1 Peter 3: 7). What knowledge?
[p. 495] The knowledge that God affords us. It is a question of whether I am attentive to the Scriptures. They are for that purpose. And so Paul says here, “But if it be [p. 496] shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered”, verse 6. How is she to know it is shameful? It is clearly not the Parisian customs or novelties that are in mind. It is what has come in from God. I can only be rightly ashamed of anything that is not of God. If it is not of God, I am ashamed of it.
Rem It says in Romans 1: 23, “they ... changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man”; an attempt has been made by the creature to change itself.
JT That chapter helps in what we are saying; it is “what was known of God”. If you had talked with Enoch after three hundred years of walk with God, what disclosures there would have been! No doubt there is much that we have not received at all. The only mention we have of what Enoch said is in Jude; but it was in the divine treasury, or Jude would not have mentioned it.
Rem Paul says, “Does not even nature itself teach you?” verse 14. It is what God intended to be known in nature.
JT Yes; “that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonour to him?” It must be there is something in nature to indicate that man does not have such long hair as woman. He may grow long hair; Absalom did, making a show of it; but evidently nature indicated primarily that woman grew longer hair than man. The covering that nature affords her is a veil. The word ‘veil’ is not the same as the word ‘covering’. Of course, it does cover, it covers the face; but there are different words used. The word ‘veil’ is found in verse 15, but in verse 5 the word ‘uncovered’ is a different word altogether; and so it says in verse 6: “But if it be shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered”. The word ‘covered’ there is different, and evidently it would include the crown of the head and not simply the face, because the face is part of the head too. The veil would, I suppose, allude to the face, what would cover your countenance, but the head is more than the face. It includes the face, but it is more than the face.
RWS I think I have looked at this as the hair being one covering and the hat another covering.
JT The hair is given in lieu of a veil, it is used for a covering in that sense; but the other covering is for the whole top of the head. You get the idea of the head in Goliath; if his head is cut off what is there left? The countenance reflects intelligence and beauty and all that, but the head encases the source of intelligence and the source of power.
HAS Rebecca put on a veil when she met Isaac.
JT That was, I think, that she would reserve all her beauty for Isaac, that others should not see her. That is the custom of women in the east. A woman’s countenance was to be for her husband. These things are all gone to the saints now, because people have not followed the truth as it has come out. This chapter contemplates what came out from the very start of creation.
JS Is this provisional for the wilderness only?
JT It is just for us here. It does not go beyond that. There is a day coming when the assembly will be seen in her glory and beauty; the word ‘apocalypse’ means ‘unveiling’. In the meantime there is a testimony here. There is graded headship up to God and from God down to woman.
RWS When the angels observe this are they seeing God’s wisdom working out now?
JT Certainly.
APT Is this a temporary covering? Do I understand [p. 497] that the woman is to have this covering on all the time or simply when praying and prophesying?
JT Well, we go by the scripture here.
FNW It says that a woman should have the token of authority on her head.
JT That is what the translator paraphrases it to mean. We are governed by the fact that (1) when a woman is praying or prophesying she is to have her head covered; but (2) if she has the covering on all the time it is a sign of authority. That is what I thought we might see. Notice the words. The word ‘authority’ here is not ‘veil’ nor is it ‘covering’. So that if she wears it always, it is a token of authority above her. That is what the thing means. That is, the authority is in the man and all the way up.
AR She recognises there is something in the man which she has not.
JT Of course, when the man is not present she is to rule the house. Proverbs 31 shows how the virtuous woman rules.
AAT A ribbon or token on a sister’s head is proper then?
JT It seems so, if we pay attention to the words used here. The Spirit of God uses different words. It is not just that authority is vested in her; the meaning of it is that there is authority above her that she is moving in relation to. The centurion says, “I also am a man under authority”; not that I have it in myself, but that I am under it. Yet he says to this one, Go, and he goes. But, he says, I am under authority. That is, there is another one above him and yet he orders. So that a woman might order her children, but she does it in relation to the authority above her.
AR It is like a man in a uniform — he has conferred authority.
JT Quite so; it is graded authority from the general down to the private. The general has authority which [p. 498] he gets from the government, and so on down; only each recognises what is above him. That is what the centurion meant.
ANW If the truth is rightly held by the woman, she has all the authority of heaven with her.
JT So that Proverbs 31 has been alluded to, and it is a very important chapter according to what we are saying. There is a virtuous woman, a woman of worth according to God. She carries out everything although her husband is not there. What she does when her husband is not there is the great test.
Ques She is superior to the angels; but if she does not recognise this matter of the covering does that make her inferior?
JT She has no status at all if she has not got the covering on.
Rem God says to the woman, “he shall rule over thee”, Genesis 3: 16.
JT It is well that we should know that. If she had only taken that to heart before, she would have been saved from the serpent.
AR In the light of Proverbs 31 Christ is known here in His absence by our comely conduct.
JT It is really an Ephesian touch. That truth is not here actually. It is too great for this chapter but still the principle may be brought into it.
HAS It is not the kind of covering, but the fact that the woman recognises the authority or power above her. Is that right?
JT That is the point. What do you think about it?
HAS I would like to be right about it. Some think the head should be covered completely and some think a bow on the head will do, and there is a good deal of uncertainty about it.
JT If we observe the words used here we shall not go far astray. The word ‘covering’ is greater than a [p. 499] bow; it is more extensive in thought. It means you are covered. The word ‘authority’ does not mean that. It may be just a token of a lesser quantity, and yet it indicates the position, as a stripe on an officer’s cuff indicates his authority, his rank. I think verse 10, if you look at it simply, is a token that there is a recognition of authority above, and that gives a woman status. The angels look down and see that that woman is in her place. She is not out of rank.
Rem It would not be comely for a woman to always wear her hat at home.
JT It would be uncomfortable. When you come into a public assembly such as we are in now it is quite obvious that it is more seemly to have a hat on, something that is really a covering; but verse 10 would seem to make room for the bow. The idea is that it is a token, whereas the word ‘veil’ covers the countenance.
ANW Do the angels not seem to be the only living intelligent beings that are outside this range? They seem to be a creation outside the range of this gradation of headship, looking on.
JT There must be something corresponding with themselves. They are older than man, of course, and have seen more, too. They are cognisant of all the history from Adam down, so that they are watching things. The Spirit of God says in Job, “And there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah; and Satan came also among them”, Job 1: 6. It was clear enough that God was there, and the order would be there in the sons, but Satan would see what was going on. And that is the way it is today. Satan is here ready to do damage and dislocate what is of God among us.
Ques What would you say about sisters walking about in the streets with their heads uncovered?
JT That is an extension of what we are at now. I would say it is not comely to see sisters going out uncovered.
[p. 500] I think both young men and young women going out uncovered look rather worldly.
AR You referred to the idea of Satan dislocating. Would you say a little more of what you had in mind?
JT The word is plain enough. Women have more influence than they should have, taking the initiative in things, and the children get out of hand accordingly. If a man loses his way in the house, and gets out of fellowship, the enemy gets in; but if the woman is with God things might be saved.
JHH Would you say the great woman of Shunem saved the situation? She called her husband after the boy had died. He could not see the point that she should go to the man of God, but she gave him his place.
JT That is a good allusion. And, too, Manoah’s wife did the same thing; she went to her husband every time.
FHL She is not even named.
JT No; but her name is wisdom. What comes out there is one of the names of Christ, ‘Wonderful’.
WB-w When a woman is praying in the home with her children, that is not a public position. Should she have a covering?
JT Clearly. The thing ought to be there.
TNW The principle is not set aside in the household where there is an unbelieving husband and a believing wife, is it?
JT Of course there is a great disadvantage in such a case, but another thing comes in here: “For what knowest thou, O wife, if thou shalt save thy husband? or what knowest thou, O husband, if thou shall save thy wife?” 1 Corinthians 7: 16. She will not save him by saying, You do not know, or by allocating things herself. In that case she is missing something there in the way of wisdom.
RWS In regard to private prayer again, do you mean the token does not do in prayer in [p. 501] the house?
JT I think it would be better to have the covering.
AR What you say about an unbelieving husband and a believing wife does not alter the idea of headship in this sense, does it?
JT He is still head of the woman. He is constituted that. The thing is to get the principle. God has made that man, and He has given him something that the woman has not got. It is a question of the creation. The woman is of the man, and she can never be greater.
WWM In regard of the angels, would it be right to say that these are holy angels and they would have understood the remarkable happening in the universe through the lawlessness of Satan himself. They would understand the matter of subjection.
JT Indeed they would. You are struck by the remarkable sympathy in all angelic service with God. They are so entirely with God that when the angel says something, he is called God; there is such complete representation in them. And that is the point that we should get hold of, that we are representative of God in all these things.
JS The angels know to obey.
JT Those who have been preserved do.
ABP I notice in the Song of Solomon the writer refers twice to beauty behind the veil. I wondered what the principle might be.
JT I think it would be that the assembly, or the woman, would conceal what she is from others, not to be attractive to others, but to her husband.
AR She says earlier, “The keepers of the walls took away my veil from me”, chapter 5: 7.
JT They took it away; that was because she was in a disrespectful position. She was not in her place.