We can prove that the usual interpretation of St. Paul’s words about veiling is wrong, because it is a misfit all around.
MISFIT#1 Dr. Weymouth, substitutes something totally different from what the text says. The text reads, “ought to have power,” while Dr. Weymouth, following the usual interpretation, says, “ought to have “power,” here exousia, meaning authority, right; the same word for “power,” and preposition for on, epi, (often translated “over”), with the same construction, will be found in many places, - for instance,
Rev. 11:6, “They have power over waters to turn them to blood.” and likewise in Matthew, Mar, and Luke, in the sentence, “The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” Furthermore, the original text here has never been called into question the reading is as simple as it could possibly be, “The woman ought to have power over (rendered “on” in the English Versions) her head. No scholar questions this.
At this place, the Authorised Version introduces the longest Marginal Note to be found in the whole Bible. Where Paul says, “ought to have power,” the Note reads, “That is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband.” This is certainly a most extraordinary substitute for the words of Scripture. Had it read merely, that she was to be “under power” even that would have been a contradiction of the explicit statement of St. Paul; but they add to this contradicting though: The woman is not only expected to yield to authority, instead of wielding authority, but also to “wear a sign” that she renounces the authority Paul gives her. And not only is she to renounce that authority, but to renounce it in favour of a particular person, - her husband. The BIBLE/St. Paul says nothing of this sort, but the Marginal Note, and the Bible Commentators teach it.
For our part, we think it suspicious because that husbands, not wives, have discovered this extraordinary meaning for St. Paul’s words. If indeed a woman should wear “a sign of subjection” (and scholars can produce no Scriptural proof that a veil is a sign of subjection) then why should it not rather be a sign of subjection to God, who she serves in prophesying, or who she addresses in prayer?
Why is the husband thrust in by husbands, at this point? Dr. J.W. Thirtle makes the sensible remark here, “The context puts in no plea for anyone outside the woman: it is THE WOMAN’S OWN AUTHORITY that is in question, and the Apostle defends it with his decisive OUGHT.” (the capitals are Dr. Thirtle’s)
The phrase in verse 10 is manifestly a conclusion – the ergo – of all the foregoing arguments of the passage. Now we ask, If you were arguing a point, would you, or would you not, know the point you were arguing? Certainly you would know it. And would know how to state your point? Certainly, even if you could not argue it, for you have your right mind. St. Paul was a highly intelligent person, and to pretend that he know how to argue a point, but could not express the point in plain words, is puerile.
Whether Paul knew how to argue clearly or not, he knew how to state what he was arguing about, or St. Paul’s intelligence was far below the average man’s. And when we believe that St. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote, then we must yield at once that verse 10 means what it says, and we dare not reject its teaching for the “vain traditions of men.”
Hybrid Mode
