After a hiatus for the past few weeks, we continue with the fourth in the summer blog series on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16….
Both the Traditional and Hyper-Conservative views of 1 Corinthians 11:21-6 generally assume that the women in Corinth were in some sort of rebellion, which prompted the Apostle Paul to issue some instruction to require the use of head coverings.
But is this “women in rebellion” assumption accurate? Another perspective, the “Symbol of Protection” view, as I call it, seriously questions that assumption, actually flipping it on its head.
Instead of admonishing the women of Corinth to put on a head covering, this perspective suggests the situation was ironically just the opposite. Women in Corinth were being encouraged to ditch the head covering, even though the women were hesitant to do so. Instead, the women of Corinth looked upon the head covering as a sign of protection, and Paul was chastising the Corinthians (mainly the men) for discouraging the women from wearing their head covering.
Everything about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 (well, maybe not “everything,” but we try to hit the highlights here at Veracity)
So, what was that all about? Like the Traditional view, this Symbol of Protection view takes the honor and shame principle seriously, but frames the idea very differently.1
A Different Twist on the Meaning of a Veil, or Head Covering
Newer scholarly research indicates that women wore a veil, not as a sign of submission to another man, but rather, as a sign of marital status. In other words, if a woman wore a veil, it generally indicated that you were married and unavailable. If a woman did not wear a veil, it indicated availability. In some cases, it indicated even more than that in a negative sense, thus encouraging activity which devalued women. It indicated that if a man were to seduce or assault a woman without a veil, he may not necessarily be held responsible for his actions.2
There are obviously some differences here, but perhaps the closest 21st century parallel to this might be the practice of wearing an engagement or wedding ring. A few years before I got married to my now wife, I had dinner with a different young lady.
I must admit that I had some interest in her, more than just as a friend, but was not sure what she thought about me. But in the midst of our dinner conversation, I noticed that she kept waving her hand every now and then in front of me. I was absolutely clueless as to what this meant at first. But about halfway through dinner I noticed that she had a ring with a big rock on it, on her finger.
It suddenly dawned on me what she was communicating to me without using words. I do not know how red my face got at the moment, but it was everything I could do to try to sink below the table and not be noticed by her, while still engaging her with meaningful conversation. It was extremely, extremely embarrassing. But right then and there, I got the message: “I am engaged to someone else, so BACK OFF, DUDE !!”
The use of the veil for protection, in the first century Greco-Roman world, was a far more serious matter than simply what a wedding or engagement ring signifies today. It was particularly important in the case of female slaves who belonged to certain households. For the Roman custom of pater familas, whereby the oldest male in the house had complete autocratic rule over the entire household, this often meant that female slaves were in many cases forbidden to wear a veil. For without a veil, the male head of the household could do anything he wanted to do with his female slave, without any need for the activity to be consensual, if you understand what I mean.3
Therefore, contrary to what many who hold to a traditional view might be led to believe, Christian women coming to a worship gathering wanted to wear the veil. Classicist Sarah Ruden put it this way:
Perhaps the new decree made independent women of uncertain status, or even slave women, honorary wives in this setting. If women complied… you could have looked at a congregation and not necessarily been able to tell who was an honored wife and mother and who had been forced, or maybe was still being forced, to serve twenty or thirty men a day (Ruden, Paul Among the People, p. 82)
Instead of trying to subjugate women, Paul wanted to level the field and teach women that they were on the same standing before Christ as anyone else was. The veil was their protection, and it served as a sign that among the people of God, Jesus wanted to give these women dignity and honor.
This is why it is fair to call this the “Symbol of Protection” view as opposed to the “Symbol of Authority” view common in more traditional viewpoints, with respect to what the head covering actually signifies. More than a few complementarians will be very sympathetic to this view (men and women alike), for they believe that men have a moral obligation to protect women, who broadly speaking, in comparison to men, are more vulnerable in society. There are exceptions, of course, but even scientific research has demonstrated that on the whole, women are physically weaker than men. Women who are aware of this may greatly appreciate having a gentleman offer protection, without being offended. 4
An engagement or wedding ring, in much of Western culture, is symbolic in communicating that a woman is “taken,” and is no longer “available.” In first century Greco-Roman culture, we have evidence to indicate that the veil or head covering served a similar yet more serious purpose for women. Particularly, it was useful as a means of communicating a necessary boundary to men in a highly patriarchal society, where sexual abuse perpetuated by the highest ranking male in a household (the Roman pater familias order of household relations) was common and morally justified.
A Symbol of Authority “On” Her Head, or Her Authority “Over” Her Head?
Egalitarians are also very much drawn to the appeal of the Symbol of Protection view, for much of the same reasons. Plus, at least for some, this perspective helps to resolve one of the more thorny issues of bible translation in this passage. The ESV translation of verse 10 reads below (hold off on the “angels” part until we get to a later blog post in the series):
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
The big translation issue in this verse has to deal with the phrase “a symbol of authority on her head,” which has puzzled scholars for many, many decades, if not centuries. It is generally accepted that “head” (Greek: kephale) here is about the woman’s physical head that she has on her shoulders, but the rest of the phrase is difficult to parse through. That phrasing is an interpretive move made by translators, favoring a traditional interpretation. The NASB version, which is more word-for-word than the ESV is, has italics showing where parts of the verse were added, in order to try to make the verse make some sense (I have the additional words not found in the original Greek emphasized in bold below):
Therefore the woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
In other words, the phrase “a symbol of” was added by the NASB translators into the text as an aid to readability, while also favoring a particular traditional translation. The Common English Bible (CEB), along with a few other translations, like the NIV 2011, gives an alternative reading to this difficult verse, which still fits the grammar:
Because of this a woman should have authority over her head, because of the angels.
Do you see the difference?
This CEB translation lends toward a different interpretation, suggesting that the woman should have the authority herself as to whether or not to wear a head covering, “authority over“, instead of being pressured by someone else (most probably the men) not to wear the head covering. Advocates of the translation favored by the CEB argue that the use of the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) can only have the meaning of the woman “possessing authority,” rather than being subject to the man’s authority, as this latter definition suggests a kind of meaning never found elsewhere with this word in the New Testament, where the word is used 103 times!
Paul does not want the men to dictate a woman’s status. Rather, a woman’s status is to be seen as on an equal footing and dignity within the sight of God. This is largely why a number of biblical scholars see the Symbol of Protection view of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as particularly compelling. 5
The odds are slim, but older translations might still be correct with respect to how to best translate verse 10. However, a closer look at that topic can be saved to a future blog post in this series.
Many, but not all advocates of this view believe that the principle of male “headship” is more about the man being the “source” of the woman, as opposed to being the “authority” over the woman. But this Symbol of Protection view still fits within a more nuanced understanding of “headship” in terms of “preeminence” (or “prominence”), which is more of a middle way between “authority” and “source.”
The big point raised by the Symbol of Protection view, particularly for those who make their appeal to a revised interpretation of verse 10, is that this passage is less about men exercising authority over women and more about women having their own authority in determining what to wear on their head, if anything. Instead of viewing the veil as a sign of subjection and burden, the veil would mean something quite different, as it signaled to everyone within the Christian community that women were highly valued among the people of God.
If that does not shake up the way you read this passage, I am not sure what will. Is it the most biblically accurate view? Well, you will need to stick around for future installments in this blog series to figure that out, and prayerfully ask God for wisdom.
Next time, we will dig into yet another perspective on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the Hairstyle view.
Notes:
1. New Testament scholar Cynthia Long Westfall is one of the most well-known advocates for this “Symbol of Protection” view. See Veracity blog post includes a brief discussion of Dr. Westfall’s view, articulated in her Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ. ↩
2. Ulpian Digest Book 47.10.15 says, “If someone accost maidens, even those in slave’s garb, his offense is regarded as venial, even more so if the women be in prostitute’s dress and not that of a matron. Still, if the woman be not in the dress of a matron and someone accost her or abduct her attendant, he will be liable to the action for insult.” Also, see Sarah Ruden: ‘For a Roman woman, “to get married” and “to veil oneself” were exactly the same word… The veil was the flag of female virtue, status, and security’. (Ruden, Paul Among the People, p. 80). A review of Paul Among the People is found on a previous Veracity blog post. For another summary of the “Symbol of Protection” view, see Jackson Wu’s Patheos blog. ↩
3. The New Testament completely reshaped how Roman culture viewed women. It took a few centuries for this to work itself through, but the pater familias ethic of the pagan world gave way to the Christian view that offered women a greater dignity and status. The propagation of this New Testament mindset was far from complete during the medieval era, when Christianity became the supreme cultural influence in Europe, but it drastically improved the conditions in which medieval women were subjected. ↩
4. The hotly debated topic today of trans-women participating in women’s sports is one where historically orthodox Christians and most scientifically-informed secularists and classical liberals actually agree: men should protect women, and should make every effort to preserve the integrity of women’s sports. ↩
5. See discussion in Andrew Bartlett’s Men and Women in Christ, see chapters 7 and 8, particularly pp.175ff…….The NIV 2011 follows the CEB translation of 1 Corinthians 11:10. Variations do exist among holders of the “Symbol of Protection” view. In Mike Winger’s video from the first blog post in this series, Mike calls it the “Cloth Covering but Not Submission” view, analyzing the scholarship of Asbury Seminary’s Craig Keener, an outspoken evangelical egalitarian. Andrew Bartlett in his Men and Women in Christ makes a strong argument for the NIV 2011 and CEB translation of 1 Corinthians 11:10 (p. 176ff). Interestingly, Kevin DeYoung, a well-known “broad” complementarian, says that translations like the NIV 2011 and the CEB offer no substantial difference to the case he is trying to make. For DeYoung, a woman’s authority over her own head is about recognizing that she has the authority to prophecy and pray in public during a worship service (p. 55). ↩
Veracity 
July 22nd, 2023 at 10:55 pm
Hi Clarke,
My personal belief is that Paul is responding to a faction of men who want women to be veiled while praying or prophesying. I believe that Paul is repeating the words of the men in vss. 4-6. The men are making a literal head argument saying, “Every woman who has her head unveiled while praying or prophesying disgraces her [own] head….” This is why Paul gives his model (vs.3) with the figurative meaning of “head.” So, in verse 7, Paul starts his rebuttal to the men to explain why women are not to be veiled. Paul says, “For a man indeed ought not to veil his head, since He (Christ, vs. 3) is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man….” So, I believe that Paul is telling the men that just as a man ought not to veil his head (Christ, vs.3), since He is the image and glory of God, so also the man ought not to veil the woman since she is his glory. I do believe that “hyparchon” (V-PPA-NMS) is referring to “Christos” (N-NMS) in verse 3. I do not believe that it is referring to “aner” (N-NMS) in verse 7. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the image and glory of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, John 1:14, Heb. 1:3, Phil. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:23). Male and female are created IN the image of God, but only Jesus Christ IS the very image of God.
Also, I believe the ISV has the correct translation of vss. 14-15. The ISV translates these verses as, “Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair nor that hair is a woman’s glory, since hair is given as a substitute for coverings.”
So, Paul is telling the men that nature does not teach us that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him because God has allowed men to grow long hair if they so choose. If God did not want men to grow long hair, then He would have disallowed it through nature, just as He has disallowed women from growing mustaches or beards through nature. Also, Paul is saying that nature does not teach us that long hair is a woman’s glory (as many women have unmanageable hair – frizzy, flat, thin, etc.) therefore, women may cut their hair if they so choose.
Also notice that in verse 14 Paul says, “Not even nature itself teaches you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him….” Notice here that Paul is talking about a man’s literal “head”, not his “figurative” head, Christ. This is because the faction of men had made the case, in verse 5, that “Every man who has anything (anything would include hair) down over his head, disgraces his [own] head. Again, the men are making a literal head argument. And Paul is refuting their argument.
Anyway, this is just what I believe. Thanks for allowing me to share.
LikeLike
July 23rd, 2023 at 8:34 am
Hi, Kristen. Thank you for writing a most thoughtful response in this comment. You have had my mind turning!
The late Gordon Fee does comment that the normal translation of verse 7, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he [man] is the image and glory of God” is “especially surprising in light of v. 3, where Christ, not God, is designated as ‘man’s’ head.” (Fee, 1 Corinthians, NICNT, first edition, p. 513).
So, your suggestion that “head” in v. 7 should be understood figuratively to mean “Christ” and not “head” would give the contextual basis for saying that “Christ is the image and glory of God,” and not “man.” What is odd though is that I have not found any other translation/commentator who goes along with your suggestion. It is indeed a difficult verse, so it is hard to make a dogmatic call on this, but it is curious that no other English translation goes this way that you suggest. If only Paul had specifically mentioned “Christ” in verse 7 would this have clarified things.
As to your affinity towards the ISV rendering of vss. 14-15, “Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair nor that hair is a woman’s glory, since hair is given as a substitute for coverings,” it would be helpful to know why the ISV translators opted to flip the logic around, as compared to just about every other English translation out there. I am not a NT Greek expert by any means, so I can only defer to those who have expertise in this area.
I go along with Gordon Fee, as well as many others, who contend that Paul’s argument from “nature” in vss. 14-15 is different from his argument from “creation,” as found in v. 3, in the which the latter in verse 3 partly recalls the Genesis creation account. “Indeed, the very appeal to ‘nature’ in this way suggests most strongly that the argument is by way of analogy, not of necessity.” (Fee, 1 Corinthians, NICNT, first edition, p. 527).
As you appear to indicate, you favor some form of the quotation/refutation hypothesis to explain this pericope. Without stealing too much thunder from a future blog post, I find the quotation/refutation concept very compelling for a number of passages in 1 Corinthians. But when it comes to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the Q/R model becomes very complex to apply. I have seen multiple proposals that make use of the Q/R model, but at crucial points they all seem to contradict one another.
I already have that post queued up, so I do not have time to amend it before then. You can let me know how well I handled the Q/R reading within the next few weeks when that post gets published. Thank you again for being so thoughtful. Blessings to you!
LikeLike