So, for example, you cannot understand even Paul's discussion of long hair and headcoverings in chapter 11 without looking to the laws of the temple of what must be in place in the presence of God's glory. Most interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11 cannot show any connection to the Old Testament whatsoever. That ought to seem strange right on the surface since Acts says that Paul never taught anything without basing it in the Old Testament (Acts 26:22; 17:10-11). There was not a single doctrine that he did not root in the Old Testament. And the same is true of long hair and head coverings. You see, temple law dictated that when you entered God's temple, all glory but the glory of God must be covered. Since the woman is the glory of man (v. 7), she must be covered with her long hair. Since her hair itself is the glory of the woman (v. 15), the hair too must be covered. Since man is the glory of God (v. 7), he must not be covered. Those three concepts of glory and covering are clearly laid out in the temple laws of the Old Testament as well as in the very unusual temple predicted in Ezekiel. And I've written a book called Glory and Coverings that shows this connection.3 And there are many other references to God's glory and other temple imagery scattered throughout 1 and 2 Corinthians.

Head Coverings and Marriage in First-Century Corinth

The translators of the English Standard Version (ESV) understood a woman's head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 to indicate that she was married. As a result, in every verse where the head covering is discussed, the ESV translates the Greek word γυνή (gunē) as "wife." In other contexts within the passage, where Paul makes broader statements about humanity or the relationship between men and women, the ESV translates γυνή as "woman."

This translation reflects the view that Paul's instructions concern the conduct of married women rather than all women universally.

Historical Evidence

Evidence that a woman's head covering signified her married status comes from both ancient literary sources and archaeological discoveries, particularly Roman artwork depicting wedding ceremonies.

Bruce Winter

Bruce W. Winter writes:

"The very mention of the word 'veil' by Paul would automatically indicate to the Corinthians that the females under discussion in this passage were married.… The marriage ceremony involved what was called in Greek 'veiling the bride' (tēn numphēn katakalupsantes). Both Tacitus and Juvenal describe the taking of 'the veil of a bride' as one of the essential components of marriage. It was the social indicator by which the marital status of a woman was made clear to everyone."¹

Ancient Literary Evidence

Plutarch (ca. AD 50–120)

Plutarch describes part of a Boeotian wedding ceremony:

"In Boeotia, after veiling the bride, they put on her head a chaplet of asparagus."

(Advice to the Bride and Groom, 138D)

Tacitus (ca. AD 56–118)

Tacitus describes a legitimate Roman marriage in which:

"...the woman assumed the veil."

(Annals 11.27; see also 15.37)

Juvenal (ca. AD 50–65)

Juvenal likewise connects the bridal veil with marriage:

"...all prepared in her flaming veil."

(Satire 10.333–334)

"...her long dress with veil."

(Satire 2.124)

These sources consistently present the veil as the public sign of a married woman.

Archaeological Evidence

Scholars have also pointed to Roman statues, funerary reliefs, and sarcophagi depicting wedding ceremonies.

These artworks consistently portray:

One well-known second-century Roman wedding sarcophagus shows exactly this arrangement, reinforcing the literary evidence that the bridal veil functioned as a public symbol of marriage.

Scholarly Support

Additional scholarly discussions include:

Observation

Taken together, the literary and archaeological evidence suggests that in the Greco-Roman world of Corinth, a woman's veil commonly functioned as a visible public indicator of marriage. This historical background explains why several modern translations—notably the ESV—translate γυνή as "wife" rather than "woman" in portions of 1 Corinthians 11, understanding Paul to be addressing the conduct of married women within that cultural context.

References

  1. Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 127. Winter cites:

    • Plutarch, Advice to the Bride and Groom 138D (Moralia 301)
    • Tacitus, Annals 11.27; 15.37
    • Juvenal, Satires 2.124; 10.333–334

  2. Roy W. Christians, “The Permanent Relevance of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 in Light of Recent Research into Its Historical and Cultural Background,” ETS Annual Meeting, 2001.

  3. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 67.

  4. David Gill, “The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16,” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 245–260.

Extended Discussion

Therefore Bruce Winter appears to be correct in concluding, with regard to 1 Corinthians 11:

Because any reference connecting a woman and a veil would immediately alert a first-century reader to the fact that she was a married woman, there are secure grounds for concluding that the issue here was married women praying and prophesying without their veil in the Christian meeting.14

But is it possible that a head covering in first-century Corinth was not a sign of being married, but was simply the way women dressed, and therefore a sign distinguishing women from men?15 This does not seem likely in light of significant evidence connecting marriage and the veiling of a woman’s head, but if it were true, it would not significantly affect our argument.

If wearing a head covering in ancient Corinth was a symbol of being a woman, that is still not the meaning for a woman wearing a head covering in western societies today. Therefore head coverings should not be required for women today.16

Answer 9.2c

Today we obey the head covering commands for women in 1 Corinthians 11 by encouraging married women to wear whatever symbolizes being married in their own cultures.

In modern American society, a married woman wears a wedding ring to give public evidence that she is married. Just as Paul was concerned that women in Corinth not throw off their veils and thereby dishonor their husbands by not acting like married women in the church services, so married women today should not hide their wedding rings or otherwise publicly dishonor their marriage when they come to church.

There are probably a number of other symbols of being married in other cultures around the world, and the application of 1 Corinthians 11 to churches in those cultures is that married women (and men!) should not discard those symbols.17

Answer 9.2d

The situation is far different with male headship in marriage and the church. These are not just outward symbols that can vary from culture to culture, but they are the reality itself.

It is easy enough to understand that a physical object can be a symbol of something else, such as a wedding ring or a head covering being a symbol of being married. Similar physical symbols include a policeman’s hat or badge, a crown, a chef’s hat, a general’s stars, or a referee’s uniform.

Similarly, we can understand how physical actions can symbolize underlying realities: a kiss, handshake, or hug may symbolize greeting; bowing may function similarly in Japanese culture; baptism and the Lord’s Supper are also symbolic actions.

But:

“Wives, submit to your own husbands,” and “Husbands, love your wives” (Ephesians 5:22, 25)

are not mere symbols. They are the reality itself. These commands describe ongoing relational realities within marriage.

Likewise, male leadership in the church (1 Timothy 2:12; 3:2) is not symbolic but structural and ongoing.

Answer 9.2e

Some Christians believe that 1 Corinthians 11 requires women in all churches for all times to wear head coverings. While this interpretation differs from mine, those who hold it should remain consistent in practice.

If they believe God commands head coverings in worship, then they should follow that conviction.

Answer 9.2f

A woman’s head covering in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is not a symbol of her authority to prophesy, but of her husband’s authority over her.

Morna Hooker argued that “authority” in verse 10 implies the woman’s own authority to speak. However, this view is debated.

Schreiner notes parallels suggesting that the head covering instead symbolizes another’s authority over the woman rather than her own.

Diodorus of Sicily provides a relevant parallel involving symbolic crowns representing relationships of authority.

Schreiner argues:

the crowns represent someone else’s authority—the father, husband, and son.

Thus, the head covering likely symbolizes the husband’s authority rather than the woman’s autonomy.

Finally, the phrase “because of the angels” is difficult, but may refer to angels observing worship and desiring proper order.

The same Greek word that describes the
practice of the Corinthian women in 11:5 (akatakalyptos ) [“unveiled,”
according to RSV ] is used in Leviticus 13:45 (LXX) 3 about a leper’s
hair, which is to hang unloosed .

The word apokalypt , which is somewhat
related to akatakalyptos , is used in Numbers 5:18, where a woman
suspected of adultery had to unbind her hair and wear it loosely. The
wearing of long, loose hair by an adulteress would support the idea
that wearing one’s hair loose was considered shameful.

The word apokalypt , which is somewhat
related to akatakalyptos , is used in Numbers 5:18, where a woman
suspected of adultery had to unbind her hair and wear it loosely. The
wearing of long, loose hair by an adulteress would support the idea
that wearing one’s hair loose was considered shameful.

Good catch — several of those overlap conceptually. Here’s a cleaner merged list with redundancies removed and the views grouped properly:

“Because of the Angels” Interpretations

1. Angels as Witnesses of Worship and Moral Order

2. Angels and the Creation Order

3. Angels and Sexual Temptation

Enter your search text in the box above

Select a result to preview

Powered by Forestry.md