The ESV and head coverings
- Thread starter Skyler
- Start date
- Status
TaylorOtwell
Puritan Board Junior
In Tactius' Annals 11.27, he mentions that the bride "assumed the veil" during a marriage. Plutarch also makes mention of "veiling the bride".
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Thanks Taylor. The translations of Tacitus I'm seeing don't reference a veil, though. See here:
Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, Book XI, chapter 27
Where does Plutarch's reference come from?
Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, Book XI, chapter 27
Where does Plutarch's reference come from?
jason d
Puritan Board Freshman
Here is an answer I've heard before: Should Christian women wear head coverings?
Excerpt from the link:
But why is hair an issue in this passage? The Apostle Paul is addressing something in the Corinthian culture that was being allowed to disrupt the church. Women in service in the pagan temples had their heads shaved. It marked them as pagan temple prostitutes. Paul says in this passage that a woman who is shorn or shaved should be covered (1 Corinthians 11:6), for a woman shorn or shaved of her hair had lost her "glory," and she was not under the protection of a husband. A shorn head without a covering was equivalent to saying, "I refuse to submit to God's order." Therefore, the Apostle Paul is teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a "covering" by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority. This was important because the Corinthian church was to be separate from the corrupt pagan culture of Corinth (2 Corinthians 6:17).
God's order is that the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ, but there is no inequality or inferiority implied. God and Christ are equal and united, just as the husband and the wife are one. This is not a passage that teaches the woman is inferior to man or that she should be submissive to every man. It is teaching God's order and spiritual headship in the marriage relationship. In the Corinthian culture, a woman who covered her head during worship or when she was in public displayed her submission to authority.
Excerpt from the link:
But why is hair an issue in this passage? The Apostle Paul is addressing something in the Corinthian culture that was being allowed to disrupt the church. Women in service in the pagan temples had their heads shaved. It marked them as pagan temple prostitutes. Paul says in this passage that a woman who is shorn or shaved should be covered (1 Corinthians 11:6), for a woman shorn or shaved of her hair had lost her "glory," and she was not under the protection of a husband. A shorn head without a covering was equivalent to saying, "I refuse to submit to God's order." Therefore, the Apostle Paul is teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a "covering" by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority. This was important because the Corinthian church was to be separate from the corrupt pagan culture of Corinth (2 Corinthians 6:17).
God's order is that the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ, but there is no inequality or inferiority implied. God and Christ are equal and united, just as the husband and the wife are one. This is not a passage that teaches the woman is inferior to man or that she should be submissive to every man. It is teaching God's order and spiritual headship in the marriage relationship. In the Corinthian culture, a woman who covered her head during worship or when she was in public displayed her submission to authority.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Brent: I've heard that the pagan temple in question had been destroyed by the Roman invaders some 200 years prior. That's why I'm looking for original sources--people have a tendency to come up with historical explanations to suit their exegetical interpretations. The "Eye of the Needle" gate at Jerusalem is another such example.
Here's some interesting information on the subject
"First century culture" is a convienient term to avoid discussing the topic of angels, and what it means that the bible says headcoverings are a sign to the angels, and does it mean fallen angels or good angels or both, and do the angels today still recognize them.
(Unless you go to the local quasi Christian college in which case "first century culture" means that today it is fine to sleep with your girlfriend so long as you are committed. Strict sexual morality, headcoverings, 1 Corinthians gifts...it was all first century culture.)
(Unless you go to the local quasi Christian college in which case "first century culture" means that today it is fine to sleep with your girlfriend so long as you are committed. Strict sexual morality, headcoverings, 1 Corinthians gifts...it was all first century culture.)
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Be that as it may, I don't plan to grab onto the "angels" verse and ignore the rest of the passage.
Interesting, thank you for that. I'll have to look into it.
Is it possible that a head covering was a "conservative" sign that a woman was married? Kind of like wedding rings are thought of as today? I'm just thinking out loud.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Well, two things here.
First off, veilings are mentioned in connection with women (not necessarily wives) throughout the Old Testament, from Rebekah to Song of Solomon to Ezekiel. It seems to be used symbolically in the Old Testament for subjection or submission (see Ezekiel 13, Isaiah 25:7)
Secondly, wedding rings are a bad comparison because both men and women wear them.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Okay, checking Bruce Winter's references (thanks Phil):
Plutarch refers to a bridal veiling in "Advice to the Bride and Groom", 138D; Tacitus, in his Annals, XV.37.
I don't see a bridal veiling in the other references (Annals XI.27 and Juvenal's Satires 2.119ff & 10.333ff). That may be a translation difference, I don't know.
Plutarch refers to a bridal veiling in "Advice to the Bride and Groom", 138D; Tacitus, in his Annals, XV.37.
I don't see a bridal veiling in the other references (Annals XI.27 and Juvenal's Satires 2.119ff & 10.333ff). That may be a translation difference, I don't know.
After some more digging it looks like Julius Caesar rebuilt Corinth in 44 B.C. He restored the temples and added many other buildings. It became the capital in the area and had as many as 700,000 residents. It was mostly destroyed in 77 A.D. by an earthquake.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Jonathan
Husbands - whether Christian or not - don't always have a wedding ring.
I think this passage has been subject to reinterpretation since the rise of the feminist movement. Men don't tend to complain that they can't wear a hat in church and shouldn't have long hair.
Husbands - whether Christian or not - don't always have a wedding ring.
I think this passage has been subject to reinterpretation since the rise of the feminist movement. Men don't tend to complain that they can't wear a hat in church and shouldn't have long hair.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Neither do wives.
But if you want wedding rings to be the symbol in question, you'd have to say men are forbidden from wearing them.
I think that should tell us something.
- Status
