Appendix
3
"Symbol
of Authority"
Rex Banks
As I read 1 Cor 11:10 Paul is saying
that the Christian woman is duty bound to exercise or retain the proper control
or government over her head and he is insisting upon this because sisters at Corinth had failed to exercise this control (see
Text). However generations
of able students of scripture have understood Paul to be affirming that the woman “ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” (NASB). True the words "symbol of" do not occur in the Greek text,
but many hold that the addition of these words brings out Paul's meaning here.
The words "symbol of " or "sign of" (NIV) or their
equivalent do not occur in the Greek
text. These words or their equivalent are added to the English text (or in some
cases placed in a footnote) because translators have felt that they help us
with the meaning. In their view, context
suggests that in this verse Paul is saying that the woman is to wear a covering
as a sign that she is under the authority
of the man. According to Calvin " In the term power,
there is an instance of metonymy, for he means a token by which she declares
herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it
be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of covering." Thus "authority" in v 10a is
understood by most as a metonym, a
figure of speech whereby one thing is used to stand for another. In this case authority is taken to mean ‘semeion, exousias’ (symbol of authority).”
Now, those who take this position acknowledge that they take authority as a metonym because of context. “The clear drift of the
context is that the authority must be the man’s” (McGuiggan p 149). McGuiggan
says that the context is “persuasive.” Certainly the Bible furnishes many
examples of metonym, and certainly context
often plays a key role in identifying this figure of speech. For example, in
Numbers 6, we read of the nazirite vow. A key word in this chapter is separate/separation (vv 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
12, 13, 21). In this context, speaking of the nazirite, Moses says that “...his separation
to God is on his head” (v 7 [NASB). Clearly Moses' point is that "the symbol of his separation to God (i.e.
his uncut hair) is on his head" (N.I.V). (Probably the best known example
of metonym in the Bible is the use of cup
for fruit of the vine in connection
with the Lord’s Supper.)
The word translated authority is
indeed used metonymically in the
Bible in both Testaments (Thayer p.
225). For example, the Psalmist says of
Jehovah: “Judah became His sanctuary, Israel His dominion” (Sept, exousia)
(Psalm 114:2). We understand that Israel was
subject to Jehovah’s authority, even though the words “subject to“ do not appear in the text. Thayer actually
refers to 1 Cor 11:10 in his discussion of exousia:
“D. A sign of the husband’s authority over his wife, i.e., the veil...”
So there is no reason why the word
translated "authority" could not be used metonymically in 1 Cor
11:10a. Too, the word have (echein)
is employed in the sense of wearing
in scripture (Thayer p. 266), and in fact Paul has just used it in this way (v 4).
The translators of ASB, NIV, NKJV, NASB, NEB, ESV,
New Living Translation, Young's Literal Translation and others understand sign or symbol or token to be suggested by context. RSV has "a veil," and a footnote: “Greek ‘authority’
(the veil being a symbol of this).” The KJV English Reference Bible (American Bible Society) has a marginal note: “That is, a covering in sign that she is under
the power of her husband.”
In his A Textual Commentary of the New Testament Bruce M. Metzger speaks of “the explanatory
gloss" found in 1 Cor 11:10. Metzger is referring to the fact that the
word "kalumma,” meaning "that which covers,
veil" (Rienecker/ Rogers) was placed in the text to explain "the
presumed meaning of this difficult text." According to Metzger, this
"explanatory gloss" is "read by several versional
and patristic witnesses." One manuscript which he cites, cop (bo), dates from the fourth century. Clearly the view that the word translated authority is
used metonymically in 1 Cor 11:10 is
not new.
Under “exousia” in TDNT Forster reports G. Kittels’ suggestion that exousia rests on
an Aramaic word meaning veil and comments that this is a “possibility” but
“no more than a conjecture” (vol 2, p 574). Thomas R. Schreiner points out:
“In an example very
similar to 1 Corinthians 11:10, Diodorus of Sicily
(1.47.5, written ca. BC 60-30) refers to a stone statue that has "three
kingdoms on its head (echonton treis basileias epi tes
kephales)," but it clearly means in the
context that the statue has three crowns, which are symbols of governing
kingdoms…
Moreover, the example from Diodorus is also
helpful here. The text describes a statue of the mother of King Osymandias, and
reads as follows: There is also another statue of his mother standing alone, a
monolith twenty cubits high, and it has three kingdoms on its head, signifying
that she was both daughter and wife and mother of a king (1.47.5). Here the
three crowns (which Diodorus calls kingdoms) all
represent someone else's authority - the authority of the woman's father (who
was a king), husband (who was a king), and son (who was a king). In no case is the woman's own authority
symbolized by the crowns she wears. Similarly, the head covering of the woman
in 1 Corinthians 11 may well represent the authority of the man to whom she is
subject in authority” (Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 Thomas R. Shreiner Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood editors
John Piper and Wayne Grudem Kindle Edition).
Much more could be said, but here is the point: many exegetes throughout history have understood Paul to be saying that the woman ought to wear
the covering as a sign or symbol that
she is under the authority of the man in the setting under discussion. Such an understanding of v 10a is compatible
with the position set forth in this paper. However I prefer the approach set forth in
our study of the text.