1 Corinthians 11:4-12 and Women Veiling Revisited

 I've been working through 1 Corinthians on and off, translating it for my morning devotions, and I recently came to chapter eleven where Paul talks about what is normally translated as "head coverings." I'd like to retranslate it in different way with some cultural explanation. What may not be obvious to the modern reader is that married Roman women wore what was called the "palla." This was a cloth which was wrapped around the body and draped over the head. A married woman wasn't considered either respectable or modest without it, and it symbolized her husband's authority over her. Refusing to wear it could result in a divorce. Virgin Priestesses also wore a head covering, presumably as a symbol of their god's authority over them.Young, unmarried women were not expected to wear it until their wedding day. Slave women and prostitutes also did not wear it. What is interesting is that even Greco-Roman goddesses wore it, hence "Pallas Athena." With this in mind, let's revisit 1 Corinthians 11:4-12:

"Every single man praying or prophesying having something down over his head disgraces his head. Yet every single wife praying or prophesying by unveiling her head disgraces her head (i.e. her husband); because it is one and the self-same thing with being shaved. Because if the wife isn't veiled, let her also be sheared; and if it is shameful for a wife to be sheared or shaved, then let her be veiled. Because the man is in fact not obligated for his head to be veiled starting off as an image and reputation of God; but the wife is a reputation of her husband. Because a husband isn't of His wife, but a wife is through her husband. For this reason the wife is obligated to have a sign of authority on her head because of the envoys. Except neither a wife is separate from her husband nor is her husband separate from his wife with the Lord; because just like the wife is of the husband, so also is the husband through the wife; and the everything is from the God."

What Paul is writing here pertains to the Greco-Roman culture of the period and people in which and to which he was writing. An unveiled woman was either expected to be an unmarried child, a slave girl, or a whore because that was their culture and society. While women did have some rights under Roman law, their husbands or fathers were their legal protection and were legally responsible for them. An unveiled married woman was refusing to recognize her husband's legal protection and authority over her, and he had every reason and right to divorce her for it in their society and under Roman law. If she didn't want his authority, he didn't have to give it. This is what Paul is speaking to.
     So then what "Christian" principles can actually be taken from this passage then? Paul is operating from the perspective of "love the person next to you like yourself" and "treat others like you want to be treated." In this case, the wife loving her husband by respecting his societal authority over her. He's also operating from the perspective of following societal norms as much as was possible for a Christian to do. Does it automatically translate to modern societal norms? Not really. Should we be implementing ancient Roman societal norms as Biblically mandated? No, not unless you want to bring back slavery and the right of a father to reject his own offspring and leave it by the side of the road to die or be picked up by slavers. But the principles of "love the person next to you like yourself" and" treat others how you want to be treated" are transferable into a modern context, even between husbands and wives.