I CORINTHIANS 11:10

It is best to begin with the context of this verse within the whole of the First Corinthian Letter.

The Structure of I Corinthians

I. Opening Greetings (1:1-3)

II. General Admonitions (1:4-6:20)

                        III. Responses to Corinthian Questions (7:1-16:12)

                                        A. Marriage (7:1-40)

                                                                        B. Pagan Worship (8:1-11:1)

C. Church Practices (11:2-34)

1. Head covering (11:2-16)

                                    2. Lord’s supper (11:17-34)

B'. Use of Spiritual Gifts (chs. 12-14)

C'. The resurrection (ch. 15)

A'. Contributions and Visits (16:1-12)

    II'. General Admonitions (16:13-18)

I'. Final Greetings (16:19-24)

In both bolded sections, the mystical relationship of God and Christ is discussed (11:3 and 15:23-28). More specifically, both sections allude to Christian ordinances: the Lord’s Supper in 11:23-34 and baptism in ch. 15. In addition, the subject of Christ's Second Coming appears prominently in both (11:26 and 15:23).

Commentaries on Genesis 3 appear in 11:3-13 and 15:21-22. There is an interesting correlation between I Cor. 11:7 in which man (but not apparently woman) is said to be in the image of God and I Cor. 15:49 in which it is strongly inferred that all humankind in made in God's image. The subjection of Christ to the Father is taught in 11:3 and 15:28.

The most obvious verbal correspondences between these sections appear in their opening verses in which Paul discusses the necessity of the Corinthians to “maintain” the “traditions” that Paul “delivered” to them. The similarities are even closer between 11:23 and 15:3, which form a chiastic pair:

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (11:23)

            “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received.” (15:3)

All of the above argues for the authenticity of Section C1 within Paul's letter. The only dissenting indications of that are (a) an admission that the overall literary structure would be somewhat tighter if C1 were omitted altogether so that C and C' would be solely concerned with theological points centered on the two Christian ordinances of communion and baptism and (b) a fact noted by one commentator to the effect that Paul nowhere else in his letters ends up an argument with an appeal to nature as he does in I Corinthians 11:14-15. But excising this passage is probably a drastic measure to take simply because one is having difficulty accepting or understanding what Paul is saying.

But in view of the fact that I Corinthians 11:2-16 deals with a very culturally-determined item such as women's apparel and hairstyle, the reader is certainly free to look for the overall intent and theme of Paul's comments here rather than concentrating on the letter of his “commands.” In that respect, it is also worth noting that Paul nowhere claims that his ideas on the subject come from a word from the Lord, and he ends his argument by appealing to church “custom” instead.

With that prologue out of the way, let us turn to the most confusing passage in both Sections C and C', that which concerns head coverings in I Corinthians 11:2-16. And within that passage, I would have to agree with Gordon Fee that v. 10 “is one of the truly difficult texts in this letter.”

    “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” (KJV)

The underlined phrase is alternatively translated as “(a symbol of authority) on her head” (NRSV), “a veil on her head” (RSV), “an outward sign of man's authority on her head” (J.B. Phillips), “a sign of authority on her head” (NEB), “her dignity on her head” (Living Bible), “authority over her own head” (NIV), and “a symbol of the authority over them” (JB). Some alternative readings and explanatory notes provided in these translations include: “a veil is a symbol of authority” (RSV), alternative reading “and therefore a woman should keep her dignity on her head” (NEB), and “or have freedom of choice regarding her head” (NRSV).

The key word exousia, translated as “power” in the KJV, is defined by Betz as freedom of choice, right, power, authority, or ruling power. Gordon Fee points out that “there is no known evidence either that exousia is ever taken in [the] passive sense or that the idiom 'to have authority over' ever refers to an external authority different from the subject of the sentence.” In other words, any interpretation of v. 10 which implies that the woman has an external authority over her other than God, such as man for example, is in error.

But why do some translations render exousia as “veil?” Fee states that it is a “strange choice” in light of the fact that there is only one earlier precedent for such a usage in earlier Greek literature. And Colin Brown says that such a translation “obscures the point.” Bruce Metzger notes that although there is no doubt that all early NT manuscripts have exousia for this verse, RSV chose “veil” on the basis of its inclusion as an explanatory note in certain early translations and in the writings of the Church Fathers.

Fee locates one of our prime difficulties in interpretation: it is an ad hoc response by Paul to a query posed by the Corinthian church of which we have no record. Therefore we need to guess as to its nature, which may have also provided definitions for key terms such as “authority” and “angels” used by Paul in his response. And Mundle adds, “The brevity of Paul's reference makes it difficult to be certain of the correct interpretation.”

So turning next to the final phrase in this problem verse, we come to variations such as “because of the angels” (KJV), “out of respect for the angels” (NEB), “for fear of the angels” (NEB alternative), and “for all the angels to notice and rejoice in.” (Living Bible).

As to why the angels come into this verse at all, a number of reasons have been given over the years:

    1. Knox states, “Angels were thought of as administering the divine order (see 1 Tim. 5:21). This same idea is expressed in a footnote in the Jerusalem Bible: “Apparently a reference to angels as being the guardians of public order in public worship.”

Fee's comment on this possibility is that “it is difficult to imagine how the angels themselves are affected.” And Jaubert claims that there is no support for thinking angels are guardians of order in public worship.

    2. Horsley says that “'because of the angels' is probably an allusion to women's claim that in their prophetic inspiration or ecstasy they have 'authority' to let their hair flow freely so that their head is uncovered.” (Note that in his comment, he interprets the whole matter in terms of hairstyle, whether piled up on top of the head or flowing down, rather than a question of veiling or not.)

Fee alludes to this interpretation as a possibility. But he adds that although the women do have freedom in this matter because they felt they were already like the angels (see 7:1) or because they spoke the language of angels (13:1), they should still remember they are not independent of the man and therefore should exercise their freedom responsibly by continuing the custom of being covered.

    3. Payne points to I Corinthians 6:3 in which Paul says the saints will judge angels. “Paul's point would then be that in light of the fact that these same women will someday judge angels, they should already exercise authority over their heads in these insignificant matters.”

    4. Jaubert expresses the opinion that the reason for citing angels is that they are the ones responsible for transmitting prayers to God, according to Revelation 8:3.

    5. Another possibility is to translate the final phrase as “'because the angels do', i.e. reverently veil their faces before God (Is. 6:2).” (Hillyer, Marsh)

    6. Grosheide expresses the unique view that the “angels...were witnesses of the creation of the woman from the man and thus it was necessary for the women to cover their heads on account of the angels when she approached the Lord.” I must admit that I do not really see the logic in this sentence, and I have not seen any scholars who follow Grosheide's lead in this matter.

    7. Some feel that the angels are indeed present during worship services, but as observers and not necessarily in order to ensure order or to relay prayers to God. Marsh mentions this possibility and cites Luke 15:7. Similarly, Lowery points to passages such as I Corinthians 4:9; Ephesians 3:10; I Timothy 5:21; and Psalm 103:20-21 to prove the same point. One could also go to Revelation 1:20 for the idea that there is a guardian angel for each congregation, an idea which Orr and Walther appear to endorse.

    8. Lowery also mentions the minority view that “angels” in the language of the church could stand for “pastors.” If that is true, then the reason for veiling of women would be so as not to tempt the leaders of the congregation to sin. He goes on to list other less acceptable explanations including: (1) good angels learn from the women's example and (2) conversely, good angels might be tempted by a woman's insubordination to do the same thing.

    9. I have actually saved one of the oldest interpretations for the end, namely, that evil angels might be tempted sexually by the sight of unveiled women in the congregation. Hillyer notes, “Tertullian considered that bad angels were meant here and that Paul was warning against a repetition of the sin of Gn. 6:1-4.”

Orr and Walther are among those scholars who vehemently deny that the angels in heaven would have been thought as lusting after human females. That only applied to evil spirits or fallen angels.

You may be wondering at this point where all this bewildering number of interpretations leaves us, other than being totally confused. Much of it boils down to the balance between (1) a somewhat, in our mind, restrictive view of woman's position as reflected in ancient human customs and (2) a more enlightened Christian viewpoint. Several authors attempt to walk this tightrope, and so I will leave you with their thoughts to consider:

    Colin Brown: “In Christ she has an equal status before God. M.D. Hooker argues that the veil was a sign of this new authority which was denied her in the synagogue...The wearing of the veil manifests both the liberty and the restraint that belongs to the woman in Christ. The liberty (as in all things) derives from freedom in Christ; the restraint (as elsewhere) derives from the ordering of society which has divine sanction.”

    Gordon Fee comments on the view that the “authority” refers to a woman's new-found freedom to pray and prophesy along with the man. “She should therefore continue to be covered, but to do so now as a sign of her new liberty in Christ. Attractive as this solution is, one must finally admit that it is not adequately supported in the text itself.”

    Marsh says that “under authority” may refer to being under a man's authority or having her own authority. He feels that no contradiction exists between the two ideas. “The concept fundamental to all cultures utilizing the veil, is the subjection of woman to man. Yet within the realm of subjection, the woman has a place of authority, dignity, respect and security. This is provided by the veil itself which preserves her dignity in contrast to the unveiled woman whose bare face is the evidence of loose morals.” Of course, this says nothing regarding those societies today who do not utilize the veil.

Fee wisely concludes by saying, “But finally, again, we must admit that we cannot be sure.”