1 Corinthians 11:2-16

The Text

Rex Banks

Verse 10

Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels (NASB)

For this cause ought a woman to have power on her head... (KJV)

This verse opens with “Therefore” (NASB) or “For this cause” (KJV) “For this reason” (NKJV) and translates διά τοῦτο. This phrase is common in the New Testament but it is not always easy to decide if it points backwards to what has just been said or forward in anticipation of a reason which is about to be given. In my view Fee is correct that “Most likely 'for this reason' functions here, as it often does in Paul, in both directions at once” (p. 518). I will explain why I favor this view when we look at the closing words of this verse (“because of the angels").

This is a challenging verse. Under the heading ἐξουσία: Power? Authority? Control? Over What? (11:10), Anthony C. Thiselton begins his discussion of this verse:

“It is noteworthy that NJB and NIV have sign of [the] authority: NAB has a sign of submission; while NRSV has symbol of authority; all in contrast to AV/KJV’s omission of sign; for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head (by 1881 RV inserted a sign of in italics). K.N. Taylor’s Living Letters renders the Greek a sign that she is under man’s authority; while J. B. Philips paraphrases, an outward sign of man’s authority. However while it retains the intrusive sign of, REB clearly follows Hooker by translating a woman must have the sign of her [the woman’s own] authority on her head, in contrast to NJB’s a sign of the authority over her; while NIV remains neutral and can be interpreted either way” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text p. 838).

Clearly then this is a challenging verse.

Throughout history many students of scripture have understood Paul to be saying 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. They understand 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. This may be the case, and clearly such an understanding of v 10a is compatible with Paul’s instructions in this passage. Others summarily dismiss this approach. In Appendix 3 (Symbol of Authority) I have discussed some points in favor of this position.

I take the view that there is no need to add the words “symbol of” to the text in order to make sense of Paul’s argument.

Keep in mind that Paul is speaking of something which the woman "ought" to do.

“(T)he the focus of verse 10 is not freedom but obligation: it describes what the woman ought (όφείλει) to do in line with the thrust of the preceding context” (Kenneth M. Gardoski Women in the Church—the Matter of Public Speaking: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:34 Journal of Ministry and Theology Vol 12:1 Spring 2008 pp. 106, 107).

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament has the following on the word translated “ought”:

“ὀφείλω. impf. ὤφειλον; owe, be indebted (to); (1) literally, of financial indebtedness owe something to someone (PM 18); (2) figuratively; (a) of a sense of indebtedness to someone for something ought, be under obligation (RO 13. 8); (b) predominately in the NT to express obligation, necessity, duty be obligated; with an infinitive following must, ought to (JN 13. 14).”

So the woman is being told that she is under obligation to do something. She is under obligation to “have … authority on her head” (ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς) (NASB):

“(T)he focus of the verse is not on freedom. Instead, the text says ‘the woman ought (opheilei) to have authority on her head.’ The word ought shows that a command is being given here to women as to how they ought to adorn themselves when they prophesy (cf. 11:5); it communicates an obligation, not a freedom” (Schreiner).

Consider the following points:

· Both KJV and NASB translate the preposition “επι” in v 10a as "on" (“on her head”). However here is an interesting fact: επι follows, and is linked to, the word “power/authority” (ἐξουσία) another ten times in the New Testament, and in nine of these ten instances, the KJV uses the word “over” for επι, while in all ten instances, NASB also uses “over.” What does this suggest? It suggests that if it was not for contextual considerations "επι" would have been translated "over” here in 1 Cor 11:10a as well.

· The word translated power/authority is ἐξουσία in the accusative (εξουσιαν). The concordance tells us that this word followed by the preposition επι occurs another ten times in the New Testament. Look at the following:

· The twelve are given “power and authority over all the demons and to heal diseases” (Lk 9:1)

· The seventy are given “authority …over all the power of the enemy” (Lk 10:19)

· The slave in the parable is given “authority over ten cities” (Lk 19:17)

· The overcomer will be given “authority over the nations” (Rev 2:26)

· Death is given “authority … over a fourth of the earth” (Rev 6:8)

· The two witnesses have “power over the waters to turn them into blood” (Rev 11:6)

· The beast is given “authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation” (Rev 13:7)

· The angel has “power over fire” (Rev 14:18)

· God has “power over (the) plagues” (Rev 16:9)

· The second death has “no power” over the one who has a part in the first resurrection” (Rev 20:6)

In each case the individual or entity receiving or possessing “authority” or “power” has the ability to exercise control over the individual(s) or thing(s) nominated. The cities, nations, waters, plagues etc are subject to the individual or entity receiving or possessing the authority or power. The idea of control, government, ruler-ship and such like is to the fore. For example Robertson and Plummer say: "In Rev 11:6... (the expression) means ‘have control over the waters;’ 14:18 ...having control over fire;’ 20:6 “over these the second death has no control.’ Comp Rom 9:21; 1Cor. 7:37; the Sept of Dan 3:30 (p. 97)."

Thus when Thayer discusses ἐξουσία, he does so under four main headings, and he cites nine of these ten verses as examples of the following meaning: “(The) power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and words must be submitted to by others and obeyed)” (p 225 [emphasis mine]). The tenth occurrence, Lk 10:19 is not mentioned by Thayer as an example of this meaning, but it is clear that this is also its meaning (see below). In similar vein, speaking of επι with the genitive, Blass and Debrunner have: “(5) metaphorically, ‘over’, of authority, control” (Blass and Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament p. 122).

Now look at the word translated “have" (ἔχω) in 1 Cor 11:10a. This can also be rendered (among other things) hold or keep, maintain, retain, and the like (Thayer p. 266; NASB Exhaustive Concordance p. 1654). Thiselton tells us:

“Although (εχειν – “have” – Rex) often means to have, abundant examples of its use to denote to keep, to hold, to retain, also occur in the New Testament. Moreover επι with the genitive (here επι της κεφαλης) does not always have the force of power over; it often denotes control of something as well as … on something) (p. 839).

In view of the above I believe that the most natural meaning of 1 Cor 11:10a is this:

“Therefore the woman is under obligation/duty bound to have/keep/retain control/ mastery/government over her head.”

This an acceptable rendering of this verse, a verse which and in my view plays a key role in 1 Cor 11:2-16, linking this passage to the wider context (11:2-14:40) and to the epistle as a whole. I understand Paul to be 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. Robertson and Plummer say concerning 1 Cor 11:10a:

"Can the meaning here be ‘ought to have control over her head’ so as not to expose it to indignity?” (p. 232).

Alluding to this suggestion by Robertson and Plummer, David E. Garland says:

“This suggestion makes sense of the grammar and fits the context. Wearing the head covering represents the woman's control over her own head by which she demonstrates her faithfulness to her husband or her acknowledgment of her status” (1 Corinthians David E. Garland p. 525).

Darrell Block has:

“In other words the woman is to exercise control over her anatomical head (herself) presumably by wearing a head covering so that she does not expose herself or others to shame (vv 5, 6). Such a reading makes good sense of the text for the three word construction echō exousian epi used here routinely means 'to have authority over' in the NT (see Rev 11:6; 14:18; 16:9; 20:6; also t Reu. 5:1; Tobit 1:21 [S]; cf BDAG 353, 3; 365, 9a; BDF 234.5; LJS, 621.III) and such a reading seems to fit the overall context” (The Bible Knowledge Word Study: Acts - Ephesians Darrell Bock p. 284).

Craig L Blomberg has:

“A better translation would be ‘Have control over her head’ – ie have the culturally appropriate head covering on” (From Pentecost to Patmos An Introduction from Acts through to Revelation p 186 footnote). I would have left out “culturally."

Although Payne takes the “hairstyle position” he also believes that Paul is instructing the woman to keep control over her head:

“'To have authority' in this context implies 'exercise control over' just as it does in 1 Cor 7:37, 'having under control' and 1 Cor 9:12 'made use of this right.' Paul's point is that a woman ought to exercise control 'over her head' by wearing her hair up” (p. 13) (I would have said “by wearing a covering” but the point is clear)

Joan E Taylor contributed a chapter to a book entitled Gospel and Gender: A Trintarian Engagement with Being Male and Female in Christ (editors Douglas Atchison Campbell, Alan J. Torrance) which was aptly titled The Woman Ought to have Control over her Head Because of the Angels. She makes the following comments:

“This verse (v 10 Rex) is grammatically peculiar and semantically ambiguous but informs the understanding of the entire passage (1 Cor 11:2-16) and Paul’s attitude to gender overall and therefore warrants careful treatment” (p. 39).

“The word exousia generally defines the active power to control someone or something or the authority to do something, while epi can be used to indicate power ‘over’ something. This is in fact the simplest reading of the text. Hooker argues against this obvious translation by stating that it is ‘quaint’ to think that a woman controls her rebellious head by covering it, but she misses the point that the woman is in an inspired state in which the head may well be ‘rebellious’” (p. 40).

She suggests the following reconstruction:

“There was a woman who said ‘I do not have control over my head because of the angels.’ The angels inspire, she becomes possessed and in the possessed state control over the head is lost. Whatever head covering she may have worn is cast aside…”

“(This woman) … first may have let her head covering fall during prophecy and prayer and … defended herself against criticism by reference to the wild power of the angels. Paul retaliated by claiming that the angels control the order of creation, and therefore would not condone such behaviour” (p. 56).

Of course we cannot know that this is what lies behind Paul’s instruction, but in my view it makes sense. Paul is telling women that in the public assemblies of the church they must maintain control over their heads. Likely in the public assemblies at Corinth the brethren were failing to exercise the appropriate self-disciple and control. This included the women. Robertson has:

"For some reason some of the women were creating disturbances in the public worship by their dress (11:2-16) and by their speech (14:34)" (Word Pictures vol 4 p. 185 [emphasis mine]).

It may well be that Paul is dealing with a situation in which certain women are failing to exercise the proper control over themselves in the assembly, and this manifests itself in (1) throwing off the head covering (11:2-16) and (2) the failure to remain silent (14:34). It would make good sense for Paul to say that the woman "ought to have control over her head" and in context this would involve covering the head (chpt 11) and remaining silent (chpt14).

It does appear that in this section (1 Cor 11:2 – 14:40) Paul is confronting problems in the assembly which reflect the failure to exercise the appropriate self-control. In giving instructions about the orderly exercise of the gifts in the assembly, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:31, 32: "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." Why does Paul say here, right in the middle of these instructions about the orderly exercise of the gifts (chapter 14) that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets?” McGarvey says:

"(The) apostle asserts the truth that the prophets can control their spirits while under the prophetic influence. This guarded against the possibility that any speaker should pretend to be so carried away by the prophetic influence as to be unable to stop" (p. 142 [emphasis mine]).

Brother Thomas Warren has:

“Apparently a number of (gifted individuals) would stand up and prophesy at the same time, thus creating chaos and confusion. Further it seems that on being rebuked for such they claimed that (being under the power of the Holy Spirit) the one speaking (prophesying) was unable to stop prophesying even when another (who was also under the power of the Holy Spirit) began to prophesy” (Example pp. 61, 62).

The issue is control. Likely Paul is emphasizing that the prophet "is not bowled over by the storm of inspiration" (Mc Guiggan p. 184). He is saying that tongues and prophesy are "completely under the control of the speaker" (Fee p. 696). "There is no seizure here, no loss of control..." (ibid). When Paul affirms that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, he is making the important point that spiritually-gifted people retain mastery or rule or government over themselves and that there is no excuse for disorderly conduct in the assembly on that score.

Having told the spiritually-gifted Corinthians that the "spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets," (and that the prophets retain control over their own spirits), Paul then says a word about women in particular in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Having just pointed out that the prophets’ own spirits are under their control (v 32) and that “God is not a God of confusion” (v 33), Paul then says: "Let the women keep silent in the churches … let them subject themselves." For women then, (1) keeping silent and (2) subjecting themselves go hand in hand in this setting, and both are mentioned in connection with the fact that the prophets’ own spirits (including the spirits of the female prophets) are under the prophets’ control. Perhaps like their male counterparts, some sisters were saying: "We are so bowled over by the Spirit's influence that we simply must speak out in the assembly when He gives us a message. We lose all control over ourselves and must speak out!" However Paul makes it clear that this is not the case. The "spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets," and the women, like the men must exercise the appropriate self-control. In her case this involves remaining silent (1 Cor 14:33, 34) and refraining from divesting herself of the covering (1 Cor 11).

As many have pointed out reading 1 Corinthians is a little like hearing one side of a telephone conversation. We hear Paul’s response to certain questions and situations but it is not always easy to decide just what it is that he is responding to. That’s why these comments are tentative. We cannot know what we have not been told. While I strongly favor this view, there may be a better explanation. In Appendix 3 I have discussed some points in favor of another position. Some verses are difficult and 1 Cor 11:10 is one of them.

A word of caution

Whatever our understanding of 1 Cor 11:10, let us make sure that we do not pit scripture against scripture. What we must keep in mind when dealing with difficult verses like 1 Cor 11:10a is that the meaning of such verses must be in harmony with what is being taught clearly elsewhere in scripture. For this reason I cannot take seriously Gordon Fee’s position. He says:

"1 Cor 11:10a says: 'For this cause ought a woman to have power on her head..." (KJV). The word translated power here, can mean “freedom or right to choose,” and this is its meaning here. Thus what Paul is saying here in 1 Cor 11:10a is “For this reason the woman ought to have the freedom over her head to do as she wishes” (Fee p 520 [emphasis mine]).

Fee goes on to say: “The problem (with understanding ἐξουσία to mean 'freedom of choice') is that it sounds so contradictory to the point of the argument to this point” (ibid [emphasis mine]). He is correct. His position does indeed set Paul against Paul.

“Of course Fee realizes the problem with this interpretation: (he say) ‘it sounds so contradictory to the point of the argument to this point.’ Exactly! So will Fee therefore consider the interpretation which does fit the point of the argument? No, he holds to his apparently contradictory interpretation and says ‘we must beg ignorance.’ What he thinks Paul means by verse 10 ‘remains a mystery.’ When a commentator insists on holding an interpretation which he himself admits contradicts the context, one can only conclude that a strongly held pre-commitment is driving his exegesis” (Women in the Church—the Matter of Public Speaking: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:34-35 Kenneth M. Gardoski Journal: Journal of Ministry and Theology 12:1 Spring 2008 pp. 106, 107).

This is not too surprising. Fee deals with 1 Cor 14:34, 35 by suggesting that it is an interpolation, and views 1 Tim 2:8ff as local temporary legislation so this contradiction may not be a problem for him.

Some sincere students of scripture who take this position (“freedom or right to choose”) have a commendably high view of scripture and would never knowingly embrace a position which involves setting Paul against Paul. These sincere believers have failed to recognize the contradiction here, but others are fully aware of the problem. Margaret M. Mitchell says:

"If some recent interpretations are correct, in a direct reversal of 11:4-9, in 11:10 Paul argues that women have the exousia to do what they want with their heads... Exegetes are forced to conclude that Paul is contradictory here (Meeks...Fee...Padgett)...." (Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians p. 262 note 421).

Thus some have no trouble believing that v10 means freedom of choice despite the fact that this would involve “a direct reversal of 11:4-9." Similarly The Women's Bible Commentary has the following on v 10:

“One expects insistence on an act that symbolizes derivative status: veiling the head. Instead Paul asserts the woman's authority over her own head. He seems to be contradicting his own logic” (p. 417).

Again:

“The problem is that the argument of the passage, to this point, would lead us to expect Paul to say just the opposite. Paul writes that ‘any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head’ (v. 5); ‘if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair’ (v. 6); ‘a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man’ (v. 7). And so, as Kendrick observes, ‘We expect Paul to say in verse 10, ‘For this reason she ought to have her head covered’” (Headcoverings and Women’s Roles in the Church Laurie C. Hurshman Priscilla Papers 17:1 Winter 2003 p. 16).

I agree that the “freedom or right to choose” position is “a direct reversal of 11:4-9,” that it involves Paul in a contradiction “of his own logic” and that “the argument … to this point would lead us to expect Paul to say just the opposite.” According to this position, in 1 Cor 11:10a, Paul is affirming that women can decide for themselves about the head covering. But this would mean that Paul is telling the woman in v 10 that she is free to do something which elsewhere he says brings disgrace upon her head and upon the man (v 5). Moreover according to this position the woman is free to choose to share the disgrace of the shaven woman (v 6). In my view it is unthinkable that Paul could affirm this. Even if we take the position that Paul's instructions concerning the covering relate only to first century women at Corinth, we have this difficulty. Paul could not be telling first century Christian Corinthian women that they are free to disgrace their heads if they so choose. In view of the fact that there are other possible meanings, why insist upon one which sets Paul against Paul?

The Women’s Bible Commentary may have no problem with an inspired man “contradicting his own logic” but we should. Yes freedom of choice is one possible meaning of ἐξουσία but why insist on this meaning and pit scripture against scripture when there are alternatives available which fit the context? Moreover look again at the ten instances of ἐξουσία with the preposition ἐπὶ (above) and note that in each case “control over” is a better fit than "freedom to choose.”

What’s more “the focus of verse 10 is not freedom but obligation” (Gardosk). Selfishness, self- promotion and self-interest plagued the church at Corinth, and rejection of the head covering was just one example of the failure to exercise restraint.

“It seems that the Corinthian slogan, ‘everything is permissible,’ had been applied to meetings of the church as well, and the Corinthian women had expressed that principle by throwing off their distinguishing dress” (The Head Covering and the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:2-34 David K. Lowery Bibliotheca Sacra vol 143:570 April 1986 p. 157).

“Paul’s fifth argument, mentioned in verse 16, for maintaining the status quo on head coverings came from universal church practice. Paul was not trying to foist a new behavioral pattern on the Corinthians but simply to hold the line against self-indulgent individual excess in the name of freedom. As in the case of food offered to idols (8:1–11:1), Paul dealt with the immediate issue but also put his finger on the root of the problem, the Corinthian pursuit of self-interest that was unwilling to subordinate itself to the needs of others (cf. 10:24") or the glory of God (10:31). Throwing off the head covering was an act of insubordination that discredited God” (p. 159).

The same self-interest, self-indulgence and lack of self-restraint was at the heart of problems with the love feast which Paul discusses next (v17ff).

“What bothered Paul about the Corinthian celebration was that the ἀγάπη meal (“love feast”) had become an occasion not marked by love for fellow Christians but one of self-centered indulgence” (p. 160).

This same problem is evident in chapter 14 where self promotion in the assembly led to misuse of the gifts. Thus Paul’s appeal for self-control in 1 Cor 11:10 is just what we would expect given the nature of the problems at Corinth.

Because of the angels

The expression "because of the angels" has given rise to much speculation and many commentators speak of the "difficulty" "obscurity" and even "inexplicability" of these words. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss all the suggestions of all the commentators. I simply offer the following thoughts.

This verse begins “Therefore (δια τουτο) …” (NASB) or “For this cause …” (KJV). Likely δια τουτο has double reference here. First it explains why the woman must exercise control over her head and resist the temptation to ignore the restrictions placed upon her. She must do so because (δια τουτο) she is the glory of man (v 7) she originates from man (v 8) and she was created for man (v 9). Moreover δια τουτο looks forward to the reason given at the end of this verse ("because of the angels"). Fee tells us that the phrase “most often … seems to function in both directions at once; i.e., on the basis of what has just been said, a conclusion is about to be advanced which will give a further reason or restate the previous ones” (p. 518 footnote 21). Robert M. Price has:

“(The) words ‘That is why, etc.’ point both backward and forward; in other words, 'That is why, etc.' introduces the culmination of the Adam and Eve line of argument, and 'because of the angels' is the final conclusion of the same line of thought, the capper, as it were … We need, then, if possible, one schema of which angels and the creation of man and woman would form integrated parts” (Amorous Archons in Eden and Corinth Journal of Unification Studies Vol 2 1998 p. 19).

Paul appears to be saying this:

“Because of the fact that woman is the glory of man, originates from man and was created for man, the woman is to exercise the appropriate self-restraint because of the angels.”

In some way this appeal to the angels is designed to encourage the woman to exercise the self-discipline required to behave in a manner befitting her place in the headship hierarchy.

Does Paul appeal to angels here because of their intense interest in the human drama (Lk 15:10; 1 Pet 1:12)? Is it because they are described as “glories” (Jude 8 and likely 2 Pet.2:10) who cover up in the presence of God (Isa 6:1ff)? Is it because some angels "did not keep their own domain" (Jude 6) and fell through pride (l Tim 3:6)? I incline to the view that it is because they are associated with God’s glory and jealously protect it (Ezek.9:3; 10:4, 18, 22; Ex 15:11 [Sept]).

“The added ‘because of the angels’ probably refers to those angels who are present at worship and oversee God’s order; they would be disturbed by women who asserted their independence from the Church’s order of worship” (Osborne p. 342). NEXT