1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Line by Line (4)

This is the fourth and last part of my series on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, line by line, which I’ve subtitled, “Respectable Reputations Outside the Church, Mutual Relationships Within the Church.”

Here are the previous parts.
Part 1: Introduction, “Head” and “Firstness” (1 Cor. 11:2-3)
Part 2: Head Coverings or Hairstyles? Respectability and Sexual Renunciation (1 Cor. 11:4-6)
Part 3: Genesis, Glory, and Reputations (1 Cor. 11:7-9)

1 CORINTHIANS 11:10: THE CRUX

Four Translations of 1 Corinthians 11:10

In verse 10 we come to the crux of Paul’s argument. Verse 10, at the centre of the chiasm, contains perhaps the most enigmatic statement of the passage.

Here are four English translations of this verse. I’ve highlighted in bold the translation of the five-word Greek phrase I want to focus on first.

I begin with the King James version because it doesn’t add too many words to its translation of the five-word Greek phrase “exousian echein epi tēs kephalēs.”[1]

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

The New International Version includes the word “own” in their translation.

NIV (2011): “It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.”

The Christian Standard Bible includes the word “symbol.” (There is no Greek word that means symbol in verse 10.)

CSB: “This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

The New Living Translation adds a few ideas to this verse and is, in my opinion, one of the worst translations of 1 Corinthians 11:10.[2]

NLT: “For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.”

Who has the Exousia (“Authority, Right, …”)?

So who has the “authority” (Greek: exousia) here? And what kind of authority is Paul speaking about?  

The Greek noun exousia is a common word. It occurs just over 100 times in the New Testament. It occurs 10 times in First Corinthians, a considerable number, where it usually has the sense of the “right to do something.”[3]

Exousia can mean authority, freedom, liberty, permission, and right.[4] I liken the meaning of exousia to having a driver’s license. When you have a valid driver’s license you have the authority, freedom, permission, and the right to drive a vehicle on public roads.

Furthermore, the use of exousia in ancient Greek texts indicates that the person who is the subject of the sentence exercises their own authority, power, freedom or right (in an active sense). The word is not typically used for a person being under or affected by someone else’s exousia (in a passive sense).[5]

Exousia + Echein + Epi

Craig Blomberg has closely examined the other New Testament phrases that contain the Greek words exousia + echein + epi. With these examples in mind, he suggests that 1 Corinthians 11:10 should be translated “along the lines of ‘For this reason … a wife should exercise control over her head [i.e., keep the appropriate covering on it]’” whether that is a fabric covering or long hair. (Blomberg’s use of ellipsis and square brackets.)[6]

Other scholars, such as Anthony Thistleton, who have taken a close look at the language in verse 10 have come to similar conclusions. Thistleton notes that echein sometimes means “to keep, to hold, to retain.” And epi with the genitive (which is what we have in 1 Cor. 11:10: the genitive of “head”) doesn’t always mean “over” but can denote control of something. [7]

So it could be that Paul wanted the praying and prophesying women in Corinth to maintain proper control of their own (actual) heads.

Who were the Angels in Verse 10?

Paul’s reason for women having control of their heads was “because of the angels.” Who were these angels? Why were they a concern?

The basic meaning of the Greek word typically translated as “angels” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is “messengers.” This Greek word is aggeloi. In some contexts in the New Testament, aggeloi are angels, heavenly messengers, but at other times, they are people, human messengers, running an errand. For example, the two spies in James 2:25 are called aggeloi in the Greek New Testament. Aggeloi also refer to human messengers in Matthew 11:10//Mark 1:2//Luke 7:27, Luke 7:24, and Luke 9:52.

There is little consensus among scholars about who or what the aggeloi are in 1 Corinthians 11:10, but there are four interpretations that are often given in discussions on this verse.

(1) Some people think the aggeloi are God’s angels who are invisibly present during worship, perhaps as mediators of some kind, and that they expect reverence and decorum. Somewhat along these lines, there are warnings in the Hebrew Bible about decency at God’s altar (e.g., Exod. 20:26).

(2) Some think the aggeloi are potentially lustful angelic Watchers who are aroused by the sight of women’s hair. This understanding was perhaps first proposed by Tertullian. (See Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins 7.) The “Watchers” are mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 and in early Jewish texts such as 1 Enoch 6-7 and the Book of Giants. The Genesis 6 women are described in the book of Enoch as “pretty and beautiful daughters” (thygateres hōraia kai kalai) (cf. kalai in Gen. 6:2 LXX), but it doesn’t say anything about their hair. None of these Jewish texts mention the women’s hair.

If exposed hair is a potential source of lust, why is Paul only concerned with the hair of women who pray and prophesy in Corinth? In other New Testament letters, Paul and Peter address the issue of women’s hairstyles but they don’t tell women to cover their heads (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3). And exposed women’s hair doesn’t seem to have been sexually provocative in two scenes where Jesus is anointed by a woman (Luke 7:38, 44; John 11:2; 12:3). (I have more about the Watchers and hair here.)

(3) Others connect the reference to aggeloi in 1 Corinthians 11:10 with a reference to aggeloi in 1 Corinthian 6:2-3. They then infer that because we are able to judge even the angels, women are well able to determine what they will do with their own heads. This interpretation seems strained to me. (I have more on this in a postscript here: The Chiasm in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.)

(4) I understand the aggeloi in verse 10 as being human messengers, people sent to investigate the goings-on in Corinthian churches, perhaps on behalf of their curious or suspicious masters. Maybe they were Christians who were concerned by some of the antics in the Corinthian church. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor believes the aggeloi were human envoys and fellow Christians, “visitors from other churches such as Chloe’s people, who no doubt were the ones who reported to Paul on what they found scandalous in the Corinthian liturgies (1 Cor. 1:11).”[8] Or maybe the messengers were Judaizers who wanted to limit the freedom of Gentile Christians (cf. Gal. 2:4). Whoever they were, the aggeloi as human messengers is my preferred interpretation.

I understand 1 Corinthians 11:10 as Paul saying that he wanted the praying and prophesying women of Corinth to take control of their heads, and this had something to do with their hairstyles or hair length. The reason being, so that the (human) messengers would have nothing unbecoming or negative to see and report.

SUMMING UP 1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

I understand 1 Corinthians 11 from verse 2 through to verse 10 as being about Paul wanting men and especially women to behave themselves so that the church would not get a bad name. He wanted them to abide by social norms and gendered conventions for the sake of reputations in broader Corinth which would ultimately affect God’s reputation or glory.

Paul didn’t want the Corinthians to take these gendered conventions too far, however. In the rest of the passage, verses 11-16, Paul speaks about relationships within the body of Christ, relationships among those who are “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11ff). Thankfully these verses in the second half of the passage, which I’ve already mentioned (in relation to the corresponding verses in the first half of the passage) are much easier to understand.

Within the body of Christ, it doesn’t matter who came first, or who came from who, because everything ultimately comes from God (1 Cor. 11:12). Nevertheless, Paul still wanted short hair on men and long hair (as a covering) on women, and he appealed to the Corinthians’ common sense and to their broader social customs. He encouraged them to decide on these matters among themselves (1 Cor. 11:13-15).

In verse 16 Paul writes that in all the churches, “we have no such custom (or, practice).” “No such custom” is translated as “no other custom” in some English translations of 1 Corinthians 11:16, but the Greek does not support the translation of “no other custom.” The word meaning “custom” or “practice” (synētheia) in this last verse echoes and contrasts with the word that means “tradition” (paradosis) in the first verse of the passage where Paul complimented the Corinthians for remembering the traditions he had taught them. What Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 was not meant to become tradition. Rather, he was responding to a local situation.

For centuries, Paul’s words to the Corinthians have been used to compel women to cover their heads in churches, and this was seen as a sign of subordination to men,[9] but these same covered women were not allowed to pray or prophesy aloud in church gatherings. Covering and silencing women is not what 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is about.

There is nothing in this passage that indicates in any way that Paul wanted women to be subordinate to men within the body of Christ or silent in the churches.[10]

There is no hierarchy between men and women who are “in the Lord.” Nevertheless, because of the messengers and for the sake of reputations (“glory”), Paul wanted the men and women who were praying and prophesying to have hairstyles or head coverings that were socially acceptable in first-century Corinthian society. I believe this was Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

Footnotes

[1] The five Greek words, with a quick translation, are exousian (“authority, right, power”), echein (“to have”), epi (“upon”), tēs (“the, her”), and kephalēs (“head”).

[2] The New Living Translation displays a bias against women and in some translation choices promotes male authority. I’ve written about this here. https://margmowczko.com/gender-bias-in-the-nlt/

[3] The following is every verse in 1 Corinthians where exousia appears, except for 11:10. I have italicised the English translation of exousia.

A wife does not have the right over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a husband does not have the right over his own body, but his wife does (1 Cor. 7:4). (I’ve written about this verse, here.)
But he who stands firm in his heart (who is under no compulsion, but has control over his own will) and has decided in his heart to keep her as his fiancée, will do well (1 Cor. 7:37).
But be careful that by no means does this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Cor. 8:9 NASB 1995).
Don’t we have the right to eat and drink?  (1 Cor. 9:4).
Don’t we have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife like the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas? (1 Cor. 9:5).
Or do only Barnabas and I have no right to refrain from working?  (1 Cor. 9:6).
If others have this right to receive benefits from you, don’t we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right; instead, we endure everything so that we will not hinder the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 9:12).
What then is my reward? To preach the gospel and offer it free of charge and not make full use of my rights in the gospel (1 Cor. 9:18).
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he abolishes all rule and all authority and power (1 Cor. 15:24).

[4] In Bauer and Danker’s lexicon (BDAG) there are six definitions in their entry on exousia which all have some sense of authority, power, or control. Their first definition is “a state of control over something, freedom of choice, right.” This definition seems to fit the context of 1 Corinthians 11:10. BDAG discuss 1 Corinthians 11:10. No firm conclusions are drawn, but they comment, “Many now understand it as a means of exercising power.”
In a discussion on New Testament usage, Werner Foerster states that exousia “denotes the power which decides.” See “C. The NT Concept of ἐξουσία.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 2, ed. Kittel, trans. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 566.
Liddel, Scott and Jones’s (LSJ) give the primary definition of exousia as “power, authority to do a thing.” (Online source)

[5] Gordon D. Fee explains,

Some took exousia in a passive sense. […] The difficulty with this view is that there is no known evidence either that the word exousia was ever taken in this passive sense or that the idiom “to have authority over” ever referred to an external authority different from the subject of the sentence.
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT, Revised Edition; Eerdmans, 2014), 574.

I discuss the active versus passive sense more, here.

[6] Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC; Zondervan ), 180.

[7] Thistleton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Eerdmans, 2000), 839.

[8] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 177.

[9] Writing in the first half of the first century CE, Philo of Alexandria refers to a woman’s head-covering as “the symbol of modesty” (to tēs aidous symbolon) (Philo, The Special Laws 3.56). It was a mark of modesty and respectability. It did not necessarily signify subordination.

[10] Craig S. Keener writes that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is not about the subordination of women.

… we should note that nothing in this passage suggests wives’ subordination. The only indicator that could be taken to mean that is the statement that man is woman’s “head,” but “head” in those days was capable of a variety of meanings, and nothing in the text indicates it means subordination. As many scholars have been pointing out in the past few years, if we want this passage to teach subordination, we have to read subordination into the passage.
Keener, Paul, Women & Wives (Hendrickson, 1992, 2009), 47.

© Margaret Mowczko 2024
All Rights Reserved

Thank you to those whose support helps me to write articles such as this one.
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!

Image Credit

Statues of angels on a building in St Petersburg, Russia.

An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, line by line:
Respectable Reputations Outside the Church, Mutual Relationships Within the Church

Part 1: Introduction, “Head” and “Firstness” (1 Cor. 11:2-3)
Part 2: Head Coverings or Hairstyles? Respectability and Sexual Renunciation (1 Cor. 11:4-6)
Part 3: Genesis, Glory, and Reputations (1 Cor. 11:7-9)

Explore more

Woman’s Authority or Subordination in 1 Cor. 11:10?
The Significance of the Created Order, in a Nutshell (1 Cor. 11:11-12)
A note on nature and hairstyles in 1 Cor. 11:14-15
“Covering” or “Testicle” in 1 Corinthians 11:15?
Judith Gundry on the Two Social Contexts of 1 Cor. 11:2-16
1 Corinthians 11:2-16, in a Nutshell
Head Coverings and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
All my articles on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are here.
Hair Lengths and Hairstyles in the Bible
A Note on Tertullian’s “On the Veiling of Virgins”
Gender Bias in the New Living Translation