1 Corinthians 11:10

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

Power on the woman’s head because of the angels

1. Hardly anything is more notable in St. Paul than his impatience of mere maxims and rules of conduct. He can never rest till he has based them on large general principles which may be applied under all changes of condition. So here with regard to woman’s dress.

2. Paul had taught both the spiritual equality of woman with, and her subordination to, man. But these eager converts had not minds large enough to hold and reconcile both these great principles: they seized impetuously on that which fell in with their wishes, and let the other go. True, in a subordinate position they may show an equal, even a superior, ability; just as a designer in a factory, or a governess in a family, or a manager in a bank, may display higher gifts than their social or official superiors. But how do they prove their superiority? Not by rebelling against their position, but by excelling in it. So with woman. She proves her equality with man, not by rebelling against her subordinate social position, but by discharging its duties with an ability equal or superior to that shown by her husband in his different sphere. Some of the Corinthian women did not see that. They thought to assert the equality of the sexes by praying and prophesying in church instead of ruling their households. As a sign of their enfranchisement they appeared in public unveiled, and so became bad as women that they might prove themselves as good as men. And had the Christian women gone unveiled, when the absence of the veil was the open stamp of harlotry, we can easily conceive what a fatal obstacle would have been thrown in the path of the infant Church.

3. It was no mere question of maxims and rules, therefore, with which St. Paul had to deal; it was a question of principles vital and profound. And hence he appeals--

I. To nature. (1 Corinthians 11:13).

1. Man is by nature unveiled, has short hair; woman is veiled with her long hair. The Divine intention is thus revealed. In handling and attiring the body we are to take the suggestions of nature as ordinances of God. Man is to go unveiled, woman is to use, or to imitate, the natural veil which God has given her. The Greeks and Romans did thus interpret and obey the voice of Nature. While their noblest men cut their hair close and short, they held long flowing tresses as among the most potent charms of women--as a real “power” on their heads.

2. St. Paul appeals to Nature; from how many evils would the Church have been saved had his example been followed? Had we listened to her, had we asked with St. Paul, “What does Nature itself teach?” we should have had more of his free, generous, catholic spirit.

II. To the Scriptures (verses 7-9; cf. Genesis 1:26; Genesis 2:18; Genesis 2:21).

1. Man, said Moses, was made “in the image of God”; therefore, adds St. Paul, man is a “glory” of God. Hence he ought not to veil the head which bears an impress and reflects a glory so Divine. But “the woman is the glory of man”; she was taken not from rude clay, and not from any remote or uncomely member of man’s body, but from his very heart. Therefore she is his “glory”; she represents what is finest in him. Nevertheless, the apostle insists (verses 8, 9), although she is his glory, because she is his glory, she is to defer and minister to him from whom she sprang, just as the highest spirits are those who serve most and best.

2. “And therefore ought the woman to have power on her head.” Now one of Paul’s great fixed thoughts is, that we rule by serving; that to become great we must make ourselves of the least. He has been describing the subordinate position of woman. But if she is to serve, she must be strong. To the Hebrews unshorn hair, like that of Samson, was the sign of strength. And the unshorn hair of the woman is “the power,” or the symbol of the power, which her service requires. And does not Nature confirm his thought? How often has a thread of golden hair drawn strong men across the world! How often have soft locks proved stronger bonds than bars of steel! Who does not remember the little packet, all blotted with tears, which they found in a corner of poor Swift’s desk, with these words on it, “Only a woman’s hair”?

3. But what are we to make of “the angels,” for whose sake woman is not to put off this power? Now closely following the passage in Genesis to which Paul refers, there is the story of the first infraction of the true relation of the sexes (Genesis 6:1), which the rabbis read thus:--The daughters of men, departing from their primitive simplicity and decorum, laid aside their veils, and tricked out their hair and faces with ornaments. The angels saw them, and grew enamoured of their beauty, and fell from their blessedness. Possibly St. Paul alludes to this here. If only “because of the angels” therefore, the Corinthian women should carry this veil on their heads. The rabbis were so possessed by this legend that they were constantly making proverbs about it. Thus, Rabbi Simeon used to say, “If a woman’s head be uncovered, evil angels come and sit upon it.” The “fathers” of the Church believed it. The Arabs and Turks believe it to this day. They tell us that “Khadijah said to Mahommed after his first vision, ‘If the angel appear again, let me know.’ Gabriel appeared to him again. He said to her, ‘I see him.’ His wife placed his head first on her left, then on her right shoulder, and asked, ‘Seest thou him still?’ He answered ‘Yea.’ Then she said, ‘Turn, and lie on my bosom’; which, when he had done, she asked again, ‘Seest thou him?’ He answered, ‘Yea.’ Then she took her veil from her head, and asked, ‘Seest thou him still?’ And this time he answered, ‘Nay.’ Then she said, ‘By heaven, it is true, it is true! It was an angel, and not a devil!’ “Having told this story, the Arabian historian remarks and explains, “Khadijah knew that a good angel must fly before the face of an unveiled woman, whilst a devil would bear the sight very well.”

III. To Christian doctrine. (verse 3).

1. But is not Christ just as truly the head of the woman as of the man? Yes, viewed simply as human beings, the relation of women to Christ is as direct and vital as that of men. But look at them as forming a distinct sex, as members of the social order. In that order there must be grades. In an empire there must be a ruling class, or person; and in a household there must be a ruling sex. When we ask, Which? the Bible replies, “Man is first in creation, first in dignity. Woman was made for him, not he for her.” And with this natural order and subordination, the equal spiritual relation to Christ is not to interfere. Christ did not come to thwart or to reverse, but to perfect, human nature and human society.

2. What grade we hold in this social order, and what part we play, is not by any means the main question; but how we fill it, how we play it. The woman, e.g., though equal in nature, holds the subordinate social grade; but if she play her part well, she becomes perfect as a woman. But suppose a wife to rebel, what happens? Either, casting off all restraint, she divorces herself from him rather than obey him; or she openly rules where she ought to obey, and is condemned by her own instincts and her own sex even more severely than by men.

3. But before we can fully reach Paul’s sense of the sacredness of “the head,” we must remember that the pious Hebrew not only retained hat or turban when he entered the sanctuary, but also drew over it the tallith, a sacred veil, kept exclusively for public worship. By this he meant to express reverence for the Divine Presence--that he was not worthy to stand in it, that he could not look on God and live. But in Paul’s scheme of thought Christ was the head of the man. For a man to cover his head in worship was therefore to veil Christ; it was to imply that He needed to veil His face before God. Man must not thus dishonour Christ, his head. But the very reason which made it right for man, made it wrong for woman, to worship unveiled. For her head was the man. And to uncover her head in worship was to imply that man needed no veil when he came before God. Let her worship, therefore, with head veiled, and thus bear witness to the fact that sinful man was unworthy so much as to lift up his eyes unto heaven. Conclusion: Let us learn from St. Paul to apply the largest and deepest principles to the smallest details of conduct and duty; but let us also learn to apply them with his freedom. Are we invariably to adopt and enforce these rules? Is a woman never to speak in public, and always to wear a veil? Is it wrong for a man in India, or at an outdoor service, to worship with covered head? To make St. Paul’s rule inflexible and universal would be to sin against his spirit. On Greeks and Romans he enforces attention to the decorums of their race and time, and gives them perfectly good reasons for adhering to them. Principles abide, but customs change. And we then act most in the spirit of Paul when we freely apply his principles to our changed customs. (S. Cox, D.D.)

Power on woman’s head

It is argued that exousia might have been used for “veil” or “covering,” as a local and Tarsian expression. But this is not very probable. Many commentators, therefore, prefer to regard the word as one which, though originally metaphorical, would have been widely understood to mean “a veil,” just as imperium is used for a female ornament, regnum for an imperial crown, and triregno for the triple tiara of the popes. Thus Diodorus Siculus uses the Greek word basileia, “kingdom,” to mean the crown, or token of a kingdom, describing the statue of a queen as “having three kingdoms upon its head.” It is a curious fact that in Hebrew the word radid, which sometimes means “a veil,” is derived from a verb of which one of the meanings is “he subdued”; and it is not impossible that the knowledge of this may have smoothed the way for the apostle’s unusual phrase. One more explanation is, that exousian, etymologically, may also mean “existence,” and that St. Paul selected it because it might serve to indicate that woman’s dignity consists in her being created from or out of the man (οὖσα ἐξ ἀνδρός). But modern criticism seems to be settling down into the simple familiar meaning of the word “power,” in the obvious sense of “a sign of power.” But the question then naturally arises, “A sign of whose power?”

I. Some say, “Her own power,” and refer this not to the veil which the woman is directed to wear upon her head, but to the glory of her natural covering, her own long hair. They argue that this is one of the chief elements of female beauty--“Love in her rosy cheeks did basking lie, love walked in the sunny masses of her hair.” They quote such instances as that of Swift, in whose desk was found a folded paper containing one faded tress, and on it written, “Only a woman’s hair.”

II. The context, however, does not at all favour this view; and we see from 1 Corinthians 12:22, that St. Paul considered a covering as a proof of inferiority in honour. Our translators seem to have hit on the only true meaning of the expression, in the margin of our Bibles, “A covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband.” Any apparent harshness in this meaning is at once dispelled--

1. By the analogies (imperium, triregno, etc.), which we have already adduced. These show how easily the word “power” could come to be “a sign of power” by the common figure of speech which is called “metonymy”; and if so, it is much more likely to mean a sign of her husband’s power over her than a sign of her own power, because the whole context is enforcing the superiority of the man, and bears on the “He shall rule over thee” of Genesis 3:16.

2. Because to this day the veil is regarded in the unchanging East as a sign of subordination, and the traveller Chardin says that in Persia “only married women wear it, and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection.” And in the Roman customs the putting on of a veil in marriage was a sign that a woman lost all independent rights of citizenship.

3. Because there is a close analogy between this passage and Genesis 20:16, where “covering of the eyes” is generally understood to mean “a veil,” and is by the LXX. rendered τιμή, which properly means “honour.” Lastly, it is to me no small confirmation of this plain and simple sense that we find it in the noble verse of Milton, who seems to combine the notions of a woman’s hair being at once a covering and a glory to herself, and a sign of subjection to her husband:--

“His fair large front and eye sublime declared

Absolute rule, and hyacinthine locks
Round from his parted forelock manly hung
Clustering, but not beneath his shoulder broad:
She, as a veil, down to the slender waist
Her unadorned golden tresses wore
Dishevelled, but in wanton ringlets waved
As the vine waves her tendrils; which implied
Subjection, but required with gentle sway,

And by her yielded, by him best received.”

(Archdeacon Farrar.)

Because of the angels

The absence of “and” suggests that it is a motive, not additional to, but confirmatory of, that given in verse 9. Already (4:9) we have seen the angels contemplating the apostles’ hardships. They attend upon men (Hebrews 1:14), are placed side by side of the Church militant (Hebrews 12:22), and desire to look into the teaching of the prophets (1 Peter 1:12). Now, if they take interest in men, they must take special interest in those assemblies in which men unitedly draw near to God, and which have so great influence upon the spiritual life of men. We must therefore conceive them present at the public worship of the church. Now the presence of persons better than ourselves always strengthens our instinctive perception of right and wrong, and deters us from improper action. And the moral impression thus produced is almost always correct. To this instinctive perception Paul appealed by the word “shame” in verse 6; and has revealed its source in the purpose of woman’s creation. He now strengthens his appeal by reminding us that we worship in the presence of the inhabitants of heaven. For every right instinct in us is strengthened by the presence of those better than ourselves. Surely a remembrance of these celestial fellow-worshippers will deter us from all that is unseemly. (Prof. Beet.)

Because of the angels

I. Some suppose that the words refer to real angels.

1. The holy angels. It appears to have been the opinion of the Jews that the holy angels were present at their religious assemblies (Psalms 128:1; Ecclesiastes 5:6). Bengel supposes that the reason why the apostle names the angels is, because as the angels are represented as veiling their faces before God, so women ought also to veil their faces when they worship. Erasmus remarks, “If a woman has arrived at that pitch of shamelessness that she does not fear the eyes of men, let her at least cover her head on account of the angels who are present at your assemblies.” But such an explanation appears to be far-fetched. St. Paul does not lay much stress elsewhere on the sentiments of the angels; he employs reasons far stronger and more telling. And certainly the above reason is not one which would suggest itself as a corrective to disorders in public worship.

2. Evil angels. It is supposed that the apostle here accommodates himself to this extravagant notion, which arose from a gross misconception of the words “the sons” (or angels) “of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Women should veil themselves, because they might tempt or be tempted by evil angels. Dr. McKnight supposes that the reference is to the seduction of the woman by the artifices of the serpent; and that the wearing of the veil was to be the perpetual memorial of her fall and of her subjection to man in consequence. We cannot imagine that Paul adopted the rabbinical notion, nor can we see the force of that notion as an argument for women veiling their faces. Nor does the view that the reference is to the seduction of Eve recommend itself; for this seduction was not effected by evil spirits in general, but by one pre-eminently, namely, the devil. And in general, if evil angels were meant, we would expect some statement to that effect by the apostle, as “the angels that sinned,” “the angels that kept not their first estate.”

II. Others suppose that the word refers to the ministers, who were specially set apart to conduct the worship of the congregation. The name angel, it is said, is conferred on ministers, both in the Old Testament and in the New (Malachi 2:7; Revelation 2:3). Such a name is also sufficiently appropriate, as ministers are the messengers of God. The reason, then, here assigned is, that women should veil their faces lest they should draw away the affections or distract the attention of the ministers or presidents of the assemblies. But the term ἄγγελοι is never applied to ministers by Paul. Nor is it certain that by the angels of the apocalyptic Churches the ministers are meant.

III. Others suppose that the reference is to heathen messengers or spies. In the New Testament the word frequently occurs in the sense of messenger (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24; Luke 9:52). But the most remarkable passage, and the one which bears most closely upon our subject, is James 2:25, where this very word is applied to the spies whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. Now it is argued that this is the meaning of the term here; women, in their assemblies for worship, ought to veil their faces because of the heathen spies. Tertullian informs us that the heathen were in the habit of sending spies to observe what was said or done in their Christian assemblies. According to this view, the apostle exhorts the Corinthians to see to it that their assemblies be conducted with proper order--that all violations of what was counted decorum be absent; that they are to remember that the eyes of the heathen are upon them. (P. J. Gloag, D.D.)