Among others, K. P. Yohannan
argues that the final phrase in 1 Cor 11:10, “because of the angels,” makes the
directive for women—married or unmarried—to wear head coverings while praying
and prophesying a timeless and universal directive for the church. This paper
will show that while 1 Cor 11 holds many timeless principles, nothing about
Paul’s instruction on head coverings should be seen to apply outside of the
immediate context of first-century Corinth.
The phrase, “because of the angels” makes Paul’s directive no less a
matter of culture, a question specific to the first-century church at Corinth.
In arguing that the practice
of women wearing head coverings in the assembled church, Yohannan states:
“When he talks about the head covering, however, there is no mention of anything remotely
cultural. Instead, Paul goes to lengths
to describe its spiritual roots—the divinely ordained authority structure God
established at the original creation and reaffirmed in the new creation of the
Church. Paul’s admonition for women to
wear a head covering “because of the angels” removes any doubt that this teaching
is universal and timeless.”
Yohannan’s argument sounds
persuasive on the surface, but does it hold up to closer examination? The only place in the Pauline corpus where
the apostle provides instruction on head coverings is 1 Cor 11. In fact, this is the only place in Scripture
that contains such instructions for women’s head coverings in worship. What’s more, as most commentators admit,
Paul’s writings on head coverings seem difficult to interpret. Most likely, the original recipients of the
letter would have known precisely the circumstances to which the Apostle Paul
referred. The modern reader is left
without such benefit, and good exegetical and hermeneutical principles must
determine whether the limited evidence applies beyond first-century Corinth.
Some readers likely find
this instruction very confusing, and at some points may believe that Paul is
contradicting himself in the same passage.
For instance, Paul says in 1 Cor 11:15 (ESV), “For her hair is given to
her for a covering.” Does this mean that a woman’s long hair is a
suitable head covering? Modern-day head-covering proponents answer in the strongest negative terms, while many of those who
argue against head coverings in a modern Western setting say this is exactly
what it means—a woman’s long hair is her covering. Likewise, commentators and translators remain
divided as to whether the passage refers to wives in particular (as, for
instance, the ESV translators hold), or to women in general. This is because γυνη, which is translated as women in some contexts, is often
translated as wives when used in conjunction with the word ανδρος (for man or
men). Therefore, ανδρος and γυνη,
appearing separately are “man” and “woman,” while appearing together, they are
often “husband” and “wife.”
To further complicate the exegetical difficulties in
1 Cor 11:10, translators differ widely on the proper translation of the phrase,
“οφειλει η γυνη εξουσιαν εχειν επι της κεϕαλης.” Rigidly translated, this is “ought the woman
to have authority on the head.” This has
been variously rendered as “ought the woman to have power on her head” (KJV), or “ought to [or should]
have a symbol of authority on her head” (CSB, ESV, NASB, and NKJV), “ought to
have authority over her own head” (NIV).
As a functionally equivalent translation, the NLT renders the text as,
“For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a
covering on her head to show she is under authority.” Meanwhile, the TEV says,
“On account of
the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her head to show that she
is under her husband's authority.” Each rendering could potentially
support a different favorite theological viewpoint, including differing views
on just who is exercising authority.
Of course, none of these would change the arguments
of modern head-covering proponents that the practice remains normative for
Christians of all times and cultures.
Still, all this, by way of introduction is to show that, as Fee says, 1 Cor 11:10 is unanimously
considered, “one of the truly difficult texts in this letter.” Again, it is likely the church at Corinth had
no question as to Paul’s meaning, even if it seems it was not long before those
who lived outside of that context debated as to precisely what the apostle intended
to communicate.
It is impossible to know exactly what occasioned Paul’s instruction on
head coverings. While many have seen
this passage as an instruction on the clothing or hairstyles of women in
church, Thiselton points out that Paul was addressing both women and men.
Thiselton notes that “(C)lothes and hair or beards play a role in a
semiotic system which speak volumes about self-perceptions of gender identity,
class identity, a sense of occasion, and respect or indifference toward the
perception of others.” One’s attire and grooming were
not merely a matter of personal preference but communicated deep symbolism.
It seems reasonable to assume, no matter which side of the modern head
coverings issue the reader takes, that there was a cultural expectation that
women of the first-century Corinthian church were expected to wear a head
covering while praying and prophesying.
The Corinthians seem to have had a question as to whether this cultural
practice translated into their (countercultural) Christian worship. Since, in 1 Cor 11:2, Paul commends them
for “maintain(ing) the traditions even as I delivered them unto you,” it also
seems reasonable that the Corinthians had resisted any urge to depart from the
women’s practice of wearing head coverings while praying and prophesying.
Commentators nearly unanimously agree that, in addressing head coverings,
Paul is concerned about a number of issues, including orderly worship, the
creation order, submission to proper authority (especially to Christ),
and—while less so for modern head covering proponents—cultural norms. However, there is little agreement on what
Paul means by “because of the angels.”
Indeed, Garland calls Paul’s reasoning “more complicated (than the
reminder of a complicated passage), if not completely baffling.” DeBuhn laments, “most attempts
to explain the ‘angels’ treat them as only loosely connected Paul’s argument…provid(ing)
a license for speculation in support of the tendency of interpreters to gloss
the text.” While DeBuhn’s complaints are
not without merit, one can sympathize with any desire on the part of
interpreters to move on quickly from this tricky phrase.
Per Ciampa and Rosner, the
possibilities behind Paul’s “because of the angels,” are myriad. Angels in the Old Testament are seen as associated with creation, and with prophesying and praying, and worship. But who are the “angels” to whom Paul refers? Are they members of the heavenly court? Are they good angels or fallen angels? Are they, in fact, human beings functioning
as messengers (as the Greek αγγελοι allows)? All of these
possibilities have been tendered as solutions, with widely divergent
explanations behind each reason.
Christian commentators as
far back as Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) have subscribed to the idea of veiling as
protection against fallen angels, who lust after human women. Indeed, along with the Old Testament, ancient
Jewish literature portrays angels’ interactions with women in varying
ways. It was a common Jewish
understanding in the first century that the “sons of God,” mentioned in Genesis
6:2 are angels who had sexual intercourse with human women. This was an understanding promoted by such
Jewish literature as the Book of Enoch, where
the “sons of God,” have lie with human women, producing giants as offspring. If, as some think, Paul is concerned about
women’s vulnerability to fallen angels, the instruction for them to remain
covered presumably means fallen angels are less likely to lust after them.[10]
However, Fee instantly
dismisses the notion of Christian women wearing veils as protection against
lustful, fallen angels, saying that it “assumes a kind of ‘veiling’ on the part
of the women for which there is no first-century evidence. Garland also finds the fallen angels
explanation unlikely. First, he says,
“Paul never uses the word ‘angels’ with the definite article to refer to bad
angels, and good angels are not subject to sensual temptations.” Second, Garland harbors strong doubts about
whether the Corinthians would have been familiar with Jewish traditions about
angels mating with human women. Further,
Garland wonders how, if fallen angels were intent on attacking or seducing
women, a veil would have done much to protect them—this especially in light of
a lack of evidence that a veil was understood as having this function.
Additionally, while
Hellenistic traditions said that women were vulnerable to evil spirits while in
an ecstatic state or trance, there is no evidence that a woman praying and
prophesying is in any such condition. if Paul is only specifically
directing women to remain covered during worship, as 1 Cor 11 seems to say, he angels would be tempted In all, we must agree with Hays, who opines,
“(I)f Paul had intended to express this rather bizarre idea, he would have
offered a somewhat fuller explanation.” It seems doubtful, then, that the angels in 1
Cor 11:10 are fallen angels intent on mating with human women.
Another possibility is that
the angels to whom Paul refers might actually be human beings. Winter argues that the Greek αγγελοι in the instance of 1 Cor
11:10 would be better translated as “messengers.” These messengers might have been messengers
to other churches, but Winter believes they might have been individuals sent to
spy or scout out the activities of the church at Corinth. The spies’ preconceptions of the church at
Corinth would have been governed by the prevailing cultural norms of the
day. To see women violating those
cultural norms would have caused spies to return to those who sent them with an
unfavorable report of the church.
Notably, however, Paul
writes in 1 Cor 11:10 without qualifying what he means by angels. As Blomberg writes, the entire New Testament
consistently uses the unqualified term αννελοι to speak of non-humans,
heavenly servants of God. Thus, it the
idea that here, in a noteworthy exception to that pattern, Paul speaks of human
messengers, spies, church leaders—or even fallen angels—seems dubious at best.
Another possibility, put
forth by Ciampa and Rosner, is a Jewish tradition that God directed the angels
to worship Adam when he was created. Perhaps, Ciampa and Rosner posit that Paul expected “them to understand that by covering the face of the glory of
the man (i.e., by covering the woman's face) he hopes to avoid distracting
angelic attention from the worship of God to the worship of man, just as he
does not allow anyone but God to receive glory in the church's worship.”
But, as Ciampa
and Rosner point out, the Scriptural evidence for this tradition is
non-existent—this tradition sprang from outside of the Old Testament. Further, there is no evidence that the
Corinthians understood—or even heard of—this tradition. It seems unlikely, then, that the angels to
whom Paul refers are tempted to worship men.
However, one can cite numerous passages of the Bible that show angels as
eager guardians of God’s glory (such as Isa 6:2, and Acts 12:3). If man’s glory (i.e. the woman’s uncovered
head) is shown, then this is a diverts attention from the glory of God to the
glory of man—something that angels present in worship would not be able to
abide.
A look at
Paul’s angelology in a broader sense is necessary here. Paul describes the apostles as a “spectacle to
the world, to angels, and to men” (1 Cor 4:9).
Along with the rest of the created order, Christian behavior is on
display for the angels to see. Blomberg
does not know whether Paul believes angels would be offended by women’s loosened
hair, or if Paul thinks angels will intervene to punish disorderly behavior;
the textual evidence is too scant.
However, one thing Blomberg feels safe in asserting is, “that the
community ought to behave in a decorous manner because of the presence of these
heavenly ‘dignitaries’ in their midst.”
Per Blomberg,
angels should be viewed as God’s servants, guardians of creation, and of the
worship of God’s people. Throughout Scripture, in fact, angels appear concerned
with the glory and honor of God. When
the offense is particularly appalling, several accounts in Scripture show,
angelic protection of God’s honor extends to the point of intervening to stop
an offense. According to Ciampa and
Rosner, Paul’s concern is probably not that the angels will be distracted by
the unveiled woman. Rather, the angels
are concerned that—and deeply offended for God’s honor when—inappropriate
attire or behavior will draw glory away from God and instead draw attention and
honor to man during a time of worship.
If Paul believed, as a noteworthy Jewish tradition held, that angels
were protectors of the creation order, then Paul may have desired to ensure
that nothing about the church’s worship offended the angelic witnesses.
According to
Ryrie, Paul’s mention of angels places a particular emphasis on orderly
worship. Angels, according to the
midrash with which Paul was familiar, angels were the mediators of the Law and
the guardians of the creation order.
Throughout the Old Testament, Paul would have seen allusions to the
desire of angels to look with interest at those things relating to
salvation. The angels would have desired
to see the people of God show proper submission to Him, and women who showed
submission that reflected the order of creation would have been a pleasing
example of orderly worship.
Ryrie writes
that in the context of public worship, and of a universal reverence of God,
“the axiom ‘as in heaven, so on earth’ should apply to the recognition of respect,
reverence, and order which receives symbolic and semiotic expression in the
ways indicated.” While Paul writes extensively on Christian
liberty, he never claimed that personal autonomy and freedom were absolute or
unqualified, especially, “in the
presence of the otherness of the other (created gender) and the heavenly hosts
who perform their due roles and tasks.”
Throughout
Scripture, angels demonstrate perfect worship and a zealous concern for God’s honor.
Angels cover their face in the presence of God (Isa 6:2), while they actively
worship Him (Isa 6 and Rev 5). Angels
refuse to accept human worship (Rev 19:10).
One can hardly think of a greater violation of the created order than
the men of Sodom who desired to commit homosexual rape, and more than that, to
rape angels (Gen 19). Because this kind
of egregious violation of the creation order was seemingly rampant there, God
destroyed the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Furthermore, an angel smote Herod for
accepting human worship as a god (Acts 12).
All
alternatives considered, it seems probable that angels are present as witnesses
and perhaps even, in a sense, as participants in Christian worship. But more that, as beings designed, in large
part, to worship God, the essential concern of angels is the protection of
God’s honor and glory. This student
holds, then, that angels are the perfect example of worship in practice. While
angels are powerful beings in their own right, as are Christians indwelled with
the Holy Spirit, they desire—and see to it, in some cases—that nothing detracts
from the glory of God. A person who
would violate the cultural norm in the gathered worship assembly detracts from
God’s glory in a very real sense.
Although we cannot say so with absolute confidence, it seems most likely
to this student that Paul has in mind that Christian worship should follow the
perfect example of the angels.
To this point, head-covering
advocates may well state that this paper has made their point for them. If angels are present in modern worship, as
they were in first-century worship, or if Christians are to emulate the angels,
then one might argue that Paul’s direction for Corinthian women to wear head
coverings when praying and prophesying is universal. However, while the phrase “because of the
angels” lends gravity to Paul’s larger principles—orderly worship, respect for
cultural views of proper decorum, and submission to heavenly and earthly
authority—there is nothing in the phrase that bolsters the case that head
coverings for women are Paul’s universal directive for the church at all places
and times.
Without hesitation, Paul
elsewhere declares the spiritual equality of men and women (Gal 3:28). However, throughout his letters, Paul remains
clear that male and female roles are
different. Men are to act as leaders of
the church and home. Paul repeatedly makes the case for female
submission to male leadership—and male love and sacrifice for women—as a model
of Christ’s leadership of, and love for, the church. He not only repeatedly teaches this principle,
but Paul quite explicitly teaches the principle. The same cannot be said for head coverings.
This paper has already
delved into the exegetical difficulties of 1 Cor 11:2-16 in general, and 1 Cor
11:10 in particular. If head coverings
for women were as important as the principles behind them in the context that
Paul directed for Corinthian, then Paul—and perhaps even the other apostles, or
Christ himself—would have emphasized their importance. Yet the gospels, the remainder of the Pauline
corpus, and the rest of the New Testament are silent on the issue.
Christians would demonstrate
deep wisdom in hesitating to base a doctrine on one mention of a practice,
especially a practice described in the context of a corrective letter to a dysfunctional church, such as 1
Corinthians. There is a deep danger in
grabbing an isolated, somewhat cryptic, and exegetically difficult passage and
attempting to develop a doctrine. Since
it is nearly impossible to understand what this passage meant to the original
audience, the modern reader is left with no choice but to impose his own
meaning on the text—and error and heresy are the results.
In fact, there are many
examples of Pauline passages where the original recipients would presumably
have known just what Paul was speaking to, while the modern reader is left
baffled. For instance, the original
recipients knew precisely what practice Paul was referring to when he wrote in
1 Cor 15:29—a verse that mentions people being “baptized for the dead.” Most modern Christians agree there are no
examples of proxy baptism elsewhere in Scripture, and the wording seems to
indicate Paul is referring to people other than Christians. Most Christians would say that proxy baptisms
for the dead are not a practice that is normative for the church. However, some scholars have argued that the
early church must have engaged in the practice.
Honest readers must admit that it cannot be known today, with absolute
certainty what Paul was talking about.
This is important because
heterodox faiths, such as the Mormons, have adopted proxy baptisms for the
dead—as part of Latter-day Saint temple rituals—as a central part of their
theology. This practice is based upon a
faulty exegesis of 1 Cor 15:29, along with the teachings of early Mormon
leaders. This gives Latter-day Saints
the (false) hope that there is an eternal future for the lost, who have another
chance to accept the “gospel” after death.
Certainly, most scripturally-grounded evangelical Christians will reject
out of hand the hermeneutical acrobatics of a heterodox faith they widely view
as a cult. However, groups like the
Latter-day Saints are aggressive in their missionary efforts and teach this
false hope to people to the unsaved. As
a result, people who have heard the Mormon “gospel,” might tend to reject the
evangelical Christian who argues, with Heb 9:27, that after death, there are no
second chances to escape judgment.
Further, it seems all too
ironic that Paul, the messenger of grace throughout the New Testament—Paul, who
adamantly opposed the “Jesus plus the Law” theology of the Judaizers—would
suddenly turn, in this matter, into “Paul the Law-giver.” There is no evidence that Paul added new
rules and ordinances to the church, but there is strong scriptural evidence
that Paul was extremely concerned to adapt to the accepted norms and context of
the cultures to which he ministered (“To the Jews, I became as a Jew, in order
to win Jews…” 1 Cor 9:20-22).
For instance, Paul had
Timothy circumcised because the two, along with Silas, were to minister among
Jews (Acts 16:1-5). Titus was never
circumcised, however, the cultural context in which he ministered with Paul
was different from Timothy's. Paul so strongly opposed
those Jews who insisted that new Gentile believers must observe the Mosaic Law
that he went to Jerusalem to argue the case before the apostles (Acts 15). Further, Paul’s overall argument in Romans 7
is on the inadequacy of the Law—its true function was a mirror to show man his
own sinfulness—and that Christians are no more under the Law. Given the balance of Paul’s teachings, it
seems odd that he would add a “law” to the Christian assembly. Moreover, while there is no evidence for a
Paul who handed down numerous rules, there is plentiful evidence that he taught
submission to authorities in the church, in the home, and in the secular
government that surrounded the first-century church (e.g. 1 Tim 3, Rom 13:1,
Titus 3:1,).
If angels are present in
worship today—as seems entirely possible—they would certainly be heartened to
see a church that demonstrates submission to Christ, and to God the
Father. Even in a church that practices
male leadership—as this student holds the Scripture teaches—it seems difficult
to imagine how women would demonstrate submission, how a woman would have a
“symbol of authority on her head” by the use of a symbol that is, in modern
Western culture, without meaning. If, as
this writer holds, the angels are the exemplars of proper worship, then the
principle of submission to Christ and to appropriate church leadership, and the
eschewing of personal glorification for the sake of God’s glory are just as
applicable.
What is clear from 1 Cor 11
is that head-covered women in Corinth were a demonstration of decorum, modesty,
proper gender roles, and godly submission appropriate to the day. It is altogether possible that a church could
be filled with head-covered women and still demonstrate self-glorification, a
lack of sensitivity to proper decorum, and a blatant disregard for the
authority placed over it. In other
words, a church can obey the letter of the “rule” without ever heeding the
spirit behind that practice. If the
church today wants to follow the example of angels—or, depending on one’s
viewpoint, desires to keep from offending watching angels—it should seek to
follow the principles of decorum and submission, as they are understood in
the local cultural context, rather than tying their godliness to a piece of
cloth on ladies’ heads. This student has
attended many churches in K. P. Yohannan’s native Indian state of Kerala. There, the women wear a head covering in
church—and this seems to be an expectation in Indian culture. Unquestionably, women in Indian churches should wear a
head covering. In the West, where the
head covering is not understood in those terms, there seems to be little sense
in mandating the practice.
Myriad
solutions to the phrase “because of the angels” in 1 Cor 11:10 have been
proposed. Despite this fact, the phrase is
no better understood in modern exegesis than is the rest of the verse, or the
entire passage from which it gains context.
It is simply impossible to know exactly what Paul meant by the phrase,
even if his original recipients would have immediately understood. Attempts to find normative practice from this
passage should be avoided, considering the near certainty the interpreter will
impose a modern understanding or personal preconception that is not what the
passage meant to the original recipients.
Given all the available evidence, it seems most
likely that in saying women should wear head coverings in worship, in part,
“because of the angels,” Paul was attempting to communicate timeless
principles, not a universal practice.
These principles include a proper reverence and sense of decorum in
worship, the observance of a distinction between the roles of the genders, and submission of all Christians to the proper earthly and heavenly sources of
authority.
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. I welcome respectful disagreement with my posts. Such discussions can cause me to consider perspectives I hadn't examined before. However, I also reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Why? Simple enough, this is MY blog, with MY thoughts, and I want to have a civil conversation that is, at all times, God-honoring in nature.