1 Corinthians 11:10

1Co_11:10

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

Power on the womans 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 womans 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. (1Co_11:13-15).

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. Gen_1:26; Gen_2:18; Gen_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 mans 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 Pauls 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 Swifts desk, with these words on it, Only a womans 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 (Gen_6:1-4), 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 womans 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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. Pauls 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 womans 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 apostles 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 womans 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 womans hair.

II. The context, however, does not at all favour this view; and we see from 1Co_12:22-23, 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 husbands 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 Gen_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 Gen_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 womans 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 (Heb_1:14), are placed side by side of the Church militant (Heb_12:22), and desire to look into the teaching of the prophets (1Pe_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 womans 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 (Psa_128:1; Ecc_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 (Mal_2:7; Rev_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 (Mat_11:10; Luk_7:24; Luk_9:52). But the most remarkable passage, and the one which bears most closely upon our subject, is Jam_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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 11:10. For this cause — As well as for the other reasons above mentioned; the woman ought to have power on her head — That is, a veil, as a token of her being under the power and subjection of the man: and so much the rather should she wear it in worshipping assemblies; because of the angels — Who are present there, and before whom all should be careful not to do any thing indecent or irregular. “Though there is no example, either in sacred or profane writers, of the word εξουσια, here rendered power, being used to denote a veil; yet all agree that it can have no other meaning in this passage.” Whitby understands the latter clause of evil angels, paraphrasing and commenting on the words thus: “She, being tempted by the prince of evil angels to that which is a perpetual cause of shame to her, and which increased her subjection to the man, (Gen 3:16,) ought therefore to use this token of shame-facedness and subjection.” She is to have her head covered, say the Jews, “like one that mourneth, as a token of shame. Hence Philo calls the το επικρανον, cover of the woman’s head, the symbol of her shame; and this shame, say they, is due to her, because she first brought sin into the world. It is with her as when one transgresseth and is ashamed; and therefore she comes forth with her head covered. She ought, saith Tertullian, by her habit to resemble Eve, a mourner and a penitent; ob ignominiam primi delicti,” for the shame of the first sin. See on 1Ti 2:11-14. The former interpretation, however, which supposes that good angels are meant, who, being ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, might be present in the religious assemblies of the Christians, seems much more probably to be the true one.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11:10 because the angels are watching: Angels are guardians of the created order, appointed to ensure that everything is done according to God’s plan (see Gen 19:1-21; 22:11-12; Exod 23:20; Num 22:22-23; Pss 34:7; 91:11; 103:20-21; Heb 1:7, 14). Believers are to do what is appropriate in the sight of fellow humans and God’s observing angels (cp. 1 Tim 5:21). • should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority: Or should have authority over her own head.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 11:10. Ὀφείλει, ought) This verb differs from δεῖ, it is necessary: ὀφείλει denotes obligation, δεῖ, necessity. The former is moral, the latter, as it were, physical necessity; as in the German, wir sollen und müssen, we shall and must.—ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν) to have power over the head. From that antithesis between 1Co 11:7; 1Co 11:10 [ought—ought not], it is evident that the power is the same as κάλυμμα, a covering: so Gen 20:16, כסות עינים. LXX, εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ προσώπου σου, for a covering, i.e., for a testimony of undefiled matrimonial chastity. On the contrary, the priest was commanded ἀποκαλύπτειν, to uncover the head of the woman, who had withdrawn from the power of her husband in consequence of adultery, or who was at least suspected of that crime. Num 5:18. This passage agrees admirably with both quotations; only ἐξουσία, power, is a more suitable word here than τιμὴ, honour. Nor would it at all have been foreign to the purpose to compare Psa 60:9, Ephraim is the strength of my head. Paul uses ἐξουσίαν by an elegant metonymy of the sign for the thing signified; or even by a mild metonymy of the relative for the correlative, ὑποταγὴ, subjection, or the like; unless it be rather the sign, by which the woman avows and acknowledges that, although she prays and prophesies, still she is inferior to the man; in short, it is on this condition that the power of praying and prophesying falls to her share, and without that sign it must not be exercised. And this term is therefore more suitable, because it is closely connected with the δόξα, glory, 1Co 11:15: and ἐξουσία, power, is also applied to the angels.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:10. Διὰ τοῦτο] namely, because the relation of the woman to the man is such as has been indicated in 1Co_11:7-9.

ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφ.] to have a power, i.e. the sign of a power (to wit, as the context shows, of her husbands power, under which she stands), upon her head; by which the apostle means a covering for the head.[1775] So Chrysostom,[1776] Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, with the majority both of ancient and modern commentators, including van Hengel, Annot. p. 175 ff.; Lücke in the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 571 f., Billroth, Rückert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Maier, Weiss, Vilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 465 f.; comp Düsterdieck in the Shud. u. Krit. 1863, p. 707 ff. Just as in Diodor. Sic. i. 47, in the phrase ἔχουσαν τρεῖς βασιλείας ἐπὶ τῆς κεφ., the context shows beyond a doubt that βασ. means symbols of ones own power (diadems), so here the connection justifies the use of ἐξουσία to denote the sign of anothers power; the phrase thus simply having its proper reference brought out, and by no means being twisted into an opposite meaning, as Hofmann objects. Comp also the ornaments of the Egyptian priests, which, as being symbols of truth, bore the name of ἀλήθεια, Diod. Sic. i. 48. 77; Ael. V. H. xiv. 34. Schleusner explains ἐξουσ. as a token of the honour (of the married women over the single). But both the context (1Co_11:9) and the literal meaning of ἐξουσία are against this. Bengel and Schrader make it a sign of authority to speak in public. But the whole connection points to the authority of the husband over the wife. There is not a word in the whole passage about the potestas orandi, etc., nor of its being granted by the husband (Schrader). Hagenbachs view (Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 401) is also contrary to the context, seeing that we have previously διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα; he understands ἐξουσία as a mark of descent. Paul, he holds, formed the word upon the analogy of παρουσία κ.τ.λ[1779],a view that does not even leave to the term its lexical meaning, which was surely familiar enough to the apostle and his readers. Other expositors make ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑ directly to signify a veil (Michaelis, Schulz), to establish which they have appealed in the most arbitrary way to the help of Hebrew words (Cappellus, Clericus, Hammond, Semler, Ernesti). Hitzig again, in the theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 129 ff., gives out the term to be a Jewish-Greek one, derived from ἐξ ἴσου; because the veil had, he maintains, two overhanging halves which balanced each other in front and behind. But what is fatal to every attempt of this kind is that ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑ, power, is so very familiar a word, and suits perfectly well here in this its ordinary sense, while, as the name of a veil, it would be entirely without trace and without analogy in Greek. As for the derivation from ἐξ ἴσου, that is simply an etymological impossibility. Other interpreters still assume that ἘΞΟΥΣ. means here not a sign of power, but power itself. So, in various preposterous ways, earlier commentators cited by Wolf; and so more recently Kypke and Pott. The former puts a comma after ἐξουσία, and explains the clause: propterea mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (comp 1Co_11:4) in capite habeat. But the sense of ὈΦΕΊΛΕΙΝ ΤΙ would rather have required ὙΠΑΚΟΉΝ in place of ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑΝ. Pott again (in the Götting. Weihnachtsprogr. 1831, p. 22 ff.) renders it: mulierem oportet servare jus seu potestatem in caput suum, sc[1781] eo, quod illud velo obtegat. Not inconsistent with linguistic usage (Rev_11:6; Rev_20:6; Rev_14:18; comp Luk_19:17), but all the more so with the context, since what 1Co_11:9 states is just that the woman has no power at all over herself, and for that very reason ought to wear a veil. Hofmann, too, rejects the symbolical explanation of ἐξουσία, and finds the metaphorical element simply in the local import of the phrase ἘΠῚ ΚΕΦΑΛῆς (comparing it with such passages as Act_18:6, where, however, the idea is wholly different in kind). He makes the thought to be: the woman must have a power upon or over her head, because she must be subject to such a power. In that case what would be meant would be her husbands power, which she must have over her. But the question in hand was not at all about anything so general and self-evident as that, but about the veiling, which she was bound to observe. The conjectural interpretations which have been attempted are so far-fetched as not to deserve further mention. We may add that there is no evidence in antiquity for the symbolism which Paul here connects with the veiling of the women in assemblies (the hints which Baur founds upon in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 571 ff., are too remote). We have the more reason, therefore, to agree with Lücke in ascribing it to the ingenious apostle himself, however old the custom itselfthat married women should wear veils in publicwas in Hebrew usage (Ewald, Alterth. p. 269 f.).

διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους] which Baur uncritically holds to be a glossa view to which Neander also was inclinedis not a formula obsecrandi (Heydenreich, who, with Vorstius, Hammond, Bengel, and Zachariae, strangely assumes a reference to Isa_6:2), but a clause adding to the inner ground (διὰ τοῦτο) an outward one: for the sake of the angels, in order to avoid exciting disapproval among them. Τοὺς ἀγγέλους αἰδέσθητι, Chrysostom. Erasmus puts it well in his Paraphrase: Quodsi mulier eo venit impudentiae, ut testes hominum oculos non vereatur, saltem ob angelos testes, qui vestris conventibus intersunt, caput operiat. That the holy angels are present at assemblies for worship, is an idea which Paul had retained from Judaism (LXX. Psa_138:1; Tob_12:12 f.; Buxtorf, Synag. 15, p. 306; Grotius in loc[1783]; Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 393), and made an element in his Christian conception,[1784] in accordance with the ministering destination ascribed to them in Heb_1:14, but without any of the Jewish elaborations. It must remain a very doubtful point whether he had guardian angels (Act_12:15; Mat_18:10) specially in view (Jerome, August. de Trin. xii. 7; Theodoret, comp Theophylact), seeing that he nowhere says anything definite about them. Other expositors make the reference to be to the bad angels, who would be incited to wantonness by the unveiled women (Tert. c. Marc. v. 8; de virg. vel. 7, al[1786]),[1787] or might incite the men to it (Schoettgen, Zeltner, Mosheim), or might do harm to the uncovered women (Wetstein, Semler). Others, again, understand it to mean pious men (Clem. Alex.), or the Christian prophets (Beza), or those presiding in the congregation (Ambrosiaster), or those deputed to bring about betrothals (Lightfoot), or unfriendly spies (Heumann, Alethius, Schulz, Morus, Storr, Stolz, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Schrader)all mere attempts at explanation, which are sufficiently disposed of by the single fact that ἄγγελοι, when standing absolutely in the N. T., always denotes good angels alone. See on 1Co_4:9. The correct exposition is given also by Düsterdieck, l.c[1788], who shows well the fine trait of apostolic mysticism in διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους.

[1775] Luthers gloss is: That is the veil or covering, by which one may see that she is under her husbands authority, Gen_3:16.

[1776] Ἄρκ τὸ καλύπτεσθαι ὑποταγῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας. And on ver. 7 he says: As the man ought to pray uncovered in token of his ἀρχή, so for the woman it is a mark of presumption τὸ μὴ ἔχειν τὰ σύμβολα τῆς ὑποταγῆς.

[1779] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1781] c. scilicet.

[1783] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1784] Since the apostle is speaking of meetings for worship, it is unsuitable to make the reference be to the angels as witnesses of the creation of the first pair; so van Hengel, Annot. p. 181 f., following a Schol. In Matthiae. Any allusion to Gen_6:1-4 (suggested already by Tertullian, al. comp. also Kurtz, d. Ehen d. Söhne Gottes, p. 177, and Hofmann) is wholly foreign to the passage. Hofmann imports into it the idea: that the spirits which have sway in the corporeal world might be tempted to enter into that relation to the woman which is assigned to her husband. Hilgenfeld too, in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 183, makes it refer to the story in the Book of Enoch, 5 f., about the transgression of the angels with the daughters of men. What an importing of carnal lust! And were not the women whom the apostle here warns in part matrons and grey-headed dames!

[1786] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1787] Test. XII. Patr. p. 529 should not be adduced here (against Bretschneider). The passage contains a warning against the vanity of head-ornament, the seductive character of which is proved by an argument a majori ad minus.

[1788] .c. loco citato or laudato.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 11:10 is the counterstatement to 1Co 11:7 a , undeveloped there: “ For this reason the woman is bound to wear authority upon her head” sc ., the reason made out in 1Co 11:7-91Co 11:7-91Co 11:7-9 , that her nature is derived and auxiliary. The ἐξουσία (= σημεῖον ἐξουσίας ) that she “has (wears),” is that to which she submits, with the veil “upon her head” for its symbol; cf. 1Co 12:23 , where τιμή = σημεῖον τιμῆς . So the soldier under the Queen’s colours might be said to “have authority over his head”. Ev [1638] quotes Shakesp., Macb ., iii., 4, “Present him eminence both with eye and tongue,” as a parl [1639] expression for the authority of another pictured in oneself. διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους suggests, by way of after-thought, a supplementary motive for the decent veil, which the Ap. merely hints, leaving a crux for his interpreters. In 1Co 4:9 he adduced the “angels” as interested spectators of the conduct of Christ’s servants, and in 1Co 6:3 he spoke of certain of them as to be judged by the saints (see notes); in manifold ways these exalted beings are associated with God’s earthly kingdom (see Luk 2:13 ; Luk 12:8 ; Luk 15:10 , Act 1:10 , etc.; Heb 1:14 ; Heb 12:22 f.; Rev. passim ); in accordance with Jewish belief, they appear as agents of the Lawgiving in Gal 3:19 (Act 7:53 ), and in Heb 1:7 are identified with the forces of nature. The same line of thought connects the angels here with the maintenance of the laws and limits imposed at Creation ( cf. Job 38:7 ), reverence for which P. expresses in his own style by this allusion; see Hn [1640] , Ed [1641] , and Gd [1642] in loc . With this general view the interpretation is consistent which regards the angels as present in Divine worship and offended by irreverence and misconduct (see 1Ti 5:21 ), as (possibly) edified too by good behaviour (see Eph 3:10 ); cf. the ancient words of the Liturgy, “Therefore with Angels and Archangels, etc.” A familiar thought with the Ff [1643] ; thus Cm [1644] ad loc [1645] , “Open the eyes of faith, and thou shalt behold a multitude of angels; if the air is filled with angels, much more the Church”; and Thp [1646] , τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αἰδουμένη . Similarly Hooker, “The house of prayer is a Court beautified with the presence of Celestial powers; there we stand, we sing, we sound forth hymns to God, having His angels intermingled as our associates; with reference hereunto the Ap. doth require so great care to be taken of decency for the Angels’ sake” ( Eccl [1647] Pol ., 11:25. 2). P. cannot mean evil angels subject to sensual temptation, as many, after Tert [1648] , have read the passage, basing it on a precarious interpretation of Gen 6:4 (see Everling, Die paul. Angelologie u.s.w ., pp. 32 ff.) an explanation far-fetched and grossly improbable. Others have seen in these ἄγγελοι pious men, prophets, Church-officers , even match-makers ! Others have proposed emendations of the text, substituting διὰ τοὺς ἀγελαίους or τὰς ἀγέλας , or διὰ τῆς ἀγγελίας ( during the preaching !). Baur, Sm [1649] , and others would delete the troublesome words as a primitive gloss .

[1638] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .

[1639] parallel.

[1640] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1641] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[1642] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[1643] Fathers.

[1644] John Chrysostom’s Homiliœ († 407).

[1645] ad locum , on this passage.

[1646] Theophylact, Greek Commentator.

[1647] ecclesiastical.

[1648]ert. Tertullian.

[1649] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 10. “For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of power on her head because of the angels.”

For this cause: because she was formed from him and for him.

Literally it is: “the woman ought to have on her head a power.” This term power has been understood in many ways; but they are not worth the trouble of enumeration, the meaning is so clear and simple. Power is put here for a sign of power, and of power not exercised, but submitted to. The woman ought to wear on her head the sign of the power under which she has been placed. It is a frequent way of speaking in all languages, to use the sign of a thing to denote the thing itself, for example the sword for war, the crown for sovereignty. But it is rarer to find, as here, the thing itself put for the sign; but examples are also found of this other form of metonymy; thus when Diodorus, describing the statue of the mother of the Egyptian king Osimandias, says that she has three kingships on her head, he means, evidently: three diadems, symbols of three kingships; or when the same historian gives the name ἀλήθεια, truth, to the ornament which the Egyptian priests wore to symbolize their possession of this highest good.

The difficulty of the verse lies in the last words: because of the angels. Have we here a second reason? In that case it would require to be connected with the preceding (as was indicated by the word for this cause) by some such particle as: and, and also, or and besides. Is it, on the contrary, the same reason presented in another form? But in that case it is difficult to understand the relation between such different modes of expression to convey the same idea. Heinrici, who has thoroughly felt this difficulty, seeks to resolve it by maintaining that the angels are here mentioned because they were God’s agents in the work of creation, of which mention was made 1Co 11:8-9, and therefore sure to be particularly offended by a mode of acting opposed to the normal relation established in the beginning between man and woman. This solution is certainly not far from the truth. Only it seems to us that we must set aside the idea of the intervention of angels in the work of creation. They no doubt beheld that work, according to Job 38:7, with songs of joy, but without any co-operation on their part being indicated. We are called rather to bear in mind, that, according to Luk 15:7; Luk 15:10, the angels in heaven hail the conversion of every sinner; that, according to Eph 3:10, they behold with adoration the infinitely diversified wonders which the Divine Spirit works within the Church; that, according to 1Ti 5:21, they are, as well as God and Jesus Christ, witnesses of the ministry of Christ’s servants; finally, that, in this very Epistle (1Co 4:9), they form along with men that intelligent universe which is the spectator of the apostolical struggles and sufferings. Why, then, should they not be invisibly present at the worship of the Church in which are wrought so large a number of those works of grace? How could an action contrary to the Divine order, and offending that supreme decorum of which the angels are the perfect representatives, fail to sadden them? And how, finally, could the pain and shame felt by these invisible witnesses fail to spread a sombre shade over the serenity of the worship? In Christ heaven and earth are brought together (John 1:52). As there is henceforth community of joy, there is also community of sorrow between the inhabitants of these two spheres. The Jews had already a similar sentiment in their worship. This is what has led the Greek translators to say (Psa 138:1): “I will praise Thee before the angels,” instead of: “I will praise Thee before Elohim.” This explanation is more or less that of Chrysostom and Augustine; it is that of Grotius and of most of the moderns (Rückert, de Wette, Meyer, Osiander, etc.). Edwards thinks it is as models of humility in general life, and not only in worship, that the angels are here proposed as an example to Christian women; but the preposition διά, because of, expresses a different relation from that of example. It is rather to the presence of the angels that it calls our attention. — There has often been reproduced, in recent times, an idea which occurs so early as in Tertullian: Paul is held to be speaking here of the evil angels whose passions might be excited by the view of unveiled women. Or, thinking of angels in general, there has been found in our passage an allusion to Gen 6:1-4 (Kurtz, Hofmann, Hilgenfeld). But if good angels are in question, they have many other opportunities of seeing woman unveiled than in Christian worship; and if evil angels, this temptation makes no change in their state. Besides, there is no special indication leading us to find here an allusion to Genesis 6

Storr, Flatt, etc., have taken the ἄγγελοι to be spies sent by the heathen to watch Christian worship (Jas 2:25); Clement of Alexandria: the most pious members; Beza: the prophets of the Church; Ambrose: the pastors (Rev 1:20). Such significations are now only mentioned as matters of history.

Baur and Neander, finding it impossible to connect with the reason indicated by the words: for this cause, the reason contained in these: because of the angels, have proposed to suppress the last words as a later interpolation. Holsten goes further; he extends this supposition to the whole of 1Co 11:10, but for a different reason. Giving to this verse a meaning almost the same as that of Hofmann (allusion to Genesis 6), he concludes therefrom, very logically, as it seems to me, that such a saying cannot be ascribed to the apostle. Only the premiss (the meaning ascribed by him to the verse) is false, consequently also the conclusion which he draws from it. As the documents present no variants, the authenticity of the verse may be regarded as certain.

After having thus declared the natural dependence of woman in relation to man, the apostle yet feels the need of completing the exposition of this relation by exhibiting the other side of the truth; this he does in 1Co 11:11-12.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:10

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

There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators as this. After all that has been written, it remains just as obscure as ever. The meaning which it naturally suggests to the most superficial reader, is regarded by the most laborious critics as the only true one. By ἐξουσία, power, the apostle means the sign or symbol of authority; just as Diodorus Sic., 1:47, speaks of an image as having three kingdoms on its head. The apostle had asserted and proved that the woman is subordinate to the man, and he had assumed as granted that the veil was the conventional symbol of the mans authority. The inference is that the woman ought to wear the ordinary symbol of the power of her husband. As it was proper in itself, and demanded by the common sense of propriety, that the woman should be veiled, it was specially proper in the worshipping assemblies, for there they were in the presence not merely of men but of angels. It was therefore, not only out of deference to public sentiment, but from reverence to those higher intelligences that the woman should conform to all the rules of decorum. This is the common and only satisfactory interpretation of the passage. Of those who dissent from this view, some propose various conjectural emendations of the text; others vainly endeavor to prove that the word ἐξουσία may be made to mean a veil; others take the word literally. And as to the last clause, instead of taking the word angels in its ordinary sense, some say it here means the angels, or presiding officers, of the church; others, that it means messengers or spies from the heathen who came to observe the mode in which the Christians worshipped, and would report any thing they observed to their disadvantage. The great majority of commentators acquiesce in the interpretation stated above, which satisfies all the demands of the context.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A covering which is a token of subjection.

What this meaneth, I do not yet understand.

The conclusion: Women must be covered, to show by this external sign their subjection.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

power on her head--the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad).

because of the angels--who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Psa 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (Co1 4:9; Eph 3:10; Ecc 5:6). HAMMOND quotes CHRYSOSTOM, "Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" BENGEL explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Isa 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mat 18:10, Mat 18:31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.] There are few portions in the sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of conjectures and explanations, and are less understood, than this verse, and 1Co 15:29. Our translators were puzzled with it; and have inserted here one of the largest marginal readings found any where in their work; but this is only on the words power on her head, which they interpret thus: that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. But, admitting this marginal reading to be a satisfactory solution so far as it goes, it by no means removes all the difficulty. Mr. Locke ingenuously acknowledged that he did not understand the meaning of the words; and almost every critic and learned man has a different explanation. Some have endeavoured to force out a meaning by altering the text. The emendation of Mr. Toup, of Cornwall, is the most remarkable: he reads εξιουσα, going out, instead of εξουσιαν, power; wherefore the woman, when she goes out, should have a veil on her head. Whatever ingenuity there may appear in this emendation, the consideration that it is not acknowledged by any MS., or version, or primitive writer, is sufficient proof against it. Dr. Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Bishop Pearce, have written best on the subject, in which they allow that there are many difficulties. The latter contends, 1. That the original should be read, Wherefore the woman ought to have A power upon her head, that is, the power of the husband over the wife; the word power standing for the sign or token of that power which was a covering or veil. Theophylact explains the word, το του εξουσιαζεσθαι συμβολον, τουτεστι, το καλυμμα, "the symbol of being under power, that is, a veil, or covering." And Photius explains it thus: της υποταγης συμβολον το επι της κεφαλης καλυμμα φερειν; to wear a veil on the head is a symbol of subjection. It is no unusual thing, in the Old and New Testament, for the signs and tokens of things to be called by the names of the things themselves, for thus circumcision is called the covenant, in Gen 17:10, Gen 17:13, though it was only the sign of it.

2. The word angels presents another difficulty. Some suppose that by these the apostle means the fallen angels, or devils; others, the governors of the Church; and others, those who were deputed among the Jews to espouse a virgin in the name of a lover. All these senses the learned bishop rejects, and believes that the apostle uses the word angels, in its most obvious sense, for the heavenly angels; and that he speaks according to the notion which then prevailed among Jews, that the holy angels interested themselves in the affairs of men, and particularly were present in their religious assemblies, as the cherubim, their representation, were present in their temple. Thus we read in Ec 5:6: Neither say thou before the ANGEL, it was an error; and in 1Ti 5:21: I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect ANGELS, c. Parallel to these is what Agrippa says in his oration to the Jews, Josephus, War, b. ii. chap. 16: I protest before God, your holy temple, and all the ANGELS of heaven, c. All which passages suppose, or were spoken to those who supposed, that the angels know what passes here upon earth. The notion, whether just or not, prevailed among the Jews and if so, St. Paul might speak according to the common opinion.

3. Another difficulty lies in the phrase διατουτο, wherefore, which shows that this verse is a conclusion from what the apostle was arguing before which we may understand thus: that his conclusion, from the foregoing argument, ought to have the more weight, upon account of the presence, real or supposed, of the holy angels, at their religious meetings. See Bishop Pearce, in loc.

The learned bishop is not very willing to allow that the doctrine of the presence of angelic beings in religious assemblies is legitimate; but what difficulty can there be in this, if we take the words of the apostle in another place: Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Heb 1:14. And perhaps there is no time in which they can render more essential services to the followers of God than when they are engaged in Divine ordinances. On the whole, the bishop's sense of the passage and paraphrase stands thus: "And because of this superiority in the man, I conclude that the woman should have on her head a veil, the mark of her husband's power over her, especially in the religious assemblies, where the angels are supposed to be invisibly present."

The ancient versions make little alteration in the common reading, and the MSS. leave the verse nearly as it stands in the common printed editions. The Armenian has a word that answers to umbram, a shade or covering. The AEthiopic, her head should be veiled. The common editions of the Vulgate have potestatem, power; but in an ancient edition of the Vulgate, perhaps one of the first, if not the first, ever printed, 2 vols. fol., sine ulla nota anni, c.: the verse stands thus: Ideo debet mulier velamen habere super caput suum: et propter angelos. My old MS. translation seems to have been taken from a MS. which had the same reading: Wherefore the woman schal haue a veyl on her heuyd and for aungels. Some copies of the Itala have also velamen, a veil.

In his view of this text, Kypke differs from all others; and nothing that so judicious a critic advances should be lightly regarded. 1. He contends that εξουσιαν occurs nowhere in the sense of veil, and yet he supposes that the word καλυμμα, veil is understood, and must in the translation of the passage be supplied. 2. He directs that a comma be placed after εξουσιαν, and that it be construed with οφειλει, ought; after which he translates the verse thus: Propterea mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen in capite habeat propter angelos; On this account the woman is subject to power, so that she should have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 3. He contends that both the Latins and Greeks use debere and οφειλειν elegantly to express that to which one is obnoxious or liable. So Horace:-

---- Tu, nisi ventis

Debes ludibrium, cave.

Carm. lib. i. Od. xiv. ver. 15.

Take heed lest thou owe a laughing stock to the

winds; i.e. lest thou become the sport of the

winds; for to these thou art now exposing thyself.

So Dionys. Hal. Ant. lib. iii., page 205: Και πολλην οφειλοντες αισχυνην απηλθον εκ της αγορας· They departed from the market, exposed to great dishonour. So Euripides, Οφειλω σοι βλαβην· I am exposed to thy injury.

4. He contends that the words taken in this sense agree perfectly with the context, and with διατουτο, wherefore, in this verse, "Because the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man, therefore she is subject to his authority, and should have a veil on her head as a token of that subjection; and particularly before the holy angels, who are present in the congregations of the saints."

For Dr. Lightfoot's opinion, that by angels we are to understand the paranymphs, or messengers who came on the part of others, to look out for proper spouses for their friends, I must refer to his works, vol. ii. fol., p. 772. The reader has now before him every thing that is likely to cast light on this difficult subject, and he must either adopt what he judges to be best, or else think for himself.

After all, the custom of the Nazarite may cast some light upon this place. As Nazarite means one who has separated himself by vow to some religious austerity, wearing his own hair, c. so a married woman was considered a Nazarite for life; i.e. separated from all others, and joined to one husband, who is her lord: and hence the apostle, alluding to this circumstance, says, The woman ought to have power on her head, i.e. wear her hair and veil, for her hair is a proof of her being a Nazarite, and of her subjection to her husband, as the Nazarite was under subjection to the Lord, according to the rule or law of his order. See Clarke's notes on Nu 6:5-7.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power From that authority he draws an argument in favor of outward decorum. “She is subject,” says he, “let her then wear a token of subjection.” In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy, for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of covering.

It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this — to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. Otherwise it were an inconclusive argument that Paul has drawn from nature, in saying that it were not one whit more seemly for a woman to have her head uncovered than to be shaven — this being applicable to virgins also.

Because of the angels This passage is explained in various ways. As the Prophet Malachi 2:7 calls priests angels of God, some are of opinion that Paul speaks of them; but the ministers of the word have nowhere that term applied to them by itself — that is, without something being added; and the meaning would be too forced. I understand it, therefore, in its proper signification. But it is asked, why it is that he would have women have their heads covered because of the angels — for what has this to do with them? Some answer: “Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness, should there be any on such occasions.” But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him. When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, “If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage.” And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle’s design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it — that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head.—The two clauses which compose this verse are, perhaps, the two most difficult passages in the New Testament, and, accordingly, have given rise to an almost endless variety of interpretation. What is meant, first, by the woman having “power on her head?”

1. There have been many—some of them most fanciful—suggestions that the word for power (exousia) may have crept in instead of some other word by the mistake of some copyist; or that the word used by St. Paul may have been exiousa—“When she goes out in public;” or two words (ex ousias)—“in accordance with her nature.” All explanations, however, which require an alteration in the Greek text of the passage must be set aside, for (1) there is no MS. evidence whatever to support any other reading than the ordinary one, exousian; and (2) any alteration of a difficult or unusual word would have been naturally into a word that would simplify the passage—whereas here, if alteration has taken place, it has been to insert a word which has increased the obscurity of a difficult passage.

2. It has been maintained that the word exousia here means the sign of power, i.e., a veil, which is the symbol of the husband’s power over the wife. The fatal objection to this view, however, is that exousia expresses our own power, and not the power exercised by another over us. It is a word frequently used by St. Paul in this sense. (See 1Co_8:9; 1Co_9:4-5; 1Co_9:12; 1Co_9:18.) Whatever interpretation, therefore, we put upon this passage, it must be consistent with this word being interpreted as meaning some “power” which the woman herself has, and not some power exercised over her by her husband.

Most commentators have quoted a passage from Diodorus Sic. i. 47, in which the Greek word “kingdom” (basileia) is used to signify “crown,” as an illustration of the use of the word indicating the thing symbolised for the symbol itself. The parallelism between that use of the word kingdom, and the use here of the word “power,” has been very positively denied (Stanley and others), on the ground that the “use of the name of the thing signified for the symbol, though natural when the power spoken of belongs to the person, would be unnatural when applied to the power exercised over that person by some one else.” But the parallelism will hold good if we can refer the “power” here to some symbol of a power which belongs to the woman herself.

If we bear in mind the Apostle’s constant use of words with a double significance, or rather with both an obvious and a subtly implied meaning, and if we also recall the reference made to a woman’s abundance of hair in 1Co_11:5-6, and the further reference to a woman’s long hair in 1Co_11:14-15, where the hair of the woman, given her by nature, and the wearing of a veil are used as almost identical thoughts, we may, I think, conclude that the “power” here spoken of is that long hair which is called in 1Co_11:15 her “glory.” It is remarkable that Callistratus twice uses this word exousia in connection with hair to express its abundance. To the Jews the recollection of Samson’s history would have given the word “power,” when applied to hair, a remarkable significance. To thus turn aside abruptly in the middle of a long passage in which woman’s subordination is enforced, and speak suddenly and vividly of her “power,” would be eminently Pauline. In the Apostle’s writings the thought of inferiority and superiority, of ruler and server, are frequently and almost paradoxically regarded and enforced as identical. To serve because you rule; to be weak because you are in another sense strong, are thoughts strikingly combined again and again in the Epistles of St. Paul. Thus I would imagine him here to suddenly turn aside and say, I have been speaking of your bondage and subordination, you are, because of this, to have a covering (a veil or long hair) on your head as a sign, and yet that very thing which is the symbol of your subjection to man is the sign of your beauty and “power” as a woman.

Because of the angels.—Why should a woman have her head covered (either with her natural veil of hair, or with an artificial veil shrouding her face) because of the angels? The same objections which have been already stated to any alteration of the usual Greek text of the earlier clause of this verse apply equally here. The MS. evidence is unanimous in favour of the word “angels,” nor can we accept any of the figurative meanings attached to the word angel as “the president” (see Rev_2:1), or “messenger,” sent by enemies to see what took place contrary to general custom in those assemblies. We must take the word “angel” in its ordinary and general sense.

That the angels were present in assemblies for worship was an idea prevalent among the Jews (Psa_138:1, in the LXX.), and regarded as they were by the Christian as “ministering spirits” (Heb_1:14), no doubt their presence would be realised in the meetings of Christians.

We have already seen that the Apostle in his argument upon the relation of the sexes to each other (1Co_11:7-9), refers to the first three chapters of Genesis as illustrating and enforcing that relationship. What more natural than that his thoughts should have gone on to 1 Corinthians 6 of the same book, where is the record of the angels (in the LXX. the word translated “sons of God” is “the angels”—angeloi) having been enamoured by the beauty of women, and so having fallen from their high estate. This account of “the fall of the angels” is referred to more than once elsewhere in the New Testament (see Jude 1Co_11:1; 2Pe_2:4), and through Rabbinical interpretations would have been familiar to St. Paul’s converts. Without at all necessarily expressing his belief in the historic accuracy of this legendary view of the fall of the angels, St. Paul might use it as an argument with those who did believe it (as in the case of the Rock. see 1Co_10:4, and Note there). You believe—would be St. Paul’s appeal to these women—that once, through seeing the beauty of the daughters of men, the holy angels themselves fell—even that thought ought to make you feel that it is not seemly for you to be without a veil (of which your “power on your head,” i.e., your hair, is the type) in those assemblies where the angels are present as God’s ministering spirits.

It has been urged (by Meyer and others) that the word “angels,” in the New Testament, always signifies good angels, and it is in that sense I would regard it here, for the thought surely is, that they are good angels, and should not, therefore, be tempted. I presume the idea was also that the fallen angels were “good” before their fall.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head] That is, as in the margin of our version, ‘a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband.’ An hilyng (hülle, veil), Wiclif. Third argument, drawn from the presence of the angels at Christian worship. The word translated power here is rather, the right to exercise power, authority, as in St Mat_10:1.; St Luk_4:36, &c. Hence it has been suggested in the notes on ch. 1Co_9:4-5; 1Co_9:12 that it has sometimes, though not here, the signification of right. In this place the abstract is put for the concrete, the authority itself for the token of being under authority. For an instance of the use of the veil in this way we may refer to Gen_24:65, where Rebekah veils herself in token of submission, as soon as she comes into the presence of her husband. We are not to exclude the idea of feminine modesty, but to regard it as included in the idea of being under authority, of which modesty is a kind of natural acknowledgment. Neither are we to confine the idea to married persons, as the margin of our Version does, but to regard it as applying to the mutual relations of the sexes generally. The passage has sorely perplexed the commentators. The various explanations of it may be found in Stanley and Alford in loc.

because of the angels] This passage has also been explained in various ways (see the commentators just mentioned). It is best on the whole to regard it as an intimation that the angels, though invisible, were fellow-worshippers with men in the Christian assemblies, and were therefore “spectators of the indecency,” and liable to be offended thereat. “When therefore the women usurp the symbol of dominion, against what is right and lawful, they make their shameful conduct conspicuous” in the eyes of the messengers of God. Thus Calvin. Erasmus paraphrases it well: “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.” For some remarkable Oriental illustrations of the interpretation that evil angels are here meant, see Dean Stanley on this verse.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman,.... This is said, partly to repress the pride and insolence of man, that he might not be too much elated with himself, and his superiority over the woman, and look with any degree of disdain and contempt upon her, and treat her with indifference and neglect; and partly to comfort the woman, that she might not be dejected with the condition and circumstances in which she was, since the one is not without the other; nor can they be so truly comfortable and happy, as not the man without the woman, who was made for an help meet for him,

so neither the woman without the man in the Lord. The phrase "in the Lord" is added, to show that it is the will of God, and according to his ordination and appointment, that the one should not be without the other; or it may design that lawful conjunction and copulation, of one man and one woman together, according to the will of the Lord, which distinguishes it from all other impure mixtures and copulations. The Arabic version reads it, "in the religion of the Lord"; and the sense is, that the one is not without the other in religious worship, and in the enjoyment of religious privileges; that though the woman may not pray publicly and expound the Scriptures, yet she may join in prayer, and hear the word preached, sing the praises of God, and enjoy all ordinances; for in Christ no distinction of sex is regarded, men and women are all one in him, and equally regenerated, justified, and pardoned, and will be glorified together.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

Ver. 10. To have power] That is, a veil, called in Hebrew Radid, of Radad, to bear rule. And indeed what was this subjection to the husband, but a kind of power and protection derived to the wife, in respect of her former estate?

Because of the angels] Present in the assemblies of the saints. This was set forth of old by the hangings of the tabernacle wrought with cherubims within and without. Others understand this text of ministers, frequently called angels, Hag 1:12-13 Rev 2:1; Rev 2:8; Rev 2:12; Rev 2:18; Rev 3:1; Rev 3:7; Rev 3:14 Jdg 2:1; (that angel is thought to be Phineas); Ecc 5:6; "Neither say thou before the angel" (i.e. before the Lord’s priest) "it was an error." (Vorstius.) Some think the apostle argues from the example of the angels; we should imitate their modesty, who were wont to cover their faces, to testify their subjection toward God.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this cause ... - There is scarcely any passage in the Scriptures which has more exercised the ingenuity of commentators than this verse. The various attempts which have been made to explain it may be seen in Pool, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc. After all the explanations which have been given of it, I confess, I do not understand it. It is not difficult to see what the connection requires us to suppose in the explanation. The obvious interpretation would be, that a woman should have a veil on her head because of the angels who were supposed to be present, observing them in their public worship; and it is generally agreed that the word “power” (ἐξουσίαν exousian) denotes a veil, or a covering for the head. But the word power does not occur in this sense in any classic writer. Bretschneider understands it of a veil, as being a defense or guard to the face, lest it should be seen by others. Some have supposed that it was the name of a female ornament that was worn on the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels. Most commentators agree that it means a “veil,” though some think (see Bloomfield) that it is called power to denote the veil which was worn by married women, which indicated the superiority of the married woman to the maiden. But it is sufficient to say in reply to this, that the apostle is not referring to married women in contradistinction from those who are unmarried, but is showing that all women who prophecy or pray in public should be veiled. There can, perhaps, be no doubt that the word “power” has reference to a veil, or to a covering for the head; but why it is called power I confess I do not understand; and most of the comments on the word are, in my view, egregious trifling.

Because of the angels - Some have explained this of good angels, who were supposed to be present in their assemblies (see Doddridge); others refer it to evil angels; and others to messengers or spies who, it has been supposed, were present in their public assemblies, and who would report greatly to the disadvantage of the Christian assemblies if the women were seen to be unveiled. I do not know what it means; and I regard it as one of the very few pass ages in the Bible whose meaning as yet is wholly inexplicable. The most natural interpretation seems to me to be this: “A woman in the public assemblies, and in speaking in the presence of people, should wear a veil - the usual symbol of modesty and subordination - because the angels of God are witnesses of your public worship Heb 1:13, and because they know and appreciate the propriety of subordination and order in public assemblies.”

According to this, it would mean that the simple reason would be that the angels were witnesses of their worship; and that they were the friends of propriety, due subordination, and order; and that they ought to observe these in all assemblies convened for the worship of God - I do not know that this sense has been proposed by any commentator; but it is one which strikes me as the most obvious and natural, and consistent with the context. The following remarks respecting the ladies of Persia may throw some light on this subject - “The head-dress of the women is simple; their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses; the beauty of this head-dress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels, in default of which, they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver. The head is covered, “under” the veil or kerchief “(course chef),” only by the end of a small “bandeau,” shaped into a triangle; this “bandeau,” which is of various colors, is thin and light.

The “bandalette” is embroidered by the needle, or covered with jewelry, according to the quality of the wearer. This is, in, my opinion, the ancient “tiara,” or “diadem,” of the queens of Persia. Only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection “(oc’est la la marque a laquelle on reconnoit qu’ elles sont sous puissance o - power).” The girls have little “caps,” instead of this kerchief or tiara; they wear no veil at home, but let two tresses of their hair fall under their cheeks. The caps of girls of superior rank are tied with a row of pearls. Girls are not shut up in Persia till they attain the age of six or seven years; before that age they go out of the seraglio, sometimes with their father, so that they may then be seen. I have seen some wonderfully pretty girls. They show the neck and bosom; and more beautiful cannot be seen” - Chardin. “The wearing of a veil by a married woman was a token of her being under power. The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil, or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the eyes, and being fastened with a pin to the left side of the head, falls down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which they hold that cloth by the two sides, so that, except the eyes, they are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin until they are married” - Thevenot.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

A power: That is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful. (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

By power on her head is here to be understood (as some think) a covering on her head, in sign that she is under the power of her husband: the thing signified is here put for the sign, as the sign is often put for the thing signified. Thus the ark, which is called, the ark of God’s strength, Psa 132:8, is itself called his strength, 1Ch 16:11. But others here by head do not understand the woman’s natural head, but her husband, or the man, who is the political head of the woman; and by having power on him, understand her exercising of her power in him, testifying it by covering her head; and think this text well expounded by 1Ti 2:12, where the apostle forbiddeth the woman to usurp authority over the man. He addeth another reason,

because of the angels. By angels here some understand God himself, who by the ministry of angels created man and woman in this order, and put this law upon the woman. Others understand those messengers which the man sent sometimes, by whom the woman was betrothed (but this was a custom only in use amongst the Jews). Others here by angels understand the ministers and officers of the church, who are sometimes in holy writ called angels. Others understand the evil angels, who watch to take advantage to tempt men from objects appearing beautiful to unchaste thoughts, &c. But the most and best interpreters understand here by angels, the good angels; for the apostle would hardly have spoken of devils under the notion of angels, especially speaking to deter persons from actions; and so it teaches us, that the good angels, who are ministering spirits for the good of God’s elect, at all times have a special minstration, or at least are more particularly present, in the assemblies of people for religious worship, observing the persons, carriage, and demeanour; the sense of which ought to awe all persons attending those services, from any indecent and unworthy behaviour.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. Power on her head—Power to which she is subject, not power which is subjected to her. And by this abstract word εξουσια, power, Paul plainly designates the hood covering her head. it may be that this Greek word was the name of the hood; but there is no other instance of such a use of the term. Olshausen says, that in the Middle Ages imperium (a Latin word of the same meaning as this Greek) was certainly the name for a woman’s headdress. Similarly Diodorus Siculus says, that a certain queen “had three royalties (crowns) upon her head, to signify that she was daughter, wife, and mother of a king.”

Because of the angels—In whose presence the worship of the Church below often is. So 1Ti_5:21, “I charge thee… before the elect angels;” as if the angels witnessed the charge and would mark and testify how it was fulfilled. So angels desire to look into the mysteries of redemption, 1Pe_1:12; and we are “a spectacle to angels, and to men.” 1Co_4:9. The expedients of commentators to avoid this beautiful meaning are many, but absurd and useless. They are completely given and disapproved by Stanley. The Jewish writers, both before and after Paul, carried out a similar idea to a puerile extent. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai (quoted by Wetstein) says: “If the hair of a woman is uncovered, the evil spirits will come and sit upon her, and upon all in her house.” In a more Christian strain, Chrysostom says: “If you wish to see both martyrs and angels, open the eyes of your faith, and you shall behold the spectacle; for if the air is full of angels, much rather the Church.

For that all the air is full of angels hear what the apostle says, admonishing the women to have a vail upon their heads,” etc. Again, “If you despise men, at any rate reverence the angels.” Perfectly accordant with all this is Bengel’s beautiful thought, that as angels vail their faces before God, so would they require that the female face should vail before men.” Harmony and order should prevail in their angelic presence.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To have power on her head. A great deal of irrelevant guesswork has been written on this verse. Under this head must be classed the idle attempts to twist the word exousia, power, or authority, into some other reading an attempt which may be set aside, because it is not sanctioned by a single manuscript. We may also dismiss the futile efforts to make exousia have any other primary meaning than "authority." The context shows that the word has here a secondary sense, and implies some kind of covering. The verse, therefore, points the same lessons as, Gen_24:64, Gen_24:65. This much may be regarded as certain, and this view is adopted by the steadfast good sense of our English translators, both in the Authorized and Revised Versions. The only question worth asking is why the word exousia had come at Corinth, or in the Corinthian Church, to be used for "a veil," or "covering." The simplest answer is that just as the word "kingdom" in Greek may be used for "a crown" (comp. regno as the name of the pope"s tiara) so authority" may mean a sign of authority (Revised Version), or "a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband" (Authorized Version, margin). The margin of the Revised Version, "authority over her head," is a strange suggestion. Some have explained the word of her own true authority, which consists in accepting the rule of her husband; but it probably moans a sign of her husband"s authority over her. Similarly the traveller Chardin says that in Persia the women wear a veil, in sign that they are "under subjection." If so, the best comment on the word may be found in the exquisite lines of Milton, which illustrate the passage in other ways also

She, as a vei1, down to the slender waist Her unadorned golden tresses wore As the vine curves her tendrils, which implied Subjection, but required with gentle sway, And by her yielded, by him best received.

The fact that Callistratus twice uses exousia of "abundance of hair" is probably a mere coincidence, resembling the Irish expression "a power of hair." Nor can there be any allusion to the isolated fact that Samson"s strength lay in his hair. The very brief comment of Luther sums up all the best of the many pages which have been written on the subject. He says that exousia means "the veil or covering, by which one may see that she is under her husband"s authority". (Gen_3:16) Because of the angels. In this clause also we must set aside, as idle waste of time, the attempts to alter the text, or to twist the plain words into impossible meanings. The word "angels" cannot mean "Church officials," or "holy men," or "prophets," or "delegates," or men," or anything but angels. Nor can the verse mean, as Bengel supposes, that women are to veil themselves because the angels do so, (Isa_6:2) or (as Augustine says) because the angels approve of it. The only question is whether the allusion is to good or bad angels. In favour of the latter view is the universal tradition among the Jews that the angels fell by lust for mortal women, which was the Jewish way of interpreting Gen_6:1, Gen_6:2. This is the view of Tertullian ("De Virg. Vel.," 7) in writing on this subject. A woman, in the opinion and traditions of Oriental Jews, is liable to injury from the shedim, if she appears in public unveiled; and these evil spirits are supposed to delight in the appearance of unveiled women. The objection to this view, that angeloi alone is never used of evil but always of good angels, is not perhaps decisive. (see 1Co_6:3) The verse may, however, mean (in accordance with the Jewish belief of those days) that good angels, being under the possibility of falling from the same cause as their evil brethren, fly away at once from the presence of unveiled women. Thus Khadijah tested that the visitant of her husband Mohammed really was the angel Gabriel, because he disappeared the moment she unveiled her head. On the whole, however, the meaning seems to be, out of respect and reverence for the holy angels, who are always invisibly present in the Christian assemblies. (On this point, see Luk_15:10; Ephesians Heb_1:14 Heb_12:1; Ecc_5:6; Psa_138:1 LXX; RAPC Tob 12:12. See Latimer"s "Sermons," p. 253) "Reverence the angels" is St. Chrysostom"s remark.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this cause also a woman ought to be veiled in the public assemblies, because of the angels - Who attend there, and before whom they should be careful not to do anything indecent or irregular.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

power authority, i.e. the sign of the husband’s authority.

angels i.e. of the presence of the angels.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Moreover, for this cause ought the woman to have power, (that is, a veil upon her head, as a sign and in token of her husband’s power, and her own subjection,) because of the angels; that is, say some,

1. Because of the law of subjection given her by the ministry of angels.

2. Because of the pastors, teachers, and ministers of the church, say others, who are often in scripture styled angels.

3. Because of the evil angels, as some interpret it; the woman being tempted by Satan, the prince of evil angels, to commit the first sin, which is a perpetual cause of shame to her and her posterity, and which increased her and their subjection to the man; for which reason the woman ought to be veiled and covered (in the church-assemblies particularly) as a token of shamefacedness and subjection.

4. The more general interpretation is, because of the good angels, who are present in the assemblies of the saints, and eye-witnesses of their carriage there; therefore the woman ought to do nothing indecent in the presence of those holy spirits. And besides, she has the angels for her pattern and precedent, who cover their faces and veil their heads, in token of subjection to Almighty God.

Note here, 1. That it has been a general opinion among Jews, heathens, and Christians, that good angels are more particularly present with us in the places, and at the times, of God’s public worship; yea, that they are not only present with us, but observant of us, and assisting to us, in the performance of all religious exercises, especially prayer: and therefore the Jews speak of a particular angel, whom they call the angel of prayer.

Note, 2. That therefore all persons, both men and women, ought to demean themselves with all modesty, reverence, and decency, in the worship of God, out of regard to the angels, who are there present, observing their carriage and behaviour.

True, the angels cannot penetrate into the inward devotion of the mind, which God only observes; but they observe and take notice of the outward decency of our carriage, and the reverence of our deportment.

But, Lord, how little is this considered, and by how few among us, in our religious assemblies! With regard to God, who sees our hearts, we should more particularly compose our minds to the greatest seriousness and sincerity in our devotions; and with a particular regard to the holy angels who are there present, we should be careful also of our outward behaviour: but to our shame be it spoken, there are multitudes amongst us in our Christian assemblies, whom neither the presence of angels, nor the observing eye of him who is the Lord of angels, can influence to any tolerable decency of behaviour in the house of prayer, where the eyes of God and angels, of ministers and men, are upon them.

Such without repentance must never expect to dwell hereafter with God and his holy angels in heaven, but take up their lodgings with the devil and his angels in an eternal hell, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels . [The argument here runs thus: The rule which I have given you rests upon symbolism--the symbol of the wife's subjection. But this symbolism is correct, for, as man proceeded from God, being fashioned as a minor representative of God, so also woman proceeded from man as a minor representative of man, and her minor state is apparent from the fact that she was created for the man, and not the man for her. Hence, women ought not to do away with the veil while in places of worship, because of the symbolism; and they can not do away with the subordination which it symbolizes, because it rests on the unalterable facts of creation. To abandon this justifiable and well-established symbol of subordination would be a shock to the submissive and obedient spirit of the ministering angels ( Isa_6:2 ) who, though unseen, are always present with you in your places of worship" ( Mat_18:10-31 ; Psa_138:1 ; 1Ti_5:21 ; 1Co_4:9 ; Ecc_5:6 ). Here we find Paul not only vindicating the religious truths of the Old Testament, but authenticating its historical facts as well.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. For this cause ought a woman to have power, etc. She ought to have on her head the veil, the badge of submission to authority. Because of the angels. This clause has puzzled the critics. The idea probably is: “There should be no violation of decorum, such as a bareheaded woman in a public assembly would be, lest it offend the ministering angels which are always present, though unseen.”

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

10. ἐξουσίαν. That is, as in the margin of our version, ‘a covering in sign that she is under the power (or rather authority, see below) of her husband.’ Fourth argument, drawn from the presence of the angels at Christian worship. The word translated power here is rather, the right to exercise power, authority, as in Mat 10:1; Luk 4:36, &c. Hence it has been suggested in the notes on ch. 1Co 8:9, 1Co 9:4, that it has sometimes, though not here, the signification of right. In this place the abstract is put for the concrete, the authority itself for the token of being under authority. For an instance of the use of the veil in this way we may refer to Gen 24:65, where Rebekah veils herself in token of submission, as soon as she comes into the presence of her husband. We are not to exclude the idea of feminine modesty, but to regard it as included in the idea of being under authority, of which modesty is a kind of natural acknowledgment. Neither are we to confine the idea to married persons, as the margin of our Version does, but to regard it as applying to the mutual relations of the sexes generally. The passage has sorely perplexed the commentators. The various explanations of it may be found in Stanley and Alford in loc.

διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. This passage has also been explained in various ways (see the commentators just mentioned). It is best on the whole to regard it as an intimation that the angels, though invisible, were fellow-worshippers with men in the Christian assemblies, and were therefore ‘spectators of the indecency,’ and liable to be offended thereat. ‘When therefore the women usurp the symbol of dominion, against what is right and lawful, they make their shameful conduct conspicuous’ in the eyes of the messengers of God. Thus Calvin. Erasmus paraphrases it well: ‘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.’ For some remarkable Oriental illustrations of the interpretation that evil angels are here meant, see Dean Stanley on this verse. Meyer gives a list of authorities to shew that the belief in the presence of angels at Divine worship was common among the Jews.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10.] διὰ τοῦτο, on account of what has just been said, by which the subordination of the woman has been proved:—refers to vv. 7-9, not as Meyer, to ver. 9 only: for vv. 8, 9, give two parallel reasons for γυνὴ δόξα ἀνδρός, the inference from which proposition has not get been given, but now follows, with ὀφείλει answering to οὐκ ὀφείλει above.

ὀφ. ἡ γ. ἐξουσίαν ἔχ. ἐπὶ τῆς κεφ.] The woman ought to have power (the sign of power or subjection; shewn by the context to mean a veil). So Diodor. Sic. i. 47: εἰκόνα … εἴκοσι πηχῶν, μονόλιθον, ἔχουσαν τρεῖς βασιλείας ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, ἃς διασημαίνειν ὅτι καὶ θυγάτηρ καὶ γυνὴ καὶ μήτηρ βασιλέως ὕπηρξε, where βασίλειαι evidently are crowns, the tokens of kingdom. And as there from the context it is plain that they indicated participation in the glory of the kingdoms, so here it is as evident from the context that the token of ἐξουσία indicates being under power: and such token is the covering. So Chrys. (τὸ καλύπτεσθαι, ὑποταγῆς κ. ἐξουσίας), Theodoret, Theophyl. (τὸ τοῦ ἐξουσιάζεσθαι σύμβολον), Œcum., Beza, Grot., Est., Bengel, Wolf, al., Billroth, Rϋckert, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette. To enumerate the various renderings would be impossible. Some of the principal are, (1) a sign of power to pray and prophesy in public, bestowed on her by her husband. So Schrader, iv. 158: but this would be quite irrelevant to the context. (2) Some suppose ἐξουσίαν actually to mean a veil, because the Heb. רָדִיד, ‘a veil,’ comes from the root רָדַד, ‘subjecit.’ So Hammond, Le Clerc, al. But (see Lexx.) ‘subjecit’ is not the primary, only a tropical meaning: the primary meaning, ‘extendit, diduxit,’ is much more likely to have given rise to the substantive. It is certainly a curious coincidence that the Heb. terms should be thus allied,—and that alliance may have been present to the Apostle’s thoughts: but this does not shew that he used ἐξουσία for a veil. (3) Kypke would put a comma after ἐξους., and render ‘propterea mulier potestali obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (see ver. 4) in capite habeat.’ But the sense of ὀφείλειν τι would require (see Lexx.) ὑπακοήν, not ἐξουσίαν. (4) Pott renders, ‘mulierem oportet servare jus (sive potestatem) in caput suum, sc. eo, quod illud velo obtegat.’ But this, though philologically allowable (see Rev 11:6; Rev 20:6; Rev 14:18; and with ἐπάνω, Luk 19:17), is entirely against the context, in which the woman has no power over her own head, and on that very account is to be covered. (5) Hagenbach (in the Stud. und Krit. 1828, p. 401) supposes ἐξουσία here to mean her origin, ἐξ-οὐσία from ἐξ-εἰμι, as παρ-οὐσία from παρ-εἰμι:—to shew that she (ver. 8) ἐστιν ἐξ ἀνδρός. But apart from other objections to this, it must thus be, τὴν ἐξ. or τὴν ἐξ. αὐτῆς. Other renderings and conjectures may be seen in Meyer’s note, from which the above is mainly taken: and in Stanley’s.

διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους] On account of the angels: i.e. because in the Christian assemblies the holy angels of God are present, and delighting in the due order and subordination of the ranks of God’s servants,—and by a violation of that order we should be giving offence to them. See ref. So Chrys. (οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι μετʼ ἀγγέλων ἕστηκας; μετʼ ἐκείνων ᾄδεις, μετʼ ἐκείνων ὑμνεῖς, καὶ ἕστηκας γελῶν; cited by Hammond, but from what work of Chrys. I have not been able to find. In his commentary on this passage he is not clear, but seems to take this view,—εἰ γὰρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καταφρονεῖς, φησί, τοὺς ἀγγέλους αἰδέσθητι, Hom. xxvi. p. 234. In the Hom. on the Ascension, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 443 (Migne), he says, εἰ βούλει ἰδεῖν κ. μάρτυρας κ. ἀγγέλους ἄνοιξον τῆς πίστεως τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, κ. ὄψει τὸ θέατρον ἐκεῖνο· εἰ γὰρ πῶς ὁ ἀὴρ ἀγγέλων ἐμπέπλησται, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡ ἐκκλησία … ὅτι γὰρ ἅπας ὁ ἀὴρ ἀγγέλων ἐμπέπλησται, ἄκουσον τί φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ἐντρέπων τὰς γυναῖκας ὥστε ἔχειν κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς· “ὀφείλουσιν κ.τ.λ.”), Grot. (whose note see in Pool), Estius, Wolf, Rückert, Meyer, De Wette. (1) Others, with a modification of this rendering, take τοὺς ἀγγέλους as the guardian angels, appointed, one to take charge of each Christian. So Theophyl. (τὸ ἀνακεκαλύφθαι ἀναισχυντίαν ἐμφαίνει· ἣν καὶ οἱ τοῖς πιστοῖς παρεπόμενοι ἄγγελοι βδελύσσονται), Jerome (not de Trin. xii. 7, as Meyer, see below), Tbeodoret. But, though such angels certainly do minister to the heirs of salvation,—see Mat 18:10, and note,—there does not appear to be any immediate allusion to them here. (2) Others again understand ‘bad angels,’ who might themselves be lustfully excited; so Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 7, vol. ii. p. 899, “propter angelos: scilicet quos legimus a Deo et cœlo excidisse ob concupiscentiam fœminarum.” See also cont. Marcion. v. 8, p. 488,—or might tempt men so to be,—Schöttgen, Mosh, al.,—or might injure the unveiled themselves: so, after Rabbinical notions, Wetst. But οἱ ἄγγελοι, absol., never means any thing in the N. T. except the holy angels of God. See, in Stanley’s note, a modification of this view, which is consistent with that meaning. (3) Alex. fragm. ix. ὑποτυπ. lib. iii. (p. 1004 P.) says, ἀγγέλους φησὶ τοὺς δικαίους, κ. ἐναρέτους. (4) Beza, the Christian prophets, “in cœtu loquentes ut Dei nuncios et legatos.” (5) Ambrose, the presidents of the assemblies. (6) Lightf., the angeli or nuntii desponsatiomum, persons deputed to bring about betrothals. (7) Rosenm., Schrader, and many others,—exploratores vel speculatores: “Poterat nempe novæ consuetudinis notitia per ἀπίστους speculatores in publicum emanare, christianasque uxores tum Judæis, de isto mulierum habitu pessime existimantibus, tum Græcis quoque in suspicionem rei christianæ probrosissimam adducere.” Rosenm.

Against all these ingenious interpretations is the plain sense of οἱ ἄγγελοι (Mat 13:49. Mar 1:13.Luk 16:22Luk 16:22. chap. 13:1Ch 2:181Ch_2:181Ch 2:18. Heb 1:4, Heb 1:5, Heb 1:7, Heb 1:13, al.), which appears to me irrefragable.

But still a question remains, Why should the Apostle have here named the angels, and adduced them as furnishing a reason for women being veiled in the Christian assemblies? Bengel has given an acute, but not I believe the correct answer: “mulier se tegat propter angelos, i.e. quia etiam angeli teguntur. Sicut ad Deum se habent angeli: sic ad virum se habet mulier. Dei facies patet: velantur angeli: Eph 6:2. Viri facies patet: velatur mulier.” Surely this lies too far off for any reader to supply without further specification. Aug. de Trin. xii. 7 (10), vol. viii. p. 1004, gives an ingenious reason: “Grata est enim sanctis angelis sacrata et pia significatio. Nam Deus non ad tempus videt, nec aliquid novi fit in Ejus visione atque scientia, cum aliquid temporaliter aut transitorie geritur, sicut inde afficiuntur sensus vel carnales animalium et hominum, vel etiam cœlestes angelorum.” (He makes no mention,—see above,—of guardian angels.) I believe the account given above to be the true one, and the reason of adducing it to be, that the Apostle has before his mind the order of the universal church, and prefers when speaking of the assemblies of Christians, to adduce those beings who, as not entering into the gradation which he has here described, are conceived as spectators of the whole, delighted with the decency and order of the servants of God. Stanley thinks the most natural explanation of the reference to be, that the Apostle was led to it by a train of association familiar to his readers, but lost to us: and compares the intimations of a similar familiarity on their part with the subjects of which he was treating in 2Th 2:5-7.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. διὰ τοῦτο. Because* man is a reflexion of the divine glory, while woman is only a reflexion of that reflexion, “therefore the woman (generic) is morally bound to have [the mark of his] authority upon her head.” The passage is unique, no satisfactory parallel having been found. There is no real doubt as to the meaning, which is clear from the context. The difficulty is to see why the Apostle has expressed himself in this extraordinary manner. That ‘authority’ (ἐξουσία) is put for ‘sign of authority’ is not difficult; but why does St Paul say ‘authority’ when he means ‘subjection’? The man has the symbol of authority, no veil on his head; the woman has the symbol of subjection, a veil on her head. For ἐξουσία we should expect ὑποταγή (1Ti 2:11, 1Ti 3:4, of the subjection of women), or ὕπειξις (Plut. 2. 751D of the subjection of women; comp. ὑπείκειν, Heb 13:17), or ὑπακοή (Rom 5:19, Rom 6:16, Rom 16:19). Is it likely that St Paul would say the exact opposite of what he means? The words put in square brackets can scarcely be the true explanation. For conjectural emendations of ἐξουσίαν (all worthless) see Stanley, ad loc. p. 184.

In Rev 11:6, ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων means ‘have control over the waters’, 14:18, ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρός, ‘having control over fire’, 20:6, ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν. ‘over these the second death has no control.’ Comp. Rom 9:21; 1Co 7:37; the LXX of Dan 3:30 (97). Can the meaning here be, ‘ought to have control over her head’, so as not to expose it to indignity? If she unveils it, every one has control over it and can gaze at her so as to put her out of countenance. Her face is no longer under her own control.

Ramsay (The Cities of St Paul, pp. 202 ff.) scouts the common explanation that the ‘authority’ which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject, “a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at any where except in the N.T.” Following Thomson (The Land and the Book, p. 31) he explains thus. “In Oriental lands the veil is the power and the honour and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd. … But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom any one may insult. … A woman’s authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards. That is the Oriental view, which Paul learned at Tarsus.” In his preface (vi.) Ramsay adds; “In the Hebrew marriage ceremony, as it is celebrated in modern Palestine, I am informed that the husband snatches off the bride’s veil and throws it on his own shoulder, as a sign that he has assumed authority over her” Was Rebekah’s veiling herself a sign of subjection? Gen 24:65. See Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Roman World, p. 154.

διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. These words have produced much discussion, but there is not serious doubt as to their meaning. They are not a gloss (Baur), still less is the whole verse an interpolation (Holsten, Baljon). Marcion had the words, and the evidence for them is overwhelming.* An interpolator would have made his meaning clearer. Accepting them, we may safely reject the explanation that ‘angels’ here mean the bishops (Ambrose) or presbyters (Ephraem) or all the clergy (Primasius). Nor can evil angels be meant (Tert. De Virg. vel. vii., xvii.); the article is against it: οἱ ἄγγελοι always means good angels (8:1; Mat 13:49, Mat 13:25:31; Luk 16:22; Heb 1:4, Heb 1:5, etc.). And the suggestion that the Apostle is hinting that unveiled women might be a temptation to angels (Gen 6:1, Gen 6:2) is somewhat childish It is to be supposed that a veil hides a human face from angels, or that public worship would be the only occasion when an unveiled woman might lead angels into temptation? It is a mistake to quote the Testament of the XII. Patriarchs (Reuben v. 6), or the Book of Jubilees (iv. 15, 22), or Theodotus (Frag. 44; C.R. Gregory, Enleit. in d. N.T. P. 151), in illustration of this passage. The meaning is plain. If a woman thinks lightly of shocking men, she must remember that she will also be shocking the angels, who of course are present at public worship. Compare 4:9, and ἐναντίον ἀγγέλων ψαλῶ σοι (Psa 138:1), and ‘O ye angels of the Lord, Bless ye the Lord’ (Song of the Three Children, 37). Ancient liturgies often bear witness to this belief, as does our own,; “Therefore with Angels and Archangels” etc., Chrysostom says, “knowest thou not that thou standest in the midst of the angels? with them thou singest, with them thou chantest, and dost thou stand laughing?” See Luk 15:7, Luk 15:10, Luk 15:12:8, Luk 15:9.

One other suggestion is worth considering, viz. that διὰ τ. ἀγγέλους might mean ‘because the angels do so.’ Angels, in the presence of their direct and visible Superior, veil their faces (Isa 6:2); a woman, when worshipping in the presence of her direct and visible superior (man), should do the same.

Conjectural emendations (all worthless) are quoted by Stanley: see also Expositor, 1st series, xi. p. 20. “None of the known emendations can possibly be right; and the intrinsic and obvious difficulty is itself enough to set aside the suggestion that the whole verse is an interpolation” (WH. App. p. 116).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Power on her head [εξουσιαν] . Not in the primary sense of liberty or permission, but authority. Used here of the symbol of power, i e., the covering upon the head as a sign of her husband 's authority. So Rev., a sign of authority.

Because of the angels. The holy angels, who were supposed by both the Jewish and the early Christian Church to be present in worshipping assemblies. More, however, seems to be meant than "to avoid exciting disapproval among them." The key - note of Paul 's thought is subordination according to the original divine order. Woman best asserts her spiritual equality before God, not by unsexing herself, but by recognizing her true position and fulfilling its claims, even as do the angels, who are ministering as well as worshipping spirits (Heb 1:4). She is to fall in obediently with that divine economy of which she forms a part with the angels, and not to break the divine harmony, which especially asserts itself in worship, where the angelic ministers mingle with the earthly worshippers; nor to ignore the example of the holy ones who keep their first estate, and serve in the heavenly sanctuary. 116

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.