Some verses are really hard to understand. Without a doubt 1 Corinthians 11:10 is one of the hardest to comprehend: “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (NASB).
What is Paul talking about?
What is this “symbol of authority”?
And what do angels have to do with Paul’s argument?
Let’s back up.
Paul’s Argument
“Therefore” shows that Paul has arrived at a conclusion from his preceding statements, so let’s take a brief look at how his reasoning unfolds in 1 Corinthians 11.
- The Corinthian believers should follow his example by seeking the good of others (10:31-11:1).
- He praises them for remembering the traditions he passed on to them (v. 2).
- He wants them to realize the following things:
- The head of man is Christ.
- The head of woman is man.
- The head of Christ is God (v. 3).
- “Every man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head” (v. 4).
- “Every woman who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (v. 5). It is the same as the disgrace of having her head shaved (vv. 5-6).
- A man is the “image and glory of God” and therefore shouldn’t cover his head (v. 7).
- “Woman is the glory of man” (v. 7).
- Woman came from man and woman was created for man (vv. 8-9).
Then comes the difficult statement: “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (v. 10 NASB).
At this point Paul sounds like he is being one-sided in his statements about men and women—woman was created from man for man so she should have a covering on her head. But he immediately qualifies his statements by affirming the mutual interdependence of men and women: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God” (vv. 11-12).
Summarizing Paul’s Argument
The entire passage is difficult, but at least we understand the basic idea. Based on the differences between men and women—they have different “heads” and man is “the image and glory of God,” “woman is the glory of man”—Paul concludes that women should dress differently than men in public worship. In particular, women should have their heads covered, which many believe is a reference to ancient veils.
It’s important to note that Paul does not deny that a woman is the image of God. Men and women were clearly both created in God’s image in Genesis 1:27-28. But he does emphasize that “woman is the glory of man.” What does that mean? Perhaps, between men and women, women are the most glorious or women are humanity’s greatest beauty. Then Paul immediately adds that men and women are both essential and interdependent.
So why is 1 Corinthians 11:10 so difficult to understand? Because it is a “therefore” statement that includes two new and unusual features that are not subsequently explained:
- “authority” (Greek: exousia)
- “angels” (Greek: angelos)
Let’s take them one at a time.
Authority
Most English versions have tried to make this verse easier to understand by inserting the word “symbol” or “sign.” For example, “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (NASB).
Note how the NASB italicizes the word symbol. How does inserting “symbol” make things easier? “Symbol of authority” helps readers link it to the head covering Paul has mentioned. However, the Greek New Testament does not include the word for “symbol” or “sign.” The NRSV mentions this in a footnote:
“For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of[a] authority on her head, because of the angels.
Footnote: Gk lacks a symbol of
Paul simply says that the woman should have authority on or over her head. Consequently, the NIV, 2011 translates this verse more literally but adds a footnote:
It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[a] head, because of the angels.
Footnote: “Or have a sign of authority on her.”
Similarly, the CEB renders it:
Because of this a woman should have authority over her head, because of the angels.
Why was “symbol” or “sign” added? Because translators thought the concept of “authority” by itself was too obscure.
So here’s the progression in thought from the original Greek text to modern interpreters:
- “authority” (Greek)
- symbol or sign of authority (several English translations)
- a symbol that the woman is under her husband’s authority (many interpreters)
However, some are beginning to go back to the literal Greek, which opens up another possibility. Having authority on or over her head could mean that a woman should have the right to wear what she wants on her head. What did ancient women want to wear on their heads?
Head coverings.
(Why? See the “Wearing Veils” section in this post.)
With this one shift in perspective, the entire argument turns from Paul placing an unwanted restriction on women to Paul siding with women. Is this new perspective plausible? The NRSV translators thought it was plausible enough to include it in a footnote:
For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of[a] authority on her head,[b]because of the angels.
Footnotes:
a. Gk lacks a symbol of
b. Or have freedom of choice regarding her head
Paul is definitely arguing that women should wear head coverings, but everything hinges on his presumed audience:
- Is he primarily talking to women who wanted to remove their head coverings and instructing them to wear them? (traditional Western view, which assumes women didn’t want to wear head coverings)
- Is he primarily talking to men who wanted women to remove their head coverings and telling them women have the right to wear them? (alternate view, which assumes that ancient women wanted to wear head coverings)
After reading the passage with both audiences in mind, I don’t see conclusive evidence for either. I was, however, surprised at how well the alternate view works, and perhaps has a slight edge on the traditional view. How so?
Paul brings up the topic because it appears to be a point of contention in Corinth. But rather than specifying men or women as the source of the contention, his concluding statement is generic in nature. He writes, “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God” (v. 16). Someone was being contentious about this. Who was it? If women didn’t want to wear veils—if they were the source of the contention—wouldn’t Paul have pointed them out? After all, he wasn’t afraid to mention females who were not getting along (see Philippians 4:2). At the very least, it appears that men were involved in the contention—”if anyone”—so we must consider how these words were instructive to men. And the alternate view fits with men as the presumed audience.
Angels
Paul also adds a reference to angels: “Because of this a woman should have authority over her head, because of the angels” (CEB). What does that mean?
Here are four ways of interpreting the reference to angels.
- An allusion to the “sons of God” who were tempted by the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6. The idea is that angels are spectators who can be tempted by female beauty. Consequently, women should have their heads covered in public worship.
- Angels are watching and making sure proper channels of authority are respected: God, Christ, men, women. In contrast with the previous idea, the focus here is on good angels doing their jobs, not angels being tempted. Paul’s statement that angels are spectators in 1 Corinthians 4:9 corresponds with this idea.
- An allusion to the idea that we will judge angels. In the same letter, Paul asks, “Do you not know that we will judge angels?” (6:3). Paul asks that question to encourage the Corinthian believers to judge disputes for themselves rather than having lawsuits. Likewise, after “because of the angels,” Paul writes, “Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (11:13). So both passages contain references to angels and human judgment. And here’s a possible connection: “Since we will judge angels, you are competent to judge this matter about head coverings for yourselves.” (This insight comes from Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender, ch. 1.)
- Since the Greek word can also be translated as “messengers” some interpret this as a reference to human messengers. The ESV suggests this idea in a footnote:
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.[a]
Footnote: Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report
Conclusion
While we don’t know how to translate or interpret 1 Corinthians 11:10 with certainty, we know some of the primary options.
What do I think?
I think translators should render the Greek word exousia as “authority” rather than using the phrase “symbol of authority.” Also, from the context of 1 Corinthians, it’s best to view the reference to angels as an allusion to the idea that we will judge angels as stated in 1 Corinthians 6:3. Here’s my tentative interpretation:
For this reason, a woman should have authority on her head, because of the angels [whom we will judge.]
But it doesn’t sound like good English nor does it seem to be logical to have “for this reason” followed by “because of the angels,” which has nothing to do with the preceding statements. “For this reason”—for what reason? If he is bringing in a new idea with “because of the angels” we now have two reasons: the preceding argument and angels. Consequently, some translations make these two items clearly stand out as two separate reasons:
- For this reason, and because the angels are watching . . . (NLT)
- And so, because of this, and also because of the angels . . . (CEV)
So let me try again and expand the angel idea a bit while following the NLT:
“For this reason, and because you are competent to judge angels, a woman should have authority over her head.”
After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. For a deep dive into church history and the character of God, see my book Surprised by Hell.
Les, this is my view of ëxousia. It is actually talking about control of oneself. “the woman öught to have control over/onher head” Now, exousia is being used as a Metonym. The sentence we expect from Paul (as a reply to v5) is “the woman ought to cover her head” which parallels v7 about man öught not to cover his head”. The translators who go for “symbol of authority” notice that exousia is a metonym but misapply it. the role of a metonym is not to take on the meaning of the underlying word “cover”. example of a metonym “boil the kettle” for “boil the water” this makes sense, BUT “boil the symbol of kettle” is nonsense. So, “symbol of authority” is nonsense and destroys the metonym. Rather the metonym usually has some relationship to the underlying word so that in its use the idea of the underlying is brought out. Also, to be noted is that v7 and v10 are parallel verses AND v7 “not to cover” is describing an action and not a state ie. no to cover, NOT not covered. Translators miscue exousia as a state and give us such things as “to have authority”or “symbol of authority”when it is actually an action “to have exousia/control”. Thus, öutht to have exousia on the head might better be translated öught to have control of her head ie. ought to cover her head. So, in the end the use of exousia is simply a rhetorical device to emphasize the underlying related concept that woman ought to cover her head which is a legitimate use of a metonym. I am writing some articles to explain these ideas more fully if you would like a copy.
Neil, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It sounds like we are both in agreement that “symbol of” should not be inserted into English translations. I’m not sure about your proposal of translating exousia as “control” rather than “authority,” but there is certainly overlap between those concepts.
Les, I just want to take a moment to let you know that I thoroughly appreciate your work on this passage; thank you–and well done.
I appreciated this. Thank you.
I also appreciate that the writing was easy to read for common people like myself.
After looking into this a little more could the headcovering part simply mean two things: covering her beauty so as not to distract others (men) from worship and also a form of modesty/humility out of respect for herself as a woman and showing her submission to her place in Christ? –how some women dress in church today can be a contentious argument for sure and shows that even way back then they had the same conversations.
*I found that in Daniel, Susanna wore a headcovering and wicked men demanded that it be removed so that they might lust after her.
*In Gen. 24 Rebecca, while traveling to meet Isaac, “did not flaunt her physical beauty” but “veiled herself, increasing her allure through an outward display of modesty.”
*Jewish law around the time of Jesus stipulated that married women who uncovered their hair in public was evidence of her infidelity.
Wow! I heard Muslims have the same reasoning to why Muslim women covers their heads. It appears the Muslims got this custom of head covering from the bible.
in my case I was divorced,but it was before I became a Christian,and never remarried,but my ex husband died a year ago. how does the covering applies to single woman,or widowed,am I under the covering of Jesus,since I have no husband? I have shoulder length hair,should I use a veil or cover my head? in my time alone in prayer 🙏 I use a prayer Shaw, the church I attend,they do not use shows neither veils. I use it in the private times of my prayer closet,is it wrong? I’m not too clear about this! PS. Should I still cover my head with the prayer Shaw in my time alone? because no one uses them in the church,they say it was back then!
Hello Martha,
Thank you for your questions. Strangely, I did not even attempt to answer the practical question of whether women should wear veils in this post. It is not not an easy question because the meaning of veils is not the same today as it was in Paul’s day. For example, in another article, I have written the following:
I think it is best for you to follow your conscience in this matter. I say that because I don’t think veils are a core teaching of the Christian faith. After all, they are only mentioned in one place in the New Testament. And with secondary issues, Paul emphasizes the importance of following your conscience. For me, in cultures where veils don’t have a similar meaning to what they had in first-century Corinth, I don’t think they should be imposed on female believers as a requirement.
You were called by the Lord, and keep your path remain in the Lord.
Bible kjv says pray without ceasing and cover when praying – this is one example and reason to cover so yes we must cover most of the time except when we bath / shower
God works according to your faith. By the way, covering with veil was the Jewish tradition back then. Your hair is your covering. However, if you find yourself in an environment where hair is covered, please do cover your hair. And if you are in an environment where they don’t please feel free Ma’am. Jesus remains lord over all…
I found your words both insightful and wise. I usually only seek second hand insight (human commentary) after giving the Holy Spirit a chance to quench my query. True to my practice, I will say, I washed my face this morning and put my hair in a ponytail and put on a baseball cap, before sitting down for my quiet time. I read (with interest) 1Cor.10 warning about idolatry because I have a phone and several other potential idols. But I almost skipped over the title of Head covering during worship. Except feeling the HS pull, I read on. And an awareness of God’s presence came over me with tears and I felt the covering and hiding place with Abba as I sat there under my baseball cap. I don’t condone wearing one to church weekly, but would also not not condone it. Wow, what a blessing. And as I asked Abba if I had accidentally been honored by finding myself with a hat on (because I had not showered) and had stumbled apon this verse, I rather concluded, Abba wanted to honor me, and had chosen this moment to draw my eyes to words that showed me, he sees me. Tears. “Because of the angles” was what brought me to “second hand thoughts” and I mean no disrespect by this thought, rather, yours were the 4th and most intelligent I came across. After reading your insightful review, I believe I have a more holy awareness of angles watching as I pray and prophecy and this makes me feel God is honored, and your words about the angles being a lured by a woman’s beautiful appearance, makes me want to be (even) more humble and modest. Thank you for your thoughtful words.
Many people misunderstand this scripture. Verse 3 makes it clear that the head of the woman is the man (her husband). A woman covers her head (husband) through prayer. Praying for your husband is the authority that the woman has (let the woman cover [pray for] her head [husband]). Paul further illustrates this point by making a comparison in the natural: if she does not cover him (her husband) in prayer, it is just like if her hair were shaven off. In other words, she is spiritually unprotected in her marriage when she does not pray for him. Just as angels are ministers for God, women are ministers for their husbands.
Great input, P Young! No matter how you interpret this passage that definitely applies her as well.
Was contemplating on this after I just finished the book of 1 Corinthians.
God bless you for the content sir🤜
Hmm. This is a “battle ” scripture for African women. They live to please others. Too much scarf and veils physically makes you grow grey hair and the heat beneath is so severe. It even prevent you from tiding up your hair because with your veil, you are good to go. So surprisingly, people people especially men leave the church because they saw a woman with an uncovered hair. So will an angel not minister to you at the washroom or your bedroom where you are nude? We stress on things that will only depress women. As a lady pastor, I choose not to preach this verse.
In the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 there is seldom mention of the fact that enmity or warfare was pronounced between the serpent’s seed and the woman. When God spoke to Eve declaring that her husband was to rule over her, it appeared to me that this was a place of protection in this spiritual war (nowhere is it mentioned as a curse.) God loved the woman and did not curse her. The covering of the woman by the man in 1 Cor 11:10 is a place of protection against the angels who are against her.