Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:10

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:10” utilice nuestra app.

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

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 ( hlle, 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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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 ( 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 (ocest 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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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 ( ). 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 , 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 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.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

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 , going out, instead of , 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, , , , “the symbol of being under power, that is, a veil, or covering.” And Photius explains it thus: ; 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 , 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 occurs nowhere in the sense of veil, and yet he supposes that the word , veil is understood, and must in the translation of the passage be supplied. 2. He directs that a comma be placed after , and that it be construed with , 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 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: They departed from the market, exposed to great dishonour. So Euripides, I am exposed to thy injury.

4. He contends that the words taken in this sense agree perfectly with the context, and with , 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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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 Gods strength, Psa 132:8, is itself called his strength, 1Ch 16:11. But others here by head do not understand the womans 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 Gods 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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

10. power on her headthekerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of”power on her head”; the sign of her being under man’spower, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had beforehis mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for”veil” (radid), and “subjection” (radad).

because of the angelswhoare present at our Christian assemblies (compare Ps138:1, “gods,” that is, angels), and delight inthe orderly subordination of the several ranks of God’s worshippersin their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of thelatter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know tobe most pleasing to their common Lord (1Co 4:9;Eph 3:10; Ecc 5:6).HAMMOND quotes CHRYSOSTOM,”Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnestwith them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?” BENGELexplains, “As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman isin relation to man. God’s face is uncovered; angels in His presenceare veiled (Isa 6:2). Man’s faceis uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not tobe 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 morecareful not to offend them.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head,…. The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman’s head, as a sign of the man’s power over her, and her subjection to him; which Dr. Hammond endeavours to confirm, by observing that the Hebrew word , which signifies a woman’s veil, or hood, comes from a root which signifies power and dominion; but in that he is mistaken, for the word is derived not from , to rule, govern, or exercise power and authority, but from

, to expand, stretch out, or draw over, as a woman’s veil is drawn over her head and face. The Greek word more properly signifies the power she had of putting on and off her covering as she pleased, according as times, places, and persons; made it necessary:

because of the angels; various are the senses given of these words, some taking them in a proper, others in a figurative sense: some in a proper sense of angels, and these either good or bad. Tertullian e understands them of evil angels, and that a woman should cover her head in time of worship, lest they should lust after her; though much rather the reason should be, lest they should irritate and provoke lust in others: but it is better to understand them of good angels, who attend the assemblies of the saints, and observe the air and behaviour of the worshippers; wherefore women should cover their heads with respect to them, and not give offence to those pure spirits, by an indecent appearance: it is agreeable to the notions of the Jews, that angels attend public prayers, and at the expounding of the word; they often speak f of an angel,

“that is appointed over prayers”; hence g Tertullian seems to have took his notion of an angel of prayer: and of angels being present at expounding of the Scriptures, take the following story h;

“it happened to Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, that he was riding upon an ass, and as he was journeying, R. Eleazar ben Arach was leading an ass after him; he said to him, Rabbi, teach me one chapter in the work of Mercavah (Ezekiel’s vision); he replied to him, not so have I taught you, nor in the Mercavah a single man, unless he was a wise man by his own industry; he answered him, Rabbi, give me leave to say one thing before thee, which thou hast taught me; immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai alighted from his ass and “veiled himself”, and sat upon a stone under an olive tree; he said to him, Rabbi, why dost thou alight off from the ass? he replied, is it possible that thou shouldst expound in the work of Mercavah, and the Shekinah be with us,

, “and the ministering angels join us”, and I ride upon an ass?”

And a little after,

“R. Joshua and R. Jose the priest were walking on the road, they said, yea, let us expound in the work of Mercavah; R. Joshua opened and expounded, and that day was the solstice of Tammuz, and the heavens were thickened with clouds, and there appeared the form of a bow in the cloud, “and the ministering angels gathered together”, , “and came to hear”: as the children of men gather together, and come to see the rejoicings of the bridegroom and bride.”

Moreover, this veiling of the woman in public worship because of angels, may be an imitation of the good angels, who when they sung the praises of God, and adored and glorified his perfections, covered their faces and their feet with their wings, Isa 6:1. Many understanding these words in a figurative sense, and in this also they are not agreed; some by angels think young men are meant, who, for their gracefulness and comeliness, are compared to angels; others good men in general, that attend religious worship; others ministers of the word, called angels often in the book of the Revelations; which last seems to be most agreeable of any of these senses; and the women were to cover their heads, that they might not offend either of these, or stir up any impure desires in them; see Ec 5:6 but as these words follow the account given of the creation of the woman from the man, and for his sake; this may have no reference to her conduct in public worship, but to the power she had of using her covering, or taking it off, or putting it on, at the time of her espousals to a man; which was sometimes done by proxy, or messengers, whom the Jews call , “angels” i; their canon is,

“a man may espouse (a wife) by himself, , “or by his angel”, or messenger; and a woman may be espoused by herself, or by her angel, or messenger:”

wherefore because of these angels, or messengers, that came to espouse her to such, she had power over her head to take off her veil, and show herself, if she thought fit; or to keep it on, as expressing her modesty; or just as she pleased, when she by them was espoused to a man, for whose sake she was made; which sense, after Dr. Lightfoot, many learned men have given into, and seems probable.

e De Veland. Virg. c. 7. f Shemot Rabba, sect. 21. fol. 106. 2. Zohar. in Gen. fol. 97. 2. g De Oratione, c. 15. h T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 14. 2. i Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Ought (). Moral obligation therefore ( , rests on woman in the matter of dress that does not ( in verse 7) rest on the man.

To have a sign of authority ( ). He means (symbol of authority) by , but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman’s head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. It is, as we see it, more a sign of subjection (, 1Ti 2:10) than of authority ().

Because of the angels ( ). This startling phrase has caused all kinds of conjecture which may be dismissed. It is not preachers that Paul has in mind, nor evil angels who could be tempted (Ge 6:1f.), but angels present in worship (cf. 1Cor 4:9; Ps 138:1) who would be shocked at the conduct of the women since the angels themselves veil their faces before Jehovah (Isa 6:2).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Power on her head [] . 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

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head.” (dia touto opheilei he gune eksousia echein eip tes kephales) “Because of this (she was created for subjection to the man) the woman ought to actively have or hold authority on the head.” (or the veil or covering, denoting her subjection to her man). Not her slave or prostitute availability to any man.

2) “Because of the angels.” (dia tous angelous) “Because of the angels.” Woman’s obedient place of personal, family order, and worship service is observed and assisted by angelic helpers, whom none of God’s children should offend. Both woman and her angelic helpers are auxiliary helpers to man, in God’s order for each in the universe, Heb 1:14; These are perhaps things which “angels desire to look into.” 1Pe 1:12.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power (628) From that authority he draws an argument (629) 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, (630) 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, (631) or any other kind of covering. (632)

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 Mal 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. (633) 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.

(628) “ Doit auoir sur la teste vne enseigne qu’elle est sous puissance;” — “She ought to have upon her head a token that she is under authority.”

(629) “ Vn argument et consequence;” — “An argument and inference.”

(630) “ I1 y a de mot a mot au Grec, La femme doit auoir puissance sur la teste. Mais au mot de puissance il y a une figure appellee metonymie;” — “It is literally in the Greek, The woman ought to have power upon her head. But in the word power there is a figure called metonymy.”

(631) “ C’est la couuerture de teste, soit un chapperon, ou couurechef, ou coiffe, ou chose semblable;” — “It is a covering of the head, whether it be a hood, or a kerchief, or a coif, or anything of that kind.”

(632) The term ἐξουσία ( exousia) is considered by Bloomfield to be the name of an article of dress of which mention is made in Rut 3:15, and Isa 3:23, and consisted of “a piece of cloth of a square form thrown over the head and tied under the chin.” Granville Penn, on the other hand, considers it as nothing more than the ( τι) κατα κεφαλης in the third verse of the chapter — something on the head, or a covering on the head, and notices it as remarkable, that in Wiclif’s version (1380) the rendering is — “the woman schal have an hilying on hir heed,” which the glossary explains by covering. — Ed

(633) “ Et sont tousiours a son commandement et seruice;” — “And are always at his commandment and service.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(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 manysome of them most fancifulsuggestions 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 exiousaWhen 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 passagewhereas 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 husbands 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 Apostles 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 womans abundance of hair in 1Co. 11:5-6, and the further reference to a womans 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 Samsons 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 womans subordination is enforced, and speak suddenly and vividly of her power, would be eminently Pauline. In the Apostles 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 angelsangeloi) 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. Pauls 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 believewould be St. Pauls appeal to these womenthat once, through seeing the beauty of the daughters of men, the holy angels themselves felleven 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 Gods 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.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

10. Power on her head Power to which she is subject, not power which is subjected to her. And by this abstract word , 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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For this reason ought the woman to have authority on her head, because of the angels.’

And that is why the woman must when prophesying and being open to the Spirit and thus entering the spiritual realm, wear the covering that both denotes her authority to act in this way, and the fact that as she does so, she does so acting as man’s helpmeet and is thus submissive to him in the exercise of her authority.

Other commentators would, however, rather see the covering as primarily the sign that she is under man’s authority, seeing ‘authority’ as signifying ‘sign of authority’, but the usual use of the word in this form is to indicate the authority of the person being described, thus it here declares the woman’s authority.

‘Having on authority’ may thus be seen as signifying the wearing of the badge of her authority, with the recognition that she has that authority as man’s appointed helpmeet, or as an indication that she is under authority, a sign of the fact that she is under the authority of man. Either way, and the one really assumes the other, this having authority on her head is ‘because of the angels’. She is indicating to them her right to pray and prophesy because she is man’s helpmeet, and that as his helpmeet she shares that authority.

So this may signify that the covering is to be seen as indicating to the angels that she is under the authority of the man as his helpmeet as she prays and prophesies, or that she receives her authority from her relationship with man in order to be able to do so. Either way it is not an indication of a downgrading of the woman, but of a lifting up of the woman in the eyes of the angels to her exalted position prior to the fall, a restoring of her privileges in Christ. This is why she can pray and prophesy as man’s helpmeet. She is no longer fallen Eve, but Eve restored in her glory.

It is possible that it is also to be seen as indicating to the angels that as she actively enters the spiritual realm she is not open to angels or evil spirits for possession, that she as it were enters the spiritual realm with authority as under man’s authority as God’s spokesman, because she shares man’s unique position. Thus she is not to be interfered with. It will be her protection. This with special reference to the angels who once coveted fallen women for themselves and possessed them (Gen 6:1-2). It may suggest that the head covering is a reminder to any similarly minded angels that this woman belongs to man, is in submission through him to Christ as the Head, and is thus not available to be possessed, and that she enters the spiritual realm, not seeking to be possessed, but because she shares with man his authority over creation, with a right to minister as his representative on God’s behalf. (Many women in other religions did very much open themselves to possession).

So her entry into that realm is not to be seen as an indication to the angels and spirits that she is available for possession and opening herself for possession, but rather, as indicated by her covering, that she comes as man’s helpmeet and under the authority of him whose Head is Christ.

Thus the principle is laid down that ‘to have authority on her head’ is seen as emphasising both to men and to angels that she comes to serve God in praying and prophesying as man’s representative in his function as God’s spokesman. It indicates that she recognises that she is not a ‘free spirit’ but under respectful submission to man as God’s prime representative. It is a sign of her own authority, but as a subsidiary authority, an authority given to her as man’s helpmeet. It is because she is a junior partner to the man in God’s enterprise that she is in this privileged position. Her covering is thus to be a reminder to the angelic realm, who were consulted at the time of the creation of both man and woman (Gen 1:26-27), of God’s purpose in creation, which she is now seeking to fulfil, of bringing all in subjection to Him. It is a badge of honour.

Alternatively ‘because of the angels’ may have reference to the fact that we should ever be aware that the angels observe our conduct (Luk 15:7; Luk 15:10), especially when engaging in spiritual activity, and that the covering is to ensure that they will recognise the woman’s renewed right to pray and prophesy in Christ as man’s helpmeet, while at the same time ensuring angelic approval of the woman’s sign of submission to authority, with the thought continually in mind that in the presence of angels women should remain discreetly dressed and submissive to man, while sharing his authority over creation.

This all indicates Paul’s vivid awareness of the spiritual realm. The reason that he does not continually speak of angels is not because of lack of awareness but because he recognises that they have limited direct activity with regard to man. They watch, but they may not interfere. They remain within their bounds, unlike the angels who fell. When they act, they act invisibly without man’s awareness under God’s command (Heb 1:14). They serve God, not man. Nor are they to be called on by man. Yet nevertheless they are there at all times, watching over the purposes of God. And their presence is acknowledged by the woman’s covering.

Another less likely possibility is that there may be a reference to the seraphim in Isaiah 6 who covered themselves with their wings before the presence of God, who would thus approve of women showing the same idea of submission in worship and obedience, but this is less likely as the seraphim were not strictly angels, and the idea in their case is that their eyes were fixed on God and yet could not bear the sight because of His glory. It was not directly related to their ministry.

Overall then the woman’s attitude is probably to be seen either as gaining and maintaining the approval of ‘the good angels’ as they minister to the heirs of salvation (Heb 1:14) by testifying to her obedience to God, and/or as warning off the ‘evil angels’ and reminding them that she is under Another’s authority as man’s helpmeet, or as indicating to the angelic realm her important, but secondary, position in creation in accordance with God’s purposes in creation, or possibly all of these, especially so where praying and prophesying results in magnified contact with the spiritual realm with its consequent dangers.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Co 11:10. For this cause ought the woman to have power, &c. Mr. Locke acknowledges, with a modesty which does him much honour, that he did not understand this text,and many seem to have darkened it bytheir attempts to explain it. The chief difficulty does not lie in the word power, which undoubtedly must be understood of the veil worn on their heads by married women, as a token of subjection to their husbands; (see Gen 24:65.) and some suppose that the veil was in Hebrew called redid, from the root reded, which signifies subjection: So that the veil was as it were the habit by which the woman shewed that she considered herself as in subjection: and Chardin observes, that the married women in Persia wear a peculiar habit to the very same purpose. It is more difficult to understand the meaning of the clause, because of the angels, . It seems neither reasonable nor decent to understand this of young ministers, as if they were in peculiar danger of being ensnared by the beauty of women; and it is more grossly absurd, still to suppose with Tertullian, that there was any room to apprehend it could be a snare to celestial spirits:a mistake which seemed to be grounded on the wild interpretation of Gen 6:2 so generally received among the fathers. Dr. Whitby understands it of evil angels, and thinks it refers to the punishment which Eve incurred, Gen 3:16 for hearkening to the suggestions of Satan. Mr. Gough, in a dissertation on the place, by ‘ understands spies, who he supposes came into Christian assemblies to make ill-natured remarks, and so would be glad to blaze abroad any indecencies which they might observe there. Others suppose that the presence of good angels is implied; and they understand the passagethus,[observingthatthepresenceofangelsinreligiousassembliesisfavoured by Ecc 5:6 and the figures of the cherubim in the tabernacle and temple:] “The woman ought to have upon her head a veil, as a token of her being under the power and subjection of the man; and so much the rather ought she to wear it in religious assemblies, because of the angels; who are especially present there, and before whom we ought to be exceedingly careful that nothing pass which may be indecent and irregular, and unlike that perfect order and profound humility with which they worship in the divine presence.”

It is notfor me to determine amid this variety of opinions; I shall therefore only add, that the reader will find in the note on Rom 16:1 an explanation of this passage, which appears to me as satisfactory as any other; and by referring to Gough’s Dissertation at the end of his sermons, he will meet with copious matter for inquiry on the subject. See on Num 6:7. The word , rendered power, is used by Lucian, in his ” u914? , ” for a veil.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 11:10 . ] namely, because the relation of the woman to the man is such as has been indicated in 1Co 11:7-9 .

.] to have a power , i.e. the sign of a power (to wit, as the context shows, of her husband’s 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.; Lcke in the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 571 f., Billroth, Rckert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Maier, Weiss, Vilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 465 f.; comp Dsterdieck in the Shud. u. Krit. 1863, p. 707 ff. Just as in Diodor. Sic. i. 47, in the phrase ., the context shows beyond a doubt that . means symbols of one’s own power (diadems), so here the connection justifies the use of to denote the sign of another’s 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 , Diod. Sic. i. 48. 77; Ael. V. H. xiv. 34. Schleusner explains . 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 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). Hagenbach’s view ( Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 401) is also contrary to the context, seeing that we have previously ; he understands as a mark of descent . Paul, he holds, formed the word upon the analogy of . . [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 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 ; 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 , 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 , that is simply an etymological impossibility. Other interpreters still assume that . 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 , and explains the clause: “propterea mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (comp 1Co 11:4 ) in capite habeat.” But the sense of would rather have required in place of . Pott again (in the Gtting. 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 , and finds the metaphorical element simply in the local import of the phrase (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 husband’s 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 Lcke in ascribing it to the ingenious apostle himself, however old the custom itself that married women should wear veils in public was in Hebrew usage (Ewald, Alterth. p. 269 f.).

] which Baur uncritically holds to be a gloss a view to which Neander also was inclined is 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 ( ) an outward one: “for the sake of the angels,” in order to avoid exciting disapproval among them . , 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, Rosenmller, Flatt, Schrader) all mere attempts at explanation, which are sufficiently disposed of by the single fact that , when standing absolutely in the N. T., always denotes good angels alone. See on 1Co 4:9 . The correct exposition is given also by Dsterdieck, l.c [1788] , who shows well the fine trait of apostolic mysticism in .

[1775] Luther’s gloss is: “That is the veil or covering, by which one may see that she is under her husband’s authority, Gen 3:16 .”

[1776] . And on ver. 7 he says: As the man ought to pray uncovered in token of his , so for the woman it is a mark of presumption .

[1779] . . . .

[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. Shne 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 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

10. ] , on account of what has just been said , by which the subordination of the woman has been proved: refers to 1Co 11:7-9 , not as Meyer, to 1Co 11:9 only: for 1Co 11:8-9 , give two parallel reasons for , the inference from which proposition has not get been given , but now follows, with answering to above.

. . . .] 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: , , , , where 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 indicates being under power: and such token is the covering. So Chrys. ( , . ), Theodoret, Theophyl. ( ), cum., Beza, Grot., Est., Bengel, Wolf, al., Billrot h, Rckert, 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 actually to mean a veil, because the Heb. , ‘a veil,’ comes from the root , ‘ 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 for a veil . (3) Kypke would put a comma after ., and render ‘ propterea mulier potestali obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (see 1Co 11:4 ) in capite habeat .’ But the sense of would require (see Lexx.) , not . (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 , 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 here to mean her origin , – from – , as – from – : to shew that she ( 1Co 11:8 ) . But apart from other objections to this, it must thus be, . or . . Other renderings and conjectures may be seen in Meyer’s note, from which the above is mainly taken: and in Stanley’s.

] 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. ( ; , , ; 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, , , , Hom. xxvi. p. 234. In the Hom. on the Ascension, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 443 (Migne), he says, . . , . , , , “ . . .”), Grot. (whose note see in Pool), Estius, Wolf, Rckert, Meyer, De Wette. (1) Others, with a modification of this rendering, take as the guardian angels , appointed, one to take charge of each Christian. So Theophyl. ( ), Jerome (not Aug [47] 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 clo excidisse ob concupiscentiam fminarum.” See also cont. Marcion. 1Co 11:8 , p. 488, or might tempt men so to be , Schttgen, Mosh, al., or might injure the unveiled themselves : so, after Rabbinical notions, Wetst. But , 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) Clem [48] Alex. fragm. ix. . lib. iii. (p. 1004 P.) says, , . . (4) Beza, the Christian prophets , “in ctu 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 nov consuetudinis notitia per speculatores in publicum emanare, christianasque uxores tum Judis, de isto mulierum habitu pessime existimantibus, tum Grcis quoque in suspicionem rei christian probrosissimam adducere.” Rosenm.

[47] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

[48] Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

Against all these ingenious interpretations is the plain sense of (Mat 13:49 . Mar 1:13 .Luk 16:22Luk 16:22 . chap. 1Ch 2:181Ch 2:181Ch 2:18 . Heb 1:4-5 ; 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: Esa. 1Co 6:2 . Viri facies patet: velatur mulier.” Surely this lies too far off for any reader to supply without further specification. Aug [49] 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 clestes 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 .

[49] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

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 (= ) that she “has (wears),” is that to which she submits, with the veil “upon her head” for its symbol; cf. 1Co 12:23 , where = . 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. 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] , . 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 pious men, prophets, Church-officers , even match-makers ! Others have proposed emendations of the text, substituting or , or ( 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 Erklrung 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. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[1643] Fathers.

[1644] John Chrysostom’s Homili ( 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).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

For this cause = On account of (as above) this.

power = authority (App-172.), i.e. the sign of authority, a veil, which betokened subjection to her husband. Compare Gen 24:65.

on. App-104.

because of = on account of, as above.

the angels. Compare Gen 6:2. 2Pe 2:4. Jud 1:6. Cannot refer to the bishop or other officer; for why should he be affected more than the other men in the congregation?

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

10.] , on account of what has just been said, by which the subordination of the woman has been proved:-refers to 1Co 11:7-9, not as Meyer, to 1Co 11:9 only: for 1Co 11:8-9, give two parallel reasons for , the inference from which proposition has not get been given, but now follows, with answering to above.

. . . .] 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: , , , , where 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 indicates being under power: and such token is the covering. So Chrys. ( , . ), Theodoret, Theophyl. ( ), cum., Beza, Grot., Est., Bengel, Wolf, al., Billroth, Rckert, 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 actually to mean a veil, because the Heb. , a veil, comes from the root , 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 Apostles thoughts: but this does not shew that he used for a veil. (3) Kypke would put a comma after ., and render propterea mulier potestali obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (see 1Co 11:4) in capite habeat. But the sense of would require (see Lexx.) , not . (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 , 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 here to mean her origin, – from -, as – from -:-to shew that she (1Co 11:8) . But apart from other objections to this, it must thus be, . or . . Other renderings and conjectures may be seen in Meyers note, from which the above is mainly taken: and in Stanleys.

] 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 Gods servants,-and by a violation of that order we should be giving offence to them. See ref. So Chrys. ( ; , , ; 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,- , , , Hom. xxvi. p. 234. In the Hom. on the Ascension, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 443 (Migne), he says, . . , . , , , …), Grot. (whose note see in Pool), Estius, Wolf, Rckert, Meyer, De Wette. (1) Others, with a modification of this rendering, take as the guardian angels, appointed, one to take charge of each Christian. So Theophyl. ( ), Jerome (not Aug[47] 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 clo excidisse ob concupiscentiam fminarum. See also cont. Marcion. 1Co 11:8, p. 488,-or might tempt men so to be,-Schttgen, Mosh, al.,-or might injure the unveiled themselves: so, after Rabbinical notions, Wetst. But , absol., never means any thing in the N. T. except the holy angels of God. See, in Stanleys note, a modification of this view, which is consistent with that meaning. (3) Clem[48] Alex. fragm. ix. . lib. iii. (p. 1004 P.) says, , . . (4) Beza, the Christian prophets, in ctu 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 nov consuetudinis notitia per speculatores in publicum emanare, christianasque uxores tum Judis, de isto mulierum habitu pessime existimantibus, tum Grcis quoque in suspicionem rei christian probrosissimam adducere. Rosenm.

[47] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

[48] Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

Against all these ingenious interpretations is the plain sense of (Mat 13:49. Mar 1:13. Luk 16:22. chap. 1Co 13:1. Col 2:18. Heb 1:4-5; 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: Esa. 1Co 6:2. Viri facies patet: velatur mulier. Surely this lies too far off for any reader to supply without further specification. Aug[49] 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 clestes 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.

[49] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 11:10. , ought) This verb differs from , it is necessary: denotes obligation, , necessity. The former is moral, the latter, as it were, physical necessity; as in the German, wir sollen und mssen, we shall and must.- ) 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 , a covering: so Gen 20:16, . LXX, , for a covering, i.e., for a testimony of undefiled matrimonial chastity. On the contrary, the priest was commanded , 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 , power, is a more suitable word here than , 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 by an elegant metonymy of the sign for the thing signified; or even by a mild metonymy of the relative for the correlative, , 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 , glory, 1Co 11:15 : and , power, is also applied to the angels.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 11:10

for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head,-On account of this priority and supremacy of man, woman, as subject to man, should always approach God with the tokens of her subjection on her head. The sign of authority means the sign or token on her head that she acknowledges the authority of man over her.

because of the angels.-Much diversity exists as to who the angels are. Many think they were the messengers of the churches. But the apostle nowhere presents a thought as to how woman shall appear before men; the question is, How shall she appear before God? How shall she approach God in prophecy or prayer? The direction applies to her, whether in public or private. It is necessary for a woman to approach God with the tokens of her subjection to man in secret prayer, or private teaching as in public, just as it is necessary for man to approach God as a servant of Christ in private or in public. Not a word is said here as to how woman should appear before man when she prayed or taught. The presence or absence of men, friends or strangers, has nothing to do with how she shall appear before God. Neither does the question whether she leads in public prayer or in prayer follows others who lead. These questions are not here touched. I think the angels in heaven who see and rejoice or sorrow over what men do here will rejoice or sorrow over her coming properly or improperly before God, or in the place to which God assigned her. Whether the woman prays in the closet at home, or in the assembly, she should approach God with the tokens of her subjection to man on her head. The reason of this we may not know. That God requires it, the Bible plainly teaches, and that should suffice. The meaning is, when she comes to worship in prayer or praise, no matter whether she leads or not, she should be veiled.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

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

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

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

power: That is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband. [Strong’s G1849], appears here to be used for the sign or token of being under power or authority, that is, a veil, as Theophylact (Ecumenius, and Photius) explain; and so one manuscript of the Vulgate, the Sixtine edition, and some copies of the Itala, have velamen. Gen 20:16, Gen 24:64, Gen 24:65

because: Ecc 5:6, Mat 18:10, Heb 1:14

Reciprocal: Exo 25:20 – toward Num 6:5 – razor Num 6:7 – consecration

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE FEMALE HEAD-DRESS

Power on her head because of the angels.

1Co 11:10

The little section of the First Epistle to the Corinthians in which St. Paul deals with the question of the retention or disuse of the female head-dress in the public assemblies of Christian worship, is eminently characteristic of his style and method. It appears that in the Church at Corinth some women had occasioned scandal by dispensing with the pephlum, or shawl, with which, from time immemorial, Grecian females had covered their heads on public occasions. Doubtless these Christian women wished to assert the principle of their emancipation from that vulgar tyranny over the weaker sex which made the ordinary Greek woman a mere dwarf of the gynceum; doubtless they wished to illustrate, in the most public manner, that they were now the children of a kingdom in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). But of the manner of asserting their purely spiritual and ideal truth, the Apostle wholly disapproved.

I. St. Paul abhorred all intrusive self-assertion, all scandal-causing appearance of evil, all unseemly violation of reasonable custom. He knew well that Christianity had not been preached with any view to the violent and revolutionary overthrow of existing customs. He did not wish its Divine and universal principles to be degraded into an excuse for political outbreaks or social fanaticism. It was true that in the Jewish synagogue women worshipped with their heads uncovered; but if there were any converted Jewesses who wished to transfer that custom into the Christian places of worship, they had wholly failed to see that there was no parallel between the cases, since in the synagogue the women worshipped apart from the men, behind a secluding lattice. St. Paul therefore decides that, as regards women, the Greek custom, and not the Jewish, ought to prevail, and indeed the spirit of the Greek and of the Jewish customs were in this matter identical. And singularly enough he decides for the Greek custom in the case of men as well as women. Among the Jews to this day, as in all Oriental countries, a man covers his head with the tallitha veil with four tasselswhen he is in the act of prayer. St. Paul could never have been accustomed to any other mode of worship until his conversion to Christianity. Yet so completely had his views and habits been altered by Christs revelation, that he now declares that a man covering his head in worship dishonours his own head, and thereby dishonours Christ Who is his spiritual and eternal Head.

II. But he is not content to rest this decision on his own mere dictum.As it was the custom of his life to refer even the minutest duties to the loftiest principles, so it was the habit of his mind to settle even the most trivial matters of controversy by a reference to eternal spiritual truths. He therefore rests his decision on two groundsan appeal to instinctive and natural feeling, and a statement of the Divine law respecting the relation of the sexes to one another and to God. He asks the Corinthians whether they do not feel at once, whether nature itself does not teach them, that long hair is unsuitable, even disgraceful, to man, a mark of dandyism, effeminacy, and sloth; and that, on the other hand, the long soft tresses of a woman are her natural ornament and glory, so that every one would feel it to be a mark of infamy who saw a woman shorn or shaven? And he traces this instinctive feeling to the great revealed truth that woman occupies towards man a position analogous to that which man occupies towards God. Man was created first, then woman; woman for the man, not man for the woman; man to be the image and glory of God, woman to be the glory of the man. Both of them indeed are one in the Lord, but still in due subordination; seeing that man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of man, and God is the head of Christ. Thus we see that the region in which the thoughts of the Apostle habitually moved was so lofty, that a question of the use or abandonment of womens veils leads him to speak at once of the creation of man and the Incarnation of the Son of God. It is in the midst of these high and dignified arguments, which at once remove the question from a detail of petty ritual to one of real religious significance, that St. Paul casually drops the strange and disputed phrase that, since man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man; the woman ought to have power upon her head because of the angels.

III. What is here meant by power.When commentators or editors have failed to understand a word, they are generally driven to tamper with it, i.e. to alter the reading, or to give it some very unusual sense, or to give the ordinary sense, and show how the required meaning can be obtained from it. To me it seems that after all the simple good sense of our translators hit on the only true meaning of the expression, which they have placed in the margin of our Bibles. They adopted the proper and faithful course in giving to the disputed word its first plain and obvious meaning of power; and then, to dispel all unnecessary difficulty, they briefly inserted in the margin what appeared to them to be the true explanation, that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. I am convinced that their view is the correct one. Any apparent harshness in this meaning is at once dispelled:

(a) By the analogies it is indeed unlikely that exousia could ever have come to mean a veil, and no authority for such a meaning can be quoted; but these analogies 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.

(b) Because to this day the veil is regarded in the unchanging East as a sign, not of authority, but 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, with which St. Paul must also have been very familiar, the putting on of a veil in marriage was a sign that a woman lost all independent rights of citizenship.

(c) Because there is a close analogy between this passage and one in Genesis (Gen 20:16), where Abimelech, indignant that the relationship of Abraham to Sarah had been concealed from him, tells Sarah that he has given her brother a thousand pieces of silverBehold he is to thee a covering of eyes. This covering of the eyes is generally understood to mean a veil.

Dean Farrar.

Illustration

There is a noble verse by Milton, who seems to combine the notions of the womans hair being at once a covering to herself, 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.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

1Co 11:10. Submission to authority is the outstanding thought which Paul has been discussing. We have seen that an unveiled head indicates authority, for which reason a woman should be veiled as a sign that she is under authority. Angels are ministering spirits under the authority of God, and are invisible persons in the assemblies of Christians. Some of their class have been rebellious in times past (2Pe 2:4; Jud 1:6), and Paul wishes the woman to show to the faithful angels who are present in the assembly, that they are submitting to the authority that is over them.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

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.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

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 , 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 , cover of the womans 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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 , 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 (Rckert, 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 , 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 to be spies sent by the heathen to watch Christian worship (Jam 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.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

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.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 10

This passage is generally considered as unexplained. The researches of interpreters throw no light upon it whatever.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

11:10 {9} For this cause ought the woman to have {c} power on [her] head because of the {10} angels.

(9) The conclusion: women must be covered, to show by this external sign their subjection.

(10) What this means, I do not yet understand.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul drew a conclusion from what he had already said (1Co 11:7-9) and gave a supporting reason for his conclusion.

Unfortunately the NASB translators have added "a symbol of" to the original text thus implying that the head-covering is what women ought to wear on their heads. The Greek text simply says "the woman ought to have authority on her head." In the preceding verses the reason is that she is the man’s glory. In light of 1Co 11:7, we might have expected Paul to say that because the woman is the glory of the man she should cover her head. Yet that is not what Paul said.

What is this "authority" that women ought to have on their heads? Some interpreters believe it refers to the man in her life who is in authority over her. The covering is the sign that she recognizes him in this role. The Living Bible gives this interpretation by paraphrasing the verse, "So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority." [Note: See also F. Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2:122; and Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians, p. 211.] This view lacks support in the passive use of exousia ("authority"). Furthermore the idiom "to have authority over" never refers to an external authority different from the subject of the sentence elsewhere.

Other interpreters view "authority" as a metonym for "veil." A metonym is a figure of speech in which one word appears in place of another associated with or suggested by it (e.g., "the White House says" for "the President says"). The RSV translation gives this interpretation: "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head." This view is unlikely because "authority" is a strange word to use if Paul really meant "veil." It would have been more natural for him simply to say "veil" or "covering."

A third view is to take "to have authority" as meaning "a sign of authority, namely, as a means of exercising authority." Advocates believe Paul meant that women were to have authority to do things in worship previously forbidden, such as praying and prophesying along with men. Her covering would serve as a sign of her new liberty in Christ. [Note: Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 106; M. D. Hooker, "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI. 10," New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):410-16.] There does not seem to be adequate basis of support for this view in the passage.

The fourth major view takes having "authority" in its usual meaning of having the freedom or right to choose. The meaning in this case would be that the woman has authority over her head (man) to do as she pleases. [Note: William M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, pp. 202-5; Morris, p. 154.] Obviously this seems to run contrary to what Paul taught in the passage and elsewhere. I think perhaps Paul meant that women have freedom to decide how they will pray and prophesy within the constraint that Paul had imposed, namely, with heads covered. The head-covering, then, symbolized both the woman’s subordinate position under the man and the authority that she had to pray and prophesy in public. [Note: See Barrett, p. 255.]

The other major interpretive problem in this verse is "because of the angels." Why did Paul introduce angels into this discussion? Perhaps the Corinthian women needed to wear a head-covering because angels observe with great interest what is taking place among God’s people as we worship (cf. 1Co 4:9; Eph 3:10; 1Ti 5:21). Angels are the guardians of God’s created order, they are submissive to God, and they too praise God. For other people to see Christian women unveiled was bad enough because it was a sign of insubordination, but for angels to see it would be worse. [Note: Robertson and Plummer, p. 233.] They would really be offended!

There may also be something to the suggestion that these Corinthian women, and some of the men as well, may have been exalting themselves to the position of angels (cf. 1Co 7:1; 1Co 13:1). [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 522.] Paul may have mentioned the angels to remind them that they were still under angelic scrutiny.

Other less acceptable interpretations of "because of the angels" are these. Women should cover their heads because evil angels lusted after women in the church (cf. Gen 6:2). If this were the reason, should not all women wear veils at all times since angels apparently view humans in other than church meetings? They should do so because the word angels (lit. messengers) refers to pastors of the churches who might lust after them. They should wear head-coverings because good angels learn to be submissive to authority from the women’s example. They need to cover themselves because good angels are an example of subordination and would take offense if they viewed insubordinate women. Finally they should wear head-coverings because a woman’s insubordination would tempt good angels to be insubordinate.

Is observance by angels not a reason Christian women should cover their heads in church meetings today? Again I think not. In that culture a woman’s appearance in public unveiled was a declaration of her rejection of her God-given place in creation. The angels would have recognized it as such, and it would have offended them. However today a woman’s decision to appear unveiled does not usually make that statement. Consequently her unveiled condition does not offend the angels.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles