By Norman E. Anderson
Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians 11:2-16 is notorious for being one of the most difficult-to-interpret passages in the New Testament; and at the very heart of that passage (11:10) is perhaps the most cryptic part of all: the mention of angels as part of a rationale.
Here's the Greek text (transliterated) followed by my translation:
dia touto opheilei hë gynë exousian echein epi tës kephalës dia tous angelous.1
On account of this ought the wife [or woman] to have power over the head: on account of the angels.
What angels? The options are these:
I should point out that my intent here is not to produce a history of the interpretation of the text, although some bits of data from interpretation history are incorporated. (I have myself developed some of the options independently, although I dare not claim to be the first to have thought of them.) My intent is rather to address each option in turn, developing the case for it and mentioning some of the weaknesses, however without prejudice as to the logic of the argument of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
One of the chronic flaws in reasoning about this passage is to presume that the logic is understood before the significance of the terms is understood. My approach is to gather the options as to significances and then to try to discern chains of logic that can be seen to flow through one or more sets of options with a minimum of force. However, the logic of the argument is beyond the scope of this excursus, which is just one piece of a more encompassing exegesis. For the rest, see under "A Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.")
[Before beginning, this note: Square-bracketed citations need to be verified.]
Angels as a Matter of Language Use
First we must keep in mind that dia tous angelous ("on account of the angels") may have no substantive referent at all but may be functioning as merely a figure of speech, like "for heaven's sake," or as a way of expressing sarcasm or humor.
However, nobody I know of has brought forward any examples of this phrase as a figure of speech; and, as for sarcasm, remembering that Paul's Pharisean belief structure took angels seriously (Acts 23:6-9; cf. 26:5; however, mitigated by 15:5), it is hard to imagine him speaking either irreverently of good angels or without a measure of trepidation as to bad angels.
As for humor, well, the more serious a subject is, the more susceptible it is to humor; so we must keep our ears attuned to the possibility of humor while interpreting the passage. For instance, "on account of the angels" could be a punch line: "For THIS the woman ought to have magical power over her head? Why how about on account of the angels! (He-he, yeah, right!)" Or, "For this reason a woman ought to have some force (exousian) -- definitely not a razor (xuron)! -- over her head: to weight it down so that the angels won't steal her hair, like the image of Heracles sent from Tyre stole the hair of the Thracian women of Erythrae!"2
With regard to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in general, there were foils that Paul could have been playing off of associated with Corinth and the general region of which it was a part. For example, there was the well-known story of the Danaids, the fifty daughters of Danaus who married the fifty sons of his brother Aegyptus. Pausanius (fl. ca. 150 C.E.) reported in his Description of Greece 2.24.2:
"As you go to the citadel [called Larissa] there is on the left of the road another tomb of the children of Aegyptus. For here are the heads [hai kephalai] apart from the bodies, which are at Lerna. For it was at Lerna that the youths were murdered, and when they were dead their wives cut off their heads [apotemnousin hai gynaikes tas kephalas], to prove to their father that they had done the dreadful deed."3
There was the large pile of women's hair around the image of Hygieia, the goddess of health, ten miles to the west in Sicyonia at the sanctuary of Asclepius (Pausanius 2.11.6). In Troezen, forty miles to the southeast, each maiden would lop off a lock of hair prior to marriage and dedicate it at the temple of Hippolytus (Pausanius 2.32.1). One could go on and on mentioning stories and customs about hair and head coverings that might have served as foils.
However, I find it difficult to reconstruct a coherent joke running through the passage and would assume that if a coherent serious message can be discerned, then the passage should be interpreted as a serious one, all the more so since Paul was not known as a jokester.
Angels as Representatives of Human Order
The neo-orthodox Swiss theologian, Karl Barth (1886-1968), interpreted the angels of verse 10 this way:
"The angels are generally the bearers and representatives of the relative principles necessarily posited with the work of God, and they are specifically the bearers and representatives of the indirect human orders necessarily posited with the divine work of salvation. They cannot, therefore, see these orders violated without sorrow."4
Barth spoke with some warrant. One might infer an angelic concern with hierarchical order among humans from Genesis 16:9, where Hagar was told by an angel: "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hands" (New American Standard Bible, 1973, following its literal reading in the margin). One might even infer an angelic concern with abuse of authority from the story of Balaam and his donkey (Numbers 22:33). Paul understood angels to be instrumental in setting up the conditions for the delivery of Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:19);5 and he charged Timothy in the presence of "the chosen angels" to maintain the church organization as outlined (1 Timothy 5:21).
Furthermore, extrabiblically but on the basis of Genesis 1:26 ("Let US make humankind in OUR image"), angels were understood by some to have participated in the creation of humankind.6 In the view of Paul's contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, the contribution of these other heavenly powers allowed for human imperfection. There is no evidence that Paul shared such a position.7 However, it may be that like Philo, Paul thought of angels as concerning themselves with the lesser, more earthly aspects of human life, including the customs by which human beings live.
However, the passages, both biblical and extrabibilical, that might be adduced in support of this interpretation are oblique; and we do not have any evidence that first-generation Christians used the above-mentioned texts from the Torah in the way I suggested that they might be used.
Furthermore, Paul's representation of angels is much more wide-ranging than some association with order; and in the extant epistles to the Corinthians, there is no association of angels with human order, our verse under consideration (11:10) being the sole possible exception.
Barth's reading assumes that Paul was speaking of angels as agents of goodness, but Paul frequently speaks of angels either as agents of evil (2 Corinthians 11:14; 12:7) or as possible threats to faithfulness (Romans 8:38; Galatians 1:8);8 and in 1 Corinthians he reminds his audience that "we," presumably the "holy ones" of 1:2 and 6:2, will judge angels (6:2-3). The remaining references to angels in 1 Corinthians are ambivalent, in that they might apply to either sort of angel. However, if anything, they "knock" angels; for angels are represented (in 4:9) as non-comprehending spectators and part of the world (kosmos), which does not rate highly in the Corinthian epistles, and speaking their language in and of itself is nothing but annoying noise (13:1). In another headship passage, this one in Colossians (which many scholars, not I, regard as pseudo-Pauline), angels are even represented as interrupting the proper order, which is direct connection to Christ (2:18ff.). Generally when Paul spoke of good angels, he qualified the word:
That is, he qualified the word, unless the context made his reference clear, as in Galatians 3:19 and 1 Timothy 3:16. So if we follow these clues, it would seem that in 1 Corinthians 11:10, Paul was speaking of angels either generally and ambivalently or as agents of evil.
In her translation of 1 Corinthians 11:10, Helen Barrett Montgomery (1861-1934) rendered the phrase under discussion this way: "because of her [guardian] angels," indicating her interpretation in square brackets.10 The guardian-angel interpretation goes back at least to Theodoret (ca. 393-ca. 460), Bishop of Cyrrhus.11
The idea of guardian angels is faint in the Bible, but nevertheless detectable:
Of course, extrabiblical literature is more expansive when it comes to guardian angels. To give one example, this from the Testament of Adam 4:1:
"The lowest order is the angels. And the plan has been revealed to it by God concerning every human being whom they watch over, because one angel from this lowest order accompanies every single human being in the world for his protection. And this is its service."12-13
If Paul had in mind angels as guardians or representatives of nations, he might have been talking about the principles behind the distinctive customs that order each society (or, perhaps, in some cases disorder a society). However, this seems like a far-fetched way of alluding to customs; and the interpretation assumes on Paul's part a metaphysical theory of nations for which we have no concrete evidence. In fact, we have countervailing evidence, for Paul indicates that the legal authority of each nation is established directly, one presumes, by God (Romans 13:1).
If Paul had in mind a guardian angel of the church of Corinth, presumably he would have spoken in the singular rather than the plural. Besides, the earliest known mentions of a church having its own angel (which are in Revelation) are much later than First Corinthians.
If Paul had meant by "angels" "guardian angels for individuals," presumably there would be some connection to the subject of the passage -- something to do with headship, or head coverings, or authority, or customs. But, unto itself, there is no such connection. Consequently, such an interpretation may render the passage quaint, but it does nothing for the logical force of the argument or to help with contextual understanding; and we are left in the same quandaries as if the passage had not been interpreted at all.
However, when, nearly two centuries later (233 or 234), the Alexandrian Christian theologian, Origen, wrote about corporate prayer in Peri Euchës = De Oratione = On Prayer 31:5-7, he envisioned each participant as having along a guardian angel, such that "when the saints are gathered together there is a double church, the one of men, the other of angels" (31.5).14 Yet Origen indicated that not only are these angels present but also (a) "angels, who serve the divine will and watch over the Church" (31:6) and, (b) when one or more unworthy folk attend, one or more bad angels attending them (31:6). In other words, Origen described a whole pantheon of angels present at corporate prayer; and, even though he was not mentioning either Genesis 6:1-4 or 1 Corinthians 11:10, the scope of his purview could sweep up both the guardian-angel interpretation and the evil-angel interpretation (to be discussed below) of 1 Corinthians 11:10. We have to wonder whether this sort of purview reflected a tradition passed down from the earliest churches or a development of the idea. However, wondering is not evidence, and we must remember that seismic shifts occurred in the church between the time of Paul and the time of Origen, some of which had to do with sex and sexuality.
One more try on behalf of the guardian-angel interpretation: Conceivably Paul had in mind a hierarchy of guardian angels. Thus each individual would have an angel, as would each family and each church and ultimately the universal church as a whole. This theory would account for both the plural and for connection with the topics under discussion, for where there is a hierarchy there is subsummation and submission. Unfortunately this is all fabrication created to satisfy the passage and does not arise from anything in the extant writings of Paul.
Angels as Requiring Physical Wholeness
The Jesuit biblical scholar, Joseph Fitzmyer, offered this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10:
"The context shows that it is a question of a sacred assembly, for men and women are praying and 'prophesying'. In v. 16 Paul refers to the 'custom' which is current in the 'Church of God' (the resemblance of this last expression to qhl 'lh [assembly of God] in 1QSa 2:4 ["The Rule of the Congregation"] should be noted). In such an assembly, Paul says, the woman is to wear upon her head a veil dia tous angelous. We are invited by the evidence from Qumran to understand that the unveiled head of a woman is like a bodily defect which should be excluded from such an assembly, 'because holy angels are present in their congregation'."15
The chief evidence for this invitation that he presents is from the "The Rule of the Congregation" or, as Geza Vermes calls it, "The Messianic Rule" (1QSa 2:3-11):
"No man who suffers from a single one of the uncleannesses that affect humanity shall enter their assembly; neither is any man so afflicted to receive an assignment from the congregation. No man with a physical handicap -- crippled in both legs or hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb, or possessed of a visible blemish in his flesh -- or a doddering old man unable to do his share in the congregation -- may en[ter] to take a place in the congregation of the m[e]n of reputation. For the holy angels are [a part of] their congregation.
"If [one] of these people has some[thing] to say to the holy congregation, let an oral [de]position be taken, but the man must n[ot] enter [the congregation,] for he has been smitten."16
Fitzmyer noted the resemblance of this Qumran passage to Leviticus 21:17-23, which, however, does not mention angels. Supplementing this evidence, Fitzmyer cited "The War Scroll" (1QM 7:4-6), which insists that warriors be perfect in both spirit and body, and that they be ritually clean on the day of battle "for holy angels accompany their armies." Then in a postscript, he added two other bits of evidence:
Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise associate yet another text with these:
We might also add songs from the Dead Sea scrolls that seem to be calling upon angels, albeit in other terms, to worship God, for example:
Within Judaism, the idea of angels and humans worshipping together was hardly limited to the Qumran sect. See, for example, the Septuagint at Psalm 137:1 (= 138:1):
"And in the presence of angels I will sing to you [Lord]" (my translation).
Also Philo, Peri Aretön = De Virtutibus = On the Virtues 73-74:
"He [Moses] convoked a divine assemblage of the elements of all existence and the chiefest parts of the universe, earth and heaven, one the home of mortals, the other the house of immortals. With these around him he sang his canticles with every kind of harmony and sweet music in the ears of both mankind and ministering angels: of men that as disciples they should learn from him the lesson of like thankfulness of heart: of angels as watchers, observing, as themselves masters of melody, whether the song had any discordant note, and scarce able to credit that any man imprisoned in a corruptible body could like the sun and moon and the most sacred choir of the other stars attune his soul to harmony with God's instrument, the heaven and the whole universe."21
Compare the non-Jewish idea in Plutarch's Moralia of daimons, who attend sacred rites and who, in his description, happen to share much in common with the angels of the Jews:
"and let us believe that demigods [daimonas] are guardians of sacred rites of the gods and prompters in the Mysteries, while others go about as avengers of arrogant and grievous cases of injustice." (417A = Peri tön Ekleloipotön Chrëstëriön = De Defectu Oraculorum = Obsolescence of Oracles 13; cf. 418D-E = 15-16)22
This interpretation has many problems, perhaps the two most glaring of which are the following.
First, there is nothing in the Torah, these passages of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the writings of Paul to indicate that a woman in and of herself, apart from certain specified conditions, is ritually impure. Nor was she considered physically defective by virtue of being a woman. So why should a woman be ducking angels for such a reason?
Second, it's not consistent with apostolic Christianity's attitude towards ritual purity.
The early Christians understood Jesus as having power over ritual impurity, including any infirmities. See, for example, the story of the healing of the woman with a hemorrhage (Matthew 9:19-22 = Mark 5:25-34 = Luke 8:43-48) and reports of him as a healer of the blind and the lame and lepers and the deaf (for example, Matthew 11:5 = Luke 7:22; cf. Mark 7:37). To be a member of his mystical body meant the breaking down of purity barriers that stood between people (for example, Acts 10:15). As a matter of fact, an angel was said to have been instrumental in helping to break down such barriers (Acts 10:3-7).
When it came to inclusion of Gentiles in the Jewish-Christian community, special purity regulations with regard to women appear to have been dropped (Acts 15:20, 29); and when Paul advised husbands and wives to "stop depriving one another" (1 Corinthians 7:5), he conspicuously made no mention of purity concerns with regard to sexual intercourse within marriage. (Since Paul was not explicit, some later Christians made up for his omission by insisting that a man was not allowed to have sexual relations with a menstruant. See, for example, Diatagei tön Hagiön Apostolön = Constitutiones Apostolicae = Apostolic Constitutions 6.5.28; and Gregory the Great, Epistles 11.64.Q10 = Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum 1.27.Q8.) For Paul, in Christ there was neither male nor female (Galatians 3:38).
For Paul, lunacy was not an expressed concern with regard to either corporate worship or Christian life, but confusion of speaking in tongues with lunacy was (1 Corinthians 14:23). For Paul, being simple was not an expressed concern, nor was appearing foolish, but the foolishness of the world was (1 Corinthians 3:19). For Paul, blindness was not an expressed concern, but the blindness of the mind was (for example, Romans 11:7-10). For Paul, the lame were not an expressed concern, but lameness was subject to faith (Acts 14:8-10; cf. Hebrews 12:12-13). For Paul, those unable to speak were not an expressed concern, but dumb idols were (1 Corinthians 12:2). For Paul, it was not the letter of the Law that mattered, but the intangibilities of inwardness and relationality, that is, of virtue and right relations (2 Corinthians 3:6).
The tenor of Jesus' deeds, sayings, and significance for early Christians and the tenor of Paul's writings were of overcoming exclusions on the basis of concerns about external purity. This fact does not jibe with the tenor of the above quotations from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in fact it would be astounding to discover that Paul exceeded the Torah in the opposite direction of both his own usual tenor and Jesus' too.
Might this theory be partially salvaged by positing an attempt at peace on Paul's part: that in lieu of purity with regard to the ritually polluting effects of menstruation and sexual intercourse within marriage, Paul was substituting the covered female head in corporate worship, perhaps to assuage those who might be offended? In other words, was he carrying through on the Christian revolution with regard to purity while yet being willing to compromise where the reputation of the church was at stake? Unfortunately there is no evidence that covering the head would have been considered by anybody an adequate substitute for following purity regulations. Certainly Paul wasn't expecting Christian women to fool angels, was he?
What the Qumran passages do show is that Paul was far from extraordinary in associating angels with a gathering of the faithful and that the idea that such angels were good angels is not far-fetched for the period. Although -- note well! -- in those Qumran texts angels were specified as such, that is as "holy angels," qualification being necessary for understanding.
Angels as Necessitating the Emblem of a Prophetess
A certain prophet disguised himself with a bandage over his eyes, and when he removed the bandage in front of King Ahab of Israel, all of a sudden the king recognized him, not individually, but as being of the prophets (1 Kings 20:35-43). From this it is sometimes inferred that the prophet wore some sort of emblem on his head indicating that he was a prophet.
In Ezekiel 13:17-23, a wrist band and an apparently distinctive veil were indicative of being under the influence of a prophetess and a member of her posse.
In Rome during sacred rites the vestal virgins wore a distinctive veil called a suffibulum.
In the J. Paul Getty Museum is a marble bust of a priest of Serapis, who is wearing on his head a gilded fillet to which is attached, above his forehead, the seven-pointed star of Serapis. The bust is dated circa 180 C.E.23 (By the way, note Tertullian, De Corona 14, where a headband for a woman is expressly rejected.)
As the church developed, certain vestments, such as the pallium, a white woolen scarf bearing six black crosses, came to indicate a certain authority. Thus Pope Gregory I (died 604 C.E.) wrote in answer to a question from Augustine of Canterbury (died 604 or 605):
"We give you no authority over the bishops of Gaul, for since ancient times the Bishop of Arles has received the pallium from my predecessors, and his authority is to be in no way infringed."24
From details such as these, to which many more could be added, the theory has arisen that the head covering of 1 Corinthians 11 had upon it or was itself a distinctive emblem of a Christian prophetess, an emblem that indicated to both angels and congregants her authority to be a bridge between them, the angels, perhaps, serving as agents of her prophecy.25 A male prophet did not need such an emblem on his head -- in fact, it interfered -- because his status was automatically one of direct connection; although, like Elijah and Elisha, he might have another emblem, in their case a mantle, by which the heavenly hosts do his bidding.26 However, the woman's status, without an emblem on her head, was indirect, through her husband or male caretaker. (Could it be that Paul conceived of angels as simpletons -- recall 4:9 -- or as inept at human languages -- recall 13:1 -- and thus as unable to distinguish between "head" as a name for part of the physical body and "head" as a metaphorical term?) With the emblem of the prophetess on her head, the angels would know that the woman was functioning in a way that transcends the social order -- not only the postlapsarian (post-Fall) order (Genesis 3:16), but even the prelapsarian (pre-Fall) order of the flesh (Genesis 2:22).
This theory has a certain amount of explanatory power; it comports, at least to a large degree, with both Jesus' attitude towards women and Paul's idea of there being neither male nor female in Christ (Galatians 3:28); and it combines fairly easily with some of the other theories for yet greater explanatory power. However, it has a number of problems, among them these:
In Isaiah 6:1-7 seraphim are represented as covering their faces and feet with their wings in the presence of the Lord, who is seated on a throne. The temple is filled with the train of the Lord's robe. The seraphim shout out to each other (following The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985):
We have a convergence between Isaiah 6 and I Corinthians 11 of heavenly beings, covering, glory, and prophecy. Additionally there is with these a convergence of temple imagery, if we remember Paul's insistence to the Corinthians that collectively their very bodies form a holy temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16). The thought is that whether or not Paul was alluding directly to Isaiah 6, he was employing cultural imagery that had been shaped in part by Isaiah 6.
Probably irrelevant, but still an intriguing archaeological artifact in relation to this theory: A bronze mirror evidently made in a Corinthian workshop (Ekdotike Athenon 11691). The handle consists of a kore, a sculpted young woman. Her head is covered and she is bearing something, perhaps a sacrifice. On her shoulders are creatures that look remarkably like other portrayals of seraphim. Atop is the mirror disk.27
Unfortunately this interpretation of the angels of 1 Corinthians 11:10 is not a comfortable fit, for many reasons, some of them being these:
Some elements of Isaiah 6 are so tantalizingly similar to those of 1 Corinthians 11 that it seems one ought to be able to infer a connection, yet the displacement of ideas relative to each other is such that, except for certain broad generalities grounded in the culture like, perhaps, the sense of "glory," one must conclude otherwise.
So far as I know, the Christian/Montanist theologian, Tertullian (ca. 160-ca. 225) of Carthage, was the first to interpret 1 Corinthians 11:10 as a reference to the temptation by human females of heavenly beings, such as occurred in Genesis 6:1-4.28
Above (under "Angels as Representatives of Human Order") it was suggested that Paul's lack of an adjective or qualifying phrase indicated that he was not speaking specifically of good angels. This line of thought points to either angels in general, that is, as ambivalently understood, or to evil angels; and we have a convergence of one or the other of such angels with women in Genesis 6:1-4, angels who mated with human females. (Actually, that passage uses the terminology "sons of God" rather than "angels." However, the "sons of God" were often interpreted as being angels.29) The Testament of Reuben 5:5-6 actually associates adornment of the female head with the biblical incident:
"... flee from sexual promiscuity, and order your wives and your daughters not to adorn their heads and their appearances so as to deceive men's sound minds. For every woman who schemes in these ways is destined for eternal punishment. For it was thus that they charmed the Watchers, who were before the Flood. As they continued looking at the women, they were filled with desire for them and perpetrated the act in their minds. Then they were transformed into human males, and while the women were cohabiting with their husbands they appeared to them. Since the women's minds were filled with lust for these apparitions, they gave birth to giants. For the Watchers were disclosed to them as being as high as the heavens."30-31
Conceivably Paul understood the female allurement of angels to be an ongoing concern, since their mating with humans, as presented in the Torah, was evidently not limited to the prediluvian (pre-Flood) period (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33; cf. Genesis 19:1-11; Tobit 6:14).
This interpretation allows for some resolution of the 1 Corinthians passage, for example, it would presumably make the order of which Paul was speaking a postlapsarian (post-Fall) order, and therefore presumably not the order for which the church was ultimately aiming. However, it has many problems. For instance:
This interpretation has in its favor, besides what has already been mentioned, that it is, perhaps, the most obvious. So if Paul were making a brief allusion, what else might we expect his audience to think of but the convergence of women and a number of angels in the first book of the Torah? However, in the end it seems only to complicate the puzzle and not to solve it.
Incidentally, it is tempting to identify angels with gods, and there is some precedent for doing so. See, for example, the Septuagint's translation of elohim, "gods," as angeloi at Psalm 8:6 (5) (which is used at Hebrews 2:7); Psalm 96 (97):7 (compare Hebrews 1:6); and Psalm 137 (138):1. See also the Septuagint's same treatment of elahin at Daniel 2:11. Note too, in the Dead Sea scrolls, 4Q403, as quoted above. To show that the idea did survive within Christianity, see, for example, Augustine, De Civitate Dei 12.25.34 However, as a general rule early Christians appear to have distinguished angels from pagan gods. An example would be Origen in Contra Celsum (5:4); although he does associate demons with idols (8:30-31; cf. 1 Enoch 19:1), and demons were thought by some to be the progeny of fallen angels (see, for example, Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos 8-9; and Commodian, Instructiones 3).35
Above we considered angels as representatives of human order. But the reverse also must be considered, angels as agents of or occasions for disorder; for Paul considered angels -- not necessarily just bad angels -- to be potential obstacles with which believers might be confronted (Romans 8:38-39; Galatians 1:8; Colossians 2:18; cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12; Colossians 1:13; 2:15). In Paul's view, the apostles were a spectacle to angels, and he leaves the impression that the angels considered them foolish (1 Corinthians 4:9-10). The rulers and the powers in the supernatural realm had to be educated, by way of the church, that the means of God's multi-faceted wisdom are more varied than they had allowed for (Ephesians 3:10). So one might surmise that a woman was to have authority over the head in order that the angels might learn that a new order was arising.
A few difficulties:
Angels as Christian Envoys to Outsiders
Thus far we've been considering angels as beings of a different order from humans. However, the word angelos has also a set of quite mundane meanings, including "messenger" (for example, Luke 7:24), "forerunner" (for example Luke 9:52), or even "a visitor checking out or espying a situation" (for example, James 2:25; cf. Joshua 7:22 in the Septuagint).
Conceivably Paul was talking not about angels at all but about envoys who represented the church to both Jews and Gentiles, especially in the surrounding region.
Perhaps the point was to avoid embarrassment to these envoys, by having reports going before them of indecorous behavior within the church, thereby undermining their mission; although that hardly seems likely, since women were known to prophecy in the region of Corinth (see, for example, Pausanius 2.24.1) and Greek women generally participated in sacred rites with heads uncovered.36
So, perhaps instead, the reason was a more provocative one, to indicate that something different was going on both in the Corinthian church and in the Christian churches at large. But then it seems that that was obvious on a large scale (Acts 18:1-17), so why would Paul try to make the point in a picayune way?
Unfortunately we have not the slightest intimation that concern for the effectiveness of Christian envoys to outsiders was meant.
By the way, note that with many of these interpretations, but especially with those that treat tous angelous in 1 Corinthians 11:10 as human beings, there is both:
This point in itself is potentially -- potentially, not necessarily -- a problem, because if the reason, "on account of the angels," is not dispositive, then what use is it in the passage?
Angels as Exploratory Visitors to the Church from the Surrounding Region
"For this reason the woman ought to have an emblem of prophetic authority upon her head: because of the visitors." So one might interpretively render 1 Corinthians 11:10.
Clearly the Corinthian church had visitors from the outside, for three chapters later Paul mentions them (14:22-25), and there the concern is for orderliness and a measure of rationality such that even the unbeliever will be convicted by prophecy, although prophecy is meant to be geared to those who believe.
Such a rationale might work with regard to "authority" over a woman's head as well. Yet there may be further rationale. For instance, a woman's authority over the head, that is, the man or husband, in a context of mutual submission may have been meant to indicate to visitors that a new divine order was interacting with the earthly order. Alternatively, a head covering may have rendered a woman's praying and prophesying generally acceptable in the immediate cultural context, not because it comported with the practices of other religious groups, but because fundamentally it could not be faulted and it had some measure of sacred explanation.
This interpretation has appeal because it is simple and plain and has a force that is easy to grasp intuitively. However, it too has problems, among them these:
Angels as Visitors from Other Churches
Conceivably Paul was referring to individuals sent out from one church to another. Here there are three possibilities:
The thought is that Paul wanted to regularize church meetings in such a way that visitors would know how and when to fit in and whom to pay attention to, perhaps also to provide a distinctively Christian meeting structure that was transferable from one congregation to the next by means of these visitors. Or, perhaps closer to his concerns as expressed in his Epistles to the Corinthians, he didn't want to be embarrassed (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:4).
Again, there are problems, among them:
The angels of 1 Corinthians 11:10 have at various times in church history been interpreted as presbyters,37 bishops,38 or members of the clergy.39
Presbyters were often mentioned by first-generation Christians (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1); as were also bishops (Acts 1:20; 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25). In one instance, presbyters were called bishops (Acts 20:17, 28); and, in another, multiple bishops were in one locality (Philippians 1:1; cf. Acts 1:20).
Regarding the last detail, the point is this: Whether there were several bishops appointed for that locality (just as the synagogue of Corinth might have had more than one leader or archisynagögos, depending on which interpretation of Acts 18:8, 17 is correct) or whether bishops from several places were convened at that locality, we do not know; but we cannot use the plural angelous to discount bishops on the basis of an expectation that Corinth would have had only one bishop present.
Even the "clergy" interpretation is not beyond the pale if we resist imposing on it associations from later times, such as, perhaps, a particularly configured clergy/lay dichotomy.40 An argument could be made that the oft-mentioned "holy ones" Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians are, in fact, of a priestly character. For instance, 1 Corinthians 5-7 apparently draws heavily upon the marital rules for priests in Leviticus 21:7-15. Note the "holy ones ... with bishops and deacons" in Philippians 1:1, who, as has already been said, might have been convening.
Curiously, neither in the Lucan account of the Corinthian church (Acts 18:1-18, 27-28; 19:1) nor in the canonical epistles to the Corinthians is there any mention of either elders or bishops. This absence is particularly conspicuous where Paul lists the types of divine appointments in the church at 1 Corinthians 12:28. Elsewhere "brothers" are mentioned (for example, at Acts 18:18; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 1:8); and "disciples" (Acts 18:27); and "holy ones" (for example, 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1); and "fellow-workers" (1 Corinthians 3:9); and "beloved children" (4:14); and "beloved ones" (10:14; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 12:19); but not elders or bishops.
However, later sources do mention elders of the Corinthian church:
"It is disgraceful, dear friends, yes, utterly disgraceful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the well-established and ancient church of the Corinthians, because of one or two persons, is rebelling against its presbyters" (47.6).41
"Stephanas and the presbyters who are with him, Daphnus, Eubulus, Theophilus and Xenon, to Paul <their brother> in the Lord, greeting" (1:1).42
We can also find mention of, at different times, a bishop of Corinth. For example, 1 Clement 44 seems to suggest that Corinth had a bishop selected by the elders and confirmed by the church universal; Hegesippus (flourished middle of the 2nd century) mentioned Primus, Bishop of Corinth, as his contemporary (in Eusebius, Ekklësiastikës Historias = Historia Ecclesiastica = Ecclesiastical History 4.22.2); and Eusebius mentioned Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (flourished ca. 168; see 2.25.8; 3.4.10; 4.21.1; 4.23.1-13).
Given these patterns and the fact that the Pauline practice was to appoint elders in every church (Acts 14:23) or, at least, every city (Titus 1.5), we can reasonably assume that the Corinthian church to which Paul was writing had elders and, quite possibly, a bishop as well. Of course, some such assumption is necessary for this interpretation to work.
To complete this interpretation, two more details need to be brought to bear:
First, those who identify the angels of 1 Corinthians 11:10 as bishops usually point to the much later text of Revelation which seems to use the word angelos for bishop (1:20; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).
Second, some connection to the subject matter of the passage is usually posited, such as:
The trouble is that:
Angels as Forerunners, namely, Adam and Eve
In 1 Corinthian 11, the closest possible antecedent (with agreement in number, anyway) for tous angelous is the man and the woman at creation (11:8-9; cf. Genesis 2:18-3:20), in other words, Adam and Eve. The beauty of the Adam-and-Eve interpretation is that it flows, telling us what we already know. The mystery is removed; and any reader of any generation, from the original audience to the present one, can hardly complain of too obscure a meaning, since it is given in the immediately preceding verses. Indeed, when it seems that the other interpretations cancel each other out, such that one interpreter, Lee Anna Starr, even decided to avoid the clause, dia tous angelous, altogether, it could be that one's instincts are and hers were on the mark; for, in this interpretation, the word adds nothing to the meaning of the passage.43
It may be relevant that Paul treated Adam symbolically or, more specifically, typologically. Adam represented the beginnings of one humankind, which was an anticipation of and pointer to a higher humanity in Christ (Romans 5:12-19). In other words, to Paul Adam represented the original principle of humankind; and for Paul another word for an original principle might have been "angel" (cf. Romans 8:38; Ephesians 3:10; 6:12).
Unfortunately this interpretation has a number of problems too, among them these:
It may be that the idea of Pauline angelology as presented in the first several interpretations above is all wrong. Rather than understanding angels as living creatures, perhaps instead Paul understood them as purely symbolic, signifying a variety of things. Here is a chronological treatment of the "angel" texts of Paul:
In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 (circa 50-52 C.E.), angels are cast in an apocalyptic context, much as they had been in certain sayings of Jesus, evidently at least one of which and perhaps more than one of which Paul had in mind. Observe:
Paul was being allusive, then, but without interpreting the allusion, except, apparently, to link the Jesus logion (saying of Jesus) to Psalm 104:4 (103:4 in the Septuagint) by the mention of "flaming fire" (pyri phlogos in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8; cf. Malachi 4:1 = 3:19; Hebrews 1:7). However, for Paul the angels function not literally but literarily to reveal the glory and might of Jesus.
In 1 Corinthians (circa 57 C.E.), Paul says nothing specific about angels per se. Each mention of angels is a case where his audience can fill in the blanks as it sees fit.
In each case Paul was using cultural imagery to make a point about intangible realities of human existence. His point had nothing to do with angels in some literal sense, but with the humanity of his audience.
In 2 Corinthians 11:14 (circa 57 C.E.), Satan disguised as "an angel of light" is an allusive metaphor for deceit in the guise of meaning well; and in 12:7, "an angel of Satan" is evidently a metaphor for an ailment or a grief.
In Galatians (circa 57-58 C.E.), each mention of angels has a different function.
In Romans 8:38-39 (circa 57-58 C.E.), angels function as examples of the created realm that are nugatory obstacles with respect to the love of God, however powerful people might think them to be. Whether a reader understands angels literally or figuratively, their effect in this passage is null, except to show the strength of God's love. Note also in this passage their association with principalities and powers.
In Acts 27:23 (incident, 60 C.E.; the narration of Acts ends, 63 C.E.), Paul spoke of receiving a message of comfort from an angel while engulfed in a storm at sea. There is no narrative of such an angel (although take note of Acts 23:11), just of Paul speaking about it. This would be easy to understand as a subjective experience that found cultural expression by way of angel imagery; or it could be taken simply as a Lucan literary device.
In Colossians 2:18 (circa 61-63 C.E.), angels are as interpreted by others. Note also their proximity, in Paul's discussion, to the elementary principles of the world (2:20).
In 1 Timothy (circa 65 C.E.), angels again function for what they signify rather than as what they might be taken literally to be.
Whether or not angels are living beings in a literal sense was irrelevant to Paul throughout the written record of his ministry. What was relevant was how angels might function to make a point because of any one of the things that they signified to others. Paul was not employing deception, but was speaking a common symbolic language that was susceptible to flexible interpretation. Whatever one's stance on the existence of angels (remembering that Paul was keenly aware that the issue was one of great debate, cf. Acts 23:8), Paul's usage of the term funneled that stance towards the focused point he meant to make. This, by the way, allows for a dovetailing of Paul's principle of being all to all (the open end of the funnel) with his radical message (the focused end of the funnel).
Consequently, in 1 Corinthians 11:10, we should not expect Paul to have had angels literally in mind as living beings, but rather a way in which the idea of angels might function because of something that it might signify.
Naturally this line of thought leads to a reexamination of many of the options already considered. Scrub away literalness and lay the stress upon function and significance, and we have a new set of interpretations, if nuance can cause one interpretation to be distinguished from another. However, we might also look at what angels signified in the Gospel text(s) that Paul was using (more on why under the next interpretation considered).
In the discussion of 2 Thessalonians 1:7 above, it was evident that Paul was drawing upon one or more apocalyptic sayings of Jesus. One of the three sets of sayings mentioned, what is sometimes referred to as the "before the angels" set of sayings, has in common with 1 Corinthians 11 a discussion of shame.
"Before the Angels" Sayings of Jesus
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Mark 8:38 |
Luke 9:26 |
Luke 12:8-9 |
Revelation 3:5 |
|
Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. |
Those who are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. |
And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God. |
If you conquer, you will be clothed like them [the worthy of Sardis] in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels. |
Conceivably Paul was playing off of a saying close to what is represented in Luke 9:26. Perhaps some women were ashamed to wear a head covering that was emblematic of their Christian prophetic authority. Paul evoked the angels in an allusive way in order to remind his readers that angels signify in part the sorting of humankind into the elect and the non-elect (cf. Matthew 24:30-31 = Mark 13:26-27; Matthew 13:30; 25:31-32; Luke 16:22; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) and that to feel shame in representing Christ was to place oneself among the non-elect.
This interpretation has many problems, among them these:
Another possibility: In 1 Corinthians 11:10, the angels are symbolic of being in the Lord, that is, of being part of the host of Christ's angels and the elect of God (cf. Matthew 24:29-31 = Mark 13:24-27; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 17:14). This interpretation is especially suggested by the alternative rhetorical structure shown in the chart, entitled "The Chiastic Structure of 1 Corinthians 11:1-17 Exhibited," where "on account of the angels" (1 Corinthians 11:10) either roughly or exactly parallels "in [the] Lord" (11:11).
Weaknesses:
The symbolic approach more generally has some problems, for instance:
Angels as Undefined but Subordinate to a Woman
In 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul spoke of his Corinthian audience keeping "the traditions, just as I delivered [them] to you." In 11:23, he again spoke of "that which I delivered to you"; and what follows there is a contextualized saying of Jesus. In 15:1-3, he spoke of "the Gospel ... which also you received ... for I delivered to you in a prior time that which I also received"; and he then proceeds to describe part of the contents of this Gospel, which includes the death, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, perhaps also an account of his own Damascus experience (15:8). Earlier, in his discussion of marriage, it is clear that he is interacting with one or more sayings of Jesus (7:12, 25); and there is also some intimation that he had to cope with some who had their own memories of Jesus and his sayings (for example, 1:12; cf. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.12.1). In 2 Thessalonians, Paul specifically speaks of traditions that have been written down in "an epistle from us" (2:15); and shortly he again alludes to "the tradition which you received from us" (3:6, translations mine). I have been bringing out the written nature of these traditions, but in each epistle he speaks also of these traditions in oral form (1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
It is clear that Paul had some sort of Gospel text at hand or else an assortment of pieces of Gospel texts, perhaps on parchments (cf. 2 Timothy 4:13). It is also clear that he was either supplementing these texts himself orally or that he was repeating either in writing what had been said or orally what had been written. If the later -- that is, if purely repetition -- perhaps the repetition was for mutual reinforcement, perhaps to reach both the literate and the illiterate, or perhaps to ensure that the message would be both direct for the immediate audience and relatively fixed for future audiences. Eusebius, by the way, identifies Paul's Gospel text as that of Luke (Historia Ecclesiastica 3.4.7; 5.8.3), although the finished form of Luke-Acts must have been later than the Pauline epistles. In any case, the point is that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 may well be grounded in one of the sayings of Jesus, most likely one found in the Gospel of Luke, but not necessarily.
There happens to be a convergence of husbands, wives, and angels in the sayings of Jesus. Jesus was asked about a woman who had had no sons yet seven husbands, the last six according to the levirate custom: Whose wife would she be in the resurrection? His response was this, giving the three parallel accounts (in my literal translation):
"The sons of this era are marrying [as males] and are being given in marriage [as females]. But those counted worthy to reach that era and the resurrection from the dead ones neither are marrying nor are being given to wed; for they are not still able to die; for they are angel-like; and they are sons of God being sons of the resurrection." (Luke 20:34-36)
"For once from dead ones they have arisen, they neither marry [as males] nor are being given in marriage [as females], rather they are as angels in the heavens." (Mark 12:25)44
"For in the resurrection they neither marry [as males] nor are given in marriage [as females], but they are as angels in Heaven." (Matthew 22:30)
How did Jesus understand the angels in heaven to be? Perhaps the most germane text is 1 Enoch 15:2, 6-7, which is embedded in an elaboration of Genesis 6:1-4 (discussed above under "Angels as Tempted Beings"). Here is "the Great Glory" (1 Enoch 14:20), "the Excellent and Glorious One" (14:21), "the Lord" (14:24) speaking to Enoch:
"And tell the Watchers of heaven on whose behalf you have been sent to intercede: ... Indeed you, formerly you were spiritual, (having) eternal life, and immortal in all the generations of the world. That is why (formerly) I did not make wives for you, for the dwelling of the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven."45
The angelic Watchers were evidently males. This comports with Genesis 19:1-22, which represents angels as males in a sexually charged context; and with Jubilees 15:25-27, which represents angels as being created circumcised. Evidently, even the Seraphim of Isaiah 6:2 had male sex organs, as mentioned above under "Angels as Examples." However, Zechariah 5:9 described winged women, who were subsequently interpreted as angels (for example, at Shemoth Rabbah = Exodus Rabbah 25:2). In 3 Enoch 35:6, a large group of angels is represented as containing, all of a sudden, both male and female angels; and there is some indication that angels were, at least by some, thought susceptible to sex-change (Bereshith Rabbah = Genesis Rabbah 21:9; Shemoth Rabbah = Exodus Rabbah 25:2).46 This might help explain why Jude 7 speaks of the crime of the men of Sodom in Genesis 19:1-11 as one of going after not same-sex flesh, but rather sarkos heteras, that is, "strange flesh" (cf. 1 Enoch 106:5-12). As discussed above under "Angels as Tempted Beings," angels were considered capable of sexual desire, and embodied they were thought able both to engage in copulation and to procreate hybrid offspring by way of human females. Conceivably they were even understood by some to be able to propagate themselves on their own, perhaps without embodiment. Note, for example, "the sons of the holy angels" in 1 Enoch 71:1 and angelic families in 3 Enoch 12:5; 16:1; 18:21.
It would seem that Jesus' point was not one about desire or bonding, but about spirituality and a different order. As the Swedish mystical thinker, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), correctly pointed out, Jesus was speaking not of an end of either conjugal love or spiritual nuptiality but rather of the more limited phenomenon of marrying in its earthly, social aspects.47 Swedenborg aside, Jesus was telling his Sadducean interlocutors that the specifically earthly aspects of marriage -- including both headship (remembering the multiple husbands) and inheritance rights -- will be irrelevant "in the heavens" and that one cannot therefore, on the basis of the example presented, reduce the idea of resurrection either to absurdity or to legal wranglings over polyandry. With respect to the new era, the new order, the coming eon, both males and females are sons of God and comparable to the good angels -- the point of the term "sons" (in Luke 20:36) being not maleness but indistinguishability of the only status that will matter, status in relation to God.
What would this mean in terms of a woman's head per 1 Corinthians 11:10? Perhaps Paul meant that when a woman was praying or prophesying as in corporate worship, it was to be clear to angels of whatever ilk that she was operating not in the mode of the world but of heaven and that her prophetic authority was an indication of this, whether that authority was represented symbolically over her own head physically or even over her head figuratively and socially, that is, the man or husband, in a context of mutual subjection and not of contention. Her authority had implications for angels, because in the heavenly scheme of things, according to Paul and not him alone, angels are subordinate to Christ and to those who are members of his body (6:3; Colossians 2:18-19; cf. Hebrews 1-2; note the prostration of angels before the crown-wearer in 3 Enoch 14:1, 5 because of the crown on his head). As for who the angels were, Paul wasn't concerned about that. They were whatever Jesus had been referring to in his saying.
Alas, this interpretation has problems as well, among them:
However, this interpretation meets many tests, such as convergence, relevance, allusive connection to a saying of Jesus, and compatibility with Galatians 3:28 -- in fact, not only compatibility with Galatians 3:28 but also with a well attested extrabiblical saying of Jesus on which 3:28 may be based, here using the form found in the Gospel of Thomas 22:
"They [the disciples] said to him [Jesus]: If we then become children, shall we enter the kingdom? Jesus said to them: When you make the two one ... and when you make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male is not male and the female not female ..."49
This interpretation may lack the elegance of the angels-as-Adam-and-Eve interpretation, but it seems to me to be the strongest of the interpretations here considered; although some of the objections to it might be met if it were combined, for instance, with some form of the guardian-angel interpretation described above.
As the discussion of Origen's broad scope above (under "Angels as Guardians") indicated, another possibility is that Paul had in mind more than one of the options mentioned. And if we are considering that, we should formally broaden our perspective to cover all of the remaining options:
We must also remember that how any given interpretation will bring out the logic of the passage will have a bearing on which interpretation is to be considered the best. For now, however, I deem the strongest option to be "angels as undefined but subordinate to a woman" and the most elegant option, although otherwise much weaker, to be "angels as forerunners, namely, Adam and Eve."
References | |
|---|---|
|
1 From: The Greek New Testament (former editions edited by Kurt Aland ... [and others]; 4th revised edition, edited by Barbara Aland ... [and others] in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; [U.S.A.]: United Bible Societies, c1994): p. 592. The text has been compared with that of several other editions of the New Testament in Greek. | |
|
2 Compare Pausanius, Hellados Periëgëseös = Description of Greece 7.5.7. Recall that Paul briefly stayed in the vicinity of Erythrae, opposite Chios (Acts 20:15). | |
|
3 The translation is from Description of Greece, [by] Pausanius; with an English translation by W. H. S. Jones (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; in series: The Loeb Classical Library): v. 1 (1918, 1969 printing), p. 375. Regarding the story being well-known, see 2.16.1. | |
|
4 The Doctrine of Creation. [Part Two], by Karl Barth; translated by Harold Knight [and others] (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960; in set: Church Dogmatics, by Karl Barth; v. 3, part 2): §45.3, p. 310. Translation of: Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, III: Die Lehre von der Schöpfung, 2. | |
|
5 Regarding the connection of angels to the Mosaic Law, compare Acts 7:38, 53, Hebrews 2:2; and take note of texts like Genesis 22:15-18; 24:7; Exodus 3:2; 14:19; and Deuteronomy 33:2 in the Septuagint, which reads in translation:
For the translation of the Septuagint, see: The Septuagint Bible: The Oldest Version of the Old Testament, in the translation of Charles Thomson, as edited, revised and enlarged by C. A. Muses (Indian Hills, Colo.: Falcon's Wing Press, 1954): p. 354. Thomson's often extraordinary translation was first published in Philadelphia in 1808. | |
|
6 Regarding the participation of angels in the creation of humankind, see, for example:
| |
|
7 Regarding the contrast of Philo and Paul with respect to the creation of humankind, we should not necessarily expect similarity. Remember that in the early days of Christianity, certain Alexandrians argued against Stephen, who was an appointee out of the apostolic congregation (cf. Acts 6:9). Curiously, the very issue under discussion was raised and addressed in an apocryphal exchange between the Corinthian presbyters and Paul, called 3 Corinthians. The presbyters wrote:
The pseudo-Pauline response:
Translation from: New Testament Apocrypha, revised edition [of the collection initiated by Edgar Hennecke]; edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher; English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson (Cambridge: James Clarke; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991-1992): v. 2, pp. 254-256. The marks of omission are mine. | |
|
8 Take note of Philo's discussion of good and bad angels in Peri Gigantön = De Gigantibus = On the Giants 16. | |
|
9 Curiously Paul seldom speaks of "the angels" -- that is, with the article -- except where any or all angels of whatever ilk could be meant (1 Corinthians 11:10; 13:1; cf. Hebrews 1:4-5). The one exception is 1 Timothy 5:21, where the category of angels is specified (compare, for example, Matthew 13:49; 25:31; Luke 16:22). The oft quoted remark of Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer that evil angels cannot be meant in 1 Corinthians 11:10 because "the article is against it: hoi angeloi always means good angels" cannot be demonstrated. References to good angels, to bad angels, and to angels in general are distinguished not by the article, but by qualifiers and context. If there is no determinative qualifier or context, then the article does not necessarily indicate either just good or just bad angels. For the remark, see: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, by Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer (2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916; in series: The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments): p. 233. | |
|
10 Centenary Translation of the New Testament, translated by Helen Barrett Montgomery (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1924): p. 458. The square brackets are hers. | |
|
11 With regard to guardian angels -- to borrow somebody else's reference, since I don't have the relevant portion of Theodoret handy: See Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca (1857-1866): 82, 312D-313A. | |
|
12 Translation of the Testament of Adam by S. E. Robinson in: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983-1985): v. 1, p. 995. | |
|
13 Compare the guardian spirits mentioned in Hesiod, Erga kai Hëmerai = Works and Days 123 and gods as guardians in Cicero, De Natura Deorum = On the Nature of Gods 2.164-167 = II.lxv-lxvi. | |
|
14 From the Oulton translation in: Alexandrian Christianity, selected translations of Clement and Origen with introduction and notes by John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954; in series: The Library of Christian Classics; v. 2): pp. 325-327; cf. note at 383. | |
|
15 "A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10," [by] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, in: Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis, edited by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (Chicago, Ill.: Priory Press, 1968): pp. 31-47, specifically p. 43. The square brackets and enclosed information are mine. | |
|
16 Translation of 1QSa from: The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, [by] Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr. & Edward Cook (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, c1996): pp. 146-147. The square brackets indicate gaps in the manuscript. | |
|
17 Translation of 4Q266 from: The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, [by] Geza Vermes (New York, N.Y.: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1997): pp. 136-137. The Wise-Abegg-Cook translation was not used for this quotation, since it failed to indicate that the passage was from 4Q266. See pp. 65-66. | |
|
18 Translation of 4Q491 from: Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr. & Edward Cook (1996): p. 170. The square brackets indicate gaps in the manuscript. | |
|
19 Translation of 4Q274 from: The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for over 35 Years, [by] Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise (Shaftesbury, Dorset; Rockport, Mass.: Element, 1992): translation from p. 209; Hebrew text on p. 207; association made on p. 206. The square brackets indicate gaps in the manuscript. The mark of omission is mine. | |
|
20 Translation of 4Q403 from: Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr. & Edward Cook (1996): p. 371. Compare, using their numeration, Thanksgiving Psalms (1QH) 4:17; 11:21-23. Also notice the Community Rule (1QS) 11:7-9. | |
|
21 Translation from: Philo, with an English translation by F. H. Colson (London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; in series: The Loeb Classical Library): v. 8 (1939, 1968 printing), p. 207. Square brackets mine. Cf. Deuteronomy 32:43 in the Septuagint:
For the translation, see Charles Thomson (1954): 353. By the way, some would also add Testament of Job 33:2 to the list of sources documenting the idea of human beings worshipping in common with angels, but I am doubtful. | |
|
22 Translation from: Plutarch's Moralia, with an English translation by Frank Cole Babbitt (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; in series: The Loeb Classical Library): v. 5 (1936, 1984 printing), p. 389. Square brackets mine. | |
|
23 The New Testament World in Pictures, [by] William H. Stephens; Paula A. Savage, designer (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, c1987): picture 452. For other priests, with headgear, see 453 (priest of Isis, Athens) and 454 (priest from Athens). | |
|
24 Gregory the Great, Epistles 11.64.Q9 or, in Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum 1.27.Q7. The translation is from: A History of the English Church and People, [by] Bede; translated and with an introduction by Leo Sherley-Price (With revisions. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, 1965; in series: The Penguin Classics; 142): p. 75. | |
|
25 In Judaism and early Christianity, angels were considered to be agents of prophetic visions. See for example 1 Enoch 1:2 and Revelation 1:1. The Greeks readily understood daimons to be agents of prophecy. See, for example, Plutarch, Moralia 421B-C, 431B, 435A, 436F, 438D = Peri tön Ekleloipotön Chrëstëriön = De Defectu Oraculorum = Obsolescence of Oracles 21, 38, 46, 48, 51. | |
|
26 Regarding the mantle or addereth of Elijah, see 1 Kings 19:13, 19; 2 Kings 2:8-14. About the hosts, see 6:17-18. Take note also of special mentions of clothing, possibly with distinctive markings, in the New Testament:
Note too the robe of 3 Enoch 12:1-2 and the precious scarf of the one initiated into the Goddesess' Corinthian mysteries in Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11:24 = Adlington 11:48 = Graves 18. | |
|
27 For a photograph of the bronze mirror, see: "Corinth in Paul's Time: What Can Archaeology Tell Us?" by Victor Paul Furnish, in: Biblical Archaeology Review; v. 15, no. 3 (May/June 1988): pp. [14]-27, specifically p. 17. | |
|
28 Regarding angels as tempted beings, see:
| |
|
29 Regarding sons of God as angels, see, for example:
Compare the Septuagint at Deuteronomy 32:8; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and Daniel 3:92 (25). Compare also 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. | |
|
30 Translation of the Testament of Reuben by H. C. Kee in James H. Charlesworth (1983-1985): v. 1, p. 784. | |
|
31 Compare the concern in the Testament of Reuben 5:5-6 with the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 = 1 QapGen) 2:1-17. | |
|
32 With regard to stealing wives, note the exegesis in Bereshith Rabbah = Genesis Rabbah 26.5. By the way, it contrasts with Tertullian's exegesis in De Virginibus Velandis = On the Veiling of Virgins 7. | |
|
33 As discussed in the section entitled, "Angels as Undefined but Subordinate to a Woman," angels were not all necessarily considered to have been male (cf. 3 Enoch 35:6; Bereshith Rabbath = Genesis Rabbah 21:9; Shemoth Rabbah = Exodus Rabbah 25:2). Furthermore, stories also developed about female demons. Consider, for example, the legend of Lilith and her brood, which included succubi. For historical discussion and references, see: The Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai ([New York]: Ktav Publishing House, c1967): chapter 7, pp. 207-245, 318-322. He writes:
| |
|
34 Plutarch contemplated downgrading most gods to daimons (Moralia 421E = Peri tön Ekleloipotön Chrëstëriön = De Defectu Oraculorum = Obsolescence of Oracles 21); and daimons, as he described them, had several characteristics in common with angels:
Fitting Plutarch's daimonology into early Christian angelology would have taken few adjustments. | |
|
35 Regarding demons as progeny of fallen angels, compare 1 Enoch 15:8-12 and Jubilees 10:1-6. Contrast Philo, Peri Gigantön = De Gigantibus = On the Giants 6, 16; also the legends about Lilith as cited above. | |
|
36 It has become commonplace to say that Greek women worshipped with heads uncovered. However, practices varied from locale to locale, cult to cult, and role to role. Referring again to The New Testament World in Pictures, [by] William H. Stephens (c1987): For women with uncovered heads offering sacrifices, see picture 448 (to Dionysus, at Herculaneum) and 450 (original location not mentioned). Compare the priestess with covered head, 451 (Syria). For a woman at an altar, perhaps burning incense, wearing only a head covering and earring (from the Agora excavations of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens), see: Women in Ancient Greece and Rome, [by] Michael Massey (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988): p. 11. As for texts, here are some examples of the treatment of head coverings for women in worship: The undated rules for those about to be initiated in the mysteries at Lycosura read:
Lucretius (ca. 96-ca. 55 B.C.E.) wrote of Iphianassa = Iphigenia wearing an infula (a fillet of wool) when she was to be sacrificed at the altar of Diana in Aulis (De Rerum Natura = On the Nature of Things 1:87). The infula was on her head, presumably, not because she was a woman but because she was about to be sacrificed. Apuleius (ca. 125-ca. 170) described a fictional religious procession for Isis in Cenchreae, six miles from Corinth (Metamorphoses 11:9-10 = Adlington 11:47 = Graves 18):
Pausanius (fl. ca. 150 C.E.), in his description of the cult of Sosipolis at the foot of Mount Cronius, wrote:
The implication seems to be that the only woman required to wear a head covering was the one tending the god. | |
|
37 With regard to presbyters -- to borrow somebody else's reference, since I don't have the relevant portion handy -- see Ephraem Syrus (ca. 306-373), Commentarii in Epistulas D. Pauli, nunc primum ex Armenio in Latinum sermonem translati (Venice, 1893): p. 70. Conceivably Tertullian was playing off of such an interpretation in his De Corona = The Chaplet 14, which would then show the interpretation to have an even greater antiquity; however, his own was the evil-angel interpretation. | |
|
38 With regard to bishops -- to borrow somebody else's reference, since I don't have the relevant portion handy -- see Ambrosiaster, that is, Pseudo-Ambrose (perhaps the 4th century) in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina (1844-1864): 17, 253. | |
|
39 With regard to clergy -- to borrow somebody else's references, since I don't have the relevant portions handy -- see Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum (died soon after 552) in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina (1844-1864): 118, 532D; and compare Pelagius (flourished 409-418) in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina (1844-1864): 30, 781B. | |
|
40 Regarding the clergy/lay dichotomy, recall the priesthood of the elect in 1 Peter 1:1; 2:5, 9; cf. Revelation 1:6. However, note the distinction between "the holy ones" and "faithful brothers" in Colossians 1:1; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:2. |
Go to main page.
Go to A Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
Begun, April 12, 2003; posted, May 25, 2003; new url, January 28, 2004; last modified, January 28, 2004, by NEA
Copyright ©2003-2004 by Norman Elliott Anderson