(Scripture quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.)
The Apostle Paul provides more instruction in his extensive First Epistle to the Corinthians about how Christians should conduct their church meetings than anywhere else to be found in the New Testament. His marker that designates church gatherings in this epistle is the expression, “when you come together (as a church).” This phrase appears five times in one chapter alone (1 Cor 11.17-18, 20, 33-34; also 14.26).
In fact, First Corinthians is not really Paul’s first letter he wrote to the church at Corinth. For he says in it, “I wrote to you in my letter” (1 Cor 5.9). So, this is the first of two letters to the church that are extant, since we also have The Second Epistle to the Corinthians in the New Testament.
One of Paul’s main objectives in First Corinthians was to answer questions that this church had previously posed to him in written form (1 Cor 7.1). And Paul’s marker that introduces each of their questions in this letter is the expression, “Now concerning” (1 Cor 7.1, 21; 8.1; 12.1; 16.1).
Paul’s instructions in First Corinthians about church meetings appears in 1 Corinthians 11–14. He begins this section with the subject of authority. He states, “I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor 11.3). Incidentally, I think that last independent clause affirms the essential subordination of Christ to God, so that Jesus was not equal to God the Father in divinity.
Paul then addresses the custom supposedly practiced during antiquity, which is done today by Muslims, of women wearing a covering over their hair or entire head, such as a scarf or veil, when in public. But some scholars, such as Gordon Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 521), claim there is no evidence for either practice in antiquity. Regardless, Paul here discusses this subject only as it regards church meetings (1 Cor 11.16). He explains, “Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. . . . For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man” (1 Cor 11.4-4, 7). Paul seems to refer to a covering of the hair rather than a veil that hides both hair and face. And does he refer only to married women?
Most modern Christians have understood this Pauline instruction in 1 Corinthians 11.3-16—about women wearing a hair covering in church—as a cultural custom that applied then but not now. That is, the woman’s covering was a sign or symbol of her submission to her husband or, conversely, his authority over her. That argument is somewhat convincing to me as we follow Paul’s argument; but I have never been sure about it. Maybe this understanding that it no longer applies to us because our different culture is correct regarding Paul’s reasons taken from nature (vv. 13-15), since that involves culture and conscience, which latter is affected by culture. But why don’t Paul’s reasons derived from creation apply to us (vv. 7-9)?
Scholars have discussed much, but without consensus, the following text in First Corinthians: “For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head,” referring to a hair covering such as a scarf (1 Cor 11.10 NIV). The most difficult words are “because of the angels.” One view of this phrase has been that it refers to the so-called “fallen angels interpretation” of “the sons of God” in Genesis 6.1-4. This interpretation appears in the Jewish, intertestamental, pseudepigraphal books of 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and Jubilees that were published before the Christian era. It is that these “sons of God” were angels who saw the beauty of women and had sexual relations with them that resulted in half-human and half-angelic children who were giants, called “Nephilim” in Gen 6.4. This interpretation assumes without biblical warrant that angels are sexual beings and that all of them are male. (See my refutation of this interpretation in posts on 5/8/2016 and 5/11/2016 entitled “’The Sons of God’ in Genesis 6 Were Men, Not Angels.”) So, some scholars interpret Paul in 1 Cor 11.10 to mean these fallen angels watch church meetings. But Fee objects (p. 522), “it is difficult to imagine how the angels themselves are affected.” Maybe they watch for reasons having nothing to do with them personally.
Various other interpretations have been put forth; but I have not been persuaded by them. One is that such watching angels are guardians of the created order. But I fail to see how angels can, or do, prevent human departure from whatever is the created order. If they didn’t prevent human wickedness that caused God to judge the world with Noah’s Flood, how have they done so since?
An interpretation of Paul’s phrase in 1 Cor 11.10, “because of the angels,” that I have never known anyone to propose concerns how this phrase relates to the constant court scene in heaven in which Satan stands before God to accuse his people of their sins. This concept does not appear much in the Bible. We first read of it in the book of Job. It says, “One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them” (Job 1.6 NIV). A conversation then occurs between God and Satan. Satan accuses a righteous man named “Job” of praising God only because God blesses him. Satan claims if Job would suffer, he would curse God. God then allows Satan to bring great suffering into Job’s life.
The book of Job later says, “On another day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him” (Job 2.1). A similar conversation transpires again, with Satan reasoning the same way. Bible readers are often perplexed by this, asking why such thing happens? I think these scenes in heaven were real and that they have always happened at regular, God-appointed times. These “angels” are those of God’s royal council (e.g., Ps 89.5-7; 135.5; 136.2; 138.1; cf. 82.1, 6), perhaps the twenty-four elders mentioned in the book of Revelation (Rev 4.4, 10; 5.8; 11.16; 19.4). Contrary the assertion of some scholars, Satan is not a member of God’s “holy” council.
The book of Revelation furnishes additional information about these heavenly court scenes in which Satan appears and acts as a prosecuting attorney before God, accusing his people. John, the author of the book of Revelation, says he saw a vision in which “war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven” (Rev 12.7-8).
Most Christians and their scholars have thought this heavenly scene occurred just prior to creation or just after it. But I think its previous context—Jesus’ birth and the 1,260 days (Rev 12.6-7)—suggests it has not yet happened and that it will in the latter days near the end of this age. Furthermore, this text shows that heaven must be a (non-physical) multi-layered place and that Satan and his angels have always dwelt there. For we then read, “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming, ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God’” (vv. 9-10). When will this happen? It will occur three-and-a-half years before the end (Rev 12.6, 13), when Jesus will return.
So, Satan constantly appears before God. Apparently, it is not only during royal council meetings to accuse God’s people living on earth. Satan thereby acts as a prosecuting attorney. In fact, the word in the Hebrew Bible translated “Satan” is hasatan, which is literally “the satan.” It means “the accuser,” which fits the Devil in his role as a prosecuting attorney. And I think “Satan” is not the Devil’s name, and Lucifer certainly is not. Rather, the Devil’s name is Azazel as stated four time in Leviticus 16 concerning instructions for the scapegoat on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).
Does Satan have evidence or witnesses to affirm his allegations before God regarding God’s people? Indeed, he does. No able prosecutor would be without it.
Countless angels come from heaven to earth to observe what is happening here among the affairs of humankind. The apocalyptic book of Daniel, an earlier counterpart to the book of Revelation, informs that there are angels called “watchers” who watch from nearby what is happening on earth. It tells of a “holy watcher” and “watchers” three times (Daniel 4.13, 17, 23). And the author of Hebrews asks concerning God’s angels, “Are not angels spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1.14; cf. v. 6). Satan’s angels come here to earth and observe what is happening as well. But both Satan’s angels and God’s angels do more than simply observe humans. Thus, when Satan appears before the throne of God to accuse God’s people, he no doubt sometimes calls forth witnesses there from among angels who have been “watchers” observing what God’s people are doing.
How does all of this relate to Paul’s use of the phrase, “because of the angels,” in 1 Corinthians 11.10? First, Paul here seems to retain the concept in ancient Judaism and affirmed in Ps 138.1 (David says, “I give you thanks, O LORD, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise”) about angels (elohim=gods=angels) watching congregational meetings of God’s people (v. 2: “I bow down toward your holy temple, and give thanks to your name”). Second, at that time a woman having uncovered, beautiful hair and who joined with other Christians to worship God might distract an attending man or more from praying to, and praising, God in sincerity. So, the issue is the men in the congregation and what the angels might see concerning any roving eye among them, not the erroneous supposition of the roving eye of a male angel. One such act of human, sexual attraction might lead to others until adultery is committed. When the church comes together, angels, both God’s and Satan’s, are here on earth watching such things. If there are any such improprieties, no matter how small, might not Satan later call upon these witnesses when he brings his allegations before the throne of God? That may be why Paul added the words, “because of the angels,” that is, due to their true testimony that Satan might use against the saints. For the premier time for men to not be sexually distracted, and for women to not cause such, is when they both pray and prophesy in church.
Our Western culture laughs at this idea, of a woman covering her hair to prevent men from being sexually attracted to her. Our culture in the twenty-first century has just gone through a sexual revolution in the past two generations. A woman’s appearance in church that might distract men today from praying to, and praising, God would be more provocative. Examples would be a woman showing some breast cleavage or wearing a tight dress that may sexually arouse male. It’s mostly about what people are used to due to their culture.
I don’t know for sure if this interpretation of 1 Cor 11.10 is correct. But I’d like to know if it has ever been suggested before and, if so, I’d like to read any discussion on it by especially scholars.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In