7. " Because of the angels"
And so it is in verse 10 that Paul argues in favor of the head coverings " because of the angels" . What do angels have to do with this issue? There are two possibilities.
The seemingly puzzling phrases in verse 10 can be explained by looking up the word “authority”. Here it is Strong's # 1849, a privilege or delegated authority. In 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul says women should not usurp authority, it is Strong's #831, to act for oneself, to dominate. Clearly the authority on the woman's head in 1 Corinthians 11 is not a domination-subjection authority but a privileged authority to represent man (mankind). It refutes the whole business of subjection and instead shows it is a privilege for the women of this ecclesia to be seen mourning the behaviour of the ecclesia, just as it would be unfitting for the men to show open mourning because their representation as Christ would negate that privilege to them. Paul's reasoning states that since woman is from man (v. 8) and because of man (v. 9) it is fitting for woman to be the delegated representative of man because of the messengers (v. 10).
Much has been made over the years about this issue of the angels - most of it based on misunderstanding.
The Greek word here for " angels" also appears in other passages where it has been translated " messengers" . In Phil. 2:25 and James 2:25 there is no possibility that this word could refer to God's heavenly angels, but to mortal men and women. Epaphroditus was the messenger - or angel - sent to the Philippians. The Israelite spies were the messengers - or angels - sent to Rahab. The " angels" to which Paul refers here may not be the heavenly angels, but the messengers who travelled from ecclesia to ecclesia, ministering to the needs of the brethren and sisters and carrying news and letters with them, just like Epaphroditus did. These messengers, who passed from ecclesia to ecclesia, would have carried word of the happenings at each ecclesia to other ecclesias they visited so the behaviour of the believers at Corinth would have had the potential to become a stumbling block to other ecclesias if a solution wasn't found. Instead, his advice encouraged them to be a good example for others.
If it is heavenly angels that Paul is referring to, then here is the reasoning we feel explains it: In the old creation (representative of our old lives prior to baptism) the angels act as the lawgivers, the mediators between God and man, whereas in the new creation (representative of our new lives in Christ) Christ is the mediator. Paul draws attention to the creation order in v. 3, reminds us of it in verses 8 & 9, then in verse 10 indicates the need for the symbol of mourning because of the continued presence of the angels - the Corinthians had not left their old ways behind! They still behaved as part of the old creation (old way of life), not as of the new creation (new way of life).
Note also that in the old creation, the order was as follows (Genesis 1:26, 2:21,22):
1. God
2. Angels
3. Man
4. Woman
Whereas in the new creation, this order changes to (Hebrews 2:5-9):
1. God
2. Christ
3. Ecclesia (Bride)
4. The World
This is Paul's point when drawing attention in v. 3 to the creation order. We are not to behave as if we are part of the old creation (Ephesians 4:22-24). Notice he immediately follows his comments on the creation order with the statement in v. 4 that men disgrace their heads by covering them during prayer.
So again, why the messengers? Here are the two possibilities:1) just as woman is from man and because of man and is therefore the fit representative of man, the messengers are from the ecclesia, because of the ecclesia and are therefore the fit representatives of the ecclesia, or 2) just as woman is from man and because of man and is therefore the fit representative of man, the angels - God's messengers - are from God, because of God and are therefore the fit representatives of God.
In our revised understanding of this passage, it could be either, thus:
| | Woman | Ecclesial Messengers | Heavenly Angels |
| v. 8 | from Man | from the ecclesia | from God |
| v. 9 | for Man | for the ecclesia | for God |
| v. 10 | represents Man | represent the ecclesia | represent God |
In either case, we can conclude that the understanding of a head covering as a sign of mourning rather than subjection, and of it applying only to Corinth in the first century (or to anyecclesia experiencing their problem in any era) rather than to all believers throughout the ages, makes this verse far less puzzling. The problem is the focus and hence the advice on how to fix the problem.
What Paul wanted the Corinthian ecclesia to do was to become a good example to the rest of the believers worldwide by showing how they had put away their former doings to serve Christ in humility, leaving behind all forms of idol worship, as evidenced in the entire letter. Their visually obvious mourning of wrongful behaviour would have facilitated this. It would have given an air of sobriety to their meetings to replace the riotous feasting, etc. , which would in turn facilitate the repentance and dedication needed to walk in the new life. It would have prevented the spread to other ecclesias of the unscriptural behaviour of things such as women wanting to maintain the roles of priestesses that they had in the pagan worship they came out of, men being scorned as prostitutes and not worth listening to, sectarian divisions, sexual immorality, etc. They were to mourn their behaviour and leave behind their pagan ways. Then word that spread about them would be beneficial to other ecclesias, not potentially harmful.
Did Paul mean, then, that the ecclesia worldwide, including ourselves here today, was to adopt ritual observances of men with short hair, women with hats, mandatory ties and dresses and other strict dress codes, restrictions on facial hair or the use of cosmetics and the like? Emphatically not!He even explicitly states in 1 Corinthians 11:16 that there is no such commandment. In fact, how we are to be adorned is stated clearly in 1 Tim. 2:9-10. While Paul here specifically speaks of women, it is clear from reading the next chapter that the message about appropriate behaviour also includes the men. The point is the same for both male and female:the adornment we should be concerned about is our behaviour, not our physical appearance. Furthermore, observance of such physical ordinances runs contrary to everything Paul, as well as the other apostles, had to say about the law.
Consider:
Romans 7:5-6
we are to serve in the spirit of the law, not blindly following any set of rules
Acts 15:10
it is a yoke we are unable to bear
Rom 14:1-6 & 14-15
these rituals could destroy those who Christ died to save
Rom 14:10-13
by enforcing such rituals we are judging each other and creating stumbling blocks
Col. 2:20-23
these observances give a good " show" of holiness, but are worthless in the fight against our real enemy - the flesh.
Being Christadelphians, we do not maintain any doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. Being Christadelphians, we study the Bible on a regular basis in the objective, analytical manner of comparing scripture with scripture, to the intent of fully understanding the truth. Being Christadelphians, we challenge every doctrine as the Bereans did (Acts 17:10-12) and follow Paul's advice to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians. 5:21) to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good”. Being Christadelphians, we do this with all our doctrines, right? Or did we fall asleep at the switch when we got this head coverings thing from the Campbellites who got it from the Anglicans who got it from the Catholics who got it from who knows who or where? But since it's such an accepted tradition that everybody likes, is it important that it isn't taught anywhere in the Bible? After all, breaking traditions can actually offend some people.
And that's exactly what the doctrine of head coverings is:an unscriptural human tradition instituted long ago. But is there really any danger in simple little traditions? We see what Jesus thinks of that in Mark 7:1-23. Here, He berates the Pharisees for two of their unscriptural customs which they had somehow made into laws. Pay particular attention to His initial remarks in vv. 6-9:that the Pharisees are rejecting God's teaching in favour of their own ideas and philosophies. Sure, they had logical reasons for each and every little eccentricity in their traditions, all of which they could claim was based on the Law, but their motivation was all wrong:they wanted to show God how righteous and holy they could be instead of show God's people how righteous and holy God is. This is their “leaven” which He warns us of in Matt. 16:11-12.
Consider King Saul, who thought it was appropriate to offer sacrifice when Samuel told him to wait. Saul's mistake, which he repeated in the matter of the Amalekites, was that he thought that following what he understood the prescribed forms of worship to be was more important than understanding the specifics of what he was instructed to do. This is the same mistake that the ecclesia as a whole is making today in this matter of the head coverings.
In 1 Tim 2:9-10, where Paul is advising Timothy about appropriate adornment for women, he simply says “modest apparel”not “and bourkas” or “and hats” or “and head coverings”. They are to practice silence and submission toward men and show their hearts in their works. Here is the perfect opportunity for Paul to reiterate what he advised for the Corinthians but the Ephesians obviously weren't having the same problems, therefore the solutions for them were different.
Scripture is full of places where we might also expect to find this doctrine discussed - if indeed it is true. A couple more examples are Acts 21:25 and Titus 2:1-10.
The point isn't that one solitary opportunity to reiterate the teaching has been omitted, but rather that the teaching is entirely absent from the scriptures, except by way of a misunderstanding in one isolated passage.
The covering of heads was a specific symbol to correct behaviour in a specific situation, not a law handed down by Paul as a must for women everywhere. If the morality and attitude of the heart is right before God there is no need to enforce outside customs and traditions to show someone the error of their ways. God looks on the hearts of men and women, not on what is or isn't worn on their heads. It is much more important that a woman maintain her discretion and respectful humility, acknowledging her role in the ecclesia as mankind's representative, than that she wear a hat and feel “safe” voicing opinions and committing actions that are contrary to scriptural behaviour. It is much more important for a man to live up to his role as a leader in Christ's church, as a representative of Christ himself, than to worry about what custom dictates.
What we should really be doing when we read the Bible is listening to what God is telling us, and then incorporating what we hear into our lives so that we can become better able to do what God has planned for us, become what he plans for us to be, and thereby manifest His character and give Him glory. But very few people are actually willing to do that, because it involves effort, humility, and a deep-seated desire to glorify and praise God rather than oneself. And it's quite a bit easier to get a sister to balance a kleenex on her head for about an hour or so, or to hound a brother into getting a haircut, than it is to persuade an entire organization of people that they are utterly mistaken in the proud stand which they have taken for generations. But which would give more glory to God – exacting obedience from someone? or gaining new understanding from God's Word ourselves, and then humbling ourselves to retract an erroneous statement we had made earlier and dismissing tradition for what it is?
The pride here is not inherent in the covering or uncovering of heads, but in the reluctance to properly examine a teaching before adopting it, and in the inability to abandon it once proven wrong. This is exactly what is happening here in regard to the doctrine of head coverings. Aside from which, we maintain, and always have, that it should be a matter of individual choice as to the wearing or not of head coverings. BUT it should be done with a true and complete understanding of what it represents - grief, not subjection.
