Editor’s Note: This article is reprinted with permission from Christian Ethics Today and is based on research done by Laurie Hurshman in her senior year at Williams College (MA) with the aid of her adviser, Chris Smith, currently pastor of University Baptist Church, East Lansing, MI, who also utilized the research for a sermon; they developed this biblical study for CET.
Both sides in the current debate over the role of women in the church appeal to the Bible to support their positions. Those who feel that there should be no restrictions on women’s ministries appeal to examples found throughout the Scriptures of women serving faithfully and effectively as prophets, judges, apostles, teachers, and in countless other roles of leadership and service. Those who believe that some roles must be reserved for men typically appeal, on the other hand, to three passages found in Paul’s writings: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Even if one agrees with a restrictive reading of these passages, one must, however, also acknowledge that each presents numerous textual, translational, and interpretive problems. All who turn to the Bible for ethical guidance should therefore be concerned with the solution of these problems so that the Bible’s teaching might be more clearly understood and the entire church benefit.
This article is an attempt to solve one specific problem: the proper translation of the word exousia in 1 Corinthians 11:10 (“For this reason the woman ought to have exousia over her head, because of the angels”). The translation of this word has been given much attention, because it is crucial for understanding the passage (11:2-16). Based on the way Paul uses this and related terms (exexti, exousiazein) consistently throughout this Epistle (6:12, 7:4, 7:37, 8:9, 9:4-6, 9:12, 10:23) it should mean something like “freedom of choice.” The statement should thus be translated, “Therefore a woman ought to have freedom over her head,” or, more loosely, in context, “a woman ought to be free to wear a veil or not, as she wishes.”
The Corinthians were trying to recapitulate creation history in their worship attire. Paul tells them that if they really want to do this, they’re doing it backwards. We believe their men were covering their heads and their women weren’t, because they believed woman was the source of man and thus closer to God. Paul says their men should not cover their heads and their women should, since God made man first. But he goes on to say that there is no need to do this and certainly no grounds to require this. The principle of “let each be fully convinced in her own mind” on indifferent matters should apply and women should be free to cover their heads or not as they please, since now, “in the Lord,” “woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.”
The problem is that the argument of the passage, to this point, would lead us to expect Paul to say just the opposite. Paul writes that “any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head” (v. 5); “if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair” (v. 6); “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” (v. 7). And so, as Kendrick observes, “We expect Paul to say in verse 10, ‘For this reason she ought to have her head covered.’”1 Fee notes, similarly, “What one expects next is for Paul to say that the woman therefore should be covered. . . . [T]he sense of the argument seems to call for it.” Instead, Paul makes a statement that, Fee continues, is “best” translated: “For this reason the woman ought to have the freedom over her head to do as she wishes.”2
In other words, the immediate context (the argument in 11:2-16) suggests we should understand exousia in one way, while the overall context (the whole Epistle) leads us to understand it in another. We might also add that the larger overall con-text—that is, the extant body of Paul’s writings—would also lead us to expect him to insist on “freedom of choice.” The same apostle who wrote that “the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17) and that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation” (Gal. 6:15) would not have cared about insignia in the form of head coverings, either. His rule in this case, as in others, would certainly have been, “Let each be fully convinced in her own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
Nevertheless, translators and commentators alike have looked for a way in which the sentence can be made to conform to expectations that arise from the immediate context. This is usually done by translating exousia effectively as “headcovering” in one guise or another (“sign of authority,” etc.). We propose a different approach. We will make it our expectation that the argument in the immediate context will conform to this sentence. Paul’s statement, after all, begins with “for this reason”; it should therefore express the logical result of what has preceded. If we cannot see how its face-value meaning can do this, should we not try to reread the argument it is culminating with new eyes?
This investigation will first demonstrate that the attempts made to date to find in exousia a meaning such as “headcovering” are unsatisfactory. We will then offer a rereading of the argument, based on the premise that Paul means what he says in verse 10. It is our conviction that this new reading will solve satisfactorily the puzzle of how to translate the verse in a way that makes sense both in its immediate context and in the context of the entire Epistle and the rest of Paul’s writings.
The first problem for those who would translate exousia as “headcovering” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is to provide a reason for what would be an abrupt deviation in terminology. As Robertson and Plummer wrote in 1914, “The difficulty is to see why the Apostle has expressed himself in this extraordinary manner.”3 The difficulty remains to this day. Paul uses a very specific vocabulary to speak about headcovering in this passage: to this point he has used katakaluptein four times in a short space to describe a person who has his or her head covered (vv. 5, 6a, 6b, 7); he uses the term again shortly afterward (v. 13). Why, then, if the conclusion of his argument is that a woman should cover her head, does he not say “for this reason ought the woman katakaluptesthai”? The substitution of any other term can only confuse those who have been following his argument to this point. But even if this question could be resolved (and no commentator has even tentatively offered a reason for the change in terminology), there would remain the problem of how exousia itself could denote a headcovering. On this issue, at least, there have been some specific proposals.
Many interpreters have posited that Paul’s use of exousia here is a figure of speech, in which one word or phrase is substituted for another of which it is an attribute or with which it is closely associated (for example, as when the word Washington is used to mean “the United States government”). The suggestion is that women may have worn headcoverings as a sign that they were under authority, and thus the headcovering itself could have been referred to as an exousia. Most major English translations, in fact, reflect such an understanding, specifying that a woman should have a “sign of authority” (RSV, NIV, NLT) or “symbol of authority” (NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NCV) on her head. Two offer even more explicit statements: “a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority” (TLB); “a woman should have a covering on her head to show that she is under her husband’s authority” (TEV).
Despite this reading’s widespread acceptance—indeed, it is the only interpretation most of those who read the Bible in English are ever likely to encounter—it is highly dubious. We may note at the outset Perriman’s telling observation that an explanation of a woman’s headcovering as a sign of submission to male authority runs afoul of the very context this interpretation has been created to accommodate: “we would . . . have to suppose, if we are to be consistent, that the man’s obligation not to cover his head (v. 7) signifies, conversely, his exemption from divine authority.”4
Beyond this, there is little evidence that Corinthian women really did wear headcoverings in order to signify such submission. Morna Hooker cites one contemporaneous example of veils as signs of female submission: “According to Jewish custom, a bride went bare-headed until her marriage as a symbol of her freedom; when married, she wore a veil as a sign that she was under the authority of her husband.”5 But could Paul really have expected the mixed congregation in Corinth to have caught such an oblique reference to a “Jewish custom”? Indeed, would the apostle who preached freedom from the law really have tried to enforce a mere custom on Gentiles?
But even if women in the Corinthian church did wear veils as signs of submission, and even if some reason could be found why Paul should substitute a figure of speech for the clear term katakaluptein here just as his argument reaches its climax, we would nevertheless have to insist that what he meant by exousia would still have been incomprehensible to his readers. Paul would suddenly have been using the word to mean “authority submitted to,” rather than “authority exercised.”6 This would have been exactly opposite to the sense in which Paul had used the word to this point in the Epistle. Paul could not possibly have expected the Corinthians to have followed him as he made this switch. As Hooker observes tellingly, “Exousia is being given a very strange meaning, since the head-covering is not being understood as a symbol of authority but, quite the reverse, as a symbol of subjection.”7 Even Robertson and Plummer, who favor this interpretation, ask, “Why does St. Paul say ‘authority’ when he means ‘subjection’?... Is it likely that St. Paul would say the exact opposite of what he means?”8
For this reason, some have suggested that what Paul intends here is that a woman ought to wear a headcovering to signify the authority she herself exercises. The CEV translation follows this interpretation: “A woman ought to wear something on her head, as a sign of her authority.” But what is this authority that a woman exercises?
Some have suggested that her “womanly dignity,” preserved in public by a veil, constituted a form of authority. Ramsey explains that in Oriental society, a veiled woman “can go anywhere in security and profound respect,” but her “authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards.” He adds, “That is the Oriental view, which Paul learned in Tarsus.”9 One must ask once again, however, why Paul would have wanted to enforce this Oriental perspective in the Corinthian church. The question is especially pertinent because Paul, in order to get the Corinthians not to insist on their own rights, has just used himself as an example of willingness to abandon one’s own cultural practices (9:19-23).
Aline Rouselle articulates the veil = dignity = authority position slightly differently:
When Paul (1 Corinthians 11:10) urged all Christian women to wear veils, his purpose was to signify that, regardless of their status under other laws, they were untouchable for Christian men. Just as male slaves took the liberty of wearing the toga or pallium, symbols of free status, Christian women, regardless of status, wore veils and even dressed as matrons. Although the veil was a symbol of subjection, it was also a badge of honor, of sexual reserve, and hence of mastery of the self.10
Rouselle’s reading of the situation in Corinth is actually the opposite of the one we will discuss below; she holds that to declare their Christian freedom, the Corinthian women were removing their veils, not donning them, and that in “urging” them to wear veils, Paul was confirming, not contradicting, their practices. Rouselle’s reading does seem to find contextual support in Paul’s assertion that it is “dishonorable” for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head unveiled. Even so, why should the mandate for female headcovering then apply only to these activities? Should women not assert their “sexual reserve” in public at all times? What seems to be in view is rather some specific worship practice. We will therefore turn to those interpreters who hold that the veil-as-exousia actually proclaims the woman’s right to pray and prophesy in the assembly.
The interpretation that the woman who prays or prophesies in the assembly covers her head in order to symbolize and declare her authority to do so has much to commend it. This type of symbolism is universal: judges don robes in order to sit on the bench and priests wear stoles when presiding at the Eucharistic table. We do have some evidence of headcoverings themselves symbolizing religious authority in the ancient world. Witherington, for example, describes statues and altarpieces that depict a man or woman with covered head, offering a sacrifice while the rest of the worshipers are bareheaded.11
Nevertheless, even this interpretation is not ultimately convincing. Elsewhere in this Epistle, while Paul disallows asceticism and spiritual daredevilry that go under the name exousia (sexual abstinence in marriage, temple prostitution, eating in idol-temples), he also acknowledges several legitimate manifestations of exousia (conjugal rights, payment for ministry, self-control during engagement). But in none of these cases does he insist that a badge of spiritual authority accompany its exercise. Indeed, while the Corinthians seem to have prided themselves on the possession of such a “badge” (the sacraments), Paul takes pains to warn them against misplaced confidence by demonstrating that the Israelites in the wilderness, who had a “baptism” and “Lord’s supper” of their own, nevertheless fell through disobedience (10:1-13). It would be totally incongruous, therefore, for him to insist shortly afterward that a woman should wear a badge of her exousia. Indeed, it would rein-still the false confidence in insignia that Paul has just worked so hard to undercut. Simply stated, the apostle who elsewhere disallowed circumcision, dietary laws, and sabbath observance as spiritual status symbols would not have created such a symbol himself in the form of women’s headcovering.
In short, exousia does not appear to be a figure of speech for veil. But it has also been suggested that Paul might have used the word to mean veil for another reason. Kittel noted in 1920 that an Aramaic word for veil or head ornament shares the root SH-L-T with the Aramaic verb for having power or dominion, and he suggested that “either by a mistranslation or by a popular etymology” Paul used the word exousia, which would translate the latter, for the former.12 While some have taken up Kittel’s suggestion, the “main difficulty,” as Fitzmyer notes, “is that the Greeks of Corinth would never have understood what Paul meant.”13 We must once again ask why Paul would have substituted a term guaranteed to be misunderstood in place of katakaluptein, which he uses consistently before and afterwards. As Hooker argues convincingly, “Paul would surely not have made his argument depend upon a pun which was incomprehensible to his Greek readers.”14
All of these considerations are leading the critical consensus to embrace a straightforward translation of 1 Corinthians 11:10 as “a woman ought to have freedom over her head to do as she wishes.” Kendrick, in a recent article on “Translating 1 Corinthians 11:10,” settles on this rendering, suggested by Fee, after surveying and discussing the existing interpretations.15 The NRSV offers as a marginal reading, “A woman ought to have freedom of choice regarding her head.” This indeed seems to be what the verse says. But what does it mean?
As Fee observes, “The problem is to find an adequate sense for it in the context.”16 He suggests that in these words to the Corinthians, Paul is perhaps “affirming their own position, that in these matters they do indeed have exousia”(that is, women are technically free to dispense with headcoverings), but asserting that “nonetheless, in light of the preceding argument… they should exercise that authority in the proper way—by maintaining the custom of being ‘covered.’”17 This would be analogous to Paul’s acknowledgement that the Corinthians do have the exousia to eat in idol-temples (8:4-6) and his consequent insistence that they nevertheless should not (8:7-13).
There is an important difference, however. In the case of idol-temples, and in every other case where Paul counsels not making use of one’s exousia, he always gives a clear reason, following the principle that “all things are lawful, but all things do not edify.” That is, the nonexercise of one’s rights is always shown in some way to build up another. The Corinthians are to stay out of idol-temples so as not to cause a brother or sister to fall. Married couples may abstain from sex for a time in order to devote themselves to prayer. It is better for engaged couples to marry than to burn. And Paul’s willingness not to be paid for his apostolic labors made possible his pioneering ministry in Corinth. What is missing in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, by contrast, is any explanation of how a woman’s nonexercise of her right to pray or prophesy with uncovered head would “build up” another. Paul does not even offer edification as a general rationale for headcoverings, without offering a specific explanation. His silence on this subject is sufficient grounds for us to reject the idea that while he appears to insist on freedom of choice for women, he is tacitly hoping they will cover their heads nevertheless.
This must conclude our survey of the attempts that have been made to date to find an “adequate sense” for verse 10 in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, as that context has generally been understood. We may allow Kistemaker’s recent commentary to summarize the results: “Scholars must conclude that a satisfactory explanation is not avail-able.”18 Hays, in an even more recent commentary, offers a similar judgment: this “sentence… has remained almost completely bewildering to subsequent interpreters.”19 The way, therefore, is certainly open for us to seek a new understanding of the context, within which it will be clear what Paul intended to say with these words as we have now come to translate them.
We have made it our expectation that the argument in the immediate context (11:2-16) will conform to the face-value meaning of verse 10. We may begin developing a new understanding of this surrounding argument with the reasonable premise that Paul found it necessary to tell the Corinthians “a woman ought to have freedom of choice regarding her head” because women did not enjoy this freedom in their assembly. That is, it seems likely (now that we have ruled out other translations of this phrase) that Corinthian women were going bareheaded in that city’s Christian assemblies in deference to an agreed-upon custom, even if they would have preferred personally to wear veils.
We may observe further that in verses 4-7, Paul not only says twice that it is disgraceful for a woman to pray or prophesy with an uncovered head, he also says twice that it is disgraceful for a man to cover his head when praying or prophesying. It is reasonable to infer from this, at least provisionally, that the Corinthian custom was not only for women to go bareheaded, but for men to wear headcoverings. This would have been a unique local arrangement, perhaps adopted in an attempt to regularize (with theological rationale) the varying Roman, Greek, Jewish, and mystery-religion practices the worshipers would previously have been accustomed to.
Much of the scholarly discussion of this passage has proceeded from the assumption that Paul wanted the Corinthians to conform to a particular, preexisting cultural norm; the debate has been whether this was a Jewish, Greek, or Roman one. Oster has insisted that a Roman custom is in view, Hooker argues for a Jewish one, while Ramsey believes that Paul is transmitting the “Oriental” custom.20 Our study contends that it was the Corinthians who were insisting on conformity to a locally devised practice, while Paul was characteristically insisting on freedom. Paul seems to imply that their practice is locally devised when he says at the end of this section, “we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God” (v. 16).
But why would the Corinthians have settled upon covered heads for men and bare heads for women? That the rule refers to their gatherings for worship is clear from the references to praying, prophesying, and “keeping the traditions” (11:23, the communal observance of the Lord’s Supper).
The inferences we have made so far receive support from the good sense we are able to make of verses 2-9. In these verses, Paul would actually be granting the Corinthian premise we have just posited—that worship attire should reflect creation order—but he would be doing so in order to demonstrate its shortcomings. This is a typical way for him to proceed in this Epistle. In 15:12-19, he tentatively allows that “there is no resurrection of the dead, as some of you say,” but only to demonstrate that this leads to an unacceptable conclusion: “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (v. 17). In the same way, Paul would be showing that the Corinthians’ premise here—worship attire should reflect creation order—leads to unacceptable conclusions, and should therefore be abandoned.
Paul’s first argument is that if they are really trying to reflect creation order, they’re doing it backwards. Since “man is not from woman, but woman is out of man, and man was not created because of woman, but woman because of man” (vv. 8-9), if creation order really does need to be reflected in worship attire, then men should go bareheaded, and women should wear veils. We can see, in this context, that h ea d should actually be understood as “source” or “origin” in each one of its three occurrences in verse 3. Indeed, the reading we are developing makes good sense of the order of phrases in that verse. Paul would say “Christ is the source of every man” first in order to restore to Christ the glory that would have been denied him if the Corinthians’ guiding principle had indeed been “woman is the source of every man.” This would have been Paul’s first priority in such a situation. He would say next that “man is the source of woman” because he would be on his way to showing the Corinthians they are doing things backwards. And he would conclude with “God is the source of Christ” because his argument itself will culminate with the assertion that “all things are from God” (v. 12).
We may therefore translate verses 4-5a, “Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his source [Christ, by denying that he is Creator], and every woman who prays or prophesies with an unveiled head dishonors her source [man, by denying that she is from him and for him].”
“Source,” we see, refers to the one for whose sake another is brought into being (v. 9, NRSV: “Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man”). This is the idea when Paul speaks here of man as the “image and glory of God” and woman as the “glory of man” (v. 7). As Schlier puts it, “the origin and raison d’être of woman are to be found in man.”21 God, who for his part is the one “for whom and through whom all things exist” (Heb 2:10), having seen that it was not good for the man to be alone, created a helper appropriate for him (Gen. 2:18).
In other words, if we are to insist on creation history, man was created for God, while woman was created for man, and therefore relates to God second-hand, as one created for one who was created for God. Thus, if anyone is to wear a head-covering in worship to express a more distant relation to God, it should be the woman. We shall see shortly, however, that this is not Paul’s own conviction; it is merely the conclusion unacceptable to the Corinthians, to which their own logic leads.
Paul’s second argument in verses 2-9 is that they are being inconsistent. He seems to appeal to another worship practice they have already rejected, that of women shaving their heads. He says in verse 5b that a woman going unveiled “is one and the same with she who has a shaved head.” As W. J. Martin argues, the “use of the definite article in . . . ‘the shorn woman’ would seem to point to the existence of a specific class to whom this designation could be applied.”22 Martin adds that female head-shaving as a religious rite was “well attested” among the Greeks: “The Vestal virgins and all Greek girls did it on reaching puberty. The earliest form of the custom appears to have been the vow or dedication of hair to a river.”23 Whatever the particular practice in view here, it is clear from Paul’s taunting “why not go all the way?” rhetoric that the Corinthians did not approve; Paul is teasingly inviting them to explain how this would not bring the woman even closer to God than merely going unveiled.
By the time we reach verse 10, these two interwoven arguments have concluded. Paul hopes the Corinthians have recognized by this point that if they really want to express creation order in worship attire, if they’ve got the creation story right, they must permit female head-shaving, and if they’ve got it wrong, they must do exactly the opposite of what they have been doing. Since neither would be acceptable, the conclusion is that they should not forbid women to wear veils: “for this reason a woman ought to have exousia over her head.” This explains perfectly why he doesn’t instead use the term katakaluptesthai in some expression such as, “For this reason a woman ought not to be forbidden to veil her head.” Even though this would be a more consistent use of vocabulary from the immediate context, the use of exousia enables Paul to situate the argument here within the theological development of the entire Epistle, in which he has already used this term many times.
That Paul really cared nothing for worship attire as an expression of creation order is clear from his immediately following comments. Verses 11-12 may be translated, “In any case, in the Lord, woman is not without man, nor is man without woman; for just as the woman was from the man, so also man is through woman, and all things are from God.” Paul is insisting here that the Corinthians lift relations between the sexes off the creation plane and onto that of the “new creation,” where, “in the Lord,” there is “neither male nor female.” He transcends the concern for “who is the source of whom” with a vision of mutual derivation (woman from man and man from woman), with all things finding their source in God. This vision of mutuality and equality is Paul’s own. Clearly, in this vision, there is no place for a community custom discouraging women from wearing veils and expecting men to cover their heads on the grounds that one is closer to God. (Nor, may we add, with reference to our own day, is there any place for limiting the use of certain God-given gifts and talents to only one sex.)
Paul concludes this part of his Epistle with two arguments. He returns to his rhetorical stance at the beginning of the passage, once again assuming the Corinthian position only in order to discredit it. Witherington describes his likely motivation well: “Paul… is pulling out all the stops in his closing arguments (vv. 13f.) to forestall objections on any other possible grounds.”24
Paul begins with an appeal to their own judgment (“judge for yourselves,” v. 13), as he does elsewhere in the Epistle at the close of other arguments (10:15; 14:37). Specifically, he asks them to tell him whether the pride and comfort women naturally take in having long hair (and men’s natural squeamishness about this) does not indicate that women are “meant” to have their heads covered. Clearly Paul has returned to his rhetorical stance at the beginning of the argument: the Corinthians are taking the stance that women should wear veils, and Paul is trying to show them how awkward this is.
Next, with their unique local custom squarely in view, Paul then informs them, “Nobody else is doing this.” The Corinthians seem to have been particularly sensitive to the possibility that they might stand out as different from the other churches. Paul needs to reassure them constantly that he isn’t treating them differently (4:17; 7:17; 14:33; 16:1). Here he is able to find, in their immature conformity, one more reason for them to abandon a practice that told the wrong story about God every time they met for worship.
To summarize, we have seen that there are no valid reasons to translate the word exousia as “veil” in 1 Corinthians 11:10. Instead, that verse should be translated, “a woman ought to have freedom over her head.” This reading does not make sense in the context as it has customarily been understood, since the consensus interpretation finds in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 an argument that women should wear veils. However, it is quite reasonable to reconstruct the historical context for this passage. Here the Corinthian community was actively discouraging women from wearing veils, on the grounds that “woman is the head (source) of every man.” Paul’s comments can then be understood as spoken initially from their perspective; he is assuming the Corinthians’ premises only to demonstrate their inconsistency with both the biblical creation narrative and their own rejection of female head-shaving. Once he has accomplished this, Paul is free to state his own conviction, which is consistent with the grace-laden themes of his entire theology: “a woman ought to be free to wear a veil or not, as she wishes.” As those who seek our ethical guidance from this Epistle and the rest of the Scriptures, we should trace out these same themes as we seek to answer the question of God’s intentions for the role and ministry of women.
- W. Gerald Kendrick, “Authority, Women and Angels: Translating 1 Corinthians 11:10,” Bible Translator 46 (1995), 340.
- Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 516, 520.
- Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), 232.
- A.C. Perriman, “The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of KEPHALE in 1 Cor. 11:3,” Journal of Theologial Studies 45 (1994), 620.
- Morna Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI.10,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963/64), 413.
- Kendrick, 338.
- Hooker, 413.
- Robertson and Plummer, 232.
- William M. Ramsey, The Cities of St. Paul: Their InfluenceHis Life and Thought. The Cities of Eastern Asia Minor (London 1907; reprint Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949), 204-205.
- Aline Rouselle, “Body Politics in Ancient Rome,” in A History of Women, Georges Duby and Michelle Perot, gen. eds., vol. 1, From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints, ed. Pauline Schmitt Pantel, trans. by Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1992), 315.
- Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 233.
- Arbeiten für Religionsgeschichte des Urchistentums, Band 1, Heft 3 (Leipzig, 1920), 17-30, quoted in Hooker, 413.
- Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumrân Angelology and the Angels of I Cor. XI.10,” New Testament Studies 4 (1957/58), 53.
- Hooker, 413.
- Fee, 520; Kendrick, 336-342.
- Fee, 520.
- Fee, 521.
- Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 377.
- Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 187-88.
- R. E. Oster, “When Men Wore Veils to Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11.4,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988), 505.
- Heinrich Schlier, kephale, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3:679.
- W.J. Martin, “1 Cor. 11:2-16: An Interpretation,” Apostolic History and the Gospel (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 234.
- Martin, 234.
- Witherington, 235.