I was loking at 1 Corinthians 11:10 and spending some time wondering about that phrase, ‘because of the angels’. What on earth does it mean? More specifically, what on earth do angels have to do with the matter?
As I pored over the text, going back and forth reading it on its own terms, the best hope I had was if the word ἀγγέλους might be interpreted as ‘messages’. That is, it would read something like ‘because of the message [it communicates]’. Unfortunately, having gone to the trouble of looking up every use of the word, there isn’t one that could make any sense if translated that way, suggesting it is not a legitimate way to take the word.
On top of that, nobody else seems to find that a remotely legitimate reading of the word. The closest one can get is ‘because of the messengers’, which is more opaque still as it could mean angels or some other group of people who bring a message (and good luck guessing who they might be!) As far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of translators and commentators run with angels.
The question at that point is then, what on earth do angels have to do with headcoverings in worship. I think David Garland speaks clearest when he says:
More complicated, if not completely baffling, is Paul’s explanation… “because of the angels.” he must assume that the Corinthians can fill in the blanks about what this cryptic reference means from some shared, prior knowledge – either from their own theological speculation about angels or from something he has taught them. Modern readers are left in the dark as a result, and none of the explanations is without problems.
That final line is the telling one and he isn’t wrong. Garland not only surveys the various views on ‘because of the angels’, but as I went to the other commentaries, confusion abounds and few had a completely compelling explanation. Given all of that, you won’t be surprised that I have no intention of attempting to resolve anything for you here.
Sometimes we have to content ourselves with the fact that we won’t have all our questions satisfied nor will any of the options offered by otherwise sound commentators be particularly satisfactory either. It doesn’t hurt our congregations to hear that sometimes the bible is hard, not altogether clear and we are none the wiser.
The other principle on which it is worth landing hard is letting the clear be the master of the less clear. Any interpretation that relies heavily, if not exclusively, on a particularly tricky, contested and unclear verse or phrase is going to minimally lead to questions. Interpretations that rely primarily on what is clear and seek to synthesise what is less clear into it are going to be more compelling. In 1 Corinthians 11, ‘because of the angels’ is not the clear part and no interpretation of the wider point is going to make this the crux of whatever it may mean.
“It doesn’t hurt our congregations to hear that sometimes the bible is hard, not altogether clear and we are none the wiser.”
That’s a very important point.
On 1 Cor. 11:10 the commentary on the Greek text by Thisleton (NIGTC) observes that discussion on the phrase ‘because of the angels’ has been going on since the era of Tertullian (ca. 200AD), and gives a run-down of various opinions, but doesn’t come to a clear explanation. After 1800 years of this uncertainty, I rather doubt that we’ll get an answer before the Second Coming.
I keep a note of unclear (even incomprehensible) Bible verses – so far my favourite is Is. 66:17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord.”(ESV)
Yes, Garland includes references to Tertullian and others of similar vintage – as do some of the other commentaries – none of which land on a clear answer. Some of which make a stronger case and a harder bid for their preferred option, but none of them are very convincing. I have an if-you’re-going-to-force-me-to-pick-a-most-likely-option view. But that is about as close as I get tbh. My made up view (to my mind) made the most sense – but it only works if, like humpty dumpty, words can mean whatever I want them to mean (which, generally, they don’t!)