Did Paul Really Write “A Sign of Authority”?
Rethinking 1 Corinthians 11:10
When we encounter a difficult passage of Scripture, our first question should not be, “How can we improve Paul’s wording?” It should be, “Why did Paul choose these particular words?”
That principle is especially important in 1 Corinthians 11:10.
Paul writes:
“For this reason a woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels.”
Yet many English translations read something like:
“A woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.”
Most readers naturally assume Paul wrote the words symbol of authority.
He did not.
Paul never uses the word symbol.
Nor does he use the word sign.
Those words have been supplied because translators found Paul’s wording difficult to understand.
Before replacing Paul’s words with our own explanation, however, it is worth asking two simple questions.
The first is obvious.
Why did Paul write “authority” instead of “symbol of authority”?
The second is even more interesting.
Why didn’t Paul simply write, “For this reason a woman ought to cover her head”?
That is exactly what the reader expects after following Paul’s argument.
Yet Paul writes something different.
Perhaps that unexpected wording deserves closer attention.
The Expected Conclusion
Throughout the passage Paul repeatedly speaks about covering and uncovering the head.
Men dishonour their heads if they pray with something down from the head.
Women dishonour their heads if they pray with the head uncovered.
A man ought not to cover his head.
By the time readers reach verse 10, they naturally expect the conclusion:
“For this reason a woman ought to cover her head.”
Instead Paul writes:
“For this reason a woman ought to have authority on her head.”
That unexpected change should immediately make us pause.
Paul clearly knew how to speak about covering.
He had already done so several times.
If he now changes his wording at the climax of his creation argument, perhaps we should first ask why before supplying different words of our own.
Paul Chose the Word “Authority”
The Greek word Paul uses is ἐξουσία (exousia).
Throughout the New Testament this word normally refers to authority, right, freedom, or power to act.
Paul himself regularly uses the word to describe genuine authority. He speaks of apostolic authority, the rights and freedoms of believers, governmental authorities, and above all Christ’s authority.
Particularly interesting is Paul’s earlier discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, where he uses the related verb ἐξουσιάζω to describe the mutual authority exercised by husband and wife over one another (7:4). Once again, Paul is speaking about real authority exercised within a relationship, not about a symbol representing authority.
Readers may therefore find it helpful to look back through Paul’s earlier use of ἐξουσία language before deciding whether chapter 11 suddenly introduces the entirely different idea of a “symbol of authority.”
If Paul had intended to say “symbol of authority,” he had many ways of expressing that idea.
Instead he chose the ordinary word ἐξουσία.
The most natural place to begin is therefore with the word Paul actually wrote.
The Woman Is the Subject
Another observation is often overlooked.
Paul does not say that authority is exercised over the woman.
He says that the woman ought to have authority on her head.
Grammatically she is the subject of the sentence.
That observation does not settle every interpretive question.
It does, however, encourage us to read the verse as describing the woman’s own responsible action rather than merely referring to someone else’s authority over her.
The Wider Context
It is also worth looking back through the wider argument of 1 Corinthians.
Long before readers reach chapter 11, Paul has already discussed authority in several different contexts.
In chapter 7 he speaks about the mutual authority exercised by husband and wife within marriage.
In chapters 8-10 he repeatedly discusses the rights and freedoms believers possess and the willing limitation of those rights for the good of others.
Whether or not one ultimately accepts any particular interpretation of chapter 11, these earlier discussions encourage readers to notice that authority is already an important theme within the letter.
Rather than appearing unexpectedly in chapter 11, Paul’s wording invites us to consider how it relates to what he has already written.
More Than a Single Word
Paul does not simply write the noun authority.
He writes the expression:
to have authority on the head
Expressions should normally be interpreted as complete expressions rather than isolated words.
The question is therefore not merely,
What does the word ἐξουσία mean?
The better question is,
What does Paul mean by the expression “to have authority on the head”?
That naturally encourages us to compare similar expressions elsewhere in Scripture.
Similar Expressions Elsewhere
The Book of Revelation contains several closely related expressions.
Christ promises believers authority over the nations.
The two witnesses have authority over the waters.
An angel has authority over the fire.
Especially significant is Revelation 11:6, which uses the complete expression:
to have authority over the waters
No one understands this to mean possessing a symbol of authority over the waters.
The expression naturally describes authority exercised in relation to the object that follows.
This observation does not determine the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:10.
Nevertheless, it encourages us to ask why Paul’s expression,
to have authority on the head,
should suddenly be understood as,
to wear a symbol of authority,
when similar expressions elsewhere describe genuine authority.
The Literary Structure
Perhaps the most significant clue lies in the way Paul constructs his argument.
Notice the four principal statements concerning the head.
Verse 4
A man praying or prophesying…
…dishonours his head.
Verse 5
A woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered…
…dishonours her head.
Verse 7
A man ought not to cover his head.
Verse 10
A woman ought to have authority on her head.
The pattern is carefully balanced.
Man.
Woman.
Man.
Woman.
Verses 7 and 10 are especially close.
Both contain the verb “ought” followed by an infinitival verbal expression relating to the head.
At this point readers naturally expect Paul to write:
“A woman ought to cover her head.”
Instead he writes:
“A woman ought to have authority on her head.”
The change is striking.
Paul has not abandoned the subject of covering.
The whole discussion has been about covering.
Rather, he replaces the wording readers naturally expect with a richer expression.
The expected action remains.
The woman still covers her head.
But Paul now describes that action differently.
Instead of simply repeating the language of covering, he introduces the language of authority.
The carefully constructed parallel invites readers to understand the new expression in the light of everything Paul has already said while recognising that he is now adding something further.
No explanation is required if Paul merely intended to repeat himself.
An explanation is required precisely because he chose not to.
A Simple Illustration
Imagine a parent repeatedly telling a child to walk around the swimming pool. As the conversation reaches its conclusion, the child naturally expects to hear, “So you should walk around the pool.” Instead the parent says, “So stop acting dangerously.”
The expected instruction has not disappeared. Walking around the pool is still implied. But the parent has deliberately replaced the expected wording with a broader expression that explains its significance.
Paul appears to employ a similar rhetorical move here. Rather than simply saying, “cover your head,” he writes, “have authority on your head.” The covering remains the expected practical action, but Paul now describes that action in language that encourages readers to think more deeply about its significance.
A Cumulative Case
No single observation settles the question.
Biblical interpretation rarely works that way.
Instead, independent observations accumulate until one explanation begins to account for more of the evidence than the alternatives.
In this case those observations include:
- Paul wrote authority, not symbol.
- He never uses the words supplied by many translations.
- Readers naturally expect, “A woman ought to cover her head,” but Paul chooses different wording.
- The woman herself is the grammatical subject.
- Paul’s earlier discussions encourage readers to notice that authority is already an important theme within the letter.
- The expression should be interpreted as a complete expression rather than as an isolated noun.
- Similar expressions elsewhere in Scripture describe genuine authority.
- The literary structure places this unexpected wording at the climax of Paul’s creation argument.
Taken together, these observations point in the same direction.
A Growing Recognition
This understanding is no longer confined to a few isolated interpreters.
A growing number of respected commentators have argued that Paul should be translated literally rather than supplying the words symbol of authority. Among them are Anthony Thiselton and Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner.
Their arguments are not identical.
Nor do they all follow the same line of reasoning.
What is encouraging, however, is that independent approaches increasingly arrive at the same starting point: before altering Paul’s wording, we should first seek to understand why he chose the words he actually wrote.
Conclusion
For centuries many readers have assumed that Paul wrote:
“A woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.”
He did not.
Paul wrote:
“For this reason a woman ought to have authority on her head.”
Perhaps, then, the first question is not,
“What do translators think Paul meant?”
but,
“Why did Paul write these particular words?”
Once we begin with that question, the verse starts to look rather different.
This article does not claim to answer every question about 1 Corinthians 11:10. It simply argues that Paul’s own wording deserves to be taken more seriously than it often has been. If we begin there, we may find that the apostle’s carefully chosen language opens up a richer understanding of his argument than the familiar phrase “a symbol of authority” has allowed.