Adam Clark's Commentary on Head Coverings

I Corintians 11:

Verse 4. Praying, or prophesying- Any person who engages in public acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or exhortation: for we learn, from the apostle himself, that profhteuein, to prophesy, signifies to speak unto men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1 Corinthians 14:3. And this comprehends all that we understand by exhortation, or even preaching. Having his head covered- With his cap or turban on, dishonoreth his head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. "He should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold him." See much in Lightfoot on this point.

Verse 5. But every woman that prayeth, etc.- Whatever may be the meaning of praying and prophesying, in respect to the man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman. So that some women at least, as well as some men, might speak to others to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of prophesying or teaching was predicted by Joel, Joel 2:28, and referred to by Peter, Acts 2:17. And had there not been such gifts bestowed on women, the prophecy could not have had its fulfillment. The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonor her head-her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery.

Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that, considering the greatness of the population, adulteries were very rare among the Germans; and when any woman was found guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus; "having cut off her hair, and stripped her before her relatives, her husband turned her out of doors." And we know that the woman suspected of adultery was ordered by the law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Numbers 5:18. Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery, had their hair cut off: so we learn from Achilles Tatius. Clitophon says, concerning Leucippe, who was reduced to a state of slavery: pepratai, dedouleuken, ghn eskayen, sesulhtai thv kefalhv to kallov, thn kouran orav? lib. viii. cap. 6, "she was sold for a slave, she dug in the ground, and her hair being shorn off, her head was deprived of its ornament," etc. It was also the custom among the Greeks to cut off their hair in time of mourning. See Euripides in Alcest., ver. 426. Admetus, ordering a common mourning for his wife Alcestis, says: penqov gunaikov thv de koinousqai lego, koura xurhkei kai melampeplw stolh? "I order a general mourning for this woman! let the hair be shorn off, and a black garment put on." Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light.

Verse 6. For if the woman be not covered- If she will not wear a veil in the public assemblies, let her be shorn-let her carry a public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame-if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered-let her by all means wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: eidete parÆ akrav wv apeqrisen tricav, swzousa kallov, esti de h palai gunh: "see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before." See the note on the preceding verse.

In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets. - Ward's Customs.

Verse 7. A man indeed ought not to cover his head- He should not wear his cap or turban in the public congregation, for this was a badge of servitude, or an indication that he had a conscience overwhelmed with guilt; and besides, it was contrary to the custom that prevailed, both among the Greeks and Romans. He is the image and glory of God- He is God's vicegerent in this lower world; and, by the authority which he has received from his Master, he is his representative among the creatures, and exhibits, more than any other part of the creation, the glory and perfections of the Creator. But the woman is the glory of the man.- As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast of the field, etc.; so the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man. I believe this to be the meaning of the apostle; and that he is speaking here principally concerning power and authority, and skill to use them. It is certainly not the moral image of God, nor his celestial glory, of which he speaks in this verse.

Verse 8. For, the man is not of the woman- Bishop Pearce translates ou gar estin anhr ek gunaikov, alla gunh ex androv, thus: "For the man doth not BELONG to the woman, but the woman to the man." And vindicates this sense of ek, by its use in 1 Corinthians 12:15. If the foot shall say, ouk eimi ek tou swmatov, I am not of the body, i.e. I do not belong to the body. He observes that as the verb estin is in the present tense, and will not allow that we should understand this verse of something that is past, gar, for, in the following verse, which is unnoticed by our translators, will have its full propriety and meaning, because it introduces a reason why the woman belongs to the man and not the man to the woman. His meaning is, that the man does not belong to the woman, as if she was the principal; but the woman belongs to the man in that view.

Verse 9. Neither was the man created, etc.- kai gar ouk ektisqh? for the man was not created upon the woman's account. The reason is plain from what is mentioned above; and from the original creation of woman she was made for the man, to be his proper or suitable helper. Verse 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.-. . .

After all, the custom of the Nazarite may cast some light upon this place. As Nazarite means one who has separated himself by vow to some religious austerity, wearing his own hair, etc.; so a married woman was considered a Nazarite for life; i.e. separated from all others, and joined to one husband, who is her lord: and hence the apostle, alluding to this circumstance, says, The woman ought to have power on her head, i.e. wear her hair and veil, for her hair is a proof of her being a Nazarite, and of her subjection to her husband, as the Nazarite was under subjection to the Lord, according to the rule or law of his order. See notes on Numbers 6:5-7.

. . . .

Verse 13. Judge in yourselves- Consider the subject in your own common sense, and then say whether it be decent for a woman to pray in public without a veil on her head? The heathen priestesses prayed or delivered their oracles bare-headed or with dishevelled hair, non comptae mansere comae, as in the case of the Cumaean Sibyl, AEn. vi., ver. 48, and otherwise in great disorder: to be conformed to them would be very disgraceful to Christian women. And in reference to such things as these, the apostle appeals to their sense of honor and decency.

Verse 14. Doth not-nature-teach you, that, if a man have long hair- Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, karhkomowntev acaioi, the long-haired Greeks, or Achaeans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this practice:-1. Because it was a sign of humiliation; 2. Because it was womanish. After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.

Verse 15. But if a woman have long hair- The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil.

It is a certain fact that a man's long hair renders him contemptible, and a woman's long hair renders her more amiable. Nature and the apostle speak the same language; we may account for it as we please.

Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious- ei de tiv dokei filoneikov einai? If any person sets himself up as a wrangler-puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb dokein, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.

John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings

"1 Cor. 11:

3. But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: "Evil manners beget good laws." As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.

He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man. We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered. Let us, for the present, take notice of those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

There is somewhat more of difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere, (Galatians 3:28,) that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with? I answer, that the solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ's spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind - on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum - which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. Should any one ask, what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer, that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest, and He in whose name it is consecrated.

4. Every man praying. Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman. He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house - for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not. know how to maintain his proper station, and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station - if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is all emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.

. . . .

[6.]

For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability - that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea - that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust.

7. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image. The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed anew, according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this - that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.

The woman is the glory of the man. There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife - that she is a crown to her husband, (Proverbs 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose - that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.

. . . .

14.

Doth not even nature itself. He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom - even among the Greeks - he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair.

MATTHEW HENRY'S CONCISE COMMENTARY ON :

1 Corinthians 11:1

Vs. 1: The first verse of this chapter seems properly to be the close to the last. The apostle not only preached such doctrine as they ought to believe, but led such a life as they ought to live. Yet Christ being our perfect example, the actions and conduct of men, as related in the Scriptures, should be followed only so far as they are like to his.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Vs. 2-16: Here begin particulars respecting the public assemblies, ch. 1 Corinthians 14. In the abundance of spiritual gifts bestowed on the Corinthians, some abuses had crept in; but as Christ did the will, and sought the honor of God, so the Christian should avow his subjection to Christ, doing his will and seeking his glory. We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonor Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have "power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible."

JOHN WESLEY'S COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS

CHAPTER 11

2. I praise you - The greater part of you.

3. I would have you know - He does not seem to have given them any order before concerning this. The head of every man - Particularly every believer. Is Christ, and the head of Christ is God - Christ, as he is Mediator, acts in all things subordinately to his Father. But we can no more infer that they are not of the same divine nature, because God is said to be the head of Christ, than that man and woman are not of the same human nature, because the man is said to be the head of the woman.

4. Every man praying or prophesying - Speaking by the immediate power of God. With his head - And face. Covered - Either with a veil or with long hair. Dishonoreth his head - St. Paul seems to mean, As in these eastern nations veiling the head is a badge of subjection, so a man who prays or prophesies with a veil on his head, reflects a dishonor on Christ, whose representative he is.

5. But every woman - Who, under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, (for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church,) prays or prophesies without a veil on her face, as it were disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonor on man, her head. For it is the same, in effect, as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages, men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures.

6. Therefore if a woman is not covered - If she will throw off the badge of subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man's. But if it be shameful far a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for the same reason, keep on her veil.

7. A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image of God - In the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory. But the woman is only matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear, but with her head veiled, as a tacit acknowledgment of it.

8. The man is not - In the first production of nature.

10. For this cause also a woman ought to be veiled in the public assemblies, because of the angels - Who attend there, and before whom they should be careful not to do anything indecent or irregular.

11. Nevertheless in the Lord Jesus, there is neither male nor female - Neither is excluded; neither is preferred before the other in his kingdom.

12. And as the woman was at first taken out of the man, so also the man is now, in the ordinary course of nature, by the woman; but all things are of God - The man, the woman, and their dependence on each other. 13. Judge of yourselves - For what need of more arguments if so plain a case? Is it decent for a woman to pray to God - The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have, when, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered?

14. For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him.

15. Given her - Originally, before the arts of dress were in being.

16. We have no such custom here, nor any of the other churches of God -

The several churches that were in the apostles' time had different customs in things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as circumstances, in different places, made it convenient. And in all things merely indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous conscience, which really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or no. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious, persons."

CHARLES HODGE'S COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS

CHAPTER XI.

The impropriety of women appearing unveiled in the public assemblies, vs. 2-16. The improper manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper which prevailed in the Corinthian church, vs. 11-34.

ON THE IMPROPRIETY OF WOMEN APPEARING IN PUBLIC UNVEILED, VS. 2-16.

Having corrected the more private abuses which prevailed among the Corinthians, the apostle begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume which is proper in one country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and subjection. For a woman, therefore, in Corinth to discard the veil was to renounce her claim to modesty, and to refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. It is on the assumption of this significancy in the use of the veil, that the apostle's whole argument in this paragraph is founded. He begins by praising the Corinthians for their obedience in general to his instructions, v. 2. He then reminds them of the divinely constituted subordination of the woman to the man, v. 3. Consequently it was disgraceful in the man to assume the symbol of subordination, and disgraceful in the woman to discard it, vs. 4, 5. If the veil were discarded as the symbol of subordination, it must also be discarded as the symbol of modesty. An unveiled woman, therefore, in Corinth proclaimed herself as not only insubordinate, but as immodest, v. 6. The man ought not to wear a veil because he represents the authority of God; but the woman is the glory of the man, v. 7. This subordination is proved by the very history of her creation. Eve was formed out of Adam, and made for him, vs. 8, 9, and, therefore, women should wear, especially in the religious assemblies where angels are present, the conventional symbol of their relation, v. 10. This subordination, however, of the woman is perfectly consistent with the essential equality and mutual dependence of the sexes. Neither is, or can be, without the other, vs. 11, 12. The apostle next appeals to their instinctive sense of propriety, which taught them that as it is disgraceful in a man to appear in the costume of a woman, so it is disgraceful in a woman to appear in the costume of a man, vs. 13-15. Finally he appeals to authority; the custom which he censured was contrary to the universal practice of Christians, v. 16.

2. Now I praise, you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered (them) to you.

Now I praise you. The particle (de>) rendered now, either simply indicates the transition to a new subject, or it is adversative. 'Though I exhort you to imitate me as though you were deficient, yet I praise you that you remember me.' The Corinthians, although backward in following the self-denial and conciliatory conduct of the apostle, were nevertheless in general mindful of the ordinances or rules which he had delivered to them. The word (para>dosiv) tradition, here rendered ordinance, is used not only for instructions orally transmitted from generation to generation, as in Matthew 15:2, 3, 6, but for any instruction, whether relating to faith or practice, and whether delivered orally or in writing. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6. In reference to the rule of faith it is never used in the New Testament, except for the immediate instructions of inspired men. When used in the modern sense of the word tradition, it is always in reference to what is human and untrustworthy, Galatians 1:14. Colossians 2:8, and frequently in the gospels of the traditions of the elders.

3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman (is) the man; and the head of Christ (is) God.

Though the apostle praised the Corinthians for their general obedience to his prescriptions, yet there were many things in which they were deserving of censure. Before mentioning the thing which he intended first to condemn, he states the principle on which that condemnation rested; so that, by assenting to the principle, they could not fail to assent to the conclusion to which it necessarily led. That principle is, that order and subordination pervade the whole universe, and is essential to its being. The head of the man is Christ; the head of woman is the man; the head of Christ is God. If this concatenation be disturbed in any of its parts, ruin must be the result. The head is that on which the body is dependent, and to which it is subordinate. The obvious meaning of this passage is, that the woman is subordinate to the man, the man is subordinate to Christ and Christ is subordinate to God. It is further evident, that this subordination is very different in its nature in the several cases mentioned. The subordination of the woman to the man is something entirely different from that of the man to Christ; and that again is at an infinite degree more complete than the subordination of Christ to God. And still further, as the subordination of the woman to the man is perfectly consistent with their identity as to nature, so is the subordination of Christ to God consistent with his being of the same nature with the Father. There is nothing, therefore, in this passage, at all inconsistent with the true and proper divinity of our blessed Lord. For a brief statement of the scriptural doctrine of the relation of Christ to God, see the comments on 3:23. It need here be only further remarked, that the word Christ is the designation, not of the Logos or second person of the Trinity as such, nor of the human nature of Christ as such, but of the Theanthropos, the God-man. It is the incarnate Son of God, who, in the great work of redemption, is said to be subordinate to the Father, whose will he came into the world to do. When Christ is said to be the head of every man, the meaning is of every believer; because it is the relation of Christ to the church, and not to the human family, that it is characteristically expressed by this term. He is the head of that body which is the church, Colossians 1:18. Ephesians 1:22, 23.

4. Every man praying or prophesying, having (his) head covered, dishonoreth his head.

Such being the order divinely established, (viz., that mentioned in v. 3,) both men and women should act in accordance with it; the man, by having the head uncovered, the woman by being veiled. As the apostle refers to their appearance in public assemblies, he says, Every man praying or prophesying i.e. officiating in public worship. Prophesying. In the scriptural sense of the word, a prophet is one who speaks for another, as Aaron is called the prophet, or spokesman of Moses. "Thou shalt speak unto him, and put words into his mouth,... and he shall be thy spokesman," Exodus 4:15, 16; or, as he is called, 7:1, thy prophet. The prophets of God, therefore, were his spokesmen, into whose mouth the Lord put the words which they were to utter to the people. To prophesy, in Scripture, is accordingly, to speak under divine inspiration; not merely to predict future events, but to deliver, as the organ of the Holy Ghost, the messages of God to men, whether in the form of doctrine, exhortation, consolation, or prediction. This public function, the apostle says, should not be exercised by a man with his head covered; literally, having something on his head downward. Among the Greeks, the priests officiated bareheaded; the Romans with the head veiled; the Jews (at least soon after the apostolic age) also wore the Tallis or covering for the head in their public services. It is not to be inferred from what is here said, that the Christian prophets (or inspired men) had introduced this custom into the church. The thing to be corrected was, women appearing in public assemblies unveiled. The apostle says, the veil is inconsistent with the position of the man, but is required by that of the women. Men are mentioned only for the sake of illustrating the principle.

Dishonoreth his head. It is doubtful whether we should read his or his own head, (aujtou~ or auJtou~). This is a point the ancient manuscripts do not decide, as they are not furnished with the diacritical marks. It depends on the connection. It is also doubtful whether the apostle meant to say that he dishonored Christ who is his head, or that he dishonored himself. The latter, perhaps, is to be preferred,

1. Because, in the immediately preceding clause the word is used literally, 'If he cover his head, he dishonors his head.'

2. Because, in v. 5, the woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonor her own head, i.e. as what follows shows, herself, and not her husband.

3. It is more obviously true that a man who acts inconsistently with his station disgraces himself, than that he disgraces him who placed him in that station. A commanding military officer, who appears at the head of his troops in the dress of a common soldier, instead of his official dress, might more properly be said to dishonor himself than his sovereign.

For a freeman to appear in the distinguishing dress of a slave, was a disgrace. So the apostle says, for a man to appear with the conventional sign of subjection on his head, disgraced himself. If the man be intended to represent the dominion of God, he must act accordingly, and not appear in the dress of a woman.

5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with (her) head uncovered dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Praying and prophesying were the two principal exercises in the public worship of the early Christians. The latter term, as above stated, included all forms of address dictated by the Holy Spirit. It was Paul's manner to attend to one thing at a time. He is here speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled, and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in itself. When that subject comes up, he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms, 14:34. In here disapproving of the one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other. The veils worn by Grecian women were of different kinds. One, and perhaps the most common, was the peplum, or mantle, which in public was thrown over the head, and enveloped the whole person. The other was more in the fashion of the common eastern veil which covered the face, with the exception of the eyes. In one form or other, the custom was universal for all respectable women to appear veiled in public. - The apostle therefore says, that a woman who speaks in public with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head. Here eJauth~v is used, her own head; not her husband, but herself. This is plain, not only from the force of the words, but from the next clause, for that is even all one as if she were shaven. This is the reason why she disgraces herself. She puts herself in the same class with women whose hair has been cut off. Cutting off the hair, which is the principal natural ornament of women, was either a sign of grief, Deuteronomy 21:12, or a disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is: she is one and the same thing with one who is shaven. She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.

6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

That is, let her act consistently. If she wishes to be regarded as a reputable woman, let her conform to the established usage. But if she have no regard to her reputation, let her act as other women of her class. She must conform either to the reputable or disreputable class of her sex, for a departure from the one is conforming to the other. These imperatives are not to be taken as commands, but rather as expressing what consistency would require. Shorn or shaven, the latter is the stronger term; it properly means to cut with a razor.

7. For a man indeed ought not to cover (his) head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

The woman, and the woman only, ought to be veiled; for the man ought not to cover his head. This does not mean, he is not bound to do it, but should not do it. The negative belongs not to ojfei>lei, but to katalalu>ptesqai. The reason is that he is the image and glory of God. The only sense in which the man, in distinction from the woman, is the image of God, is that he represents the authority of God. He is invested with dominion. When, in Genesis 1:26, 27, it is said God created man in his own image, the reference is as much to woman as to man; for it is immediately added, "male and female created he them." So far, therefore, as the image of God consists in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, Eve as truly, and as much as Adam, bore the likeness of her Maker. But in the dominion with which man was invested over the earth, Adam was the representative of God. He is the glory of God, because in him the divine majesty is specially manifested. But the woman is the glory of the man. That is, the woman is in this respect subordinate to the man. She is not designed to reflect the glory of God as a ruler. She is the glory of the man. She receives and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station; becomes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honor which may belong to her husband.

8, 9. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

The subordination of the woman to the man is here proved from two facts recorded in the history of their creation. First, the woman was formed out of the man, and derived her origin from him. He, and not she, was created first. Secondly, she was created on his account, and not he on hers. In this way does the New Testament constantly authenticate, not merely the moral and religious truths of the Old Testament, but its historical facts; and makes those facts the grounds or proofs of great moral principles. It is impossible, therefore, for any Christian who believes in the inspiration of the apostles to doubt the divine authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, or to confine the inspiration of the ancient writers to their doctrinal and preceptive statements. The whole Bible is the word of God.

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on (her) head because of the angels.

There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators as this. After all that has been written, it remains just as obscure as ever. The meaning which it naturally suggests to the most superficial reader, is regarded by the most laborious critics as the only true one. By ejxousi>a, power, the apostle means the sign or symbol of authority; just as Diodorus Sic., 1:47, speaks of an image as "having three kingdoms on its head." The apostle had asserted and proved that the woman is subordinate to the man, and he had assumed as granted that the veil was the conventional symbol of the man's authority. The inference is that the woman ought to wear the ordinary symbol of the power of her husband. As it was proper in itself, and demanded by the common sense of propriety, that the woman should be veiled, it was specially proper in the worshipping assemblies, for there they were in the presence not merely of men but of angels. It was therefore, not only out of deference to public sentiment, but from reverence to those higher intelligences that the woman should conform to all the rules of decorum. This is the common and only satisfactory interpretation of the passage. Of those who dissent from this view, some propose various conjectural emendations of the text; others vainly endeavor to prove that the word ejxousi>a may be made to mean a veil; others take the word literally. And as to the last clause, instead of taking the word angels in its ordinary sense, some say it here means the angels, or presiding officers, of the church; others, that it means messengers or spies from the heathen who came to observe the mode in which the Christians worshipped, and would report any thing they observed to their disadvantage. The great majority of commentators acquiesce in the interpretation stated above, which satisfies all the demands of the context.

11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

That is, although there is this subordination of the woman to the man, they are mutually dependent. The one cannot exist without the other. In the Lord. This does not mean that the one is not in the Lord to the exclusion of the other. The apostle is not here speaking of the spiritual equality of the sexes. In Galatians 3:28 and elsewhere he abundantly teaches that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female; that the one is as fully a partaker of all the benefits of redemption as the other. And it is also true that he teaches that this equality of Jews and Greeks, bond and free, before God is perfectly consistent with the social inequalities existing in this world. But these truths, however important, and however they distinguish the Christian doctrine of the equality and dignity of woman from all other forms of religious doctrine on the subject, are foreign to this connection. The apostle's single object is to show the true nature and limitations of the subordination of the woman to the man. It is a real subordination, but it is consistent with their mutual dependence; the one is not without the other. And this mutual dependence is ejn kuri>w|, i.e. by divine appointment - according to the will of the Lord. These words are used here, as so frequently elsewhere, as an adverbial qualification, meaning religiously, after a Christian manner, or divinely, i.e. by divine appointment. The same idea is substantially expressed by those who explain the words in the Lord as tantamount to "in Christianity;" in the sense that it is a Christian doctrine that the man and the woman are thus mutually dependent.

12. For as the woman (is) of the man, even so (is) the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The one is not without the other, for as the woman was originally formed out of the man, so the man is born of the woman. This is a proof, not of the admitted equality of the sexes in the kingdom of God, but of their mutual dependence in the kingdom of nature. It therefore confirms the interpretation given of the preceding verse. But all things are of God; these subordinate relations of one creature to another are merged, as it were, in the supreme causality of God. It matters little whether the man was of the woman or the woman of the man, as both alike are of God; just as he before said, it matters little whether a man were a Jew or Gentile, bond or free, since all are alike before God.

13. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

This is an appeal to their own sense of propriety. The apostle often recognizes the intuitive judgments of the mind as authoritative. Romans 1:32; 3:8. The constitution of our nature being derived from God, the laws which he has impressed upon it, are as much a revelation from him as any other possible communication of his will. And to deny this, is to deny the possibility of all knowledge. It is comely (pre>pon ejsti>), is it becoming or decorous? 14, 15. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for (her) hair is given her for a covering.

Doth not nature itself. The word (fu>siv), nature, sometimes means essence or substance, sometimes the laws of nature or of our natural constitution; sometimes, the instinctive feelings or judgments which are the effects of those laws. The form which feelings assume is necessarily determined in a great measure by education and habit. The instinctive sense of propriety in an eastern maiden prompts her, when surprised by strangers, to cover her face. In an European it would not produce that effect. In writing, therefore, to eastern females, it would be correct to ask whether their native sense of propriety did not prompt them to cover their heads in public. The response would infallibly be in the affrmative. It is in this sense the word nature is commonly taken here. It may, however, mean the laws or course of nature. Nature gives the man short hair and the woman long hair; and therefore nature itself teaches that long hair is a disgrace to the one and an ornament to the other; for it is disgraceful in a man to be like a woman, and in a woman to be like a man. Wearing long hair was contrary to the custom both of the Hebrews and Greeks. The Nazarites, as a distinction, allowed their hair to grow. Numbers 6:8; see also Ezekiel 44:20. It was considered so much a mark of effeminacy for men to wear long hair, that it was not only ridiculed by Juvenal, but in after times seriously censured by church councils. To a woman, however, in all ages and countries, long hair has been considered an ornament. It is given to her, Paul says, as a covering, or as a natural veil; and it is a glory to her because it is a veil. The veil itself, therefore, must be becoming and decorous in a woman.

16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The arguments against the custom of women appearing in public unveiled having been presented, the apostle says, if any man, notwithstanding these arguments, is disposed to dispute the matter, or appears to be contentious, we have only further to say, that we (the apostles) have no such custom, neither have the churches of God. To be contentious, i.e. disposed to dispute for the sake of disputation. With such persons all argument is useless. Authority is the only end of controversy with such disturbers of the peace. The authority here adduced is that of the apostles and of the churches. The former was decisive, because the apostles were invested with authority not only to teach the gospel, but also to organize the church, and to decide every thing relating to Christian ordinances and worship. The authority of the churches, although not coercive, was yet great. No man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds, and from the necessity of obeying God rather than man, to depart from the established usages of the church in matters of public concern.

Calvin, and many of the best modern commentators, give a different view of this passage. They understand the apostle to say, that if any one seems to be disputatious, neither we nor the churches are accustomed to dispute. It is not our wont to waste words with those who wish merely to make contention. The only reason assigned for this interpretation, is Paul's saying we have no such custom; which they say cannot mean the custom of women going unveiled. But why not? The apostles and the churches constituted a whole neither the one nor the other, neither the churches nor their infallible guides, sanctioned the usage in question. Besides, no other custom is mentioned in the context than the one which he has been discussing. "If any one appear contentious," is not a custom and suggests nothing to which the words such a custom can naturally refer."

JOSEPH BEET'S COMMENTARY ON 1 CORTINTIANS 11

ABOUT THE ABUSES IN CHURCH MEETINGS

CHAPTERS 11:2-34

SECTION 20

WOMEN MUST NOT LAY ASIDE THEIR APPROPRIATE AND

DISTINCTIVE DRESS

CHAPTER 11:2-16

I praise you that in all things you remember me, and that, according as I delivered to you the traditions, you hold them fast.

But I wish you to know that of every man Christ is the head: and head of woman, the man is; and head of Christ, God is. Every man praying or prophesying with covered head puts to shame his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled puts to shame her head. For she is one and the same thing as the shaven woman. For, if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is a shameful thing to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For indeed a man ought not to have his head veiled, being an image and glory of God. But the woman is man's glory. For not the man is from the woman, but the woman from the man: for also man was not created because of the woman, but woman because of the man. For this cause the woman ought to have authority upon her head, because of the angels. Except neither is woman without man nor man without woman. For, just as the woman is from the man, so also is the man by means of the woman. And all things are from God.

Judge in yourselves. Is it fitting that to God a woman pray unveiled? Does not Nature itself teach you? Because indeed a man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonor to him. But a woman if she have long hair, it is a glory to her. Because the hair is given to her instead of a covering. But if anyone thinks to be fond of strife, we for our part have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.

By a commendation (1 Corinthians 11:2) and a broad general principle (1 Corinthians 11:3) Paul opens the way to a new matter; on which in 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5a he at once pronounces sentence. This sentence he justifies in 1 Corinthians 11:5b-15; and in 1 Corinthians 11:16 concludes 20 with a warning.

Ver. 2. In all things: limited (see under Romans 5:18) by Paul's mental horizon at the moment of writing. It refers probably to church-meetings only: for only of these does 1 Corinthians 11 treat. In all their conduct of public worship they think of Paul and of the directions he gave. This is a mark that underneath the disaffection implied in the factions there lay a genuine loyalty to the apostle. Of this loyalty, the mission of Stephanas and others (1 Corinthians 16:17) was a mark: and an enthusiastic outburst of it was evoked (2 Corinthians 7:11f) by this Epistle.

Delivered: cognate with 'tradition:' 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3; Jude 3; Luke 1:2; Acts 6:14; 16:4; Romans 1:24; 4:25.

Traditions: instructions about doctrine or practice (here probably the latter: for of this 20 treats) handed on from one to another: 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8; Matthew 15:2. The traditions: probably the more or less definite instructions given by Christ to the apostles for the church. Samples are found in 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3. These instructions Paul had, when present with them or by his former letter, given to his readers: and he now commends their careful remembrance of them. This does not contradict what follows: for 20, 21 refer, not to omissions or alterations, but to new practices which had crept in. And Paul does not say, I praise you all.

To these words, Estius appeals in proof that there is an unwritten, but binding, apostolic tradition. If we, like Paul's readers, had proof that certain instructions came actually from him, we should accept them as authoritative, even though unwritten. But I do not know of any unwritten tradition which can be confidently traced to an apostle. Ver. 3. An important general principle, set up as a platform of approach to the specific matter of 20.

The head: placed by God above the body but in closest and vital union with it, to direct its action. The same word in Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:19 suggests that 'every man' refers only to believers, whom alone in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul has in view. For, although the headship of Christ rests originally upon our creation "in Him" and "through Him and for Him," (Colossians1:16,) yet only those who believe are vitally joined to Him.

Head of woman: i.e. immediate head. For Christ is Head of the whole Church. 'Woman' is placed by God under the rule and direction of 'the man.' This is most conspicuously true of husband and wife. But since marriage is but a fulfillment of God's purpose in the creation of the sexes, these words are true of the sexes generally.

Head of Christ: even touching his divine nature. For the Eternal Son, though equal (John 16:15) to the Father is yet (John 5:26; 6:57) derived from and therefore (1 Corinthians 15:28) for ever subject to, Him. Of this eternal subordination, the eternal devotion and the historic obedience of the Son to the Father are an outflow. See under 1 Corinthians 3:23; 8:6. Notice that the headship is an objective relationship on which (Ephesians 5:22f) rests an obligation to obedience.

Before he warns women not to seek to escape, even in the matter of dress, from the subordinate position of their sex, Paul reminds them that order and subordination are a law of the kingdom of God; that the husband is himself under the direction of Christ; and that even within the divine Trinity the Son is, in accordance with the law of His being, obedient to the Father.

Ver. 4. Does not even suggest that this abuse existed at Corinth. For to woman pertains the whole argument of 20: and, for this argument, since it turns on the relation of the sexes, it was needful to explain the contrasted position of the 'man.' By this contrast, as usual, Paul paves a way to his main argument.

Prophesy: see 1 Corinthians 12:10.

Puts to shame, etc.: proved in 1 Corinthians 11:7a. He forsakes his place of honor in the race, which a correct instinct has ever marked by a distinction of dress; and thus does himself dishonor. And this dishonor is visible and conspicuous in his treatment of 'his' own 'head.'

Ver. 5a. Same form as 1 Corinthians 11:4, giving force to the contrast. Since Paul expressly and solemnly (1 Corinthians 14:33ff) forbids women to speak in assemblies of the whole church, 'praying or prophesying' must refer to smaller and more private gatherings, probably consisting chiefly or wholly of women. For it would be ridiculous first to argue at length that they ought not to speak with uncovered heads, and then to forbid them to speak at all. On the other hand, common sense forbids us to extend this prohibition to prayer in the family circle. To what Paul refers, his readers knew.

Unveiled: without the peplum or shawl, which Greek women wore usually on their shoulders, but in public over their heads. See an engraving in Smith's 'Dictionary of Antiquities,' art. 'Peplum,' where a bare-headed man takes the hand of a veiled woman.

Puts to shame, etc. For she deserts, by obliterating the distinction of dress, her appointed position, which is to all God's creatures the place of honor; and does this by her treatment of 'her head,' the noblest part of her body. The careful proof of these words in 1 Corinthians 11:5b-15, proves that this abuse actually existed at Corinth. But Paul's mode of introducing it, (contrast 1 Corinthians 7:1; 8:1; 12:1,) and the analogy of 1 Corinthians 11:18, suggest, but do not absolutely prove, that he had learned it, not from their letter, but (cp. 1 Corinthians 1:11) by hearsay. Ver. 5b-15. Proof and explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:5a. To pray with unveiled head is practically the same as removal of the hair, which is admitted to be shameful: 1 Corinthians 11:5b, 6. Reason of this in the original relation of the sexes: 1 Corinthians 11:7-10. A limitation: 1 Corinthians 11:11, 12. Appeal to the readers' sense of propriety and to the teaching of nature: 1 Corinthians 11:13-15.

Ver. 5b-6. The shaven woman: words well understood by Paul's readers. There were women at Corinth, the most shameless women who shaved off their hair, to obliterate entirely from their appearance all distinction of sex. With proofs of this, I cannot stain my pages. Paul says that the woman who lays aside her usual head-dress is practically the same as these shameless women. Of this argument, 1 Corinthians 11:6 shows the force. Shorn, or 'cropped': the hair cut short.

Shaven: the hair removed altogether with a razor.

It is a shameful thing: point of the argument in proof of "puts to shame" in 1 Corinthians 11:5a. Human propriety declares it to be 'a shameful thing to a woman to be shorn:' and the case of those women at Corinth who actually were 'shorn or shaven' confirmed this verdict. What is the ground of this sense of shame? A universal and correct sentiment that the distinction of sex ought to be seen very conspicuously in a person's dress. Now, for a woman to remove her hair, was in part to obliterate this outward distinction of sex; and was therefore a trampling under foot of this universal sentiment of propriety. And, as a matter of fact, in Paul's day it was a mark of desertion of the dignity of womanhood. Paul says, and leaves his readers to judge of the truth of his words, that to lay aside the distinctive head-dress of women is practically the same. For it arose from a similar motive, viz. a wish to lay aside an outward mark of the subordination of the female sex. He therefore urges the woman who is determined to pray with a veil to carry her own practice to its logical result, and lay aside her natural as well as her artificial headdress, that thus she may see the direction in which it is leading her; or, if she be conscious of the disgrace of this; to act consistently and abstain from conduct which differs from it only in degree. It is now evident that a woman who "prays with her head unveiled dishonors her head." For, by her treatment of her head she does that which differs only in degree from what all admit to be shameful.

Ver. 7-10. Supports "let her be veiled," by expounding the truth which underlies the "shame" of 1 Corinthians 11:6, viz. that the distinction of the sexes is original and essential. As usual with Paul, the reverse is put first to increase by contrast the force of the real argument, which lies in 1 Corinthians 11:8, 9.

Image: a visible representation of God, Genesis 1:26. By looking to man we see in outline what God is. Such, in a higher degree the Son of God, 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.

Glory of God: an outshining of His grandeur. See under Romans 1:21. Cp. 2 Corinthians 8:23; Ephesians 3:13. While contemplating man, we behold, and wonder at, the greatness of man's Creator. 'Glory' is explained by, and supplements 'image.' For there may be (cp. Romans 1:23) an image without glory; and a shining forth of splendor without its definite embodiment in an image. The words before us are true in many senses. But here Paul is speaking only of order and rule and subordination. He means that the male sex, as holding the highest power on earth and exercising undisputed sway over all else, is a visible pattern of God and a shining forth of His splendor. Therefore, since a veiled head is a mark, though an artificial one, of distinction of sex and of woman's subordination, 'a man ought not to have his head veiled.'

Ver. 7b-10. Glory of man: a manifestation of his greatness. That God provided for him a consort and helper so noble as woman, proves the worth of man in God's sight, and thus adds dignity to him. "Image" is omitted now: for in the one point Paul has in view, viz. supremacy, she is not a pattern of man. The distinction between the sexes, asserted in 1 Corinthians 11:7, 1 Corinthians 11:8 justifies by a simple restatement of Genesis 2:18, 21. Man was not originally derived from the woman, but the reverse. To this simple historic fact, 1 Corinthians 11:9 adds a reason for it. Man was the goal of creation. Woman was created (Genesis 2:18) for his pleasure and assistance. To make this conspicuous, man was created first; and woman was derived from him. Similar argument in 1 Timothy 2:13.

Because of this: because woman is, by the purpose of her creation, subordinate to man.

The woman ought: parallel to 1 Corinthians 11:7. Her head-dress proclaims that she belongs to the subordinate sex. Therefore, 'upon her head,' the most conspicuous part of her body, the veiled woman bears a visible embodiment of the 'authority' under which God has placed her. She bears aloft, and thus exalts before men, the great principle of 'authority' which is the universal law of the kingdom of God and a source of infinite blessing to all who bow to it. Just so a soldier's obedience reveals and exalts the majesty of military discipline.

Because of the angels: a motive for obeying this obligation. The absence of "and" suggests that it is a motive, not additional to, but confirmatory of, that given in 1 Corinthians 11:9. Already (1 Corinthians 4:9) we have seen 'the angels' contemplating the apostle's hardships. They attend upon men, Hebrews 1:14; are placed side by side of the church militant, Hebrews 12:22; and desire to look into the teaching of the prophets, 1 Peter 1:12. Now, if they take interest in men, they must take special interest in those assemblies in which men unitedly draw near to God, and which have so great influence upon the spiritual life of men. We must therefore conceive them present at the public worship of the church. Now the presence of persons better than ourselves always strengthens our instinctive perception of right and wrong; and deters us from improper action. And the moral impression thus produced is almost always correct. To this instinctive perception Paul appealed by the word "shame" in 1 Corinthians 11:6; and has revealed its source in the purpose of woman's creation. He now strengthens his appeal by reminding us that we worship in the presence of the inhabitants of heaven. For every right instinct in us is strengthened by the presence of those better than ourselves. Surely a remembrance of these celestial fellow-worshippers will deter us from all that is unseemly.

To this exposition it may be objected that a feeling of shame would be strengthened still more by an appeal to the presence of God. But this objection would lie against all mention of angels in the work of redemption. For whatever they do God could do without them. Angels are mentioned, probably, in condescension to our weakness. We can more easily conceive of God by taking hold, in our thought, of those holy beings who, though creatures like ourselves, yet see His face and perfectly obey Him. Hence the mention of angels has been popular and effective in the religious teaching of all ages. Notice also that, after strengthening his appeal by mention of angels, Paul strengthens it still further in 1 Corinthians 11:13 by mention of God.

Tertullian ('Against Marcion' bk. v. 8, and 'Veiling of virgins' ch. 7) understood these words to refer to the "angels whom we read to have been banished from God and from heaven because of desire for women," according to the tradition embodied in the Alexandrian MS. (LXX.) of Genesis 6:2, "The angels of God saw, etc." But the word 'angels' without further explanation suggests holy angels: and we cannot conceive such to be liable to be led into sin by sight of a woman's face; else they would be much weaker, in the matter of sensual desire, than average Englishmen now. Nor could spiritual damage, actual or feared, to angels good or bad, be a practical motive for women on earth.

See further in 'The Expositor,' 1st Series vol. xi. p. 20.

Ver. 11-12. A corrective against undue depreciation of woman, which might seem to be implied in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10. In the development of the spiritual life, of which Christ our Master is the element, each sex helps and needs the other. Both man's strength and woman's tenderness develop Christlike character in the other sex. As in 1 Corinthians 11:3, this is emphatically true of husband and wife; and is therefore true of the sexes generally as originally constituted. It is very conspicuous in the brothers and sisters of Christian families. Neglect of it is a great defect of monastic life. As usual, the stress lies in the second assertion, for which the first prepares the way. Just as in the Christian life woman needs man, so man needs woman. In 1 Corinthians 11:12. Paul proves this, from the original bodily relation of the sexes. He assumes that with this the spiritual life must accord. Cp. 1 Corinthians 11:3. It may, therefore, be quoted in proof of the relation of the sexes in the spiritual life. From the man; restates Genesis 2:21f. 'The man' enters the world 'by means of the woman.' This suggests also our unspeakable debt to woman's maternal care. Paul thus places side by side, in the order of creation, the obligation of each sex to the other. And the differences noted are not so great as might appear. For man and woman and all else have alike sprung from God. Thus, as in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul concludes his argument in the presence of the Supreme.

Ver. 13-15. Two abrupt appeals: viz. to his readers' instinctive 'judgment' of what is 'fitting;' and to the 'teaching' of 'Nature.'

To God: emphatic, It strengthens the former appeal by bringing us into the presence of Him whose voice all true human instinct is. To lay aside the veil, is to obliterate in part the distinction of the sexes. But this an inborn sense of propriety forbids. This instinctive judgment Paul traced in 1 Corinthians 11:7ff to the original constitution of the sexes; and strengthened it by pointing to the celestial partners of our worship. He now further strengthens it by reminding us that in prayer we speak 'to God.'

Ver. 14-15. A second abrupt appeal, supporting the former.

Nature: Romans 2:14, 27: the totality of material objects around us, animate or inanimate, as they exist in virtue of their mode of being, and apart from interference. It denotes here the bodily constitution of men and women. This ought to teach women not to pray unveiled. Because a man, etc.: facts in 'Nature' which 'teach.' As usual, the weight is on the second clause, for which the first, by contrast, prepares the way. It is a dishonor to him: as a partial effacement of the distinction of the sexes which Nature makes by giving (1 Corinthians 11:15b) to woman a more abundant covering of hair. So far, long hair robs a man of his honor which belongs to the stronger sex. All attempts to look like women betray an effeminate spirit; and are thus a 'dishonor' to men.

Ver. 15. A glory to her: A woman's long hair elicits admiration. The ground of this follows. 'The' long 'hair' is Nature's gift, to mark her sex. It increases the womanliness of her appearance. It therefore accords with the constitution of things; and so calls forth admiration.

Instead of a covering i.e. as a natural head-dress. This suggests how Nature's teaching bears upon the matter in hand. Nature has made a visible distinction of the sexes by covering woman's head with more abundant hair. This teaches that the God of Nature designs the sexes to be distinguished, in the most conspicuous part of their body. This natural distinction is recognized in the general judgment of mankind that it is dishonor for men or women to assume, in this respect, the appearance of the other sex. Now when men stand uncovered before God, and women covered, they accept formally and visibly by their own action this distinction of sex, and the position in reference to the other sex which God has given. Whereas, if women appear in public unveiled they do something to obliterate a distinction written visibly and conspicuously by nature in the very growth of their hair. Thus 1 Corinthians 11:14, 15 develop, after 1 Corinthians 11:7-10 have revealed its essential basis, the argument of 1 Corinthians 11:6.

The rendering "does not nature teach you that, etc." (A.V. and R.V.) is grammatical equally with that given above. But it would make the short and long hair the chief matter to be proved, and indeed the goal of the argument of 20. The rendering given above makes it merely a proof of what is evidently the chief matter here, viz. that women ought to be veiled. In times much earlier than those of Paul, both Greek and Roman men wore long hair. But this does not weaken his argument, which rests on a natural bodily difference. And, that this practice was discontinued, and that in nearly all ages and nations a contrary custom has been usual, supports his argument. For this nearly universal custom proves that the race generally has recognized the meaning of the greater abundance of woman's hair. Ver. 16. Reveals the probable source or support of the practice objected to.

Thinks: looks upon himself, and with approval, as one 'fond of strife.' But strife is opposed to an abiding 'custom' of the apostles and of 'the churches of God.' This warning suggests that, from a boasted love of strife, some defended the women who rejected the head-dress. To such Paul says that in loving strife they stand alone among the churches."

J. DARBY'S SYNOPSIS ON THE BIBLE

[On 1 Corinthians 11]

"Having given these rules in answer to questions of detail, he turns to that which regarded the presence and action of the Holy Ghost; which also introduces the subject of the conduct proper for them in their assemblies. Observe here the way in which the apostle grounded his replies with regard to details on the highest and fundamental principles. This is the manner of Christianity (compare Titus 2:10-14). He introduces God and charity, putting man in connection with God Himself. In that which follows we have also a striking example of this. The subject is a direction for women.

They were not to pray without having their heads covered. To decide this question, simply of what was decent and becoming, the apostle lays open the relationship and the order of the relationship subsisting between the depositories of God's glory and Himself,* and brings in the angels, to whom Christians, as a spectacle set before them, should present that of order according to the mind of God. The head of the woman is the man; that of man is Christ; of Christ, God. This is the order of power, ascending to Him who is supreme. And then, with respect to their relationship to each other, he adds, the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. And as to their relations with other creatures, intelligent and conscious of the order of the ways of God, they were to be covered because of the angels, who are spectators of the ways of God in the dispensation of redemption, and of the effect which this marvelous intervention was to produce. Elsewhere (see note below) it is added, in reference to the history of that which took place, the man was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, transgressed first. Let us add - from the passage we are considering - that, as to creation, the man was not taken from the woman, but the woman from the man.

Nevertheless the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord; but all things are of God; and all this to regulate a question of modesty as to women, when in praying they were before the eyes of others.** The result - in that which concerns the details - is that the man was to have his head uncovered, because he represented authority, and in this respect was invested (as to his position) with the glory of God, of whom he was the image. The woman was to have her head covered, as a token that she was subject to the man (her covering being a token of the power to which she was subject). Man however could not do without woman, nor woman without man. Finally the apostle appeals to the order of creation, according to which a woman's hair, her glory and ornament, showed, in contrast with the hair of man, that she was not made to present herself with the boldness of man before all. Given as a veil, her hair showed that modesty, submission - a covered head that hid itself, as it were, in that submission and in that modesty - was her true position, her distinctive glory. Moreover, if any one contested the point, it was a custom which neither the apostle nor the assemblies allowed.

[* In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the moral effect of the circumstances of the fall is introduced, as giving the woman her true place in the assembly with regard to man.] [** We are not as yet come to the order in the assembly. That commences with verse 17.]

Observe also here that, however man may have fallen, divine order in creation never loses its value as the expression of the mind of God. Thus also in James, man is said to be created in the image of God. As to his moral condition, he needs (now that he has knowledge of good and of evil) to be born again, created in righteousness and in true holiness, that he may be the image of God as now revealed through Christ; but his position in the world, as the head and center of all things - which no angel has been - is the idea of God Himself, as well as the position of the woman, the companion of his glory but subject to him; an idea which will be gloriously accomplished in Christ, and with respect to the woman in the assembly; but which is true in itself, being the constituted order of God, and always right as such: for the ordinance of God creates order, although, no doubt, His wisdom and His perfection are displayed in it.

The reader will remark, that this order in creation, as well as that which is established in the counsels of God in respect of the woman, of the man, of Christ, and of God Himself, and the fact that men - at least Christians under redemption - are a spectacle to angels (compare chap. 4:9), subjects which here I can only indicate, have the highest interest.*

[* The first chapter of Genesis gives us man in his place in creation as from God the Creator; the second, his own relationship with Jehovah God, where he was placed in connection with Him, and the woman's with himself.]"