Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:3

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.

3. But I would have you know ] According to St Paul’s invariable rule, the question is argued and settled upon the first principles of the Christian Revelation. In the sight of God all men are equal; yet without distinctions of rank and office society could not exist. But equality and order are reconciled by the revelation of God in Christ.

the head ] “In the idea of this word dominion is especially expressed. As in the human organisation the exercise of dominion over all the members proceeds from the head; so in the family, from man; in the Church, from Christ; in the universe, from God.” Olshausen.

of every man is Christ ] See Eph 1:22; Eph 4:15; Col 1:18; Col 2:19. As the head directs the body, so ought every member of Christ’s Body to be governed and directed by Christ.

the head of the woman is the man ] Cf. Eph 5:23. “It appears that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for themselves equality with the male sex, to which the doctrine of Christian freedom and the removal of the distinction of sex in Christ (Gal 3:28) gave occasion. Christianity had indisputably done much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionic Greeks (it was otherwise among the Dorians and the Romans) were in a position of unworthy dependence. But this was done in a quiet, not an over-hasty manner. In Corinth, on the contrary, they had apparently taken up the matter in a fashion somewhat too animated. The women overstepped due bounds by coming forward to pray and prophesy in the assemblies with uncovered head.” De Wette. Such persons are here reminded that according to God’s word (Gen 3:16; 1Ti 2:11; 1Ti 2:13) woman was designed to be in subjection, both in society and in the family. Of this last, woman’s chief sphere, man was, by God’s ordinance, the head. Yet (see below, 1Co 11:5) she is on an equality with man in her individual relation to Christ.

the head of Christ is God ] Cf. ch. 1Co 3:23, 1Co 8:6, 1Co 15:28, and notes. Also St Joh 14:28. Possibly this may be added to prevent the idea from gaining currency that the interval between man and woman was in any degree comparable to that between Christ and man. And it also implies that the whole universe is one vast system of orderly gradation, from God its Creator downwards.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

But I would have you know – I invite your attention particularly to the following considerations, in order to form a correct opinion on this subject. Paul does not at once answer the inquiry, and determine what ought to be done; but he invites their attention to a series of remarks on the subject, which led them to draw the conclusion which he wished to establish. The phrase here is designed to call the attention to the subject, like that used so often in the New Testament, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

That the head … – The word head, in the Scriptures, is designed often to denote master, ruler, chief. The word ro’sh is often thus used in the Old Testament; see Num 17:3; Num 25:15; Deu 28:13, Deu 28:44; Jdg 10:18; Jdg 11:8, Jdg 11:11; 1Sa 15:17; 2Sa 22:44. In the New Testament the word is used in the sense of Lord, ruler, chief, in Eph 1:22; Eph 4:15; Eph 5:23; Col 2:10. Here it means that Christ is the ruler, director, or Lord of the Christian man. This truth was to be regarded in all their feelings and arrangements, and was never to be forgotten. Every Christian should recollect the relation in which he stands to him, as one that is suited to produce the strictest decorum, and a steady sense of subordination.

Of every man – Every Christian. All acknowledge Christ as their Ruler and Master. They are subject to him; and in all proper ways recognize their subordination to him.

And the head of the woman is the man – The sense is, she is subordinate to him, and in all circumstances – in her demeanor, her dress, her conversation, in public and in the family circle – should recognize her subordination to him. The particular thing here referred to is, that if the woman is inspired, and speaks or prays in public, she should by no means lay aside the usual and proper symbols of her subordination. The danger was, that those who were under the influence of inspiration would regard themselves as freed from the necessity of recognising that, and would lay aside the veil, the usual and appropriate symbol of their occupying a rank inferior to the man. This was often done in the temples of the pagan deities by the priestesses, and it would appear also that it had been done by Christian females in the churches.

And the head of Christ is God – Christ, as Mediator, has consented to assume a subordinate rank, and to recognize God the Father as superior in office. Hence, he was obedient in all things as a Son; he submitted to the arrangement required in redemption; he always recognized his subordinate rank as Mediator, and always regarded God as the supreme Ruler, even in the matter of redemption. The sense is, that Christ, throughout his entire work, regarded himself as occupying a subordinate station to the Father; and that it was proper from his example to recognize the propriety of rank and station everywhere.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Co 11:3-16

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

Christ our Head

This important statement is the starting-point for a deliverance on the subject of the conduct of women in the Church. The apostle often, in dealing with matters of trifling importance or limited interest, rises to the enunciation of the grand principle on which it rests. Here he gives the principle first. Let us look at our relationship with Christ–

I. Through its earthly shadow.

1. In building the house of the human family God made the man the head of the woman, the husband or bond of the house. This headship carries with it responsibility; for if wives are to obey their husbands, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and so make the wifely duty a joy.

2. In this sense, only with deepened meaning, Christ is the head of every man, i.e., of the race. And just as the wife attains the end of her being on the earthly side in her husband; as she finds the sum of her womanly ambitions and duties in promoting his welfare; as she is entitled to look to him for protection, counsel, tenderness, and example; as she is to seek in him the rounding of her present life and the fulness of her earthly joy; so the members of the human family are to look up to Christ as their Head. None of us is complete without Him. And just as trust and obedience unite a woman to her husband and enable him to fulfil his obligations to her, so it is by faith and submission that Jesus is able to accomplish His saving, life-giving work. There is therefore deep truth in the representation of the exaltation of the Church to glory as a marriage supper.

II. In its heavenly archetypes–Gods headship over Christ.

1. In His Divine, eternal essence Christ is the brightness of His Fathers glory, etc., Gods realised ideal, a vessel into which God has poured all the fulness of the Divine nature, a vessel of Godhead eternally equal to that which it contains and perfectly full.

2. In the light of this look once more at your relationship to Christ. As the Father hath loved Me (Joh 15:9-10). We are to reflect Christ just as He reflects God, and appears, therefore, full of grace and truth.

Conclusion: The head of every man is Christ.

1. Then Christ is just yourself, idealised and perfected–the prophecy of what you are to become. He is not a glorified man merely, but glorified humanity.

2. This great fact throws light on the doctrine of substitution. Christ became man, not a man. Just as we were all in Adam, and are so many multiplied copies of him, so Christ became the second Adam, and God looks at us in Him. Since, then, He was a representative man, all He did and suffered on earth had a representative character. (E. W. Shalders, B.A.)

Human and Divine relations

There exist three relations which together form a sort of hierarchy: lowest in the scale, the purely human relation between man and woman; higher, the Divine-human relation between Christ and man; highest, the purely Divine relation between God and Christ. The common term whereby Paul characterises these relations is head, or chief. This figurative term includes two ideas–community of life, and inequality within this community. So between the man and the woman, by the bond of marriage there is formed between them the bond of a common life, but in such a way that the one is the strong and directing element, the other the receptive and dependent element. The same is the case in the relation between Christ and the man. Formed by the bond of faith, it also establishes a community of life, in which there are distinguished an active and directing principle and a receptive and directed factor. An analogous relation appears higher still in the mystery of the Divine essence. By the bond of filiation there is between Christ and God communion of Divine life, but such that impulse proceeds from the Father, and that the Son doeth nothing but what He seeth the Father do. The relation between Christ and the man is put first. It is, so to speak, the link of union between the other two, reflecting the sublimity of the one and marking the other with a sacred character, which should secure it from the violence with which it is threatened. (Prof. Godet.)

The conduct and deportment of Christian women

A broad principle laid down by Christianity was human equality: there is neither male nor female, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus. We all know how fruitful a cause of popular commotion the teaching of equality has been in every age, and at Corinth this doctrine threatened to lead to much social confusion. A claim was made for a right in woman to do all that men should do–to preach and pray, e.g., in public, and therefore to appear as men, unveiled in public. This latter the apostle here prohibits–

I. On the ground that it was a rash defiance of established rules of decorum. The veiled head is a symbol of–

1. Modesty; for to pray unveiled was to insult all the conventional feelings of Jew and Gentile. The Holy Ghost, however, has not imposed on the Church this particular fashion, but the principle contained in it is eternal; and it is impossible to decide how much of our public morality and private purity is owing to the spirit which refuses to overstep the smallest bound of ordinary decorum.

2. Dependence. St. Paul perceived that the law of Christian equality was quite consistent with the vast system of subordination running through the universe (1Co 11:3; 1Co 11:11-12). He distinguishes between inferiority and subordination; each sex exists in a certain order, not one as greater than the other, but both great and right in being what God intended them to be.

II. By an appeal to natural instincts ann propriety (1Co 11:14-15). Fanaticism defies nature. Christianity refines it and respects it. It develops each nation, sex, and individual, according to their own nature–making man more manly and woman more womanly. But let us not forget that here, too, there are exceptions. Beware of a dead, hard rule. There have been many instances in which one man standing against the world has been right, and the world wrong, as Elijah, Athanasius, Luther, and others. But in questions of morality, propriety, decency, when we find our own private judgment contradicted by the general experience, habit, and belief of all the best around us, then the doctrine of this chapter commands us to believe that the many are right and that we are wrong. (F. W. Robertson, M.A.)

The veil

St. Paul is now compelled to qualify the general commendation of 1Co 11:2. He heard with surprise and vexation that women presumed to address the assembled Christians unveiled, to the scandal of all sober-minded Orientals and Greeks. It is a singular specimen of the strange matters that came before Paul for decision when the care of all the Churches lay upon him.

I. What was the intention of Christian women in making a demonstration so unfeminine?

1. Throughout this letter Paul is correcting the hasty impressions which the new believers were receiving regarding their position as Christians. A flood of new ideas was suddenly poured in upon their minds, one of which was the equality of all before God and of a Saviour for all alike. There was neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc., now. And it dawned on the woman that she was neither mans toy nor slave, but that she had a life to frame for herself. She was not dependent on men for her Christian privileges; ought she not to show this by laying aside the veil, which was the acknowledged badge of dependence?

2. Among the Greeks it was the universal custom for the women to appear in public with the head covered, commonly with the corner of their shawl drawn over their head like a hood. It was the one significant rite in marriage that she assumed the veil in token that now her husband was her head. This covering could be dispensed with only in places where they were secluded from public view. It was therefore the badge which proclaimed that she who wore it was a private, not a public, person, finding her duties at home, not abroad. It was the mans place to serve the State or the public, the womans place to serve the man.

II. This movement of the Corinthian women Paul meets by reminding them that personal equality is perfectly consistent with social subordination. The woman must not argue that because she is independent of her husband in the greater sphere she must also be independent of him in the less (1Co 11:3). This principle is of incalculable importance and very wide and constant application.

1. Whatever is meant by the natural equality of men, it cannot mean that none are to have authority over others. In order to the harmony of society there is a gradation of ranks; and social grievances result, not from the existence of social distinctions, but from their abuse. This gradation, then, involves Pauls inference (1Co 11:4-5). The veil being the recognised badge of subordination, when a man appears veiled he would seem to acknowledge some one present and visible as his head, and would thus dishonour Christ, his true Head. A woman, on the other hand, appearing unveiled would seem to say that she acknowledges no visible human head, and thereby dishonours her head–i.e., her husband–and so doing, dishonours herself. She puts herself on the level of the woman with a shaven head, which both among Jews and Greeks was a brand of disgrace.

2. This subordination has its roots in nature (1Co 11:7-8).

(1) Man is the glory of God because he is His image and is fitted to exhibit in actual life the excellences which make God worthy of our love and worship. But while man directly, woman indirectly, fulfils this purpose of God. She is Gods glory by being mans glory. She exhibits Gods excellences by creating and cherishing excellence in man (1Co 11:8-9). The position assigned to woman as the glory of man is therefore far removed from the view which cyclically proclaims her mans mere convenience.

(2) That this is womans normal sphere is indicated even by her unalterable physical characteristics. By nature woman is endowed with a symbol of modesty and retirement. The veil is merely the artificial continuation of her natural gift of hair. The long hair of the Greek fop or of the English cavalier was accepted by the people as an indication of effeminate and luxurious living. And nature, speaking through this visible sign of the womans hair, tells her that her place is in the home, not in the city or the camp; in the attitude of free and loving subordination, not in the seat of authority and rule. In other respects also the physical constitution of woman points to a similar conclusion–e.g., her shorter stature and slighter frame, her higher pitch of voice, her more graceful form and movement. And similar indications are found in her mental peculiarities. She has the gifts which fit her for influencing individuals; man has those qualities which enable him to deal with persons in the mass. Not all women, of course, are of the distinctively womanly type. A Britomarte may arm herself and overthrow the strongest knights. A Joan of Arc may infuse into a nation her own warlike and patriotic ardour. In art, in literature, in science, feminine names may occupy some of the highest places. In our own day many careers have been opened to women from which they had hitherto been debarred. Conclusion: A woman is a woman still though she become a Christian; a subject must honour his king although by becoming a Christian he is himself in one aspect above all authority; a servant will show his Christianity, not by assuming an insolent familiarity with his Christian master, but by treating him with respectful fidelity. It forms a great part of our duty to accept our own place without envying others, and to do honour to those to whom honour is due. (M. Dods, D.D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 3. The head of every man is Christ] The apostle is speaking particularly of Christianity and its ordinances: Christ is the Head or Author of this religion; and is the creator, preserver, and Lord of every man. The man also is the lord or head of the woman; and the Head or Lord of Christ, as Mediator between God and man, is God the Father. Here is the order-God sends his Son Jesus Christ to redeem man; Christ comes and lays down his life for the world; every man who receives Christianity confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father; and every believing woman will acknowledge, according to Ge 3:16, that God has placed her in a dependence on and subjection to the man. So far there is no difficulty in this passage.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The abuse which the apostle is reflecting upon in this and the following verses, is womens praying or prophesying with their heads uncovered, against which the apostle strongly argues. His argument seems to be this: That the woman in religious services ought to behave herself as a person in subjection to her husband, and accordingly to use such a gesture, as, according to the guise and custom of that country, testified such a subjection; to this purpose he tells us in this verse,

that the head of every man is Christ. Christ, considered as God according to his Divine nature, is the Head of all men and women too in the world; but the text seemeth rather to speak of Christ as Mediator: so the apostle tells us, Eph 5:23, he is

the Head of the church; and the New Testament often speaks of Christ in that notion, and of believers as his members: in this sense, by every man, we must understand no more than every Christian, every member of the church.

The head of the woman is the man; the man is called the head of the woman, because by Gods ordinance he is to rule over her, Gen 3:16; he hath an excellency above the woman, and a power over her.

The head of Christ is God; and God is the Head of Christ, not in respect of his essence and Divine nature, but in respect of his office as Mediator; as the man is the head of the woman, not in respect of a different and more excellent essence and nature, (for they are both of the same nature), but in respect of office and place, as God hath set him over the woman. Nor indeed could those who deny the Divine nature of Christ, easily have brought a text more against their own assertion, than this, which rather proveth, that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are equal in nature and essence, than different; for surely the head is not of a different, but the same nature and essence with the members. Nor doth Christs subjection to his Father at all argue an inequality, or difference from him in nature and essence, more than the subjection of subjects to a prince argue any such thing. The apostle then determines this to be the order which God hath set: God is the Head of Christ; Christ is the Head of his church, and every one that is a member of it; and man is the head of the woman, he to whom the woman ought to be subject. as the church is subject to Christ, and Christ is subject to his Father; and from hence he argues as follows.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3. The Corinthian women, on theground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimedequality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds ofpropriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customaryhead-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women fromthe degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East.Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standingin grace (Ga 3:28), theirsubjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness,is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as todress: in 1Co 14:34, asto the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. Hegrounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in theorder of creation.

the headan appropriateexpression, when he is about to treat of woman’s appropriateheaddress in public.

of every man . . . Christ(Eph 5:23).

of . . . woman . . . man(1Co 11:8; Gen 3:16;1Ti 2:11; 1Ti 2:12;1Pe 3:1; 1Pe 3:5;1Pe 3:6).

head of Christ is God(1Co 3:23; 1Co 15:27;1Co 15:28; Luk 3:22;Luk 3:38; Joh 14:28;Joh 20:17; Eph 3:9).”Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for,since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of thesame essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it followsthe Son is of the same essence as the Father” [CHRYSOSTOM].”The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by theman; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essenceof the Father” [THEODORET,t. 3, p. 171].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

But I would have you to know,…. Though they were mindful of him, and retained in memory many things he had declared among them, and kept the ordinances as delivered to them; yet there were some things in which they were either ignorant, or at least did not so well advert to, and needed to be put in mind of, and better informed about: and as the apostle was very communicative of his knowledge in every point, he fails not to acquaint them with whatsoever might be instructive to their faith, and a direction to their practice:

that the head of every man is Christ; Christ is the head of every individual human nature, as he is the Creator and Preserver of all men, and the donor of all the gifts of nature to them; of the light of nature, of reason, and of all the rational powers and faculties; he is the head of nature to all men, as he is of grace to his own people: and so he is as the Governor of all the nations of the earth, who whether they will or no are subject to him; and one day every knee shall bow to him, and every tongue confess that he is the Lord of all. Moreover, Christ is the head of every believing man; he is generally said to be the head of the church, and so of every man that is a member of it: he is a common public head, a representative one to all his elect; so he was in election, and in the covenant of grace; so he was in time, in his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to, and entrance into heaven; and so he is now as an advocate and intercessor there: he is the political head of his people, or an head in such sense, as a king is the head of his nation: he is also an economical head, or in such sense an head as an husband is the head of his wife, and as a parent is the head of his family, and as a master is the head of his servants; for all these relations Christ sustains: yea, he is a natural head, or is that to his church, as an human head is to an human body: he is a true and proper head, is of the same nature with his body, is in union to it, communicates life to it, is superior to it, and more excellent than it. He is a perfect head, nothing is wanting in him; he knows all his people, and is sensible of their wants, and does supply them; his eye of love is always on them; his ears are open to their cries; he has a tongue to speak to them, and for them, which he uses; and he smells a sweet savour in them, in their graces and garments, though they are all his own, and perfumed by himself: there are no vicious humours in this head, flowing from thence to the body to its detriment, as from Adam to his posterity, whose head he was; but in Christ is no sin, nothing but grace, righteousness, and holiness, spring from him. There’s no deformity nor deficiency in him; all fulness of grace dwells in him to supply the members of his body; he is an one, and only head, and an ever living and everlasting one.

And the head of the woman is the man, The man is first in order in being, was first formed, and the woman out of him, who was made for him, and not he for the woman, and therefore must be head and chief; as he is also with respect to his superior gifts and excellencies, as strength of body, and endowments of mind, whence the woman is called the weaker vessel; likewise with regard to pre-eminence or government, the man is the head; and as Christ is the head of the church, and the church is subject to him, so the husband is the head of the wife, and she is to be subject to him in everything natural, civil, and religious. Moreover, the man is the head of the woman to provide and care for her, to nourish and cherish her, and to protect and defend her against all insults and injuries.

And the head of Christ is God; that is, the Father, not as to his divine nature, for in respect to that they are one: Christ, as God, is equal to his Father, and is possessed of the same divine perfections with him; nor is his Father the head of him, in that sense; but as to his human nature, which he formed, prepared, anointed, upheld, and glorified; and in which nature Christ exercised grace on him, he hoped in him, he believed and trusted in him, and loved him, and yielded obedience to him; he always did the things that pleased him in life; he prayed to him; he was obedient to him, even unto death, and committed his soul or spirit into his hands: and all this he did as to his superior, considered in the human nature, and also in his office capacity as Mediator, who as such was his servant; and whose service he diligently and faithfully performed, and had the character from him of a righteous one; so that God is the head of Christ, as he is man and Mediator, and as such only.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

But I would have you know ( ). But I wish you to know, censure in contrast to the praise in verse 2.

The head of Christ is God ( ). Rather, God is the head of Christ, since is anarthrous and predicate.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “But I would have you know.” (thelo de humas eidenai) “Moreover I wish (earnestly) you all to recognize or perceive.” In addition to Paul’s desire that the Corinth brethren hold fast those doctrines and practices which he delivered to them, he had an earnest care that they also comprehend the following.

2) “That the head of every man is Christ.” (hoti pantis andros he kephale christou estin) “That the head of every man is Christ.” The term “head” refers to Jesus Christ as the source of authority for every man’s actions – Each child of God, each man is first responsible to Him, Col 3:17; Php_3:9-11.

3) “And the head of the woman is the man.” (kephale de gunaikos ho aner) “And (the) head of a woman the man (is).” The man (husband) is declared to be the head of a woman (in the sense of one who is his wife). Eph 5:22-23; Col 1:18; 1Pe 3:1; 1Pe 3:5. She is to be subject to him in matters relating to this life, Gen 3:16.

4) “And the head of Christ is God.” (kepale de tou christou ho theos) “Moreover the head of Christ is God.” God is over all. He is head of all, even Jesus Christ, who came to do His Father’s will, not to please Himself; Joh 4:34. So should every husband and every wife, each in positions of divine order, as comprehended or declared by Paul.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

3. But I would have you know It is an old proverb: “Evil manners beget good laws.” (618) As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. (619) 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, (Gal 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 (620) 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, (621) and He in whose name it is consecrated.

(618) Matthew Henry makes use of this proverb in his Commentary, when summing up the contents of Luk 15:0. — Ed.

(619) “ N’en auoit rien touche es enseignemens qu’il auoit donnez;” — “Had not touched upon it at all in the instructions which he had given.”

(620) “ Les qualites externes;” “External qualities.”

(621) “ Autheur et conducteur;” — “Author and conductor.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

Butlers Comments

SECTION 2

Order, a Requirement for Godly Worship (1Co. 11:3-16)

3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her headit is the same as if her head were shaven. 6For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8(For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 11(Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13Judge for yourselves is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

1Co. 11:3 The Issue: The eleventh chapter of this letter very evidently deals with problems reported to the apostle Paul about public worship in the Corinthian congregational assemblies. Actually, chapters 12, 13 and 14 also deal with the problem of disorderly worship. But, since these chapters treat problems distinctly different than those of chapter 11, we will treat them separately.

The Hebrew word shakhah is the most usual word translated worship in the Old Testament. It means, literally, to bow down, to prostrate oneself. The Greek word in the New Testament most often translated worship is the word proskuneo and also means, to bow down, to prostrate oneself, and to do obeisance. The English word worship is a contraction of the early English word worthship. The old English worthship gives us an exact idea of what our modern word worship means. The one to whom we give worship must be worthy of absolute homage, honor, reverence and obedience.

Worship is essentially an attitude instead of an act! First, the performance of certain rituals of worship without the proper attitude is condemned by the Scriptures as an abomination before God. On the other hand, a false emotion that discounts as irrelevant clear commands about definite acts of worship betrays a disobedient attitude and makes a mockery of worship.

Attitude in worship is the fundamental issue Paul deals with in chapter eleven. It is the issue of obedience to the revealed will of God as spoken and written by the apostles. The problem has manifested itself by two symptomatic actions in the public worship of the Corinthians; they are (1) the man-woman relationship; (2) the Christian-brother relationship.

In worship the outward man is bound up in the inward man. Worship is an outward act or acts springing from, and under the control of, inward attitudes and impulses of love and obedience. It is said, To worship God is to make Him the supreme object of our esteem and delight, both in public, private and secret. It is apparent from chapters eleven through fourteen, the primary problem of the worship of the Corinthian church was that it was directed toward themselves. They were so interested in calling attention to themselves and to their supposed superiorities over others, they were not making God the supreme object of their esteem. The key verse to this huge context of four chapters (1Co. 11:11-14) is probably, For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodyJews or Greeks, slaves or freeand all were made to drink of one Spirit (1Co. 12:13).

While it is true regarding salvation and grace that men and women are of equal worth to God, it is also true that God has ordered certain hierarchies of authority within this world and his kingdom so long as it is in the world. In the church there are elders, evangelists and deacons to lead and shepherd the congregation. In the home the husband is the authoritative head. Evidently some of the Corinthian women misunderstood the teaching, In Christ there is neither male nor female . . . (Gal. 3:28). Some of them had cast off the cultural modes of ancient dress which particularly stressed and emphasized their femininity, hence their subordination to their husbands. While the primary focus of the apostles discussion is on womans subordination to man, the issue is not simply a wifes obedience to her husbands loving authority. It is much broader than that and covers attitudes of all women and menmarried or unmarried. The broader issue is that women (and men too) must not rebel against the divine order of femininity and masculinity!

Paul discusses the divine order by declaring that the head of every male person (Greek andros instead of anthropos) is Christ. No man should wear a sign of subordination to other men when he prays (or worships). There is only one mediator between man and God, himself man, Jesus Christ (1Ti. 2:5). In the same divine order, the head of a female person is a male person. This does not deny that Christ is the head of the woman also, nor does it mean that a female person is inferior or of less importance than the male. Paul is reinforcing Gods order as it was ordained from the beginning (Gen. 2:18) when the woman was created as a helper for man. The divine order of masculinity and femininity involves differing functions which require hierarchies of authority. Man functions as leader, protector, provider; woman functions as mother, helper, supporter. This in no way means one is superior and the other inferior. It does not mean that the male person makes all the decisions arbitrarily and without consulting the wisdom of the female person. But Pauls teaching (in harmony with the rest of scripture) does mean that the husband is the final authority and the leader in the home.

1Co. 11:4-12 The Illustration: Lenski says the general custom among Greeks was that slaves should cover their heads while free men went bareheaded. If a man wore a covering over his head in Pauls day it signified he was acknowledging final loyalty to a human being. It is wrong for a man to dishonor his masculinity in any way. God made man masculine. God made man to lead and be the final authority in the human order. On the other hand, the general custom among Greeks was that women, who desired the honor and protection femininity afforded them, wore veils in the public presence of men. Some of the Corinthian Christian women were apparently praying and attending public worship without being veiled. They were declaring their rejection of the divine order of human hierarchy by casting aside the first century symbols of this divine order.

In Pauls day the veil worn by women probably covered the whole head with openings for the eyes and reached clear down to the feet. No respectable woman would go without a veil in public for if she did she would be in danger of being misjudged. The womans veil in those days was an important part of feminine dignity and gave her security and protection. Sir William Ramsay explains: In Oriental lands the veil is the power and honor and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen and therefore not subject to male familiarities and crudities. It is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to become familiar with a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd. . . . But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom anyone may insult. . . . A womans authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards.
The veil was the womans badge of honor and respect. It showed that she had a definite place as a person in Gods order. Woman was not created to be simply a thing or an object to be exploited by any and all men. She is to be honored, protected, cherished, loved, served, and led by her husband because she is a female.
Any man who prayed or prophesied with his head covered dishonored Christ (his head). A man worshiping in those days with his head covered symbolized he acknowledged some other human authority before Christ. The male Christian who worshiped with uncovered head signified he was accountable only to Christ. But the woman who prayed or prophesied with her head unveiled dishonored her husband (her head). She would dishonor her husband unveiled just as if she had her head shaved. Shaving of the head in ancient times (as even now in most cultures) was a sign of disgraceful and shameful conduct. At the end of World War II, those French women who had fraternized with Nazi soldiers were caught and their heads were shaved in public. Any woman in the civilized world of the apostle Paul, Greek, Roman, Jew or Syrian, would have felt terribly ashamed to have had her head shaved. Since that was the case, says Paul, the women of Corinth should have covered their heads in publicespecially in the worship services of the church. For the Christian woman of Corinth to go with her head uncovered was to act the part of a shamed woman whether she was one or not. And that, in turn, brought shame upon her husband, and upon the church.

In 1Co. 11:7 through 1Co. 11:9 Paul gives us clear scriptural proof of the divinely ordained human hierarchy. Woman was made from man, not man from woman. Man was made first and then the woman was made from his body (see Gen. 2:21-22). Man is first in the divine order. Furthermore, woman was made for man, not man for woman (see Gen. 2:18). Man is first in divine purpose. Both the origin of woman and the reason for her being is found in man. There is no room for human speculations or rationalizations when we have both the creation account and the apostolic reiteration. No matter how much political and philosophical rhetoric and no matter how practical and appropriate it may sound when some activists demand that females have, not only the right, but the obligation to reject the customary, biblically-taught, function of femininity, and step into the world of maleness and function as any man, it is clearly not the revealed will of God! The Greek text of 1Co. 11:10 reads, dia touto opheilei he gune exousian exein epi tes kephales dia tous angelous. Translated, literally, On account of this, she ought, the woman, authority, to be having, upon the head, on account of the angels. The New American Standard Version translates this sentence, Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. The NASV has supplied the words, a symbol of since they are not in the Greek text. The New International Version supplies the same words. The Revised Standard Version supplies, a veil where there are no words in the Greek text. These versions are supplying words to give the sentence the usual interpretation.

This interpretation is the usual one, but some commentators have differed. They have taken authority as referring to the womans authority over her own natural head. There is justification for this interpretation in the Greek words (i.e., authority upon). This combination of words is found three times in the book of Revelation with the meaning have control of (Rev. 11:6, over the waters; Rev. 14:18, over fire; Rev. 20:6; over such, meaning the saints). In each case the combination of authority plus the preposition (Greek, epi) is the same. If this translation is taken, it is possible that the expression means that the woman should maintain control over her head so that it would not expose her to indignity. The womans veil then became her willing subjection to her husband, her refusal to expose herself to others. However, the ultimate significance of the two interpretations is the same. Willing subjection to her husbands authority was a recognition of that authority, and this is the meaning of the clause. Even so, it would seem that the usual interpretation has the best claim to validity (Fred Fisher, op. cit., p. 177).

We are not so sure the words a symbol of or a veil should be supplied here. We are sure the woman (and the man) should acknowledge that she is to be having authority upon the head. There are women today who have all the symbols (hats, dresses, cosmetics) of womanhood but verbally and vehemently declare their rejection of the subordination of femaleness to maleness in the divine order of creation. It is more than a mere sign of authority the woman is to put on. She is to be mentally, emotionally and physically subordinate to the man. This does not degrade the woman! In subordinating herself to man she is actually taking her God-ordained place. She is filling the place of honor God created for her. Strange as it may seem to modern female activists, the womans place of dignity is in her femininity. By Gods word it is the womans right to have the protection, dignity and honor that she alone can have in femininity. If she forfeits her femininity, she forfeits her rights! That is diametrically opposite to much modern feminist philosophy.

The reference, on account of the angels . . . simply reinforces the idea that all Gods creatures have their place. The angels who left their assigned place in the created order of God forfeited their rights, dishonored God and themselves, and were cast into the abyss (cf. 2Pe. 2:4; Jud. 1:6).

Just because womans divinely ordered place is in subordination to man does not mean that man can exist independently of woman. For as the woman was made out of the man (Gr. ek tou andros), now the man is born through woman (Gr. dia tes gunaikos). Men and women are equally dependent upon one anotherbut each in their own God-ordered place!

1Co. 11:13-16 The Indictment: The woman must not arrogate to herself the mans place (pray with her head uncovered in cultures where it is a shameless usurpation of maleness to do so). The man is not to arrogantly defy God and take the womans place (wear long hair in cultures where it is not masculine to do so). Rebels and fanatics defy Gods created order; Christians obey it. It is unnatural and rebellious for men to wear their hair long like women. Nature itself shows that man, being short-haired, is intended by the God of nature to be unveiled; woman, being long-haired, is intended by the same God to be veiled. Generally speaking, in the more refined and advanced civilizations, men have always worn their hair short and women have worn theirs long. Plummer writes in the International Critical Commentary on I Corinthians, At this period, civilized men, whether Jews, Greeks, or Romans, wore their hair short (p. 235).

The long hair of the Greek fop or of the English cavalier was accepted by the people as an indication of effeminate and luxurious living. Suitable for women; it is unsuitable for men. (The Expositors Greek New Testament, 1Co. 11:14). Homers warriors, it is true, wore long hair, a fashion retained at Sparta, but the Athenian youth cropped his head at eighteen, and it was a mark of foppery or effeminacy except for the aristocratic knights to let the hair afterwards grow long. This feeling prevailed in ancient times as it does in modern times. (Expositors Greek New Testament, 1Co. 11:14).

According to Philip Vollmers Modern Students Life of Christ, archaeologists object to the conventional pictures of Christ with long hair because they are not true to history. A German painter, L. Fahremkrog, says Christ certainly never wore a beard and his hair was beyond doubt closely cut. For this we have historical, archaeological proofs. The oldest representations, going back to the first Christian centuries, and found chiefly in the catacombs of Rome, all picture Christ without a beard. All the pictures of Christ down to the beginning of the fourth century at least, and even later, are like this. The further fact that Christ must have, in his day, worn short hair can be proved by the scripture. Among the Jews none but the Nazarites wore long hair. Christ was indeed a Nazarene, but not a Nazarite. Then, like the rest of the Jews, he wore his hair short. Further evidence is furnished by Paul here in 1Co. 11:14, where he expressly declares that it is a dishonor for a man to wear his hair without having it cut, something that no apostle would have said had his Master worn it thus. One thing Jesus did not do was dress in such a bizarre way as to attract undue attention to himself. He was so much a conformist in his appearance, apparently, the soldiers had to ask which one he was when they went to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane!

Some have tried to equivocate over this passage about the prohibition of long hair on a man. They ask, How long is long? or, How long should a womans hair be? The point of this discussion is that the man is not to have what the woman is to have. Actually, the expression long hair in 1Co. 11:14-15 is from the Greek word komao which means let the hair grow. The idea of length is not one of relativity here. It is not how long some womans hair is in proportion to how short some mans hair is. Every man or woman with respect to their hair falls into one of two categories. Their hair is either natural length or it is not natural length. We either let our hair grow or we do not let it grow. We either cut it or we do not cut it. Pauls instruction might be translated, If a man let his hair grow, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman let her hair grow, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The Greek word translated nature is phusis and could be translated, instinctively. Instinctively, creation expects men to have short hair and women long hair. It is disgraceful in a man to be like a woman, and in a woman to be like a man.

God expects those who trust him to keep the distinctions between maleness and femaleness, both outwardly and inwardly, clear and unequivocal. Deliberate effeminacy in men and masculinity in women has always been an abomination to God. Israelite men were not to wear womens clothing, nor were women to wear mens clothing (Deu. 22:5). Homosexual behavior was a sin punishable by death in the Old Testament (Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13; Deu. 23:17-18). Effeminacy is prohibited in the New Testament (1Co. 6:9-10) along with homosexuality by either male or female (Rom. 1:24-27).

Many of the heathen poets and philosophers of the Greek and Roman civilizations considered long hair in men a mark of effeminacy. Livy, Roman poet and historian, spoke strongly against the effeminacy of his age. Juvenal, disgusted by the sexual excesses and perversions of his day, spoke loathingly of the dandies whose manners, perfumes, and desire make them indistinguishable from women; and by the women who think that emancipation means that they should be indistinguishable from men.

In Zep. 1:8 God said that he would punish the officials and the kings sons and all who array themselves in foreign attire. It has been thoroughly documented that the world-wide mania for long hair on men and hierarchical equality of women with men is fundamentally a rebellion against the divinely created and revealed order of God for the human race. When Gods people, by their modes of dress, indicate they are more in harmony with the foreign (heathen) culture than they are with Gods standards, it is time to apply the teachings of the apostle here in this eleventh chapter.

Notice the words used by the apostle in this context: dishonors, disgraceful, improper, is it proper? and degrading. For women (or men) to rebel against the place God has decreed for femininity or masculinity is serious sin. One cannot give acceptable worship to God in such rebellion. We repeat, the place God has ordered for femininity and masculinity is the basis of Pauls instruction here. Man praying with his head covered, dishonors his masculinity which is from God; woman praying with her head uncovered, dishonors her femininity which is from God. Mans dignity, or place, is to lead in society, to protect the weaker sex (female), to provide for the basic unit of society (the family) and to discipline. Womans dignity is to be a mother, to be a helper in many things (see Pro. 31:1-31); to give sexual intimacy to her husband (see 1Co. 7:1-40), to help rear children (Eph. 6:1-4)in essence, womans dignity is to be feminine!

The apostle is not here advocating a dictatorship of the husband over the wife. In fact, as some see it, the husband as dictator and tyrant, and the wife as some non-thinking, non-speaking, non-human slave is not taught in the Bible at all. Many womenmarried women, tooin the Bible made decisions, spoke as individuals, and made crucial contributions to history. What the Bible does teach is that man has certain functions and woman has certain functionsneither is to replace the other. There are things women are not supposed to do and things men are not supposed to do (see Luk. 8:1-3; Act. 9:36; Act. 18:24-28; Act. 21:19; Rom. 1:1-16; 1Ti. 2:12-14; 1Ti. 5:9-16; Tit. 2:3-5).

In 1Co. 11:16 Paul makes the matter of subverting masculinity and femininity as God has revealed it, a matter of disobedience to apostolic practice and that is disobedience to God. Paul does not mean by 1Co. 11:16, If anyone objects or wants to argue against what I have said, just forget about it because I didnt mean it anyway. Paul is saying that if any man, after this clear statement from me, is disposed to dispute the divine order of masculinity and femininity, and appears to be contentious, we simply say that we (the apostles) disapprove of the disordering of the places of male and female, and so do the churches of God. With any person who would dispute Pauls instruction here, argument is useless. Authority is the only solution to the controversy. Apostolic authority is unquestionable. And no man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds to reject the accepted and practiced customs of the local congregation of believers, (see I Cor. ch. 810).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(3) But I would have you know.After the general commendation in the previous verse, the reproof for neglecting, or desiring to neglect, his precepts in one particular case, is thus introduced. The subject treated of, viz., the uncovering of their heads by women in assemblies for worship, was of ephemeral moment, and as we all now would regard it, of trivial importance. Every circumstance, however, which could in the least degree cause the principles of Christianity to be perverted or misunderstood by the heathen world was of vital importance in those early days of the Church, and hence we find the Apostle, who most fearlessly taught the principles of Christian liberty, condemning most earnestly every application of those principles which might be detrimental to the best interests of the Christian faith. To feel bound to assert your liberty in every detail of social and political life is to cease to be freethe very liberty becomes a bondage.

The head of every man is Christ.The Apostle does not merely treat of the outward practice on which his advice has been sought, but proceeds to lay down the principles which are opposed to the principle of that absolute and essential equality, which, found its expression and assertion in the practice of women uncovering their heads in public assemblies.

The allusion here is not to Christ as the Head of the whole human race and of all things (as in Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:16; Col. 2:10), but as the Head of the Body, the Christian Church: and this thought introduces the general argument regarding the practical subordination of woman, by reminding the Corinthians that though there is in the Church a perfect spiritual equality (as taught in Gal. 3:28), yet that it is an equality which is of order and not of disorderthat it is an equality which can only be preserved by remembering that each is not an isolated irresponsible atom, but a part of an organic whole. There is a Head to the Church, therefore it is not a machine composed of various parts, but a body consisting of various members. As there is a subordination of the whole body to Christ, so there is in that body a subordination of woman to man. The last clause, the Head of Christ is God, gives (as is St. Pauls custom, see 1Co. 3:23; 1Co. 8:6; 1Co. 15:25) completeness to the thought. As the Head of the Churchi.e., as the man Christ JesusChrist is subordinate to the Father, and, indeed, perhaps the idea is carried farther into the mystery of the divine nature itself, as consisting of three Persons co-eternal and co-equal, yet being designated with an unvarying sequence as first, and second, and third.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

3. Head of every man Of every Christian, says Grotius. Yet in the redemption Christ has a headship of the race. See notes on Rom 5:12-21. Here, however, as a harmonious ruling and obeyed headship is implied, Grotius’s limitation is correct. Of every man, by Paul addressed, the Head was Christ.

The headship of our Lord over the Christian man is a headship of divine authority, in which, however, when complete and perfect, the authority merges into a blessed spontaneity and concurrence of wills. Such is the apostle’s view of marriage, of which the union of Christ and his Church is the type. A divinely-constituted headship similarly belongs to the husband in the family; but the true idea of the family is a unity of love, in which the command is the expression of the common happiness, and obedience is a loving concurrence of wills. If the realization of the idea is seldom complete, that is true of all sublunary constitutions, arising from the jars of sin.

The man That to the masculine side of humanity (as of all other living races of beings) belongs the force, the executive endowment, and the consequent headship, is plain to every eye that looks at male and female through all animated nature as they are created. It is shown in every quality of their respective human frames. Size of brain and body; strength of bone, fibre, and nerve; tendencies of instinct, feeling, and will; all proclaim that man should bear the brunt of the battle of life, and, therefore, must plan the campaign and order the particular manoeuvres. To talk of equality here contradicts God and nature. It is one of “the rights of woman,” as it is one of the instincts, to retire to the rear of the fight, and live under the protection of a stronger arm than her own. It is one of her “rights” to lean on that arm for aid, and to look to that head to plan for her well-being.

And to this it is the noblest instinct of man that responds. It is the thought of wife and children, rather than thought of self, that prompts the soldier to the fiercest bravery, or the labourer to his cruelest toil. He can bear any thing; but how subject the tender ones at home to hardship, disgrace, or disgusts. To win for her at home honour, ornament, and happiness, is the crown of his own enjoyments. The whole history of civilization shows that the robust thought and toil are man’s. The pyramids, the temples, the capitoliums, the city walls and towers, the aqueducts and bridges, the railways and telegraphs, are all the products of man’s hand and brain. The battles by him are fought, and by consequence to him belong (save in exceptional instances) the diplomacies, the senates, the cabinets, and the executive chairs. In short, to man belongs, by nature and by God, the national as well as the domestic rule. If in a free government woman should ever possess the right of suffrage, it would be (like her consent or her veto in accepting or rejecting an offered husband) rather the particular right to choose her ruler than a power to rule.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘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.’

But he is dissatisfied about their attitude towards authority, and especially of that of the women towards the men who are over the church, and possibly at their actual behaviour when prophesying. They were failing to recognise God’s order of things revealed at creation. He thus lays down regulations concerning women being ‘covered’. As he will make clear this is not just a matter of religious custom. Their very failure is symptomatic of what is wrong in the Corinthian church, the lack of recognition of general authority.

He first establishes the doctrinal position. The Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of the woman, and the head of Christ is God. The last phrase establishes the basis of what we are talking about. In creation there is a defined order. Over all is the triune God. ‘The Christ’ came from God, emptying Himself of His Godhood and of His equality within the Godhead (Php 2:5-7), and fulfilling the task of redemption allocated to Him as true Man. He made a voluntary submission, and gladly took a subsidiary role. Becoming Man it was as Man that He acknowledged God as His Head, both as ‘over Him’ and as the source from which He came, so that having accomplished His divine mission He might then return to God and submit all things to Him (1Co 15:24). Thus Christ voluntarily placed Himself in a position of submission. He Who was the Creator of the world, chose to place Himself in submission to the Godhead, so that the Godhead was the ‘Head’ of Christ in this regard. That is, God is the One Who is set over Christ in His manhood and mission, and Who is the source from which He came. And Christ deliberately humbled Himself to that end, acknowledging a head over Him in His role.

The mention of this relationship is important both in itself and because it defines the other relationships. Christ was in voluntary and joyous submission to God. He sought only to do what pleased Him. There was no thought of constraint or of being taken advantage of. God did not lord it over Christ. Christ did not resent His position in any way. He had voluntarily become man and a servant and He gladly walked the way of submission that He had chosen. It was submission to love, and in love, not to tyranny.

Then, secondly, Christ is the Head of every man. As appointed by God to His task He is in authority over all men as the King over the Kingly Rule of God, and is the source of their life. All therefore are in submission to Him, and owe all to Him. He is both their ruler and the source of their life, their Head, and as such is the One to whom they should respond in obedience. But He expressed that headship in washing their feet. His whole concern in every moment of His life was for the good of those who were in submission to Him. While He could simply have demanded all, He gave all.

Then, thirdly, we have man as the image of God over creation, and therefore over woman who was created for his benefit, assistance and blessing. Man is head of womankind and lord of creation. His wife should be in responsive submission to him as his ‘right hand woman’, as Christ was to God, set apart as his main helpmeet in his task, living in voluntary submission following the example of Christ. This is confirmed by the fact that at creation man was the source of her being and had authority over her. She came from his side and is his helpmeet and his first minister, to whom he looks for assistance in fulfilling his own responsibilities before God. The whole line downwards demonstrates that this was not in order to make him a tyrannical despot, for God is not the tyrannical despot of Christ, and Christ is not the tyrannical despot of man. So, in the same way, man is not to be the tyrannical despot of the woman. She contains his life. She produces life, producing both man and woman from her body. The relationship is to be one of love, consideration, co-operation and thoughtfulness. The man is to be concerned for the woman and seeking her highest good. Nevertheless respectful submission remains at the differing levels and was to be seen in the case of man and woman as established at creation.

The use of ‘head’ (kephale) to depict both lordship and life source was necessary in order to incorporate both ideas. No other word would have achieved the same. Compare Col 1:18.

So here we have depicted God’s plan of salvation in its fullness beginning with God Who produced His deputy, the God-man Christ, the great Mediator, Who produced His deputy man and gave man his deputy, woman. These are over all creation and the grades of descent are clear.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The woman’s veil:

v. 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.

v. 4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

v. 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

v. 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.

The apostle here qualifies the praise which he has just bestowed. He has heard that some women were speaking in the public services of the Corinthian congregation, and that bareheaded. So he proceeds to instruct them as to the impropriety of such conduct: But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, while the head of woman is man, but the head of Christ, God. This is the doctrinal basis for the practical instruction which he is about to give. The peculiar notion of Christian liberty which had gained ground in the congregation at Corinth manifested itself also in this, that the women departed from the custom prevailing in the East, according to which they were obliged to wear veils in public. Christ is every man’s Head; the man holds the position, especially in worship and in his family, with no visible superior, holding headship from, and directly responsible only to, Christ. For that reason the man is the head of the woman, the latter occupying a position of subordination to him, a fact which by no means implies inferiority, but merely a relation fixed by God’s order. Woman, in her relation to her husband, if she is a wife, or with regard to her activity in public worship, has her support, her destiny, and her dignity in man. And that this status is by no means derogatory to her intellect, ability, or moral character is shown by the fact that, in the parallel clause, God is called the Head of the exalted Christ. In this case there is absolute essential equality, and yet Christ’s perfect obedience to the Father consents to a submission in office. See chap. 15:28; Gal 4:4; Heb 5:5-8.

An inference from this doctrine: Every man praying or prophesying, while engaged in this act of worship, wearing a veil down from the head, puts to shame, disgraces, his head. If a man speaks or leads in public worship and has his head veiled or covered, he dishonors his head, because he has only Christ over him and, his conduct subordinating him to the dependent wife, it brings disgrace upon Christ. On the other hand: But every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled disgraces her head, for she is one and the same thing, she is on a level with her that is shaven. While women were not teachers in the congregation, chap. 14:34; 1Ti 2:12, they were not excluded from the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, Joe 2:28-29; Act 2:17-18; Act 21:9. It might, therefore, also happen that they prayed or prophesied in a public meeting, without thereby assuming the leadership. If, in a case of that kind, a woman threw back the veil which covered her face and thus stood with her head uncovered, she put to shame her own head, the dishonor done to the dominant sex falling upon herself. She placed herself upon a level with the free, loose women heterae who were so numerous in the Greek cities. It follows, then, that a woman who insists upon going unveiled might just as well keep her head close-cropped, thus placing herself altogether on a level with slave-women and others whose close-cropped head proclaimed their vocation to all the world. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to be close-cropped or shaved, let her be veiled; that is, if a woman prefers a bare head, she should be shaved. But since womanly feeling would object to the latter, the same argument holds in the case of the former, since the like shame attaches to both. Physical bare-facedness led people to make inferences as to the morals of a woman, especially in a city like Corinth; and it was self-evident for a Christian woman to avoid even the appearance of evil.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

1Co 11:3. And the head of Christ is God When God is said to be the head of Christ, it relates to office constitution; and we can no more infer thence, that they are not partakers of the same divine nature, than that man and woman are not of the same human nature, when the man is said to be the head of the woman: but as there is a difference in order and authority between the man and the woman; so there is between God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, in that constitution, by which he, in his office capacity, is both head and Lord of all.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 11:3 . “After this general acknowledgment, however, I have still to bid you lay to heart the following particular point.” And now, first of all, the principle of the succeeding admonition. Respecting , comp on 1Co 10:1 ; Col 2:1 .

.] note the prominent position of the word, as also the article before .: of every man the Head . That what is meant, however, is every Christian man, is self-evident from this first clause; consequently, Paul is not thinking of the general order of creation (Hofmann), according to which Christ is the head of all things (Col 1:16 f., 1Co 2:10 ), but of the organization of Christian fellowship, as it is based upon the work of redemption . Comp Eph 5:21 ff.

, from which we are not (with Hofmann) to dissociate the conception of an organized whole (this would suit in none of the passages where the word occurs, Col 2:10 included), designates in all the three cases here the proximate, immediate Head , which is to be specially noted in the second instance, for Christ as head of the church (Col 1:18 ; Eph 1:22 ; Eph 4:15 ) is also head of the woman (comp Eph 5:22 f.). The relation indicated by . is that of organic subordination , even in the last clause: He to whom Christ is subordinate is God (comp 1Co 3:23 , 1Co 15:28 , 1Co 8:6 ; Col 1:15 ; Rom 9:5 ; and see Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 208 ff.), where the dogmatic explanation resorted to, that Christ in His human nature only is meant (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, al [1757] ), is un-Pauline. Neither, again, is His voluntary subjection referred to (Billroth), but which is exactly what the argument demands, and what the two first clauses give us the objective and, notwithstanding His essential equality with God (Phi 2:6 ), necessary subordination of the Son to the Father in the divine economy of redemption. [1758] Much polemic discussion as to the misuse of this passage by the Arians and others may be found in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact.

Gal 3:28 , indeed, shows that the distinction of the sexes is done away in Christ (in the spiritual sphere of the Christian life); but this ideal equality of sex as little does away with the empirical subordination in marriage as with differences of rank in other earthly relations, e.g. of masters and servants.

. . ] The gradation of ranks rises up to the supreme Head over all , who is the Head of the man also, mediately, through Christ. This makes it all the more obvious that, on the one hand, the man who prays or speaks as a prophet before God in the assembly ought not to have his head covered, see 1Co 11:7 ; but that, on the other hand, the relation of the women under discussion is all the more widely to be distinguished from that of the men.

[1757] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1758] Melanchthon puts it well: “Deus est caput Christi, non de essentia dicitur, sed de ministeriis. Filius mediator accipit ministerium a consilio divinitatis, sicut saepe inquit: Pater misit me. Fit hic mentio non arcanae essentiae , sed ministerii .” Even the exalted and reigning Christ is engaged in this ministerium , and finally delivers up the kingdom to the Father. See 1Co 15:28 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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.

Ver. 3. The head of the woman is man ] Were it not an ill sight to see the shoulders above the head, the woman usurp authority over the man , 1Ti 2:12 . A prudent wife commands her husband by obeying, as did Livia.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

3. ] “It appears, that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for their sex an equality with the other, taking occasion by the doctrine of Christian freedom and abolition of sexual distinctions in Christ ( Gal 3:28 ). The gospel unquestionably did much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionian Greeks (not among the Dorians and the Romans) were kept in unworthy dependence. Still this was effected in a quiet and gradual manner; whereas in Corinth they seem to have taken up the cause of female independence somewhat too eagerly. The women over-stepped the bounds of their sex, in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved, as well their coming forward to pray and to prophesy, as their removing the veil: here however he blames the latter practice only, and reserves the former till ch. 1Co 14:34 . In order to confine the women to their true limits, he reminds them of their subjection to the man , to whom again he assigns his place in the spiritual order of creation, and traces this precedence up to God Himself.” De Wette.

] ‘of every Christian man’ (as Chrys., al., Meyer, De W.), certainly, and for such the Apostle was writing: but not only of every Christian man: the Headship of Christ is over all things to His Church, Eph 1:22 , and thus He is Head of every man . The word in each case means the head next above . This must be borne in mind, for Christ is THE HEAD of the Christian woman , as well as of the Christian man . God is the Head of Christ, not only according to His human Nature: the Son is, in his Sonship , necessarily subordinate to the Father : see ch. 1Co 3:23 , note, and ch. 1Co 15:28 . From , the order descends first: then, in order to complete the whole, ascends up to God.

Observe that though ( Gal 3:28 ) the distinction of the sexes is abolished in Christ, as far as the offer of and standing in grace is concerned, yet for practical purposes , and for order and seemliness , it subsists and must be observed .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 11:3 . (= . . . of 1Co 10:1 ; see note): “But I would have you know” the previous commendation throws into relief the coming censure. The indecorum in question offends against a foundation principle, viz ., that of subordination under the Divine government ; this the Cor [1598] , with all their knowledge, cannot “know,” or they would not have allowed their women to throw off the (1Co 11:10 ). The violated principle is thus stated: “Of every man the Christ is the head, while the man is head of woman, and God is head of Christ”. As to the wording of this sentence: bears emphasis in the 1st clause asserting, like the parl [1599] 2nd clause, a universal truth which holds of the man ( vir ) as such; the predicate of the 1st clause is distinguished by the def. art [1600] , “Christ is the (proper, essential) head,” etc. ( cf. , Eph 2:14 , and see Bm [1601] , pp. 124 f.); , in James , 3 rd clauses, means “the Christ” in the wide scope of His offices ( cf. 1Co 10:4 , 1Co 12:12 , 1Co 15:22 ); for anarthrous , cf. note on 1Co 2:5 . That Christ is “every man’s” true head is an application of the revealed truth that He is the “one Lord” of created nature (1Co 8:6 ; Col 1:15 f.), combined with the palpable fact that the has no (intervening) lord in creation ( cf. 9); he stands forth in worship, amidst his family, with no visible superior, holding headship direct from his Maker, and brought by his manhood into direct responsibility to Him “through whom are all things”. Ed [1602] , following Cm [1603] and Mr [1604] (not Hn [1605] ), limits this manly subordination to the Christian order of life; “the man is head of the woman in virtue of the marriage union, Christ of the man in virtue of union with Him through faith”: but faith is common to the sexes, on this footing (Gal 3:28 ); on the other hand, in Pauline theology, the law of marriage and the social order are grounded in Christ. Paul’s argument has no force unless the parl [1606] assertions rest on a common basis. The question is one that touches the fundamental proprieties of life (1Co 11:8-15 ); and the three headships enumerated belong to the hierarchy of nature. “The Christ” of the 3rd clause is “the Christ” of the 1st, without distinction made of natures or states; He who is “every man’s head,” the Lord of nature, presents the pattern of loyalty in His perfect obedience to the Father (1Co 15:28 , Gal 4:4 ; Heb 5:5 ; Heb 5:8 , etc.); cf. 1Co 3:22 f., where with the same a chain of subordinate possession is drawn out, corresponding to this subordination of rule . Submission in office, whether of woman to man or Christ to God, consists with equality of nature.

[1598] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1599] parallel.

[1600] grammatical article.

[1601] A. Buttmann’s Grammar of the N.T. Greek (Eng. Trans., 1873).

[1602] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians .

[1603] John Chrysostom’s Homili ( 407).

[1604] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1605] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1606] parallel.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

would. App-102.

have you = that you should.

know. App-132. Compare 1Co 10:1. In the rest of the verse are the Figures of speech Anaphora and Climax. App-6.

man. App-123.

woman. In this clause woman means wife, and man husband. Compare Eph 5:23.

God. App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

3.] It appears, that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for their sex an equality with the other, taking occasion by the doctrine of Christian freedom and abolition of sexual distinctions in Christ (Gal 3:28). The gospel unquestionably did much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionian Greeks (not among the Dorians and the Romans) were kept in unworthy dependence. Still this was effected in a quiet and gradual manner; whereas in Corinth they seem to have taken up the cause of female independence somewhat too eagerly. The women over-stepped the bounds of their sex, in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved,-as well their coming forward to pray and to prophesy, as their removing the veil: here however he blames the latter practice only, and reserves the former till ch. 1Co 14:34. In order to confine the women to their true limits, he reminds them of their subjection to the man, to whom again he assigns his place in the spiritual order of creation, and traces this precedence up to God Himself. De Wette.

] of every Christian man (as Chrys., al., Meyer, De W.), certainly,-and for such the Apostle was writing: but not only of every Christian man: the Headship of Christ is over all things to His Church, Eph 1:22, and thus He is Head of every man. The word in each case means the head next above. This must be borne in mind, for Christ is THE HEAD of the Christian woman, as well as of the Christian man. God is the Head of Christ, not only according to His human Nature: the Son is, in his Sonship, necessarily subordinate to the Father: see ch. 1Co 3:23, note, and ch. 1Co 15:28. From , the order descends first: then, in order to complete the whole, ascends up to God.

Observe that though (Gal 3:28) the distinction of the sexes is abolished in Christ, as far as the offer of and standing in grace is concerned, yet for practical purposes, and for order and seemliness, it subsists and must be observed.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 11:3. , but) On this subject Paul seems formerly to have given no commandment, but to have written now for the first time, when he understood that it was necessary. By the expression, I would, he openly professes his sentiments.-, that) Even matters of ceremony should be settled according to the principles of morality, so that they may agree with those principles. It may be said, How does one and the same reason in relation to the head (i.e. of Christ, or of the man) require the man to uncover his head, and the woman to cover hers? Ans. Christ is not seen; the man is seen; so the covering of him, who is under Christ is not seen; of her, who is under the man, is seen.-, , of the man, of the woman) although they do not live in the state of marriage, 1Co 11:8, and what follows.- , the head) This term alludes to the head properly so called, concerning the condition [the appropriate dress] of which he treats in the following verse. The common word, Principal,[90] is akin to this use of the term head. The article must be presently after twice supplied from this clause.- , the head of Christ) 1Co 3:23, 1Co 15:28; Luk 3:23; Luk 3:38; Joh 20:17; Eph 3:9, where God is said to have created all things by Christ, therefore He is the head of Christ.- , God) 1Co 11:12.

[90] This word is given as it is in the original. In this form, it is not Latin, but it is probably the German substantive, which signifies head.-T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 11:3

1Co 11:3

But I would have you know,–He turns now to properly direct the behavior of women in the worship and in their manner of appearing before God, and defines the relationship of man and woman.

that the head of every man is Christ;-Jesus Christ is the head of the man, and man cannot approach God save in subjection to his head, Christ.

and the head of the woman is the man;-Woman cannot approach God save in subjection to her head, man. The duties and bearing of women and men grow out of their respective relations to each other and to God. The same relationship of husband and wife is presented in another place in these words: Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. (Eph 5:22 -24). In the Lord is here implied, as all are to obey him above every one else. [Let it here be distinctly understood that the subordination thus expressed involves no degradation. As the church is not dishonored by being subject to Christ, so neither is woman dishonored by being subject to man.]

and the head of Christ is God.-Considered as the Fathers servant (Isa 42:1; Isa 52:13), in which capacity he spoke when he said: I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do (Joh 17:4). Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered (Heb 5:8), becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross (Php 2:8). It is in this aspect of mutual relation in the work of redemption that the head of Christ is God.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

woman

Cf. Gen 3:16. The woman’s veil, or head-covering, is a symbol of this subordination.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

the head of every: Eph 1:22, Eph 1:23, Eph 4:15, Eph 5:23, Phi 2:10, Phi 2:11, Col 1:18, Col 2:10, Col 2:19

and the head of the: Gen 3:16, Eph 5:22, Eph 5:24, Col 3:18, 1Ti 2:11, 1Ti 2:12, 1Pe 3:1, 1Pe 3:5, 1Pe 3:6

and the head of Christ: 1Co 3:23, 1Co 15:27, 1Co 15:28, Isa 49:3-6, Isa 52:13, Isa 55:4, Isa 61:1-4, Mat 28:18, Joh 3:34-36, Joh 5:20-30, Joh 14:28, Joh 17:2-5, Eph 1:20-22, Phi 2:7-11

Reciprocal: Num 30:12 – her husband hath made Num 30:13 – and every 1Co 6:15 – your 1Co 11:7 – but 1Co 14:34 – they are Eph 1:10 – he Tit 2:5 – obedient

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 11:3. This verse presents four persons: God, Christ, man and woman, named in the order of their rank. The last two are on earth and are visible to others, which accounts for some regulations of customs that are discussed in this chapter.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 11:3. But (since on this point you may need further direction) I would have you know that the head of every man (male) is Christ. Though this is true universallyfor He hath given Him power over all flesh, and to be Head over all things to the Church, it is of Christians that the apostle is here speakingin whose case it is used in a higher senseand more particularly of the male sex.

and the head of the woman (under Christ) is the man, and the head of Christ is Godconsidered as the Fathers Servant (Isa 42:1, Isa 53:13), in which capacity He spake when He said, I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given me to do (Joh 17:4). Though He was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered, and became obedient even unto death. It is in this aspect of mutual relation in the work of redemption that the Head of Christ is Godwith which His proper Personal Divinity is in entire harmony. These general truths are now applied to the case in hand.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here our apostle answers the query, and resolves the case which the Corinthians had put to him, and laid before him, about church-order, and concerning the decent behaviour of men and women in church- assemblies.

And first he reminds them, that a subordination of persons in the church of God ought to be observed and kept: that as Christ, as Mediator, is inferior to God the Father, but is the head and lord of all men, as Creator and Redeemer; so the man is the head of the woman, and as such she must show her subjection unto the man. As Christ, as Mediator, acts in subordination to the Father, so must the woman act in subordination to the man.

The Socinians would wrest this text to confirm them in their blasphemous denial of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. “Here, say they, the apostle declares that the head of Christ is God. Now the most high God can have no head above him; therefore Christ, who hath an head above him, cannot be the most high God.”

The modern and general answer is, that God is here called the head of Christ as Mediator, in which relation he received his kingdom from him, and exercises it for him; and therefore is elsewhere styled the Father’s servant, Behold my servant, &c. because he doth all things according to his Father’s will, and with a fixed eye to his Father’s glory.

But the ancients reply to this objection thus: “That God is said to be the head of Christ, as he is the Father of the Son, and so the cause of him; and as the woman is of the same nature with the man, who is her head, so is Christ of the same nature with God the Father, who is here called his head: The head of Christ is God.”

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

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

The is adversative: but; Paul proceeds to a point to which the eulogy he has just passed does not apply.

One is tempted to ask, as he reads the following sentences, why the apostle thinks it necessary to take things on so high a level, and to connect what is apparently so secondary a matter with relations so exalted as those of man with Christ, and of Christ with God. To explain his method, we must bear in mind the pride of the Corinthians, who thought they knew everything, and whom the apostle wishes, no doubt, to teach that they have yet something to learn: I would have you know. It is likely enough, from 1Co 11:16, that the ultra-liberals of Corinth spoke with a certain disdain of the ecclesiastical prescriptions left by the apostle, and that in the name of the Spirit some claimed to throw his rules overboard. Paul would give them to understand that everything hangs together in one, both in good and in evil; that unfaithfulness to the Divine order, even in things most external, may involve an assault on the most sublime relations, and that the pious keeping up of proprieties, even in these things, is an element of Christian holiness. Hence he begins with placing this special point in the life of the Church under the light of the two holiest analogies that can be conceived, and in which he shows the revelation of a Divine order. Those who criticise him presumptuously will thus be able to understand whence he derives the rules which he lays down in the Church.

There exist three relations, which together form a sort of hierarchy: lowest in the scale, the purely human relation between man and woman; higher, the Divine-human relation between Christ and man; highest in the scale, the purely Divine relation between God and Christ. The common term whereby Paul characterizes these three relations is (hence our word chief), head. This figurative term includes two ideas: community of life, and inequality within this community. So between the man and the woman: by the bond of marriage there is formed between them the bond of a common life, but in such a way that the one is the strong and directing element, the other the receptive and dependent element. The same is the case in the relation between Christ and the man. Formed by the bond of faith, it also establishes a community of life, in which there are distinguished an active and directing principle, and a receptive and directed factor. An analogous relation appears higher still in the mystery of the Divine essence. By the bond of filiation, there is between Christ and God communin of Divine life, but such that impulse proceeds from the Father, and that the Son does nothing but what he sees the Father do (Joh 5:19).

The relation between Christ and the man is put first. It is, so to speak, the link of union between the other two, reflecting the sublimity of the one and marking the other with a sacred character, which should secure it from the violence with which it is threatened. The only question is whether, as has been thought by Hofmann, Holsten, etc., the point in question is the natural relation between Christ and man, due to the dignity of the pre-existing Christ as creator (Hofmann), or as the heavenly Man, the prototype of earthly humanity (Holsten),or whether, as is held by Meyer, Heinrici, etc., Paul means to describe the relation between Christ and men by redemption. The expression: every man, seems to speak in favour of the first sense; and the passages 1Co 8:6 and 1Co 10:4 might serve to confirm this meaning. Christ as having been the organ of creation, is the head of every man created in His image, believing or unbelieving. But 1Co 11:4-5 seem to me to prove that Paul is thinking not of man in general, but of the Christian husband. Every man…, every woman who prays, who prophesies…, this can only apply to believers. It is from 1Co 11:7 that Paul passes from the spiritual order to the domain of creation in general. What is true in the first sense, is that every man is ordained to believe in Christ and to take Him for his head, that is to say, to become a Christian husband.

The article is to be remarked with in the first proposition (it is wanting in the other two). This arises, no doubt, from the fact that the man may have many other heads than Christ; the article serves to point out Christ as the only normal head. In the other two relations, this was understood of itself.

This relation belonging to the kingdom of God has for its counterpart in the family the relation between husband and wife. Paul is here thinking chiefly of the natural and social relation, in virtue of which the husband directs and the wife is in a position of subordination. But this natural relation is not abolished by the life of faith; on the contrary, it takes hold of it and sanctifies it. Must we conclude, from the term used by Paul, that the Christian wife has not also Christ for her head, in respect of her eternal personality? By no means; salvation in Christ is the same for the wife as for the husband, and the bond by which she is united to Christ does not differ from that which unites the man to the Lord. The saying: Ye are branches, I am the vine, applies to the one sex as much as to the other. But from the standpoint of the earthly manifestation and of social position, the woman, even under the gospel economy, preserves her subordinate position. There will come a day when the distinction between the sexes will cease (Luk 20:34-36). But that day does not belong to the terrestrial form of the kingdom of God. As long as the present physical constitution of humanity lasts, the subordinate position of the woman will remain, even in the Christian woman. As the child realizes its communion with the Lord in the form of filial obedience to its parents, the Christian mother realizes her communion with the Lord in the form of subordination to her husband, without her communion being thereby less direct and close than his. The husband is not between her and the Lord; she is subject to him in the Lord; it is in Him that she loves him, and it is by aiding him that she lives for the Lord. If from the social standpoint she is his wife, from the standpoint of redemption she is his sister. Thus are harmonized these two sayings proceeding from the same pen: In Christ there is neither male nor female, and: The husband is the head of the wife.

These two relations, that of Christ to the man, and that of the man to his wife, rest on a law which flows from the nature of God Himself. In the oneness of the Divine essence there are found these two poles, the one directive, the other dependent: God and Christ. Paul evidently desires to rise to the highest point, above which we can conceive nothing. Some, like Heinrici, Edwards, etc., think that this expression: the head of Christ, can only apply to the Christ incarnate. But if the relation were thus understood, one of the two essential features would be wanting, indicated by the term head, and which characterize the two preceding relations: community of life and nature. We cannot, therefore, confine this saying to the Lord’s human nature, and we think there is no ground for shrinking from the notion of subordination applied to the Divine being of Christ; see on 1Co 3:23. This idea of the subordination of Christ, conceived as a pre-existent being (1Co 8:6, 1Co 10:4), springs out of the terms Son and Word, by which He is designated, as well as from the very passages where the divinity of Christ is most clearly affirmed (Col 1:15; Heb 1:2-3; Joh 1:1; Joh 1:18; Rev 1:1). Holsten thinks that he escapes all difficulty by bringing in here the idea of Christ as the heavenly Man, according to the discovery made by Baur by means of the passage 1Co 15:45 seq. It is very certain that had it not been found in that passage, nobody would have extracted it from the one we are explaining. For the examination of this conception ascribed to Paul, we shall therefore refer to the passage quoted.

Thus, then, in the apostle’s view, the relation between husband and wife in marriage is a reflection of that which unites Christ and the believer, as this again reproduces the still more sublime relation which exists between God and His manifestation in the person of Christ. Paul certainly could not say more in the Epistle to the Ephesians to express a higher notion of marriage than these words. M. Sabatier, expounding the idea of marriage in the Epistle to the Ephesians, says: Husband and wife form an indissoluble organic unity. Exactly; but can this indissoluble unity be more forcibly expressed than by comparing it, as Paul does in our passage, to the unity of Christ with the believer and of God with Christ? M. Sabatier adds, still expounding the contents of Ephesians: The one does not reach the fulness of existence without the other. Certainly; but is not this exactly what Paul teaches here in 1Co 11:11-12 : The man is not without the woman in the Lord, nor the woman without the man. And on such grounds a progress is alleged as having taken place in Paul’s ideas on marriage, in the interval between the Epistle to the Corinthians and that to the Ephesians!

After recognising, as a principle which controls all community of life, Divine and human, that duality of factors, the one active, the other receptive, which forms the basis of marriage, the apostle passes by an asyndeton to the application which he wishes to make of it to the case in question at Corinth.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

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. [Paul settles the humblest difficulties by appealing to the loftiest principles: thus he makes the headship of Christ over man the basis, or principle, on which he decides that the man has headship over the woman, and as we shall see further on, he makes the headship of the man over the woman the principle by which he determines the question as to whether men should worship with uncovered, and women with covered heads; for the uncovered head was the symbol of royalty and dominion, and the covered head of subjection and submission. The order in which he states the several headships is peculiar. We would expect him to begin with God and descend by the regular steps, thus: God, Christ, man, woman. But the order is thus: Christ, man; man, woman; God, Christ. Subtle distinctions are to be made with caution, but it is not improbable that Paul’s order in this case is determined by the delicate nature of the subject which he handles. Dominion is fruitful of tyranny, and so it is well, before giving man dominion, to remind him that he also is a servant (Mat 18:21-35; Mat 5:7). Again, the arrangement makes the headship of the man over the woman parallel to the headship of God over Christ, and suggests that there should be between husband and wife a unity of will and purpose similar to that which exists between the Father and the Son. The unquestioned, immediate and absolute submission and concurrence of the Son leave no room for the exercise of authority on the part of the Father, and the infinite and unsearchable wisdom, love, benevolence and good-will on the part of the Father take from the Son every occasion of unwillingness or even hesitation. All Christian husbands and wives should mutually remember this parallel. Jesus the Incarnate, the Son of man and the Son of God, is subject to the Father, by reason of his humanity and his mediatorial kingdom (1Co 3:23; 1Co 15:24-28; Joh 14:28). As to the subjection of the Logos or the eternal Word to the Father we are not informed–comp. Phi 2:6]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

MANS LEADERSHIP IN THE DOMESTIC GOVERNMENT (1Co 11:3-15.)

4. Every man praying or prophesying having something on his head dishonors his head.

5. Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head

7. For the man indeed ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man

10. On this account the woman ought to have authority on her head on account of the angels.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1Co 11:3. 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 Eph 1:22; Eph 4:15; Eph 5:23; Col 1:18; Col 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, (Col 1:16,) 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 (Joh 16:15) to the Father is yet (Joh 5:26; Joh 6:57) derived from and therefore (1Co 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 1Co 3:23; 1Co 8:6. Notice that the headship is an objective relationship on which (Eph 5:22 f) 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.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

11:3 {2} 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 {a} head of Christ [is] God.

(2) He sets down God, in Christ our mediator, as the end and mark not only of doctrine, but also of ecclesiastical comeliness. Then applying it to the question proposed, touching the comely apparel both of men and women in public assemblies, he declares that the woman is one degree beneath the man by the ordinance of God, and that the man is so subject to Christ, that the glory of God ought to appear in him for the preeminence of the sex.

(a) In that Christ is our mediator.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

"But" indicates that things were not quite as Paul thought they should be. He began dealing with his subject by reminding the Corinthians again (cf. 1Co 3:23; 1Co 8:6) of God’s administrative order. This is the order through which He has chosen to conduct His dealings with humans.

Jesus Christ is the head of every male human being (Gr. aner). Second, the male is the head of woman (Gr. gune). This Greek word for woman is very broad and covers women of any age, virgins, married women, or widows. Paul used it earlier in this epistle of a wife (1Co 7:3-4; 1Co 7:10-12; 1Co 7:14; 1Co 7:16). In this chapter it evidently refers to any woman who was in a dependent relationship to a man such as a wife to a husband or a daughter to a father. Paul probably did not mean every woman universally since he said the male is the head of woman, or a woman, but not the woman. He was evidently not talking about every relationship involving men and women, for example the relationship between men and women in the workplace. Third, God the Father is the head of God the Son. This shows that headship exists even within the Godhead.

The New Testament uses the term "head" (Gr. kephale) to describe headship in two ways. Sometimes it describes origin (source), and other times it describes authority (leader). Some scholars favor one interpretation and others the other. [Note: For helpful studies, see Stephen Bedale, "The Meaning of kephale in the Pauline Epistles," Journal of Theological Studies NS5 (1954):211-15; Paul S. Fiddes, "’Woman’s Head Is Man:’ A Doctrinal Reflection upon a Pauline Text," Baptist Quarterly 31:8 (October 1986):370-83; Wayne Grudem, "Does kephale (’Head’) Mean ’Source’ or ’Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A survey of 2,336 Examples," Trinity Journal 6NS (1985):38-59; idem. "The Meaning of kephale: A Response to Recent Studies," Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):3-72; and idem, "The Meaning of kephale (’head’): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):25-65.] Both meanings are true to reality, so it is difficult to decide what Paul meant here.

In favor of the origin view, it is true that Christ created mankind, Eve came from Adam, and Christ came from the Father in the Incarnation to provide redemption. In favor of the authority view, humanity is under Christ’s authority, God created woman under man’s authority, and the Son is under the Father’s authority. The idea of origin is more fundamental than that of authority. Also "head" occurs later in this passage with the idea of source (1Co 11:8; 1Co 11:12), so origin may be the preferable idea here too. [Note: Barrett, p. 248.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)