Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:4
Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoreth his head.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered ] We have two propositions in this and the following verse: the first concerning the man, the second concerning the woman. “It was the custom of the Jews that they prayed not, unless first their head were veiled, and that for this reason; that by this rite they might shew themselves reverent and ashamed before God, and unworthy with an open face to behold Him.” Lightfoot. He quotes many passages from the Rabbis, of which one from Maimonides may suffice. “Let not the Wise Men, nor the scholars of the Wise Men pray, unless they be covered.” This veil was called the Tallith. Grotius (see Alford in loc.) gives many details about the custom of heathen nations. It appears that the Romans and Germans used to pray veiled, from the same motive as the Jews, while the Greeks were accustomed to perform their sacred rites unveiled (though St Chrysostom asserts the contrary of this). But the Christian custom was not, as Meyer seems to think, due to the Hellenic custom being followed in the Hellenic churches, but is rather to be explained by this passage, and by 1Co 3:14; 1Co 3:18. The Christian no longer approaches God weighed down by shame and sin. It is his privilege to gaze undazzled on the glory of God with face unveiled, since he is ‘no longer a servant, but a son, Gal 4:7. “ Capite nudo, quia non erubescimus,” Tertullian, Apology, ch. xxx. “The question here is of a veil, not of a hat.” De Wette. But the effect of St Paul’s decision has been in the Christian Church to do away with the custom of uncovering the feet and allowing the head to remain covered (Exo 3:5), which is still in existence among the Jews and Mohammedans. For prophesying, see note on ch. 1Co 14:1.
dishonoureth his head ] Either (1) Christ, ‘the Head of every man,’ by the non-acknowledgment of redemption through Him. Or (2) his own head, as not bearing in mind that his body and spirit had been bought with a price, and were therefore Christ’s, and thus high in the favour of God.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Every man praying or prophesying – The word prophesying here means, evidently, teaching; or publicly speaking to the people on the subject of religion; see the note at Act 2:17. See also the subject considered more at length in the notes on 1 Cor. 14. Whether these persons who are here said to prophesy were all inspired, or claimed to be inspired, may admit of a question. The simple idea here is, that they spoke in the public assemblies, and professed to be the expounders of the divine will.
Having his head covered – With a veil, or turban, or cap, or whatever else is worn on the head. To remove the hat, the turban, or the covering of the head, is a mark of respect for a superior when in his presence.
Dishonoreth his head – Does dishonor to Christ as his head 1Co 11:2; that is, he does not, in his presence and in his service, observe the usual and proper custom by which a subordinate station is recognized, and which indicates respect for a superior. In the presence of a prince or a nobleman, it would be considered as a mark of disrespect should the head be covered. So in the presence of Christ, in whose name he ministers, it is a mark of disrespect if the head is covered. This illustration is drawn from the customs of all times and countries by which respect for a superior is indicated by removing the covering from the head. This is one reason why a man should not cover his head in public worship. Another is given in 1Co 11:7. Other interpretations of the passage may be seen in Bloomfields Critical Digest.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 11:4-7
Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonoureth his head.
Decorum in the house of God
1. It is possible to dishonour Christ in our holiest services.
2. It is not enough to pray and preach in the spirit–some regard is due to propriety of manner and demeanour.
3. This is especially necessary in public worship, lest we dishonour Christ whom we represent before others.
4. Every true and enlightened Christian will therefore study what is decorous, as well as what is religious. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
The proprieties of public worship
I. Explain the improprieties referred to in the text. These were determined by natural and spiritual relations. Required apostolic prescription, which was fixed in harmony with prevailing custom and opinion.
II. Apply.
1. The proprieties of public worship must to some extent be governed by the customs of the times.
2. Because Christianity inculcates whatsoever is of good report.
3. Yet the outward form must be pervaded with spiritual life. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
For a man is the image and glory of God.—
Man is
I. The image of God. Imago is an abbreviation of imitago, something more than imitatio–not as one orange is the likeness of another; it means the copy of an archetype, as, e.g., the sovereigns head on a coin (Mat 20:20), or the suns reflection in water. A cathedral in photograph is a copy of a copy; for it is an image of a cathedral in stone, and this again is the image of the original pre-existing in the mind of the architect. God is both the architect and, within due limits, the archetype of man. But the relation between the two consists in something more than similitude, even in affinity of essence. For man is the image of God by virtue of his spiritual nature, which, because of the primal inbreathing (Gen 2:7), is akin to the Divine.
II. He is the glory of God. The Divine glory itself is the eternal self-manifestation to the Triune God of His own holy nature. In the Divine counsel of creation this inner self-manifestation was to become an outer manifestation filling all creation. But it was through man, the created lord of the cosmos, the representative of God in the universe, the connecting link between heaven and earth, that the glory of God was to be communicated to the cosmos. As this derived glory was to be the effluence of the self-manifested Divine glory, which is itself the eternal effluence of Deity; so man in his higher nature of spirit, inbreathed into him from Spirit, was created actually the image of God, but in his lower nature of body, moulded from earth, was created potentially the glory of God, i.e., constituted with a possibility, contingent on obedience, of a glorified body and soul and spirit. The design was baffled by Satan for a season. Meanwhile humiliated in body, yet now transformed in spirit, fallen man awaits in faith and hope the unveiling of the new creation in Christ and his own bodily assimilation to the body of His glory. (Canon Evans.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 4. Praying, or prophesying] Any person who engages in public acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or exhortation: for we learn, from the apostle himself, that , to prophesy, signifies to speak unto men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1Co 14:3. And this comprehends all that we understand by exhortation, or even preaching.
Having his head covered] With his cap or turban on, dishonoureth his head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. “He should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold him.” See much in Lightfoot on this point.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
By every man praying or prophesying, some (amongst whom the learned Beza) understand not only he that ministereth in prayer, or in opening and applying the Scriptures, whether from a previous meditation and study of them, or from the extraordinary revelation of the Holy Spirit, which they had in those primitive times; but also all those that were present at those actions. The reason they give is: Because the reason given by the apostle for his assertion, is such as is common to the people, as well as to him that ministereth; and the woman was forbidden to speak in the church, 1Ti 2:12. But our learned Bishop Hall assures us, he cannot agree with those of this mind. And indeed it is an unreasonable interpretation; for though those who join with others in prayer may be said to pray, yet those that hear one preaching or expounding Scripture, can in no propriety of speech be said to prophesy. Nor is any such usage of the term to be paralleled, neither are the reasons they bring cogent; for though the reason of the precept may concern the people as well as the minister, yet it doth not follow that the rule or precept must necessarily do so too. And although the woman be forbidden to teach in ordinary cases, yet it did not concern those who were immediately and extraordinarily inspired, according to the prophecy, Joe 2:28, applied, Act 2:17.
Having his head covered; i.e. with a hat or cap, or such covering of the head as is in use in the country wherein he liveth. It is not to be understood of the natural covering of the head, which is our hair; nor yet of any other covering which is necessary for the preservation of life and health; but such a covering as he might spare, and is ornamental to him according to the fashion of the country.
Dishonoureth his head; either dishonoureth Christ who is his Head, and whom he ought to represent, and doth as it were make the church the head to Christ, which is subject to him, while by covering his head he declares a subjection in his ministration. Or he dishonoureth his own head, (so many interpret it), to wit, he betrayeth his superiority, lesseneth himself as to that power and dignity which God hath clothed him with, by using a posture which is a token of inferiority and subjection. Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the customs of countries; and all that can be concluded from this verse is, that it is the duty of men employed in Divine ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that becometh his ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the country wherein they live. So as all which this text requires of Christian ministers, is authority and gravity, and what are external ludications of it. Our learned Dr. Lightfoot observeth, that the Jewish priests were wont in the worship of God to veil their heads; so that Christian ministers praying or prophesying with their heads covered, Judaized, which he judgeth the reason of the apostles assertion. The heathens also, both Romans and Grecians, were wont to minister in their sacred things with their heads covered. Some think this was the reason why the Christians used the contrary gesture; but the apostles arguing from the mans headship, seemeth to import that the reason of this assertion of the apostle was, because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of authority. At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: hence ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ: but yet this custom is not uniform, for in France the Reformed ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered, to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered, as representing Christ, the great Teacher, from whom they derive, and whom they represent. Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency (which cannot by any be created, but ariseth either from nature, or custom, and prescription) which this text of the apostle maketh to be the duty of all Christians; though as to the Corinthians, he particularly required the mans ministering in sacred things with his head uncovered, either to avoid the habit or posture used by Jews and pagans; or for the showing of his dignity and superiority over the woman, (whom we shall by and by find commanded to pray or prophesy covered), or that he represented Christ who was the Head of the church. The uncovering of the head being with them as much a sign of subjection, as it is with us of superiority and pre-eminence.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. prayingin public (1Co11:17).
prophesyingpreachingin the Spirit (1Co 12:10).
havingthat is, if hewere to have: a supposed case to illustrate the impropriety in thewoman’s case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth)for men in worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith,or veil, to show reverence before God, and their unworthiness to lookon Him (Isa 6:2); however,MAIMONIDES [Mishna]excepts cases where (as in Greece) the custom of the place wasdifferent.
dishonoureth his headnotas ALFORD, “Christ”(1Co 11:3); but literally, as”his head” is used in the beginning of the verse. Hedishonoreth his head (the principal part of the body) by wearinga covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makeshim look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ,to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wearthe covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wearsit in token of her subjection to man? “Because Christ is notseen: the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ isnot seen; of her who is under the man, is seen” [BENGEL].(Compare 1Co 11:7).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Every man praying or prophesying,…. This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship, that joins in prayer with the minister, and hears the word preached by him, which is meant by prophesying; for not foretelling future events is here meant, but explaining the word of God, the prophecies of the Old Testament, or any part of Scripture, unless singing of psalms should rather be designed, since that is sometimes expressed by prophesying: so in 1Sa 10:5 “thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they shall prophesy”. The Targum renders it thus, , “and they shall sing praise”; upon which Kimchi observes, that it is as if it was said, their prophecy shall be , “songs” and praises to God, spoken by the Holy Ghost. So in 1Sa 19:23 it is said of Saul, that he “went on and prophesied”. The Targum is, he went on, , “and praised”. And again, “he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied”. Targum, , “and praised”, or sung praise. Once more, in 1Ch 25:1 it is said of Asaph, and others, that they “should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals”; which Kimchi explains of Asaph’s singing vocally, and of his sons playing upon musical instruments.
Having his head covered; which, it seems, was the custom of some of them so to do in attendance on public worship: this they either did in imitation of the Heathens r, who worshipped their deities with their heads covered, excepting Saturn and Hercules, whose solemnities were celebrated with heads unveiled, contrary to the prevailing customs and usages in the worship of others; or rather in imitation of the Jews, who used to veil themselves in public worship, through a spirit of bondage unto fear, under which they were, and do to this day; and with whom it is a rule s, that
“a man might not stand and pray, neither with his girdle on, , nor with his head uncovered; nor with his feet uncovered.”
Accordingly it is said t of Nicodemus ben Gorion,
“that he went into the school grieved, and , “veiled himself”, and stood in prayer;”
and a little after that
“that he went into the sanctuary and “veiled” himself, and stood and prayed;”
though the Targum on Jud 5:2 suggests,
“that the wise men sit in the synagogues, , “with the head uncovered”, to teach the people the words of the law;”
and on Jud 5:9 has these words,
“Deborah in prophecy said, I am sent to praise the Scribes of Israel, who when they were in tribulation did not cease from expounding the law; and so it was beautiful for them to sit in the synagogues, “with the head uncovered”, and teach the people the words of the law, and bless and confess before the Lord;”
but it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, “dishonoureth his head”; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer’s head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman’s veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable.
r Macrob Saturnal. l. 3. c. 6. Alex. ab. Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 2. c. 14. & 19. & 22. s Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 5. sect. 5. t T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 20. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Having his head covered ( ). Literally, having a veil ( understood) down from the head ( ablative after as with in Mark 5:13; Acts 27:14). It is not certain whether the Jews at this time used the tallith, “a four-corned shawl having fringes consisting of eight threads, each knotted five times” (Vincent) as they did later. Virgil (Aeneid iii., 545) says: “And our heads are shrouded before the altar with a Phrygian vestment.” The Greeks (both men and women) remained bareheaded in public prayer and this usage Paul commends for the men.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Having his head covered [ ] . Lit., having something hanging down from his head. Referring to the tallith, a four – cornered shawl having fringes consisting of eight threads, each knotted five times, and worn over the head in prayer. It was placed upon the worshipper’s head at his entrance into the synagogue. The Romans, like the Jews, prayed with the head veiled. So Aeneas : “And our heads are shrouded before the altar with a Phrygian vestment” (Virgil, “Aeneid,” 3, 545). The Greeks remained bareheaded during prayer or sacrifice, as indeed they did in their ordinary outdoor life. The Grecian usage, which had become prevalent in the Grecian churches, seems to have commended itself to Paul as more becoming the superior position of the man.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Every man praying or prophesying.” (pas aner proseuchomenos he propheteuon) “Every or each man praying or prophesying.” (As an habit or custom) – (Gk. aner) Means a mature male person.
2) “Having his head covered.” (kata kepales echon) “Having or holding anything down over (his) head.” The covered head was a symbol of weakness, surrender, or obeisance to one of higher rank. He must not be veiled, but she must; at least by wearing an hair or veil covering that would distinguish her from man.
3) “Dishonoreth his head.” (kataischunei ten kaphalen autou) “Shames Dishonoreth, humiliates, or degrades the head of him,” or his responsible position in rank of his authority. The three leaderships described in 1Co 11:8-15 are 1) God, 2) Christ, and 3) man, constitute the Trinitarian hierarchy of order in relationship in nature.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. Every man praying Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house — for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, (622) If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not know how to maintain his proper station, (623) and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station — if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is an emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.
Prophesying I take here to mean — declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1Co 14:3,) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people — which is the part of the public teacher, (624) for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.
(622) “ Mais afin de mieux entendre ceci, prenons vn exemple;” — “But, that we may understand this better, let us take an example.”
(623) “ Se maintenir, et vser de son authorite;” — “To keep his place, and maintain his authority.”
(624) “ Du ministre et docteur de l’Eglise;” — “Of the minister and teacher of the Church.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) Every man praying or prophesying.The reference here is to public prayer and teaching (the word prophesying is used in its less restricted sense). The Apostle probably does not allude to any case in Corinth where a man had actually taken part in a religious meeting with covered head. The Greek practice was for men to have their heads uncovered when joining in religious ceremonies (Grotius in loc.). To this practice St. Paul would incline, as being the national custom of the country, and as also being typical of the distinction between the sexes which he has just laid down. The Apostles teaching on this subject is a remarkable illustration of how completely he had overcome his old Jewish prejudice, and how the whole of his nature had become leavened with the freedom of the gospelfor it was the custom amongst the Jews for the man to pray with covered head, and the face veiled with the Tallith, as an expression of his unworthiness to speak face to face with God. It was a profound insight into human nature which enabled the Apostle to realise how an external symbol would infallibly tend to modify doctrine, and how thus the perpetuating of such a custom in the Christian Church might have hindered the full recognition of the great truth of the personal and direct communication of every individual soul with the Father.
Dishonoureth his head.He dishonours his own head inasmuch as it is the part of his body from which Christ has taken His title as Head of the Body, the Churchand thus he dishonours his Spiritual Head. even Christ.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. Every man praying covered Either from the Corinthian letter or the messengers that brought it, Paul learned that the Christian rule of worship was unsettled. Men following the Hebrew or Roman custom probably prayed with the head covered. Women, doubting what under the Christian system was the law for their sex, in what they perhaps considered Christian freedom removed the customary hood from their heads. The notion of Ruckart and others, that the motive of these uncovering women was to display their beauty, has not one syllable in the apostle’s rebuke or argument to sustain it. On the contrary, his whole force of reasoning goes to show that a proper subordination truly belongs to the female sex; and it is solely a questioning of this truth which his argument presupposes. It does not appear that any real disorders occurred. They were holy women endowed with spiritual gifts, who would need these directions from the higher authority of their founder apostle.
Paul gives caution to the men first here and in 1Co 11:7. The ancient commentators held that St. Paul wrote to check the men as well as the women; but later writers, as Ruckart, Alford, and Stanley, say that he refers to the men merely, in illustration of the case of the women. We hold that the former are clearly correct. As we have shown, different customs for men on this subject prevailed among the different nationalities and religions which were now promiscuously crowded into Corinth. Jewish and Roman converts would be predisposed to pray with heads covered, while the Greeks would uncover. The fact that Paul treats the case of woman so much more fully is because it was a question of propriety; and of the proprieties and refinements of life, woman, being the special guardian, needed to be very fully set right. From all this it is clear that St. Paul decides for the covered head, not from any divine command, or any immutable propriety, but because, in the existing state of customs, the covered head was the symbol of modesty. It is the modesty that is the permanent principle; the covered head is the transient expression of the principle.
Dishonoureth his head Stanley makes head, here, possess a double reference, namely, to Christ and to the man’s own head. The latter, however, is doubtless Paul’s real meaning; the former can be brought in only by inference. Josephus says, “Izates, throwing himself to the earth, and dishonouring his head with ashes, fasted calling upon God.” To the Christian man belonged a triumphant, unblushing worship. Christ, his head, not being visibly present, there was no mere humanity before which it became him to cover. See note 1Co 11:7. In modern times men are uncovered in Christian worship in consequence of Paul’s rule, but not for his reason. It is now rather the uncovering of reverence for the Divine presence, or respect for the congregation or service, which a Jew expressed by putting off his sandals. To the universal modern Christian practice of bared heads in church, Stanley says that “Holland is the only exception. In Dutch congregations, men uncover their heads during the psalmody only.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (literally ‘having a hanging down from the head’), dishonours his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonours her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.’
This order of things, and the importance and status of the man and the woman in the scheme of things is now emphasised by reference to head coverings. The head covering now described is in some way symbolic of headship and authority, and this is confirmed in 1Co 11:7 where the lack of covering of the man relates to the fact that he stands on earth in the place of God. He is made in God’s image, with no superior on earth. He has full authority. And this is expressed when he prophesies and prays in his uncovered head. When acting in Christ’s Name the man removes his head covering in order to declare to mankind, and to angels, and even to Satan, that he is free and with full authority over all God’s creation. He is submissive to none but his Head, to Christ.
It is arguable whether ‘dishonours his head’ refers to his own head or to Christ as his Head. But the principle behind it is the same. Any covering to his head when praying and prophesying publicly brings dishonour, because it suggest that he is inferior to what he is. Primarily it dishonours Christ because he is acting as Christ’s representative in what he is doing, and if he was covered he would be demeaning Christ’s authority and diminishing it in the eyes of men, secondarily it dishonours his own head because it depicts him as less than he is. As man he may be humbled in the scheme of things, under the authority of others, both men and women. But when among God’s people and acting in Christ’s Name he is still lord of creation.
It is possible that in Paul’s day it was recognised that a servant or slave had often to have his head covered before his master, depicting his inferior position, although there is no definite evidence for this. This would certainly explain why when they were praying and prophesying, and thus depicting their total freedom within creation, all men were to have their heads uncovered. It might also be seen as demonstrating to the church that in the church all men were equal and free, so that, while they were in the church there was neither slave nor free (Gal 3:28). It would thus be a sign to all that before God they were lords of creation and free. They had no authority over them but Him. If that were the case then to cover his head when praying and prophesying, that is when acting very much as God’s representative and lord of creation, would be to dishonour both his head as that of a free man before God (which statement would seem to confirm that in some way a head covering for a man was seen as degrading) and his headship as allocated to him by God. Once he went outside he might have to cover himself, he might have to be a slave, but while praying and prophesying, whether in the church, or indeed anywhere, he should depict himself as a free man.
But even if the custom suggested did not exist the tenor of the verse together with 1Co 11:7 suggests that the conclusion remains the same. ‘Covering’ the head was in some way seen as a denial of man’s lordship over creation. It was therefore not to be considered when praying or prophesying, in which activities he was acting on God’s behalf towards man, and man’s behalf towards God, as God’s free instrument in his new sphere set apart from the world within the Kingly Rule of God.
The Christian woman on the other hand wore the covering as a sign of proclamation that the man was the head, and she was his helpmeet. She was stressing that she did not herself make a claim to headship. She was the helper. And, says Paul if she did not wear the head covering when praying and prophesying she may just as well be shaved, something which would be seen as bringing grave dishonour on a woman, denoting her unfaithfulness or unworthiness. For it would declare her rebellion against her position in creation as established by God, and would also denote her sexual casualness (for all chaste women covered themselves in public). Outside the church women were men’s property, and their sexual revelation of themselves was tightly controlled, in such a way that if they did not follow the regulations they were revealed as loose women. Their covering denoted inferiority. But inside the church women were men’s helpmeets and their covering therefore declared their honoured position, acting alongside Christian man to bring the world to Christ.
It may well be that all this was partly based on the fact that all chaste women kept themselves modestly covered when they went out in public, so that what Paul is arguing is that they should behave in the same way in the church into which at any time strangers might come. But we must not see this as taking away from the main point of the covering which was to emphasise the woman’s role as helpmeet when praying and prophesying rather than as principal. And this was to apply whether prophesying outside the church or in.
Today the full impact of this may not come over to us. But those who gathered in the early church came from many backgrounds and situations. Many of them were slaves. But once they met in the church they were for that period of time all free. If they were males their heads were uncovered. They left their slavery outside. Each was raised to his status of lord of creation. Each was as God meant him to be, and as he would one day be in heaven. Each was Adam restored to his full dignity. The woman on the other hand was his helpmeet. Each was an Eve restored to her full dignity as helpmeet to God’s earthly representative. And her covering was the badge that declared her dignity. Not for her to be treated as second class or as a chattel. As they met in church the God of creation was there, His Christ was there as mediator between God and man, man was there with bard head as His appointed ruler of creation and mediator on behalf of the world, and woman was there covered as man’s appointed companion and personal assistant, and assistant in his mediation.
We note here that praying and prophesying, the two basic elements of the Christian’s responsibility, activity towards God and activity towards man, are seen as man’s main function. In them he acts on behalf of God before creation, and in them he acts on behalf of creation towards God. He is both king and priest. Some consider that the praying and prophesying of the women may well have been in all-women assemblies or gatherings (because they are to keep silence in churches – 1Co 14:34), although others interpret it differently. We will consider this more on 1Co 14:34. But when praying and prophesying they act in an important, even though subordinate position to men. They too act towards God and towards men. Even in women’s meetings they act as men’s representatives towards women, and the head covering makes this clear. It is man who is God’s prime representative. The same would apply if they prayed and prophesied in the general assembly.
There is nowhere a suggestion that this is limited to married women. Woman’s role in creation is not dependent on marriage. Of course, many a woman on reading these words will be bristling. Anger will have risen up. For she has not yet learned the secret of godliness, that we are all here to serve. When Jesus took the towel at the Last Supper in order to wash His disciples’ feet it was not the gesture of a proud man trying to make Himself look humble, it was the gesture of One Who delighted in being able to serve those whom He loved. He did not take a golden bowl while a crowd looked on and applauded. He demonstrated to His disciples what His future was going to be, a constant washing of men from sin, and of His disciples from the guilt of any failure. A constant stooping to help His own. That is what His superiority made Him, One Who could stoop. When a woman wears her covering in church she indicates that she wants to be like her Master, not exalting herself but taking the lower place, revealing herself as a joyous but humble servant, one who can stoop in His service.
There may also be in this a deliberate attempt to control the excesses of certain types of women prophetesses. It was so easy for freedom to become excess when people were aroused into an excited state, leading on to extravagant gestures in ecstasy, often without regard to chaste clothing, gestures that were undesirable. By wearing a covering, and acknowledging authority they would hopefully be prevented from doing the opposite with themselves and their clothing while in ecstasy. It would be a constant reminder of their need to be under the control both of the church eldership and of themselves. This would help to explain the extreme illustration that he gives. To remove the covering was to depict them as wayward. But again this must not take away from the essential idea of showing respectful submission. This did not just apply to women. It is not only women who have to ‘submit’. Men in fact in various ways also have to show respectful submission to each other, to other men as well as to God. ‘Submit yourself one to another in the fear of God’ (Eph 5:21), that was God’s cry to Christian man, and this meant each submitting to the other. The Christian life is a life of submission because the Christian follows a Master Who accomplished His purpose through submission.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 11:4. Dishonoureth his head It was the custom among the Greeks and Romans, as well as the Jews, to appear in places of worship with their heads covered; and it is certain that the Jewish priests wore a kind of turban, when ministering in the temple: but it seems that the Corinthian men wore a veil, out of regard to a Pharisaical institution, and in imitation of the custom observed in the synagogues, of which the Apostle therefore disapproves. The priests and prophetesses of the Gentiles had their faces uncovered, when they were under a holy rapture, and delivered their oracles; and at this time the hair of the priestesses wasgenerally dishevelled: as the Corinthian women, when under the divine inspiration, wore their hair in the same fashion, it made them too much resemble the pagan priestesses; and for this reason, amongst others, the Apostle, with great propriety, discourages the practice. See Mede’s 16th discourse, Whitby, Hammond, Elsner, and the foregoing note.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 11:4 . First inference from the aforesaid gradation of rank.
This inference is a plea of privilege for the men , which was but to prepare the way for the censure next to be passed upon the women. Had Paul meant to correct the men because they had prayed or preached as prophets at Corinth with their heads covered (Chrysostom and many of the older commentators; see against this view, Bengel, and especially Storr, Opusc. II. p. 283), he would have gone into the matter more in detail, as he does in what follows respecting the women.
.] of praying aloud in the public assemblies. For that Paul is giving instructions for the sphere of church -life, not for family worship (Hofmann), is quite clear from the added here and in 1Co 11:5 , which does not suit the idea of the private devotions of a husband and wife, like the in 1Co 7:5 , but always means the public use for general edification of the referred to, namely, that of apocalyptic utterance (Act 2:17 f., Act 19:6 , Act 21:9 ; Act 1 Corinthians 13, 14; Mat 7:22 ). Moreover, 1Co 11:5 f. and 10 presuppose publicity ; as indeed priori we might assume that Paul would not have prescribed so earnestly a specific costume for the head with a view only to the family edification of a man and his wife. It was precisely in the necessity of avoiding public occasion of offence that such precepts could alone find ground enough to justify them; they were not designed by the liberal-minded apostle to infringe upon the freedom of a woman’s dress at home . How can any one believe that he meant that when a wife desired, in the retirement of her own house, to pray with her husband (and how often in a moment might an occasion for doing so arise!), she must on no account satisfy this religious craving without first of all putting on her , and that, if she failed to do so, she stamped herself as a harlot (1Co 11:5 f.)!
To take . as equivalent to (Baur) is not justified by 1Co 14:13 , although speaking with tongues may have occurred in connection with public prayer by women.
.] See on 1Co 12:10 . The force of the participles is: Every man, when he prays or speaks as a prophet, while he has, etc.
. ] sc [1759] . See Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 36. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 127 [E. T. 146]. Having ( something ) down from the head , i.e. with a head-covering . The Jewish men prayed with the head covered, nay, even with a veil ( Tallith ) before the face. See Lightfoot, Horae , p. 210 f. Michaelis, Anm. p. 244 f. Hellenic usage again required that the head should be bare on sacred occasions (Grotius on 1Co 11:2 ; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. 36. 18 f.), while the Romans veiled themselves at sacrifices (Serv. a [1760] Aen. iii. 407; Dougt. Anal. II. p. 116). The Hellenic usage had naturally become the prevalent one in the Hellenic churches, and had also commended itself to the discriminating eye of the apostle of the Gentiles as so entirely in accordance with the divinely appointed position of the man (1Co 11:3 ), that for the man to cover his head seemed to him to cast dishonour on that position.
. . ] So, with the spiritus lenis , should be written, from the standpoint of the speaker, consequently without any reflex reference (his own head), which the context does not suggest. The emphasis of the predicate lies rather on , as also in 1Co 11:5 . Every man, when he prays, etc., dishonours his head. In what respect he does so, 1Co 11:3 has already clearly indicated, namely (and this meets Baur’s objection to the apostle’s argument, that the duty of being veiled should attach to the man also from his dependence, 1Co 11:3 ), inasmuch as he cannot represent any submission to human authority by a veil on his head without thereby sacrificing its dignity. His head ought to show to all (and its being uncovered is the sign of this) that no man, but, on the contrary, Christ, and through Him God Himself, is Head (Lord) of the man. We are to understand, therefore, quite simply like , of the bodily head (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Flatt, Ewald, Neander); not, with Oecumenius, Theophylact (doubtful), Calvin, Calovius, and others, including Heydenreich, Rckert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Hofmann, of Christ , which is not required by 1Co 11:3 , and is positively forbidden by 1Co 11:5-6 ; 1Co 11:14 , which take for granted also, as respects the man, the similar conception of the , namely, in the literal sense. This holds also against the double sense which Wolf, Billroth, and Olshausen assume the passage to bear, understanding it to refer to the literal head and to Christ as well.
[1759] c. scilicet .
[1760] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Ver. 4. Dishonoureth his head ] As they accounted it then and there. In other places it is otherwise. The French preach covered. The Turks neither kneel nor uncover the head at public prayer, as holding those postures unmanly. Several countries have their several customs. Basiliades, duke of Muscovy, showed himself a tyrant in nailing an ambassador’s hat to his head, for not uncovering it before him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4. ] The case of the man here treated, was regarded by the ancient Commentators, Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., c [45] , and Grot., Mosh., al., as an actually occurring one among the Corinthians: but by recent ones, since Storr and Bengel, as hypothetically put , to bring out that other abuse which really had occurred . Had it been real, more would have been said on it below: but from 1Co 11:5 onwards, attention is confined to the woman .
[45] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Cent y . XI.?
. praying in public:
. discoursing in the spirit; see on ch. 1Co 12:10 .
. ] scil. . The Jews when praying in public put over their heads a veil, called the Tallith, to shew their reverence before God and their unworthiness to look on Him: Lightf., Hor. Heb. in loc. Grotius’s note on the Greek and Roman customs is important: “Apud Grcos mos fuit sacra facere capite aperto. Legendum enim apud Macrob. i. Saturn. 8, Illic Grco ritu capite aperto res divina fit , apparet ex loco ejusdem libri c. 10, ubi itidem de Saturno agitur, et sacrum ei fieri dicitur aperto capite ritu peregrino ; et ex loco iii. 6, ubi Varronem ait dicere, Grci hoc esse moris, aperto capite sacrificare. ait de ejusdem Saturni sacris agens Plutarchus in Romanis questionibus. Lucem facere id dici solitum Festus testatur. Eodem modo, id est aperto capite, etiam Herculi in ara maxima sacrum fieri solere testatur, prter Macrobium dicto libro iii. 6, Dion. Hal. lib. i., nimirum quia id sacrum institutum erat ab Evandro homine Grco. Sed neas (?) contrarium morem in Italiam intulit sacra faciendi velato capite, ne quod malum omen oculis aut auribus obveniret: ut Virg. nos docet n. iii. et ad eum Servius, et in Breviario Aurelius Victor: sed et Plutarchus in Romanis qustionibus. Et ejus moris etiam Plautus meminit in comdiis quibusdam: ut solet admiscere Romana Grcia. Paulus Grcis Corinthiis scribens Grcum prfert morem, et causas adfert quales ferebat negotii natura. Ex Pauli prscripto perpetuo hunc morem tenuere Christiani veteres. Tertul. Apologetico: ‘Illuc suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocui: capite nudo, quia non erubescimus: denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus,’ &c. Nihil huc pertinet mos Septentrionis in reverenti signum caput velandi, qui quanquam per Germanicas nationes late manavit, et Judis tamen et Grcis, et veteri Itali fuit incognitus.”
. . . ] dishonours his Head , i.e. Christ : not, his own head literally, except in so far as the literal and metaphorical senses are both included, the (literal) head of the man being regarded as the representative of his spiritual Head. See this brought out in Stanley’s note: for the head of the man in this respect of honouring or dishonouring, has been, 1Co 11:3 , explained to be CHRIST. Him he dishonours, by appearing veiled before men, thus recognizing subjection to them in an assembly which ought to be conformed to Christian order.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 11:4-5 : the high doctrine just asserted applied to the matter of feminine attire. Since man qua man has no head but Christ, before whom they worship in common, while woman has man to own for her head, he must not and she must be veiled . The regulation is not limited to those of either sex who “pray or prophesy”; but such activity called attention to the apparel, and doubtless it was amongst the more demonstrative women that the impropriety occurred; in the excitement of public speaking the shawl might unconsciously be thrown back. . . ., “when he (she) prays or prophesies,” in the act of so doing. , “wearing down from the head (a veil”: understood), the practice being for the woman in going out of the house to throw the upper fold or lappet of her robe over her head so as to cover the brow: see Peplos in the Dict., of Antiq . . . , “with the head uncovered,” dat [1607] of manner, as in 1Co 10:30 . Is it the literal or figurative “head” that is meant as obj [1608] to ? 1Co 11:3 requires the latter sense, while the sequel suggests the former; Al [1609] and Ed [1610] think both are intended at once. Hf [1611] is probably right in abiding by the reading (see txtl. note); he supposes that the Ap. purposely broke off the parallelism at the end of 1Co 11:5 , thus sharpening his reproof: the man who wears a veil “puts to shame his head” i.e. Christ, whose lordship he represents (1Co 11:7 ); the woman who discards it “puts to shame her own head ” the dishonour done to the dominant sex falls upon herself. That the shame comes home to her is shown by the supporting sentence: ( cf. 1Co 3:8 ) , “for she is one and the same thing with her that is shaven” (Mr [1612] , Ev [1613] , Bt [1614] , Ed [1615] , El [1616] ); “It is one and the same thing,” etc. (E.V [1617] ), would require . Amongst Greeks only the hetr , so numerous in Cor [1618] , went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head also a punishment of the adulteress (see Wetstein in loc ., and cf. Num 5:18 ); with these the Christian woman who emancipates herself from becoming restraints of dress, is in effect identified. To shave the head is to carry out thoroughly its unveiling, to remove nature’s as well as fashion’s covering (1Co 11:15 ).
[1607] dative case.
[1608] grammatical object.
[1609] Alford’s Greek Testament .
[1610] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians .
[1611] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[1612] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[1613] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .
[1614] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[1615] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians .
[1616] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1617] English Version.
[1618] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
praying. App-134.
prophesying. App-189.
his head covered. Literally (something) upon (App-104.) the head.
dishonoureth. Greek. kataischuno. See Rom 5:5.
his head. i.e. Christ in Whom he has access to God with unveiled face (2Co 3:18).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] The case of the man here treated, was regarded by the ancient Commentators, Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., c[45], and Grot., Mosh., al., as an actually occurring one among the Corinthians:-but by recent ones, since Storr and Bengel, as hypothetically put, to bring out that other abuse which really had occurred. Had it been real, more would have been said on it below: but from 1Co 11:5 onwards, attention is confined to the woman.
[45] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Centy. XI.?
. praying in public:
. discoursing in the spirit; see on ch. 1Co 12:10.
. ] scil. . The Jews when praying in public put over their heads a veil, called the Tallith, to shew their reverence before God and their unworthiness to look on Him: Lightf., Hor. Heb. in loc. Grotiuss note on the Greek and Roman customs is important:-Apud Grcos mos fuit sacra facere capite aperto. Legendum enim apud Macrob. i. Saturn. 8, Illic Grco ritu capite aperto res divina fit, apparet ex loco ejusdem libri c. 10, ubi itidem de Saturno agitur, et sacrum ei fieri dicitur aperto capite ritu peregrino; et ex loco iii. 6, ubi Varronem ait dicere, Grci hoc esse moris, aperto capite sacrificare. ait de ejusdem Saturni sacris agens Plutarchus in Romanis questionibus. Lucem facere id dici solitum Festus testatur. Eodem modo, id est aperto capite, etiam Herculi in ara maxima sacrum fieri solere testatur, prter Macrobium dicto libro iii. 6, Dion. Hal. lib. i., nimirum quia id sacrum institutum erat ab Evandro homine Grco. Sed neas (?) contrarium morem in Italiam intulit sacra faciendi velato capite, ne quod malum omen oculis aut auribus obveniret: ut Virg. nos docet n. iii. et ad eum Servius, et in Breviario Aurelius Victor: sed et Plutarchus in Romanis qustionibus. Et ejus moris etiam Plautus meminit in comdiis quibusdam: ut solet admiscere Romana Grcia. Paulus Grcis Corinthiis scribens Grcum prfert morem, et causas adfert quales ferebat negotii natura. Ex Pauli prscripto perpetuo hunc morem tenuere Christiani veteres. Tertul. Apologetico: Illuc suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocui: capite nudo, quia non erubescimus: denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus, &c. Nihil huc pertinet mos Septentrionis in reverenti signum caput velandi, qui quanquam per Germanicas nationes late manavit, et Judis tamen et Grcis, et veteri Itali fuit incognitus.
. . . ] dishonours his Head, i.e. Christ: not, his own head literally,-except in so far as the literal and metaphorical senses are both included,-the (literal) head of the man being regarded as the representative of his spiritual Head. See this brought out in Stanleys note: for the head of the man in this respect of honouring or dishonouring, has been, 1Co 11:3, explained to be CHRIST. Him he dishonours, by appearing veiled before men, thus recognizing subjection to them in an assembly which ought to be conformed to Christian order.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 11:4. , praying or prophesying) especially in the church, 1Co 11:16, and in the assembly [the coming together], 1Co 11:17.- , [having a covering] on his head) The state of the head, the principal part, gives dignity to the whole body. [The face is chiefly referred to, when he speaks of a covering.-V. g.]-) having, i.e. if he has. The men of Corinth used not to be covered, and in this respect, the women imitated the men. In order to convince the women of their error, Paul speaks conditionally of the man.- , his head) properly so called, as just before in this verse; comp. note to 1Co 11:6. Otherwise, the man praying with his head covered would sin more against Christ, than the woman against the man, with her head uncovered.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 11:4
1Co 11:4
Every man praying or prophesying,-Praying and prophesying are the two exercises in which the churches engage in the assembly. All pray, or should pray; one leads, the others pray as sincerely as does the leader. The purpose is to show how the women should appear before God in the assembly, not that she should lead in the service. Most assuredly the apostle does not here tell the women how to lead in the prayer and teaching in the assembly, and in chapter 14:34, 1Ti 2:11-12, gives specific directions for her to keep silent. The very fact that in all the history of Christ and the apostles no example is found of women speaking publicly or leading in public prayer, although they were endowed with miraculous gifts, and did prophesy and teach in private and in the family circle, ought to satisfy all as to the will of God in that matter.
having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.-Then a man must not have his head covered when he comes before God, either with long hair or with hat, veil, or cloth of any kind. This would be a shame to him. He may have it covered at other times, but not when he approaches God to pray or prophesy in his name. [Such conduct dishonors his head because covering it is a usage which symbolizes subjection to some visible superior, and in the worship man has none. Those who are visibly present are either his equals or his inferiors. Every man, therefore, who in praying or prophesying covers his head, thereby acknowledges himself dependent on some earthly head other than his heavenly head, and thereby takes from the latter the honor which is due to him as the head of man.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
or: 1Co 12:10, 1Co 12:28, 1Co 14:1-25
having: 1Co 11:14, 2Sa 15:30, 2Sa 19:4
Reciprocal: Num 11:25 – they prophesied Deu 22:5 – woman shall not 1Ki 18:29 – prophesied Eze 44:18 – bonnets Act 21:9 – which 1Th 5:20 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 11:4. Praying does not require spiritual gifts, hence the prophesying need be no more specific than the description given in chapter 14:3. The original Greek word for covered means to be veiled so as to hide the face. If a man covers his head he dishonors it, because it should be exposed to view due to his position of authority in the social world.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:4. Every man (male person) praying or prophesyingthat is, speaking by Divine Inspiration, either to God in public prayer, or from God in preaching, having his head covered, dishonoureth his headcovering what God made to be exposed.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
By the man’s praying and prophesying, understand his performing any divine offices in the church, as prayer, and expounding the scriptures, singing of psalms, and the like.
By doing this covered, understand not the natrual covering of the hair, but an artificial covering by a veil, after the manner of women, which is a token of subjection.
By dishonouring his head, understand either,
1. Christ, who in the former verse was called the head of every man. He that administers in the church in holy things represents Christ, who is the head of the church; therefore by covering the head he declares a subjection in his adminstration, and doth as it were make the church the head of Christ, instead of Christ’s being the head of the church.
Or else, 2. By dishonouring the head, may be understood the minister’s own head: he betrayed his superiority, and lesseneth the honour and dignity of his sex, by using such a gesture in divine offices, as is a token of inferiority and subjection; for in that country, at that time, it was a sign of subjection to have the head covered, but a sign of power and dominion to have the head uncovered.
The contrary is found with us at this day; for those that have power over others, now keep their heads covered, and those that are inferior to others, keep their heads uncovered before them, 1Co 11:5.
By the woman’s praying and prophesying, is understood either prophesying extraordinarily, (which we read the women sometimes did both in the Old and New Testament, and were called prophetesses, Luk 2:36; Act 21:9.)
Or else, by the woman’s prophesying, is to be understood praising God in hymns and psalms, They prophesied with harps, psalteries, and cymbals, giving thanks, and praising the Lord, 1Ch 25:1-3; where prophesying and praising the Lord are the same thing.
By the woman’s prophesying with her head uncovered, to the dishonour of her head or husband, is to be understood her appearing unveiled in the church, open and barefaced in public; which was accounted,
1. An immodest, unbecoming, and unseemly guise.
2. Arrogant; her being unveiled and uncovered was a token of her usurping an undue authority over the man, and of her casting off that subjection which she was under by the law of her creation to him.
3. Superstitious; it being a fantastical imitation of the she-priests and prophetesses of the Gentiles when they served their idols, and particularly when they sacrificed to Bacchus, who used to have their faces uncovered, their hair dishevelled, hanging at its full length round about their ears.
Now the Corinthian women, in imitation of these heathen women, (for the female sex is very fond and exceeding prone to follow the fashion,) did cast off their veils, discovered their faces, dishonoured their heads, even their natural heads, (as well as their economical head, their husband,) it being then and there accounted as immodest a thing for a woman to appear in public uncovered, as to appear with her head shaven.
From the whole learn, That God requires at the hands of all persons, who either administer unto him, or stand before him, a decent behaviour and comely accommodation in his house, especially in the acts and exercises of his worship and service. For if in their habit and dress, surely much more in their gesture and deportment, doth he hate what is unseemly and unbecoming in any person.
Learn, 2. That it is especially the duty of persons employed in divine adminstrations to demean themselves as those who represent our Lord Jesus, managing themselves with a due authority and decent gravity, becoming the ambassadors of God.
So then it is a general obsrvation of decency in our outward behaviour, when worshipping God before others, which our apostle here recommends as a special duty.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Signs of Subjection
Covering the head, in the Corinth of Paul’s day, showed that a man was in subjection to someone. In worship, Paul said, a man’s head should be uncovered, since he would have been in subjection only to Christ at that time. Neither should a man today wear a Masonic ring, star of David, or any other object which might indicate he is in subjection to someone other than the Lord ( 1Co 11:4 ).
The covering of the head for a woman was used to indicate she was in subjection to her husband. In addition to the natural covering God gave them, the women of Corinth threw something around their head as a sign of subjection. A woman who went in public with her head uncovered was openly rebelling. She would have been saying she was independent, thus not in subjection a man. Shaving a woman’s head was used as a sign that she was an adulteress. It was also a custom of that day for a courtesan to shear her hair. A woman stooping so low as to go without her covering in public worship might as well shave off all her hair and assume the appearance of a courtesan or adulteress, according to Paul ( 1Co 11:5-6 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
1Co 11:4-6. Every man, &c. Now upon this principle, with a reference to the usages that prevail at this time with you at Corinth, I may properly observe: Every man praying or prophesying By an immediate influence of the Spirit of God, in a public assembly; having his head covered With a veil, which is a sign of subjection; dishonoureth his head Christ, who, having made him the head of the woman, and given him authority over her, is dishonoured when the man renounces that authority by appearing veiled in the presence of the woman, as her inferior. But every woman praying or prophesying Under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church; with her head uncovered Without any veil over her head and face; dishonoureth her head Disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven It is the same in effect as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures. Therefore, if the woman be not covered If she will throw off the badge of subjection; let her also be shorn Let her appear with her hair cut off like a man, or like a woman of bad character, such being sometimes punished in that manner: but if it be a shame for a woman To appear in public shorn or shaven Especially in a religious assembly; let her be covered Let her for the same reason keep on her veil.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 4-6. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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. Chrysostom has concluded from 1Co 11:4, as Edwards also does, that the men too, at Corinth, did violence to their proper dignity by being covered. But it is not probable that abuses arose in that direction, especially in Greece (see above, p. 104). The demeanour which becomes the man is only mentioned to bring out by contrast that which alone is becoming in the woman.
The two acts of prophesying and praying will be again brought together in chap. 14, where we shall speak of them more specially Let us only say here, that in chap. 14 (comp. especially 1Co 11:14-17) prayer is more or less identified with speaking in a tongue, a gift which is treated conjointly with prophecy. This observation leads us to suppose, as Baur has already done, that by the prayer of which Paul speaks, in our 1Co 11:4-5, he means chiefly a prayer in a tongue, that is to say, in ecstatic language. The phrase . is elliptical: having down from the head, that is to say, wearing a kerchief in the form of a veil coming down from the head over the shoulders.
In the last words: dishonoureth her head, the word head has often been understood literally (Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Neander, Meyer, etc.): By veiling the head made to appear uncovered, he covers it with shame. But why in this case prefix to 1Co 11:4 the reflection of 1Co 11:3 : The head of every man is Christ? If this remark had a purpose, it should be to prepare for the idea of 1Co 11:4, and consequently to justify the application of the term head to Christ Himself; which does not prevent us from holding, with many critics, that there is here a delicately intended play on words: By dishonouring his own head, the believer, who covers himself, dishonours Christ also, whose glory he ought to be. Indeed, as Holsten says, every man who, in performing a religious act, covers his head, thereby acknowledges himself dependent on some earthly head other than his heavenly head, and thereby takes from the latter the honour which accrues to Him as the head of man. The head uncovered, the brow open and radiant, the look uplifted and confident, the noble covering of hair, like, as some one has said, to a crown of extinct rays, such are the insignia of the king of nature, who has no other head in the universe than the invisible Lord of all. If, then, he is not to impair the honour of his Lord, he must respect himself by not covering his head.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Every man praying or prophesying [speaking by divine inspiration], having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 4
Dishonoreth his head; his lord; inasmuch as, according, to the customs of society then prevailing, for a man to be covered in the presence of a superior was a mark of disrespect.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 11:4. Does not even suggest that this abuse existed at Corinth. For to woman pertains the whole argument of 20: and, for this argument, since it turns on the relation of the sexes, it was needful to explain the contrasted position of the man. By this contrast, as usual, Paul paves a way to his main argument.
Prophesy: see 1Co 12:10.
Puts to shame etc.: proved in 1Co 11:7 a. He forsakes his place of honor in the race, which a correct instinct has ever marked by a distinction of dress; and thus does himself dishonor. And this dishonor is visible and conspicuous in his treatment of his own head.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
11:4 {3} Every {b} man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
(3) By this he gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God’s ordinance.
(b) It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Here Paul used the word "head" twice. Clearly in the first instance he meant the man’s physical skull. What did he mean the second time he referred to the man’s head? He could have meant his physical skull again. However, in view of what he just said (1Co 11:3) and would say, he probably meant his spiritual head, Jesus Christ. In Judaism when a man prayed with his physical head covered, as was common, he did not thereby dishonor himself. In Roman, but not in Greek, worship both men and women covered their heads. However, in both Roman and Greek culture both men and women covered their heads as signs of shame and mourning. [Note: Keener, p. 91.] It was later, in the Middle Ages, that Jewish men began to cover their heads when praying, and in fact, most of the time. In Christian worship, the men did not wear head coverings in Paul’s day.
Paul’s reference to praying and prophesying seems to set his instructions in the context of the church at public worship. Others have argued that 1Co 11:2-16 does not address congregational settings. [Note: E.g., Harold R. Holmyard III, "Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?" Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):461-72; J. N. Darby, Notes of Readings on the Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 85-87; Olshausen, p. 174; C. T. Ellicott, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 202; W. E. Vine, 1 Corinthians, p. 147; J. A. Beet, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 181; Lenski, p. 437; Grosheide, pp. 341-42; and J. MacArthur Jr., 1 Corinthians, p. 256.] Praying involves expressing one’s thoughts and feelings to God and, specifically, asking things of God. Prophesying might involve any of four things. Prophets (and prophetesses) led God’s people in worship (cf. Exo 15:20-21; 1Ch 25:1). Second, they foretold future events pertaining especially to the kingdom of God (Mat 11:13; Act 2:17-18; Act 21:9). Third, they declared new revelation from God, though not necessarily having to do with future events (Mat 26:68; Mar 14:65; Luk 22:64; cf. Luk 7:39; Joh 4:19). Fourth, they could, under divine impulse, utter some lofty statement or message that would glorify God (Luk 1:67; Act 9:6; cf. 1Ch 25:1), or a word of instruction, refutation, reproof, admonition, or comfort for others (1Co 13:9; 1Co 14:1; 1Co 14:3-5; 1Co 14:24; 1Co 14:31; 1Co 14:39). This last type of prophecy did not contain a new revelation or a prediction involving the future. It was what we call preaching today, though not expository teaching, which the New Testament calls teaching. [Note: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. "propheteuo," p. 553. See also Wayne A. Grudem, "Prophecy-Yes, But Teaching-No: Paul’s Consistent Advocacy of Women’s Participation Without Governing Authority," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):11-23; and idem, "Why Christians Can Still Prophesy," Christianity Today, September 16, 1988, pp. 29-31, 34-35. Grudem sought a middle position between the charismatic and non-charismatic interpretations of the gift of prophecy. See his The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians and The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Robert L. Thomas, "Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today," Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):83-96, gave a helpful critique of Grudem’s views.] The fourth activity is what seems to be in view in other references to prophesying in this epistle, and it suits the context here as well. Praying and prophesying were two major features of Christian worship services (cf. Act 2:42).