Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:5

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth ] This refers, of course, to the public assemblies of the Church, where the woman appears, not in her individual character, but as the member of a community. She must therefore perform her devotions in this latter character, and her attire must bear witness to the fact that she is subordinate to those of the other sex in whose presence she worships. Alone, of course, or in the presence of her own sex only, she has the same privilege of approaching God unveiled, that man has. Some difficulty has been raised about the words ‘ or prophesieth.’ It has been thought that the woman was here permitted to prophesy, i.e. in smaller assemblies, and that the prohibitions in ch. 1Co 14:34, and 1Ti 2:12, referred to the more general gatherings of the Church. The subject is one of some difficulty (see Act 2:18; Act 21:9), but it is perhaps best, with De Wette and Calvin (who says, “Apostolum hic unum improbando alteram non probare”) to suppose that the Apostle blames only the praying in public with uncovered head, and reserves his blame of the prophesying for ch. 1Co 14:34. As for the prophetic gifts of the daughters of Philip the evangelist, Act 21:9, they were probably reserved for assemblies of their own sex.

with her head uncovered ] i.e. without the peplum or shawl, which (see Art. in Smith’s Dictionary of Antiquities, and Dean Stanley’s note), used ordinarily as a covering for the body, was on public occasions thrown over the head also. In Oriental countries, however, the women wore, and still wear, a veil.

dishonoureth her head ] “As the man honours his head by proclaiming his liberty, so the woman by acknowledging her subjection.” Calvin. Cf. Num 5:18.

for that is even all one as if she were shaven ] i.e. she might just as well be shaven, as appear in the public assemblies with her face entirely uncovered.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth – In the Old Testament prophetesses are not unfrequently mentioned. Thus, Miriam is mentioned Exo 15:20; Deborah Jdg 4:4; Huldah 2Ki 22:14; Noadiah Neh 6:14. So also in the New Testament Anna is mentioned as a prophetess; Luk 2:36. That there were females in the early Christian church who corresponded to those known among the Jews in some measure as endowed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cannot be doubted. What was their precise office, and what was the nature of the public services in which they were engaged, is not however known. That they prayed is clear; and that they publicly expounded the will of God is apparent also; see the note on Act 2:17. As the presumption is, however, that they were inspired, their example is no warrant now for females to take part in the public services of worship, unless they also give evidence that they are under the influence of inspiration, and the more especially as the apostle Paul has expressly forbidden their becoming public teachers; 1Ti 2:12.

If it is now pled, from this example, that women should speak and pray in public, yet it should be just so far only as this example goes, and it should be only when they have the qualifications that the early prophetesses had in the Christian church. If there are any such; if any are directly inspired by God, there then will be an evident propriety that they should publicly proclaim the will, and not till then. It may be further observed, however, that the fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church, does not prove that it was right or proper. His immediate object now was not to consider whether the practice was itself right, but to condemn the manner of its performance as a violation of all the proper rules of modesty and of subordination. On another occasion, in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form, and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public; 1Co 14:34.

With her head uncovered – That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils, and wore their hair disheveled, when they pretended to be under the influence of divine inspiration. This was the case with the pagan priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she were veiled. See this proved by Lightfoot in loco.

Dishonoureth her head – Shows a lack of proper respect to man, to her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and of subordinaion. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonor to the man. And as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognized in a suitable manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid aside.

For that is even all one as if she were shaven – As if her long hair, which nature teaches her she should wear for a veil (1Co 11:15, margin,) should be cut off. Long hair is, by the custom of the times, and of nearly all countries, a mark of the sex, an ornament of the female, and judged to be beautiful and comely. To remove that is to appear, in this respect, like the other sex, and to lay aside the badge of her own. This, says Paul, all would judge to be improper. You yourselves would not allow it. And yet to lay aside the veil – the appropriate badge of the sex, and of her sense of subordination – would be an act of the same kind. It would indicate the same feeling, the same forgetfulness of the proper sense of subordination; and if that is laid aside, all the usual indications of modesty and subordination might be removed also. Not even under religious pretences, therefore, are the usual marks of sex, and of propriety of place and rank, to be laid aside. Due respect is to be shown, in dress, and speech, and deportment, to those whom God has placed above us; and neither in language, in attire nor in habit are we to depart from what all judge to he proprieties of life, or from what God has judged and ordained to be the proper indications of the regular gradations in society.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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

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

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

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth: though the woman be forbidden to teach, and commanded to be in silence, 1Ti 2:12; yet that text must be understood of ordinary women, and in ordinary cases, not concerning such as prophesied from an extraordinary impulse or motion of the Spirit. We read of women prophetesses both in the Old and New Testament; such was Huldah in Josiahs time, and Anna, of whom we read Luk 2:36; and we read that Philip

had four daughters that did prophesy, Act 21:9.

With her head uncovered: the uncovered head here (as before) must signify not covered with some artificial covering, such as our quoifs, hats, hoods, or veils, &c., or with her own hair, not hanging loose, but artificially used so as to be a covering.

Dishonoureth her head; dishonoureth either her husband, who is her political or economical head, for by that habit she behaveth herself as if she were not one in subjection, and seemeth to usurp an undue authority over the man; or her natural head, it being in those places accounted an immodest thing for a woman to appear in public uncovered. It is observed of Rebekah, when she met Isaac, Gen 24:65; She took a veil, and covered herself. For that is even all one as if she were shaven; for, saith the apostle, yourselves would judge it an uncomely thing for a woman to be shaven; now to pray or to prophesy with the head uncovered, is all one. This last clause will incline us to think, that by the uncovered head in this verse, is not only to be understood uncovered with some other covering besides her hair, but with her hair dishevelled, hanging loose at its length, for else it is not all one to have the head uncovered with a hat, or hood, or quoif, and to be shaven; for the apostle afterward saith, 1Co 11:15, her hair is given to her for a covering or a veil: so that possibly that which the apostle here reflecteth upon, is womens coming into the public assemblies with their hair hanging loosely down, and not decently wound up so as to make a covering for the head; which, we are told, was the practice of those beastly she-priests of Bacchus, who, like frantic persons, performed those pretendedly religious rites with their hair so hanging loose, and were called manades, because they behaved themselves more like mad persons than such as were in the actual use of their reason: something like which, it is most probable, some women in the Christian church at Corinth affected, against which the apostle here argueth.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

5. woman . . . prayeth . . .prophesiethThis instance of women speaking in public worshipis an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous giftswhich such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Annathe prophetess and Priscilla (so Ac2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (1Co 14:34;1Co 14:35; 1Ti 2:11;1Ti 2:12). Mental receptivity andactivity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as mostaccordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does notnecessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessingmiraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth,without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till1Co 14:34; 1Co 14:35.Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercisetheir gift, rather in other times and places, than the publiccongregation.

dishonoureth . . . headinthat she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest proprietythat becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badgeof her subjection to man, which is her true “honor”; forthrough him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man.Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maidenmodesty before man (Ge 24:65),and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16);so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the powerof the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncoveredby the priest (Nu 5:18). ALFORDtakes “her head” to be man, her symbolical, not her literalhead; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in thelatter one.

all one as if . . . shavenAswoman’s hair is given her by nature, as her covering (1Co11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous:therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would besimilarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hairfor her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearingof a head-covering) to show that she does of her own will thatwhich nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of hersubjection to man.

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

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,…. Not that a woman was allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain the word, for these things were not permitted them: see 1Co 14:34 but it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer, and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God with the congregation, as we have seen, the word prophesying signifies,

with her head uncovered. It may seem strange from whom the Corinthian women should take up this custom, since the Jewish women were not allowed to go into the streets, or into any open and public place, unveiled u. It was a Jewish law, that they should go out no where bare headed w: yea, it was reckoned scandalous and ignominious to do so. Hence it is said, x , “that uncovering of the head is a reproach” to the daughters of Israel: and concerning the adulterous woman, it is represented as said by the priest y,

“thou hast separated from the way of the daughters of Israel; for the way or custom of the daughters of Israel is , “to have their heads covered”; but thou hast gone “in the ways of the Gentiles”, who walk with head bare.”

So that their it should seem that these Corinthians followed the examples of the Heathens: but then, though it might be the custom of some nations for women to go abroad bare headed; yet at their solemnities, where and when they were admitted, for they were not everywhere and always, they used to attend with their heads veiled and covered z. Mr. Mede takes notice indeed of some Heathen priestesses, who used to perform their religious rites and sacrifices with open face, and their hair hanging down, and locks spreading, in imitation of whom these women at Corinth are thought to act. However, whoever behaved in this uncomely manner, whose example soever she followed, the apostle says,

dishonoureth her head; not her husband, who is her head in a figurative sense, and is dishonoured by her not being covered; as if she was not subject to him, or because more beautiful than he, and therefore shows herself; but her natural head, as appears from the reason given:

for that is even all one as if she were shaven; to be without a veil, or some sort of covering on her head, according to the custom of the country, is the same thing as if her head was shaved; and everyone knows how dishonourable and scandalous it is for a woman to have her head shaved; and if this is the same, then it is dishonourable and scandalous to her to be without covering in public worship. And this shows, that the natural head of the man is meant in the preceding verse, since the natural head of the woman is meant in this.

u Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 24. sect. 12. w T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 72. 1. x R. Sol. Jarchi in Numb. v. 19. y Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 193. 2. z Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 4. c. 17.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

With her head unveiled ( ). Associative instrumental case of manner and the predicative adjective (compound adjective and feminine form same as masculine), “with the head unveiled.” Probably some of the women had violated this custom. “Amongst Greeks only the , so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head–also a punishment of the adulteress” (Findlay). Cf. Nu 5:18.

One and the same thing as if she were shaven ( ). Literally, “One and the same thing with the one shaven” (associative instrumental case again, Robertson, Grammar, p. 530). Perfect passive articular participle of the verb , later form for the old . It is public praying and prophesying that the Apostle here has in mind. He does not here condemn the act, but the breach of custom which would bring reproach. A woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn (Isa 7:20). The Justinian code prescribed shaving the head for an adulteress whom the husband refused to receive after two years. Paul does not tell Corinthian Christian women to put themselves on a level with courtesans.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Her head uncovered. Rev., unveiled. The Greek women rarely appeared in public, but lived in strict seclusion. Unmarried women never quitted their apartments, except on occasions of festal processions, either as spectators or participants. Even after marriage they were largely confined to the gynaeconitis or women ‘s rooms. Thus Euripides : “As to that which brings the reproach of a bad reputation upon her who remains not at home, giving up the desire of this, I tarried in my dwelling” (” Troades, “649). And Menander :” The door of the court is the boundary fixed for the free woman. ” The head – dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair – bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man. Among the Jews, in ancient times, both married and unmarried women appeared in public unveiled. The later Jewish authorities insisted on the use of the veil.

All one as if she were shaven. Which would be a sign either of grief or of disgrace. The cutting off of the hair is used by Isaiah as a figure of the entire destruction of a people by divine retribution. Isa 7:20 Among the Jews a woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn, with the formula : “Because thou hast departed from the manner of the daughters of Israel, who go with their head covered, therefore that has befallen thee which thou hast chosen.” According to Tacitus, among the Germans an adulteress was driven from her husband ‘s house with her head shaved; and the Justinian code prescribed this penalty for an adulteress, whom, at the expiration of two years, her husband refused to receive again. Paul means that a woman praying or prophesying uncovered puts herself in public opinion on a level with a courtesan.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth.” (pasa de guna proseuchomene he propheteuousa) “But every woman (deliberately), or of her own accord praying or prophesying.”

2) ‘With her head uncovered dishonoreth her head.” (akatakalupto te kephale) ‘With her head unveiled,” or “uncovered.” (Gk. ten kaphalen autes kataischunei) “Shames the head of her,” or brings shame or reproach upon her husband. She thereby disavows marital obligations of subjection to him in all things, publicly uncovers herself, as a slave woman or prostitute, Eph 5:22-24; Eph 5:33.

3) “For that is even all one as if she were shaven.” (en gar estin kai to auto te ekouremene) “For it is the same thing (as) with the woman who has been shaven.” It was a custom that 1) slave women had their heads shaved as acknowledged property for their masters use and 2) the public prostitute shaved her head as an available symbol to any who desired her body for sex hire.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

5. Every woman praying or prophesying Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly

prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1Ti 2:12.)

It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1Co 14:34. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.

For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust. (625)

(625) “ Sainct Paul pour remedier à ce vice, propose tout le contraire de ce qui leur sembloit; disant, que tant s’en faut qu’en cela il y ait vne beaute pour attirer les hommes a connoitise, que plustot c’est vne chose laide et deshonneste;” — “St. Paul, with the view of remedying this vice, sets forward quite the reverse of what appeared to them — saying, that so far from there being a beauty in this to allure men to lust, it is rather a thing that is ugly and unseemly.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(5) But every woman that prayeth . . . From the hypothetical case of the man praying or preaching with covered head (which was mentioned first for the sake of introducing the antithesis), the Apostle comes now to the actual case of which he has to treat, viz., the woman uncovering her head. At first sight the permission here implied for a woman to pray and teach in public may seem at variance with the teaching in 1Co. 14:34, where she is commanded to observe silence, and the injunction in 1Ti. 2:12, that women should not teach. In these passages, however, it is the public meeting of the whole Church that is spoken of, and in such the women were to be silentbut the meetings spoken of here, though public as distinguished from the private devotions of individuals, were probably only smaller gatherings such as are indicated in Rom. 14:5; Col. 4:5; Phm. 1:2. It has been suggested by some writers that the command in 1Co. 14:34, does forbid the practice which is here assumed to be allowable only for the sake of argument; but surely St. Paul would not have occupied himself and his readers here with the elaborate, and merely forensic discussion of the conditions under which certain functions were to be performed which he was about subsequently to condemn, as not allowable under any restriction whatever?

Dishonoureth her head.Both among Jews and Greeks the long tresses of a woman were her glory. Only in times of mourning (Deu. 21:12), or when convicted of shameful sin, was a woman to have her hair cut short.

Here, again, the word head must be taken in its double significance. A woman with uncovered head dishonours that head itself by making it thus in the sight of others the type of a shame which is really not hers, and as her head typically is her husband, so she dishonours him also.

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

5. Every woman that prayeth prophesieth Grotius thus comments: “So in the Old Testament women were prophetesses, as Miriam, sister of Moses, Exo 15:20; Deborah, Jdg 4:1; Jdg 4:5; the wife of Isaiah, Isa 8:3; Huldah, 2Ki 22:14; so also in the New Testament, the daughters of Philip, Act 21:9, and others. Such were accustomed also to expound the sacred prophecies publicly, as appears from the passages above quoted from the Old Testament. Wherefore Paul’s prohibition of women from performing the office of teaching, is to be understood with this exception, unless they have the special commandment of God.”

Wetstein says, similarly: “It was not permissible for women to teach or lead prayers in the congregation, (xiv, 34,) unless, for an exceptional reason and in a special manner, they were impelled to so doing by the Spirit of God. Act 2:17; Act 21:9; Luk 1:41-42; 1Sa 10:5; 1Sa 10:10 ; 1Ch 25:1-3; 2Ch 29:30; 2Ch 35:15.” It is sometimes denied that any female prophet ever prophesied in public. But in Jdg 4:4, Deborah is styled “a prophetess” who “judged” that is, ruled Israel in peace and led her army in war. Her “judgment,” (Jdg 4:5,) her generalship, and her chant of triumph, were all public. Her judging itself was by divine mission and impulse; and so was, strictly, in the biblical sense, prophecy. Her chant was prophecy, for 1Ch 25:1-3 shows that music and psalm came under the head of prophecy. It is ludicrous to suppose that it was in accordance with feminine modesty for Deborah to judge the people and command an army in public, but a violation of that virtue to utter a supernatural sentence in a religions assembly! Miriam’s rhythmical prophecy was uttered with timbrel before Israel’s whole camp. Huldah was installed in the prophetic college, and it was permitted her to teach a body of men sent to her by the king, including the high priest. These cases completely negative the doctrine that an inspired or gifted woman was unauthorized to speak in public. To make Paul forbid a woman’s public prophesying is to make him nullify some of the most striking facts of Old Testament history.

Both the above eminent commentators (with whom Wesley concurs) maintain that Paul in this passage assumes the right of women in the proper exceptional cases to pray or prophesy in the congregation, and maintain that in 1Co 14:34 he forbids the mass of women to interrupt the service with their noisy chatter. Alford, Stanley, and others, maintain that Paul, in 1Co 14:34, not only forbids the uncovered head in these services, but forbids the service by women at all. Thus Calvin is quoted as saying: “In here disapproving of the one, he does not approve of the other. Paul attends to one thing at a time.” But the “one thing” which this makes him “attend to” seems a very unwise “thing.” Why should he forbid praying uncovered when he condemns and prohibits their praying at all? Such a view vacates this whole paragraph of sense, rendering it so much blank paper. The Corinthian query clearly was, Ought women to have the head uncovered in their public prophesying? And St. Paul’s brief, plain answer should have been, There is to be no women’s public praying or prophesying at all. Prohibiting the incident permits the main thing. It assumes that if the incident is set right, the whole thing is right. Both Grotius and Wetstein hold that feminine prophecy is “for exceptional reason,” and by divine specialty. Hence it is often said that the female at the present day must, in her own case, in order to be accepted, be able to show an express divine authorization to prophesy or preach. To this, however, it may fairly be replied, that even the male prophet must individually profess to be “moved by the Holy Ghost,” to his office. Such a “call,” in either case, is not miraculous, but is supernatural and individual. In the case of the man, it is in accordance with the nature of man, and with the ordinary rule of Providence. In the case of the woman, it is less accordant with the feminine nature, and is more extraordinary and special; especially where it implies the exercise of authority over both sexes.

With her head uncovered Before the gaze of masculinity it often is at once the modesty and the dignity of woman to vail herself. That unrestrained gaze is often profane; and it is a divine reserve that shrinks and conceals from it. In that reserve is contained even the proudest and noblest self-respect; so that under the forms of humiliation resides woman’s exaltation. Thereby she becomes, to man’s idea, a something sacred and imperial. Let her forfeit that ideal and she dethrones herself, and becomes an unlovely being. By most divine law each sex is confined to its own nature. It is equally shameful for manhood to become effeminate, and for womanhood to become masculine.

All one as if shaven One in shamefulness, for both are an unwarrantable exposure, but different in degree; for the former is a beginning and the latter is the consummation. The covering of the head as a sign of womanly modesty before man was a rigid point with the Jews. And noblest was the woman that carried it out most nobly. “The lady Kimhith bore seven sons, of whom each one attained the high priesthood. They inquired of her what she had done to accomplish so great a felicity. She replied: “At no time did ever the ceilings of my house behold the locks of my head.” Quoted by Wetstein. Doubtless this, however, was but a sample of the tone of her character on all other points. This energy of self-control and severity of obedience to law is the very essence of a lofty moral nature. No wonder the woman of such a nature should give a line of high priests to the world; she is a born high priestess.

Of course the apostle at the present day would not consider the hood as possessing any religious significance. Women now sit or stand before men with heads uncovered, not only in the social circle, but in large assemblies; nor is it any religious obligation that requires her to wear a bonnet in church, or forbids her to speak or pray with bonnet off. And all this, when the letter of the apostle’s language condemns the uncovered head in the most explicit terms. But really, Paul condemned the uncovered female head of his day because it then expressed the moving of woman from her sphere, and suggested a dishonouring association, calculated to bring the purity of the Church into suspicion.

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

1Co 11:5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth Because they who gave thanks, and praised the Lord with musical instruments, are said, 1Ch 25:1-2 to prophesy with harps, &c.; and because the priests of Baal, who prayed and sang hymns to that idol in the contest with Elijah, are said, 1Ki 18:29 to have prophesied till the time of the evening sacrifice, many, by the women’s praying and prophesying, understand their joining in the public prayers and praises, as a part of the congregation. Yet, as it is reasonable to think that this praying and prophesying of the women, was of the same kind with the praying and prophesying of the men who acted as teachers, mentioned 1Co 11:4 we may suppose that the Corinthian women affected to perform these offices in the public assemblies, on pretence of their being inspired; and though the Apostle in this place has not condemned that practice, it does not follow that he allowed it, or that it was allowed in any church. His design here, was not to consider whether that practice was allowable, but to condemn the indecent manner in which it had been performed. For the women, when they felt, or thought they felt, themselves moved by the Holy Spirit in the public assemblies, throwing away their veils, prayed and prophesied with their heads uncovered, and perhaps with their hair dishevelled, in imitation of the heathen priestesses in their heathen raptures. See Virgil Eneid. lib. vi. l. 48. Non comptae mansere comae, &c. This indecency in the manner of their praying and prophesying the Apostle thought proper to correct before he prohibited the practice itself, because it gavehim an opportunity of inculcating due subjection to the men, which is their duty, though some of them are unwilling to acknowledge it. Women’s praying and prophesying in the public assemblies, the Apostle afterwards condemned in the most express terms, chap. 1Co 14:34. See the note there. We have an example of the same method of teaching, 1 Corinthians 8 where, without considering whether it was lawful to join the heathens in their feasts on the sacrifice in the idol’s temple, the Apostle shewed the Corinthians, that although they thought it was lawful because they knew an idol was nothing, yet the weak, who had not that knowledge, but who believed the idol to be a real, though subordinate god, might, by their example, be led to join in these feasts, and thereby be guilty of direct idolatry. This evil consequence the Apostle thought proper to point out before he determined the general question: because it afforded him an opportunity of inculcating the great Christian duty, of taking care never to lead our brethren into sin, even by our most innocent actions. See the note on Rom 16:1.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 11:5 . A second inference of an opposite kind from 1Co 11:3 , namely, with respect to the women .

Prayer and prophetic utterances in meetings on the part of the women are assumed here as allowed. In 1Co 14:34 , on the contrary, silence is imposed upon them; comp also 1Ti 2:12 , where they are forbidden to teach . This seeming contradiction between the passages disappears, however, if we take into account that in chap. 14 it is the public assembly of the congregation , the whole , that is spoken of (1Co 11:4-5 ; 1Co 11:12 ; 1Co 11:16 ; 1Co 11:19 ; 1Co 11:23 ; 1Co 11:26 ff., 1Co 11:33 ). There is no sign of such being the case in the passage before us. What the apostle therefore has in his eye here, where he does not forbid the of the women, and at the same time cannot mean family worship simply (see on 1Co 11:4 ), must be smaller meetings for devotion in the congregation, more limited circles assembled for worship, such as fall under the category of a church in the house (1Co 16:19 ; Rom 16:5 ; Col 4:15 ; Phm 1:2 ). Since the subject here discussed, as we may infer from its peculiar character, must have been brought under the notice of the apostle for his decision by the Corinthians themselves in their letter, his readers would understand both what kind of meetings were meant as those in which women might pray and speak as prophetesses, and also that the instruction now given was not abrogated again by the “ taceat mulier in ecclesia .” The latter would, however, be the case, and the teaching of this passage would be aimless and groundless, if Paul were here only postponing for a little the prohibition in 1Co 14:34 , in order, first of all, provisionally to censure and correct a mere external abuse in connection with a thing which was yet to be treated as wholly unallowable (against my own former view). It is perfectly arbitrary to say, with Grotius, that in 1Co 14:34 we must understand as an exception to the rule: “nisi speciale Dei mandatum habeant.”

] Polyb. xv. 27. 2. As to the dative, see Winer, p. 203 [E. T. 271].

. ] see the critical remarks is, like . . in 1Co 11:4 , to be understood of the literal head. A woman when praying was to honour her head by having a sign upon it of the authority of her husband, which was done by having it covered; otherwise she dishonoured her head by dressing not like a married wife, from whose head-dress one can see that her husband is her head (lord), but like a loose woman, with whose shorn head the uncovered one is on a par.

. . [1762] ] for she is nothing else, nothing better, than she who is shorn. As the long tresses of the head were counted a womanly adornment among Jews and Gentiles, so the hair shorn off was a sign either of mourning (Deu 21:12 ; Homer, Od. iv. 198, xxiv. 46; Eurip. Or. 458; Hermann, Privatalterth . xxxix. 28) or of shamelessness (Elsner, Obss. p. 113), and was even the penalty of an adulteress (Wetstein in loc [1763] ). What Paul means to say then is: a woman praying with uncovered head stands in the eye of public opinion, guided as it is by appearances, on just the same level with her who has the shorn hair of a courtesan.

. ] emphatic: unum idemque . See instances in Kypke, II. p. 220. The subject to this is . . [1764] , not the appearing uncovered, so that strictly it ought to have been (Billroth). And the neuter is used, because the subject is regarded as a general conception. Comp 1Co 3:8 . Respecting the dative, see Khner, II. p. 244; Krger, xlviii. 14. 9.

The form has less authority in Attic writers than . See Lobeck, a [1766] Phryn. p. 205.

[1762] . . . .

[1763] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1764] . . . .

[1766] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

REMARK.

The evil, which Paul here rebukes with such sharpness and decision, must have broken out after the apostle had left Corinth; had he been present, he would not have allowed it to emerge. It arose probably from an unseemly extension of the principle of Christian liberty, occasioned by the fact of women partaking in the special gifts of the Spirit, 1Co 11:4 , and doubtless under the influence of the greater laxity of Hellenic ideas about female dress. The letter from the Corinthians, when referring to the way in which the apostle’s instructions were acted upon at Corinth (1Co 11:2 ), must have contained an inquiry put to him upon this particular point (comp on 1Co 11:5 ). The fact that Paul makes no allusion to virgins here proves that they were not involved in the wrong practice, although Tertullian ( de virginib. veland .) unwarrantably applies our passage to them also.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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.

Ver. 5. Praying or prophesying ] That is, joining with the man that prayeth or prophesieth, and going along with him in her heart. Thus the king and all Israel with him offered sacrifice before the Lord,1Ki 8:621Ki 8:62 . And thus the unlearned say Amen, 1Co 14:16 . See Trapp on “ Rom 16:1 “

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

5 .] The case of the woman is just the converse. She, if she uncovers herself (on the manner of covering, see below 1Co 11:15 , note) in such an assembly, dishonours her head ( the man ; not, as Meyer and many others, literally, her own head (but see above): of this kind of dishonour there is no mention at all in our passage, and 1Co 11:3 has expressly guarded us against making the mistake ) by apparently casting off his headship: and if this is to be so, the Apostle proceeds, why not go further and cut off her hair, which of itself is a token of this subjection? But if this be acknowledged to be shameful (it was a punishment of adulteresses, see Wetst. in loc. and Tacit. Germ. 19), let the further decency of the additional covering be conceded likewise.

The reading may have arisen from fancying that her own head is meant.

. ] she : not it , . The neut. is used because the identity is generic, not individual: cf. Eur. Med. 928, , and other examples in Khner, ii. 45 ( 421).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

uncovered = unveiled. Greek. akatakaluptos. Only here and 1Co 11:13.

even all, &c. = one and the same with a shaven (one). If she discards the covering which is the symbol of her position, she may as well discard that which nature has given.

shaven. Greek. xurao. See Act 21:24.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

5.] The case of the woman is just the converse. She, if she uncovers herself (on the manner of covering, see below 1Co 11:15, note) in such an assembly, dishonours her head (the man; not, as Meyer and many others, literally, her own head (but see above): of this kind of dishonour there is no mention at all in our passage, and 1Co 11:3 has expressly guarded us against making the mistake) by apparently casting off his headship: and if this is to be so, the Apostle proceeds, why not go further and cut off her hair, which of itself is a token of this subjection? But if this be acknowledged to be shameful (it was a punishment of adulteresses, see Wetst. in loc. and Tacit. Germ. 19), let the further decency of the additional covering be conceded likewise.

The reading may have arisen from fancying that her own head is meant.

. ] she: not it, . The neut. is used because the identity is generic, not individual: cf. Eur. Med. 928,- , and other examples in Khner, ii. 45 ( 421).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 11:5. , but every woman) , but, forms an epitasis [emphatic augmentation or addition]. In this whole passage the woman, especially the woman of Corinth, is principally admonished.- , praying or prophesying) Therefore women are not altogether excluded from these duties; at least the Corinthian women did that, which, so far as it may be lawful, Paul at ch. 14. [34, 35] puts off, namely, to some suitable occasion distinct from the more solemn assembly.-, uncovered) nature demands a covering, but how far the forehead with the face, and the hinder part of the head, should be covered, is a matter left to the customs of the people. It is probable, that Jesus and His disciples had their heads covered according to the customs of the Israelites; whence the rule is not universal, and not more ancient than Paul. And there was , an ordinance, not a rule strictly so called, but a custom [institutum] eine Verordnung. A question arises here, what is to be thought concerning wigs? First, they do not seem to be considered as , or covering for the head, for they are an imitation of the hair, and where that is too thin, they supply the defect, and in the present day are sometimes quite necessary for the sake of health, and they no more veil the face, than every mans own hair: and even if women were accustomed to wear wigs, they would not be considered as thereby sufficiently covered. Therefore the head of a man is scarcely more dishonoured by them, while he prays, than while he does not pray. The wig, however, especially one too long and bushy and having little resemblance to the natural hair, is in reality an adventitious thing, and originates in pride or at least in effeminacy either voluntary, or arising from a false necessity:-it was not so from the beginning, and it will not be so always. Paul, if we could now consult him, would, I believe, not compel those, who wear wigs to cast them off entirely; but he would teach those, at least, who have not begun to wear them, for ever to unlearn [avoid] them, as a thing unbecoming men, especially men engaging in prayer.-, is) Such a woman does not differ from one, that has been shaved.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 11:5

1Co 11:5

But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonored her head;-The woman is under subjection to the man. Because of this, any approach to God with head uncovered is not permitted. It is a dishonor to her head. Man cannot come to God save through and in the name of Christ his head, so woman cannot come to Christ save with the tokens of subjection to man on her head.

for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.-To have her head uncovered is the same as to have her head shaven.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

or: Luk 2:36, Act 2:17, Act 21:9

shaven: Deu 21:12

Reciprocal: Gen 24:65 – a veil Exo 15:20 – prophetess Num 11:25 – they prophesied Jdg 4:4 – General 1Ki 18:29 – prophesied 2Ki 22:14 – prophetess 1Co 14:34 – women

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 11:5. Praying and prophesying have the same meaning as explained in the preceding verse. The word shaven shows Paul is considering the hair as the veil or covering. It was customary for women to veil or cover their face with their hair when praying in the presence of men. To neglect this was a dishonor to her head, because it exposed it and put her in the class of men who are the rulers in the social rank. If she thus keeps her hair away from her face, she is as much exposed to shame as if her hair had been cut.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 11:5. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoureth her head. A number of critics take the word head in these two verses figuratively, as if the meaning were: The man dishonoured Christ as his head, and the woman her husband as her head (Calvin, De Wette, Osiander, Stanley, Alford). But this seems to us very unnatural; whereas if we take the meaning to be that each sex disgraces itself by appearing in public unsuitably to what nature teaches to be the peculiarity of each, the words have their natural sense (and so Erasmus, Estius, Bengel, Meyer). The heathen priests of Rome officiated with covered heads (just as the modern Jews all pray with the tallith or veil over their heads); but the Greek priests officiated with uncovered head, as there is reason to think the ancient Jews also did. And since Christianity taught that there is neither male nor female in Christ, the Corinthians might think the Greek custom more accordant with the new religion than the other. Such an impression the apostle here corrects. That the made converts covered their heads in public worship there is no reason from the first words of this verse to think; the supposition is only made to illustrate the impropriety of the women doing the opposite.

for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven:If she will officiate with bare head, she may just as well have it shaven; the severest censure he could pass upon it. For while a shaven head was a sign of mourning both among the Jews (Deu 21:12) and among the Greeks (as appears from Homer and Euripides), it was in unchaste women a mark of shamelessness, and was a punishment for adultery.

Note.As this seems to allow of women officiating in the public assemblies of the Church, whereas in chap. 14 it is forbidden, some expositors think the apostle is here speaking of prophesying in private or at home. But no such imitation is here indicated; and it is more natural to suppose that the apostle deals here only with what is abstractly proper, reserving the question whether such female praying or prophesying in public was commendable or not to a subsequent stage of his argument (chap. 14). That the practice did exist at Corinth, the preceding verses seem dearly to shew; but that it should be done in so indecent a form he might at once forbid, without requiring to enter here on the general question.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Vv. 5. But precisely because the woman is in a position contrasted with that of the man, in so far as she has here below a visible head, she would dishonour this head by affecting a costume which would be a symbol of independence. And since the woman does not naturally belong to public life, if it happen that in the spiritual domain she has to exercise a function which brings her into prominence, she ought to strive the more to put herself out of view by covering herself with the veil, which declares the dependence in which she remains relatively to her husband. As Heinrici says, it can only be to the shame of her husband if a wife present herself in a dress which belongs to the man. By uncovering her head (in the literal sense) she dishonours her head (in the figurative sense).

Here a difficulty arises. The apostle, by laying down for the woman the condition of wearing the veil, seems decidedly to authorize the act to which this condition applies, that is to say, he permits the woman to pray and to prophesy in public. Now in chap. 1Co 14:34 he says, absolutely and without restriction: Let your women keep silence in the Churches. This apparent contradiction has led Hofmann, Meyer, Beet, and others to the idea, that, in our chapter, Paul had in view only gatherings for family worship (Hofmann) or private meetings (Meyer), composed exclusively of women (Beet). But it is impossible to hold that the apostle would have imposed the obligation of the veil on a mother praying while surrounded by her husband and children. Neither is it possible to see how the idea of Meyer and of Beet could be reconciled with 1Co 11:10 of our chapter (because of the angels). Besides, 1Co 11:16 naturally implies that Paul is thinking of public worship (the Churches of God). Finally, in 1Co 14:34-35 he is not distinguishing between different kinds of assemblies; but he is contrasting assemblies in general with the time when husband and wife find themselves alone together at home: Let the women keep silence in the Churches… (1Co 14:34), let them ask their husbands at home (1Co 14:35).

Heinrici proposes to restrict the prohibition laid on women, in chap. 14, to the tokens of admiration which they liked to give to those who spoke in tongues, or also to the curious questions which they put to the prophets, thus of course disturbing the decorum of the assemblies. Some writers in England have even supposed that in chap. 14. Paul simply means to forbid women to indulge in the whisperings and private conversations which would break the stillness of worship. But it is impossible so to restrict the meaning of the word , to speak, in chap. 14, applied as it is in that chapter to all the forms of public speaking. Besides, the prohibition, if it had one of these meanings, should have been addressed to men as much as to women. What the passage in chap. 14 forbids to women, is not ill-speaking or ill-timed speaking, it is speaking; and what Paul contrasts with the term speaking, is keeping silence or asking at home.

It might be supposed that the apostle meant to let the speaking of women in the form of prophesying or praying pass for the moment only, contemplating returning to it afterwards to forbid it altogether, when he should have laid down the principles necessary to justify this complete prohibition. So it was that he proceeded in chap. 6, in regard to lawsuits between Christians, beginning by laying down a simple restriction in 1Co 11:4, to condemn them afterwards altogether in 1Co 11:7. We have also observed the use of a similar method in the discussion regarding the participation of the Corinthians in idolatrous feasts; the passage, 1Co 8:10, seemed first to authorize it; then, afterwards, when the time has come, he forbids it absolutely (1Co 10:21-22), because he then judges that the minds of his readers are better prepared to accept such a decision. But this solution is unsatisfactory, because it remains true that one does not lay down a condition to the doing of a thing which he intends afterwards to forbid absolutely.

It has also been thought that the term , speaking, should be taken in chap. 14 solely in the sense of teaching. Thus the woman might prophesy or pray in an unknown tongue; but she must never indulge in teaching. But it is impossible to accept so limited a meaning of the word in a chapter where it is used all through to denote both prophetical speaking and speaking in tongues. This solution is not, perhaps, radically false, but it is impossible to deduce it from the word speaking in chap. 14 in contrast to the terms prophesying and praying in chap. 11

I rather think, therefore, that while rejecting, as a rule, the speaking of women in Churches, Paul yet meant to leave them a certain degree of liberty for the exceptional case in which, in consequence of a sudden revelation (prophesying), or under the influence of a strong inspiration of prayer and thanksgiving (speaking in tongues), the woman should feel herself constrained to give utterance to this extraordinary impulse of the Spirit. Only at the time when she thus went out of her natural position of reserve and dependence, he insisted the more that she should not forget, nor the Church with her, the abnormal character of the action; and this was the end which the veil was intended to serve. Moreover, Paul does not seem to think that such cases could be frequent. For in chap. 14 prophetesses are not once mentioned along with prophets, and yet the name was familiar in the Old Testament, and is not wanting in the New (Luk 2:36; Rev 2:20). Probably in making the concession which we find in this passage, the apostle was thinking only of married women. The question could hardly have been even raised as to young women. Reuss says: In Greece a woman of character did not appear in public without a veil. How much more must it have been so with unmarried persons! And if Paul had extended to the latter the permission implied in his words, he would still less have suppressed in their case the condition of the veil imposed on the former.

In the last words of 1Co 11:5, Paul likens the woman who appears in public with her head uncovered to one who has her head shaven. This was never found among the Greeks, except in the case of women who were slaves; among the Jews, only in the case of the woman accused of adultery by her husband (Num 5:18). A similar usage seems to have prevailed among other nations besides. The subject of the proposition, according to most, is understood: every woman that speaketh with her head uncovered (see Meyer). But is it not simpler to make , one and the same thing, the subject of : One and the same [condition] is the woman’s who is shaven [as hers who is not veiled]. The verb , or , or , signifies to shave to the skin.

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

But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head [Corinth was made up of Greeks, Romans and Jews, and all these three elements of her population were found in the church to which Paul wrote. The Jew and the Roman worshipped with covered, and the Greek with uncovered, head. Naturally a dispute would arise as to which custom was right. Moreover, as the women were beyond all doubt acquainted with the principle that there is neither male nor female in the spiritual realm (Gal 3:28), they seem to have added to the confusion by taking sides in the controversy, so that some of them asserted the right to worship with uncovered heads after the fashion of the Greeks. Now, in the East in Paul’s day, all women went into public assemblies with their heads veiled, and this peplum, or veil, was regarded as a badge of subordination, a sign that the woman was under the power of the man. Thus Chardin, the traveler, says that the women of Persia wear a veil in sign that they are “under subjection,” a fact which Paul also asserts in this chapter. Now, the symbolic significance of a woman’s head-dress became the determining factor in this dispute. For a man to worship with a covered head was an act of effeminacy, a disgrace to his head, and for a woman to worship with uncovered head was likewise disgraceful, for it would at once be looked upon as a bold assertion of unwarranted independence, a sign that she had laid aside her modesty and removed from her sphere. From this passage it is plain that it was not intended that Christianity should needlessly vary from the national customs of the day. For Christians to introduce needless innovations would be to add to the misconceptions which already subjected them to persecution. One who follows Christ will find himself conspicuously different from the world, without practicing any tricks of singularity]; or it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 5

Dishonoreth her head; that is, man; for it was required, in a similar manner, by the customs of society, that woman should be veiled in public, in token of modesty and subordination.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

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

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

Puts to shame, etc. For she deserts, by obliterating the distinction of dress, her appointed position, which is to all God’s creatures the place of honor; and does this by her treatment of her head, the noblest part of her body.

The careful proof of these words in 1Co 11:5-15, proves that this abuse actually existed at Corinth. But Paul’s mode of introducing it, (contrast 1Co 7:1; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 12:1,) and the analogy of 1Co 11:18, suggest, but do not absolutely prove, that he had learned it, not from their letter, but (cp. 1Co 1:11) by hearsay.

1Co 11:5-15. Proof and explanation of 1Co 11:5 a. To pray with unveiled head is practically the same as removal of the hair, which is admitted to be shameful: 1Co 11:5 b, 6. Reason of this in the original relation of the sexes: 1Co 11:7-10. A limitation: 1Co 11:11-12. Appeal to the readers’ sense of propriety and to the teaching of nature: 1Co 11:13-15.

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

Shorn, or cropped: the hair cut short.

Shaven: the hair removed altogether with a razor.

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

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

Image: a visible representation of God, Gen 1:26. By looking to man we see in outline what God is. Such, in a higher degree the Son of God, 2Co 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1Co 11:11-12. A corrective against undue depreciation of woman, which might seem to be implied in 1Co 11:7-10. In the development of the spiritual life, of which Christ our Master is the element, each sex helps and needs the other. Both man’s strength and woman’s tenderness develop Christlike character in the other sex. As in 1Co 11:3, this is emphatically true of husband and wife; and is therefore true of the sexes generally as originally constituted. It is very conspicuous in the brothers and sisters of Christian families. Neglect of it is a great defect of monastic life. As usual, the stress lies in the second assertion, for which the first prepares the way. Just as in the Christian life woman needs man, so man needs woman. In 1Co 11:12.

Paul proves this, from the original bodily relation of the sexes. He assumes that with this the spiritual life must accord. Cp. 1Co 11:3. It may, therefore, be quoted in proof of the relation of the sexes in the spiritual life.

From the man; restates Gen 2:21 f. The man enters the world by means of the woman. This suggests also our unspeakable debt to woman’s maternal care. Paul thus places side by side, in the order of creation, the obligation of each sex to the other. And the differences noted are not so great as might appear. For man and woman and all else have alike sprung from God. Thus, as in 1Co 11:3, Paul concludes his argument in the presence of the Supreme.

1Co 11:13-15. Two abrupt appeals: viz. to his readers’ instinctive judgment of what is fitting; and to the teaching of Nature.

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

1Co 11:14-15. A second abrupt appeal, supporting the former.

Nature: Rom 2:14; Rom 2:27 : the totality of material objects around us, animate or inanimate, as they exist in virtue of their mode of being, and apart from interference. It denotes here the bodily constitution of men and women. This ought to teach women not to pray unveiled.

Because a man etc.: facts in Nature which teach. As usual, the weight is on the second clause, for which the first, by contrast, prepares the way.

It is a dishonor to him: as a partial effacement of the distinction of the sexes which Nature makes by giving (1Co 11:15 b) to woman a more abundant covering of hair. So far, long hair robs a man of his honor which belongs to the stronger sex. All attempts to look like women betray an effeminate spirit; and are thus a dishonor to men.

1Co 11:15. A glory to her: A woman’s long hair elicits admiration. The ground of this follows. The long hair is Nature’s gift, to mark her sex. It increases the womanliness of her appearance. It therefore accords with the constitution of things; and so calls forth admiration.

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

The rendering does not nature teach you that etc. (A.V. and R.V.) is grammatical equally with that given above. But it would make the short and long hair the chief matter to be proved, and indeed the goal of the argument of 20. The rendering given above makes it merely a proof of what is evidently the chief matter here, viz. that women ought to be veiled.

In times much earlier than those of Paul, both Greek and Roman men wore long hair. But this does not weaken his argument, which rests on a natural bodily difference. And, that this practice was discontinued, and that in nearly all ages and nations a contrary custom has been usual, supports his argument. For this nearly universal custom proves that the race generally has recognized the meaning of the greater abundance of woman’s hair.

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

11:5 {4} But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: {5} for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

(4) And in like manner he concludes that women who show themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves.

(5) The first argument taken from the common sense of man, for so much as nature teaches women that it is dishonest for them to go abroad bareheaded, seeing that they have given to them thick and long hair which they do so diligently trim and deck, that they can in no way abide to have it shaved.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

A woman who shaved her head in Greco-Roman culture did so to appear as a man. This resulted in the blurring of the relationship between men and women, particularly the sexual distinctions. Men typically wore their hair shorter, and women wore theirs longer. If a woman cut her hair short, it indicated that she wanted to be regarded as a man. Not covering her head made the same statement in that society.

"The prostitutes wore their hair very short, and they did not wear a head-covering in public. Their hairstyle and manner announced to others just what they were and what they were offering. . . .

"In Jewish law, a woman proved guilty of adultery had her hair cut off (Num 5:11-31)." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:604.]

It was a shameful thing for a woman not to cover her head in the early New Testament churches. Such an act made a statement that she was repudiating her position as a woman or that she was an immoral woman. It was not so much a repudiation of her submission to her male authority as it was a repudiation of her origin as being a woman who had come from man (1Co 11:3). The issue is primarily origin throughout the passage, not primarily authority. Obviously a woman who repudiated her origin as a woman might also repudiate her authority to function under her male head. However in this passage Paul seems to have been dealing with the more fundamental issue of origin.

Today it is not shameful for a woman to have short hair, but it was in Paul’s day. There are many short hairstyles that no one regards as disgraceful. However in Paul’s culture short hair for a woman represented rebellion, and people considered it shameful. Paul used the common reaction to women’s short hair in his day to urge his female readers to wear a head-covering. His point was that since it was shameful for a woman to have short hair it was also shameful for her to have her head uncovered when she prayed or prophesied.

Must a Christian woman cover her head in church meetings today? I think not. Covering the head and wearing short hair do not normally mean the same thing in modern times, at least in the West, as they did in Paul’s culture. If he were writing to a western church today, for example, I do not believe Paul would have said it is a shameful thing for a woman to have short hair. Therefore I do not think he would have said she ought to cover her head. Covering the head was a sign of acknowledgement of origin in Paul’s day, which implied some acknowledgement of authority, but it is not today typically. Today there is no item of clothing that makes such a statement, nor does the length of a woman’s hair. Perhaps her willingness to take her husband’s family name when she marries does, or her willingness to wear a wedding ring might, or the way she speaks about her husband to others, or her modest dress, but not necessarily. A woman’s whole personal demeanor, especially how she views herself as a woman, reveals this about her. [Note: For defenses of the view that women should wear head coverings today in church meetings, see Bruce K. Waltke, "1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):46-57; and S. L. Johnson Jr., pp. 1247-48.]

"Although various Christian groups have fostered the practice of some sort of head covering for women in the assembled church, the difficulties with the practice are obvious. For Paul the issue was directly tied to a cultural shame that scarcely prevails in most cultures today. Furthermore, we simply do not know what the practice was that they were abusing. Thus literal ’obedience’ to the text is often merely symbolic. Unfortunately, the symbol that tends to be reinforced is the subordination of women, which is hardly Paul’s point. Furthermore, it would seem that in cultures where women’s heads are seldom covered, the enforcement of such in the church turns Paul’s point on its head." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 512. See also David K. Lowery, "The Head Covering and the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:2-34," Bibliotheca Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):159; Kenneth T. Wilson, "Should Women Wear Headcoverings?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):442-62; and Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 110.]

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

The opposite condition existed when women prayed or prophesied in the church meetings. Every woman who had her physical skull uncovered thereby dishonored her metaphorical head, namely, her husband (if married) or father (if single; 1Co 11:3).

What did Paul mean when he described a woman’s head as "uncovered?" There have been three major explanations. He may have meant that her head lacked some type of external cover, such as a shawl. Second, he could have meant that she had short hair that did not cover her head as completely as long hair. Third, he may have meant that she had let her hair down rather than leaving it piled up on her head. In this culture it was customary for women to wear their hair up when they went out in public. Probably he meant that she did not have an external covering on her head (view one). [Note: See Fee, The First . . ., pp. 495-97, 509-10.] The woman would dishonor her man by participating in public worship as he did, namely, with head uncovered.

Christian women typically wore a head-covering in the church meetings. This was not a stylish hat, skullcap, or inconspicuous doily, as some western women do today, but a shawl that covered her entire head and concealed her hair. [Note: Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 104.]

"Her face was hidden by an arrangement of two head veils, a head-band on the forehead with bands to the chin, and a hairnet with ribbons and knots, so that her features could not be recognized." [Note: Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, p. 359.]

This was similar to what some modern Islamic women wear: a head-covering (Arabic hijab) and a face-veil (Arabic niqab). In Paul’s culture most women, Christians and non-Christians alike, wore such a covering whenever they went out in public. Conservative Islamic women still veil themselves similarly when they go out in public.

Probably the issue in the Corinthian church that Paul was addressing was that certain "wise," "spiritual," liberated women had stopped wearing this covering in the church meetings. Paul had previously written that in Christ males and females are equal before God (Gal 3:28). He meant we are equal in our standing before God. This teaching, combined with the Corinthians’ carnal tendencies, were evidently the root of the problem.

"It seems that the Corinthian slogan, ’everything is permissible,’ had been applied to meetings of the church as well, and the Corinthian women had expressed that principle by throwing off their distinguishing dress. More importantly they seem to have rejected the concept of subordination within the church (and perhaps in society) and with it any cultural symbol (e.g., a head-covering) which might have been attached to it. According to Paul, for a woman to throw off the covering was an act not of liberation but of degradation." [Note: Lowery, p. 529. See also H. Wayne House, "Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach before Men?" Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):141-61, who concluded that she should not.]

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