Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head ] The Apostle now gives reasons for what he has just said. His first argument is that to appear uncovered in the congregation denotes the having no visible superior there. But woman has a visible superior, namely, man. To this fact, when she appears in public, her very dress should testify. See also 1Co 11:10.
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God ] Additional reason for the Apostle’s directions. Man is God’s image (Gen 1:26-27; Gen 5:1; Gen 9:2; Gen 9:6), inasmuch as he is the highest of all living beings in the visible world. His glory, i.e. the manifestation or representation of His glory, on account of the dominion over all things in the world committed to him (Gen 1:16; Gen 1:28; Gen 3:16). As he is thus a visible representation of God, he is not to veil his head, the noblest part of his body, in the public worship of the Church.
the woman is the glory of the man ] Woman is not the manifestation or representation of the glory of God on earth, inasmuch as she is subject to man, and therefore cannot properly represent Him Who has no superior. But to all inferior beings she represents and is scarcely distinguishable from man, and therefore manifests and shares his superiority; reflects it, as the moon does the light of the sun, to use (and it may be said, to complete) the simile of Grotius here. See Alford’s note.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head – That is, with a veil; or in public worship; when he approaches God, or when in His name he addresses his fellow man. It is not fit and proper that he should be covered. The reason why it is not proper, the apostle immediately states.
Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God – The phrase the image of God refers to the fact that man was made in the likeness of his Maker Gen 1:27; and proves that, though fallen, there is a sense in which he is still the image of God. It is not because man is truly or pure, and thus resembles his Creator; but it evidently is because he was invested by his Maker with authority and dominion; he was superior to all other creatures; Gen 1:28. This is still retained; and this the apostle evidently refers to in the passage before us, and this he says should be recognized and regarded. If he wore a veil or turban, it would be a mark of servitude or inferiority. It was therefore improper that he should appear in this manner; but he should he so clad as not to obscure or hide the great truth that he was the direct representative of God on the earth, and had a superiority to all other creatures.
And glory of God – The word glory in the classic writers means:
- Opinion, sentiment, etc.;
(2)Fame, reputation.
Here it means, as it often does, splendor, brightness, or that which stands forth to represent God, or by which the glory of God is known. Man was created first; he had dominion given him; by him, therefore, the divine authority and wisdom first shone forth; and this fact should be recognized in the due subordination of rank, and even in the apparel and attire which shall be worn. The impression of his rank and superiority should be everywhere retained.
But the woman is the glory of the man – The honor, the ornament, etc. She was made for him; she was made after he was; she was taken from him, and was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. All her comeliness, loveliness, and purity are therefore an expression of his honor and dignity, since all that comeliness and loveliness were made of him and for him. This, therefore, ought to be acknowledged by a suitable manner of attire; and in his presence this sense of her inferiority of rank and subordination should be acknowledged by the customary use of the veil. She should appear with the symbol of modesty and subjection, which are implied by the head being covered This sense is distinctly expressed in the following verse.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. A man indeed ought not to cover his head] He should not wear his cap or turban in the public congregation, for this was a badge of servitude, or an indication that he had a conscience overwhelmed with guilt; and besides, it was contrary to the custom that prevailed, both among the Greeks and Romans.
He is the image and glory of God] He is God’s vicegerent in this lower world; and, by the authority which he has received from his Master, he is his representative among the creatures, and exhibits, more than any other part of the creation, the glory and perfections of the Creator.
But the woman is the glory of the man.] As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast of the field, c. so the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man. I believe this to be the meaning of the apostle; and that he is speaking here principally concerning power and authority, and skill to use them. It is certainly not the moral image of God, nor his celestial glory, of which he speaks in this verse.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head; covering the head being in those countries a token of subjection, a man ought to uphold the power, pre-eminence, and authority with which God hath invested him, and not to cover his head, further than it is naturally covered with hair.
Forasmuch as he is the image and glory, of God; because he hath a peculiar cause of glorying in God, as he to whom alone he is subject, and therefore ought by no habits or postures to show himself in subjection to others: or because God glorieth in him, as a most excellent piece of his workmanship: God is represented in man. Paul useth to call that ones glory wherein he glorieth, 2Co 1:12,14; 1Th 2:20. So David ealleth God his glory; and Solomon tells us, Pro 17:6, that the glory of children are their fathers. So as the apostle here useth a double argument for the mans not covering of his head:
1. Because the man is immediately subject to God, and therefore ought not by any habits, or civil rites, to show his natural subjection to men, that are not by nature his superiors (for we must not think, that the apostle by this argument forbiddeth subjection to natural, economical, or political superiors).
2. Because God glorieth in man.
But the woman is the glory of the man, created for the honour of the man, and for his help and assistance, and originally made out of man, so as man may glory of her, as Adam did of Eve, Gen 2:23,
This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. The glory of God ought to be revealed and uncovered, manifested to all: the glory of the man ought to be hidden and concealed.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7-9. Argument, also, from man’smore immediate relation to God, and the woman’s to man.
he is . . . image . . . gloryof Godbeing created in God’s “image,” firstand directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly,through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God’s”glory” this ideal of man being realized most fully in theSon of man (Psa 8:4; Psa 8:5;compare 2Co 8:23). Man isdeclared in Scripture to be both the “image,” and in the”likeness,” of God (compare Jas3:9). But “image” alone is applied to the Son of God(Col 1:15; compare Heb1:3). “Express image,” Greek, “theimpress.” The Divine Son is not merely “like“God, He is God of God, “being of one substance (essence) withthe Father.” [Nicene Creed].
woman . . . glory of . . .manHe does not say, also, “the image of the man.”For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the imageof God, as well as the man (Gen 1:26;Gen 1:27). But as the moon inrelation to the sun (Ge 37:9),so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with lightderived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not thatshe does not in grace come individually into directcommunion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediatelygiven her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,…. The Ethiopic version adds, “whilst he prays”; which is a proper interpretation of the words, though a wrong version; for the apostle’s meaning is not, that a man should not have his head covered at any time, but whilst he is in public worship, praying, prophesying, or singing of psalms: the reason is,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. The apostle speaks of man here as in his first creation, in his state of innocence before his fall; but now he has sinned and defaced this image, and come short of this glory; which lay partly in his body being made after the exemplar of the body of Christ, the idea of which God had in his eternal mind, and according to which he shaped the body of Adam: and partly in his soul, in that righteousness and holiness, wisdom and knowledge, and all other excellent gifts in which it was formed. So the Jews b say, the understanding is “the glory of God”. And it chiefly lay in the power and dominion he had over all the creatures, and even over the woman when made; at least this is principally respected here, in which there is such a shine and representation of the glory and majesty, power and dominion of God; and therefore man ought to worship him with his head uncovered, where this image and glory of God is most illustriously displayed: not but that the woman, is the image and glory of God also, and was made as man, after his image and likeness, with respect to internal qualities, as righteousness, holiness, knowledge, c. and with regard to her power over the other creatures, though in subjection to man but yet man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority:
but the woman is the glory of the man; being made out of him, and for his help and assistance, and to be a crown of honour and glory to him. The apostle speaks the sense, and in the language of the Jews. The words in Isa 44:13. “After the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man”, are by the Targum rendered, “after the likeness of a man, after the glory of a woman”; and the note of a famous c interpreter of theirs upon the last clause is, “this is the woman”, “who is the glory of her husband”; but why is she to be covered for this reason, when the man is to be uncovered? it is to be observed, that it is in the presence and worship of God that the one is to be uncovered, and the other covered; the one being the glory of God, and therefore to be uncovered before him; and the other the glory of man, and therefore to be covered before God; and especially, since being first in the transgression, she who is man’s glory has been the means of his shame and disgrace. The Jews seem to make this the reason of the difference; they ask d,
“why does a man go out with his head uncovered, and a woman with her head covered? it is answered, it is like to one that has committed a sin, and he is ashamed of the children of men, therefore she goes , “with her head covered”.”
b Maimon. in Misn. Chagiga, c. 2. sect 1. 1. c R. Sol. Jarchi in Isa. xliv. 13. d Bereshit Rabba, sect. 17. fol. 15. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The image and glory of God ( ). Anarthrous substantives, but definite. Reference to Gen 1:28; Gen 2:26 whereby man is made directly in the image () of God. It is the moral likeness of God, not any bodily resemblance. Ellicott notes that man is the glory () of God as the crown of creation and as endowed with sovereignty like God himself.
The glory of the man ( ). Anarthrous also, man’s glory. In Ge 2:26 the LXX has (Greek word for both male and female), not (male) as here. But the woman () was formed from the man () and this priority of the male (verse 8) gives a certain superiority to the male. On the other hand, it is equally logical to argue that woman is the crown and climax of all creation, being the last.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Image and glory [ ] For image, see on Revelation 13 14. Man represents God ‘s authority by his position as the ruler of the woman. In the case of the woman, the word image is omitted, although she, like the man, is the image of God. Paul is expounding the relation of the woman, not to God, but to man.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head.” (aner mangar ouk opheilei katakaluptesthai) “For certainly a man ought not to let be covered the head.” (of him).
2) “Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” (eikon kai doksa theou huparchon) “Inasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” He is to glorify God in all that he is and all that he does, 1Co 10:31; Gen 1:26-27.
3) “But the woman is the glory of the man (he gune de doksa andros estin) “But the woman exists as the glory of man.” The woman is the help meet, the partner, to cleave in subjection to her own husband, to both aid her husband in and herself glorify God. Gen 3:16-17; 1Pe 3:16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
7. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed anew, according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this — that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.
The woman is the glory of the man There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, (626) and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife — that she is a crown to her husband, (Pro 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.
(626) “ Pour estre compagne a l’homme, pour viure auec luy, et pour luy aider;” — “To be a companion to the man, to live with him, and to aid him.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(7) For a man indeed.In 1Co. 11:4-7 the argument against the womans head being uncovered was based upon (a) the womans relation to man, and (b) the mans relation to Christ in the Church. In the three following verses, 1Co. 11:7-9, the ground of the argument is changed, and the same conclusion is arrived at from a review of (a) the womans relation to man, and (b) mans relation to God in the physical Creation. The external form of this argument is the same as that adopted previously. The Apostle first states what the man must not do, and then conversely what the woman must do. The Apostle here takes up the order of creation mentioned in Genesis 1, 2, and the argument runs thus:Man was made in the image of God, and is the glory of God; but woman is the glory of the man (for woman was made out of man, and also man was not created for woman, but woman fori.e., as a help-meet forman). Therefore man, as a created being, according to the accepted order of creation, is the direct representative of God, and woman the direct representative of man (and only indirectly and through him of God). The spiritual equality of man and wife does not upset this relationship, and therefore an attempt to destroy the outward expression of it is to be condemned, as it would soon lead to an obliteration of the fact itself.
It is to be remembered all through this passage (and it gives a further emphasis to the allusion to Adam and Eve) that St. Paul is only speaking of married womenit is most unlikely that any case had occurred of an unmarried woman attempting such an outrage upon social feeling and national custom. The Greek women when in public (except those of avowedly bad character) either wore a veil or drew the peplum, or shawl, over their heads.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Image and glory of God As God is Lord of the universe, so man is authorized lord in the earth. Gen 1:27. Hence, as having no visible superior in the world among the creatures of God, modesty never compels him to cover his head before any.
Woman glory of man As emanating from himself, as he emanates from God, and as a beautiful and wonderful second self, just as he is God’s representative or finite second self on earth.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.’
In the end Paul brings it all back to theology. The previous idea is amplified. The man ought to wear no head covering in his approach to God, and to man on God’s behalf, because of what he is, God’s image, God’s glory on earth, established as such at creation. He is God’s prime priest and king. The thought may be that he shares to some extent in the glory of God through his being the Temple of God, and indwelt by His Spirit, and that he also shares it because of the status the God gave him when He first created man. Thus to cover the head would be to mar that image and hide that glory, it would be to veil it, (as Moses did – Exo 34:29-35) while God does not want His glory veiled. But it is all in order to bring glory to God, not to bring glory to the man. Paradoxically once a man begins to glory in himself, he loses his glory, for God withdraws from him. How can he glory in himself when in the presence of his Lord, and when representing the Lord? On the other hand the woman is the glory of the man, and shares the glory of the man. Her position is important but secondary, and has come to her through him. So while she shares his glory, and thus shares his privileged position, she must not try to take his place, she must not, by herself being uncovered, take away from before the world the fact that he has been appointed as lord of creation with the right to act in Christ’s Name. Her glory is in a sense a borrowed one, she is his helpmeet, but nevertheless it is a glory given to her by God. But to reveal her hair, which is her glory (1Co 11:15), would be to take glory to herself, when she should in church be revealing herself as helpmeet, so pointing to man in his position as lord of creation.
We must of course recognise that the terms are all used in a Christian sense. There is no idea here of people seeking glory for themselves. The situation is indeed the very opposite. Each is intent on bringing glory to the other. The man is bringing glory to God. The woman is bringing glory to the man in the eyes of all and thus to God. (Does someone ask, who is bringing glory to the woman? The answer is, she is most of all, by demonstrating that she is God’s true servant, and God and man are as she shares the glory given to the man).
‘The image and glory of God.’ This might be seen as being a synonym of ‘image and — likeness’ of God (Gen 1:26) although there the emphasis, as here, is on image. The ‘image’ represents what God is like. Something of God is revealed to the world by man as he prophesies. He should not therefore be shown as in submission and under another authority. He is acting as God’s representative. And God’s authority is supreme, even as revealed by His appointed representative. But ‘the glory’ often has another meaning.
‘The glory.’ In the Old Testament the ‘glory’ of a man or king or nation was revealed in possessions, and even in armies. They were his/their glory (Gen 31:1; Isa 8:7; Isa 10:3; Isa 10:16 contrast Isa 17:3-4 where the glory was at its lowest). It was their glory because it demonstrated what they were, what they possessed and ruled over and controlled, and what they could achieve. So man sums up both what God is and, as lord over creation, what He represents. Men are thus supremely God’s ‘glory’, the main aspect of God’s possessions, God’s army on earth, what counts most in God’s scheme of things. Man is the main instrument for the carrying out of His purposes. He is God’s wealth. Men are God’s battalions. This had especially become true in the coming of Jesus Christ, and in the establishment of God’s new people led by the Apostles. Thus for such a man to be covered as he acts in the name of Christ would be to degrade God, and such a covering would indicate that the man too is degraded. In normal life he may be covered, but when acting in Christ’s Name he must never be covered.
Even the lowest slave in his master’s house church, acknowledging by his clothing his submission to his master, removes his head covering when he prays or prophesies. For then he acts, not in his master’s name, but In Christ’s Name as God’s free representative.
‘But the woman is the glory of the man.’ The woman on the other hand is man’s helpmeet from the time of creation onwards. She is his, and as his equal helpmeet is his main protagonist, his main glory in his service of God, that which he treasures above all. She is more treasured than anything that he owns. For she is there as his fellow-servant to aid his service for God, specially created so as to serve with him. She too may pray and prophesy, but always as acting in man’s name as his second-in-command. She is subject to man. As in 1Ti 2:12 the idea is that the overall control should be with the male and that she should play a subsidiary, even though important, role.
We may liken her to the vizier acting in the name of the king. Such a person did not feel demeaned. They proudly wore their insignia depicting their position and authority, acknowledging that they acted in the king’s name. And yet at the same time they acknowledged that they were in submission to him, for that was their role. So is it to be with the woman as she wears her covering. It is to be both an indication of her authority (1Co 11:10) as acting as his representative, and of her submission to man as she acts alongside him, because of his appointed status. She acknowledges that he is the lord of creation, and she is his vizier.
Thus he and she together in Christ are over all creation. That includes unsaved man, as well as unsaved woman. But this is only because she is within God’s plan. And this involves acknowledgement of saved man as her in Christ. Let her deny this and she sinks from her glorious position to the position of the lowest of all.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The apostle advances a further argument for the woman’s veiling:
v. 7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch, as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.
v. 8. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
v. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.
v. 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
v. 11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
v. 12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. The relative position of the sexes is here based upon the Scripture-account of the creation: For a man indeed should not veil the head, since the image and glory of God he is. See Gen 1:26. He was created in, and therefore represents, the image of God, and in this likeness he also bears the visible splendor of God; he rules in his own sphere by virtue of the power and freedom given him by God, and this conduct redounds to the glory of God. But the wife is the glory of man; she has the dignity of her position from man; in her office in the home she represents the majesty of the man. Note: From this statement it follows that the respect shown to women is the measure and safeguard of human dignity. That the distinction made at the time of the creation is to be observed also in the Christian Church appears, moreover, from the story of the creation of Eve, Gen 2:18-25. For not is man from woman, but woman from man; and not was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. In the case of all other organic creatures the Lord created them in two sexes at once, but Adam was created alone at the beginning, and it was only afterward that the woman originated, being made out of one of his ribs. And in fashioning woman in this way, the Lord aimed to meet the man’s need; she was to be a helpmeet for him. It is a subversion of the order of creation if a woman regards her husband as the servant of her pleasure, as the instrument of her subsistence.
So important does the apostle consider the maintenance and observance of the relation between the sexes as fixed by God that he wants also the external sign of the woman’s auxiliary position retained: For this reason the woman is obliged to have “power on her head”; she should wear the token, or emblem, of her status, the veil, as denoting the power which she derives from the man, and that on account of the angels. The angels, being present in public worship, are offended by irreverence and misconduct. Even if men might, under circumstances, not find it offensive or scandalous for a woman to discard the dignity of her position, the presence of God’s holy angels ought to deter a true woman from unwomanly behavior.
In discussing their position so frankly, Paul has no intention of belittling the state of women or to ascribe inferiority to them: Nevertheless, and yet, neither woman without man, nor man without woman, in the Lord; for even as the woman is out of, derived from, the man, so also the man is through the woman; but everything is from God, who is the Originator of all. The woman is not in the Lord apart from man, she has no claim in a Lord all for herself: the same Christ is the Lord of both, a fact which applies to the man as well. They stand side by side, with equal rights, in the Kingdom of Grace. The woman was taken from man, he’ was the initial cause of being to the woman; but, on the other hand, woman, by the order of God in nature, is the instrumental cause of being to the man. But these facts give neither party a right to boast, since, after all, God is the Source, the Creator, of all things; to Him both must give reverence. This holds true especially in home life. The man should regard himself as living in the Lord for the sake of his wife, and likewise the woman for the sake of her husband. Married people belong together in the house of God, together at the Table of the Lord, together in home devotions, together in all things in which the life in the Lord is fostered; they are heirs together of the grace of life, 1Pe 3:7.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 11:7. Glory of God The word rendered glory signifies both a beam or irradiation, and a likeness. But I apprehend, that here the word must be taken in the latter sense. As a man ought not to have his head covered, as being the immediate image and glory of God, made in his likeness, as the first copy of his kind, before woman was created; it is therefore decent that he should appear with the marks of that superiority which he bears. But the woman should forbear it; and it is enough to say of her, that she is the glory of the man, to whom God hath done no inconsiderable honour, as well as favour, in making so excellent and amiable a creature for his consort. Yet still her state of subjection to him should be remembered; and it is very expedient that she should appear in public with some tacit acknowledgments of it. See Hammond, Locke, Elsner, and Calmet. Theodoret observes, that man is here stiled the image and glory of God, neither as to his body, nor as to his soul; for in respect of the soul the woman is equally the glory of God, as to spirituality and immortality, and so is equally said to be made after his image. See Gen 1:26-27.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 11:7-9 . ] introduces the grounding of the , consequently a second ground for the proposition under discussion (the first being 1Co 11:3-6 ). The argument sets out again (comp 1Co 11:3 ) e contrario .
] does not mean: he is not bound , which, as 1Co 11:3 shows, would not be enough; but: he ought not , etc., in contrast to the woman who ought (1Co 11:5 ; 1Co 11:10 ). Comp 2Co 12:14 .
. . . [1773] ] The obligation to pray, etc., with the head covered would be inconsistent with this high dignity, because to cover the head is a sign of submission to human power, 1Co 11:10 . A man as such ( ) is the image of God (Gen 1:26 f.), inasmuch as he, being Adam’s representative, has dominion over the earth. Other elements of what constitutes the image of God are not, according to the context, taken into account here, nor are the ecclesiastical definitions of it. He is also the glory of God , inasmuch as, being the image of God, he, in his appearance as man, practically represents on earth in a human way the majesty of God as a ruler. Rckert, following older interpreters (given in Wolf), holds that is meant here as the rendering of , Gen 1:26 ; as also the LXX., in Num 12:8 , Psa 17:15 , translates by . But had Paul wished to convey the meaning of , a passage so important and so familiar as Gen 1:26 would certainly have suggested to him the word used there by the LXX., . corresponds simply to the Hebrew .
Paul describes only the man as being the image and of God; for he has in his eye the relation of marriage , in which rule is conferred on the man alone. The woman accordingly has, in harmony with the whole connection of the passage, to appear simply as , inasmuch, namely, as her whole wedded dignity, the high position of being spouse of the man, proceeds from the man and is held in obedience to him; so that the woman does not carry an independent glory of her own, an , but the majesty of the man reflects itself in her, passing over to her mediately and, as it were, by derivation. Grotius compares her happily to the moon as “lumen minus sole.” This exposition of is the only one which suits the context, and corresponds in conception to the preceding , without at the same time anticipating what is next said in 1Co 11:8-9 . The conception of the , which is in case of the man and in that of the woman, is determined by the idea of the ordo conjugalis , not by that of humanity (Hofmann) originally realized in the man but passing thence into a derivative realization in the woman.
Paul omits in the woman’s case, not because he refused to recognise the divine image in her (except in an immediate sense), but because he felt rightly that, in view of the distinction of sex, the word would be unsuitable (comp de Wette), and would also convey too much, considering the subordinate position of the woman in marriage. 1Co 11:8 . For there is not such a thing as man from woman , etc., but the relation of the two as respects being is the converse. 1Co 11:9 . The here is subordinate to that in 1Co 11:8 : “ for there was not created a man for the woman’s sake, but conversely.” This is the concrete historical establishment, from the narrative of their creation , of the relation between the two sexes, which had been generally stated in 1Co 11:8 ; in giving it, Paul, with Gen 2:18 in his view, does not bring in again, but , which, however, considering how familiar the history was, throws no doubt upon the genuineness of the . In the (which has the force of even indeed , Hartung, I. p. 135) belongs to . The present genetic relation of the two sexes, 1Co 11:8 , began as early as the creation of the first pair.
[1773] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Ver. 7. He is the image and glory of God ] Even as an image in the glass doth look toward us, from whom it is reflected. So, saith one, doth God’s image in us make the eyes of our minds view him the author of it in us. (Bayn’s Letters.) And as the eye becometh one with that which it seeth, and is after a sort in that light it beholdeth; so are we by the vision of God, which is begun in us, one with him and in him.
The woman is the glory of the man ] Either because he may glory in her, if she be good; or because she is to honour him, and give glory to him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7 9 .] A second reason for the same, from the dependence of the man on God only, but of the woman on the man .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
7. ] refers back to and gives a reason for , the difference between the sexes being assumed, that one should be and the other should not be veiled. The emphasis is accordingly on .
, should not, ought not : see reff.
, ref. Gen. This the man is, having been created first, directly , and in a special manner: the woman indirectly, only through the man .
. .] And the (representative of the) glory of God : on account of his superiority and godlike attributes among other created beings. This is obviously the point here brought out, as in Psa 8:6 ; not, that he is set to shew forth God’s glory ( , Phot [46] in cum.), however true that may be: nor, as Estius, from Augustine, ‘ quia in illo Deus gloriatur:’ nor is the representative of the Heb. , Gen 1:26 ( ) , as Rckert, al., suppose, because the LXX have rendered , Num 12:8 ; Psa 17:15 , by : for, as Meyer observes, in so well-known a passage as Gen 1:26 , the Apostle could hardly fail to have used the LXX word .
[46] Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 858 891
Man is God’s glory : He has put in him His Majesty, and he represents God on earth: woman is man’s glory : taken ( 1Co 11:8 ) from the man , shining (to follow out Grotius’s similitude, “minus aliquid vero, ut luna lumen minus sole”) not with light direct from God, but with light derived from man , “ , , philosophis. Imperat materfamilias su famili, sed viri nomine.” Grot. This of course is true only as regards her place in creation, and her providential subordination, not in respect of the dependence of every woman’s individual soul directly on God, not on man , for supplies of grace and preparations for glory. The Apostle omits , because anthropologically the woman is not the image of the man, on account of the difference of the sexes: and also perhaps because thus he would seem to deny to the woman the being created in the divine image, which she is as well as the man, Gen 1:26-27 . The former reason appears the more probable: and so De W. and Meyer. “It may be observed that, whereas in Genesis the general character of man under the Hebrew name answering to is the only one brought forward, here it is merged in the word , which only expresses his relation to the woman.” Stanley.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 11:7-16 . 36. MAN AND WOMAN IN THE LORD. The Ap. has insisted on the woman’s retaining the veil in token of the Divine order pervading the universe, which Christ exhibits in His subordination to the Father. But he has some further observations to make on the relative position of the sexes. In the first place, he bases what he has said of the headship of man on the story of creation , exhibiting man as the direct reflexion of God, woman as derived and auxiliary (1Co 11:7-9 ); in this connexion the ref [1633] to “the angels” must be understood (1Co 11:10 ). At the same time, man and woman are necessary each to the other and derive alike from God (1Co 11:11 f.). Having thus grounded the matter upon Christian principle, P. appeals in confirmation to natural feeling (1Co 11:13-15 ), and finally to the unbroken custom of the Church (1Co 11:16 ).
[1633] reference.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1Co 11:7 . (not ) . . .: “For man indeed (being man) ought not to have his head veiled” ( , pr [1634] inf [1635] of custom ), in contrast with woman who ought (1Co 11:5 ; 1Co 11:10 ) this is as wrong on his part as it is right on hers; negatives the whole sentence, as in ver. I. , like (1Co 11:19 ), denotes moral or rational necessity, the former vb [1636] in a more personal, the latter in a more abstract way. For him to veil his head would be to veil the “image and glory of God”; Christ, the image of God, became as . (see parls.), “being constituted” so. To accompany , P. substitutes for the ( d’muth ) of Gen. the more expressive by which the LXX renders the synonymous t’munah of Psa 17:15 God’s “glory” being His likeness in visible splendour; cf. Heb 1:3 . P. conceives Gen 1:26 to apply to Adam as primarily, although in 1Co 11:27 it stands, “God created man in His own image male and female created He them”. . . . presents a shortened antithesis to the clause; logically completed it reads, “But the woman (ought to have her head veiled, for she) is the glory of the man” not of the race ( ), but of the stronger sex. Paul omits , which does not hold here; she is not man’s reflexion, but his counterpart not “like to like, but like in difference,” wedded as “perfect music unto noble words”; she partakes, through him, in the (Gen 1:27 ). That which in our common nature is most admirable faith, purity, beauty man sees more excellently and proportionately shown in hers. It follows that he who degrades a woman sullies his manhood, and is the worst enemy of his race; the respect shown to women is the measure and Safeguard of human dignity.
[1634] present tense.
[1635] infinitive mood.
[1636] verb
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
forasmuch as he is = being originally. Greek. huparcho. See Luk 9:48.
image. Greek. eikon. See Rom 1:23. Compare Gen 1:27; Gen 9:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
7-9.] A second reason for the same,-from the dependence of the man on God only, but of the woman on the man.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 11:7-10. , …, ought not, etc.) The man has more freedom in regard to his head-dress, especially when he is not engaged in praying or prophesying, than the woman.-, to cover) verses 7 and 10 have an exact antithesis. Observe, first, he ought not, and she ought: secondly, look at the diagram: The man ought not to be covered; because the man is, A. the image of God, B. and the glory of God: but the woman ought to be covered: C. because she is the glory of the man, D. and on account of the angels. The man, he says, is the image of God; supply, and of Christ from 1Co 11:3 (see 1Co 11:8; comp. 1Co 11:12; , of, concerning the man and concerning God; but , by, concerning the woman): not only on account of his power over the woman itself, but also on account of the causes of that power, viz., because the woman is of the man; but she is of the man, for (, 1Co 11:9) she was created for the man. But the man is, in a nearer relation, both of God and under God; and so he represents God. Now because man is the image of God, he is at the same time the glory of God; comp. glory, 2Co 8:23. But the woman is the glory of the man; because the man is the head and lord of the woman. It is not said, the image and glory of the man; but only the glory of the man, as it were suspending the expression. But he proves, that she is the glory of the man, 1Co 11:8-9, as it were in a parenthesis; from which it may also be gathered, why the man is the image and glory of God. Now since the woman is the glory of the man, she might at the same time be called the image of the man; but Paul compensates for this by another expression, and says, for this cause, namely, because the woman is the glory of the man, she ought to be covered because of the angels; for in the diagram which we have just laid down, D is to A, as C to B. The meaning of this gnome-like sentiment[92] [expressed entirely in the same way in the notes to the Germ. Ver.] should be elicited from the very words that are added; let the woman cover herself because of the angels, i.e. because the angels are also covered. As the angels are to God, so the woman is to the man. The face of God is manifested: whereas the angels are covered, Isaiah 6. The face of the man is manifested, [uncovered]; the woman is covered. Nor is the man on that account exalted above the angels; but he is merely considered so far as he represents God in regard to the woman, which cannot be said of the angels. But the woman ought to be covered especially in praying and prophesying; for it belongs to the man, in preference to the woman, to pray and prophesy; when therefore the woman takes upon her those functions, then some open avowal is most necessary on her part, that woman is still properly and willingly inferior to man. Both the outward dress of the body showing humility in the heart, which the angels cannot penetrate, and the external order delight the angels themselves, who also contemplate the order, and look at the conduct of men in the assembly of the Church, 1Co 4:9; Eph 3:10; comp. Ecc 5:6, where LXX. have , before the face of God. The conclusion is drawn from angels to the uncreated Angel, as from the less to the greater. Add Psa 138:1. But if not covered, the woman offends the angels by what is unbecoming, Mat 18:10; Mat 18:31. Moreover the woman ought to be the more careful not to offend the angels on this account, that she requires their protection, somewhat more than the man. She needs it more, on account of her own weakness just as children [minors, inferiors] do: comp. note on Greg. Thaum. Paneg. 160; as also demons lay more snares for the woman, 2Pe 2:19. The sentence of the law against the man when seduced and overcome is in proportion to the seduction, and the victory gained over him; but the woman was first overcome; or farther, she is more assailed by those extremely limpure spirits, whom the Greeks, on account of their eagerness to obtain victims, call , lovers of destruction. Comp. Mat 8:31; Mat 12:43. This great superiority of the man over the woman is qualified in 1Co 11:11-12, by way of [after-softening of a previous unwelcome truth.-Append.], lest the man should exalt himself, or the woman think herself despised. Jac. Faber Stapulensis says, Man was immediately made by God, the image and likeness of God, for His glory: but the woman mediately through the man, who was as it were a veil placed between her and God; for the medium is viewed as an interposing object, and a veil. To mark this mystery, when a man turns himself to God, which he mostly does in praying or prophesying, he ought to do so with his head uncovered, having, so to speak, no veil between himself and God, offering thus to God the honour of his creation: but the woman with her head covered acknowledges her creation, and, as it becomes her, offers honour to God, in the second place and through the medium of the glory of the glory of God. The woman is mediate and second, and became immediately the glory of the man, and was made for the sake of the man himself. The same Stapulensis proceeds, Both man and the angels were immediately created by God, and therefore man should have no covering, as a symbol of this event, when he is turned to God, any more than the angels; but the woman ought to have it, not only on account of the man, but also on account of the angels; for it would be pride, if she made her creation equal to that of the angels, inasmuch as she has this power [the privilege of creation] by means of the man. For what else is this, that a woman has and ought to have power over her head, but that she has this privilege through the mediation of the man, i.e. through the mediation of her head, who is her husband? The discreet reader will skilfully qualify these remarks by those made by us above.
[92] See Appendix, under the title Noma.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 11:7
1Co 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:-The man is the image of his maker, was created for him, and to add to his glory. [Man is the glory of God as the crown of creation and as endowed with sovereignty like God himself, naming all creatures and having dominion over all the earth, and over everything that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26-28). He is also the glory of God as showing forth the glory of his Creator, and being his masterwork. The man existing in this double character, as the image and glory of God, 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.]
but the woman is the glory of the man.-The woman was created of and for the man. [That God provided for man a companion and helper so noble as woman proves the worth of man in Gods sight, and thus adds dignity to him; she shares and manifests his superiority; reflects it, as the moon does the light of the sun.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
he is: Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27, Gen 5:1, Gen 9:6, Psa 8:6, Jam 3:9
but: 1Co 11:3, Gen 3:16
Reciprocal: Gen 2:18 – I will Pro 12:4 – virtuous 1Co 14:34 – they are 1Th 2:20 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 11:7. God, Christ and man are all rulers in their respective ranks, hence a man should not cover his head and thus put himself in the same subject class as the woman. A woman can be a glory to man only by maintaining an attitude of submission to him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:7. For, etc. This whole view of the relation of the sexes is founded on a combination of Genesis 1, 2. As the first chapter gives the creation of man as man, both sexes are included (1Co 11:27); the woman, as an essential portion of humanity, created in Adam, being as truly the image and glory of God as the man. But in the second chapter, we have first the creation of the male, and then (not as a second creation, but) out of and from the man, the making of woman is recorded. Further, since Adam, though including the woman, was made to have dominion over all here below, the woman was made distinctively to be a help meet for the man, it being not good for the man to be alone. In these recorded facts, then, the apostle had the materials for his own statement made ready to his hand, which in substance is thisThe man, as the image and glory of God, in having dominion over sublunary things, ought not to have his headhis noblest and most godlike featurecovered in the public assemblies of the Church; but since the woman is distinctively the glory of the man, out of and for whom she was formed, this glory, belonging all to her husband, should be reserved for him at home, and in the public assemblies she should be veiled.
Ver. 7. For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head. This verse has puzzled critics more than almost any other. To refute the almost endless interpretations, most of them manifestly false, would be needless. With the simple supplement here inserted, the words speak for themselves; the veil being viewed as the symbol of her subjection to her husband.
because of the angelsa statement which from its unusual character is apt to startle one. The meaning probably is, that as ministering spirits to do service to the heirs of salvation, and so, present though unseen in their religious assemblies, they ought, in consideration of this, to avoid anything unbefitting the modesty of their sex.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
An Argument From the Order of Creation
There was nothing created that was superior to man ( Gen 1:2-31 ; Psa 8:6 ). Because of this, Paul said a man covering his head would bring shame on himself, the image and glory of God. In contrast to man, woman was of and created for man. Her purpose was first to glorify her husband. Paul’s statement was true because woman was made from man’s rib in the creation. Gen 2:18 says woman was created to fill man’s needs for companionship ( 1Co 11:7-9 ).
Because man was created first and the woman was created for him, Paul urged her to always show her subjection to man during worship. In Corinth, this was done by wearing a veil. Likely, the angels signify God’s displeasure over woman worshipping uncovered (see Luk 14:10 ). Concerning this whole matter of the veil, Guy N. Woods writes in Questions and Answers Open Forum: Freed-Hardeman College Lectures:
…in the church in Corinth..it was required of women to worship with covered heads and men to worship with uncovered heads the covered head, in the case of woman, to evidence her subordination to her ‘head’, (man), and the man to indicate his subordination to his ‘head,’ Christ. ( 1Co 11:3-5 )…(a) Paul did not originate the custom of covered heads for women but sanctioned a practice already recognized; and, (b) that while the headship relation continues, the manner by which it is indicated does not…I believe this matter is in exactly the same category as the instruction of the same apostle regarding the kiss a mode of greeting ( Rom 16:16 )…it was not a method of greeting which the apostle originated; he simply took what was already done and sanctified it made it a holy form of greeting…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…Not the slightest change had occurred in the relationship of men and women: both are to be subordinate to their heads; but, they do not indicate it as they did in Corinth and other countries of the ancient world.
Woman is only inferior to man in the sense of rank established by God in the creation. Man and woman are mutually dependent on one another for existence, as God appointed. While woman originally was made out of a part of man, men are now born of women. They depend on each other for existence. All this was appointed by God. Therefore, woman should be satisfied with her position and man should not overemphasize his position of authority ( 1Co 11:10-12 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
1Co 11:7-9. A man indeed ought not to cover, or veil, his head As a sign of subjection; forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God Namely, in respect of the dominion over the inferior creatures, with which he is clothed, representing the supreme dominion of God; for in respect of mental qualities, the woman is also the image of God: but the woman is the glory of the man By being subject to him, and of all creatures coming nearest to him in all the excellences of his nature. For the man is not of the woman In his first production; but the woman of the man As we read in the sacred history, Gen 2:21-23. Neither was the man created for the sake of the woman To accommodate and assist her; but the woman for the man That he might have a help meet for him, which before he found not in the whole creation, Gen 2:20.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vers. 7-12.
Thus far the apostle has been arguing from the parallel between the subordinate position which Christian principle ascribes to the woman (1Co 11:3), and the receptive position of the man relatively to Christ, and of Christ Himself relatively to God. Now he shows that the conclusion he has drawn from this double analogy is confirmed by the mode of the woman’s creation. For in the apostle’s eyes the kingdom of nature does not proceed from another God than that of grace. On the contrary, it is in the sphere of redemption that the Divine thoughts, which are only sketched in the kingdom of nature, reach perfection.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God [Man has no created superior (Gen 1:27; Psa 8:6), and, in addition to the glory which is his by reason of the nature of his creation, his estate has been further dignified and glorified by the incarnation of the Son of God (Heb 1:2-3), so that, because of his fellowship with Christ, he may stand unveiled in the presence of the Father. Therefore, by covering his head while at worship, man symbolically forfeits his right to share in the glory of Christ, and thus dishonors himself. We are no longer slaves, but sons (Gal 4:7). “We Christians,” says Tertullian, “pray with outspread hands, as harmless; with uncovered heads, as unashamed; without a prompter, as from the heart”]: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
1Co 11:7-34. The Desecration of the Lords Supper.Paul feels that in one respect he must restrict his praise. Their meetings damage rather than profit them. He cannot help believing part of what he hears about their divisions. To be sure they must have their factions, or their best men would get no chance of displaying their qualities! When they meet they have supper, it is true, but it is out of the question to eat the Lords Supper. Possibly the poorer members could not come early being detained by their work. The wealthier members could therefore eat and drink all they had brought, so that the poor, who could bring little, and that perhaps coarse food, had insufficient for a meal and had to eat this under the critical stare of the well-to-do. So that some were hungry, and naturally discontented and envious, while others became intoxicated. What a religious atmosphere for the most sacred rite, the remembrance of their Masters selfless sacrifice! The communal element which made it a church feast had disappeared and given place to a number of cliques. The members shared their food with their own coterie, not with the church at large, and thus accentuated their mutual exclusiveness. What a love-feast! As if they had no houses where they could sate themselves in privacy! that they must put this affront on Gods congregation, and, coarsely indifferent to the feelings of the sensitive, expose the poverty of those who have nothing! They cannot plead ignorance as to the true nature of the rite, for Paul had told it them, as it had come down to him from the Lord Himself through eyewitnesses of the scene. But he will tell them again. The account which follows (1Co 11:23-25) is very important as our earliest record, and should be compared with that in Mt., Mk. The comparison with Lk. is rendered more difficult by the uncertainty of the text. The reference to the betrayal is a very early piece of evidence corroborating the gospel account, and its incidental character suggests that Paul had related the Passion story in considerable detail. The Lord Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and broke the bread saying, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. When supper was over He took the cup similarly, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. This means, Paul comments, that whenever the command of repetition is fulfilled, they set forth, as in a sacred drama, the Lords death till He returns. Whoever then, does either of the acts in an unworthy manner or temper, is guilty of a profane indignity to the Lords body and blood. Let no one presume to participate save after self-examination. For, unless he recognises that it is Christs body which is involved, and not the mere bread and wine, he partakes to his own condemnation. That is why sickness is so prevalent among them and not a few deaths have occurred. Self-examination would prevent such judgments. Yet let them not miss their merciful intention; it is the Lords chastening of His people that they may not share in His condemnation of the world. So at the meeting for the common meal, let them wait for each other, and if necessary take the edge off their hunger before they come, so that they may no longer, by their disorderly and selfish conduct, draw down the Divine judgment. The regulation of other matters can stand over till Paul arrives.
1Co 11:19. The language may be ironical, or may mean that these factions are necessary to sift the good from the bad.
1Co 11:23. betrayed: delivered up (i.e. to death, Rom 4:25) is a possible rendering, but this does not suit in the night so well.
1Co 11:24. this do: the words do not mean offer this sacrifice.
1Co 11:29. discern not the body: possibly the body may mean the Church, the Lords body (see Exp., Aug. 1915).
1Co 11:30. sleep: the use of the Christian term for death in a context which speaks of death as a judgment is very striking.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 7
The meaning is, that the retiring and modest demeanor, appropriate to the character and station of woman, is not required of man.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
11:7 {6} For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
(6) The taking away of an objection: have not men also hair given to them? “I grant that”, says the apostle, “but there is another matter in it. For man was made to this end and purpose, that the glory of God should appear in his rule and authority. But the woman was made so that by profession of her obedience, she might more honour her husband.”
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
2. The argument from creation 11:7-12
Paul proceeded with a second supporting argument to correct the Corinthians’ perversion regarding women’s head-coverings.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Men should not cover their heads in Christian worship because they are the glory of God. Whereas Paul referred to man being the image and glory of God, his primary point was that man is the glory of God. His reference to man as the image of God clearly goes back to Gen 1:26-28, but there "glory" does not appear. "Glory" is Paul’s word, his reflection on the creation of man. This is the word that he proceeded to use to contrast man and woman.
Notice that Paul did not say that the woman is to cover her head because she is the glory of man. Instead he proceeded to describe what being his glory means. A subordinate glorifies the one in authority over him or her just by being in a subordinate position.
". . . he [Paul] says that woman is the glory of man-not his image, for she too shares the image of God, and is not (as some commentators have thought) more remote from God than is man." [Note: Barrett, p. 249.]