But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved [woman].
Paul has just set out an order of headship, and now he applies it to a woman who prays or prophesies out loud. Two questions follow: what does it mean to dishonour "her head," and where was this praying and prophesying happening?
The word "head" shifts between the physical head and the person it stands for. Older translations read "woman" and "man" here, where the ESV reads "wife" and "husband." One commentator sets the two cases side by side.
When a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonours his head — that is, he outwardly dishonours Christ. His own physical head stands for Christ, and Christ is to be shown, not covered. On the other hand, a woman who prays or prophesies without a head covering dishonours her head — that is, she outwardly dishonours the man. How does she do this? By virtually putting the man in the place of Christ!
Chapter 11 allows a woman to pray and prophesy; chapter 14 tells women to be silent in the assembly. Most of the writers here resolve that by noticing what this verse does not say.
In the eleventh chapter he gives directions for women when praying or prophesying. In the fourteenth he tells them to be silent in the assembly. The one place permits ministry, but does not say where it was to happen. The other says plainly that it is not to be in the assembly. Evidently, then, prayer and prophecy were to be outside of the assembly.
Commentators differ on whether the setting is public. Another writer rejects that deduction. He reads the verse as saying what a woman would do if she prayed uncovered in the assembly:
It is sometimes deduced from 1 Corinthians 11:5 that Christian women prayed in the churches. Otherwise why should praying with their heads uncovered be spoken against? The deduction does not appear to us to be legitimate. If a Christian woman prays or prophesies in the assembly with her head uncovered, she does two things. First, she defies the order about the sexes that Paul gives elsewhere. Second, she dishonours her head. Only the second is mentioned here, because the first has no direct bearing on the subject, which is the hair: how should Christian men and women wear it?
Whatever the woman here is doing, it is not the same activity forbidden elsewhere. The distinction turns on what prophesying is.
1 Corinthians 11:5 applies to no meeting of sisters. It might be in their father's house, without any formal meeting at all, as Philip's four daughters. It refers to inspiration, not to teaching. A woman is not permitted to teach.
The verse assumes God really did give women this power. What it corrects is the assumption that a gift carries its own permission slip.
We are told in Acts 21:9 that Philip the Evangelist had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. If God gives spiritual power, He means it to be used. Still, He has chosen to regulate how it is used. The Christians had made a mistake that many have made since. They supposed that having a spiritual gift means unlimited freedom to use it at all times and in all places.
The comparison sounds harsh until you see what a shorn head meant in Israel.
When a woman's head was uncovered or shaven in the Old Testament it was a mark of shame. You can see it in Numbers 5:18, where a wife was under suspicion by her husband, and in Deuteronomy 21:10-13, about a woman taken captive by an Israelite... She must have no marks of shame upon her in the presence of the Lord. She is not to appear before God as one who is suspected of being unfaithful to her husband. The covering on her head would show that she acknowledges him as her head and enjoys his fullest confidence.
One writer puts the covering into words, and shows why the same act would be wrong for a man.
The apostle shows by her hair that God had covered her, and her mind and will are put on the same ground. A woman ought to be covered at family prayers, or like one of Philip's daughters prophesying in her father's house... The man is her real head, and she must cover her own head as a sign that she is under him. In effect she says, I have no head myself. The man is my head, and I am in subjection. The man could not do that, or there would be no visible head.
- Order. Headship made visible. A woman who prays uncovered "dishonors her head" — the man — by putting him in the place of Christ.
- Gift. Women really did receive the gift of prophecy. God means a gift He gives to be used. He also decides when and where.
- Place. Chapter 11 says a woman may pray and prophesy but never says where; chapter 14 says not in the assembly. Commentators differ on whether the setting here is public.
- Sign. An uncovered head is like a shaved head, because a shorn head was a public mark of shame. The covering says the opposite: she acknowledges her husband and has his full confidence.
- Practice. The settings named are family prayers and a father's house, as with Philip's daughters. Small acts, carrying a truth that is not small.
For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if [it be] shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered.
Confusion had crept into how the Corinthian believers appeared when praying and prophesying. Paul answers bluntly: a woman who refuses the covering may as well lose her hair, which raises two questions — what shame he means, and whether the covering is just her own hair.
The verse pushes a refusal to its logical end. It is a challenge, not a permission, and it shows why hair alone cannot settle the matter:
Some have also said that God gives a woman her hair as a covering, so that is enough. But God has given her long hair as a covering, and for that very reason He expects her to cover her own head too. That shows her agreement with what God has done. Notice the clear answer Scripture gives: "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short" (v. 6). Can this mean, "if a woman does not have hair, let her also cut her hair off?" Of course the Word of God does not indulge in such foolishness. The force of this verse is this: if the woman refuses to cover her head, she might as well go all the way. She might as well refuse what God has done in giving her long hair. Honest simplicity of faith can only bow to the facts as God gives them.
Verse 6 assumes the woman still has hair to cut. So the covering must be a second thing. (Older translations read "woman" here, where the ESV reads "wife.")
First, long hair is not the covering the apostle means, as people sometimes argue. In verse 6 he says, "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head." So the covering is something in addition to the long hair. Second, the instruction is for women — not wives only, but women — and not for children. Finally, this is no set of rules for women's dress. It is only a direction about what is fitting for them when they are praying.
The shame Paul names has a background in the law, and the covering says the opposite:
What shame did a woman's shaved or cut head confess? To answer that, we must look at the Law. There we find two occasions when the woman was shaved, or uncovered. First, when she was a suspected wife (Numbers 5). Second, when a man had recently taken her captive in battle and she was mourning her father's house, not yet joined to him (Deuteronomy 21). A woman's shaved state showed that she was not enjoying either the full confidence or the full joy of a husband. So the woman should not appear with such marks on her. The church should not look as though Christ suspected her, or as though she still felt herself a sorrowing captive. That would be her shame! But the covering on her head shows the church in neither of these states. It shows her happy in the affection and confidence of Christ, and this is her glory.
The dishonour lies in leaving the place God gave:
If she prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, she claims to express her place of dependence upon God, or to come from God. At the same time, she abandons the place of subjection in which God has placed her. In either case they have dishonoured themselves, for everyone out of his place is dishonoured before God. The uncovered woman is in effect taking the place of a man with a shaved head. It is a shame for a woman to have her head shaved, and that alone should teach her to cover it.
The covering is a sign, and one writer marvels that so small a sign sits in a letter about eternal things:
She was to have a covering on her head, a sign that she was subject to another. This may seem a very little thing. Yet what a wonderful thing it is, and what power it shows, to combine eternal things and the smallest matter of personal decorum in the same letter! The wearing of long hair or short, the use of a covering on the head or not! ... It is the smallness of man that needs big matters to make him important. But the smallest things of God have meaning when they bear on the glory of Christ, as they always do.
- Sign — the covering is a visible sign that the woman is subject to another, the place God gave her.
- Not hair — verse 6 assumes she still has hair to cut. So the covering is something added to the long hair God gave her.
- Shame — a shaved head marked a suspected wife or a mourning captive. The covering says the opposite: no suspicion, no captivity, but happy confidence.
- Dishonour — the fault is leaving your place. Anyone out of the place God gave is dishonoured before Him, man as much as woman.
- Small yet weighty — God joins the smallest matter of decorum to the greatest truths. Even small things bear on the glory of Christ.
For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory; but woman is man's glory.
Paul has just said that a man who prays with his head covered shames his head, while a woman who prays uncovered shames hers. His reason reaches back to creation, and it turns on two words — "image" and "glory" — and on whose glory should be seen when the church meets.
"Image" here is not about looking like God. One writer explains it from the statues of the gods in the ancient world:
As to the "image of God" in verse 7, "image" is something that represents another, and so a man represents God, though he has certainly failed to fill the place up. The image of Jupiter was not necessarily like Jupiter, but it was made to represent him. So man keeps the place, though he has fallen in it — the same place in which God put him.
Scripture uses two words — image and likeness — and they do not mean the same thing. That difference shows how fallen people can still carry God's image, and it points to the One who represents God perfectly:
Scripture speaks of "image" and "likeness." The difference is that likeness means being like another — having the same traits and features. "Image" gives the thought of representing another, whether like or not... Man is still said to be in the "image of God" (1 Cor. 11:7), though, as fallen, he is very unlike God... The Son is "the image of the invisible God," and One who in His own Person perfectly represents God in His character and moral attributes, before the whole universe.
Man's place is not just one rank among creatures. One writer points to a dignity no angel ever had:
He was made sinless. But beyond that, he stood as the centre of an immense system. No angel was that. No angel was the one single centre of a system all around him. Adam was.
The practice follows from the place. One writer sets the bare head and the covered head side by side as a sign of two glories:
When we gather as a Christian assembly, the men remove their hats and the women remain covered... Man was made in the image of God, in His likeness, and man's place in God's creation is to stand in the image and glory of God. He is head over the creation below him; so it would not do to cover up the glory of God. The man remains uncovered, but the woman was given to the man to be his helper. The woman is the glory of the man. So in God's presence the glory of man is covered, but the glory of God is uncovered.
Notice what Paul does not say. He does not call the woman the image of man. He calls her his glory, and the proof runs back to creation, not to later custom:
So the apostle points out that man stands directly as God's image and glory. Woman is man's glory, and she has no such place of public representation for God. Whatever she has in that respect comes indirectly, through him. Creation is the proof — not the way things have gone since. So no one can judge this rightly without looking back to the beginning... It is easy to see why, where people deny creation, or even ignore it, they argue and work for equality.
One glory belongs in the assembly, and another does not:
But the woman was created for man and of man, and she is the glory of man; therefore her head must be covered when she prays or prophesies, for man's glory must not be seen, especially in the gathered assembly. Christ's glory, and not man's, is to be displayed there.
The covering is not a mark of lesser value. The place she takes is itself called her glory:
"But the woman is the glory of the man." This glory is not the one to be displayed. Indeed, it is her very glory to be in lowly subjection that seeks no public place.
- Image — the word means standing for God, not looking like Him; man still holds that place, even though he has fallen in it.
- Place — that place is a real dignity: Adam stood at the centre of a whole system, and no angel ever held it.
- Glory — Paul calls the woman man's glory, not God's image; the proof lies in creation, not in later custom.
- Covering — in God's presence the glory of man is hidden and the glory of God is left uncovered; the covering makes that visible.
- Christ — when the assembly gathers, no human glory is on show, only Christ's; and for the woman, taking that place is itself her glory.
For man is not of woman, but woman of man.
Paul is settling how men and women should appear when they pray together, and he does not argue from custom. He goes back to Genesis, to how the woman was made — which raises a question people still ask: does coming out of man make her worth less?
Paul is not giving an opinion. He states what God did, and one writer sees marriage resting on it.
In 1 Cor. 11:8-9 the apostle Paul sums up the truth of the case in a few words, and it carries God's authority: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." Those who dare to dispute the fact must one day learn what it is to call God a liar. This is the ground of the sanctity of marriage: one woman for one man. From the beginning, He Who made her made her out of man, so that the two should be one flesh. People in general soon forgot it, and even Israel did. But there it stood, written and never erased, to instruct the faithful and shame the rebellious.
Paul is not describing how things run now. That is why he goes back to the start.
Creation is the proof, not the ordinary course of things since. So no one can judge this rightly without looking to the beginning. If verse 7 refers to where man and woman each came from, verse 8 then shows the woman made for the man, and after him. That is the ground of woman's subordination to man. Where people deny creation, or even ignore it, they naturally reason and work for their equality.
Does coming out of man make her lesser? One writer says the fact points the other way.
The very fact that woman was "taken out of man" proves her equality. She is not an inferior, but an equal, a helper suited to him. Between man and man there is similarity, sameness. Between man and woman there is equality, but with difference too.
This truth protects women. Where it is not known, they are degraded.
This divine ordinance, if observed, is a great protection for woman. She needs it, because she is at a disadvantage compared with man in more ways than one. In the pagan world this ordinance is unknown, and so woman becomes a mere possession, bought and sold and misused by man. These errors, and the abuses that come from them, cannot survive in the light of the truth we have here. Woman is not only of the same species as man, but in her origin was of his very flesh and bone — taken out of man.
One writer weighs the other side of the relationship.
No one should treat her as inferior to man, unfit to be his companion, unsuited to be his helper. For "as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman." She was taken out of man at the first, and ever since man has owed his life on earth to her. If both thought these simple words of Scripture through, they would learn their true place in relation to each other.
The origin of the woman leads to a visible sign. More than human eyes watch it.
In creation the man did not come from the woman, as has been true ever since. The woman came from the man: God took Eve from Adam's side. He created her for the man, since He said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation. So the woman should wear the sign of authority on her head — that is, she is under authority to her head, the man. Paul adds here, "because of the angels." Angels take a deep interest in the order God has set in His creation, and they care whether both man and woman obey.
One writer reads the same verse as a picture of Christ and the church.
He was given, it is true, in due time for the church, but the church from everlasting had been given to Him, and not He to the church. "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man" (1 Cor. 11:8).
- Origin. Woman was formed out of man. Paul builds everything on that fact. It carries God's authority, and it makes marriage sacred.
- Order. The argument rests on the beginning, so no one can judge it rightly without looking there. Ignore creation, and people set out to win equality on their own terms.
- Equality. Taken out of man, she is of his own flesh and bone: equal, though different. That truth has protected women wherever it is known.
- Balance. She came from the man once; every man since has come by the woman, so neither may despise the other.
- Witness. The sign on the head shows this order, and angels watch it. Behind it stands a greater picture: the church is of Christ, given to Him.
For also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.
Paul argues here from the start of the human race. The woman came out of man (v. 8), and she was made for him — but does that make her less, and does Eden still shape how Christians act when they meet?
Paul is not stating a cultural preference. One writer treats these words as carrying God's own authority, and rests marriage on them.
Paul sums up the truth of the case in 1 Cor. 11:8-9, and he does it with God's authority. Those who dare to dispute the fact must one day learn what it is to call God a liar. This is the ground of the sanctity of marriage: one woman for one man. That was the order from the beginning, laid down by Him who made her out of man, so that the two should be one flesh. Sadly, people in general forgot it far too soon, and even Israel forgot it. But there it was, written in a way that cannot be erased, to instruct the faithful and shame the rebellious.
The word "for" answers a question of purpose. Adam's need came first, and that need explains why God made a woman rather than a second man.
All this has to do with the present, not with what is final, what is heavenly, what is eternal. It is God's order as He set it up, and we are bound to respect it. Nor was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. The man was created first, and it was not good for him to be alone. The woman was created to meet this need. But why a woman — why not another man? Because another man would not have brought the same help. He needs someone who pictures the dependence of the creature, rather than the kind of independence given to man. That very dependence appeals to him, and appeals to his heart, because she depends on him.
Put the other way round, the direction of the help is fixed and cannot be reversed:
"Man was not created for the woman, but woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:9). So the woman was intended to supplement the man, not the man to supplement the woman.
Being made for someone is not the same as being made lower than them. The way she was made proves the opposite.
The very fact that woman was taken out of man proves her equality with him. She is not his inferior, but his equal, his helper. There is equality, but with it diversity. Woman was made for man and to be with him at his side. God never intended that woman should be an independent creature apart from man, but that she should be associated with him... Woman never shines more brightly than when fulfilling the object for which she was created, which first of all was to be man's helper.
Verse 9 feeds straight into the instruction about a covered head in verse 10.
"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God" (v. 7). As such he represents God, and God is to be prominent, not covered. "But woman is the glory of man" — and the glory of man is not to be prominent. She was created for the man, for God had said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation, and therefore the woman should have the sign of authority on her head — that is, that she is under authority to her head, the man.
This order has an audience beyond the room:
There are other creatures who are intelligent and aware of the order of God's ways. In relation to them, the women were to be covered because of the angels. The angels watch the ways of God in redemption, and they watch what this wonderful work of His would produce.
Paul does not let his argument turn into tyranny. He adds that the two belong together.
Verses 11 and 12 show, however, that the man and the woman complete one another. The man is not a dictator, and the woman is not a slave. Each is needed in his or her place to keep the human race going. The woman came from man in the beginning. Yet ever since, the man has come "by the woman." "But all things of God." His wisdom and work is supreme in every part of creation.
The pattern set in Eden is not only about husbands and wives. One writer applies the same words to Christ and the church.
Is not the Church needful to Christ? Yes, truly. God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." And again, "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." So the question is no longer only whether God can save a poor, helpless sinner. He did not leave "the first man" without a helper fit for him; neither would He leave the "Second."
- Origin. She was taken out of man — which is why commentators say this proves equality, not inferiority.
- Purpose. She was made for him, to meet a need God Himself named; another man would not have brought the same help.
- Sign. Because of that purpose, the woman wears a token of authority on her head, and men uncover.
- Audience. Angels watch this order kept, so a small visible act carries weight far beyond the room.
- Balance. The man and the woman complete one another — and the pattern of one made for another reaches its height in the church made for Christ.
Therefore ought the woman to have authority on her head, on account of the angels.
The apostle has just traced a line of headship: God over Christ, Christ over the man, the man over the woman. His conclusion here raises two questions — what "authority on her head" means, and why angels come into it.
The wording is odd: she is told to have authority, when the point is that she stands under it.
The expression "authority on the head" has caused endless discussion. To have authority on the head unquestionably means to wear the sign of it in a covering or veil. On the other hand, in verses 11 and 12 the apostle is careful to insist that man and woman belong to each other. He denies that either is independent of the other. He affirms that God is the source of both, and of all things.
Another writer reads the covering as a statement the woman makes about herself.
The apostle takes the state of the physical head as a sign. It shows the condition of the man or the woman in relation to their moral head. The woman's head — the man — is really her head, and she must cover her own head as a sign of her subjection. So she says in effect, "I have no head myself. The man is my head, and I am in subjection." The man could not do that, or there would be no visible head.
"That is why" points back to creation, not to local custom in Corinth.
In creation the man did not come from the woman, though that has been the way ever since. The woman came from the man, as God took Eve from Adam's side. God made her for the man, for He had said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation. So the woman should wear the sign of authority on her head — the sign that she is under authority to her head, the man.
The argument rests on the beginning, not on how things have gone since:
Creation is the proof — not, of course, the ordinary course of things since. It is therefore impossible to form a right estimate without looking to the beginning. It is easy to see what happens where people deny creation, or even ignore it. Men then naturally reason and labour for equality.
Angels come into it because of what they are by nature.
Two things mark off the angels who never fell from those who did: perfect subjection, and ready obedience to the voice of their Creator. The angels who fell did not keep the place first given to them. And the power that sets true order in God's Church is the same life-giving Spirit who adorned the heavens. That Spirit set the chosen angels in their appointed places. These, then, whose very nature is order, ought not to see disorder in God's house.
One writer marks where this applies, and who is watching there:
The apostle is not speaking of wearing the sign of subjection at all times, though I believe it would be very fitting. She is in this a spectacle, with all present, to the angels. The whole subject is modesty, order, decency, and things in their right place... Angels should learn something in the church.
Commentators differ over who these angels are. One writer runs through the other answers and rejects them all, including the idea that these are evil angels.
Most commentators have missed this thought completely. Some have drifted into degrading ideas about bad angels. Others have lowered the word to mean the righteous themselves, or Christian prophets, or those who preside in the assemblies, or people appointed to arrange betrothals, or mere spies sent there by the unfaithful.
Does this order make the woman less? One writer answers by pointing to Christ.
This shows us the woman's place in the natural sphere. Man is the head. This does not imply inferiority. If it did, Christ would be essentially inferior to God, His Father — a thought impossible to those who believe in His eternal Deity. But in position, and as Man, the blessed Son took the place of subjection and obedience to the Father.
There is more here than subjection. One writer calls the covering the woman's honour.
The woman's veil is not only a badge of her subjection; it is also her ornament and her praise. For meekness is beauty in the sight of God, and praise belongs to those who stay willingly in their appointed place.
- Cause. The "that is why" reaches back past custom to creation: woman from man, and for man. So the instruction stands wherever creation stands.
- Sign. "Authority on her head" means wearing the token of the authority she is under. The visible head pictures the moral head.
- Speech. The covering makes a silent statement: I am not my own head. Uncovered, she would show a headship that is not hers.
- Spectators. Angels come into the verse because order is their very nature. The assembly is a classroom, where beings who never fell watch God's order kept on earth.
- Balance. Order is not ranking. The Son Himself took the place of subjection, and the veil is the woman's ornament as well as her sign. The next verses insist neither man nor woman exists without the other, since all things come from God.