Desiderius Erasmus, 1466 – 1536 (Catholic, Switzerland):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11

In secret places, a man may do as he shall think expedient, but whatever man prays or prophesies in the common assembly with anything on his head, shames his head, showing himself by covering the same to be a servant, when, besides Christ, he has no master. For the sake of Christ’s glory, it is fitting that he uncover his head, not only by taking off his cap but also by shaving his hair. For hair is rather a covering of the body than any part thereof.

On the other side, if a woman in the common assembly prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, she dishonors her head, which should, in secret places—perhaps for her husband’s pleasure—be open-headed, but not in the congregation, where Christ is honored, and not their husbands. For just as it is fitting for a man to be shorn or shaven, likewise it is for a woman to cast off her veil.

And if it is proper for a woman to cast off the veil from her head as men do, let her likewise, as men do, either be shorn or shaven, and in open places preach and prophesy with her head uncovered. But if, by all men’s consent, this conduct in a woman is foolish and an ill-favored sight, let her, by covering her head, show herself to be subject to her husband.

But yet, to do so does not befit the man, who bears the image of God, and who is in such a position as head and governor to the woman, just as Christ is to His Church. This is even more so since, through him, God’s glory is set forth, which should not be covered. On the other side, as the woman is subject to her husband, so she is attired for his honor. Against him, she may rightly be counted as disgraceful if, by uncovering her head in public places, she shows her own shamelessness and, as though she were free, refuses obedience to her husband.

Just as Christ is honored if the man serves Him and proclaims His glory with an uncovered head, so the husband is honored if his wife, with reverence, silence, and modest apparel, shows a sober obedience in herself. But someone may ask: by what law is the woman compelled to be subject to her husband, and not the husband to his wife? Because, when God first made mankind, the man did not come from the woman, but rather, the woman came from the man.

First, Adam was made from the earth, and by the Spirit of God, a soul was given to him. Then, shortly after, Eve was taken from his side, as though she were a certain portion of the man. Even contrary to the common course of nature, that which was more perfect was made first, and that which was less perfect was made afterward. For just as reason resides in man, so in marriage, the husband holds that role; and just as affection resides in man, so in marriage, the woman holds that role.

Besides this, the man was not made for the woman’s sake, but the woman was made and given to the man for his comfort and as a helper to bring forth offspring by generation. In this act, just as the man is the principal doer and shaper, so the woman is but the material and recipient. Therefore, it is only right that the preeminence should be given to him who was both made first and made directly by God, not to the woman.

And since, from the beginning of nature, the husband was given the title of preeminence, surely the woman ought to acknowledge her condition and not only, with readiness to please, show her subjection to him, but also demonstrate reverent behavior toward him. Just as a shaved head signifies liberty, so the covering of the head is a token of subjection.

And if any woman is so far past shame that she disregards the sight of men, yet for the sake of the angels — who are also present as witnesses at your solemn gatherings — let her head be covered. In doing so, she acknowledges what is proper for her.

And yet, I do not say this to encourage the husband to treat his wife as a lowly drudge simply because she is commanded to obey, nor to discourage the wife simply because she is subject to her husband. For both are equal in Christian religion, and, besides this, the husband often needs his wife’s help just as much as the wife needs her husband’s.

And although, in the beginning, woman was made from man, yet now neither does the wife bring forth a child without the man, nor can the man become a father without a woman. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to be either excessively proud or excessively grieved, since it is the ordinance of God, who has ordered all things in such a way.

But to return again to the matter with which I began, if, even with so many arguments, I have not sufficiently proven how improper it is for a woman to pray openly with an uncovered head, let every man, according to his own judgment and reason, weigh the matter. For I think no man is such a fool as to have lost all sense of natural judgment.

Does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame for a man to have long hair like a woman? And, on the contrary, that it is an adornment for a woman to have long hair? For to her, nature has given a thicker and fuller growth of hair than to the man, so that she, being subject to her husband, might never lack a natural veil.

And this I have shown you as what I think is more proper. If anyone in this matter desires to contend stubbornly and defend his own opinion, let him do as he pleases. But let him also know that we have no such custom, nor do the other congregations of God.

Whether it is fitting for you to deviate from both the rules and examples of your apostles, as well as from the customs of other congregations, be your own judges. It would be less harmful if you agreed on such matters, since they are only external issues and do not contribute as much to the advancement of gospel-like godliness. But this I earnestly require of you, and I am grieved that you do not keep it, since it is something I have taught you.

John Colet, 1467-1519 (Catholic, England):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11

Now, what St. Paul is teaching the Corinthians is a lesson on what is decent and becoming in the way of dress for each sex when in church. Namely, in the Christian assembly, consisting of men and women, the latter should have their heads covered and the former theirs uncovered, whether praying or prophesying.

In an effort to assign a reason why the woman should be covered in church, he says that she was of the man, for the man, and the glory of the man, and that long hair became her. He shows that nature itself prompts women to let their hair grow and that our customs ought to imitate nature, the best mistress. Women ought purposely to cover that which nature would have covered.

Although St. Paul keeps to another topic and uses some circumlocution in his way of speaking — as though affecting not to see what he really saw — it would still seem to be his wish, by this formal reasoning, to put down and suppress what he had especially noted in the Corinthian women: namely, the pride they took in their heads of hair. He would induce them to muffle up their heads so as not to display their tresses, a matter in which the female mind is readily disposed to vanity, and a kind of allurement, moreover, by which the young are easily captivated.

But this, he is intentionally silent about for reasons known to himself. He rests his case on the ground of what is respectable and becoming in attire. He would have it be a token of subjection in women, whom nature designs to be subject to their husbands, as the body is to the head. The veil, he implies, is an emblem of that subjection.

The man, as the head of the woman, has the precedence, being the image and glory of God. And so, as compared with the woman, he ought to be unveiled, that he may be seen to be the superior, not the inferior. At the same time, however, all in the Church are “female,” so to speak, and in the relation of a body towards Christ, our Divine Head. All are subject to Him.

Nay, even Jesus Christ Himself, insofar as He is man, is subject to God. All, moreover, are veiled — not with a material veil, the sign of obedience and subjection, but with that which is symbolized by the veil: even obedience itself, the true veil of the mind. God alone, from whom are all things and who is above all, is absolute MALE and unveiled. He rules over all, and to Him all things are subject. In His sight, all beings must have the veil of obedience on the head of their mind, even Jesus Himself, insofar as He is man. Before Jesus, again, men must be shrouded by the veil of obedience and subjection, and before men, women.

But in the present passage, St. Paul, in dealing with a custom that deserved attention as it raised the question of what was becoming in an assembly of men and women, points out the superiority of the man and the subjection of the woman as shown in the matter of head-dress. He teaches authoritatively that women should be covered in church, and men uncovered.

For this would be a token that women were in subjection to men, not men to women. We must observe here that, although St. Paul says, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered” (and the rest), he does not imply by these words that it is the office of women to prophesy in church. For later on, in this same Epistle, he bids them be silent in church: “Let your women,” he says, “keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

By “prophesying” in the former passage is meant teaching and interpreting the Scriptures and the revelations of God. This is proper for men alone, at least in a church where men are present. In a church of women, there is nothing to hinder women from prophesying, since all holy women dedicated to God are fit to take the lead.

But for the present, St. Paul purposely confines himself to the subject of covering and veiling the head, intending afterwards to speak more definitively, in the proper place, about praying and prophesying — that is, enunciating through the Spirit the real meaning, truth, and different senses of anything. Here it is the veil; afterwards, silence that is directed and enjoined for women.

Martin Luther, 1483–1546 (Germany):

Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:9-14.

As Scripture has spoken about the purity of hands,[2.] so women ought to walk that they may not offend someone with their adornment. Rather, as we say in the proverb: Zucht der Weiber ist der schönste Schmuck.[3.] Simple garb and adornment is more fitting for a woman than a wagonload of pearls. I do not want to interpret this too scrupulously—that rich clothing is forbidden to women. Here we must make exceptions for weddings. I have seen a marriage which intended to be Christian. Here Paul is speaking about a woman’s everyday life. He condemns those women who parade in luxury, who wish to be dressed in the most beautiful clothing to allure lovers day after day, who go about everyday as if it were Easter.

As for the fact that a woman adorns herself in honor of her groom but goes about in common fashion otherwise, etc., Scripture commends the adornment for a spouse, etc. He is saying that it is superstition to wear rags at a wedding; it is contrary to the ritual of the area and to the custom of the people with whom we live; provided, of course, that no excess occurs, if this has been the mode of dressing for weddings or festivals. Rather, Paul forbids the surrendering of self to elegance, the pompous pursuit of adornment. He does not demand the rigor of superstition. After all, a queen must bedeck herself, as did Esther. If she clothes herself with care and good taste, she is not decorating herself but acting in accord with the custom of and allegiance to the people with whom she lives. If it were the custom, then it would be a matter of choice for her so to adorn herself or not. In allegiance to her groom, in honor of her wedding and husband, she should dress otherwise than one dresses in church, where one ought to wear proper clothing.

There is one way of dressing for a dance; another way for church. Paul is speaking out against pomp and excess, a passion for fashion with which so many are so affected that they cannot fill their eyes. If they see adornment today that they did not see yesterday, etc.—this is to desire dress because of pleasure or passion. Such are the little ladies who are not acquisitive, etc., but they do have a passion in dress. If they were to come to the Sacrament today, I would not permit it, so am I against the pleasure of and passion for dressing. Whatever there is in clothing, food, drink, homes we can keep with good conscience. “In the church.” How? Not for passion or pleasure but for “apparel,” that is, edifying apparel, which offends, entraps, or scandalizes the eyes of no one. He does not want them to wear filthy clothes. Filthiness is not religious scrupulousness, as St. Francis says. A Christian can have clean and pure clothing, as the Jews do. He explains the term modestly, that is, that there be modest and temperate dress. Sensibly does not speak about filth when one reads what he ought to read. Formerly women walked about with neck bared all the way to the middle of the back. This was immodest dress. Elsewhere half the chest is seen. They have high-heeled shoes, etc., so that they can show off their bodies. Rather, they ought to have clothes to conceal themselves, to cover the neck. Our women walk about with their faces almost fully veiled, with everything covered, so that almost nothing of their limbs or skin is visible. In church, everything should be concealed, so that one walks with modesty. (Sed debet habere vestem, quod sit velata, bene ordinata, et nostrae feminae plerumque velatae ambulant, omnia velata sicut oportet, ut nihil corporis aut carnis videatur. In ecclesia debent omnia abscondi, ut ambulent verecunditer.)

‘With gold’ means that gold should not be displayed in clothing or veils. It is clear here what the custom of Greek women was, and the rule applies to all. I do not want women to wear these adornments in church; at weddings, it is different. A woman wearing lavish jewelry in church appears not as a Christian but as vain and curious. She does not come for the Word, sacrament, or prayer but seeks to show off her wealth.

Instead, Paul explains what is proper: a simple, clean, and modest dress. Women should adorn themselves in such a way that reflects piety and devotion to good works. Dressing pompously signifies seeking one’s own desires, feeding one’s vanity, and inciting others, which is pursuing the vanity of this world and seeking praise. Our women should dress in a way that shows they do not seek luxurious clothing; they walk clothed modestly everywhere, and whatever is left should be spent on the poor. This demonstrates concern for God and their neighbors, not for their own glory.

In public life, let everything be veiled; modest clothing is necessary. This long mantle and veil are greatly commendable. Virgins, however, should not wear garlands or crowns, but a veil, especially when participating in the sacrament. 

Monastic garb comes in here. In this everything is concealed. This is very modest dress. Thus I praise long coats and furs highly. Also young unmarried women ought not wear their locks braided but have a veil when they participate in the Sacrament. I find no fault in our women. I could bear that young women come with their hair veiled, but this is contrary to custom. There should be modesty in dress. Otherwise, in public, modesty is the rule. Clothing should not be too expensive, with too much gold or pearls; a woman should be clothed and adorned with proper modesty and chastity. Let her walk thus at home. He explains not in tresses,[4.] “braids.” Paul wants women to veil their braids. Here there is no need to prohibit this practice. In France they wear their hair unbound and with open braids so that no one knows who is married or unmarried. Perhaps this is how Greek women wore their hair. Among our people married women veil their hair and braids. When they do this, they veil their locks chastely and modestly, so that it may not become material for watchers to think shameful thoughts.

“…there is concern that they will adorn themselves excessively when going to the kitchen, but not when they go out in public, where they gather for prayer and the teaching of the Word of God. Paul condemns both excessive pomp and curiosity. To adorn oneself in honor of the bridegroom is acceptable, but not in the church, which is a different matter. I do not object, as it pertains to the customs of people and nations with whom we live, and it is done in obedience to the bridegroom. However, in church, they should be covered. Good people maintain moderation. Curious and superstitious women are not to be admitted.

Another rule now concerns teaching in the church. Paul says, ‘A woman should remain silent in all matters.’ I still believe Paul speaks about public affairs and refers to public ministry in the assembly of the church: there, a woman should absolutely remain silent, as she is to be a listener, not a teacher. She should not be among the people, abstaining from teaching and praying publicly, as the command pertains to the household, where she may speak. This passage subjects women and removes from them all dignity and authority.

Sermon on marriage, 15 January 1525, Weimarer Ausgabe XVII/1:

[Pp. 26–27] “Women, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife”[E ph. 5:22–23]. Again to the Colossians in the third chapter [3:18]. Because of this, the wife has not been created out of the head, so that she shall not rule over her husband, but be subject and obedient to him.

For that reason the wife wears a headdress, that is, the veil on her head, as St. Paul writes in 1. Corinthians in the second chapter, that she is not free but under obedience to her husband.

The wife veils herself with a fine, soft veil, spun and sewn out of pretty, soft flax or linen; and she does not wind a coarse bunch of woven fabric or a dirty cloth around her head or mouth. Why does she do this? So that she speaks fine, lovely, friendly words to her husband and not coarse, filthy, scolding words, as the bad wives do who carry a sword in their mouths and afterward get beaten to the edge of town [auf die Scheide]. Therefore, the wife should have the manner of a grapevine, as it says in the 128th Psalm, for this lets itself be bent and directed with a little band of straw, as the vintner desires. Just so should wives let themselves be guided and taught by their husbands, so that the great and coarse blows and strokes are not used. As pious, obedient wives are accustomed to saying, unbeaten is the best.

Weimarer Ausgabe Tischreden VI, no. 6567, p. 67:

The wives of the greatest lords, such as kings and princes, take part in no governance, but alone the husbands. For God said to the woman, “You shall be subject to your husband, etc.” The husband has the governance in the house, unless he is . . . a fool, or unless out of love and to please his wife he lets her rule, as sometimes the lord follows the servant’s advice. Otherwise and aside from that, the wife should put on a veil, just as a pious wife is duty-bound to help bear her husband’s accident, illness, and misfortune on account of the evil flesh. The Law withholds from women wisdom and governance. St. Paul saw this in 1 Corinthians 7, when he says, “I charge you – but not I; rather the Lord,”and in 1 Timothy 2: “I do not permit a woman to teach, etc.”

Lectures on Genesis, LW III and IV
From Luther’s Works, vols. III and IV, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan:

In the case of Sarah, however, the opposite virtues are given praise in this passage, and this by means of Abraham’s brief statement that she is in the tent. If she had been inquisitive after the fashion of other women, she would have rushed to the door, would have seen the guests, would have listened to their conversations, would have interrupted them, etc.; but she does none of these things. She busies herself with her own tasks, which the household demands, and is unconcerned about the other things.

Thus Paul prescribes (Titus 2:5) that a woman should be a domestic, so to speak, one who stays in her own home and looks after her own affairs. The heathen depicted Venus as standing on a tortoise; for just as a tortoise carried its house wherever it creeps, so a wife should be concerned with the affairs of her own home and not go too far away from it. This is demanded not only by the tasks peculiar to this sex but also by the requirements of the children and domestics, who need careful supervision. Hence it is great praise for Sarah that on this occasion she tends to her own affairs and does not offend by being curious but, like a tortoise, remains in her little shell and does not take the time required to get a brief look at the guests she has and at what kind of guests they are. This modesty and restraint surpass all the acts of worship and all the works of all the nuns, and these words, “Sarah is in the tent,” should be inscribed on the veils of all matrons; for in this way they would be reminded of their duty to beware of inquisitiveness, gadding, and garrulousness, and to accustom themselves to managing the household with care.

John Calvin, 1509 – 1564 (France):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Regarding Headcoverings.

3. But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: “Evil manners beget good laws.” As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.

He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man. We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered. Let us, for the present, take notice of those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

There is somewhat more of difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere, (Galatians 3:28,) that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with? I answer, that the solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind—on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum—which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. Should any one ask, what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer, that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest, and He in whose name it is consecrated.

4. Every man praying. Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman. He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house—for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not know how to maintain his proper station, and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station—if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is all emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.

Prophesying I take here to mean—declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14.) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people—which is the part of the public teacher, for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this—that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is to πρεπον—decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

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. (1 Timothy 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 1 Corinthians 14. 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.

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, 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, (Proverbs 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.

8. For the man is not from the woman. He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause. That the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made, is evident from the law. (Genesis 2:18.) It is not good for a man to be alone. Let us make for him, etc. Farther, God took one of Adam’s ribs and formed Eve. (Genesis 2:21, 22.)

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power. From that authority he draws an argument in favor of outward decorum. “She is subject,” says he, “let her then wear a token of subjection.” In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy, for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of covering. [“C’est la couuerture de teste, soit un chapperon, ou couurechef, ou coiffe, ou chose semblable;”—“It is a covering of the head, whether it be a hood, or a kerchief, or a coif, or anything of that kind.”]

It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this—to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. Otherwise it were an inconclusive argument that Paul has drawn from nature, in saying that it were not one whit more seemly for a woman to have her head uncovered than to be shaven—this being applicable to virgins also.

Because of the angels. This passage is explained in various ways. As the Prophet Malachi 2:7 calls priests angels of God, some are of opinion that Paul speaks of them; but the ministers of the word have nowhere that term applied to them by itself—that is, without something being added; and the meaning would be too forced. I understand it, therefore, in its proper signification. But it is asked, why it is that he would have women have their heads covered because of the angels—for what has this to do with them? Some answer: “Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness, should there be any on such occasions.” But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him. When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, “If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage.” And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle’s design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it—that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.

Doth not even nature itself. He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom—even among the Greeks—he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn. It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome—about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned all unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed. [“Il appelle Nature ceste coustume desia confermee par un long temps et usage commun;”—“He gives the appellation of Nature to this custom, already confirmed by length of time and common use.”]

16. But if any man seem. A contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs—raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful—who do not yield to reasonings—who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those (ακοινωνητοι) would be singular persons who, from a foolish affectation, aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church.—Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

He has not scrupled to give directions as to women’s having’ the head covered, and other things of that nature.—Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:29.

16. He is to thee a covering of the eyes. Because there is, in these words, some obscurity, the passage is variously explained. The beginning of the verse is free from difficulty. For when Abimelech had given a thousand pieces of silver; in order that his liberality might not be suspected, he declared that he had given them to Abraham; and that since Abraham had been honorably received, his wife was not to be regarded as a harlot. But what follows is more obscure, ‘He shall be a veil to thee.’ Many interpreters refer this to the gift; in which they seem to me to be wrong. The Hebrews, having no neuter gender, use the feminine instead of it. But Moses, in this place, rather points to the husband; and this best suits the sense. For Sarah is taught that the husband to whom she is joined was as a veil, with which she ought to be covered lest she should be exposed to others. Paul says, that the veil which the woman carries on her head, is the symbol of subjection. (1 Corinthians 11:10.) This also belongs to unmarried persons, as referring to the end for which the sex is ordained; but it applies more aptly to married women; because they are veiled, as by the very ordinance of marriage. I therefore thus explain the words, ‘Thou, if thou hadst no husband, wouldst be exposed to many dangers; but now, since God has appointed for thee a guardian of thy modesty, it behoves thee to conceal thyself under that veil. Why then hast thou of thine own accords thrown off this covering?’ This was a just censure; because Sarah, pretending that she was in the power of her husband, had deprived herself of the divine protection.—Commentary on Genesis 20:16.

Moses also says that she took a veil: which was a token of shame and modesty. For hence also, the Latin word which signifies “to marry,” is derived, because it was the custom to give brides veiled to their husbands. That the same rite was also observed by the fathers, I have no doubt. So much the more shameful, and the less capable of excuse, is the licentiousness of our own age; in which the apparel of brides seems to be purposely contrived for the subversion of all modesty.—Commentary on Genesis 24:64.

When it is said that Potiphar’s wife “cast her eyes upon Joseph,” the Holy Spirit, by this form of speech, admonishes all women, that if they have chastity in their heart, they must guard it by modesty of demeanor. For, on this account also, they bear a veil upon their heads, that they may restrain themselves from every sinful allurement: not that it is wrong for a woman to look at men; but Moses here describes an impure and dissolute look.—Commentary on Genesis 39:7.

That the woman may be more afraid of perjuring herself, she is presented before God, with her head uncovered too, as if the priest would drag her from her lurking-place; for it seems incongruous that, as some suppose, the veil was removed from her head in token of her infamy, since thus she would have been condemned before her case was heard. She is, then, brought before God’s face with her head bare, that she may be seriously alarmed; and then follows the mode of absolution or condemnation.—Commentary on Numbers 5:15.

Paul, on a very trifling point, sets before our eyes the law of nature; for, when he teaches that it is shameful and indecorous for women to appear in public without veils, he desires them to consider, whether it would be decent for them to present themselves publicly with their heads shorn; and finally adds, that nature itself does not permit it. (1 Corinthians 11:14.) Wherefore, I do not see, that, under the pretext of its being a political Law, the purity of nature is to be abolished, from whence arises the distinction between the statutes of God, and the abuses of the Gentiles.—Commentary on Leviticus 18:6.

Let thy name be called on us. It may be rendered, Let us be called by thy name; for when a woman passes into the family of her husband, she is called by his name, and loses her own, because the husband is her head. (1 Corinthians 11:3.) Hence the vail is a token of subjection, and Abimelech said to Sarah, Thy husband Abraham shall be a covering to thy head. (Genesis 20:16.) But if she remain unmarried, she is concealed under the name of her family. That this is the true meaning of that mode of expression is sufficiently evident from what Jacob says when blessing his grandchildren, Let my name, and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, be called on them; (Genesis 48:16;) that is, “Let them be reckoned as our descendants, and let them be partakers of the covenant, and never excluded from it, as were Esau and Ishmael.” In the same manner also do heathen writers speak; as, in Lucan, Marcia, wishing to return to Cato, says: “Grant me only the bare name of marriage; let permission be given that it may be inscribed on my tomb, Marcia the wife of Cato.”—Commentary on Isaiah 4:1.

Concerning the first point, here Isaack is reproved, of his inconsideration and folly. For that as much as was in him, he laid his wife open to be defiled. And why so? We have seen before that the husband ought to be as a veil or coverture to his wife. When a woman shall be married, and that her husband shall live with her doing his duty, this is to the end, she may be there as it were in safeguard, and that none come to deceive nor defile her. Now therefore Isaack, for the discharging of his duty, ought to have been as a veil or coverture to his wife: that is to say, under the name of a husband and of marriage: he ought to have let that none should have attempted to withdraw her, whether it were to have her to wife, or after any other manner: For marriage is as a safeguard, (as we have said) and God would have it honored in all ages. And although adulterers would abandon it, as Swine and Asses: yet notwithstanding they have always had remorse in it: and evermore even amongst the Painims [pagans, heathen], adulterers went not unpunished. It is known that if ever anything in this world was privileged, it was marriage: yea, and thefts and other crimes ought a great deal rather to be borne with, than such enormities: to wit, when the covenant and company which God hath dedicated in his name, to the end it should be holy, as it were separated from profanation, is violated.—Sermons on Election and Reprobation, Seventh sermon, on Genesis 26:6-10.

29. TRUE DECORUM IN WORSHIP, NOT THEATRICAL SHOW

As a consequence, we shall not say that decorum exists where there is nothing but vain pleasure. We see such an example in the theatrical props that the papists use in their sacred rites, where nothing appears but the mask of useless elegance and fruitless extravagance. But decorum for us will be something so fitted to the reverence of the sacred mysteries that it may be a suitable exercise for devotion, or at least will serve as an appropriate adornment of the act. And this should not be fruitless but should indicate to believers with how great modesty, piety, and reverence they ought to treat sacred things. Now, ceremonies, to be exercises of piety, ought to lead us straight to Christ.

Similarly, we shall not establish an order in those trifling pomps which have nothing but fleeting splendor, but in that arrangement which takes away all confusion, barbarity, obstinacy, turbulence, and dissension.

There are examples of the first sort in Paul: that profane drinking bouts should not be mingled with the Sacred Supper of the Lord [1 Corinthians 11:21-22], and that women should not go out in public with uncovered heads [1 Corinthians 11:5]. And we have many others in daily use, such as: that we pray with knees bent and head bare; that we administer the Lord’s sacraments not negligently, but with some dignity; that in burying the dead we use some decency; and other practices that belong to the same class.

31. BONDAGE AND FREEDOM OVER AGAINST CHURCH CONSTITUTIONS

Now it is the duty of Christian people to keep the ordinances that have been established according to this rule with a free conscience, indeed, without superstition, yet with a pious and ready inclination to obey; not to despise them, not to pass over them in careless negligence. So far ought we to be from openly violating them through pride and obstinacy!

What sort of freedom of conscience could there be in such excessive attentiveness and caution? Indeed, it will be very clear when we consider that these are no fixed and permanent sanctions by which we are bound, but outward rudiments for human weakness. Although not all of us need them, we all use them, for we are mutually bound, one to another, to nourish mutual love. This may be recognized in the examples set forth above. What? Does religion consist in a woman’s shawl, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with a bare head? Is that decree of Paul’s concerning silence so holy that it cannot be broken without great offense? Is there in bending the knee or in burying a corpse any holy rite that cannot be neglected without offense? Not at all. For if a woman needs such haste to help a neighbor that she cannot stop to cover her head, she does not offend if she runs to her with head uncovered. And there is a place where it is no less proper for her to speak than elsewhere to remain silent. Also, nothing prohibits a man who cannot bend his knees because of disease from standing to pray. Finally, it is better to bury a dead man in due time than, where a shroud is lacking, or where there are no pallbearers to carry him, to wait until the unburied corpse decays. Nevertheless, the established custom of the region, or humanity itself and the rule of modesty, dictate what is to be done or avoided in these matters. In them a man commits no crime if out of imprudence or forgetfulness he departs from them; but if out of contempt, this willfulness is to be disapproved. Similarly, the days themselves, the hours, the structure of the places of worship, what psalms are to be sung on what day, are matters of no importance. But it is convenient to have definite days and stated hours, and a place suitable to receive all, if there is any concern for the preservation of peace. For confusion in such details would become the seed of great contentions if every man were allowed, as he pleased, to change matters affecting public order! For it will never happen that the same thing will please all if matters are regarded as indifferent and left to individual choice. But if anyone loudly complains and wishes here to be wiser than he ought, let him see with what reason he can defend his over-scrupulousness before the Lord. This saying of Paul’s ought to satisfy us: that it is not our custom to contend, or that of the churches of God [1 Corinthians 11:16].—Institutes, !V.10.29-31.

It is probable, that the Corinthians even up to that time retained much of their former licentiousness, and had still a savor of the morals of their city. Now when vices stalk abroad with impunity, custom is regarded as law, and then afterwards vain pretexts are sought for by way of excuse; an instance of which we have in their resorting to the pretext of Christian liberty, so as to make almost everything allowable for themselves to do. They reveled in excess of luxury. With this there was, as usual, much pride mixed up. As it was an outward thing, they did not think that there was any sin involved in it: nay more, it appears from Paul’s words that they abused liberty so much as to extend it even to fornication.—Commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:12.

For he declares that he does not speak simply as a man, but as a faithful teacher of the Church, and an Apostle of Christ. According to his custom, he declares himself to be indebted for this to the mercy of God, as it was no common honor, nay superior to all human merits. Hence it appears, that whatever things have been introduced into the Church by human authority, have nothing in common with this advice of Paul.—Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:25.

21. For every one of you taketh before others his own supper. It is truly wonderful, and next to a miracle, that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time. We are, however, admonished by this instance, how much antiquity, without reason on its side, can effect, or, in other words, how much influence a long continued custom has, while not sanctioned by a single declaration of the word of God. This, having become customary, was looked upon as lawful. Paul was then at hand to interfere. What then must have been the state of matters after the death of the Apostles?—Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:21.

CORNELIUS A LAPIDE, 1567 – 1637 (Catholic, Rome):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Ver. 3. —But I would have you know, that . . . the head cf Christ is God. S. Paul here lays the foundation for his’ precepts about the veiling of women. We must bear in mind that the Corinthian women were greatly given, not only to lust, but also to the worship of Venus, so much so that a thousand maidens were every day exposed as prostitutes at her temple and in her honour. (Cf. notes to chap. vi. at the end.) Moreover, they thought this to be to their own honour and an act of piety, and they hoped to conciliate the goddess in this way to bestow upon them and their daughters, or to continue to them, a happy marriage. They were consequently wanton, and forward to attract lovers by exposing their features and displaying their form; and this was regarded at Corinth as a custom honourable, becoming, and elegant, and Christian women thought that they ought to retain the custom of their fathers. Some of the Corinthians whose minds were of a higher cast advised S. Paul of this fact, and put to him the question whether it was lawful or becoming for Christian women to go about with uncovered head, and especially in the Church. Paul replies that it is neither becoming nor lawful, and he begins here to give his reasons. The first is that the woman is subject to the man as her head, therefore she ought to be veiled; again, man is subject to God as His image, and therefore he is not to be veiled. In vers. 7 and 10 he proves both conclusions.

Vcrs. 4 and 5.—Every man praying, &c. This is the second reason : It is disgraceful for a man to be veiled, and, therefore, the honour, freedom, and manliness of man require that he veil not his head, but leave it free and unconstrained. On the other hand, it is disgraceful for a woman not to be veiled, for womanly honour and modesty require a woman to veil her head; therefore the woman ought to be veiled, the man ought not. The phrase, ” Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,” does not use ” prophesieth ” in its strict and proper meaning of uttering a prophecy or an exposition, but in the improper sense of singing hymns or psalms to the praise of God. For S. Paul is here speaking of the public assembly, in which he does not allow a woman to speak or to teach, but only to sing her part well when the whole congregation sings. Prophet means singer in i Chron. xxv. i, and in i Sam. x. 10. So Saul is said to have been among the prophets, that is among the singers of praises to God. So in the Books of Kings those are called prophets who served God with praises.

In the Scriptures, prophesying sometimes refers to singing (read many more examples here):

1 Chronicles 25:1-3 – 1And king David and the captains of the host appointed to their services the sons of Asaph, and of Aeman, and of Idithun, prophesiers with harps, and lutes, and cymbals: and their number was according to their polls serving in their ministrations. 2The sons of Asaph; Sacchur, Joseph, and Nathanias, and Erael: the sons of Asaph were next the king. 3To Idithun were reckoned the sons of Idithun, Godolias, and Suri, and Iseas, and Asabias, and Matthathias, six after their father Idithun, sounding loudly on the harp thanksgiving and praise to the Lord.

1 Samuel 10:9-13 – 9And it came to pass when he turned his back to depart from Samuel, God gave him another heart; and all these signs came to pass in that day. 10And he comes thence to the hill, and behold a band (χορος / chorus) of prophets opposite to him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied in the midst of them. 11And all that had known him before came, and saw, and behold, he was in the midst of the prophets: and the people said every one to his neighbour, What is this that has happened to the son of Kis? is Saul also among the prophets? 12And one of them answered and said, And who is his father? and therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets? 13And he ceased prophesying, and comes to the hill.

Moreover, the Apostle here means any woman, whether unmarried, virgin, married, or unchaste. He bids all alike to go veiled. So Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. 4 and 5) lays down, and adds that the Corinthians under stood this to be S. Paul’s meaning, for up to that time, he says, they follow S. Paul’s injunction, and veil their wives and daughters.

But S. Paul wishes to abolish the heathen custom, first instituted, say Plutarch and Servius, by Aeneas, of sacrificing and making supplication to their gods with veiled head.

Because of the angels, i. The literal sense is that women ought to have a covering on the head out of reverence to the angels ; not because angels have a body, and can be provoked to lust, as Justin, Clement, and Tertullian thought—this is an error I exposed in the notes to Gen. vi. —but because angels are witnesses of the honest modesty or the immodesty of women, as also of their obedience or disobedience. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, S. Thomas, Anselm. 2. Clement (Hypolypos, lib. ii.) understands by “angels,” good and holy men. 3. Ambrose, Anselm, and S. Thomas take it to mean priests and Bishops, who, in Rev. ii., are called angels, and who might be provoked to lust by the beauty of women with uncovered heads. Hence Clement of Alexandria (Pad. lib. ii. c. 10) thinks that this bids them cover, not merely their heads, but also their forehead and face, as we see the more honourable do in church. But the first meaning is the most literal and pertinent.

We should note (i.), that out of modesty and dignified reserve head-coverings were worn in the time before Christ by the women of Judaea, Troy, Rome, Arabia, and Sparta. Valerius Maximus (lib. vi. c. 3) relates the severe punishment inflicted by C. Sulpicius on his wife : he divorced her because he had found her out of doors with uncovered head. Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. xiii). says: ” The Gentile women of Arabia will rise up and judge us, for they cover, not only the head, but also the whole face, leaving only one eye to serve for both, rather than sell the whole face to every wanton gaze.” And again (de Cor. Milit. c. iv.) he says: ” Among the Jewish women, so customary is it to wear a head-covering that they may be known by it.” As to the Spartan women, Plutarch (Apophth. Lacon.) records that it was the custom for their maidens to go out in public unveiled, but married women veiled. The reason was that the one might so find husbands, while those who already had husbands might not seek to attract the attention of other men. But, as Clement of Alexandria says (Pcedag. lib. ii. c. 10), that it is a reproach to the Spartans that they wore their dress down to the knee only, so neither are their maidens to be praised for going forth in public with unveiled face, for in that way maiden modesty was lost by being put up for sale.

2. Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. ii. ) blames those women who used a thin veil, because it was a provocation to lust rather than a protection to modesty, and was borrowed more from the custom of Gentile women than of believers in Christ. In chapter xii. he calls those women who consulted their mirrors for evidence of their beauty, sellers of their chastity. Moreover, S. Justin, writing to Severus (de Vita Christ.), hints plainly enough that Christians at that time abhorred mirrors. In short, Tertuilian wrote a treatise (de Vel. Virg.) on this very point, to prove that all women, married or un married, religious or secular, should be veiled, any custom to the contrary notwithstanding, because so the Apostle enjoins. The Corinthians he says, (cap. 4), so understood S. Paul, and up to that time kept their maidens veiled. Moreover, the reasons given by the Apostle apply to all women alike, so that any breach of the precept ought to be censured and corrected. In some places, e.g., maidens go abroad with the head wholly uncovered, to show their beauty and attract a husband, when all that they really do is to peril the chastity of themselves and others, and to expose themselves daily to the wiles of panders, and hence we see and hear of so many shipwrecks to chastity.

Let, then, a maiden be veiled, and go abroad covered, lest she see herself what she ought not, or others be too much attracted by her features. For those who have ruined themselves, or slain others through the eye, are not to be numbered, and therefore the greatest watch should be kept over the eyes. Hence Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. 15), says: ” Every public display of a maiden is a violation of her chastity” no doubt meaning that any one who walks about freely with roving eyes and exposed face, to see and be seen, is easily robbed of the purity of her mind. This very want of control is an index that the mind is not sufficiently chaste. Hence Tertullian goes on to say: “Put on the armour of shame, throw around thee the rampart of modesty, raise a wall about thy sex which will suffer neither thy eyes to go out nor those of others to come in.” 3. The head-dress of sacred virgins formerly consisted of a bridal veil, of which Tertullian (de VeL Virg. c. 15) says: “Pure virginity is ever timid, and flies from the sight of men, flees for protection to its head-covering as its helmet against the attacks of temptation, the darts of scandal, against suspicions and back-bitings.” He adds that it was usual to solemnly bless these veils, whence the virgins were said to be wedded to God. Innocent I. (ad Victric. Ep. ii. c. i2) says too : ” These virgins are united to Christ in spiritual wedlock, and are veiled by priests.” These virgins lastly were clad in a dark-coloured dress, and covered with a long cloak.

S. Paul, therefore, is not laying down any rule, but merely points to the teaching of nature, that it is fitting for a woman, when she goes out in public, to go with bonnet and veil, but not for a man. Still, he here adopts the decency taught by nature, and wishes the Corinthians to observe it as if it were a precept, hence he adds—

Ver. 1 6.—But if any man seem to be contentious. To be contentious is to contend for renown and victory, not for truth ; and here it is to contend that Christian women should not be veiled when they pray in Church, but should be bareheaded, according to the ancient custom of the heathen.

Ver. 1 7. —Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, &c. This is the fourth reason why women should be veiled, drawn from nature itself, which has given woman hair for a covering, to teach her that she ought to cover herself.

Henry Ainsworth, 1571–1622 (Separatist from Anglican church):

Annotations on the Pentateuch, on Genesis:

[To thy BROTHER,] That is, to Abraham, thy husband, whom thou called thy brother : to him rather than to her, was it given, lest suspicion should arise that she was defiled. He is TO THEE, a covering for the eyes, etc.] That is, ‘he is, (and shall be) thy husband to defend thee from injury, and to whom thou must profess subjection.’ For the covering of the eyes and face with a veil, was a sign of the woman’s subjection to the man, and of his power over her : Gen. xxiv. 65. 1 Cor. xi. 3, 6, 7, 10.

”And the servant had said, He is my lord : and she took a veil, and covered herself.” Ver. 66. A VEIL,] A sign also of subjection, 1 Cor. xi. 3, 6, 10.

“And Labangave to her, Zilpah his handmaid, for a handmaid to Leah his daughter. ^And it was in the morning, that, lo, it was Leah : and he said unto Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me ?” And by reason that women at such times were veiled, as in other like cases may be seen, Gen. xxxviii. 15, 16. Jacob could not discern the fraud.

Annotations on the Pentateuch, on Exodus:

“And the Priest shall make the woman stand before Jehovah, and shall uncover the woman’s head,.” And they gather a great company of women unto her; for all the women there present are bound to see her ; as it is said in Ezek. xxiii. 48. That all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness. And every man that will come and see, may come and see. And she standeth among them without scarf, or veil, only in her clothes, and her coif that is on her head, as a woman within her house, &c., and afterward the Priest adjureth her, in the language that she knoweth, and understandeth.”

Giovanni Diodati, 1576-1649 (Calvinist, Italy):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Verse 2
In all things, namely all my doctrines, instructions, and rules concerning manners and the public ordering of the Church. Though there were in both those things great defects in the Corinthians, that evil came rather from some particular persons than from the whole body, which was yet found faithful and dutiful to the Apostle. Others interpret it as, “that you would remember me in all things.”

The ordinances, he means especially the rules concerning the order and government of the Church.

Verse 3
But I, a new precept (or one renewed by the Apostle) concerning common civility for dress, namely that women in public assemblies of the Church should be covered, and men should have their heads uncovered. This is because, in those places and times, a covered head was a sign of subjection, while an uncovered head, on the contrary, was a sign of liberty and authority.

Therefore, so that they might maintain in the Church the degree and order among the sexes which God had established, they were to observe such signs and marks of that order as were used by the common consent of nations. (See Genesis 20:16 and 24:65.)

That the head, that is, the masculine sex, is immediately next under Christ, appointed by God to be the sovereign lord of the world. But the female sex is subject to the masculine, as well in the state of matrimony as in the principal parts and actions of life.

Christ, as He is Mediator, in which capacity He received from the Father the empire of the world. This is distinct from His eternal and essential dominion, which He has by His own nature in common with the Father.

Verse 4
Praying, namely publicly in the Church.

Prophesying, that is to say, expounding and treating of the mysteries of salvation in the Church (see Romans 12:4), or being present there as an auditor.

Covered, so that his face is covered, which was the manner of covering women were accustomed to use.

His head, namely Christ, whose dignity he obscures and vilifies by this sign of subjection. Alternatively, it may refer to his own head, as he degrades it by stripping it of the sign of superiority.

Verse 5
Prophesying, being in the Church when the aforementioned act of preaching is being done.

Therefore, a woman is forbidden by the law to speak publicly in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11-12).

Her head, namely her husband, as she usurps the badge of his supremacy, or it may refer to the male sex in general, or to her own head, by taking away its fitting ornament.

For that is, the meaning is, it is fitting that custom should support nature.

Now, nature has given a woman the natural veil of hair. Therefore, she is obliged to make use of the additional, artificial veil to cover her head, which a woman ought to regard as proper for her, just as she holds the natural veil of her hair to be proper.

Verse 6
To be shorn, that is to say, to wear no hair at all or to wear it short, as men do.

Verse 7
As he is, representing to the world — and especially to women — a portrait and reflection of God’s majesty and authority.

Is the glory, meaning he is a reflection of man’s dignity, because the first woman was created like unto him, from him, and for him. Therefore, she is as far inferior to him as the image or representation is to the original.

Verse 8
Is not, he refers to the woman’s first creation.

Verse 10
To have power, meaning, to go forth in public in a modest and civil manner. For the necessity of women covering their heads applied only outdoors, not within their own homes.

If they went abroad without a veil, they were reputed as disreputable women, like runaway servants or soldiers who did not have their master’s or captain’s pass.

Others interpret it as “the mark that she is under another’s power.”

Because of the, for the woman might say, “Men are content that we should go uncovered, and they give us permission for this slight usurpation of the badge of preeminence that belongs to them.”

The Apostle responds that, even if men consented to this disorder, the angels — who are continual guardians of the Church and present in its assemblies — would be offended by it.

Verse 11
Nevertheless, this serves to moderate the statements made in verse 8. It shows that, despite man’s preeminence, both men and women are equal in regard to natural propagation.

For man is born through a woman, and likewise, in the communion of Christ under the order of grace, both men and women are equally received into the communion of Christ.

Verse 12
For as, the reason for this is that woman is of mankind, which God unites to Himself in Christ.

Since the woman came from the first man, it follows that men are consequently born of women. This is in accordance with God’s sovereign order.

Verse 14
Long hair, as women do, which has always been regarded as an effeminate and shameful thing for men.

Verse 16
Seem to be, (or “ill seem to be”) if someone presumptuously undertakes to contend against all reason and authority, arguing that the matter is indifferent,

We have no, meaning, “Let there be a repression by our Apostolic authority and by the custom of all the Churches,” which in such cases ought to serve as law.

Or, let such an arguer be left alone, and let everyone hold fast to the praiseworthy custom. (See 1 Corinthians 14:33.)

William Greenhill, 1581-1671 (Anglican, England):

An exposition of the five first chapters of the prophet Ezekiel:

They [the angels] reverence the greatness and majesty of Christ; though they be high and glorious, yet they see so vast a distance between Christ and themselves that they cover their faces, Isa. 6, and their bodies here. They come not into his presence rudely but with great respect and reverence. As God is to be had in reverence of all that are about him, Psal. 89:7, so Christ is reverenced by all the angels that are about him. Women are to be veiled in the assemblies because of the angels, 1 Cor. 11:10, to show their reverence and subjection to them being present; and angels are covered to show their reverence and subjection unto Christ. It’s an honor to the angels that, in reverence to them, the women are to be veiled; and it’s a great honor to Christ that angels reverence and adore him.

David Dickinson, 1583-1663 (Presbyterian, Scotland):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

https://reformedbooksonline.com/commentaries/new-testament-commentaries/commentaries-on-1-corinthians/

Verse 4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
It is apparent that the Corinthians did not sufficiently observe this order, as their women in public assemblies (after the manner of the heathens) laid aside their veils, and the men covered their heads and faces. Those who are said to pray and prophesy are those who meet publicly and consent to promote the public worship of God. This impropriety he reproves in both men and women, using nine arguments.

Argument 2. It is dishonorable for the female sex to lay aside her veil, as it goes against the dignity of both her natural head and her metaphorical head — namely, the man, to whom she owes subjection for the honor of the masculine sex. The reason for this, he explains, is that it is no less unseemly for a woman to be without her veil than to be shorn. Therefore, the woman is here reproved for her indecency, which she ought to amend.

Argument 3. The man, being the glory of God and a representation of His glorious excellency (in relation to the woman over whom he is appointed head), ought to display the glory of God in his manly deportment. Therefore, he must beware of this unseemliness in the use of a veil.

Argument 4. The woman is the glory of the man — she is the image of his dignity, in whom (as in a mirror) the excellency of the man (for whose sake she was created) is seen. She ought to profess subjection to him by covering herself. Therefore, since the woman behaves otherwise among you, she is blamed for indecency. This does not in any way hinder the fact that the woman is created, in respect of her soul and spiritual state, to the glory and image of God, just as the man is.

Argument 8. Common sense and nature itself — or natural inclination (which he calls a settled custom that agrees with nature concerning what is comely) — dictate that it is unseemly for a woman to pray uncovered, or for a man to wear long hair, while the contrary is deemed decent. Therefore, you fail to observe proper decorum when you behave otherwise. Hair is said to be given to the woman for a covering because it serves as a sign that she ought to cover her head.

Verse 16. But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Argument 9. If anyone should not be moved by these arguments but should still contend, the Apostle opposes their contentious apologies with the established custom of the Jews and the rest of the churches. No other churches have the custom that women should be present in public assemblies with their heads uncovered, or that men should have their heads covered. Therefore, since your custom does not align with the decency established by natural use or by the churches, it is altogether unseemly.

Joseph Mede, 1586-1638 (Arminian, England):

Discourses on the New Testament

John Trapp, 1601–1669 (Puritan, England):

Trapp’s Complete Commentary

Verse 10

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

To have power — That is, a veil, called in Hebrew Radid, of Radad, to bear rule. And indeed what was this subjection to the husband, but a kind of power and protection derived to the wife, in respect of her former estate?

Because of the angels — Present in the assemblies of the saints. This was set forth of old by the hangings of the tabernacle wrought with cherubims within and without. Others understand this text of ministers, frequently called angels, Haggai 1:12-13 Revelation 2:1 ; Revelation 2:8 ; Revelation 2:12 ; Revelation 2:18 ; Revelation 3:1 ; Revelation 3:7 ; Revelation 3:14 Judges 2:1 ; (that angel is thought to be Phineas); Ecclesiastes 5:6 ; “Neither say thou before the angel” ( i.e. before the Lord’s priest) “it was an error.” (Vorstius.) Some think the apostle argues from the example of the angels; we should imitate their modesty, who were wont to cover their faces, to testify their subjection toward God.

John Lightfoot, 1602-1675 (Puritan, England):

Complete works of John Lightfoot:

Volume 12:

Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians [447]:

From whence it may readily be gathered, that men and women should not so promiscuously and confusedly meet and sit together, nor that they should so look upon one another, as in the courts of the temple, and at Jerusalem, when such innumerable multitudes flocked to the feasts, but that women should sit by themselves, divided from the men, where they might hear and see what is done in the synagogue, yet they themselves remain out of sight. Which custom Baronius proves at large, and not amiss, that those first churches of the Christians retained.

When the women, therefore, did thus meet apart – it is no wonder, if they took off the veils from their faces, when they were now out of the sight of men, and the cause of their veiling being removed – which indeed was, that they might not be seen by men.

“Now the reason of the veiling of women is, because they are subject to men,” and “take a covering; by which is signified, that the wife is in the power of the husband.” – And lastly, “A veil, whereby is signified, that she is subject to the power of another.” – And very many to the same sense. But let me ask,

I. Where, I beseech you, is a veil propounded, as a sign of such subjection? It is put indeed as a sign of true modesty, Gen. XXIV. 65, and of dissembled modesty; Gen. XXXVIII. 14: but where is it used as a sign of subjection?

II. Hair was given to our grandmother Eve for a covering (as the apostle clearly asserts in this place), from the first moment of her creation, before she was subjected to a husband, and heard that, “He shall rule over thee;” yea, before she was married to Adam.

III. The apostle treats not of wives alone, but of women in general, whether they were wives, virgins, or widows.

But the sense arises higher: a man praying covered, as ashamed of his face before God, disgraces his head, Christ – who Himself carried the like face of a man; especially, he disgraces the office of Christ, by whom we have access to God with confidence. And a woman praying not veiled, as if she were not ashamed of her face, disgraces man, her head, while she would seem so beautiful beyond him, when she is only the glory of the man; but the man is the glory of God.

Ver. 6: “Let her also be shorn.”] “If she be not veiled, let her be shorn.” Yea, rather, you will say, let her go with her hair loose, for it was given her for a covering by nature. – Will the apostle suffer this, or any civilized nation? By no means. He says, the hair of woman was given them for a covering, and yet requires another covering; calling to mind the primitive reason, why the covering of hair is given by nature to a woman, viz. to be a sign of her reverence, humiliation, and shame before God.

The apostle permits women to gather and bind up their hair into knots by hair-laces; a thing done in all nations, that were not fierce and wild; yea, he would scarce suffer the contrary. But if any woman was so unmindful or forgetful, why the veil of her hair was granted her by nature, and so much assured of her beauty, and her face, as when she prays, to take off her veil, the sign of her reverence towards God; let her take off also, says he, that natural sign of reverence, the veil of her hair.

I. Truly, if I would understand “a veil” by “power,” – by “angels” I would understand “devils,” which are called “angels,” in this very epistle (chapter VI.3). And if I were of opinion, that the apostle treated here of public assemblies only, I would render his words to this sense: – “A woman in the public assembly of the church ought to have her face veiled, because of the devils; namely, that they ensnare not men by the appearance of the beauty of women’s faces, and provoke them to gaze upon their faces, and to behold them with lascivious eyes, while they ought rather to look up to heaven, and to be intent upon divine things.”

IV. But now, although the canons of the Masters required, and the custom of the nation approved, the veiling of women’s faces in the streets; yet it was permitted women to bare their faces, to adorn them, to beautify them, in order to honest marriage: which reason itself, and the custom of the nation, confirm, and the Rabbis teach.

Ver. 15: “Her hair is given her for a covering.” The daughter of Nicodemus being reduced to miserable poverty, going to Rabban Jochanan to speak to him, “veiled herself with her hair, and stood before him.” The poor woman had no other veil; therefore she used that which was given her by nature: and she used it (shall I say, as a sign? or) as an instrument and mark of modesty, and shamefacedness.

Thomas Wall, 1620 –1686 (Puritan):

Spiritual Armour To Defend the Head From the Superfluity of Naughtiness (fl. 1680-90)

The men in the Church of Corinth, did not only wear a womanish length of hair, but they also wore on their heads Womens Vails; so that in reproving them both, the Apostle teacheth, saying, Every man praying, or prophesying with his head covered, dishonoureth his head; that is, he dishonoureth his Head Christ: This is not meant in wearing a Cap, or the like; for Gods Ministers of old wore such in the Service of God, yet broke not Gods Order in Nature: So that Covering Man is forbidden to wear on his head in the Service of God, is that which is Woman’s natural coverings; to wit, either a womanish length of hair, or Womans natural hair, or Womans vail, she covereth her head, and so her hair withal; and this the Apostle proveth by an undeniable reason from Gods Order in Creation, as it is written, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for asmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.

Now the Rule in Nature to judge by is, from the Order of God in Nature, why Women’s hair is called long, and so a glory to her; but the reason in Nature why Women’s hair is called long, because it was given her for a covering, namely to cover her eyes; because by this sign in Nature, Woman is taught subjection to Man her Husband, the covering of her Eyes; so then it is clear from the Order of God in Nature, that that Man which weareth his hair so long, that it can by drawing it forward be made to serve to perform the end in the sign that God gave Woman long hair for, to wit, for a covering to cover the Eyes, is the long hair, even Nature itself teacheth Man is a shame to his Nature to wear.

Matthew Poole, 1624–1679 (Non-Conformist, UK):

Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible

Verse 5

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, Genesis 24:65; She took a veil, and covered herself.

Verse 6

But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered; if nature teacheth us that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, it also teacheth us that it is a shame for her to be uncovered, either with her hair, or some artificial covering; which latter seemeth rather to be meant in this place, because divines think, that the face is that part of the head which the apostle here intendeth should be covered in their religious actions, which is not covered with the hair, but with a veil, &c.

Verse 13

No man is truly and thoroughly convinced of an error, till he be convicted by his own conscience. It is therefore very usual in holy writ for God, by his sacred penmen, to make appeals unto men’s own consciences, and put them to judge within themselves, to examine a thing by their own reason, and according to the dictates of that to give sentence for or against themselves. The thing as to which he would have them judge within themselves, and accordingly pronounce sentence, was, whether it were a decent thing for women to pray to God with their hair all hanging loose about their shoulders, or without any veil, or covering for their head and face.

John Bunyan, 1628 – 1688 (Puritan, England):

A Case of Conscience Resolved:

Caution 5. WOMEN! They are an ornament in the church of God on earth, as the ANGELS are in the church in heaven. Betwixt whom also there is some comparison, for they cover their faces in acts of worship (Isa 6:2; 1 Cor 11:10). But as the angels in heaven are not Christ, and so not admitted to the mercy-seat to speak to God, so neither are women on earth, [but] the man; who is to worship with open face before him, and to be the mouth in prayer for the rest. As the angels then cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, with faces covered in heaven: So let the women, cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, with their faces covered on earth: Yea, thus they should do, because of the angels. “For this cause ought the woman to have power,” that is a covering, “on her head, because of the angels” (1 Cor 11:10). Not only because the angels are present, but because women and angels, as to their worship, in their respective places, have a semblance. For the angels are inferior to the great man Christ, who is in heaven; and the woman is inferior to the man, that truly worships God in the church on earth.

Methinks, holy and beloved sisters, you should be content to wear this power, or badge of your inferiority, since the cause thereof arose at first from yourselves. It was the woman that at first the serpent made use of, and by whom he then overthrew the world: wherefore the women, to the world’s end, must wear tokens of her underlingship in all matters of worship. To say nothing of that which she cannot shake off, to wit, her pains and sorrows in childbearing, which God has riveted to her nature, there is her silence, and shame, and a covering for her face, in token of it, which she ought to be exercised with, whenever the church comes together to worship (Gen 3:16; 1 Tim 2:15; 1 Cor 11:13; 1 Tim 2:9). Do you think that God gave the woman her hair, that she might deck herself, and set off her fleshly beauty therewith? It was given her to cover her face with, in token of shame and silence, for that by the woman sin came into the world (1 Tim 2:9). And perhaps the reason why the angels cover their faces when they cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, in heaven, is to shew that they still bear in mind, with a kind of abhorrence, the remembrance of their fellows falling from thence. Modesty, and shamefacedness, becomes women at all times, especially in times of public worship, and the more of this is mixed with their grace and personage, the more beautiful they are both to God and men. But why must the women have shame-facedness, since they live honestly as the men? I answer, In remembrance of the fall of Eve, and to that the apostle applies it. For a woman, necessity has no law, to shave her head, and to look with open face in worship, as if she could be a leader there, is so far from doing that which becomes her, that it declares her to have forgot what God would have her for ever with shame remember.

Caution 6. In what I have said about the women’s meetings, I have not at all concerned myself about those women, that have been extraordinary ones, such as Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, or the rest, as the daughters of Philip the evangelist, Priscilla, the women that Paul said laboured with him in the gospel, or such like; for they might teach, prophecy, and had power to call the people together so to do. Though this I must say concerning them, they ought to, and did, notwithstanding so high a calling, still bear about with them the badge of their inferiority to them that were prophets indeed. And hence it is said, under pain of being guilty of disorder, that if they prayed in the church, or prophesied there, with their head uncovered, they then dishonoured their head (1 Cor 11:5).

The prophetesses were below the prophets, and their covering for their heads was to be worn in token thereof, and perhaps it was for want of regard to this order, that when Miriam began to perk it15 before Moses, that God covered her face with a leprous-scab (Num 12:10). Hence these women, when prophets were present, did use to lie still as to acts of power, and leave that to be put forth by them that were higher than they. And even Miriam herself, though she was one indeed, yet she came always behind, not only in name but worship, unless when she was in her own disorders (Num 12:1). And it is worth your farther noting, that when God tells Israel that they should take heed in the plague of leprosy, that they diligently observed to do what the priest and Levites taught them, that he conjoins with that exhortation, that they should “remember what God did unto Miriam by the way” (Deut 24:8,9). Intimating surely that they should not give heed to women, that would be perking up in matters of worshipping God. Much less should we invest them with power to call congregations of their own, there to perform worship without their men. Yet, will I say, notwithstanding all this, that if any of these high women had, but we never read that they did, separate themselves, and others of their own sex with them, apart to worship by themselves: or if they had given out commandment so to do, and had joined God’s name to that commandment, I should have freely consented that our women should do so too, when led out, and conducted in worship, by so extraordinary a one. Yea more, If any of these high women had given it out for law, that the women of the churches in New Testament times, ought to separate themselves from their men, and as so separate, perform divine worship among themselves: I should have subscribed thereto. But finding nothing like this in the word of God, for the sanctifying of such a practice: and seeing so many scriptures wrested out of their place to justify so fond a conceit: and all this done by a man of conceit, and of one that, as his sisters say, expects my answer: I found myself engaged to say something for the suppressing of this his opinion. But to return to the good women in the churches, and to make up my discourse with them.

First, These meetings of yours, honourable women, wherein you attempt to perform divine worship by yourselves, without your men, not having the authority of the word to sanctify them, will be found will-worship, in the day when you, as to that, shall be measured with that golden reed, the law of God. And “who hath required this at your hand?” may put you to your shifts for an answer, notwithstanding all Mr. K. has said to uphold you (Isa 1:12; Rev 11:1).

Secondly, These meetings of yours need not be; there are elders or brethren in all churches, to call to, and manage this worship of God, in the world: if you abide in your subjection and worship as you are commanded.

Thirdly, These meetings of yours, instead of being an ornament to the church in which you are, are a shame and blemish to those churches. For they manifest the unruliness of such women, or that the church wants skill to govern them (1 Cor 14:23). Have you not “in your flock a male?” (Mal 1:14).

Fourthly, Suppose your meetings in some cases were lawful, yet since by the brethren they may be managed better, you and your meetings ought to give place. That the church together, and the brethren, as the mouth to God, are capable of managing this solemn worship best: consider—1. The gifts for all such service are most to be found in the elders and leading men in the church: and not in the women thereof. 2. The spirit for conduct and government in that worship, is not in the women, but in the men. 3. The men are admitted in such worship, to stand with open face before God, a token of much admittance to liberty and boldness with God, a thing denied to the women (1 Cor 11:4,5). 4. For that when meetings for prayers are commanded, the men, to be the mouth to God, are mentioned, but not in ordinary women, in all the Scriptures. Where the women and children, and them that suck the breasts are called, with the bride and bridegroom, and the whole land, to mourn: yet the ministers, and elders, and chiefest of the brethren, are they, and they only, that are bid to say, “Spare thy people, O Lord! and give not thine heritage to reproach” (Joel 1:13,14, 2:15-17). 5. The word for encouragement to pray believingly in assemblies is given to men. And it is the word that makes, and that sanctifies an ordinance of God: men, therefore, in all assemblies for worship, should be they that should manage it, and let others join in their places.

Objection. But the women is included in the man, for the same word signifies both.

Answer. 1. If the woman is included here, let her not exclude the man. But the man is [by them] excluded: The man is excluded by this woman’s meeting from worship; from worship, though he be the head in worship over the women, and by God’s ordinance appointed to manage it, and this is an excluding of the worst complexion (1 Cor 11:3). 2. Though the woman is included, when the man sometimes is named, yet the man is not excluded, when himself as chief is named. But to cut him off from being the chief in all assemblies for worship, is to exclude him, and that when he for that in chief is named. 3. The woman is included when the man is named, yet but in her place, and if she worships in assemblies, her part is to hold her tongue, to learn in silence; and if she speaks, she must do it, I mean as to worship, in her heart to God. 4. Nor, do I think, that any woman that is holy and humble, will take offence at what I have said; for I have not in anything sought to degrade them, or to take from them what either nature or grace, or an appointment of God hath invested them with: but have laboured to keep them in their place. And doubtless to abide where God has put us, is that which not only highly concerns us, but that, which becomes us best.

Sisters, I have said what I have said to set you right, and to prevent your attempting to do things in such sort unto which you are not appointed. Remember what God did to Miriam, and be afraid. Be as often in your closets as you will; the oftener there the better. This is your duty, this is your privilege: this place is sanctified to you for service by the holy Word of God. Here you may be, and not make ordinances interfere, and not presume upon the power of your superiors, and not thrust out your brethren, nor put them behind your backs in worship. Be also as often as possibly you can, in worship, when the church, or parts thereof, are assembled for that end, according to God’s appointment. And when you are there, join with heart and soul with your brethren in all holy petitions to God. Let the men in prayer be the mouth to God, and the women list after with groans and desires. Let the men stand with open face in this worship, for that they are the image and glory of God, and let the women be clothed in modest apparel, with shamefacedness, in token of the remembrance of what has been touched afore. When women keep their places, and men manage their worshipping of God as they should, we shall have better days for the church of God, in the world (Jer 29:10-14).

Women are not to be blamed for that they are forward to pray to God, only let them know their bounds; and I wish that idleness in men be not the cause of their putting their good women upon this work. Surely they that can scarce tie their shoes, and their garters, before they arrive at the tavern, or get to the coffee-house door in a morning, can scarce spare time to be a while in their closets with God. Morning closetprayers are now, by most London professors, thrown away; and what kind of ones they make at night, God doth know, and their conscience, when awake, will know; however I have cause, as to this, to look at home: And God mend me and all his servants about it, and wherein we else are out. I have done, after I have said, that there are some other things, concerning women, touching which, when I have an opportunity, I may also give my judgment. But at present, I intreat that these lines be taken in good part, for I seek edification, not contention.

Daniel Whitby, 1638-1726 (Arminian, England):

A paraphrase and commentary upon all the epistles of the New Testament:

Ver. 4. Every Man (therefore) praying or prophesying (in the Church) having his Head covered, dishonoured his Head (Christ, as acting unsuitably to that Relation which he bears to God and Christ, for Man ought not to cover his Head, because he is the image and glory of God, v. 7.)

For that the Apostle speaks not of prophesying at home, as Mr. Cl. imagines; but in the Church, is evident from the Apostle‘s Argument, v. 16. against this practice in these words, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God: His Argument to the contrary is answered in the Note on v. 6.

“his Head.” That is Christ, for 1. He is the Head of the Man, v. 3.2. This seemeth most agreeable to the Reason assigned, why he should be uncovered when he doth Service in the Church, viz. because he is the Image, and the Glory of God. And 3ly, did he dishonour his own Head by covering it, he ought never to be covered; whereas if this only respects his Head Christ, whom he represents in praying and prophesying in the Church, it is sufficient that he is thus uncovered, when he thus acteth as his Minister. Lastly, The Head the Woman dishonoureth is the Man, stiled her Head; and so the Head the Man dishonoureth is Christ the Man, styled his Head, v. 3.

2ly, That the Jews judged it a shameful and indecent thing for a Woman to be shaved, and permitted this only in the case of Whoredom, as a Token of their shame. And among the Heathens it was indicium ultimi luctus, a Token of the highest Grief. It is customary, saith Plutarch, for Men to be shorn, and for Women to wear long hair; and therefore in times of mourning, the Men let their hair grow, and the Women are shaved; this being contrary to custom among the Greeks and Romans. It was also customary for the Jewish Woman to go veil’d.

Ver. 10. (Moreover) For this cause ought the woman to have power (a veil) upon her head, because of the (evil) Angels, (she being tempted by the Prince of them to do that which is perpetual cause of shame to her, and which increased her subjection to the man, Gen. 3.16. ought therefore to use this token of shamefacedness and subjection.)

“a veil upon her head because of the Angels.” Here let it be noted, (1st,) That all the Ancient Interpreters agree in this, that which we render power, doth signify a veil or covering, which being put over her Head, compels her to hang down her Eye-lids; and ’tis here, say they, called power, as being the token of the power and Dominion of the Man over her.

3ly, That the evil Angels are absolutely stiled Angels in these words of this Epistle, Know ye not that ye shall judge Angels, 1 Cor. 6.3. and elsewhere, the Angels that sinned, 2 Pet. 2.4. or that kept not their first station, Jude 6. Note

4ly, That among the Nine Maledictions of the Women which the Jews reckon up, this is one, that she is to have “her head covered like one that mourneth,” and this, they say, she is to wear, not so much as a Token of Subjection, as of Shame; whence Philo calls the cover of the Woman’s head, the Symbol of her shame; and this shame, say they, is due to her, because she brought the first sin into the world: It is with her, say they, as when one transgresseth, and is ashamed, and therefore she comes forth with her head covered: She ought, saith Tertullian, by her habit to resemble Eve, a Mourner, and a Penitent, “for the shame of the first sin;” hence he often interprets this Text, of evil Angels.

Moreover, in the judgment both of Jews and Christians, the Serpent which deceived Eve acted by the suggestion of the Devil, or of Samael, whom the Jews stile the Prince of Devils. That therefore these words may be interpreted as in the Paraphrase, is evident not only from these observations, but especially from a place parallel to this, Let the Woman learn in silence with all subjection: For I suffer not a Woman to usurp Authority; for Adam was first formed, and then Eve, (as here v. 8, 9.) and Adam was not deceived, but the Woman being deceived, was in the transgression, 1 Tim 2.11, 12, 13. where the same reason is assigned for her subjection, which I offer for explication of these words.

Others interpret the words thus, The Woman ought to act decently in the Church, and therefore to be covered, because of the Angels who are present in the Assemblies of the Saints, it being the opinion both of Jew and Christians, that the ministring Angels are there present.

Ver. 12. For as the Woman is (taken out) of the man, even so is the man also (propagated) by the woman, but all (these) things are of God, (who made Woman out of the Man, and by his benediction encreaseth Men by the Woman.)

Ver. 13. Judge in your selves, is it comely that a woman pray (publickly) to God uncovered, (when God himself hath given her: covering by Nature, to intimate to her, that she should be veil’d.)

Ver. 14. Doth not even Nature it self (which hath made Man the Image and Glory of God, created him before the Woman, and given him dominion over her) teach you, that if a man have long hair, (the covering and token of subjection of the other Sex) it is a shame to him. (See Note on v. 5.)

Ver. 15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, (she being fitted by it to represent the condition of her Sex) for her hair was given her for a covering, (i. e. in token of subjection to her husband.)

“nor the Churches of God.” Hence it is manifest, 1st, That the Apostle here cannot be thought to have respect only to the custom of the Greeks, as Mr. Cl. imagines, for then why doth he plead the custom of all the Churches of God against this practice? 2ly, Hence note, That in things only respecting decency, and in conforming to which there is no violation of the Command of God, the Custom of the Church should be our Rule, it being an Argument of Pride, and a Contentious Spirit, in Matters of so little moment, to be singular, and to create disturbance to the Church of God.

William Burkitt, 1650–1703 (Anglican, England):

Burkitt’s Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the NT

Verse 4

By the man’s praying and prophesying, understand his performing any divine offices in the church, as prayer, and expounding the scriptures, singing of psalms, and the like.

By doing this covered, understand not the natrual covering of the hair, but an artificial covering by a veil, after the manner of women, which is a token of subjection.

By the woman’s prophesying with her head uncovered, to the dishonour of her head or husband, is to be understood her appearing unveiled in the church, open and barefaced in public; which was accounted,

1. An immodest, unbecoming, and unseemly guise.

2. Arrogant; her being unveiled and uncovered was a token of her usurping an undue authority over the man, and of her casting off that subjection which she was under by the law of her creation to him.

3. Superstitious; it being a fantastical imitation of the she-priests and prophetesses of the Gentiles when they served their idols, and particularly when they sacrificed to Bacchus, who used to have their faces uncovered, their hair dishevelled, hanging at its full length round about their ears.

Now the Corinthian women, in imitation of these heathen women, (for the female sex is very fond and exceeding prone to follow the fashion,) did cast off their veils, discovered their faces, dishonoured their heads, even their natural heads, (as well as their economical head, their husband,) it being then and there accounted as immodest a thing for a woman to appear in public uncovered, as to appear with her head shaven.

From the whole learn, That God requires at the hands of all persons, who either administer unto him, or stand before him, a decent behaviour and comely accommodation in his house, especially in the acts and exercises of his worship and service. For if in their habit and dress, surely much more in their gesture and deportment, doth he hate what is unseemly and unbecoming in any person.

Johann Albrecht Bengel, 1687 – 1752 (Lutheran, Germany):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Verse 4

1 Corinthians 11:4 . Προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων , praying or prophesying ) especially in the church , 1 Corinthians 11:16 , and in the assembly [the coming together ], 1 Corinthians 11:17 . κατὰ κεφαλῆς , [having a covering] on his head ) The state of the head, the principal part, gives dignity to the whole body. [The face is chiefly referred to, when he speaks of a covering . V. g.] ἔχων ) having, i.e. if he has . The men of Corinth used not to be covered, and in this respect, the women imitated the men. In order to convince the women of their error, Paul speaks conditionally of the man. τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ , his head ) properly so called, as just before in this verse; comp. note to 1 Corinthians 11:6 . Otherwise, the man praying with his head covered would sin more against Christ, than the woman against the man, with her head uncovered.

Verse 5

1 Corinthians 11:5 . Πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ , but every woman ) δὲ, but, forms an epitasis [emphatic augmentation or addition]. In this whole passage the woman, especially the woman of Corinth, is principally admonished. προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα , praying or prophesying)…. A question arises here, what is to be thought concerning wigs? First, they do not seem to be considered as περιβόλαιον, 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 man’s own hair: and even if women were accustomed to wear wigs, they would not be considered as thereby sufficiently covered.

Verse 7-10:

“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 6:0 . 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.

John Gill, 1697 – 1771 (Baptist, England):

“John Gill was the first major writing Baptist theologian, his work retaining influence into the 21st century.” – Wikipedia

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

But it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, “dishonoureth his head”; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer’s head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman’s veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable.

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. 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 שגלוי הראש גנאי להם, “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,

Verse 10

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head,…. The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman’s head, as a sign of the man’s power over her, and her subjection to him; which Dr. Hammond endeavours to confirm, by observing that the Hebrew word רדיד, which signifies a woman’s veil, or hood, comes from a root which signifies power and dominion; but in that he is mistaken, for the word is derived not from רדה, to rule, govern, or exercise power and authority, but from רדד, to expand, stretch out, or draw over, as a woman’s veil is drawn over her head and face. The Greek word εξουσια more properly signifies the power she had of putting on and off her covering as she pleased, according as times, places, and persons; made it necessary:

Moreover, this veiling of the woman in public worship because of angels, may be an imitation of the good angels, who when they sung the praises of God, and adored and glorified his perfections, covered their faces and their feet with their wings, Isaiah 6:1.

Commentary on Genesis 24:65:

For she [had] said unto the servant
As soon as she saw a man walking towards them, who she thought with herself might be Isaac: what man is this that walketh in the field to meet us?
for by the course he steered, she perceived that he was coming towards them, and so concluded it must be one of the family, and probably the person she was to be married to; for otherwise, had he not by his look and motion discovered that he knew the servant, and was coming towards them, she would have took no notice of him and the servant [had] said, it is my master:
meaning not Abraham, but his son, who also was his master: therefore she took a veil, and covered herself; both out of modesty, and as a token of subjection to him: for the veil was put on when the bride was introduced to the bridegroom, as among the Romans in later times. The Arab women always have veils when they appear in public, so that their faces cannot be seen; and though in the summer months they walk abroad with less caution, yet then, upon the approach of a stranger, they put on their veils.

Commentary on Genesis 38:14:

And she put her widow’s garments off from her and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself;
in it, or in a cloak, or some such like garment, which the Arabs now call “hykes”; this she did that she might not be known, and not that she might appear as an harlot; for it was common to all women in those countries to go abroad with their veils: and on the contrary, whatever might be the custom here in those early times, which cannot be said what it was; in other countries, and in later times, harlots have been used to appear unveiled and open to the view of all.

John Wesley, 1703–1791 (Methodist, England):

Notes on 1 Corinthians 11:

Verse 2

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

I praise you — The greater part of you.

Verse 3

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

I would have you know — He does not seem to have given them any order before concerning this.

The head of every man — Particularly every believer.

Is Christ, and the head of Christ is God — Christ, as he is Mediator, acts in all things subordinately to his Father. But we can no more infer that they are not of the same divine nature, because God is said to be the head of Christ, than that man and woman are not of the same human nature, because the man is said to be the head of the woman.

Verse 4

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Every man praying or prophesying — Speaking by the immediate power of God.

With his head — And face.

Covered — Either with a veil or with long hair.

Dishonoureth his head — St. Paul seems to mean, As in these eastern nations veiling the head is a badge of subjection, so a man who prays or prophesies with a veil on his head, reflects a dishonour on Christ, whose representative he is.

Verse 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.

But every woman — Who, under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, (for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church,) prays or prophesies without a veil on her face, as it were disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head. For it is the same, in effect, as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages, men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures.

Verse 6

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Therefore if a woman is not covered — If she will throw off the badge of subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man’s. But if it be shameful far a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for the same reason, keep on her veil.

Verse 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.

A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image of God – In the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory. But the woman is only matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear but with her head veiled, as a tacit acknowledgment of it.

Verse 8

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

The man is not — In the first production of nature.

Verse 10

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

For this cause also a woman ought to be veiled in the public assemblies, because of the angels – Who attend there, and before whom they should be careful not to do anything indecent or irregular.

Verse 11

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Nevertheless in the Lord Jesus, there is neither male nor female – Neither is excluded; neither is preferred before the other in his kingdom.

Verse 12

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

And as the woman was at first taken out of the man, so also the man is now, in the ordinary course of nature, by the woman; but all things are of God – The man, the woman, and their dependence on each other.

Verse 13

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Judge of yourselves — For what need of more arguments if so plain a case? Is it decent for a woman to pray to God – The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have, when, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered?

William Gould, 1715 – 1799 (Anglican, England):

Of Domestic Duties, Eight Treatises:

§. 3. Of a husband’s superiority over a wife, to be acknowledged by a wife.

The general is the ground of the particular: for until a wife is informed that a husband, by virtue of his place, is his wife’s superior, she will not be persuaded that her own husband is above her, or has any authority over her.

First, therefore, concerning the general, I will lay down some evident and undeniable proofs to show that a husband is his wife’s superior and has authority over her. The proofs are as follows:

1. God, of whom the powers that be are ordained, has power to place his image in whom he will. To whom God gives superiority and authority, the same ought to be acknowledged as due unto them. But God said of the man to the woman, “He shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16).
2. Nature has placed an eminence in the male over the female, so that where they are linked together in one yoke, it is given by nature that he should govern and she obey. This the heathen observed by the light of nature.
3. The persons whom the husband, by virtue of his place, and whom the wife, by virtue of her place, represent, most evidently prove as much: for a husband represents Christ, and a wife, the Church (Eph. 5:23).

5. The circumstances noted by the Holy Ghost at the woman’s creation imply no less, such as that she was created after man, for man’s good, and out of man’s side (Gen. 2:18, &c.).
6. The very attire which nature and the custom of all times and places have taught women to put on confirms the same: as long hair, veils, and other coverings over the head. This and the former argument does the Apostle himself use for this very purpose, 1 Cor. 11:7, &c.

§. 12. Of wife-like modesty in apparel.

Modesty pertaining to a wife is much manifested in her apparel. St. Paul requires this modesty in general of all sorts of women, but St. Peter presses it particularly upon wives. For as it well becomes all women, so it especially becomes wives, namely, in attiring themselves to respect rather their husband’s place and state than their own birth and parentage, but much more than their own mind and humor.

A wife’s modesty, therefore, requires that her apparel be neither for costliness above her husband’s ability nor for curiousness unbecoming his calling. As a poor man’s wife must not affect costly apparel, so neither should ministers’, grave counselors’, sage magistrates’, or even conscientious professors’ wives hunt after new fashions or attire themselves in light and garish apparel. It is a token of great reverence in a wife toward her husband to have an eye to his place and state in her apparel.

On the contrary, such proud dames as must have their own will in their attire, and think it nothing appertains to their husbands to order them therein, who care not what their husband’s ability or what his place and calling may be, show little respect and reverence to their husbands. Such are they who are no whit moved by their husband’s example; but though the man’s apparel be plain and grave, yet the wife’s shall be costly and garish.

Yea, many there be that stand in some more awe of their husband’s sight but show little more respect unto him, who have their silken gowns, beaver hats, and other like attire, not agreeable to their place and state, lie in the country if they be of the city, or in the city if they be of the country, in a friend’s house where their husbands shall not know it. And when their husbands are not with them, they wear these things, paint their faces, lay out their hair, and in everything follow the fashion.

What can those who behold this think, but that such a wife’s care is more to please other light, vain persons than her grave, discreet husband? Or that her husband can nothing at all prevail with her? Which, as it stains her own credit, so it leaves a blot of dishonor even upon him. If the care of a wife were to give evidence of the reverence which she bears to her husband, his desire and example would, in this respect, more prevail with her than the humor of her own heart.

Joseph Benson, 1749–1821 (Methodist, UK):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Verses 4-6

1 Corinthians 11:4-6. Every man, &c. – Now upon this principle, with a reference to the usages that prevail at this time with you at Corinth, I may properly observe:

Every man praying or prophesying – By an immediate influence of the Spirit of God, in a public assembly; having his head covered – With a veil, which is a sign of subjection; dishonoureth his head Christ, who, having made him the head of the woman, and given him authority over her, is dishonoured when the man renounces that authority by appearing veiled in the presence of the woman, as her inferior.

But every woman praying or prophesying – Under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church;

with her head uncovered – Without any veil over her head and face;

dishonoureth her head – Disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head;

for that is even all one as if she were shaven – It is the same in effect as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures. Therefore, if the woman be not covered If she will throw off the badge of subjection;

let her also be shorn – Let her appear with her hair cut off like a man, or like a woman of bad character, such being sometimes punished in that manner:

but if it be a shame for a woman – To appear in public shorn or shaven Especially in a religious assembly;

let her be covered – Let her for the same reason keep on her veil.

Verse 10

1 Corinthians 11:10. For this cause As well as for the other reasons above mentioned;

the woman ought to have power on her head That is, a veil, as a token of her being under the power and subjection of the man: and so much the rather should she wear it in worshipping assemblies

because of the angels Who are present there, and before whom all should be careful not to do any thing indecent or irregular. “Though there is no example, either in sacred or profane writers, of the word εξουσια , here rendered power, being used to denote a veil; yet all agree that it can have no other meaning in this passage.” Whitby understands the latter clause of evil angels, paraphrasing and commenting on the words thus: “She, being tempted by the prince of evil angels to that which is a perpetual cause of shame to her, and which increased her subjection to the man, (Genesis 3:16,) ought therefore to use this token of shame-facedness and subjection.” She is to have her head covered, say the Jews, “like one that mourneth, as a token of shame. Hence Philo calls the το επικρανον, cover of the woman’s head, the symbol of her shame; and this shame, say they, is due to her, because she first brought sin into the world. It is with her as when one transgresseth and is ashamed; and therefore she comes forth with her head covered. She ought, saith Tertullian, by her habit to resemble Eve, a mourner and a penitent; ob ignominiam primi delicti,” for the shame of the first sin. See on 1 Timothy 2:11-14. The former interpretation, however, which supposes that good angels are meant, who, being ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, might be present in the religious assemblies of the Christians, seems much more probably to be the true one.

Verses 13-16

1 Corinthians 11:13-16. Judge in yourselves For what need of more arguments in so plain a case?

Is it comely Decent, suitable to female modesty;

that a woman pray unto God The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have if, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered?

Doth not even nature The light of nature, or natural reason;

teach you Previous to any arguments on the subject;

that if a man have long hair Carefully adjusted, it is a mark of such effeminacy as is a disgrace to him?

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory An ornament;

to her Which does not incommode her, being suitable to her domestic state:

for her hair was given her Originally, and before the arts of dress were invented or needed;

for Αντι , instead of; a covering Or veil. “What a value the eastern ladies put on their hair may be known from this, that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen, Berenice, who loved him tenderly, vowed, as the most precious sacrifice she could offer, to cut off and consecrate her hair, if he returned in safety.”

But if any man seem to be contentious And will dispute this matter, on his own different views of what is naturally decent, I shall not controvert it further, but content myself with saying, that

we have here no such custom For women to appear with their heads uncovered;

neither the churches of God In any other place, whether planted by me or any of my brethren. The several churches that were in the apostles’ time, had different customs in things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as circumstances in different places made it convenient. And in all things merely indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous conscience, which really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or not. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious persons.

James Derham, 1762 – 1802 (Protestant, USA):

The Ten Commandments, Commandment 7:

The touch with embracing; and the mouth with kissings such are spoken of in Proverbs 7:13 she caught him and kissed him.

To insist further, is not suitable: but oh! There is much guilt contracted this way, and but little noticed, and mourned for.

3. man may become guilty by gestures, as they are evidences of this vileness, or disposed to it, and posters indecent and unbecoming civility, and Godless. See what is spoken of a haughty person, Proverbs 6:13, 14 and Isaiah 3:16 this is opposite to modest walking, which is commended, Romans 13:13, and a carnal wantonness reproved.

4. Persons become exceeding guilty of this evil by scurril and obscene speeches, whereas this sin should not be once named; by reading scurril, wanton, amorous ballads or books, which is, as if we were conferring on such a subject, by taunting and reproaching one another in such communication as corrupts good manners; by jesting that is not convenient, especially if it be at one that has fallen in some Act of filthiness, or by whatever may be near, or of a sinful suitableness to such an evil; see Ephesians 4:24 and Ephesians 5 3 and 4.

5. This sin is falling in by two familiar or unnecessary Converse with light, vain, loose company, more especially private company with such, which is not only an appearance of ill, or a snare to ill, but evil and loose in itself, called by the apostle, chambering, Romans 13:13, and Solomon bids men not come near the door of such a woman’s house, much less to enter it, proverbs 5:8.

6. Men fall into it by wantonness, immodesty, want of due shame-facedness, or any other way whereby they yield reins to the loose, wanton, carnal humor that is in them.

There are many other sins which come in here: and although some of them may be reduced to several of the commands, yet in a special manner are they related, and as it were, tied to this; as number one idleness, such as you see, 2nd Samuel 11:2, occasioned David’s fall, and by Ezekiel 9:16 49 charged on Sodom, as predisposing for, and going along with their uncleanness; idleness being in itself “Mater omnium vitiorum,” and “noverca omnium virtutum,” the mother of all vices, and the stepmother of all virtues: this breeds unstayed looks, and gives occasion to, and entertains carnal imaginations, and it occasions much getting, when folks, either have no lawful calling, or are not diligent and serious in the employment and duties of it, 1st Timothy 5:13.

2. Lightness and Unstableness, charged on Reuben when he defiled his father’s bed, Genesis 14 4, And by the Apostle, Keeping at home Is Joined with Chastity, modesty, and shamefastness. There is a gadding, and a so-called firthiness, especially in women, more especially young women, which is exceedingly offensive, and yet exceedingly Rife; it may be it were more fitly called impudence, or if you didn’t boldness, which makes them run to all spectacles and shows, to speak in all discourses (which quite crosses the character that one gives of a modest virgin, that “she loves rather to loose herself in a modest silence, than to be found in a bold discourse), and to hazard upon all companies, exceedingly unsuitable to that modesty and shamefastness which is particularly called for in that sex. Take in here also the manner of going, mincing, or tripping nicely, and making a tinkling with their feet, spoken of in Isaiah 3:16, and touched at a little before.

3. Wanting this, and too much carnal mirth and laughter, which is both the evidence and great fomentor of looseness in the heart and to foolish jesting, which is not convenient, Ephesians 5:3, is conjoined with this sin, and none ought to think that there is a lawful freedom in such duality, as, chambering and wantonness, Romans 13:13. Now this takes in much, and is of a large extent.

4. Indecent conversing, going abroad in company with rash and offensive freedom, when as entering the house, yay, coming near the very doors of a horse house is forbidden, proverbs 5:8, the ill and Prejudice were of maybe seen in Dinah’s going abroad be like without an errand, Genesis 34:1 and 2. Potiphar’s wife did cast herself in Joseph’s company thus, though he gave her no entertainment, but in the fear of the Lord fled from her.

5. Add dancing, a thing condemned by the people of God As Honest Recreation, at least, When in companies that are mixed comma, And as we call it Promiscuous dancing, Such as used to be at marriages, And like the occasions, both of old ( as maybe seen in the canons of the several councils) as also of late by our own and other reformed churches.

I shall say these things in short of it: first, that you will not find it mentioned in Scripture in the person of any of the godly, it becoming an Herodius’s daughter better than professors of religion. 2. That it will be readily found to indispose for the exercise of godliness, and so to be inconsistent, or at best, hardly consistent with either a Pious and lively, or a sober frame of spirit. 3. That it Mars not only the gravity of persons for the time, putting them in a sort of regular distraction, but lessons the esteem of such persons; this in sobriety being like a dead fly that makes the box of ointment(if any be) to stink. 4. That in scripture examples we find this sort of dancing only among profane and loose people, and recorded also as a piece of their stain or blot, rendering them some way infamous; and oftentimes it has also snares waiting upon it, as in the Israelites amongst themselves, Exodus 32, and in the daughters of Moab with the people of israel, and in that of herodias’s daughter. Some also suppose Those whom Dinah went forth to see, Genesis 32, were thus employed at some feast, or such other solemnity where she was ensnared and be flowered. 5. Yay, it is often, if not ever, the fruit of some former looseness and carnalness, being the effect that excessive wantonness usually breaks out in. And can God’s people warrantably have Fellowship with these works of darkness? Or can they, if guilty themselves, reprove it in others? Cicero calls it postremum vitorium, quia acta sequitur, the last of vices, because usually it follows former loose carriages. 6. There is no lawful mean of recreation which is useful for the health of the body, but is, and may, and should be Sanctified by the word and prayer.

I suppose neither uses this to be so, neither would any think it very suitable, or well consistent with a praying frame, and can that which stands not with the serious exercise of repentance, an da praying disposition, or that which none would think a fit posture to meet death, or the Lord’s appearing with, be in reason thought consistent with a Christian walk? Which should always be with the loins girded, and the lamps burning? It is somewhat like this, or less than this, which the Lord condemns, Isaiah 3:16, walking or mincing, or tripping, and making a tinkling with their feet. What is that, but disdaining the grave way of walking, to affect an art in it, as many do now in our days? And shall this be displeasing to the Lord, and not the other? Seeing he loves, and is best pleased with the native way of carrying the body. Junius and Rivet from him, called this mincing or tripping, a walking or standing on the earth in an artificial way.

Besides these things that are more general in folks carriage, there is somewhat further in our clothing and diet, which is to be spoken to here, feeling in these we ought to be Christian, sober, grave, etc. and in nothing do our lightness, vanity (as we ordinarily use to call people vain from their apparel), pride, wantonness, and rioting appear more, than in vain garbs. Hence the apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:9, joins modest apparel with shame-facedness and sobriety or chastity, as also does the apostle Peter, in 1 Peter 3:2, 3, and in Jezebel and others, decking and dressing to seek love, is ever accounted a high degree of looseness. It is a wonder that men should take pleasure to deboard in their clothing, which is the badge of their perfidiousness, and was at first appointed to cover their shame and nakedness. It is observed that the Hebrew word “beged” does signify both perfidiousness and clothing, and comes from that word, which signifies to break covenant, the Lord thereby intending by the very consideration of our clothes, to humble us, and keep us in mind of our first breach of covenant with him; and yet such is our wickedness, that we will glory in that which is indeed our shame, as if it were a special ornament; and whereas at first, clothing was appointed for covering nakedness, for preventing of incitement to lust, and for decency, now Jezebel like, it is made use of to be a provocation thereunto, see proverbs 7:10. God in his first appointment of raiment, for preventing of vanity, and commending honest sobriety therein, did make for our fist parents coats of skins.

And therefore we say, that in men and women both, there is condemned by the Lord:

1. Costliness and excessive bravery of apparel, 1 Timothy 2:0, which faith not that we are to softer sordidness or baseness, or that men in all places or stations, and of all ranks, should as to their apparel, be equal, but that none should exceed. It is strange, that sometime the poorest and meanest for place, and often for qualifications, are finest this way, as if it were the best or only way to commend and set them out; and that some should have more in clothes than in their frock, is utterly intolerable.

2. Strangeness in the ever-changing fashions, and extravagant modes of apparel, while as the Lord by nature has continued the shape of men’s bodies to be the same; for what is meant else by strange apparel, so often forbidden in the Scripture, but that which is commonly called “the fashion,” or “new fashion,” a new and uncouth garb? And certainly men’s minds are often infected lascivious thoughts, and lustful inclinations, even by the use and sight of gaudy and vain clothing; and we will see, light, loose, conceited minds discover themselves in nothing sooner than in their apparel, and fashions, and conceitedness in them.

3. There is a lightness in clothing as to color, mounting as they call it, and in dressing of the body, which may be seen in these dressing of the hair, in powderings, laces, ribbons, points, etc. which are so much in use with the gallants of the time; this especially in women, is insisted on and condemned, Isaiah 3:16, 17, some things indeed there mentioned, are not simply unlawful, especially to persons of higher quality, and at all times; but the particulars following are condemned;

1. Affecting of and having a lust after, brave clothing, making our back our God, as some do their belly, Philippians 3:19, and this may be where clothes are but means, yet the lust and appetite after them may be great.

2. Haughtiness and vanity in clothes and dressings, when we think ourselves better with them than without them; or esteem ourselves because of them above others, in other things superior, or at least equal to us.

3. Excess in these, in their superfluity and costliness, as is said, above and beyond our state and station.

4. Wantonness and lightness in them, which is especially in nakedness; as to such and such parts of the body, which in modesty are hid; for women having clothes to cover, ought to make use of them for that end, and it is more than probably that, that “walking with stretched out necks,” there reproved, relates to women, their making more of their necks, and their breasts bare, than should be, or is decent, they affected to discover and raise their gorgets, when God commends modesty, and nature is best pleased in its own unaffected freedom, yet they stretched them out. It is both a wonderful and sad thing, that women should need to be reproved for such things, which are in themselves so gross, that let the most innocent be required, whence these, more than ordinary discoveries, do proceed; and they must at least grant that the first practicers of such a fashion, could have no other design in it, than the more thereby to please and allure men’s carnal eyes and regards.

And 2. So impudent; for if to be all naked be shameful and exceeding ready to provoke lust, must not nakedness in part, more or less, be, and do the same? So that this will be found a glorying in their shame; for nakedness hitherto was always looked upon as a reproach. We read of old and such as were grave, that they “covered themselves with a veil.” And in 1 Corinthians 11, married women going abroad uncovered is looked on as unnatural. What would such say if they lived in our times? We are persuaded the gravest among women are most averse from this evil, and the lightest are most prone and given to it. And seeing all women should be grave, it must import a disclaiming of that qualification where this lightness is delighted in. If therefore there be any shame, if there be any conscience, we will expect to prevail with some who are touched with the sense of gravity, that they may be good examples to the rest, and once endeavor effectually to bring gravity and modest shame-facedness in fashion again.

There is in clothes a bare effeminacy, amongst men (which some way emasculates or unmanneth them), who delight in those things, which women dote upon, as dressing of hair, powderings, and washings (when exceeding in) rings, jewels, etc, which are spoken of and reproved in the daughter of Zion (Izaiah 3), and so must be much more unsuitable to men. Also interchanging of apparel is condemned; men putting on women, and women putting on men’s clothes. which is unsuitable to that distinction of sexes which the Lord has made, and is condemned in the word as a confusion, an absurd unnatural thing; and an inlet of much wickedness. Whereof the Dutch Annotations, as several fathers did long before them, on 1 Corinthians 11:14, make men’s nourishing and wearing of long hair, to be some degree, it being given to women, not only for an ornament and covering, but also in part for distinction of the female sex from the male. And hear having touched a little on this vain dressing of the hair (now almost in as many various modes, as there are fashions of apparel) especially incident to women; it will not be impertinent to subjoin a strange story, which learned, pious, and Grave Mr Bolton in his four last things, page 40, repeats from his author the famous Hercules Saxonia, professor of Physick in Padua: “The Plica, saith he, is a most loathsome and horrible disease in the hair, unheard of in former times, as Morbus Gallicus and Sudor Anglicus, bred by modern luxury and excels, it seizes specially upon women and by reason of a viscuous, venomous humor glues together, as it were, the hairs of the head with a prodigous ugly implication and entanglement, sometimes taking the form of a great snake, sometimes of many little serpents, full of nastiness, vermine, and noisome smell. And that which is most to be admired and never eye saw before, these pricked with a needle, they yield bloody drops. And at the first spreading of this dreadful disease in Polland, all that did cut of this horrible and snaky hair, lost their eyes, or the humor falling down upon other parts of the body, tortured them extremely. It began first, not many years ago in Polland, it is now entered into many parts of Germany. And methinks (says Mr Bolton) our monstrous fashionists, both male and female, the one for nourishing the horrid bushes of vanity, the other for their most unnatural and curled cutting their hair, should every hour fear and tremble, lest they brig it on their own heads and among us in this kingdom.”

It is also worthy the noticing that Tertullian has to this purpose in his book On The Apparel of Women (chapter 7), where having expostulated with Christian women for their various vain dressing of the hair, he bespeaks them thus: “Drive away this bondage of busking from a free head, in vain do you labour to appear thus dressed, in vain do you make use of the most expert frizlers of hair. God commands you to be covered and veiled. I wish that I, most miserable man, may be privileged to lift up my head, if it were but amongst the feed of the people of God, in that blessed day of Christians exulting gladness. Then will I see if you will arise out of your graves with that varnish and paint of white and red, and with such a headdress, and if the angels will carry you up so adorned and painted to meet Christ in the clouds.”

And again, in chapter 13, “These delights and toys (says he) must be shaken off, with the softness and looseness whereof the virtue and valor of faith may be weakened. Moreover, I know not if these bands that are accustomed to be surrounded with rings and bracelets, or such other ornaments, will endure to be benumbed and stupefied with the hardness of a chain. I know not if the leg, after the use of such fine hose-garters, will suffer itself to be straightened and pinched into fetters, or a pair of stocks. I am afraid that the neck, accustomed to chains of pearls and emeralds, will hardly admit of the two handed sword. Therefore, O blessed women (saith he), let us meditate and dwell on the thoughts of hardship, and we shall not feel it, let us relinquish and abandon these delicacies and frolicks and we shall not desire them. Let us stand ready armed to encounter all violent assaults, having nothing which we will be afraid to forego and part with. These are the stays and ropes of the anchor of our hope.”

Commentary on the Song of Songs, Chapter Four:

The commendation will confirm this, which is twofold, 1. They are ‘doves’ eyes:’ this was opened, chap. 1:15, and it signifieth, I. What is the great object they behold, and are taken up with, it is Christ; and they are chaste to him, and seek to know no other at all but him, 1 Cor. 2:2. 2. It imports that the act of faith whereby they behold him, is simple, single and sweet, their understanding is not subtle, nor politic, nor are they puffed up with it, but it is taken up with studying Christ and him crucified, opposite to the vain wisdom of the world, 1 Cor. 2:1,2. 2. These eyes are ‘within her locks: locks are that part of the hair that hang about the face, handsomely knit, and was then instead of a vail to women, 1 Cor.11:7, and so the word in the Hebrew will bear; and it is differenced from that word translated hair, in the words following, which is that part of the hair that covers the head: it implies here, that the believer’s knowledge is not used for frothy ostentation (as the knowledge that puffs up) but is kept within its right bounds, and that they are wise unto sobriety, and that their knowledge is not at the first obvious, but seasonably vents itself and looks out, as eyes that are within the locks.

The fifth part of her commendation (or the fifth character or property of the Bride) is in these words, ‘thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.’ The temples are that part of the face, that are betwixt the ears and the eyes; and sometimes the signification is so large, as they take in the cheeks; they are a special part wherein the beauty of the face consists, and are the proper seat of shamefacedness and modesty, wherein blushing appears. The commendation is twofold, 1. They are like ‘a piece of a pomegranate:’ they who write of it say, it is a fruit, which when broken (as here the mentioning of a piece thereof signifies) is pleasant with red and white spots, not unlike blushing in a pleasant face. The second commendation is, that these temples are ‘within her locks,’ of the colour of a pomegranate, but not discernible fully (as the eyes also were, verse 1.) yet something observable; as sometimes modesty will make blushing, and again will seek to cover it, when hardly will it be gotten done. Here we take tenderness, shamefacedness, modesty in spiritual things, and blushing before God to be understood; Christ’s Bride hath a tenderness that is soon affected with wrongs done to him, she easily resents them; and this is opposite to impudence, and a whore’s forehead, which cannot be ashamed, than which nothing is more displeasing to Christ, and unbecoming to his Bride; here the temples are not hard, (as the brow that is of brass) but like a piece of a pomegranate, opposite to it; here it is not stretched out impudently, but covered within the locks, and not shameless that cannot blush, but coloured (to say so) with shamefacedness and blushing, which though they seek to hide, yet it appears in them. And this application being safe in itself, and agreeable to the scope; (which shews what Christ is delighted with in her) and this being a main piece of her beauty, and also suitable to the commendation, there is no hazard to fix on it; for, without this she would not be so lovely.

2. This commendation, that her temples are ‘within her locks,’ imports, that Christ’s Bride blushes when none sees, and for that which no other sees: and also that she seeks not to publish her exercises, but modestly covers them; yet the evidences of all these in a tender walk, appear and are comely. Observe. 1. Shamefacedness or sobriety becomes a believer, or Christ’s Bride exceeding well, 2. Tim. 2:9. 2. Inward heart-blushing, when we look upon ourselves before God, is the best trial of true tenderness. 3. A believer will have many shameful representations of himself, and will think much shame of what he sees, which the world will never be acquainted with. 4. This grace of self-loathing and holy blushing, is much taken notice of by Christ, and most especially recorded by him, however it be much hid from others.

Commentary on the Song of Songs, Chapter Five:

Verse 7. The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my vail from me.

It hath a threefold use, 1. For decoration, as Isa.3:23. 2. For a sign of modesty, pleaded for by the apostle, 1 Cor. 11:6. 3. And mainly, for a sign of women’s subjection to their own husbands; for which cause Rebekah puts on her vail, when she meets Isaac, Gen. 24:65. And therefore it is called power, as being the sign of the wife’s being under the power of her husband, 1 Cor. 11:10. Here her vail is the tenderness of her profession, whereby, in a decent, modest and humble way, she professed herself to be a believer, seeking after Christ Jesus, as one bearing the badge of subjection to him as her Husband. The taking away of the vail, is their wronging of that honest profession she had, and the giving of her out, not to be that which she professed herself to be, and so not worthy of a vail; but that her profession was hypocrisy, her painfulness and tenderness, conceitedness, even as Judas, John 12:5, nicknames that good work wrought upon Christ by the honest woman, calling it wastry: and by these, and such other means, often tender souls are affronted, and proposed as a reproach to the multitude; even as if a wife that is chaste, were denuded of her vail, and reputed as a gadding harlot, while she is seeking her own husband: so when the Lord threatens his people, that their lewdness should be made to appear, he useth this expression, Ezek. 23:26,27, They shall ‘strip thee out of thy clothes;’ &c. that being a manifest shame to a woman, that should be covered, 1 Cor. 11:6. This is added, to shew that they pretend they have reason for their smiting: they disgrace her, and take away her vail, that they may not be thought to smite holiness or tenderness, but a hypocrite under such a wail, or a whore more decently adorned than became her to be.

Alexander Campbell, 1788-1866 (Church of Christ, USA):

WOMAN AND HER MISSION. [JUNE, 1856.] AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE HENRY FEMALE SEMINARY, NEW CASTLE, KY., MAY 30, 1856.

I appear before you, young ladies, on this interesting occasion, not to flatter you nor your sex, but to contribute to your gratification and that of myself, in suggesting to your consideration some practical views on a subject alike interesting to your sex and to my own.

Regarding woman, as I do, the oct(we^ or rather the diapason of the hymn of creation, and as having committed to her the destinies of our species and our planet, she, in the scale of material nature, in unison with the spiritual, is a spectacle alike interesting to creator and creature — to all intelligences, of all ranks and orders, terrestrial or celestial. If the morning stars in concert sang, and all the sons of God shouted for joy, when the drama of creation culminated in the person of Eve, can she, whose very name is life, in its first impersonation and full orbed grandeur, ever cease to be, not only the dearest object of our earth-born affections, but the most attractive spectacle ever seen, when robed in all the charms and graces of our ransomed and beatified humanity.

“The modest water, awed with power divine, Beheld its God, and blushed itself into wine.”

And on a subject of such thrilling and soul-engrossing interest to the present and eternal happiness and destiny of our species, it is of the greatest importance that we should be placed in such a position and in such an attitude, as to survey the entire mission and destiny, not of woman only, as respects her own person and sex, but of woman in her mission and destiny in the whole creation of God.

But this, young ladies, in its soul-subduing grandeur, is not a theme within the immediate province of your studies or of your capacities. Still, a glance at it through the telescope of Divine revelation, is of such stimulating power and efficiency as to justify an allusion to it, to excite in your imagination the importance of qualifying yourselves for higher, holier, happier, and more enduring positions in the area of the universe than you could aspire to without such suggestions.

It is, indeed, quite enough for our present purpose, and for the short space alloted to us, to impress upon your attention that woman was created to be a companion, perfectly suitable to man; hence it is equally her duty, her honor, and her happiness, to accomplish herself for this high and dignified position.

We can imagine nothing noble, or grand, or beatifying in humanity, that is not comprehended and absorbed in the beau ideal of a Christian. Hence any school, male or female, not based on Christianity — genuine, heaven-born, and heaven-descended Christianity — is a wild freak of uncultivated reason- – a vagary of an untutored mind. Hence the Christian Scriptures are, and of right ought to be, the daily text-book of every school in Christendom, based on the true philosophy of man, from the nursery up to the university.

A woman became the mother of the King of Heaven — the Lord and Arbiter of the sublime, and grand and awful empire of the universe. Yes, the King of Eternity was solaced in the bosom of Mary the Virgin. And through Him you have be- come, or may become, heiresses in common of the empire of the Universe. Christianity has infinitely aggrandized your sex, and has conferred on you the sovereignty of the human heart; these constitute the splendid coronal of sanctified woman.

You stand not in the front rank of the battle field, in conflicting with the rebel hosts of the great enemy of human happiness. But your task is to minister to their comfort who war a good warfare, in the cause of man’s redemption. You pour into their wounds the oil of joy and gladness; you perfume the sick and the dying with the perfume of your Christian sympathy; and you soothe the parched lips of the expiring Christian with the last cup of water from the perennial fountain of ever- lasting love.

There is no necessity to mount the rostrum, to stand up in public assemblies, to address mixed auditories of both sexes, of all classes and of all orders of society, in order to fill up the duties of your mission. If Paul would not have a woman to pray unveiled in a Christian church, and if he made long hair a glory to her, because it veiled her beauty and protected her eyes from the gaze of staring sensualists, think you he would have sent her out on a missionary tour, or placed her in a rostrum, surrounded by ogling glasses in the hands, not of old men and women of dim vision, but in the hands of green striplings of pert impertinence! Be assured not one word of such import ever fell from the lips of prophets or apostles. On the contrary, modesty, shamefacedness and sobriety are the garland of beauty, the wreath of glory, and the coronal of dignity and honor on the person of a Christian woman, who is always in her proper sphere, an “elect lady;” not necessarily of the aristocracies of earth, but of the elite and honorable of heaven.

One feminist website comments on this passage (the writer is in Disciples of Christ):

“There is no need, Campbell contends, for women to preach or teach publicly in order to fulfill their purpose and mission. For support he appeals to 1 Cor 11 on the veiling of woman’s head and face from “staring sensualists,” and “green striplings of pert impertinence” who gaze lustfully at women with ogling glasses.”

FROM: MILLENNIAL HARBINGER, April 1854, 203-7:

Two sovereigns cannot sit on one throne, nor control one domain. A body with two heads is usually called a monster. And these are always unsightly spectacles. These are aberrations from the regular and staid economy of heaven. And from these we borrow no models. So far, then, we are led by the facts of the Bible, and the analogies of nature and of society.

But again: as the members of one human body have not all the same office, so must it be in every other body, politic or ecclesiastic. There is one God, one Lord, one Spirit, one body, either in the church or in the State.

Within these limits, therefore, lie all questions about social rights – domestic, political, moral or religious. Woman’s rights are, therefore, as easily adjusted as man’s rights. The sex is, constitutionally, legally and religiously, modest and retiring, in the presence of him whom God made first. It would be cruel, tyrannical, and unmanly, to do violence to female modesty, by forcing her to hold the helm of State, to carry arms, or to fight in the battle field.

Homer, the Grecian poet, though a Pagan, had more good sense and gallantry than some of our modern gentlemen. He puts into Hector’s lips, on his parting with Andromache, more manly and gallant words. The Grecian hero says to his beloved Andromache, when importuning her to stay at home while he entered the battle field –

-“No more, but hasten to thy task at home;
There guide the spindle and direct the loom.
Me glory summons’ to the martial plain,
The field of battle is the field for man.
Where heroes war, the foremost place I claim,
The first in danger and the first in fame.”

Christianity elevates, ennobles, and adorns woman kind, with other charms and graces than those obtained in legislative halls, in courts, in cabinets, in chairs of state, in tented camps, and in floating navies. Nor would an Apostle–who commanded and importuned them to be chaste, keepers at home, obedient to their own husbands; to adorn themselves with modest apparel, with good works, with a meek and quiet spirit; who commanded them to marry, to raise and educate children, and to teach their junior women to follow their example in similar pursuits–contradict himself, and stultify his own wisdom and discretion, by telling them, at the same time, that they had political or civil rights and duties, incompatible with these, calling them off into the busy circles of the forum, or the battle field, or the tumultuous cabals and controversies of men.

He that would have women to veil their own faces even in the synagogue, and to wear long hair for a covering in Christian assemblies, could not have made it either a duty, a privilege, or an honor, to claim the rights of a civil magistrate, a lawgiver, a legal adviser, a minister of state, a civil judge, or an envoy, ordinary or extraordinary, to some foreign government, as ministers of peace or of war.

But with a superlative modesty and delicacy, he inhibits them from asking a curious question, even in a religious assembly, and charges the ministers of the church to cause their women–their wives and their daughters–to keep silence in the churches, alleging that to them “it was a shame,” rather than a right, or an honor, “to speak in the church.” He would have them to adorn themselves with modest apparel–to ask their husbands at home to instruct them more perfectly in the Oracles of God. He would have the elder sisters in the church to teach the younger women to be prudent, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God, through them, might not be blasphemed.

Charles Hodge, 1797-1878 (Presbyterian, USA):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians:

The Corinthians, in violation of public sentiment and the custom of all the churches, allowed women to appear unveiled in their congregations and to speak in public. In a spirit of emulation and ostentation, they exercised their gifts of prophecy and speaking with tongues without regard to order or edification.

With regard to the first of these abuses, the apostle teaches that, as by divine constitution the woman is subordinate to the man, and as the veil was the conventional symbol of that subordination, for a woman to appear in public unveiled was to renounce her position and forfeit the respect due to her sex.

In this passage, and in 1 Corinthians 11 as a whole, Paul does not merely say it was wrong for Grecian women to appear in public unveiled. Rather, he unfolds the principles valid for all time on which the decision of that particular question rested.

Having corrected the more private abuses that prevailed among the Corinthians, the apostle begins in this chapter to address those which relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is, to a great degree, conventional. A costume that is proper in one country would be indecorous in another. The principle emphasized in this paragraph is that women should conform in matters of dress to the usages that the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands.

The veil, in all eastern countries, was — and to a great extent still is — the symbol of modesty and subjection. For a woman, therefore, in Corinth to discard the veil was to renounce her claim to modesty and to refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. It is on the assumption of this significance in the use of the veil that the apostle’s whole argument in this paragraph is founded.

He begins by praising the Corinthians for their general obedience to his instructions (v. 2). He then reminds them of the divinely constituted subordination of the woman to the man (v. 3). Consequently, it was disgraceful for a man to assume the symbol of subordination and disgraceful for a woman to discard it (vs. 4-5). If the veil were discarded as the symbol of subordination, it must also be discarded as the symbol of modesty. An unveiled woman, therefore, in Corinth proclaimed herself as not only insubordinate but also immodest (v. 6).

The man ought not to wear a veil because he represents the authority of God. The woman, however, is the glory of the man (v. 7). This subordination is proved by the very history of her creation. Eve was formed out of Adam and made for him (vs. 8-9). Therefore, women should wear the conventional symbol of their relationship, especially in religious assemblies where angels are present (v. 10).

This subordination of the woman is perfectly consistent with the essential equality and mutual dependence of the sexes. Neither is, nor can be, independent of the other (vs. 11-12). The apostle next appeals to their instinctive sense of propriety, which taught them that, just as it is disgraceful for a man to appear in the costume of a woman, so it is disgraceful for a woman to appear in the costume of a man (vs. 13-15).

Finally, he appeals to authority. The custom he censured was contrary to the universal practice of Christians (v. 16).

The veils worn by Grecian women were of different kinds. One, and perhaps the most common, was the peplos or mantle, which in public was thrown over the head and enveloped the whole person. The other was more in the fashion of the common eastern veil, which covered the face with the exception of the eyes. In one form or another, the custom was universal for all respectable women to appear veiled in public.

The apostle, therefore, says that a woman who speaks in public with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Here, ἑαυτῆς (her own) is used, indicating not her husband, but herself. This is plain not only from the force of the words but from the next clause, “for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” This is the reason why she disgraces herself. She puts herself in the same class as women whose hair has been cut off. Cutting off the hair, which is the principal natural ornament of women, was either a sign of grief (Deut. 21:12) or a disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is: “She is one and the same thing with one who is shaven.” She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.

It is not to be inferred from what is here said that the Christian prophets (or inspired men) had introduced this custom into the church. The issue to be corrected was women appearing in public assemblies unveiled. The apostle says the veil is inconsistent with the position of the man but is required by that of the woman. Men are mentioned only for the sake of illustrating the principle.

6. “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

That is, let her act consistently. If she wishes to be regarded as a reputable woman, let her conform to the established usage. But if she has no regard for her reputation, let her act as other women of her class. She must conform either to the reputable or disreputable class of her sex, for a departure from one is conforming to the other. These imperatives are not to be taken as commands but rather as expressing what consistency would require.

14-15. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for (her) hair is given her for a covering.”

Doth not nature itself. The word φύσις (nature) sometimes means essence or substance, sometimes the laws of nature or of our natural constitution, and sometimes the instinctive feelings or judgments which are the effects of those laws. The form which these feelings assume is necessarily determined in a great measure by education and habit. The instinctive sense of propriety in an eastern maiden prompts her, when surprised by strangers, to cover her face. In a European, it would not produce that effect. In writing, therefore, to eastern females, it would be correct to ask whether their native sense of propriety did not prompt them to cover their heads in public. The response would infallibly be in the affirmative.

Albert Barnes, 1798–1870 (Presbyterian, USA):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Verse 10

For this cause … – There is scarcely any passage in the Scriptures which has more exercised the ingenuity of commentators than this verse. The various attempts which have been made to explain it may be seen in Pool, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc. After all the explanations which have been given of it, I confess, I do not understand it. It is not difficult to see what the connection requires us to suppose in the explanation. The obvious interpretation would be, that a woman should have a veil on her head because of the angels who were supposed to be present, observing them in their public worship; and it is generally agreed that the word “power” (ἐξουσίαν exousian) denotes a veil, or a covering for the head. But the word power does not occur in this sense in any classic writer. Bretschneider understands it of a veil, as being a defense or guard to the face, lest it should be seen by others. Some have supposed that it was the name of a female ornament that was worn on the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels. Most commentators agree that it means a “veil.”

[Notice how this man living in the USA struggles to understand what kind of veil is necessary, because by the late 1800s, women had abandoned the face veil.]

The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil, or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the eyes, and being fastened with a pin to the left side of the head, falls down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which they hold that cloth by the two sides, so that, except the eyes, they are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin until they are married” – Thevenot.

Verse 15

For a covering – Margin, “veil.” It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil. It answered the purposes of a veil when it was allowed to grow long, and to spread over the shoulders and over parts of the face, before the arts of dress were invented or needed.

Johann Peter Lange, 1802–1884 (Calvinist, Germany):

Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical

From the doctrine established in 1 Corinthians 11:3, he first draws an inference for the man in the matter of his apparel while at Church.—Every man praying or prophesying,—i. e., speaking in public. And by the former is meant, not exactly the speaking with tongues which certainly occurred while in prayer, but the simple offering of supplication in general; by the latter, such a discourse as set forth the mysteries of the divine counsels or of the human life, under a divine inspiration. (Comp. 1Co 13:2; 1 Corinthians 14:24 ff.). These were the two main parts of primitive Christian worship. In the first the speaker is the organ of the congregation presenting itself before God in thanksgiving, petition, and intercession; in the second, the organ of the Divine Spirit communicating His lessons to the Church.—Having his head covered.—κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων, here τι is understood—lit. ‘having aught upon his head.’ According to the usage of the Greeks, men appeared in public religious service with face and head uncovered. The case was otherwise with the Romans, and from later times with the Jews. In the Old Testament period such covering was employed only as a token of deep mourning (2 Samuel 15:30; Jeremiah 14:13).—dishonoreth his head.—Suitably with the context we must here understand, not man’s own head literally, but Christ who is dishonored when the man denying his independence seems to subordinate himself in this way to the dependent wife, or even allows the tokens of human dependence to be seen upon him. 8 Although in 1 Corinthians 11:5, we are to take the expression ‘her head’ literally, yet nothing can be deduced from this as to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:4, because there the meaning is established by ἑαυτῆς, and the explanation which follows. On the contrary, the relation to 1 Corinthians 11:3 is decisive as to its meaning here. Such was Meyer’s view in Exodus 2:0. On the contrary, in Exodus 3:0 he understands it as in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6; 1 Corinthians 11:14 of the natural head, on which the evidence must be seen that no human person but Christ, and through Christ God is the head of the man, and this evidence is its uncovered state. At any rate the chief stress lies upon the rebuke administered to woman’s wish to become emancipated in this particular, and that said of the man might also serve for illustrating the opposite.

1 Corinthians 11:5-6. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth.—The propriety of women’s praying or prophesying in the Church, is here passed over without comment since he is only treating of apparel; while it is rebuked and interdicted in 1 Corinthians 14:34 ff. Hence the arbitrary assumption that prophesying here means simply chiming in with inspired song is superfluous. [“In here disapproving of the one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other. Paul attends to one thing at a time”].—with her head unveiled.—The unveiling of the head was an abuse originating in female vanity under the pretexts of Christian freedom and of equality with man; and it was so much the more disturbing to devotion as it was contrary to custom to see women unveiled out of the house.—dishonoreth her own head.—This referred to the man, would yield a good sense even in connection with what follows, inasmuch as the woman by appearing abroad so shamelessly and exposing herself to the gaze of other men might bring a blot upon her husband. But the use of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτῆς shows clearly that it means the natural head; and this accords with what he says further, inasmuch as a shorn head was with women disgraceful—a symbol of female dishonor—a token of shamelessness,—and, indeed, was made the punishment of an adulteress—at least among the Germans (see Tac., Germ. 19; also see Wetstein in hoc loco), and, indeed, also among the Jews, Numbers 5:18. It was also a token of sorrow. Deuteronomy 21:12.

for that is one and the same thing;—the neuter is here used because it treats not of personal, but generic identity.—with her being shaven.—That is, she assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.—This identity he goes on to explain.—Let her be shorn.—This is not said permissively, but it expresses a command setting forth the legitimate consequence of the unsuitableness of her being unveiled, q. d., ‘if she will do the one thing, let her also do the other.’ If she will be so shameless as to appear with her head bare, let her act consistently, and give such a token of her shamelessness as will be seen in stripping her head entirely of its hair.

If, however, supernatural beings are understood to be meant, then the question arises whether these are good or bad spirits. If we suppose the latter, then the reference here would be to the danger of temptation through such evil spirits, either through the women’s being betrayed into unhallowed thoughts, or through their tempting men to indulge the same by showing themselves unveiled. But from the lack of any definite limitation of the meaning of the term, or of any hint of the kind in the context, we can hardly suppose this class of spirits to be intended. He must mean therefore the good and holy angels. Yet the phrase is not to be construed as expressing an oath which would be contrary to the usage of the language. Nor yet does it mean that women should veil their faces in presence of men, who are here declared to be the image and glory of God, because angels do this in the Divine presence (Isaiah 6:0). Nor yet does the phrase denote the purpose not to give offence to their guardian angels by an indecorous appearance; for then would he have added the pronoun ‘their’ to imply this. The most probable opinion is, that he means angels in general, who are regarded as being invisibly present with Christ in the assemblies of the church, and whose displeasure would be awakened by the violation of decency.

Daniel Whedon, 1808 – 1885 (Methodist, USA):

Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible

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.

Verse 10

10. Power on her head Power to which she is subject, not power which is subjected to her. And by this abstract word εξουσια , power, Paul plainly designates the hood covering her head. it may be that this Greek word was the name of the hood; but there is no other instance of such a use of the term. Olshausen says, that in the Middle Ages imperium (a Latin word of the same meaning as this Greek) was certainly the name for a woman’s headdress. Similarly Diodorus Siculus says, that a certain queen “had three royalties (crowns) upon her head, to signify that she was daughter, wife, and mother of a king.”

For that all the air is full of angels hear what the apostle says, admonishing the women to have a vail upon their heads,” etc. Again, “If you despise men, at any rate reverence the angels.” Perfectly accordant with all this is Bengel’s beautiful thought, that as angels vail their faces before God, so would they require that the female face should vail before men.” Harmony and order should prevail in their angelic presence.

Godet, Frédéric, 1812-1900 (Protestant, Switzerland):

Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians

But there was a point on which the apostle had not expressly pronounced in his oral teaching, probably because the occasion had not occurred, no woman having made trial in his presence of the right of speaking, and that with her head uncovered. Things had changed since his departure.

Ver. 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.

But let us remember that we are here in full public worship, and that it is at the moment when the woman’s voice is uttering the deepest impressions and the holiest emotions of adoration and love, that a feeling of holy modesty ought to constrain her to secure herself from every indiscreet and profane look. For the very reason that she is speaking to God, she ought in this sacred act to veil her figure from the eyes of men.

By not giving the man long hair, like the woman’s, nature itself has shown that an uncovered head, and an open brow, suit his dignity as king of creation. The hair of the man is a crown, while, as the following verse adds, that of the woman is a veil.

Ver. 15. By giving to the woman a covering of hair, which envelopes her, in a manner, from head to foot, nature itself has shown that it is suitable to her to withdraw as much as possible from view, and to remain concealed. This long and rich hair is given to her ante-peribolaion, in place of a veil. This substantive does not merely denote, as kalumma would do, an ornament for the head; it is a vestment enveloping the whole body, a sort of peplum. It is a natural symbol of reserve and modesty, woman’s most beautiful ornament.

He means that nature, by constituting as it has done each of the two sexes, has given both to understand the manner in which they will fulfil their destiny ; for man, it will be public and independent action ; for woman, life in domestic retirement and silence. Whoever has the least appreciation of the things of nature, will recognise the profound truth of this symbolism.

The whole female sex is in his eyes created with a view to its subordination to the male sex, as Tertullian well says (see Heinrici) : ” Si caput mulieris vir est, utiqii.e et virginis, de qua Jit mulier quce mipsit” (2) It is not because of her husband only that the woman who speaks in public ought to continue veiled ; it is as a woman, and to maintain in her own consciousness and in that of the Church her permanent character of dependence. (3) The passage vers. 13-15 does not give a reason which lies outside of moral obligation. Woman’s physical constitution is a revelation of the Creator’s will regarding her. Not to conform to this indication, is not merely to offend social propriety, it is to transgress the will of the Creator

Paul means that neither he, nor the Christians formed by him, nor in general any of the Churches of God, either those which he has not founded or those properly his own, allow such procedure in their ecclesiastical usages ; comp. xiv. 36, 37, where the idea simply indicated here is developed. — The material proof of this assertion of Paul’s is found in the Christian representations which have been discovered in the Catacombs, where the men always wear their hair cut short, and the women the palla, a kerchief falling over the shoulders, and which can be raised so as to conceal the face (Heinrici, p. 324). — The complement of God is intended to bring out the dignity and holiness of all these Churches, and consequently the respect due to their religious sentiment, which contrasts with the presumptuous levity of the Corinthians.

Charles John Ellicott, 1819–1905 (Anglican, England):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Verse 4

(4) Every man praying or prophesying.—The reference here is to public prayer and teaching (the word “prophesying” is used in its less restricted sense). The Apostle probably does not allude to any case in Corinth where a man had actually taken part in a religious meeting with covered head. The Greek practice was for men to have their heads uncovered when joining in religious ceremonies (Grotius in loc.). To this practice St. Paul would incline, as being the national custom of the country, and as also being typical of the distinction between the sexes which he has just laid down. The Apostle’s teaching on this subject is a remarkable illustration of how completely he had overcome his old Jewish prejudice, and how the whole of his nature had become leavened with the freedom of the gospel—for it was the custom amongst the Jews for the man to pray with covered head, and the face veiled with the Tallith, as an expression of his unworthiness to speak face to face with God. It was a profound insight into human nature which enabled the Apostle to realise how an external symbol would infallibly tend to modify doctrine, and how thus the perpetuating of such a custom in the Christian Church might have hindered the full recognition of the great truth of the personal and direct communication of every individual soul with the Father.

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 women—it 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.

Because of the angels.—Why should a woman have her head covered (either with her natural veil of hair, or with an artificial veil shrouding her face) because of the angels? The same objections which have been already stated to any alteration of the usual Greek text of the earlier clause of this verse apply equally here. The MS. evidence is unanimous in favour of the word “angels,” nor can we accept any of the figurative meanings attached to the word angel as “the president” (see Revelation 2:1), or “messenger,” sent by enemies to see what took place contrary to general custom in those assemblies. We must take the word “angel” in its ordinary and general sense.

A. R. Fausset, 1821-1910 (Anglican, Ireland):

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

CHAPTER 11 1Co 11:1-34:

3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Ga 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in 1Co 14:34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation.

the head—an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman’s appropriate headdress in public.

4. He dishonoreth his head (the principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wears it in token of her subjection to man? “Because Christ is not seen: the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her who is under the man, is seen” [Bengel]. (Compare 1Co 11:7).

5. woman … prayeth … prophesieth—This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Ac 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (1Co 14:34, 35; 1Ti 2:11, 12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till 1Co 14:34, 35. Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation.

dishonoureth … head—in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true “honor”; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). Alford takes “her head” to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one.

all one as if … shaven—As woman’s hair is given her by nature, as her covering (1Co 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.

6. A woman would not like to be “shorn” or (what is worse) “shaven”; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, “shorn.”

because of the angels—who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Ps 138:1, “gods,” that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God’s worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (1Co 4:9; Eph 3:10; Ec 5:6). Hammond quotes Chrysostom, “Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?” Bengel explains, “As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God’s face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Isa 6:2). Man’s face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mt 18:10, 31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them.”

15. her hair … for a covering—Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel].

16.A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches. if any … seem—The Greek also means “thinks” (fit) (compare Mt 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians’ self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (1Co 1:20).

we—apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to Tertullian [Estius].

“The phrase [in 1 Corinthians 11:4], “‘having down from the head,’ that is to say, wearing a kerchief in the form of a veil coming down from the head over the shoulders. 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.”

Commentary on RUTH IV:

15. “Bring the veil that thou hast upon thee, and hold it.” Eastern veils are large sheets —those of ladies being of red silk ; but the poorer or common class of women wear them of blue, or blue and white, striped linen or cotton. They are wrapped round the head, and fall down over the shoulders, enveloping the whole person (see Rogers’s ‘ Domestic Life in Palestine,’ p. 40 ; Graham’s ‘Jordan and Rhine,’ p. 195).

Commentary on 1 SAMUEL II:

1. “Hannah prayed, and said. Praise and prayer are inseparably conjoined in Scripture (Col. iv. 2; 1 Tim. ii. 1). This beautiful song was her tribute of thanks for the divine goodness in answering her petition. “Mine horn is exalted in the Lord.” Allusion is commonly supposed to be here made to a peculiarity in the dress of Eastern females, still to be found in the districts about Lebanon, which seems to have obtained anciently among the Israelite women, that of wearing a tin or silver horn on the forehead, on which their veil is suspended. Wives who have no children wear it projecting in an oblique direction; while those who become mothers forthwith raise it a few inches higher, inclining towards the perpendicular; and by this slight but observable change in their head-dress make known wherever they go the maternal character which they now bear.

Commentary on 2 SAMUEL XIII.:

19. Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of divers colours . . . laid her hand on her head, and went on crying—i.e., sobbing. Oriental manners would probably see nothing beyond a strong sense of the injury she had sustained, if Tamar actually rent her dress. But as her veil is not mentioned, it is probable that Amnon had turned her out of doors without it, and she raised her hand with the design to conceal her face. By these signs, especially the rending of her distinguishing robe, Absalom at once conjectured what had taken place.

Thomas Charles Edwards, 1837 – 1900 (Presbyterian, England)

Commentary on 1 Corinthians:

Meyer and others suggest that in our passage he is speaking of the smaller meetings for devotion, such as might be held in a dwelling-house. But there is no hint of any such distinction, and the same reason, that is, her subjection to the husband, is assigned in xiv. 34 for enjoining silence on the woman which is here used to prove that she ought to veil her face; and, therefore, her subjection would be just as much a reason for silence in the smaller assemblies as in the larger ones.

Third, it is remarkable that the injunction to men to pray uncovered and to women to pray with veiled faces is peculiar – to the Christians. Among the Greeks men and women prayed bareheaded. Cf. Macrobius, Sat. III. vi. 7. Plutarch, Qwest. ftom. 14, says the Romans worshipped with the head covered; and among the Jews the men veiled their faces in prayer.

We must, therefore, suppose that we have here an example of a distinctly Christian observance, that the men should pray without a head-dress, the women with faces veiled. Perhaps, as Hilgenfeld conjectures, the difference between the Jewish and the Greek customs may have occasioned the confusion in the Corinthian Church.

Women are enjoined to veil their faces, if they pray or prophesy in the Church assemblies, for three reasons: first, the veil is a symbol of the woman’s subjection to the man in the Christian order (vv. 3-5) ; second, it is a symbol of her subjection in the order of creation (vv. 6-12); third, this symbolism is suggested by nature herself (vv. 18-15).

V.5. As the man shames himself and Christ by veiling his face, so the woman shames herself and the man by worshipping with face unveiled. Here also the Apostle refers to the literal and to the metaphorical head. The woman that unveils her face in public worship shames herself, inasmuch as she declines, to her shame, to wear the badge of her subjection in Church order to the man. Among the Greeks the hetaerae [prostitutes] only went unveiled. But she shames her husband also, inasmuch as she transgresses the Divine law that ordained her subordination.

V.6. He proves that a woman that uncovers her head is one and the same with a woman whose head is shorn or shaven. The proof is that woman’s long hair is intended by nature and understood by all nations to be a symbol of her subjection to the man. A married woman that threw off the yoke had her head shorn as a symbol of her shame.

[It seems to me that the reason why this man understands this to be a face veil is because he lives in Europe, where these traditions lasted much longer.]

Marvin Vincent, 1834-1922 (Presbyterian, USA):

Vincent’s Word Studies

Verse 5

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.

John James Lias, 1834-1923 (Anglican, Wales):

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary for Schools and Colleges:

Commentary on 1 Corinthians:

The women threw off their veils in the Christian congregation, and gave indications of a determination to carry their newfound liberty so far as to be destructive of womanly modesty and submissiveness.

4 . Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered ] We have two propositions in this and the following verse: the first concerning the man, the second concerning the woman. “It was the custom of the Jews that they prayed not, unless first their head were veiled, and that for this reason; that by this rite they might shew themselves reverent and ashamed before God, and unworthy with an open face to behold Him.” Lightfoot. He quotes many passages from the Rabbis, of which one from Maimonides may suffice. “Let not the Wise Men, nor the scholars of the Wise Men pray, unless they be covered.” This veil was called the Tallith. Grotius (see Alford in loc .)

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.

with her head uncovered ], i.e. without the peplum or shawl, which (see Art. Peplum 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.

Fifth argument. An appeal is now made to our natural feeling of what is proper and becoming. Man, as his sphere is the world, and as he is the highest of God’s creatures in it, needs no covering to hide him from the gaze of others. Woman, as her sphere is the home, and as being, whether married or unmarried, under the dominion of man, receives of God’s providence the covering of her long hair, whereby she may veil herself from the gaze of those who are not her natural protectors.

The word has been interpreted (1) as referring to contention, ‘it is not our custom to be contentious,’ or (2) to the practice of permitting women to appear unveiled at the services of the Church. The latter yields the best sense. This appeal to the Churches must not be understood to imply that all Churches ought in all respects to have the same customs. But in a matter such as this, involving the position of women in Christian society, and their reputation in the world at large – a matter of no small irnpo1rtance – it were far wiser for the Corinthian Church to follow the universal practice of Christendom.

Frederick Brotherton Meyer, 1847 – 1929 (Baptist, England):

F.B. Meyer’s ‘Through the Bible’ Commentary

Verses 11-22

The power on a woman’s head in 1 Corinthians 11:10 probably refers to the veil or covering which the Grecian woman assumed at marriage as the sign that she was not free from the sacred ties and duties of wedlock. In Paul’s thought of the matter, therefore, it was unseemly for the Christian matron to lay this aside. He conceded the absolute freedom and equality of male and female in Christ, and yet he stood for the observance of the best customs of the age, lest the gospel should be brought into disrepute. The women, therefore, must veil their heads in the Christian assemblies as the angels veil their faces in the presence of God.

The uncovered face of man is to the glory of God, but the covered face of woman recognizes that she finds her glory in her husband’s love and care. Each is dependent on the other – the man on God, and the wife on her spouse. These precepts and reasons are somewhat foreign to modern thought, but at least we must notice that there was no subject too trivial-even the headdress-to be brought into subjection to Christ and related to the great principle of His supreme Headship and Lordship.

Joseph S. Exell, 1849–1920 (Methodist, USA):

Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary

1 Corinthians 11:4.—The Romans and Jews prayed with covered heads, the Greeks with uncovered. Hence no suggestion that the men at Corinth did draw over their heads any sort of covering, e.g. the loose lap or fold of the outer “wrap,” like a Moorish haik. The Greek Christian would do by mere habit what profound Christian truth declared to be right for Jew or Gentile men. To cover his head was to assume openly the woman’s condition of subordination, and to disavow his manly right to stand with unveiled face before Christ. He thus dishonours his head (i.e. his manly self, culminating there), and dishonours also that other Head in Whom he has, and to Whose work he owes, his own honour as a man.

1 Corinthians 11:5. Prayeth or prophesieth.—Acts 2:18; Acts 21:9. In apparent contrast see 1 Corinthians 14:33. Sanctified good sense would draw a distinction between (say) a full, formal meeting of the whole Church for worship, where propriety dictated that she should ordinarily be silent, and smaller, half-social gatherings of Christian people in “prayer meetings”; or between her liberty at the family altar or in a gathering of women, and her seemly restriction in mixed or public gatherings. [Observe the antithesis, “the men … the women” in 1 Timothy 2:8-9.] In any case, whenever her praying is in any degree in public, let her not be “unveiled,” unsexing herself and making herself “masculine,” bearing herself like a short-haired man; she might as well go the whole length and be “cropped” [shorn] like a man. “Modesty is the conscience of the body.” A Corinthian woman’s veil would be the peplum, worn over the shoulders in the house, drawn over the face in public. [At Corinth a “shorn” woman would be a harlot.]

William Robertson Nicoll, 1851 – 1923 (Scottish Free Church, Scotland):

The Expositor’s Greek Testament

Verses 4-5

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 : the high doctrine just asserted applied to the matter of feminine attire. Since man qua man has no head but Christ, before whom they worship in common, while woman has man to own for her head, he must not and she must be veiled . The regulation is not limited to those of either sex who “pray or prophesy”; but such activity called attention to the apparel, and doubtless it was amongst the more demonstrative women that the impropriety occurred; in the excitement of public speaking the shawl might unconsciously be thrown back. προσευχόμενος κ . τ . λ ., “when he (she) prays or prophesies,” in the act of so doing. κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων , “wearing down from the head (a veil”: κάλυμμα understood), the practice being for the woman in going out of the house to throw the upper fold or lappet of her robe over her head so as to cover the brow: see Peplos in the Dict., of Antiq . ἀκατακαλ . τ . κεφαλῇ , “with the head uncovered,” dat [1607] of manner, as χάριτι in 1 Corinthians 10:30 . Is it the literal or figurative “head” that is meant as obj [1608] to καταισχύνει ? 1 Corinthians 11:3 requires the latter sense, while the sequel suggests the former; Al [1609] and Ed [1610] think both are intended at once. Hf [1611] is probably right in abiding by the reading ἑαυτῆς (see txtl. note); he supposes that the Ap. purposely broke off the parallelism at the end of 1 Corinthians 11:5 , thus sharpening his reproof: the man who wears a veil “puts to shame his head” i.e. Christ, whose lordship he represents (1 Corinthians 11:7 ); the woman who discards it “puts to shame her own head ” the dishonour done to the dominant sex falls upon herself. That the shame comes home to her is shown by the supporting sentence: ἔν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτό ( cf. 1 Corinthians 3:8 ) τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ , “for she is one and the same thing with her that is shaven” (Mr [1612] , Ev [1613] , Bt [1614] , Ed [1615] , El [1616] ); “It is one and the same thing,” etc. (E.V [1617] ), would require τῷ ἐξυρῆσθαι . Amongst Greeks only the hetœrœ , so numerous in Cor [1618] , went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head also a punishment of the adulteress (see Wetstein in loc ., and cf. Numbers 5:18 ); with these the Christian woman who emancipates herself from becoming restraints of dress, is in effect identified. To shave the head is to carry out thoroughly its unveiling, to remove nature’s as well as fashion’s covering (1 Corinthians 11:15 ).

Verse 6

1 Corinthians 11:6 , with a second γάρ , presses the above identity; the Ap. bids the woman who discards the veil carry her defiance a step further: “For if a woman is not veiled, let her also crop (her head); but if it is a disgrace for a woman to crop (it) or to keep (it) shaven, let her retain the veil” ( καλυπτέσθω , pr [1619] impv [1620] , continuous ). P. uses the modus tollens of the hypothetical syllogism: “If a woman prefers a bare head, she should remove her hair; womanly feeling forbids the latter, then it should forbid the former, for the like shame attaches to both.” The argument appeals to Greek and Eastern sentiment; “physical barefacedness led to the inference of moral, in a city like Corinth” (Ev [1622] ). κειράσθω and κείρασθαι , aor [1623] mid [1624] , denote a single act on the woman’s part, “to cut off her locks”; ξυρᾶσθαι , pres. mid [1625] , a shaven condition; the single art [1626] comprises the infs. in one view. Paul’s directions do not agree precisely with current practice. Jewish men covered their heads at prayers with the Tallith ( cf. the allusion of 2 Corinthians 3:14 ff.) this custom, retained probably by some Jews at Christian meetings (1 Corinthians 11:4 ), P. corrects without censure; women were both veiled and kept behind a screen. Amongst the Greeks, both sexes worshipped with uncovered head, although women covered their heads at other times (see Hermann, Gottesdienstl. Alterthümer , § 36, 18 f.; Plato, Phœdo , 89B, ), while Roman men and women alike covered their heads during religious rites (Servius ad Æn ., iii., 407). The usage here prescribed seems to be an adaptation of Gr [1627] custom to Christian conceptions. With us the diff [1628] of sex is more strongly marked in the general attire than with the ancients; but the draped head has still its appropriateness, and the distinction laid down in this passage has been universally observed.

James Martin Gray, 1851 – 1935 (Episcopal, USA):

“President of Moody Bible Institute, 1904-1934″

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

Of course both men and women are equal in God’s sight when salvation and all the spiritual blessings in Christ are under consideration (Galatians 3:18 ), but human society could not exist without certain distinctions. It is evident that from this standpoint, the Christian women at Corinth went too far, and misinterpreting their newfound liberty in Christ, were overstepping bounds in an unbecoming way. Large principles when taken up by ardent and enthusiastic minds, without the modifications of experience, are almost sure to run into extravagance, and hence the spirit of law is by degree reduced to rules, and guarded by customs.

The offense of these women was praying and prophesying with uncovered heads, or rather unveiled faces, contrary to the custom of the times for both Jews and Gentiles, the head-covering being a symbol of the woman’s subordination to the man.

A. T. Robertson, 1863 – 1934 (Baptist, USA):

Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Verse 4

Having his head covered (κατα κεφαλης εχων). Literally, having a veil (καλυμμα understood) down from the head (κεφαλης ablative after κατα as with κατα in Mark 5:13; Acts 27:14). It is not certain whether the Jews at this time used the tallith, “a four-corned shawl having fringes consisting of eight threads, each knotted five times” (Vincent) as they did later. Virgil (Aeneid iii., 545) says: “And our heads are shrouded before the altar with a Phrygian vestment.” The Greeks (both men and women) remained bareheaded in public prayer and this usage Paul commends for the men.

Verse 5

With her head unveiled (ακατακαλυπτω τη κεφαλη). 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 εταιρα, so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head–also a punishment of the adulteress” (Findlay). Cf. Numbers 5:18.

Verse 6

Let her be veiled (κατακαλυπτεσθω). Present middle imperative of old compound κατα-καλυπτω, here alone in N.T. Let her cover up herself with the veil (down, κατα, the Greek says, the veil hanging down from the head).

Verse 10

Because of the angels (δια τους αγγελους). This startling phrase has caused all kinds of conjecture which may be dismissed. It is not preachers that Paul has in mind, nor evil angels who could be tempted (Genesis 6:1), but angels present in worship (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:9; Psalms 138:1) who would be shocked at the conduct of the women since the angels themselves veil their faces before Jehovah (Isaiah 6:2).

Paul E. Kretzmann, 1883 – 1965 (Lutheran, USA):

Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary of the Bible

Verses 3-6

The apostle here qualifies the praise which he has just bestowed. He has heard that some women were speaking in the public services of the Corinthian congregation, and that bareheaded. So he proceeds to instruct them as to the impropriety of such conduct: But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, while the head of woman is man, but the head of Christ, God. This is the doctrinal basis for the practical instruction which he is about to give. The peculiar notion of Christian liberty which had gained ground in the congregation at Corinth manifested itself also in this, that the women departed from the custom prevailing in the East, according to which they were obliged to wear veils in public. Christ is every man’s Head; the man holds the position, especially in worship and in his family, with no visible superior, holding headship from, and directly responsible only to, Christ. For that reason the man is the head of the woman, the latter occupying a position of subordination to him, a fact which by no means implies inferiority, but merely a relation fixed by God’s order.

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

Aside from all external authorities, the apostle here appeals to the natural feeling of his readers; they should decide for themselves whether the innate sense of decency and modesty did not seem to require, did not think it befitting or suitable for a woman to join in public prayer properly veiled. Or does not nature itself teach you that, if a man wears his hair long, it is a disgrace to him, but if a woman wears her hair long, it is a glory to her? It is a significant thing that practically all nations in the world agree in having the men wear the hair short while that of the women is worn long; long hair in a man is considered a sign of effeminacy, while long hair in a woman is looked upon as her crowning beauty. And although the sinful vanity of women, abetted by the foolish admiration of men, has placed the hair into the service of sin, 1 Peter 3:3; 1 Timothy 2:9, it remains true nevertheless: It is given her to serve as a covering, in the nature of a hood. Nature itself has insisted upon woman’s veiling her head, and therefore it is proper for her to express this intention in keeping her head covered.

William Barclay, 1907–1978 (Church of Scotland, Scotland):

Barclay’s Daily Study Bible

This is one of these passages which have a purely local and temporary significance; they look at first sight as if they had only an antiquarian interest because they deal with a situation which has long since ceased to have any relevance for us; and yet such passages have a very great interest because they shed a flood of light on the domestic affairs and problems of the early Church; and, for him who has eyes to see, they have a very great importance, because Paul solves the problems by principles which are eternal.

The problem was whether or not in the Christian Church a woman had the right to take part in the service unveiled. Paul’s answer was bluntly this–the veil is always a sign of subjection, worn by an inferior in the presence of a superior; now woman is inferior to man, in the sense that man is head of the household; therefore it is wrong for a man to appear at public worship veiled and equally wrong for a woman to appear unveiled. It is very improbable that in the twentieth century we are likely to accept this view of the inferiority and subordination of women. But we must read this chapter in the light not of the twentieth century but of the first, and as we read it we must remember three things.

(i) We must remember the place of the veil in the East. To this day eastern women wear the yashmak which is a long veil leaving the forehead and the eyes uncovered but reaching down almost to the feet. In Paul’s time the eastern veil was even more concealing. It came right over the head with only an opening for the eyes and reached right down to the feet. A respectable eastern woman would never have dreamed of appearing without it. Writing in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, T. W. Davies says, “No respectable woman in an eastern village or city goes out without it, and, if she does, she is in danger of being misjudged. Indeed English and American missionaries in Egypt told the present writer that their own wives and daughters when going about find it often best to wear the veil.”

The veil was two things. (a) It was a sign of inferiority. (b) But it was also a great protection. 1 Corinthians 11:10 is very difficult to translate. We have translated it: “For this reason a woman ought to retain upon her head the sign that she is under someone else’s authority,” but the Greek literally means that a woman ought to retain “her authority upon her head.” Sir William Ramsay explains it this way–“In Oriental lands the veil is the power and honour and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd…. But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom anyone may insult…. A woman’s authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards.”

In the East, then, the veil is all-important. It does not only mark the inferior status of a woman; it is the inviolable protection of her modesty and chastity.

An Introduction to the New Testament IV, 1937

THE FIRST LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS, by Edgar J. Goodspeed (1871 – 1962, USA)

When the matter of dress and behavior in church is reached, 11:2-14:40, Paul’s Jewish training is again involved. Paul had already come to see that in union with Christ differences of sex no longer mattered, Gal. 3:28. But old social inheritances are not easily cast aside, and it still seemed to him indecent for a woman to appear in church without a veil—not, indeed, over her face, but on her head and shoulders. And it must be remembered that from a strictly Jewish point of view it was a great concession when Paul admitted women to any share in public worship. While Paul says farther on in the letter, 14:34, that women are not allowed to speak in church, here he speaks of them as offering prayer and explaining the will of God, 11:5, 13, apparently in church. They evidently had some speaking privileges, and the prohibition of 14:34 is probably much less sweeping than is usually supposed.

How men, and especially women, should conduct themselves in church was a matter that gave rise to a whole series of questions at Corinth. One was whether women should wear veils in Christian meetings. The early Christians of course had no church buildings and held their meetings in private houses. Some brother with a large house would open it for Christian worship. In such a place should a woman dress as she would in a private house or as in a public place? Eastern and Western proprieties were also involved. Paul was a Jew by education, and women had no part in Jewish worship; it was carried on by the men and boys. Even to this day, in orthodox Jewish synagogues, the women witness the service from a gallery or from behind a screen. In Herod’s temple the women could not advance beyond their own court into the Court of the Men of Israel. But, through the influence of the mystery cults and other forces, women in the Greek world had more freedom and a greater place in religion, and capable Greek women in Corinth felt quite equal to taking part with the men in the meetings….

George G. Findlay, 1849 – 1919 (Methodist, Wales):

Commentary on 1 Corinthians, chapter XVI – The Veil:

At this point of the Epistle Paul passes from the topics regarding which the Corinthians had requested him to inform them, to make some remarks on the manner in which, as he had heard, they were conducting their meetings for public worship. The next four chapters are occupied with instructions as to what constitutes seemliness and propriety in such meetings. He desires to express in general his satisfaction that on the whole they had adhered to the instructions he had already given them and the arrangements he had himself made while in Corinth. “I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” Yet there are one or two matters which cannot be spoken of in terms of commendation. He heard, in the first place, with surprise and vexation, that not only were women presuming to pray in public and address the assembled Christians, but even laid aside while they did so the characteristic dress of their sex, and spoke, to the scandal of all sober-minded Orientals and Greeks, unveiled. To reform this abuse he at once addresses himself. It is a singular specimen of the strange matters that must have come before Paul for decision when the care of all the Churches lay upon him. And his settlement of it is an admirable illustration of his manner of resolving all practical difficulties by means of principles which are as true and as useful for us to-day as they were for those primitive Christians who had heard his own voice admonishing them. In treating ethical or practical subjects, Paul is never superficial, never content with a mere rule.

In order to see the import and importance of this matter of dress, we must first of all know how it came to pass that the Christian women should have thought of making a demonstration so unfeminine as to shock the very heathen around them.

In the case before us the women who had been awakened to a sense of their own personal, individual responsibility and their equal right to the highest privileges of men began to think that in all things they should be recognised as the equals of the other sex. They were one with Christ; men could have no higher honour: was it not obvious that they were on an equality with those who had held them so cheap? They had the Holy Ghost dwelling in them; might not they, as well as the men, edify Christian assemblies by uttering the inspirations of the Spirit? They were not dependent on men for their Christian privileges; ought not they to show this by laying aside the veil, which was the acknowledged badge of dependence? This laying aside of the veil was not a mere change of fashion in dress, of which, of course, Paul would have had nothing to say; it was not a feminine device for showing themselves to better advantage among their fellow-worshippers; it was not even, though this also falls within the range of possible supposition, the immodest boldness and forwardness which are sometimes seen to accompany in both sexes the profession of Christianity; but it was the outward expression and easily read symbol of a great movement on the part of women in assertion of their rights and independence.

The exact meaning of the laying aside of the veil thus becomes plain. It was the part of female attire which could most readily be made the symbol of a change in the views of women regarding their own position. It was the most significant part of the woman’s dress. Among the Greeks it was the universal custom for the women to appear in public with the head covered, commonly with the corner of their shawl drawn over their head like a hood. Accordingly Paul does not insist on the face being covered, as in Eastern countries, but only the head. This covering of the head could be dispensed with only in places where they were secluded from public view. It was therefore the recognised badge of seclusion; it was the badge which proclaimed that she who wore it was a private, not a public, person, finding her duties at home, not abroad, in one household, not in the city. And a woman’s whole life and duties ought to lie so much apart from the public eye, that both sexes looked upon the veil as the truest and most treasured emblem of woman’s position. In this seclusion there was of course implied a limitation of woman’s sphere of action and a subordination to one man’s interests instead of to the public. It was the man’s place to serve the State or the public, the woman’s place to serve the man. And so thoroughly was it recognised that the veil was a badge setting forth this private and subordinate position of the woman, that it was the one significant rite in marriage that she assumed the veil in token that now her husband was her head, to whom she was prepared to hold herself subordinate. The laying aside the veil was therefore an expression on the part of the Christian women that their being assumed as members of Christ’s body raised them out of this position of dependence and subordination.

The principle enounced in these words is of incalculable importance and very wide and constant application. Whatever is meant by the natural equality of men, it cannot mean that all are to be in every respect on the same level, and that none are to have authority over others. The application of Paul’s principle to the matter in hand alone here concerns us. The woman must recognise that as Christ, though equal with the Father, is subordinate to Him, so is she herself subordinate to her husband or her father. In her private worship she deals with Christ independently; but when she appears in public and social worship, she appears as a woman with certain social relations. Her relation to Christ does not dissolve her relations to society. Rather does it intensify them. The inward change that has passed upon her and the new relation which she has formed independently of her husband only strengthen the bond by which she is tied to him. When a boy becomes a Christian, that confirms, and in no degree relaxes, his subordination to his parents. He holds a relation to Christ which they could not form for him, and which they cannot dissolve; but this independence in one matter does not make him independent in everything. A commissioned officer in the army holds his commission from the Crown; but this does not interfere with, but only confirms, his subordination to officers who, like himself, are servants of the Crown, but above him in rank. In order to the harmony of society, there is a gradation of ranks; and social grievances result, not from the existence of social distinctions, but from their abuse.

This gradation then involves Paul’s inference that “every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head.” The veil being the recognised badge of subordination, when a man appears veiled he would seem to acknowledge some one present and visible as his head, and would thus dishonour Christ, his true Head. A woman, on the other hand, appearing unveiled would seem to say that she acknowledges no visible human head, and thereby dishonours her head—that is, her husband—and so doing, dishonours herself. For a woman to appear unveiled on the streets of Corinth was to proclaim her shame. And so, says Paul, a woman who in public worship discards her veil might as well be shaven. She puts herself on the level of the woman with a shaven head, which both among Jews and Greeks was a brand of disgrace. In the eye of the angels, who, according to the Jewish belief, were present in meetings for worship, the woman is disgraced who does not appear with “power on her head;” that is to say, with the veil by which she silently acknowledges the authority of her husband.

This subordination of the woman to the man belongs not merely to the order of the Christian Church, but has its roots in nature. “Man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Paul’s idea is that man was created to represent God and so to glorify Him, to be a visible embodiment of the goodness, and wisdom, and power of the unseen God. Nowhere so clearly or fully as in man can God be seen. Man is the glory of God because he is His image and is fitted to exhibit in actual life the excellencies which make God worthy of our love and worship. Looking at man as he actually and broadly is, we may think it a bold saying of Paul when he says, “Man is the glory of God;” and yet on consideration we see that this is no more than the truth. We should not scruple to say of the Man Christ Jesus that He is the glory of God, that in the whole universe of God nothing can more fully reveal the infinite Divine goodness. In Him we see how truly man is God’s image, and how fit a medium human nature is for expressing the Divine. We know of nothing higher than what Christ said, did, and was during the few months He went about among men. He is the glory of God; and every man in his degree, and according to his fidelity to Christ, is also the glory of God.

This is of course true of woman as well as of man. It is true that woman can exhibit the nature of God and be His glory as well as man. But Paul is placing himself at the point of view of the writer of Genesis and speaking broadly of God’s purpose in creation. And he means that God’s purpose was to express Himself fully and crown all His works by bringing into being a creature made in His image, able to subdue, and rule, and develop all that is in the world. This creature was man, a masculine, resolved, capable creature. And just as it appeals to our sense of fitness that when God became incarnate He should appear as man, and not as woman, so does it appeal to our sense of fitness that it is man, and not woman, who should be thought of as created to be God’s representative on earth. But while man directly, woman indirectly, fulfils this purpose of God. She is God’s glory by being man’s glory. She serves God by serving man. She exhibits God’s excellencies by creating and cherishing excellence in man. Without woman man cannot accomplish aught. The woman is created for the man, because without her he is helpless. “For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman.”

That this is woman’s normal sphere is indicated even by her unalterable physical characteristics. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.” By nature woman is endowed with a symbol of modesty and retirement. The veil, which signifies her devotement to home duties, is merely the artificial continuation of her natural gift of hair. The long hair of the Greek fop or of the English cavalier was accepted by the people as an indication of effeminate and luxurious living. Suitable for women, it is unsuitable for men; such is the instinctive judgment. And nature, speaking through this visible sign of the woman’s hair, tells her that her place is in private, not in public, in the home, not in the city or the camp, in the attitude of free and loving subordination, not in the seat of authority and rule. In other respects also the physical constitution of woman points to a similar conclusion. Her shorter stature and slighter frame, her higher pitch of voice, her more graceful form and movement, indicate that she is intended for the gentler ministries of home life rather than for the rough work of the world. And similar indications are found in her mental peculiarities.

But it will be asked, Why was Paul so exact in describing how a woman should comport herself while praying or prophesying in public, when he meant very shortly in this same Epistle to write, “Let your women keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church”? It has been suggested that although it was the standing order that women should not speak, there might be occasions when the Spirit urged them to address an assemblage of Christians; and the regulation here given is intended for these exceptional cases. This may be so, but the connection in which the absolute prohibition is given rather militates against this view, and I think it more likely that in his own mind Paul held the two matters quite distinct and felt that a mere prohibition preventing women from addressing public meetings would not touch the more serious transgression of female modesty involved in the discarding of the veil.

Bernard Orchard, 1954 (Catholic, England):

A Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture, page 1093:

878a XI 2-34 We now have two very strongly worded sections about order and decency at Christian worship 2-16 Women are not to be bare-headed at Worship- -St Paul affirms two things 1 That the male sex has a certain right to precedence 2 That therefore it is improper for women to be bare-headed at worship. To us this seems very illogical, but no doubt it was the general custom in the eastern provinces that women should always have the head covered in the presence of men, except men of their own family, and it was Paul’s rule that established customs, if not sinful, should be scrupulously observed. Hence the heat and bluntness of his language. Modern custom is less strict, and St Paul would no doubt have written differently today. He was certainly no woman-hater, cf Rom 16 12-13, Phil 43. If we call him un- chivalrous, we must at least remember that he was the first to break the soil from which chivalry sprang

b Paul here speaks of women as praying and prophesying, but in 14:34 he says Let women keep silence in the assemblies. This has driven some commentators to believe that in this present chapter he is speaking of devotions confined to one household (family and servants). They point out that ‘church’ (i.e. assembly) is not mentioned in this section, as it is in 14:34. This view is certainly difficult, but other explanations of the seeming contradiction (e.g. that Paul had changed his mind by ch 14, but forgot to strike out this earlier paragraph) appear to be at least no better.

4 Prophesying’ speaking by special inspiration, not necessarily about the future, cf 12 10, 143 5 The most common headgear of women was a portion of the outer garment, the himation, drawn up from behind over the head. § 603a It was easily and quickly done. It could be made to cover the face too, but that was not usual. 6 ‘Shorn’ ‘Let her cut her hair short’ ‘Made bald’ ‘Have her head shaved’ 8-9 Referring to the creation of Eve, Gen 2 18, 21 10

C. K. Barrett, 1917-2011 (Methodist, UK)

A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians:

Every man who prays (that is, in public and aloud, as any Christian might do in the assembly) or prophesies (for the gift of prophecy see xii. 10, et al.) with a veil (throughout this paragraph veil – always a paraphrase, since the Greek word κáλvμμа does not occur – is to be understood as a head-covering concealing the hair and upper part of the body, not as a covering for the face – so Schlatter, who shows that the reference is to the practice of the devout and modest Jewess; see Ketuboth vii. 6: What transgresses Jewish custom? If she goes out with her head uncovered…) hanging down from his head (kaтà Kepaλns; so Robertson, pp. 606 f., M. iii. 268; it is worth while to retain this somewhat pedantic rendering because, as we have seen, Kepaλń is sometimes used metaphorically; Héring takes kaтá to mean not ‘coming down from’, but ‘coming down upon’-thus ‘with a head-covering’) disgraces his head. For Jewish customs, see further S.B. iii. 423-6. The word head at its first occurrence undoubtedly refers to the man’s physical head; what of the second occurrence? Some take it to mean physical head again: man’s unveiled head is the mark of his freedom, the image and glory of God (verse 7), and it would be disgraceful if it were concealed. Others take this verse to be a consequence of the preceding verse (which otherwise would have no purpose-cf. Weiss’s suggestion that it is a gloss), and argue that the second use of head must refer not to the man’s physical head, but to Christ, the head of every man. Moreover, in the ancient world a cap, not a bare head, was the sign of freedom; and the Jewish custom is for men to be covered at worship, though it is not certain that this prevailed in the first century. Allo suggests that both interpretations, the literal and the metaphorical, may be right. He refers to 2 Cor. iii. 18. The Christian, with his un- veiled head, reflects the glory of Christ. If (like Moses) he were to wear a veil and conceal his head he would rob his own head of its chief function of reflecting the glory of Christ, and he would at the same time rob Christ of the glass in which his glory should be reflected. This interpretation seems probable but is by no means certain; and, since my note already owes much to Allo, I shall borrow for myself his last sentence too: ‘Si quelqu’un donne une meilleure interprétation, je m’y rangerai.

Henry T. Mahan, 1926-2019 (Baptist, USA):

Mahan’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

1 Corinthians 11:4-6 . Interpreters rightly agree that this and the following verses are to be interpreted in the light of the customs of countries as long as the principles of the Scriptures are not violated or compromised. In those Eastern countries it signified either shame or subjection for a person to be ‘veiled.’ A woman never appeared in public without a covering on her head and a veil over her face. If she did, it was an act of rebellion against authority and a demand for equality socially with men. This is not true in our generation….

1 Corinthians 11:7-8 . The sexes should not attempt to change places. The order in which God has placed persons is best, and to endeavor to change it is to introduce confusion (Deuteronomy 22:5). The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her. She was made out of man, made for man and made to be the glory of man. She should always conduct herself according to this divine plan in the home and in the church.

Mark Dunagan, 2005 (Church of Christ):

Dunagan’s Commentary on the Bible

‘having his head’ -physical head.

‘covered’ -‘wearing down the head’ (Gr. Ex. N.T. p. 872); ‘Lit., having something hanging down from his head.’ (Vincent p. 246); ‘Lit., having a veil down from the head.’ (Robertson p. 159)

‘The covering was the veil, that which hanged down from the head and covered the head. The modern hat, shawl, scarf, bonnet, doily or mantilla will not do…One cannot substitute a hat, net, ribbon, scarf, etc.., for the veil, the covering of 1Co_11:2-16 ..’ [Note: _ The Woman And Her Covering. Bill Cavender pp. 5-6]

‘Paul has in mind a veil which covers the whole head and in particular conceals all the hair; something worn on top of the head like a present-day cap or hat does not really come with the scope of his argument.’ (F.F. Bruce p. 104)

Points to Note:

1. ‘Veils came in all shapes and sizes. There were those which were suspended so as to cover the face. Some were on the head and flowed backward down over the shoulders. Some completely hid the woman’s head and shoulders. Some hid the whole woman from head to foot. Many were like shawls which were placed on the head and wrapped around the shoulders…There were veils designed for different times of the day and for different occasions. The one thing on which all the authorities unite is this: Veils were “an essential article of female attire.”‘ (McGuiggan p. 143)

2. ‘Paul..did not bring the veil to Corinth. It was there when he arrived. It already had the significance it had before Paul was around to have any say in the matter.’ (McGuiggan p. 143)

3. As I look at these verses the following considerations force me to conclude that Paul is dealing with a custom in Corinthian society. And the important thing was not so much the veil, but the significance and meaning that Corinthian society had placed upon it, i.e. this society viewed it as a sign of femininity and subjection. Paul’s argument is, respect the significance that your society attaches to this custom, for behind it (and many other “customs”, i.e. hair length, clothing, makeup, jewelry, etc..) lies a biblical truth-i.e. men and women have different roles, and women are to recognize their proper role of being in subjection to men. Having said all that, here are the factors that lead me to conclude that this was a “custom” in Corinthian society.

‘In NT times, among both Greeks and Romans, reputable women wore a veil in public, and to appear without it was an act of bravado (or worse); Tarsus, Paul’s home city, was especially noted for strictness in this regard.’ (ISBE. ‘Veil’. Vol. 5, p. 3047)

Points to Note:

1. ‘Some suggest that Paul passes over the problem of women speaking in the public assembly until 14:34; in this section, he is concerned with the impropriety of them removing their veils in worship. Probably some women in Corinth were urging that if the Spirit moved them to speak they must speak and how could they speak with their faces veiled. …Others dismiss this view by saying that Paul could have handled both problems at once..’ (Wills p. 365)

Observation: The above grounds stated that some use to dismiss this view don’t square with how Paul argued in other parts of this letter. For example: In dealing with their eating in the temples of idols, Paul first considers the impact of such activity on the souls of the weak ( 1Co_8:10-13 ) and then in (10:14-22) he will forbid it. Concerning this issue, Paul didn’t handle both problems at once.

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:

What was the veil, actually, that was worn in those days? It was a large loose mantle which the woman wrapped around her head and face, leaving only the eyes visible, and sometimes only one eye. The word “veil” used by our translators is extremely misleading. Ruth’s veil, for example, held six measures of barley! (Ruth 3:15). Although Hebrew women did not always wear veils, they seem to have done so for harvesting, as in the case of Ruth.

Rhoderick D. Ice, 1929 – 2018, (Church of Christ, USA):

The Bible Study New Testament 

Verse 2

I praise you. Paul’s praise for them is sincere and truthful. But there may be some irony in it, and he may be quoting something which they said in their letter to him. In the next verses, he scolds them strongly. [From the things Paul writes, it seems that some of the Corinthian women prayed and spoke God’s message as teachers, in the Christian assemblies. MacKnight thinks they only pretended to be inspired, but compare Acts 2:17; Acts 21:9 and notes. At Corinth, decent women wore a face-veil which covered both their head and face…. While teaching in public, these women had thrown off their face-veils, like the prostitute-priestesses in the idol temples. This caused trouble (see Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 10:32).]

Verse 4

So a man. At Corinth, a man who prayed or spoke God’s message with his head covered (with a face-veil) would disgrace Christ. Pagan priests covered their heads. [However, Jewish priests did too. See Exodus 28:40.] Both men and women ought to dress in such a way that they do not violate the customs and standards of decency in whatever country they live in.

Verse 6

If the woman does not cover her head. “If a woman prefers to have her head bare, she should remove her hair also. If doing that would disgrace her, then she should wear the face-veil.” At Corinth, women wore TWO coverings on their heads: their hair (1 Corinthians 11:15) and a face-veil (1 Corinthians 11:5).

Verse 7

A man has no need. At Corinth, the face-veil was symbolic of being lower in rank. In this whole section, we must remember Paul deals with Eastern ideas of the relationship of men and women. At Corinth it would be as wrong for a man to have his head veiled, as it would be for a woman to have hers unveiled. [Yet Jewish men covered their heads at prayer (compare 2 Corinthians 3:14-16), and it is probable that some Christian Jews continued to do this.]

Verse 10

On account of the angels. This phrase has puzzled scholars. It may mean: (1) Because Eve was seduced to sin by evil angels (1 Timothy 2:14). [MacKnight.] (2) To show respect to the preacher/church leader – who is called the angel in Revelation 1:20. (3) Because the good angels watch with interest all that is done by Christ’s servants (1 Corinthians 4:9)…. At Corinth, a woman wore a face-veil everywhere (except the privacy of her own home) to show she was under the man’s authority. This custom has been kept up in Arab lands until just recently.

Verse 16

But if anyone wants to argue about it. Paul says this to the false teacher and his party. They argued that Christian freedom allowed the women who prayed and spoke God’s message in public worship to do this without wearing the face-veil. John Wesley writes: “The several churches that were in the apostles’ time had different customs in things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as circumstances, in different places, made it convenient. And in all things merely indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous conscience, which really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or not. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious, persons.”