But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or be shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man; for man wasn’t created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this cause the woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? Doesn’t even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 5. Every woman praying or prophesying Here we have…
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.)
Read full note →
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.
6. 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.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 And in like sort he concludeth, that women which…
And in like sort he concludeth, that women which show themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves.
The first argument taken from the common sense of man, forsomuch as nature teacheth women, that it is dishonest for them to come abroad bareheaded, seeing that she hath given them thick and long hair, which they do so diligently trim and deck, that they can in no wise abide to have it shaven.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv5–15 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with…
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Ver. 5. Praying or prophesying] That is, joining with the man that prayeth or prophesieth, and going along with him in her heart. Thus the king and all Israel with him offered sacrifice before the Lord, 1Ki 8:62. And thus the unlearned say Amen, 1Co 14:16. {See Trapp on "Rom 16:1"}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv5–15 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth: though the…
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth: though the woman be forbidden to teach, and commanded to be in silence, 1Ti 2:12; yet that text must be understood of ordinary women, and in ordinary cases, not concerning such as prophesied from an extraordinary impulse or motion of the Spirit. We read of women prophetesses both in the Old and New Testament; such was Huldah in Josiah’s time, and Anna, of whom we read Luk 2:36; and we read that Philip
had four daughters that did prophesy, Act 21:9.
Read full note →
With her head uncovered: the uncovered head here (as before) must signify not covered with some artificial covering, such as our quoifs, hats, hoods, or veils, &c., or with her own hair, not hanging loose, but artificially used so as to be a covering.
Dishonoureth her head; dishonoureth either her husband, who is her political or economical head, for by that habit she behaveth herself as if she were not one in subjection, and seemeth to usurp an undue authority over the man; or her natural head, it being in those places accounted an immodest thing for a woman to appear in public uncovered. It is observed of Rebekah, when she met Isaac, Gen 24:65; She took a veil, and covered herself. For that is even all one as if she were shaven; for, saith the apostle, yourselves would judge it an uncomely thing for a woman to be shaven; now to pray or to prophesy with the head uncovered, is all one. This last clause will incline us to think, that by the uncovered head in this verse, is not only to be understood uncovered with some other covering besides her hair, but with her hair dishevelled, hanging loose at its length, for else it is not all one to have the head uncovered with a hat, or hood, or quoif, and to be shaven; for the apostle afterward saith, 1Co 11:15, her hair is given to her for a covering or a veil: so that possibly that which the apostle here reflecteth upon, is women’s coming into the public assemblies with their hair hanging loosely down, and not decently wound up so as to make a covering for the head; which, we are told, was the practice of those beastly she-priests of Bacchus, who, like frantic persons, performed those pretendedly religious rites with their hair so hanging loose, and were called manades, because they behaved themselves more like mad persons than such as were in the actual use of their reason: something like which, it is most probable, some women in the Christian church at Corinth affected, against which the apostle here argueth.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv6, 8, 10, 11, 13 Our apostle here proceeds by many arguments to evince…
Our apostle here proceeds by many arguments to evince and prove the woman’s inferiority and subjection to the man, and that she ought to have a covering upon her head as a sign and token of it.
First, because the image of God, that is, the image of his majesty, dominion, and power, shineth forth most brightly in the man, therefore he ought to have his head uncovered: Man is the image and glory of God.
Read full note →
But is not the woman so likewise?
Ans. Consider the woman according to her specifical nature, and so she was created after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness, as well as the man: but then consider the woman according to her personal relation to her husband, and in that regard the woman is not the image of God because dominion, which is the image of God, is the man’s privilege; and subjection the woman’s duty.
But she is the glory of the man; that is, it is the glory and honour of man, that God hath given him superiority over so excellent a creature as the woman; for if his dominion over the irrational creatures be his glory and honour, then what a glory and honour it is for a man to have so excellent a creature as the woman, a creature endued with reason like himself, subject to him?
But as in this sense the man is the glory of the woman, so in another sense the woman is the glory of the man. She communicates with him in all his dignity, how great soever; whatever natural or civil excellency is in him, reflects on her: Uxor fulget radiis mariti, the wife shines with the rays of her husband’s honour.
And the woman being thus in a state of inferiority, she ought to profess her subjection to her husband by wearing a veil.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv5–15 For if the woman be not covered,.... That is,…
For if the woman be not covered,.... That is, if her head is not covered with some sort of covering, as is the custom of the place where she lives,
let her also be shorn; let her hair be cut short; let her wear it as men do theirs; and let her see how she will look, and how she will like that, and how she will be looked upon, and liked by others; everybody will laugh at her, and she will be ashamed of herself:
Read full note →
but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: as it is accounted in all civilized nations: the very Heathens (a) speak of it as a thing abominable, and of which there should not be one single dreadful example: then let her be covered; with a veil, or any sort of covering in common use.
(a) Vid. Apul. Metamorph. l. 2. p. 21.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 But every woman - Who, under an immediate impulse…
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.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv5–15 Verse 5. But every woman that prayeth, c.] Whatever…
Verse 5. But every woman that prayeth, c.] Whatever may be the meaning of praying and prophesying, in respect to the man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman. So that some women at least, as well as some men, might speak to others to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of prophesying or teaching was predicted by Joel, Joe 2:28, and referred to by Peter, Ac 2:17. And had there not been such gifts bestowed on women, the prophecy could not have had its fulfilment. The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonour her head-her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery.
Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that, considering the greatness of the population, adulteries were very rare among the Germans; and when any woman was found guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus; "having cut off her hair, and stripped her before her relatives, her husband turned her out of doors." And we know that the woman suspected of adultery was ordered by the law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Nu 5:18. Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery, had their hair cut off: so we learn from Achilles Tatius. Clitophon says, concerning Leucippe, who was reduced to a state of slavery: πεπραται, δεδουλευκεν, γην εσκαψεν, σεσυληται της κεφαλης το καλλος, την κουραν ὁρᾳς· lib. viii. cap. 6, "she was sold for a slave, she dug in the ground, and her hair being shorn off, her head was deprived of its ornament," c. It was also the custom among the Greeks to cut off their hair in time of mourning. See Euripides in Alcest., ver. 426. Admetus, ordering a common mourning for his wife Alcestis, says: πενθος γυναικος της δε κοινουσθαι λεγω, κουρᾳ ξυρηκει και μελαμπεπλῳ στολῃ· "I order a general mourning for this woman! let the hair be shorn off, and a black garment put on." Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv7, 10, 11, 13 1Co 11:7-9. A man indeed ought not to cover,…
1Co 11:7-9. A man indeed ought not to cover, or veil, his head — As a sign of subjection; forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God — Namely, in respect of the dominion over the inferior creatures, with which he is clothed, representing the supreme dominion of God; for in respect of mental qualities, the woman is also the image of God: but the woman is the glory of the man — By being subject to him, and of all creatures coming nearest to him in all the excellences of his nature. For the man is not of the woman — In his first production; but the woman of the man — As we read in the sacred history, Gen 2:21-23. Neither was the man created for the sake of the woman — To accommodate and assist her; but the woman for the man — That he might have a help meet for him, which before he found not in the whole creation, Gen 2:20.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv5–15 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth - In…
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth - In the Old Testament prophetesses are not unfrequently mentioned. Thus, Miriam is mentioned Exo 15:20; Deborah Jdg 4:4; Huldah 2Ki 22:14; Noadiah Neh 6:14. So also in the New Testament Anna is mentioned as a prophetess; Luk 2:36. That there were females in the early Christian church who corresponded to those known among the Jews in some measure as endowed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cannot be doubted. What was their precise office, and what was the nature of the public services in which they were engaged, is not however known. That they prayed is clear; and that they publicly expounded the will of God is apparent also; see the note on Act 2:17. As the presumption is, however, that they were inspired, their example is no warrant now for females to take part in the public services of worship, unless they also give evidence that they are under the influence of inspiration, and the more especially as the apostle Paul has expressly forbidden their becoming public teachers; 1Ti 2:12.
If it is now pled, from this example, that women should speak and pray in public, yet it should be just so far only as this example goes, and it should be only when they have the qualifications that the early “prophetesses” had in the Christian church. If there are any such; if any are directly inspired by God, there then will be an evident propriety that they should publicly proclaim the will, and not till then. It may be further observed, however, that the fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church, does not prove that it was right or proper. His immediate object now was not to consider whether the practice was itself right, but to condemn the manner of its performance as a violation of all the proper rules of modesty and of subordination. On another occasion, in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form, and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public; 1Co 14:34.
Read full note →
With her head uncovered - That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils, and wore their hair disheveled, when they pretended to be under the influence of divine inspiration. This was the case with the pagan priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she were veiled. See this proved by Lightfoot in loco.
Dishonoureth her head - Shows a lack of proper respect to man, to her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and of subordinaion. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonor to the man. And as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognized in a suitable manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid aside.
For that is even all one as if she were shaven - As if her long hair, which nature teaches her she should wear for a veil (1Co 11:15, margin,) should be cut off. Long hair is, by the custom of the times, and of nearly all countries, a mark of the sex, an ornament of the female, and judged to be beautiful and comely. To remove that is to appear, in this respect, like the other sex, and to lay aside the badge of her own. This, says Paul, all would judge to be improper. You yourselves would not allow it. And yet to lay aside the veil - the appropriate badge of the sex, and of her sense of subordination - would be an act of the same kind. It would indicate the same feeling, the same forgetfulness of the proper sense of subordination; and if that is laid aside, all the usual indications of modesty and subordination might be removed also. Not even under religious pretences, therefore, are the usual marks of sex, and of propriety of place and rank, to be laid aside. Due respect is to be shown, in dress, and speech, and deportment, to those whom God has placed above us; and neither in language, in attire nor in habit are we to depart from what all judge to he proprieties of life, or from what God has judged and ordained to be the proper indications of the regular gradations in society.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On v10 A power: That is, a veil or covering, as…
A power: That is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful. (Challoner)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv5–15 woman . . . prayeth . . . prophesieth--This…
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 Act 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (Co1 14:34-35; Ti1 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 Co1 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 (Gen 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Gen 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 (Num 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.
Read full note →
all one as if . . . shaven--As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering (Co1 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.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv5–15 5. Every woman that prayeth… prophesieth—Grotius thus comments: “So…
5. Every woman that prayeth… prophesieth—Grotius thus comments: “So in the Old Testament women were prophetesses, as Miriam, sister of Moses, Exo_15:20; Deborah, Jdg_4:1; Jdg_4:5; the wife of Isaiah, Isa_8:3; Huldah, 2Ki_22:14; so also in the New Testament, the daughters of Philip, Act_21:9, and others. Such were accustomed also to expound the sacred prophecies publicly, as appears from the passages above quoted from the Old Testament. Wherefore Paul’s prohibition of women from performing the office of teaching, is to be understood with this exception, unless they have the special commandment of God.”
Wetstein says, similarly: “It was not permissible for women to teach or lead prayers in the congregation, (xiv, 34,) unless, for an exceptional reason and in a special manner, they were impelled to so doing by the Spirit of God. Act_2:17; Act_21:9; Luk_1:41-42; 1Sa_10:5; 1Sa_10:10; 1Ch_25:1-3; 2Ch_29:30; 2Ch_35:15.” It is sometimes denied that any female prophet ever prophesied in public. But in Jdg_4:4, Deborah is styled “a prophetess” who “judged”—that is, ruled—Israel in peace and led her army in war. Her “judgment,” (Jdg_4:5,) her generalship, and her chant of triumph, were all public. Her judging itself was by divine mission and impulse; and so was, strictly, in the biblical sense, prophecy. Her chant was prophecy, for 1Ch_25:1-3 shows that music and psalm came under the head of prophecy. It is ludicrous to suppose that it was in accordance with feminine modesty for Deborah to judge the people and command an army in public, but a violation of that virtue to utter a supernatural sentence in a religions assembly! Miriam’s rhythmical prophecy was uttered with timbrel before Israel’s whole camp. Huldah was installed in the prophetic college, and it was permitted her to teach a body of men sent to her by the king, including the high priest. These cases completely negative the doctrine that an inspired or gifted woman was unauthorized to speak in public. To make Paul forbid a woman’s public prophesying is to make him nullify some of the most striking facts of Old Testament history.
Read full note →
Both the above eminent commentators (with whom Wesley concurs) maintain that Paul in this passage assumes the right of women in the proper exceptional cases to pray or prophesy in the congregation, and maintain that in 1Co_14:34 he forbids the mass of women to interrupt the service with their noisy chatter. Alford, Stanley, and others, maintain that Paul, in 1Co_14:34, not only forbids the uncovered head in these services, but forbids the service by women at all. Thus Calvin is quoted as saying: “In here disapproving of the one, he does not approve of the other. Paul attends to one thing at a time.” But the “one thing” which this makes him “attend to” seems a very unwise “thing.” Why should he forbid praying uncovered when he condemns and prohibits their praying at all? Such a view vacates this whole paragraph of sense, rendering it so much blank paper. The Corinthian query clearly was, Ought women to have the head uncovered in their public prophesying? And St. Paul’s brief, plain answer should have been, There is to be no women’s public praying or prophesying at all. Prohibiting the incident permits the main thing. It assumes that if the incident is set right, the whole thing is right. Both Grotius and Wetstein hold that feminine prophecy is “for exceptional reason,” and by divine specialty. Hence it is often said that the female at the present day must, in her own case, in order to be accepted, be able to show an express divine authorization to prophesy or preach. To this, however, it may fairly be replied, that even the male prophet must individually profess to be “moved by the Holy Ghost,” to his office. Such a “call,” in either case, is not miraculous, but is supernatural and individual. In the case of the man, it is in accordance with the nature of man, and with the ordinary rule of Providence. In the case of the woman, it is less accordant with the feminine nature, and is more extraordinary and special; especially where it implies the exercise of authority over both sexes.
With her head uncovered—Before the gaze of masculinity it often is at once the modesty and the dignity of woman to vail herself. That unrestrained gaze is often profane; and it is a divine reserve that shrinks and conceals from it. In that reserve is contained even the proudest and noblest self-respect; so that under the forms of humiliation resides woman’s exaltation. Thereby she becomes, to man’s idea, a something sacred and imperial. Let her forfeit that ideal and she dethrones herself, and becomes an unlovely being. By most divine law each sex is confined to its own nature. It is equally shameful for manhood to become effeminate, and for womanhood to become masculine.
All one as if… shaven—One in shamefulness, for both are an unwarrantable exposure, but different in degree; for the former is a beginning and the latter is the consummation. The covering of the head as a sign of womanly modesty before man was a rigid point with the Jews. And noblest was the woman that carried it out most nobly. “The lady Kimhith bore seven sons, of whom each one attained the high priesthood. They inquired of her what she had done to accomplish so great a felicity. She replied: “At no time did ever the ceilings of my house behold the locks of my head.” — Quoted by Wetstein. Doubtless this, however, was but a sample of the tone of her character on all other points. This energy of self-control and severity of obedience to law is the very essence of a lofty moral nature. No wonder the woman of such a nature should give a line of high priests to the world; she is a born high priestess.
Of course the apostle at the present day would not consider the hood as possessing any religious significance. Women now sit or stand before men with heads uncovered, not only in the social circle, but in large assemblies; nor is it any religious obligation that requires her to wear a bonnet in church, or forbids her to speak or pray with bonnet off. And all this, when the letter of the apostle’s language condemns the uncovered head in the most explicit terms. But really, Paul condemned the uncovered female head of his day because it then expressed the moving of woman from her sphere, and suggested a dishonouring association, calculated to bring the purity of the Church into suspicion.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth] This…
5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth] This refers, of course, to the public assemblies of the Church, where the woman appears, not in her individual character, but as the member of a community. She must therefore perform her devotions in this latter character, and her attire must bear witness to the fact that she is subordinate to those of the other sex in whose presence she worships. Alone, of course, or in the presence of her own sex only, she has the same privilege of approaching God unveiled, that man has. Some difficulty has been raised about the words ‘or prophesieth.’ It has been thought that the woman was here permitted to prophesy, i.e. in smaller assemblies, and that the prohibitions in ch. 1Co_14:34, and 1Ti_2:12, referred to the more general gatherings of the Church. The subject is one of some difficulty (see Act_2:18; Act_21:9), but it is perhaps best, with De Wette and Calvin (who says, “Apostolum hic unum improbando alteram non probare”) to suppose that the Apostle blames only the praying in public with uncovered head, and reserves his blame of the prophesying for ch. 1Co_14:34. As for the prophetic gifts of the daughters of Philip the evangelist, Act_21:9, they were probably reserved for assemblies of their own sex.
with her head uncovered] i.e. without the peplum or shawl, which (see Art. in Smith’s Dictionary of Antiquities, and Dean Stanley’s note), used ordinarily as a covering for the body, was on public occasions thrown over the head also. In Oriental countries, however, the women wore, and still wear, a veil.
Read full note →
dishonoureth her head] “As the man honours his head by proclaiming his liberty, so the woman by acknowledging her subjection.”—Calvin. Cf. Num_5:18.
for that is even all one as if she were shaven] i.e. she might just as well be shaven, as appear in the public assemblies with her face entirely uncovered.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (5) But every woman that prayeth . . .…
(5) But every woman that prayeth . . . From the hypothetical case of the man praying or preaching with covered head (which was mentioned first for the sake of introducing the antithesis), the Apostle comes now to the actual case of which he has to treat, viz., the woman uncovering her head. At first sight the permission here implied for a woman to pray and teach in public may seem at variance with the teaching in 1Co_14:34, where she is commanded to observe silence, and the injunction in 1Ti_2:12, that women should not “teach.” In these passages, however, it is the public meeting of the whole Church that is spoken of, and in such the women were to be silent—but the meetings spoken of here, though public as distinguished from the private devotions of individuals, were probably only smaller gatherings such as are indicated in Rom_14:5; Col_4:5; Phm_1:2. It has been suggested by some writers that the command in 1Co_14:34, does forbid the practice which is here assumed to be allowable only for the sake of argument; but surely St. Paul would not have occupied himself and his readers here with the elaborate, and merely forensic discussion of the conditions under which certain functions were to be performed which he was about subsequently to condemn, as not allowable under any restriction whatever?
Dishonoureth her head.—Both among Jews and Greeks the long tresses of a woman were her glory. Only in times of mourning (Deu_21:12), or when convicted of shameful sin, was a woman to have her hair cut short.
Read full note →
Here, again, the word “head” must be taken in its double significance. A woman with uncovered head dishonours that head itself by making it thus in the sight of others the type of a shame which is really not hers, and as her head typically is her husband, so she dishonours him also.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv5–15 Or prophesieth. Although St. Paul "thinks of one thing…
Or prophesieth. Although St. Paul "thinks of one thing at a time," and is not here touching on the question whether women ought to teach in public, it appears from this expression that the rule which he lays down in 1Co_14:34, 1Co_14:35, and 1Ti_2:12 was not meant to be absolute. See the case of Philip"s daughters (Act_21:9 and 2:17). With her head uncovered. For a woman to do this in a public assembly was against the national custom of all ancient communities, and might lead to the gravest misconceptions. As a rule, modest women covered their heads with the peplum or with a veil when they worshipped or were in public. Christian women at Corinth must have caught something of the "inflation" which was characteristic of their Church before they could have acted with such reprehensible boldness as to adopt a custom identified with the character of immodest women. Dishonoureth her head. Calvin, with terse good sense, observes, "As the man honours his head by proclaiming his liberty, so the woman by acknowledging her subjection."
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv10–11 For this cause ought the woman to have power…
1Co_11:10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Read full note →
Power on the womans head because of the angels
1. Hardly anything is more notable in St. Paul than his impatience of mere maxims and rules of conduct. He can never rest till he has based them on large general principles which may be applied under all changes of condition. So here with regard to womans dress.
2. Paul had taught both the spiritual equality of woman with, and her subordination to, man. But these eager converts had not minds large enough to hold and reconcile both these great principles: they seized impetuously on that which fell in with their wishes, and let the other go. True, in a subordinate position they may show an equal, even a superior, ability; just as a designer in a factory, or a governess in a family, or a manager in a bank, may display higher gifts than their social or official superiors. But how do they prove their superiority? Not by rebelling against their position, but by excelling in it. So with woman. She proves her equality with man, not by rebelling against her subordinate social position, but by discharging its duties with an ability equal or superior to that shown by her husband in his different sphere. Some of the Corinthian women did not see that. They thought to assert the equality of the sexes by praying and prophesying in church instead of ruling their households. As a sign of their enfranchisement they appeared in public unveiled, and so became bad as women that they might prove themselves as good as men. And had the Christian women gone unveiled, when the absence of the veil was the open stamp of harlotry, we can easily conceive what a fatal obstacle would have been thrown in the path of the infant Church.
3. It was no mere question of maxims and rules, therefore, with which St. Paul had to deal; it was a question of principles vital and profound. And hence he appeals--
I. To nature. (1Co_11:13-15).
1. Man is by nature unveiled, has short hair; woman is veiled with her long hair. The Divine intention is thus revealed. In handling and attiring the body we are to take the suggestions of nature as ordinances of God. Man is to go unveiled, woman is to use, or to imitate, the natural veil which God has given her. The Greeks and Romans did thus interpret and obey the voice of Nature. While their noblest men cut their hair close and short, they held long flowing tresses as among the most potent charms of women--as a real power on their heads.
2. St. Paul appeals to Nature; from how many evils would the Church have been saved had his example been followed? Had we listened to her, had we asked with St. Paul, What does Nature itself teach? we should have had more of his free, generous, catholic spirit.
II. To the Scriptures (verses 7-9; cf. Gen_1:26; Gen_2:18; Gen_2:21).
1. Man, said Moses, was made in the image of God; therefore, adds St. Paul, man is a glory of God. Hence he ought not to veil the head which bears an impress and reflects a glory so Divine. But the woman is the glory of man; she was taken not from rude clay, and not from any remote or uncomely member of mans body, but from his very heart. Therefore she is his glory; she represents what is finest in him. Nevertheless, the apostle insists (verses 8, 9), although she is his glory, because she is his glory, she is to defer and minister to him from whom she sprang, just as the highest spirits are those who serve most and best.
2. And therefore ought the woman to have power on her head. Now one of Pauls great fixed thoughts is, that we rule by serving; that to become great we must make ourselves of the least. He has been describing the subordinate position of woman. But if she is to serve, she must be strong. To the Hebrews unshorn hair, like that of Samson, was the sign of strength. And the unshorn hair of the woman is the power, or the symbol of the power, which her service requires. And does not Nature confirm his thought? How often has a thread of golden hair drawn strong men across the world! How often have soft locks proved stronger bonds than bars of steel! Who does not remember the little packet, all blotted with tears, which they found in a corner of poor Swifts desk, with these words on it, Only a womans hair?
3. But what are we to make of the angels, for whose sake woman is not to put off this power? Now closely following the passage in Genesis to which Paul refers, there is the story of the first infraction of the true relation of the sexes (Gen_6:1-4), which the rabbis read thus:--The daughters of men, departing from their primitive simplicity and decorum, laid aside their veils, and tricked out their hair and faces with ornaments. The angels saw them, and grew enamoured of their beauty, and fell from their blessedness. Possibly St. Paul alludes to this here. If only because of the angels therefore, the Corinthian women should carry this veil on their heads. The rabbis were so possessed by this legend that they were constantly making proverbs about it. Thus, Rabbi Simeon used to say, If a womans head be uncovered, evil angels come and sit upon it. The fathers of the Church believed it. The Arabs and Turks believe it to this day. They tell us that Khadijah said to Mahommed after his first vision, If the angel appear again, let me know. Gabriel appeared to him again. He said to her, I see him. His wife placed his head first on her left, then on her right shoulder, and asked, Seest thou him still? He answered Yea. Then she said, Turn, and lie on my bosom; which, when he had done, she asked again, Seest thou him? He answered, Yea. Then she took her veil from her head, and asked, Seest thou him still? And this time he answered, Nay. Then she said, By heaven, it is true, it is true! It was an angel, and not a devil! Having told this story, the Arabian historian remarks and explains, Khadijah knew that a good angel must fly before the face of an unveiled woman, whilst a devil would bear the sight very well.
III. To Christian doctrine. (verse 3).
1. But is not Christ just as truly the head of the woman as of the man? Yes, viewed simply as human beings, the relation of women to Christ is as direct and vital as that of men. But look at them as forming a distinct sex, as members of the social order. In that order there must be grades. In an empire there must be a ruling class, or person; and in a household there must be a ruling sex. When we ask, Which? the Bible replies, Man is first in creation, first in dignity. Woman was made for him, not he for her. And with this natural order and subordination, the equal spiritual relation to Christ is not to interfere. Christ did not come to thwart or to reverse, but to perfect, human nature and human society.
2. What grade we hold in this social order, and what part we play, is not by any means the main question; but how we fill it, how we play it. The woman, e.g., though equal in nature, holds the subordinate social grade; but if she play her part well, she becomes perfect as a woman. But suppose a wife to rebel, what happens? Either, casting off all restraint, she divorces herself from him rather than obey him; or she openly rules where she ought to obey, and is condemned by her own instincts and her own sex even more severely than by men.
3. But before we can fully reach Pauls sense of the sacredness of the head, we must remember that the pious Hebrew not only retained hat or turban when he entered the sanctuary, but also drew over it the tallith, a sacred veil, kept exclusively for public worship. By this he meant to express reverence for the Divine Presence--that he was not worthy to stand in it, that he could not look on God and live. But in Pauls scheme of thought Christ was the head of the man. For a man to cover his head in worship was therefore to veil Christ; it was to imply that He needed to veil His face before God. Man must not thus dishonour Christ, his head. But the very reason which made it right for man, made it wrong for woman, to worship unveiled. For her head was the man. And to uncover her head in worship was to imply that man needed no veil when he came before God. Let her worship, therefore, with head veiled, and thus bear witness to the fact that sinful man was unworthy so much as to lift up his eyes unto heaven. Conclusion: Let us learn from St. Paul to apply the largest and deepest principles to the smallest details of conduct and duty; but let us also learn to apply them with his freedom. Are we invariably to adopt and enforce these rules? Is a woman never to speak in public, and always to wear a veil? Is it wrong for a man in India, or at an outdoor service, to worship with covered head? To make St. Pauls rule inflexible and universal would be to sin against his spirit. On Greeks and Romans he enforces attention to the decorums of their race and time, and gives them perfectly good reasons for adhering to them. Principles abide, but customs change. And we then act most in the spirit of Paul when we freely apply his principles to our changed customs. (S. Cox, D.D.)
Power on womans head
It is argued that exousia might have been used for veil or covering, as a local and Tarsian expression. But this is not very probable. Many commentators, therefore, prefer to regard the word as one which, though originally metaphorical, would have been widely understood to mean a veil, just as imperium is used for a female ornament, regnum for an imperial crown, and triregno for the triple tiara of the popes. Thus Diodorus Siculus uses the Greek word basileia, kingdom, to mean the crown, or token of a kingdom, describing the statue of a queen as having three kingdoms upon its head. It is a curious fact that in Hebrew the word radid, which sometimes means a veil, is derived from a verb of which one of the meanings is he subdued; and it is not impossible that the knowledge of this may have smoothed the way for the apostles unusual phrase. One more explanation is, that exousian, etymologically, may also mean existence, and that St. Paul selected it because it might serve to indicate that womans dignity consists in her being created from or out of the man (οὖσα ἐξ ἀνδρός). But modern criticism seems to be settling down into the simple familiar meaning of the word power, in the obvious sense of a sign of power. But the question then naturally arises, A sign of whose power?
I. Some say, Her own power, and refer this not to the veil which the woman is directed to wear upon her head, but to the glory of her natural covering, her own long hair. They argue that this is one of the chief elements of female beauty--Love in her rosy cheeks did basking lie, love walked in the sunny masses of her hair. They quote such instances as that of Swift, in whose desk was found a folded paper containing one faded tress, and on it written, Only a womans hair.
II. The context, however, does not at all favour this view; and we see from 1Co_12:22-23, that St. Paul considered a covering as a proof of inferiority in honour. Our translators seem to have hit on the only true meaning of the expression, in the margin of our Bibles, A covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. Any apparent harshness in this meaning is at once dispelled--
1. By the analogies (imperium, triregno, etc.), which we have already adduced. These show how easily the word power could come to be a sign of power by the common figure of speech which is called metonymy; and if so, it is much more likely to mean a sign of her husbands power over her than a sign of her own power, because the whole context is enforcing the superiority of the man, and bears on the He shall rule over thee of Gen_3:16.
2. Because to this day the veil is regarded in the unchanging East as a sign of subordination, and the traveller Chardin says that in Persia only married women wear it, and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection. And in the Roman customs the putting on of a veil in marriage was a sign that a woman lost all independent rights of citizenship.
3. Because there is a close analogy between this passage and Gen_20:16, where covering of the eyes is generally understood to mean a veil, and is by the LXX. rendered τιμή, which properly means honour. Lastly, it is to me no small confirmation of this plain and simple sense that we find it in the noble verse of Milton, who seems to combine the notions of a womans hair being at once a covering and a glory to herself, and a sign of subjection to her husband:--
His fair large front and eye sublime declared
Absolute rule, and hyacinthine locks
Round from his parted forelock manly hung
Clustering, but not beneath his shoulder broad:
She, as a veil, down to the slender waist
Her unadorned golden tresses wore
Dishevelled, but in wanton ringlets waved
As the vine waves her tendrils; which implied
Subjection, but required with gentle sway,
And by her yielded, by him best received.
(Archdeacon Farrar.)
Because of the angels
The absence of and suggests that it is a motive, not additional to, but confirmatory of, that given in verse 9. Already (4:9) we have seen the angels contemplating the apostles hardships. They attend upon men (Heb_1:14), are placed side by side of the Church militant (Heb_12:22), and desire to look into the teaching of the prophets (1Pe_1:12). Now, if they take interest in men, they must take special interest in those assemblies in which men unitedly draw near to God, and which have so great influence upon the spiritual life of men. We must therefore conceive them present at the public worship of the church. Now the presence of persons better than ourselves always strengthens our instinctive perception of right and wrong, and deters us from improper action. And the moral impression thus produced is almost always correct. To this instinctive perception Paul appealed by the word shame in verse 6; and has revealed its source in the purpose of womans creation. He now strengthens his appeal by reminding us that we worship in the presence of the inhabitants of heaven. For every right instinct in us is strengthened by the presence of those better than ourselves. Surely a remembrance of these celestial fellow-worshippers will deter us from all that is unseemly. (Prof. Beet.)
Because of the angels
I. Some suppose that the words refer to real angels.
1. The holy angels. It appears to have been the opinion of the Jews that the holy angels were present at their religious assemblies (Psa_128:1; Ecc_5:6). Bengel supposes that the reason why the apostle names the angels is, because as the angels are represented as veiling their faces before God, so women ought also to veil their faces when they worship. Erasmus remarks, If a woman has arrived at that pitch of shamelessness that she does not fear the eyes of men, let her at least cover her head on account of the angels who are present at your assemblies. But such an explanation appears to be far-fetched. St. Paul does not lay much stress elsewhere on the sentiments of the angels; he employs reasons far stronger and more telling. And certainly the above reason is not one which would suggest itself as a corrective to disorders in public worship.
2. Evil angels. It is supposed that the apostle here accommodates himself to this extravagant notion, which arose from a gross misconception of the words the sons (or angels) of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Women should veil themselves, because they might tempt or be tempted by evil angels. Dr. McKnight supposes that the reference is to the seduction of the woman by the artifices of the serpent; and that the wearing of the veil was to be the perpetual memorial of her fall and of her subjection to man in consequence. We cannot imagine that Paul adopted the rabbinical notion, nor can we see the force of that notion as an argument for women veiling their faces. Nor does the view that the reference is to the seduction of Eve recommend itself; for this seduction was not effected by evil spirits in general, but by one pre-eminently, namely, the devil. And in general, if evil angels were meant, we would expect some statement to that effect by the apostle, as the angels that sinned, the angels that kept not their first estate.
II. Others suppose that the word refers to the ministers, who were specially set apart to conduct the worship of the congregation. The name angel, it is said, is conferred on ministers, both in the Old Testament and in the New (Mal_2:7; Rev_2:3). Such a name is also sufficiently appropriate, as ministers are the messengers of God. The reason, then, here assigned is, that women should veil their faces lest they should draw away the affections or distract the attention of the ministers or presidents of the assemblies. But the term ἄγγελοι is never applied to ministers by Paul. Nor is it certain that by the angels of the apocalyptic Churches the ministers are meant.
III. Others suppose that the reference is to heathen messengers or spies. In the New Testament the word frequently occurs in the sense of messenger (Mat_11:10; Luk_7:24; Luk_9:52). But the most remarkable passage, and the one which bears most closely upon our subject, is Jam_2:25, where this very word is applied to the spies whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. Now it is argued that this is the meaning of the term here; women, in their assemblies for worship, ought to veil their faces because of the heathen spies. Tertullian informs us that the heathen were in the habit of sending spies to observe what was said or done in their Christian assemblies. According to this view, the apostle exhorts the Corinthians to see to it that their assemblies be conducted with proper order--that all violations of what was counted decorum be absent; that they are to remember that the eyes of the heathen are upon them. (P. J. Gloag, D.D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv5–14 5. Every one that prayeth, etc. With the customs…
5. Every one that prayeth, etc. With the customs and ideas which existed in the East in that age it would be an unseemly act, and would bring reproach. The veil was regarded as a badge of subordination, and if not worn would imply that the woman did not yield deference to her husband. Almost all women are still veiled in the presence of men in the East. All one as if she were shaven. For a woman's head to be shaven was usually a sign of shamelessness (See Meyer). The uncovered head in an assembly was also unbecoming.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv5–15 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head…
But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head [Corinth was made up of Greeks, Romans and Jews, and all these three elements of her population were found in the church to which Paul wrote. The Jew and the Roman worshipped with covered, and the Greek with uncovered, head. Naturally a dispute would arise as to which custom was right. Moreover, as the women were beyond all doubt acquainted with the principle that there is neither male nor female in the spiritual realm (Gal 3:28), they seem to have added to the confusion by taking sides in the controversy, so that some of them asserted the right to worship with uncovered heads after the fashion of the Greeks. Now, in the East in Paul's day, all women went into public assemblies with their heads veiled, and this peplum, or veil, was regarded as a badge of subordination, a sign that the woman was under the power of the man. Thus Chardin, the traveler, says that the women of Persia wear a veil in sign that they are "under subjection," a fact which Paul also asserts in this chapter. Now, the symbolic significance of a woman's head-dress became the determining factor in this dispute. For a man to worship with a covered head was an act of effeminacy, a disgrace to his head, and for a woman to worship with uncovered head was likewise disgraceful, for it would at once be looked upon as a bold assertion of unwarranted independence, a sign that she had laid aside her modesty and removed from her sphere. From this passage it is plain that it was not intended that Christianity should needlessly vary from the national customs of the day. For Christians to introduce needless innovations would be to add to the misconceptions which already subjected them to persecution. One who follows Christ will find himself conspicuously different from the world, without practicing any tricks of singularity]; or it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven .
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v10 power authority, i.e. the sign of the husband’s authority.
power authority, i.e. the sign of the husband’s authority.
angels i.e. of the presence of the angels.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv7, 13 The apostle advances a further argument for the woman’s…
The apostle advances a further argument for the woman’s veiling:
v. 7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch, as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.
Read full note →
v. 8. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
v. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.
v. 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
v. 11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
v. 12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
The relative position of the sexes is here based upon the Scripture-account of the creation: For a man indeed should not veil the head, since the image and glory of God he is. See Gen 1:26. He was created in, and therefore represents, the image of God, and in this likeness he also bears the visible splendor of God; he rules in his own sphere by virtue of the power and freedom given him by God, and this conduct redounds to the glory of God. But the wife is the glory of man; she has the dignity of her position from man; in her office in the home she represents the majesty of the man. Note: From this statement it follows that the respect shown to women is the measure and safeguard of human dignity. That the distinction made at the time of the creation is to be observed also in the Christian Church appears, moreover, from the story of the creation of Eve, Gen 2:18-25. For not is man from woman, but woman from man; and not was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. In the case of all other organic creatures the Lord created them in two sexes at once, but Adam was created alone at the beginning, and it was only afterward that the woman originated, being made out of one of his ribs. And in fashioning woman in this way, the Lord aimed to meet the man’s need; she was to be a helpmeet for him. It is a subversion of the order of creation if a woman regards her husband as the servant of her pleasure, as the instrument of her subsistence.
So important does the apostle consider the maintenance and observance of the relation between the sexes as fixed by God that he wants also the external sign of the woman’s auxiliary position retained: For this reason the woman is obliged to have "power on her head"; she should wear the token, or emblem, of her status, the veil, as denoting the power which she derives from the man, and that on account of the angels. The angels, being present in public worship, are offended by irreverence and misconduct. Even if men might, under circumstances, not find it offensive or scandalous for a woman to discard the dignity of her position, the presence of God’s holy angels ought to deter a true woman from unwomanly behavior.
In discussing their position so frankly, Paul has no intention of belittling the state of women or to ascribe inferiority to them: Nevertheless, and yet, neither woman without man, nor man without woman, in the Lord; for even as the woman is out of, derived from, the man, so also the man is through the woman; but everything is from God, who is the Originator of all. The woman is not in the Lord apart from man, she has no claim in a Lord all for herself: the same Christ is the Lord of both, a fact which applies to the man as well. They stand side by side, with equal rights, in the Kingdom of Grace. The woman was taken from man, he’ was the initial cause of being to the woman; but, on the other hand, woman, by the order of God in nature, is the instrumental cause of being to the man. But these facts give neither party a right to boast, since, after all, God is the Source, the Creator, of all things; to Him both must give reverence. This holds true especially in home life. The man should regard himself as living in the Lord for the sake of his wife, and likewise the woman for the sake of her husband. Married people belong together in the house of God, together at the Table of the Lord, together in home devotions, together in all things in which the life in the Lord is fostered; they are heirs together of the grace of life, 1Pe 3:7.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv5, 7, 9, 11, 13 woman who prays ... dishonors her head
woman who prays ... dishonors her head
Possible meanings are 1) "woman who prays ... brings disgrace on herself" or 2) "wife who prays ... brings disgrace on her husband."
Read full note →
with her head uncovered
That is, without the cloth that was worn on the top of the head and that covered the hair and shoulders.
as if her head were shaved
as if she had removed all the hair on her head with a razor
If it is disgraceful for a woman
It was a mark of disgrace or humiliation for a woman to have her hair shaved off or cut short.
cover her head
place on her head the cloth that was worn on the top of the head and that covered the hair and shoulders
translationWords
pray
prophet
head
dishonor
disgrace
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 11:7 man is made in God’s image: See Gen…
11:7 man is made in God’s image: See Gen 1:26-27.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.