1 Corinthians 11:3

1Co_11:3-16

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

Christ our Head

This important statement is the starting-point for a deliverance on the subject of the conduct of women in the Church. The apostle often, in dealing with matters of trifling importance or limited interest, rises to the enunciation of the grand principle on which it rests. Here he gives the principle first. Let us look at our relationship with Christ--

I. Through its earthly shadow.

1. In building the house of the human family God made the man the head of the woman, the husband or bond of the house. This headship carries with it responsibility; for if wives are to obey their husbands, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and so make the wifely duty a joy.

2. In this sense, only with deepened meaning, Christ is the head of every man, i.e., of the race. And just as the wife attains the end of her being on the earthly side in her husband; as she finds the sum of her womanly ambitions and duties in promoting his welfare; as she is entitled to look to him for protection, counsel, tenderness, and example; as she is to seek in him the rounding of her present life and the fulness of her earthly joy; so the members of the human family are to look up to Christ as their Head. None of us is complete without Him. And just as trust and obedience unite a woman to her husband and enable him to fulfil his obligations to her, so it is by faith and submission that Jesus is able to accomplish His saving, life-giving work. There is therefore deep truth in the representation of the exaltation of the Church to glory as a marriage supper.

II. In its heavenly archetypes--Gods headship over Christ.

1. In His Divine, eternal essence Christ is the brightness of His Fathers glory, etc., Gods realised ideal, a vessel into which God has poured all the fulness of the Divine nature, a vessel of Godhead eternally equal to that which it contains and perfectly full.

2. In the light of this look once more at your relationship to Christ. As the Father hath loved Me (Joh_15:9-10). We are to reflect Christ just as He reflects God, and appears, therefore, full of grace and truth.

Conclusion: The head of every man is Christ.

1. Then Christ is just yourself, idealised and perfected--the prophecy of what you are to become. He is not a glorified man merely, but glorified humanity.

2. This great fact throws light on the doctrine of substitution. Christ became man, not a man. Just as we were all in Adam, and are so many multiplied copies of him, so Christ became the second Adam, and God looks at us in Him. Since, then, He was a representative man, all He did and suffered on earth had a representative character. (E. W. Shalders, B.A.)

Human and Divine relations

There exist three relations which together form a sort of hierarchy: lowest in the scale, the purely human relation between man and woman; higher, the Divine-human relation between Christ and man; highest, the purely Divine relation between God and Christ. The common term whereby Paul characterises these relations is head, or chief. This figurative term includes two ideas--community of life, and inequality within this community. So between the man and the woman, by the bond of marriage there is formed between them the bond of a common life, but in such a way that the one is the strong and directing element, the other the receptive and dependent element. The same is the case in the relation between Christ and the man. Formed by the bond of faith, it also establishes a community of life, in which there are distinguished an active and directing principle and a receptive and directed factor. An analogous relation appears higher still in the mystery of the Divine essence. By the bond of filiation there is between Christ and God communion of Divine life, but such that impulse proceeds from the Father, and that the Son doeth nothing but what He seeth the Father do. The relation between Christ and the man is put first. It is, so to speak, the link of union between the other two, reflecting the sublimity of the one and marking the other with a sacred character, which should secure it from the violence with which it is threatened. (Prof. Godet.)

The conduct and deportment of Christian women

A broad principle laid down by Christianity was human equality: there is neither male nor female, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus. We all know how fruitful a cause of popular commotion the teaching of equality has been in every age, and at Corinth this doctrine threatened to lead to much social confusion. A claim was made for a right in woman to do all that men should do--to preach and pray, e.g., in public, and therefore to appear as men, unveiled in public. This latter the apostle here prohibits--

I. On the ground that it was a rash defiance of established rules of decorum. The veiled head is a symbol of--

1. Modesty; for to pray unveiled was to insult all the conventional feelings of Jew and Gentile. The Holy Ghost, however, has not imposed on the Church this particular fashion, but the principle contained in it is eternal; and it is impossible to decide how much of our public morality and private purity is owing to the spirit which refuses to overstep the smallest bound of ordinary decorum.

2. Dependence. St. Paul perceived that the law of Christian equality was quite consistent with the vast system of subordination running through the universe (1Co_11:3; 1Co_11:11-12). He distinguishes between inferiority and subordination; each sex exists in a certain order, not one as greater than the other, but both great and right in being what God intended them to be.

II. By an appeal to natural instincts ann propriety (1Co_11:14-15). Fanaticism defies nature. Christianity refines it and respects it. It develops each nation, sex, and individual, according to their own nature--making man more manly and woman more womanly. But let us not forget that here, too, there are exceptions. Beware of a dead, hard rule. There have been many instances in which one man standing against the world has been right, and the world wrong, as Elijah, Athanasius, Luther, and others. But in questions of morality, propriety, decency, when we find our own private judgment contradicted by the general experience, habit, and belief of all the best around us, then the doctrine of this chapter commands us to believe that the many are right and that we are wrong. (F. W. Robertson, M.A.)

The veil

St. Paul is now compelled to qualify the general commendation of 1Co_11:2. He heard with surprise and vexation that women presumed to address the assembled Christians unveiled, to the scandal of all sober-minded Orientals and Greeks. It is a singular specimen of the strange matters that came before Paul for decision when the care of all the Churches lay upon him.

I. What was the intention of Christian women in making a demonstration so unfeminine?

1. Throughout this letter Paul is correcting the hasty impressions which the new believers were receiving regarding their position as Christians. A flood of new ideas was suddenly poured in upon their minds, one of which was the equality of all before God and of a Saviour for all alike. There was neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc., now. And it dawned on the woman that she was neither mans toy nor slave, but that she had a life to frame for herself. She was not dependent on men for her Christian privileges; ought she not to show this by laying aside the veil, which was the acknowledged badge of dependence?

2. 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. It was the one significant rite in marriage that she assumed the veil in token that now her husband was her head. This covering could be dispensed with only in places where they were secluded from public view. It was therefore the badge which proclaimed that she who wore it was a private, not a public, person, finding her duties at home, not abroad. It was the mans place to serve the State or the public, the womans place to serve the man.

II. This movement of the Corinthian women Paul meets by reminding them that personal equality is perfectly consistent with social subordination. The woman must not argue that because she is independent of her husband in the greater sphere she must also be independent of him in the less (1Co_11:3). This principle is of incalculable importance and very wide and constant application.

1. Whatever is meant by the natural equality of men, it cannot mean that none are to have authority over others. 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 Pauls inference (1Co_11:4-5). 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--i.e., her husband--and so doing, dishonours herself. She puts herself on the level of the woman with a shaven head, which both among Jews and Greeks was a brand of disgrace.

2. This subordination has its roots in nature (1Co_11:7-8).

(1) Man is the glory of God because he is His image and is fitted to exhibit in actual life the excellences which make God worthy of our love and worship. But while man directly, woman indirectly, fulfils this purpose of God. She is Gods glory by being mans glory. She exhibits Gods excellences by creating and cherishing excellence in man (1Co_11:8-9). The position assigned to woman as the glory of man is therefore far removed from the view which cyclically proclaims her mans mere convenience.

(2) That this is womans normal sphere is indicated even by her unalterable physical characteristics. By nature woman is endowed with a symbol of modesty and retirement. The veil 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. And nature, speaking through this visible sign of the womans hair, tells her that her place is 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--e.g., her shorter stature and slighter frame, her higher pitch of voice, her more graceful form and movement. And similar indications are found in her mental peculiarities. She has the gifts which fit her for influencing individuals; man has those qualities which enable him to deal with persons in the mass. Not all women, of course, are of the distinctively womanly type. A Britomarte may arm herself and overthrow the strongest knights. A Joan of Arc may infuse into a nation her own warlike and patriotic ardour. In art, in literature, in science, feminine names may occupy some of the highest places. In our own day many careers have been opened to women from which they had hitherto been debarred. Conclusion: A woman is a woman still though she become a Christian; a subject must honour his king although by becoming a Christian he is himself in one aspect above all authority; a servant will show his Christianity, not by assuming an insolent familiarity with his Christian master, but by treating him with respectful fidelity. It forms a great part of our duty to accept our own place without envying others, and to do honour to those to whom honour is due. (M. Dods, D.D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

MAN’S LEADERSHIP IN THE DOMESTIC GOVERNMENT (1Co 11:3-15.)

4. “Every man praying or prophesying having something on his head dishonors his head.

5. “Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head —

7. “For the man indeed ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man —

10. “On this account the woman ought to have authority on her head on account of the angels.”

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11:3-16 Paul now addresses a woman’s use of a head covering. Paul argues that women publicly praying or prophesying should wear a veil as an element of dressing modestly and appropriately in public worship (cp. 1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3). Apparently some in Corinth were rejecting head coverings based on freedom in Christ. Paul’s argument in favor of the custom is based on traditional social conventions, the Genesis account of creation, and the watchful eye of angels.

11:3 The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God: The NLT gives the literal reading head, which is a metaphor for either source or authority. The immediate context and Paul’s overall teaching both favor understanding head in this context as meaning authority (see Gen 3:16; Eph 5:21-23; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 11:3. Δὲ, but) On this subject Paul seems formerly to have given no commandment, but to have written now for the first time, when he understood that it was necessary. By the expression, I would, he openly professes his sentiments.—ὅτι, that) Even matters of ceremony should be settled according to the principles of morality, so that they may agree with those principles. It may be said, How does one and the same reason in relation to the head (i.e. of Christ, or of the man) require the man to uncover his head, and the woman to cover hers? Ans. 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.—ἀνδρὸς, γυναικὸς, of the man, of the woman) although they do not live in the state of marriage, 1Co 11:8, and what follows.—ἡ κεφαλὴ, the head) This term alludes to the head properly so called, concerning the condition [the appropriate dress] of which he treats in the following verse. The common word, Principal,[90] is akin to this use of the term head. The article ἡ must be presently after twice supplied from this clause.—κεφαλὴ Χριστοῦ, the head of Christ) 1Co 3:23, 1Co 15:28; Luk 3:23; Luk 3:38; Joh 20:17; Eph 3:9, where God is said to have created all things by Christ, therefore He is the head of Christ.—ὁ Θεος, God) 1Co 11:12.

[90] This word is given as it is in the original. In this form, it is not Latin, but it is probably the German substantive, which signifies head.—T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:3. After this general acknowledgment, however, I have still to bid you lay to heart the following particular point. And now, first of all, the principle of the succeeding admonition. Respecting θέλω … εἰδέναι, comp on 1Co_10:1; Col_2:1.

ΠΑΝΤῸς ἈΝΔΡ.] note the prominent position of the word, as also the article before ΚΕΦ.: of every man the Head. That what is meant, however, is every Christian man, is self-evident from this first clause; consequently, Paul is not thinking of the general order of creation (Hofmann), according to which Christ is the head of all things (Col_1:16 f., 1Co_2:10), but of the organization of Christian fellowship, as it is based upon the work of redemption. Comp Eph_5:21 ff.

ΚΕΦΑΛΉ, from which we are not (with Hofmann) to dissociate the conception of an organized whole (this would suit in none of the passages where the word occurs, Col_2:10 included), designates in all the three cases here the proximate, immediate Head, which is to be specially noted in the second instance, for Christ as head of the church (Col_1:18; Eph_1:22; Eph_4:15) is also head of the woman (comp Eph_5:22 f.). The relation indicated by ΚΕΦ. is that of organic subordination, even in the last clause: He to whom Christ is subordinate is God (comp 1Co_3:23, 1Co_15:28, 1Co_8:6; Col_1:15; Rom_9:5; and see Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 208 ff.), where the dogmatic explanation resorted to, that Christ in His human nature only is meant (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, al[1757]), is un-Pauline. Neither, again, is His voluntary subjection referred to (Billroth), butwhich is exactly what the argument demands, and what the two first clauses give usthe objective and, notwithstanding His essential equality with God (Php_2:6), necessary subordination of the Son to the Father in the divine economy of redemption.[1758] Much polemic discussion as to the misuse of this passage by the Arians and others may be found in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact.

Gal_3:28, indeed, shows that the distinction of the sexes is done away in Christ (in the spiritual sphere of the Christian life); but this ideal equality of sex as little does away with the empirical subordination in marriage as with differences of rank in other earthly relations, e.g. of masters and servants.

κεφ. δὲ Χ. ὁ Θεός] The gradation of ranks rises up to the supreme Head over all, who is the Head of the man also, mediately, through Christ. This makes it all the more obvious that, on the one hand, the man who prays or speaks as a prophet before God in the assembly ought not to have his head covered, see 1Co_11:7; but that, on the other hand, the relation of the women under discussion is all the more widely to be distinguished from that of the men.

[1757] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1758] Melanchthon puts it well: Deus est caput Christi, non de essentia dicitur, sed de ministeriis. Filius mediator accipit ministerium a consilio divinitatis, sicut saepe inquit: Pater misit me. Fit hic mentio non arcanae essentiae, sed ministerii.Even the exalted and reigning Christ is engaged in this ministerium, and finally delivers up the kingdom to the Father. See 1Co_15:28.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 11:3 . θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι (= οὐ θέλω κ . τ . λ . of 1Co 10:1 ; see note): “But I would have you know” the previous commendation throws into relief the coming censure. The indecorum in question offends against a foundation principle, viz ., that of subordination under the Divine government ; this the Cor [1598] , with all their knowledge, cannot “know,” or they would not have allowed their women to throw off the ἐξουσία ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς (1Co 11:10 ). The violated principle is thus stated: “Of every man the Christ is the head, while the man is head of woman, and God is head of Christ”. As to the wording of this sentence: παντὸς ἀνδρὸς bears emphasis in the 1st clause asserting, like the parl [1599] 2nd clause, a universal truth which holds of the man ( vir ) as such; the predicate of the 1st clause is distinguished by the def. art [1600] , “Christ is the (proper, essential) head,” etc. ( cf. ἡ εἰρήνη , Eph 2:14 , and see Bm [1601] , pp. 124 f.); ὁ Χριστός , in James , 3 rd clauses, means “the Christ” in the wide scope of His offices ( cf. 1Co 10:4 , 1Co 12:12 , 1Co 15:22 ); for anarthrous κεφαλὴ γυναικός , cf. note on 1Co 2:5 . That Christ is “every man’s” true head is an application of the revealed truth that He is the “one Lord” of created nature (1Co 8:6 ; Col 1:15 f.), combined with the palpable fact that the ἀνὴρ has no (intervening) lord in creation ( cf. 9); he stands forth in worship, amidst his family, with no visible superior, holding headship direct from his Maker, and brought by his manhood into direct responsibility to Him “through whom are all things”. Ed [1602] , following Cm [1603] and Mr [1604] (not Hn [1605] ), limits this manly subordination to the Christian order of life; “the man is head of the woman in virtue of the marriage union, Christ of the man in virtue of union with Him through faith”: but faith is common to the sexes, on this footing οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ (Gal 3:28 ); on the other hand, in Pauline theology, the law of marriage and the social order are grounded in Christ. Paul’s argument has no force unless the parl [1606] assertions rest on a common basis. The question is one that touches the fundamental proprieties of life (1Co 11:8-15 ); and the three headships enumerated belong to the hierarchy of nature. “The Christ” of the 3rd clause is “the Christ” of the 1st, without distinction made of natures or states; He who is “every man’s head,” the Lord of nature, presents the pattern of loyalty in His perfect obedience to the Father (1Co 15:28 , Gal 4:4 ; Heb 5:5 ; Heb 5:8 , etc.); cf. 1Co 3:22 f., where with the same δέ … δὲ a chain of subordinate possession is drawn out, corresponding to this subordination of rule . Submission in office, whether of woman to man or Christ to God, consists with equality of nature.

[1598] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1599] parallel.

[1600] grammatical article.

[1601] A. Buttmann’s Grammar of the N.T. Greek (Eng. Trans., 1873).

[1602] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians .

[1603] John Chrysostom’s Homiliœ († 407).

[1604] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1605] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1606] parallel.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:3

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.

Though the apostle praised the Corinthians for their general obedience to his prescriptions, yet there were many things in which they were deserving of censure. Before mentioning the thing which he intended first to condemn, he states the principle on which that condemnation rested; so that, by assenting to the principle, they could not fail to assent to the conclusion to which it necessarily led. That principle is, that order and subordination pervade the whole universe, and is essential to its being. The head of the man is Christ; the head of woman is the man; the head of Christ is God. If this concatenation be disturbed in any of its parts, ruin must be the result. The head is that on which the body is dependent, and to which it is subordinate. The obvious meaning of this passage is, that the woman is subordinate to the man, the man is subordinate to Christ and Christ is subordinate to God. It is further evident, that this subordination is very different in its nature in the several cases mentioned. The subordination of the woman to the man is something entirely different from that of the man to Christ; and that again is at an infinite degree more complete than the subordination of Christ to God. And still further, as the subordination of the woman to the man is perfectly consistent with their identity as to nature, so is the subordination of Christ to God consistent with his being of the same nature with the Father. There is nothing, therefore, in this passage, at all inconsistent with the true and proper divinity of our blessed Lord. For a brief statement of the scriptural doctrine of the relation of Christ to God, see the comments on 1Co_3:23. It need here be only further remarked, that the word Christ is the designation, not of the Logos or second person of the Trinity as such, nor of the human nature of Christ as such, but of the Theanthropos, the God-man. It is the incarnate Son of God, who, in the great work of redemption, is said to be subordinate to the Father, whose will he came into the world to do. When Christ is said to be the head of every man, the meaning is of every believer; because it is the relation of Christ to the church, and not to the human family, that it is characteristically expressed by this term. He is the head of that body which is the church, Col_1:18. Eph_1:22, Eph_1:23.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He setteth down God, in Christ our mediator, for the end and mark not only of doctrine, but also of ecclesiastical comeliness. Then applying it to the question proposed, touching the comely apparel both of men and women in public assemblies, he declareth that the woman is one degree beneath the man by the ordinance of God, and that the man is so subject to Christ, that the glory of God ought to appear in him for the preeminence of the sex.

In that, that Christ is our mediator.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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 (Gal 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in Co1 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.

of every man . . . Christ-- (Eph 5:23).

of . . . woman . . . man-- (Co1 11:8; Gen 3:16; Ti1 2:11-12; Pe1 3:1, Pe1 3:5-6).

head of Christ is God-- (Co1 3:23; Co1 15:27-28; Luk 3:22, Luk 3:38; Joh 14:28; Joh 20:17; Eph 3:9). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the same essence as the Father" [CHRYSOSTOM]. "The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father" [THEODORET, t. 3, p. 171].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. The head of every man is Christ] The apostle is speaking particularly of Christianity and its ordinances: Christ is the Head or Author of this religion; and is the creator, preserver, and Lord of every man. The man also is the lord or head of the woman; and the Head or Lord of Christ, as Mediator between God and man, is God the Father. Here is the order-God sends his Son Jesus Christ to redeem man; Christ comes and lays down his life for the world; every man who receives Christianity confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father; and every believing woman will acknowledge, according to Ge 3:16, that God has placed her in a dependence on and subjection to the man. So far there is no difficulty in this passage.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

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.

(3) But I would have you know.—After the general commendation in the previous verse, the reproof for neglecting, or desiring to neglect, his precepts in one particular case, is thus introduced. The subject treated of, viz., the uncovering of their heads by women in assemblies for worship, was of ephemeral moment, and as we all now would regard it, of trivial importance. Every circumstance, however, which could in the least degree cause the principles of Christianity to be perverted or misunderstood by the heathen world was of vital importance in those early days of the Church, and hence we find the Apostle, who most fearlessly taught the principles of Christian liberty, condemning most earnestly every application of those principles which might be detrimental to the best interests of the Christian faith. To feel bound to assert your liberty in every detail of social and political life is to cease to be free—the very liberty becomes a bondage.

The head of every man is Christ.—The Apostle does not merely treat of the outward practice on which his advice has been sought, but proceeds to lay down the principles which are opposed to the principle of that absolute and essential equality, which, found its expression and assertion in the practice of women uncovering their heads in public assemblies.

The allusion here is not to Christ as the Head of the whole human race and of all things (as in Eph_1:22; Col_1:16; Col_2:10), but as the Head of “the Body,” the Christian Church: and this thought introduces the general argument regarding the practical subordination of woman, by reminding the Corinthians that though there is in the Church a perfect spiritual equality (as taught in Gal_3:28), yet that it is an equality which is of order and not of disorder—that it is an equality which can only be preserved by remembering that each is not an isolated irresponsible atom, but a part of an organic whole. There is a Head to the Church, therefore it is not a machine composed of various parts, but a body consisting of various members. As there is a subordination of the whole body to Christ, so there is in that body a subordination of woman to man. The last clause, “the Head of Christ is God,” gives (as is St. Paul’s custom, see 1Co_3:23; 1Co_8:6; 1Co_15:25) completeness to the thought. As the Head of the Church—i.e., as the man Christ Jesus—Christ is subordinate to the Father, and, indeed, perhaps the idea is carried farther into the mystery of the divine nature itself, as consisting of three Persons co-eternal and co-equal, yet being designated with an unvarying sequence as “first,” and “second,” and “third.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. But I would have you know] According to St Paul’s invariable rule, the question is argued and settled upon the first principles of the Christian Revelation. In the sight of God all men are equal; yet without distinctions of rank and office society could not exist. But equality and order are reconciled by the revelation of God in Christ.

the head] “In the idea of this word dominion is especially expressed. As in the human organisation the exercise of dominion over all the members proceeds from the head; so in the family, from man; in the Church, from Christ; in the universe, from God.”—Olshausen.

of every man is Christ] See Eph_1:22; Eph_4:15; Col_1:18; Col_2:19. As the head directs the body, so ought every member of Christ’s Body to be governed and directed by Christ.

the head of the woman is the man] Cf. Eph_5:23. “It appears that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for themselves equality with the male sex, to which the doctrine of Christian freedom and the removal of the distinction of sex in Christ (Gal_3:28) gave occasion. Christianity had indisputably done much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionic Greeks (it was otherwise among the Dorians and the Romans) were in a position of unworthy dependence. But this was done in a quiet, not an over-hasty manner. In Corinth, on the contrary, they had apparently taken up the matter in a fashion somewhat too animated. The women overstepped due bounds by coming forward to pray and prophesy in the assemblies with uncovered head.”—De Wette. Such persons are here reminded that according to God’s word (Gen_3:16; 1Ti_2:11; 1Ti_2:13) woman was designed to be in subjection, both in society and in the family. Of this last, woman’s chief sphere, man was, by God’s ordinance, the head. Yet (see below, 1Co_11:5) she is on an equality with man in her individual relation to Christ.

the head of Christ is God] Cf. ch. 1Co_3:23, 1Co_8:6, 1Co_15:28, and notes. Also St Joh_14:28. Possibly this may be added to prevent the idea from gaining currency that the interval between man and woman was in any degree comparable to that between Christ and man. And it also implies that the whole universe is one vast system of orderly gradation, from God its Creator downwards.

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.

Every man praying or prophesying,.... This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship, that joins in prayer with the minister, and hears the word preached by him, which is meant by prophesying; for not foretelling future events is here meant, but explaining the word of God, the prophecies of the Old Testament, or any part of Scripture, unless singing of psalms should rather be designed, since that is sometimes expressed by prophesying: so in Sa1 10:5 "thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they shall prophesy". The Targum renders it thus, , "and they shall sing praise"; upon which Kimchi observes, that it is as if it was said, their prophecy shall be "songs" and praises to God, spoken by the Holy Ghost. So in Sa1 19:23 it is said of Saul, that he "went on and prophesied". The Targum is, he went on, "and praised". And again, "he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied". Targum, "and praised", or sung praise. Once more, in Ch1 25:1 it is said of Asaph, and others, that they "should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals"; which Kimchi explains of Asaph's singing vocally, and of his sons playing upon musical instruments.

Having his head covered; which, it seems, was the custom of some of them so to do in attendance on public worship: this they either did in imitation of the Heathens (r), who worshipped their deities with their heads covered, excepting Saturn and Hercules, whose solemnities were celebrated with heads unveiled, contrary to the prevailing customs and usages in the worship of others; or rather in imitation of the Jews, who used to veil themselves in public worship, through a spirit of bondage unto fear, under which they were, and do to this day; and with whom it is a rule (s), that

"a man might not stand and pray, neither with his girdle on, , nor with his head uncovered; nor with his feet uncovered.''

Accordingly it is said (t) of Nicodemus ben Gorion,

"that he went into the school grieved, and "veiled himself", and stood in prayer;''

and a little after that

"that he went into the sanctuary and "veiled" himself, and stood and prayed;''

though the Targum on Jdg 5:2 suggests,

"that the wise men sit in the synagogues, , "with the head uncovered", to teach the people the words of the law;''

and on Jdg 5:9 has these words,

"Deborah in prophecy said, I am sent to praise the Scribes of Israel, who when they were in tribulation did not cease from expounding the law; and so it was beautiful for them to sit in the synagogues, "with the head uncovered", and teach the people the words of the law, and bless and confess before the Lord;''

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.

(r) Macrob Saturnal. l. 3. c. 6. Alex. ab. Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 2. c. 14. & 19. & 22. (s) Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 5. sect. 5. (t) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 20. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Ver. 3. The head of the woman is man] Were it not an ill sight to see the shoulders above the head, the woman usurp authority over the man αυθεντειν, 1Ti 2:12. A prudent wife commands her husband by obeying, as did Livia.

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.

But I would have you know - “I invite your attention particularly to the following considerations, in order to form a correct opinion on this subject.” Paul does not at once answer the inquiry, and determine what ought to be done; but he invites their attention to a series of remarks on the subject, which led them to draw the conclusion which he wished to establish. The phrase here is designed to call the attention to the subject, like that used so often in the New Testament, “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

That the head ... - The word “head,” in the Scriptures, is designed often to denote “master, ruler, chief.” The word ראשׁ ro'sh is often thus used in the Old Testament; see Num 17:3; Num 25:15; Deu 28:13, Deu 28:44; Jdg 10:18; Jdg 11:8, Jdg 11:11; 1Sa 15:17; 2Sa 22:44. In the New Testament the word is used in the sense of Lord, ruler, chief, in Eph 1:22; Eph 4:15; Eph 5:23; Col 2:10. Here it means that Christ is the ruler, director, or Lord of the Christian man. This truth was to be regarded in all their feelings and arrangements, and was never to be forgotten. Every Christian should recollect the relation in which he stands to him, as one that is suited to produce the strictest decorum, and a steady sense of subordination.

Of every man - Every Christian. All acknowledge Christ as their Ruler and Master. They are subject to him; and in all proper ways recognize their subordination to him.

And the head of the woman is the man - The sense is, she is subordinate to him, and in all circumstances - in her demeanor, her dress, her conversation, in public and in the family circle - should recognize her subordination to him. The particular thing here referred to is, that if the woman is inspired, and speaks or prays in public, she should by no means lay aside the usual and proper symbols of her subordination. The danger was, that those who were under the influence of inspiration would regard themselves as freed from the necessity of recognising that, and would lay aside the “veil,” the usual and appropriate symbol of their occupying a rank inferior to the man. This was often done in the temples of the pagan deities by the priestesses, and it would appear also that it had been done by Christian females in the churches.

And the head of Christ is God - Christ, as Mediator, has consented to assume a subordinate rank, and to recognize God the Father as superior in office. Hence, he was obedient in all things as a Son; he submitted to the arrangement required in redemption; he always recognized his subordinate rank as Mediator, and always regarded God as the supreme Ruler, even in the matter of redemption. The sense is, that Christ, throughout his entire work, regarded himself as occupying a subordinate station to the Father; and that it was proper from his example to recognize the propriety of rank and station everywhere.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The head of a woman is the man, &c. To have the head covered at public meetings, is, according to St. Paul, a mark of subjection: The man was created to be head over the woman, who was made subject to the man, being made of him, of his rib, and the woman made for him, not he for the woman. The man in a special manner, is the image of God, not only by his immortal soul, in which sense also the woman was made to God’s image, and likeness, but inasmuch as God gave him a power over all creatures, and so he is called, the glory of God. For these reasons, as well as from a received custom, St. Paul tells every woman, that in prayer or prophesying in public meetings, she must have her head veiled, and covered in testimony of her subjection to man, her head, otherwise she dishonours herself, and her head. This is what he tells her, (ver. 10.) that she ought to have a power over her head,[1] that is, to have a veil or covering, as a mark of man’s power over her: and because of the angels, that is, out of a respect to the angels there present. Some understand the priests and ministers of God, called angels, particularly in the Apocalypse. St. Paul adds, that nature [2] having given to women long hair, designed it to be as a natural veil. In fine, he appeals to them, to be judges, whether it be not unbecoming in women to pray without a veil. But he will have men to be uncovered, and not to bear such a mark of subjection, as a veil is, by which a man would dishonour his head, that is, himself, and Christ, who is his head, and who appointed him, when he created him, to be head over the woman. He looks upon it as a dishonour and a disgrace for men to nourish their hair, as women should do. He also calls God the head of Christ, that is, of Christ, as man. Lest he should seem to lessen the condition of women more than necessary, he adds, that the propagation of mankind now depends on the woman, as well as on the man, seeing every man is by the woman. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Debet mulier potestatem habere super caput suum, Greek: exousian, but some Greek copies have Greek: peribolaion, cinctorium, velum.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Nec ipsa natura docet vos. I do not find an interrogation in the Latin copies, as it is marked in the Greek, Greek: oude didaskei umas. The rest of the text seems to be better connected, if we read it with an interrogation.

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).

The abuse which the apostle is reflecting upon in this and the following verses, is women’s praying or prophesying with their heads uncovered, against which the apostle strongly argues. His argument seems to be this: That the woman in religious services ought to behave herself as a person in subjection to her husband, and accordingly to use such a gesture, as, according to the guise and custom of that country, testified such a subjection; to this purpose he tells us in this verse,

that the head of every man is Christ. Christ, considered as God according to his Divine nature, is the Head of all men and women too in the world; but the text seemeth rather to speak of Christ as Mediator: so the apostle tells us, Eph 5:23, he is

the Head of the church; and the New Testament often speaks of Christ in that notion, and of believers as his members: in this sense, by every man, we must understand no more than every Christian, every member of the church.

The head of the woman is the man; the man is called the head of the woman, because by God’s ordinance he is to rule over her, Gen 3:16; he hath an excellency above the woman, and a power over her.

The head of Christ is God; and God is the Head of Christ, not in respect of his essence and Divine nature, but in respect of his office as Mediator; as the man is the head of the woman, not in respect of a different and more excellent essence and nature, (for they are both of the same nature), but in respect of office and place, as God hath set him over the woman. Nor indeed could those who deny the Divine nature of Christ, easily have brought a text more against their own assertion, than this, which rather proveth, that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are equal in nature and essence, than different; for surely the head is not of a different, but the same nature and essence with the members. Nor doth Christ’s subjection to his Father at all argue an inequality, or difference from him in nature and essence, more than the subjection of subjects to a prince argue any such thing. The apostle then determines this to be the order which God hath set: God is the Head of Christ; Christ is the Head of his church, and every one that is a member of it; and man is the head of the woman, he to whom the woman ought to be subject. as the church is subject to Christ, and Christ is subject to his Father; and from hence he argues as follows.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. Head of every man—Of every Christian, says Grotius. Yet in the redemption Christ has a headship of the race. See notes on Rom_5:12-21. Here, however, as a harmonious ruling and obeyed headship is implied, Grotius’s limitation is correct. Of every man, by Paul addressed, the Head was Christ.

The headship of our Lord over the Christian man is a headship of divine authority, in which, however, when complete and perfect, the authority merges into a blessed spontaneity and concurrence of wills. Such is the apostle’s view of marriage, of which the union of Christ and his Church is the type. A divinely-constituted headship similarly belongs to the husband in the family; but the true idea of the family is a unity of love, in which the command is the expression of the common happiness, and obedience is a loving concurrence of wills. If the realization of the idea is seldom complete, that is true of all sublunary constitutions, arising from the jars of sin.

The man—That to the masculine side of humanity (as of all other living races of beings) belongs the force, the executive endowment, and the consequent headship, is plain to every eye that looks at male and female through all animated nature as they are created. It is shown in every quality of their respective human frames. Size of brain and body; strength of bone, fibre, and nerve; tendencies of instinct, feeling, and will; all proclaim that man should bear the brunt of the battle of life, and, therefore, must plan the campaign and order the particular manoeuvres. To talk of equality here contradicts God and nature. It is one of “the rights of woman,” as it is one of the instincts, to retire to the rear of the fight, and live under the protection of a stronger arm than her own. It is one of her “rights” to lean on that arm for aid, and to look to that head to plan for her well-being.

And to this it is the noblest instinct of man that responds. It is the thought of wife and children, rather than thought of self, that prompts the soldier to the fiercest bravery, or the labourer to his cruelest toil. He can bear any thing; but how subject the tender ones at home to hardship, disgrace, or disgusts. To win for her at home honour, ornament, and happiness, is the crown of his own enjoyments. The whole history of civilization shows that the robust thought and toil are man’s. The pyramids, the temples, the capitoliums, the city walls and towers, the aqueducts and bridges, the railways and telegraphs, are all the products of man’s hand and brain. The battles by him are fought, and by consequence to him belong (save in exceptional instances) the diplomacies, the senates, the cabinets, and the executive chairs. In short, to man belongs, by nature and by God, the national as well as the domestic rule. If in a free government woman should ever possess the right of suffrage, it would be (like her consent or her veto in accepting or rejecting an offered husband) rather the particular right to choose her ruler than a power to rule.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But I would have you know; rather, but I wish you to know. That the head of every man is Christ. St. Paul, as was customary with him, applies the loftiest principles to the solution of the humblest difficulties. Given a question as to what is right or wrong in a particular instance, he always aims at laying down some great eternal fact to which the duty or decision is ultimately referable, and deduces the required rule from that fact. The headship of Christ is stated in Eph_1:22 Eph_4:15; and its application to the superiority of man is laid down also in Eph_5:23. The subordinate position of the woman is also stated in 1Ti_2:11, 12 1Pe_3:1, 1Pe_3:5, 1Pe_3:6, etc. This, however, is merely an ordinance of earthly application. In the spiritual realm "there is neither male nor female". (Gal_3:28) The head of the woman is the man. In Christ the distinctions of the sexes are done away. It was, perhaps, an abuse of this principle which had led the Corinthian women to assert themselves and their rights more prominently than decorum warranted. The head of Christ is God. That Christ is "inferior to the Father as touching his manhood," that his mediatorial kingdom involves (so far) a subordination of his coequal Godhead, has been already stated in 1Co_3:23, and is further found in 1Co_15:27, 1Co_15:28. This too is the meaning of Joh_14:28, "My Father is greater than I

Vers. 3-16.

The man and the woman.

I would have you know," etc. Although there are some things in these verses that perhaps no one can rightly interpret, and that may have been written as personal opinion rather than as Divine inspiration, there are two or three points in relation to man and woman interesting and noteworthy.

I THERE IS BETWEEN THEM A SUBORDINATION IN NATURAL RELATIONSHIP. "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." The principle of subordination, it would seem, prevails throughout the spiritual universe; one rising above another in regular gradation up to God himself. God is over Christ, Christ is over man, man is over woman. "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." The ideal women and the ideal men are here, I presume, meant. It is because the man is supposed to have more brain and soul than the woman that he is the master; but in cases and they are not few where the woman is the greater, the greater in intellect, heart, and all moral nobleness, she, without her intention or even wish, will necessarily be the head. In the Marriage Service, the woman at the altar is called upon solemnly to vow to obey her husband. I confess I have often been struck at the incongruity of this, when I have seen a little-chested, small-brained man standing by the side of a woman with a majestic brow and a grand physique, when she is called upon to vow obedience to such a man.

II THERE IS BETWEEN THEM AN INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION IN RELIGIOUS SERVICES. "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," etc. It is here implied that both the man and the woman are to prophesy, teach, and pray; not one instead of the other, but each independently. However closely related the man and the wife may be, however dependent one is on the other, neither can perform the spiritual and religious obligations of the other. There is no sharing of duty here, no shifting of personal obligation; each must stand alone before God.

III THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IN OUTWARD ASPECT. There are two points here concerning the difference.

1. A difference in the way in which they are to appear in public. The man is to appear with an uncovered head, the woman with a covered head. "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. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head." The woman"s head is to be covered with her hair or a veil, or both. Who shall divine the meaning of the tenth verse? this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." To me this is utterly incomprehensible. Probably there were at Corinth women who shaved off their hair in order to obliterate the distinction of sex: shameless women.

2. This difference is adventitious rather than natural. Is there any reason in nature why a man"s head should be uncovered and a woman"s covered; why one should wear long hair and the other short? No such thing seems reasonable; the uncivilized tribes know nothing of it. The reason can only be traced to custom. And is not custom second nature? "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" But original nature does not seem to teach us that, but custom and conventional propriety. Hence Paul says, "If any may seem to be contentious, we have no such custom;" by which he means, I understand, that, whoever may contend to the contrary, such a custom as that woman should pray and preach with uncovered heads was not known by Paul in other Churches, and that the Church at Corinth should not allow it.

The hierarchy.

Before entering upon particular counsels with regard to the attire of the two sexes respectively in the Christian assemblies, St. Paul lays down a great general principle, from which, rather than from custom or from experience, he deduces the special duties devolving upon the members of Christ"s Church. The case upon which he was consulted, and upon which he gave his advice, has lost all practical interest, and is to us merely an antiquarian curiosity; but the great principle propounded in connection with it holds good for all time.

I THE APPOINTED SUBORDINATION OF WOMAN TO MAN. There is a sense in which there is equality between the sexes. In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. The gospel is intended for and is offered to both men and women. Both are equally dear to him who died for all. As in Jesus" earthly ministry he wrought cures and expelled demons for the relief of women, and as he chose certain women as his personal friends, and as he willingly accepted the affectionate and generous ministration of other women; so in the dispensation of the Spirit he numbers women amongst his people, and honours them by promoting them to his service. There is, so to speak, spiritual equality. But domestic and social equality is quite another thing. In the household and in the congregation there must be subjection and submission. "Order is Heaven"s first law." "The head of the woman is the man." And this notwithstanding that many men are base and unworthy of their position and calling; notwithstanding that many women are not only pure, but noble and well fitted for command.

II THE ARCHETYPE IN SPIRITUAL AND HEAVENLY RELATIONS TO WHICH THIS ORDER CONFORMS.

1. Man is not supreme, though invested with a limited authority. "The head of every man is Christ." He, the Son of man, has the primacy over this humanity. In wisdom and in righteousness, in power and in grace, the Lord Jesus is superior and supreme. The law is revealed in him and administered by him. Every man is morally bound to subjection and submission to the Divine Man. And he is Head over all things to his Church. This is the truth, the ideal, the purpose of eternal wisdom; though, alas! often misunderstood, or forgotten, or denied by men.

2. Even in the Godhead there is an official subordination of the Son to the Father; "the head of Christ is God." This language takes us into the region of heavenly things, of Divine mysteries. But it reveals to us the fact that the universe is one great hierarchy, of which not every member is mentioned here, only certain leading dominant notes being successively sounded in the celestial scale. Men may suppose that order and subordination in human society, civil and ecclesiastical, are merely expedients for peace and quietness. But it is not so; there is Divine archetype to which human relationships and affairs conform. Let there be nonconformity to this, and there is discord breaking in upon the harmonious minstrelsy of the spiritual universe. Let there be conformity, and the sweet concert proves that earth is in tune with heaven. T.

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE Ver. 3.

The headship of Christ.

head of every man is Christ." It may be of the man as distinct from the woman that the apostle here speaks, but the truth asserted is one in which all human beings, without regard to sexual or any other distinctions, are alike interested. The relation in which we each and all stand to Christ, or rather in which Christ stands to us, is one that surmounts and absorbs into itself every other relationship. As the vault of heaven surrounds the world, and the atmosphere in which it floats envelops everything that lives and moves and has its being in it; so does the authority of Christ embrace all that belongs to the existence of every one of us, and from it we can never escape. The supremacy here indicated has certain distinct phases.

I EVERY MAN SEES HIS OWN HUMAN NATURE PERFECTED IN CHRIST. Manhood is perfectly represented in him. He is the Crown and Flower of our humanity; its realized ideal, the Man the complete, consummate, faultless man Jesus." Not a development from the old stock, but anew beginning, the Head of the "new creation." The ideal of humanity, defaced and destroyed by the Fall, was restored again in the Incarnation. "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven". (1Co_15:47) Adam was formed in the image of God a sinless, symmetrical, perfect man. But he lost the glory of his first estate, and became the father of a degenerate humanity that could never of itself rise again to the original level, however long the stream of its succeeding generations might roll on. Christ, the God Man, in the fulness of time, appears true, perfect manhood linked in mysterious union with Deity, the "Firstborn among many brethren;" "Partaker with the children of flesh and blood," that he may "lead many sons to glory." We must look to him, then, if we would know what the possibilities of our nature are, what we ourselves may and ought to be. It is curious to note how different, as regards physical form and feature, are the artistic conceptions one meets with of the person of Jesus; what various degrees of serene majesty and tender sorrow they express. Some of them, perhaps, exaggerate the element of tenderness at the expense of that of power. They none of them, it may be, answer to our own ideal. And we conclude that it is vain to think of representing upon canvas the mingled splendours the heavenly lights and earthly shadows of that wondrous face in which

The God shone gracious through the Man.

But we are scarcely in danger of error in any honest and intelligent moral conception of Christ. The glorious Original appears too plainly and luminously before us. "Behold the Man! the consummate type of all human excellence. Do we really admire and adore him? Do we admire everything that we see in him; every separate lineament and expression of his countenance? Would we have all men, specially those with whom we have most to do, to be like him? Is it our desire to be ourselves fashioned at every point exactly after such a Model? This is involved in a true recognition of the headship of Christ over ourselves and every man.

II THE SPRING OF THE HIGHER LIFE FOR EVERY MAN IS CHRIST. However we may deal with the subtle questions suggested here respecting the original constitution and prerogatives of man"s nature, one thing is plain that nature now has no self recovering power of life in it. It has in it rather the seeds of decay and death. "In Adam all die." The second Adam, the Lord from heaven, is a "quickening Spirit." In him the power of death is overmastered. Through him God pours into our being the stream of a new and nobler life, a life in which every part of it, both physical and spiritual, shall have its share. (Joh_5:21 Joh_6:47-50 Joh_11:25, 1Jn_5:11, 1Jn_5:12) The Fountainhead of a blessed, glorious immortality forevery man is he. Looking abroad over a languishing, dying world, he says, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." And there is not a human being on the face of the whole earth who is not personally interested in this Divine revelation of the Life eternal.

III THE SUPREME LAW FOR, EVERY MAN IS CHRIST. We are all necessarily under law. It is not a question as between law and no law that has to be decided. The question is What shall be the law that we voluntarily recognize? What shall be the nature of the governing force to which we yield ourselves? Shall it be true, righteous, beneficent, Divine? or shall it be false, usurping, fatal, Satanic? There is no middle course. God would have us make our own free, unfettered choice. Our whole daily life is actually a choice of servitude, and it is emphatically our own. The true servitude is the service of Christ. All holy law is summed up in his authority. He is the proper, rightful Lord of every human soul. He demands the unreserved allegiance of every man. His claims are sovereign, absolute, universal. They admit of no qualification, and from them there is no escape. As well think by the caprice of your own will to render your body superior to the laws of matter, to defeat the force of gravitation, to escape from your own shadow, as think to shake off the obligation of obedience to Christ when once you have heard his voice, and he has laid his royal hand upon you.

IV THE REST AND HOME OF EVERY MAN"S SOUL IS IN CHRIST.

Oh, where shall rest be found, Rest for the weary soul?

We scheme and toil to surround ourselves with earthly satisfactions, but the secret of a happy home on earth is that the spirit shall have found its true place of safety and repose. And Christ only can lead us to this. O blessed Lord Jesus, thou Friend and Brother and Saviour of every man, bring us into living fellowship with thyself!

Here would we end our quest; Alone are found in thee The life of perfect love, the rest Of immortality.

W.

Vers. 23-26.

The Lord"s Supper.

St. Paul had not been an eyewitness of the sacred incident that he here relates. Nor had he gained his knowledge of it by the report of others. He had "received it of the Lord." At what time and in what way this took place we know not, We may, perhaps, best attribute it to that remarkable transition period immediately after his conversion, the "three years" that he spent in Arabia and Damascus before he went up to Jerusalem and began his apostolic ministry. (Gal_1:17, Gal_1:18) We can well believe that it was during that time of lonely, silent contemplation that the grand verities of the gospel message were divinely unveiled to him; and this may have been among the things that he then "received of the Lord." The simplicity of the way in which he describes the institution of this sacred rite is in perfect harmony with the simplicity of the gospel record. One can only wonder how it can have been possible for such an incident to be turned, as it has been, into a weapon of sacerdotal pretence and spiritual oppression. The too prevalent neglect of the observance has, no doubt, to a great extent been the natural and inevitable result of this abuse. The false or exaggerated use of anything always provokes to the opposite extreme. We may urge its claims on the Christian conscience and heart by looking at it in three different aspects as a memorial, as a symbol, and as a means of spiritual edification.

I A MEMORIAL. "This do in remembrance of me." "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord"s death till he come." Christ"s own words set it forth as an act of personal remembrance, Paul"s as a time long witness to the great sacrifice. Taking the two together, it appears as a memorial of "Christ and him crucified of himself in all the truth and meaning of his earthly manifestation, of his death as the issue in which the fulness of that meaning was gathered up and consummated. We may regard this memorial in its relation both to those who observe it and to those who observe it not; as a method of keeping the fact of Christ"s self surrender vividly before the minds of those who believe in him and love him, and as a testimony that appeals with silent eloquence to a thoughtless, careless world. In this respect it resembles other Scripture memorials. (Gen_22:14 Gen_28:18, Gen_28:19; Exo_12:24-27; Jos_4:20-24; 1Sa_7:12) And when we think how easily things the most important fade away from our memories while trifles linger there, and sacred impressions are obliterated by meaner influences, we may well recognize with devout thankfulness the wisdom and love which ordained such a mode of perpetuating the remembrance of the most momentous of all events in human history, while, in spite of all its perversions, the simple fact of the continuance of such a sacred usage of the Church is a proof that it rests on a Divine foundation.

II A SYMBOL. It represents visibly that which in the nature of things is invisible. Not merely is bread a fitting emblem of the Saviour"s body and wine of his blood, and the breaking of the one and the pouring out of the other of the manner of his death; but the service itself symbolizes the personal union of the soul with him, the method alike of its origin and its support. It bears witness, as in a figure, to the deeper reality of the life of faith. It sets forth, in the form of a significant deed, what our Lord set forth in the form of metaphoric words when he said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," etc.. (Joh_6:53-58) And in both cases "it is the Spirit which quickeneth." Mysticism has thrown its false halo, its bewitching glamour, around these Divine words; and the sacred ordinance that would otherwise have made its simple appeal to the insight of the Christian understanding and the tenderness of the Christian heart has become mere food for superstition. But there is no Scripture warrant whatever for this. From the gross materialism of the Romish "Mass" to the subtler refinement of thought that regards the Lord"s spiritual presence as being in some mystic sense inherent in the bread and wine, speaking of the sacrament being "administered," as though it had some occult virtue in it, a kind of spiritual medicament conferred by priestly hands, and "taken" by the faithful for their souls" healing, all these shades of opinion alike substitute a physical mystery for a spiritual truth, and engender a superstitious faith that fixes its attention on the material emblems and something that is supposed to be true of them; rather than the intelligent faith that discerns the unseen Saviour through them, very much as we look through our window upon the golden glory of the setting sun without thinking of the transparent medium through which we behold it (see "Christ the Bread of Life," J. McLeod Campbell, p. 21, et seq. ).

III A MEANS OF SPIRITUAL EDIFICATION. Here lies the Divine reason of the memorial and the symbol. It is more than a "transparent medium" through which the soul may gaze upon the crucified Christ; it is a channel of spiritual influence by means of which the soul"s fellowship with him may be deepened and strengthened. It accomplishes this end, not by any magic power that it may wield over us, but by virtue simply of the influence it is naturally fitted to exert on mind and conscience and heart, and by the grace of that good Spirit whose office it is to testify of Christ. We may be fully alive to the dangers that lurk in the use of all symbolic religious rites, the danger especially of attributing to the sign an efficacy that lies only in that which is signified. And we may see in this the reason why the rites of Christianity are so few. But what Christian heart can be insensible to the high spiritual value of an observance such as this? Moreover, the obligation is plain. "Do this," says our dying Lord, "in remembrance of me." May not such an appeal be expected to draw forth a ready response from any soul that has ever "tasted that he is gracious"? Its being the behest of love rather than the stern requirement of law, makes it doubly imperative, while the simplicity of the deed it enjoins makes it doubly efficacious as a bond of affection and a vehicle of moral power. We all know what a charm there is in even the most trivial memento of those whom we have loved and lost, especially if it be some object with which the personal memory is most closely associated by familiar daily use, some little thing that tender hands we can no longer grasp and a loving voice that is now forever still have bequeathed to us. With what a glow of grateful affection will the sight of it sometimes suffuse our hearts! How near does it bring the departed to us again! How closely does it draw us into sympathy and fellowship with their personal life! And shall not this be expected to be pre-eminently true of these simple memorials of our loving, suffering, dying Lord? The realization of this, however, must always depend on something in ourselves. The influence we receive from the outward observance will depend on what we are prepared to receive, i.e. on what we bring to it in the conditions of our own inward thought and feeling. It will never of itself create right feeling. Come to it with a worldly spirit, with a divided heart cold, careless, carnal, frivolous, prayerless, or in any way out of harmony with the Divine realities it represents and you can expect to find no uplifting and inspiring power in it. You are not likely to "discern the Lord"s body." Christ is never further from us than when we desecrate sacred scenes and services by our discordant mental and moral conditions. But come with your soul yearning after him, and he will unveil to you his glory and fill you with the joy of his love. "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. W.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

woman

Cf. Gen 3:16. The woman’s veil, or head-covering, is a symbol of this subordination.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The woman’s veil:

v. 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.

v. 4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

v. 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

v. 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.

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. Woman, in her relation to her husband, if she is a wife, or with regard to her activity in public worship, has her support, her destiny, and her dignity in man. And that this status is by no means derogatory to her intellect, ability, or moral character is shown by the fact that, in the parallel clause, God is called the Head of the exalted Christ. In this case there is absolute essential equality, and yet Christ’s perfect obedience to the Father consents to a submission in office. See chap. 15:28; Gal 4:4; Heb 5:5-8.

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; 1Ti 2:12, they were not excluded from the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, Joe 2:28-29; Act 2:17-18; Act 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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here our apostle answers the query, and resolves the case which the Corinthians had put to him, and laid before him, about church-order, and concerning the decent behaviour of men and women in church- assemblies.

And first he reminds them, that a subordination of persons in the church of God ought to be observed and kept: that as Christ, as Mediator, is inferior to God the Father, but is the head and lord of all men, as Creator and Redeemer; so the man is the head of the woman, and as such she must show her subjection unto the man. As Christ, as Mediator, acts in subordination to the Father, so must the woman act in subordination to the man.

The Socinians would wrest this text to confirm them in their blasphemous denial of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Here, say they, the apostle declares that the head of Christ is God. Now the most high God can have no head above him; therefore Christ, who hath an head above him, cannot be the most high God."

The modern and general answer is, that God is here called the head of Christ as Mediator, in which relation he received his kingdom from him, and exercises it for him; and therefore is elsewhere styled the Father’s servant, Behold my servant, &c. because he doth all things according to his Father’s will, and with a fixed eye to his Father’s glory.

But the ancients reply to this objection thus: "That God is said to be the head of Christ, as he is the Father of the Son, and so the cause of him; and as the woman is of the same nature with the man, who is her head, so is Christ of the same nature with God the Father, who is here called his head: The head of Christ is God."

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 . [Paul settles the humblest difficulties by appealing to the loftiest principles: thus he makes the headship of Christ over man the basis, or principle, on which he decides that the man has headship over the woman, and as we shall see further on, he makes the headship of the man over the woman the principle by which he determines the question as to whether men should worship with uncovered, and women with covered heads; for the uncovered head was the symbol of royalty and dominion, and the covered head of subjection and submission. The order in which he states the several headships is peculiar. We would expect him to begin with God and descend by the regular steps, thus: God, Christ, man, woman. But the order is thus: Christ, man; man, woman; God, Christ. Subtle distinctions are to be made with caution, but it is not improbable that Paul's order in this case is determined by the delicate nature of the subject which he handles. Dominion is fruitful of tyranny, and so it is well, before giving man dominion, to remind him that he also is a servant ( Mat_18:21-35 ; Mat_5:7 ). Again, the arrangement makes the headship of the man over the woman parallel to the headship of God over Christ, and suggests that there should be between husband and wife a unity of will and purpose similar to that which exists between the Father and the Son. The unquestioned, immediate and absolute submission and concurrence of the Son leave no room for the exercise of authority on the part of the Father, and the infinite and unsearchable wisdom, love, benevolence and good-will on the part of the Father take from the Son every occasion of unwillingness or even hesitation. All Christian husbands and wives should mutually remember this parallel. Jesus the Incarnate, the Son of man and the Son of God, is subject to the Father, by reason of his humanity and his mediatorial kingdom ( 1Co_3:23 ; 1Co_15:24-28 ; Joh_14:28 ). As to the subjection of the Logos or the eternal Word to the Father we are not informed--comp. Phi_2:6 ]

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.

3–8. For I would have you to know, etc. The order of rank is that Christ is the center, with the Father above and man below him; and in the family the man is first and the woman second. That is nature's order.

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.

3. θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι. According to St Paul’s invariable rule, the question is argued and settled upon the first principles of the Christian Revelation. ‘Order is heaven’s first law.’ And no assembly of Christians is rightly constituted where this principle is put out of sight.

κεφαλή. ‘In the idea of this word dominion is especially expressed. As in the human organization the exercise of dominion over all the members proceeds from the head; so in the family, from man; in the Church, from Christ; in the universe, from God.’ Olshausen.

ὁ Χριστός. See Eph 1:22; Eph 4:15; Eph 5:21-33; Col 1:18; Col 2:19. As the head directs the body, so ought every member of Christ’s Body to be governed and directed by Christ.

κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ. Cf. Eph 5:23. ‘It appears that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for themselves equality with the male sex, to which the doctrine of Christian freedom and the removal of the distinction of sex in Christ (Gal 3:28) gave occasion. Christianity had indisputably done much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionic Greeks (it was otherwise among the Dorians and the Romans) were in a position of unworthy dependence. But this was done in a quiet, not an over-hasty manner. In Corinth, on the contrary, they had apparently taken up the matter in a fashion somewhat too animated. The women overstepped due bounds by coming forward to pray and prophesy in the assemblies with uncovered head.’ De Wette. Such persons are here reminded that according to God’s word (Gen 3:16; 1Ti 2:12-13) woman was designed to be in subjection, both in society and in the family. Of this last, woman’s chief sphere, man was, by God’s ordinance, the head. Yet (see below, 1Co 11:5) she is on an equality with man in her individual relation to Christ.

κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός. The whole universe is one system of orderly gradation from God downwards. Even Christ is no exception to the rule. The Eternal Son derives His Being from the Eternal Father, and in His equality still does not reject subordination. Cf. Joh 14:28, also ch. 1Co 3:23, and 1Co 15:27-28. The Apostle proceeds to shew that nature and revelation alike proclaim the principle, which should therefore find expression in the assemblies of the Christian Church.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3.] “It appears, that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for their sex an equality with the other, taking occasion by the doctrine of Christian freedom and abolition of sexual distinctions in Christ (Gal 3:28). The gospel unquestionably did much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionian Greeks (not among the Dorians and the Romans) were kept in unworthy dependence. Still this was effected in a quiet and gradual manner; whereas in Corinth they seem to have taken up the cause of female independence somewhat too eagerly. The women over-stepped the bounds of their sex, in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved,—as well their coming forward to pray and to prophesy, as their removing the veil: here however he blames the latter practice only, and reserves the former till ch. 14:34. In order to confine the women to their true limits, he reminds them of their subjection to the man, to whom again he assigns his place in the spiritual order of creation, and traces this precedence up to God Himself.” De Wette.

παντὸς ἀνδρός] ‘of every Christian man’ (as Chrys., al., Meyer, De W.), certainly,—and for such the Apostle was writing: but not only of every Christian man: the Headship of Christ is over all things to His Church, Eph 1:22, and thus He is Head of every man. The word κεφαλή in each case means the head next above. This must be borne in mind, for Christ is the Head of the Christian woman, as well as of the Christian man. God is the Head of Christ, not only according to His human Nature: the Son is, in his Sonship, necessarily subordinate to the Father: see ch. 3:23, note, and ch. 15:28. From χριστός, the order descends first: then, in order to complete the whole, ascends up to God.

Observe that though (Gal 3:28) the distinction of the sexes is abolished in Christ, as far as the offer of and standing in grace is concerned, yet for practical purposes, and for order and seemliness, it subsists and must be observed.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι. ‘But I would have you know’ something not previously mentioned, but of more importance than they supposed, because of the principles involved. In Col 2:1 we have the same formula, but more often οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (10:1, 12:1; 2Co 1:8; Rom 1:13, Rom 11:25), which is always accompanied by the affectionate address, ἀδελφοι. He feels bound to insist upon the point in question, and perhaps would hint that the Corinthians do not know everything.

παντὸς ἀνδρός. ‘Of every man Christ is the head’: παντός is emphatic, every male of the human family. He says ἀνδρός rather than ἀνθρώπου (15:45) to mark the constrast with γυνή, and he takes the middle relationship first; ‘man to Christ’ comes between ‘woman to man’ and ‘Christ to God.’ By κεφαλή is meant supremacy, and in each clause it is the predicate; ‘Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ’: 3:23; Eph 1:22, Eph 4:15, Eph 5:23, comp. Jdg 11:11; 2Sa 22:44. God is supreme in reference to the Messiah as having sent Him. This was a favourite Arian text; it is in harmony with 15:24-28, and, like that passage, it implies more than the inferiority of Christ’s human nature; Joh 6:57. See Ellicott, 1 Corinthians, pp. 64, 65; H. St J. Thackeray, St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 49; Godet, ad loc.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 3. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is the Christ; and the man is [the] head of the woman; and God [the] head of the Christ.”

The δέ is adversative: but; Paul proceeds to a point to which the eulogy he has just passed does not apply.

One is tempted to ask, as he reads the following sentences, why the apostle thinks it necessary to take things on so high a level, and to connect what is apparently so secondary a matter with relations so exalted as those of man with Christ, and of Christ with God. To explain his method, we must bear in mind the pride of the Corinthians, who thought they knew everything, and whom the apostle wishes, no doubt, to teach that they have yet something to learn: “I would have you know.” It is likely enough, from 1Co 11:16, that the ultra-liberals of Corinth spoke with a certain disdain of the ecclesiastical prescriptions left by the apostle, and that in the name of the Spirit some claimed to throw his rules overboard. Paul would give them to understand that everything hangs together in one, both in good and in evil; that unfaithfulness to the Divine order, even in things most external, may involve an assault on the most sublime relations, and that the pious keeping up of proprieties, even in these things, is an element of Christian holiness. Hence he begins with placing this special point in the life of the Church under the light of the two holiest analogies that can be conceived, and in which he shows the revelation of a Divine order. Those who criticise him presumptuously will thus be able to understand whence he derives the rules which he lays down in the Church.

There exist three relations, which together form a sort of hierarchy: lowest in the scale, the purely human relation between man and woman; higher, the Divine-human relation between Christ and man; highest in the scale, the purely Divine relation between God and Christ. The common term whereby Paul characterizes these three relations is κεφαλή (hence our word chief), head. This figurative term includes two ideas: community of life, and inequality within this community. So between the man and the woman: by the bond of marriage there is formed between them the bond of a common life, but in such a way that the one is the strong and directing element, the other the receptive and dependent element. The same is the case in the relation between Christ and the man. Formed by the bond of faith, it also establishes a community of life, in which there are distinguished an active and directing principle, and a receptive and directed factor. An analogous relation appears higher still in the mystery of the Divine essence. By the bond of filiation, there is between Christ and God communiön of Divine life, but such that impulse proceeds from the Father, and that “the Son does nothing but what he sees the Father do” (Joh 5:19).

The relation between Christ and the man is put first. It is, so to speak, the link of union between the other two, reflecting the sublimity of the one and marking the other with a sacred character, which should secure it from the violence with which it is threatened. The only question is whether, as has been thought by Hofmann, Holsten, etc., the point in question is the natural relation between Christ and man, due to the dignity of the pre-existing Christ as creator (Hofmann), or as the heavenly Man, the prototype of earthly humanity (Holsten),—or whether, as is held by Meyer, Heinrici, etc., Paul means to describe the relation between Christ and men by redemption. The expression: every man, seems to speak in favour of the first sense; and the passages 1Co 8:6 and 1Co 10:4 might serve to confirm this meaning. Christ as having been the organ of creation, is the head of every man created in His image, believing or unbelieving. But 1Co 11:4-5 seem to me to prove that Paul is thinking not of man in general, but of the Christian husband. “Every man..., every woman who prays, who prophesies...,” this can only apply to believers. It is from 1Co 11:7 that Paul passes from the spiritual order to the domain of creation in general. What is true in the first sense, is that every man is ordained to believe in Christ and to take Him for his head, that is to say, to become a Christian husband.

The article ἡ is to be remarked with κεφαλή in the first proposition (it is wanting in the other two). This arises, no doubt, from the fact that the man may have many other heads than Christ; the article serves to point out Christ as the only normal head. In the other two relations, this was understood of itself.

This relation belonging to the kingdom of God has for its counterpart in the family the relation between husband and wife. Paul is here thinking chiefly of the natural and social relation, in virtue of which the husband directs and the wife is in a position of subordination. But this natural relation is not abolished by the life of faith; on the contrary, it takes hold of it and sanctifies it. Must we conclude, from the term used by Paul, that the Christian wife has not also Christ for her head, in respect of her eternal personality? By no means; salvation in Christ is the same for the wife as for the husband, and the bond by which she is united to Christ does not differ from that which unites the man to the Lord. The saying: “Ye are branches, I am the vine,” applies to the one sex as much as to the other. But from the standpoint of the earthly manifestation and of social position, the woman, even under the gospel economy, preserves her subordinate position. There will come a day when the distinction between the sexes will cease (Luk 20:34-36). But that day does not belong to the terrestrial form of the kingdom of God. As long as the present physical constitution of humanity lasts, the subordinate position of the woman will remain, even in the Christian woman. As the child realizes its communion with the Lord in the form of filial obedience to its parents, the Christian mother realizes her communion with the Lord in the form of subordination to her husband, without her communion being thereby less direct and close than his. The husband is not between her and the Lord; she is subject to him in the Lord; it is in Him that she loves him, and it is by aiding him that she lives for the Lord. If from the social standpoint she is his wife, from the standpoint of redemption she is his sister. Thus are harmonized these two sayings proceeding from the same pen: “In Christ there is neither male nor female,” and: “The husband is the head of the wife.”

These two relations, that of Christ to the man, and that of the man to his wife, rest on a law which flows from the nature of God Himself. In the oneness of the Divine essence there are found these two poles, the one directive, the other dependent: God and Christ. Paul evidently desires to rise to the highest point, above which we can conceive nothing. Some, like Heinrici, Edwards, etc., think that this expression: the head of Christ, can only apply to the Christ incarnate. But if the relation were thus understood, one of the two essential features would be wanting, indicated by the term head, and which characterize the two preceding relations: community of life and nature. We cannot, therefore, confine this saying to the Lord’s human nature, and we think there is no ground for shrinking from the notion of subordination applied to the Divine being of Christ; see on 1Co 3:23. This idea of the subordination of Christ, conceived as a pre-existent being (1Co 8:6, 1Co 10:4), springs out of the terms Son and Word, by which He is designated, as well as from the very passages where the divinity of Christ is most clearly affirmed (Col 1:15; Heb 1:2-3; Joh 1:1; Joh 1:18; Rev 1:1). Holsten thinks that he escapes all difficulty by bringing in here the idea of Christ as the heavenly Man, according to the discovery made by Baur by means of the passage 1Co 15:45 seq. It is very certain that had it not been found in that passage, nobody would have extracted it from the one we are explaining. For the examination of this conception ascribed to Paul, we shall therefore refer to the passage quoted.

Thus, then, in the apostle’s view, the relation between husband and wife in marriage is a reflection of that which unites Christ and the believer, as this again reproduces the still more sublime relation which exists between God and His manifestation in the person of Christ. Paul certainly could not say more in the Epistle to the Ephesians to express a higher notion of marriage than these words. M. Sabatier, expounding the idea of marriage in the Epistle to the Ephesians, says: “Husband and wife form an indissoluble organic unity.” Exactly; but can this “indissoluble unity” be more forcibly expressed than by comparing it, as Paul does in our passage, to the unity of Christ with the believer and of God with Christ? M. Sabatier adds, still expounding the contents of Ephesians: “The one does not reach the fulness of existence without the other.” Certainly; but is not this exactly what Paul teaches here in 1Co 11:11-12 : “The man is not without the woman in the Lord, nor the woman without the man.” And on such grounds a progress is alleged as having taken place in Paul’s ideas on marriage, in the interval between the Epistle to the Corinthians and that to the Ephesians!

After recognising, as a principle which controls all community of life, Divine and human, that duality of factors, the one active, the other receptive, which forms the basis of marriage, the apostle passes by an asyndeton to the application which he wishes to make of it to the case in question at Corinth.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.