The Order of Creation and Common Sense on the Covering of the Head (1 Corinthians 11:7–16)

1 Cor. 11:7–8. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

“This is now the second reason” (Holy Chrysostom). The Apostle proceeds to explain the submission of the woman to the man according to the order of creation. Man was created first, and created in the image and likeness of God: he is the reflection of God’s glory. The woman was then taken from man, as if created according to his image already, and is therefore the image of an image, or is the reflection of the man’s glory. Therefore he adds as proof of this: “for man was not made from woman, but woman from man”.

Theodoret, limiting the image of God to the dominion over creatures given to man, says in keeping with the flow of discourse: “Man is the image of God by virtue of authority. Since authority over all that is on earth is entrusted to him, he is called the image of God. But the woman, being under the authority of the man, ‘is the glory of the man’, and as it were the image of the image. For though she too has authority over others, she is commanded to be in submission to the man.”

From this, Holy Chrysostom draws the following: “The man ought not be covered not only because he has Christ as his head, but also because he has authority over the woman (according to the order of creation). When one who has authority approaches the king, he must have on him the signs of his authority. Therefore, just as no one with authority would dare to appear before one crowned with a diadem without a belt and clothing fitting his rank, neither do you pray to God without the signs of your authority—that is, with uncovered head—lest you bring dishonor both to yourself and to the one who honored you. The same thing must be said of the woman: it is likewise dishonorable for her not to have the signs of her submission.”

1 Cor. 11:9. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

Man was created first, and thus shows a certain independent significance. The woman was created according to man’s need to be in society with one like himself, and was created to be a helper to the man. By this is expressed her dependent and subordinate position. “Thus the man has precedence according to the order of creation. And this is sufficient to prove that to the man belongs authority and the right to rule, because he was not brought into being for the woman’s sake, but she for the man’s sake” (Theodoret). “This is the second advantage, or rather the third and fourth. The first is that our head is Christ, and we are the head of woman; the second is that we are the glory of God, and our glory is woman; the third is that we are not from woman but woman from us; the fourth is that we are not for her but she is for us” (Holy Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 11:10. For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head, because of the angels.

“Why then? Because of all the reasons shown, and furthermore ‘because of the angels’. If you, he says, do not heed the man, then be ashamed before the angels” (Holy Chrysostom). “To have authority over her head”—that is, the sign of the man’s authority over her—is the head covering. “The Apostle called the veil ‘authority’, as if to say: let her show her submission by covering herself, and especially because of the angels, who are set over men, because to them is entrusted care for them. So also in Acts it is said of Peter (who knocked at the door): not he himself, but ‘his angel’ (Acts 12:15). And the Lord says: ‘see that you do not despise one of these little ones’, who believe in Me; ‘for I say to you, their angels always see the face of My heavenly Father’ (Matt. 18:10)”.

Some interpret “because of the angels” as referring to men—that is, to the leaders of the Church, or the more honorable of the Christians present in the Church. But there is no need to depart from the usual meaning of the word “angels.” What then is the thought: “because of the angels”? Being ashamed before them, or fearing to offend them. The very thought of the invisible presence of angels ought to restrain one and keep one in one’s proper place. For the angels themselves, the covering or uncovering of the head is equally indifferent; but the manner and spirit with which it is done can either comfort them or offend them; and this especially if the evil is not limited to one person openly bearing an uncovered head, but spreads around her. Sometimes the enemy through one person brings harm to hundreds.

“Thus, covering is a sign of obedience and submission; it prompts one to look down, to humble oneself and keep virtue, for the virtue and honor of the one who is subject consist in remaining in obedience. The man is not prescribed to do this, for he is the image of the Lord Himself; but the woman is rightly prescribed to do so” (Holy Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 11:11–12. Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. But all things are from God.

The argument is concluded. But as it seems to magnify the husband’s authority too much, which could give husbands occasion not only to take pride in themselves, but also to display excessive dominance and hunger for power, the Apostle, to prevent this, says that the husband also is in a certain dependence upon the wife, and therefore ought to show his superiority over her with moderation: not everything is on the husband’s side, but there is something also on the wife’s side. This the Apostle expresses in the words: “neither is the man without the woman,” and “the man [comes] through the woman.” But what precisely is indicated by this is difficult to determine.

The first proposition: “neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.” By the phrase “in the Lord” it is shown that here we are speaking of man and woman as they exist in Christ Jesus. “In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.” To both equally the path to the Lord is open, and both are equally received. From this it follows: Do not be divided, and do not present yourselves divided before the Lord; but as the Lord has joined you together, so draw near to Him united. Neither does the man stand before the Lord as if he had no wife, nor the woman as if she had no husband. But neither man without woman nor woman without man ever be in the Lord. Placing this thought in correspondence with the first reason for the wife’s submission to the husband, according to the order of the economy [of salvation], we can say that just as the equality of husband and wife in the Lord does not annul her submission to him, so also the law of her submission to him does not annul their equality in the Lord. And this last point, it seems, holy Paul intended to set forth here.

The second proposition: “For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman” transfers the thought to man and woman as they exist in the order of creation. First the woman was taken from (εξ) the man; then the man came to be born through the woman (δια). By this is said, as it were: the woman has relation to the man from whom she was taken; and do you likewise look upon the nature of her who gave you birth in the woman, and treat her with respect.

“All things are of God.” “All things” – all such relations of yours, or “all things” – both of you – are from God. God has created both of you, and has arranged all things concerning you thus, and keep these ordinances of God, whether they be according to nature or according to grace. Saint Chrysostom says: “Do not look,” he says, “only to the original privileges and the creation, but attend to what follows, and you will see that each of them depends on the other, or rather, not on each other, but all on God.”

q) For a Woman to Cover Her Head – a Requirement of Sound Judgment (1 Cor. 11:13–16)

1 Cor. 11:13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered?

At last the Apostle appeals to natural feeling or judgment. Again he leaves it to them to judge the matter themselves, just as he did in the discussion about food offered to idols. And he intimates something fearful: “Here,” he says, “the affront touches God; but he does not say this directly; rather he expresses himself more gently and covertly: ‘Is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered?’” (Saint Chrysostom). He directs his discourse to the woman alone, by which he shows that all the foregoing was spoken chiefly for her instruction, though his word concerned the man as well.

1 Cor. 11:14–15. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.

“If a woman counts it an honor to have hair, but considers its removal a disgrace, let her consider how she dishonors Him who gave her the hair, when she approaches Him in prayer without proper modesty and honor” (Theodoret). “As in many other places he always uses well-known proofs, so here also he appeals to a well-known custom and powerfully shames those who receive instruction from him, in that they could have known this from ordinary custom, for it is not unknown even to the barbarians” (Saint Chrysostom).

But the discussion is about covering the head with coverings, while the custom cited speaks of growing one’s hair. What is the connection? The Apostle indicated this connection earlier, when he said that for a woman to be without a covering is the same as being shorn. Now he expresses the same thing from the opposite side: for a woman to be without a covering is the same as being shorn, and with a covering it is the same as growing long hair. As growing long hair is glory to a woman, so covering the head is glory. “But you may say: if the growing ‘of hair is given instead of a covering’ to a woman, why add one garment to another? In order to show submission not only by nature but by choice. Nature has already established that you should be covered, and you add something of yourself, lest it appear that you are violating the laws of nature; for to resist not only us, but nature itself, is a sign of great shamelessness” (Saint Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 11:16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

“Since he was writing to those eager to philosophize, who had the custom of defending their thoughts by syllogisms and refuting those of others, he says to them: this is not the time to argue. Whoever shall shamefully rise up against what has been said, we and the churches of God do not have such a practice. What practice? Arguing; but we gladly submit to the directives of the teachers, in no way contradicting them” (Oecumenius). “We,” he says, “do not have such a practice that we argue, contend, and contradict. Not stopping at this, he adds: ‘nor do the churches of God,’ suggesting that in disobeying they make war against and resist the whole world. Therefore, resistance is a sign of obstinacy, not of sound judgment” (Saint Chrysostom).

Or the Apostle’s discourse proceeds thus: I have argued, persuaded, explained that women in the church ought to have their heads covered; for the attentive and sensible this is sufficient. But if someone raises an objection and invents arguments against it, to such a one I say: there is no point in arguing; the matter is settled; we and all the churches of God do not have such a practice, that is, the practice of women appearing in the church with uncovered heads. Leave off your objections and submit to the common voice. Saint Chrysostom concludes his word on this: “If then the Corinthians contradicted this law, but now the whole world has received and keeps it. Such is the power of the Crucified One!” This second interpretation is adopted by Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Theodoret. The latter writes: “These words are sufficient to shame even the most contentious,” for the Apostle showed that such an opinion is not his alone, but that of all the churches of God.