Nakrycie głowy kobiet

Linki

russian-faith evangelicalfocus orthodoxethos bialystok.tradycjakatolicka zborybozea jw.org

Several introductory matters need to be noted about this passage. The grammatical/structural signals seem to demand this three-part division. In each instance the situations of the man and woman are distinguished from each other by sets of contrasts, especially so in the final two by the specific grammatical signal “on the one hand/on the other hand.” Also in each instance the argument seems aimed specifically at the woman—and rests squarely on her “head.” The problem has to do with her head being “uncovered” while praying and prophesying, as the two explicit expressions of the problem make clear. All of this is borne out by the argument itself.
Part I argues from the metaphorical use of “head” that the man would shame his “head” if he were to have “hanging down the head”; whereas the opposite would prevail for the woman: she would shame her “head” if she were to prophesy “uncovered as to the head.” The explanatory elaboration , which by way of analogy pursues the question of the woman’s shame and concludes with the imperative that she is to be covered, makes it clear that this was where the problem lay.
Although the argument in part II is more complex—and full of surprises—it again seems to aim at the woman. That the man ought not to have his head covered, since he is God’s image and glory , sets up the next two explanations having to do with the women : first, by the assertion that the woman is “the glory of man,” which is followed by a “how so” explanation ; second, by the assertion that she ought “to have authority over her own head” because of the angels. The next two sentences , which correspond in reverse order to the preceding assertions , seem to be intended to qualify those assertions lest they be misunderstood. The concluding part of the preceding paragraph appears to have gone astray a bit, so in part III Paul takes up the primary issue one more time, now appealing to the Corinthians’ own sense of propriety. Picking up the language of his opening assertion regarding the women , he begins with a rhetorical question, which functions as the presupposition for what follows. Again, since the woman alone is singled out, it seems clear that the issue lies here. This is further supported by the question that follows , where Paul once more uses the man to set up the discussion of the woman, whose situation alone receives further comment. He then concludes with a word to “anyone” who wants to be “contentious” over this matter, that the churches “have no other custom.”
But what specifically does it mean for the woman to pray and prophesy “with her head uncovered”? There are three basic options: The long-held view from an earlier time considered her to be discarding some kind of external covering. This was understood as implied by both the verb “to cover” and the words about the man , which seem to suggest an external covering . The difficulty with this view comes mostly from understanding the final word regarding the women , which says that a woman’s long hair is given to her instead of a peribolaion . Because of this final word regarding the women , some have argued that the “covering” contended for earlier is actually the long hair picked up in the final word regarding the women , thus suggesting that some of the women were having their hair cut short. But this has against it the explicit language and grammar of the first things said regarding the women , where Paul argues by analogy that they should be shaved or shorn if they will not be “covered.” Other, more recent, scholars suggested on the basis of a usage in the LXX that the adjective “uncovered” refers to “loosed hair,” that is, to letting her long hair down in public and thus experiencing shame. While this is attractive in many ways, it has its own set of difficulties: how the man’s not covering his head is the opposite of this; what to do again with the final word about the women , which implies that long hair, not piled-up hair, serves in the place of a shawl; and the fact that there is no sure first-century evidence that a woman’s long hair in public would have been a disgrace of some kind.
Although none of this is without some measure of difficulty, the traditional view still seems to be the best by a considerable margin—in the sense of having fewer difficulties —since in every case the greater problem lies with the final word about the women . If this view is correct, then part III of the passage must serve as an argument by way of analogy. That is, on the analogy of “nature” with regard to hair itself, it seems fitting that a woman should maintain the custom of a covering while praying and prophesying. Otherwise, if “loosed hair” were the problem, then these final sentences are seen to address different problems , or the word peribolaion is reinterpreted to refer to “put-up hair” . But in any case, the woman’s action is considered shameful, and for that reason Paul is willing to offer theological justification for maintaining a custom.
But why were some women thus disregarding the customary mode of appearance? Traditionally, whenever the question was raised at all, it was suggested that the problem had to do with some women who were being insubordinate to their husbands because of their new-found freedom in Christ. Thus interpreters saw the passage, which rested on a particular understanding of two key sentences , as Paul’s attempt to “put women in their proper place” by insisting that they keep the traditional symbol of their subordination, the veil.
Much more likely the problem is related to the overall historical situation in Corinth and reflects the theological outlook noted elsewhere in this letter , especially that of the “eschatological” women noted earlier . There can be little question that, in the new era inaugurated by Christ, women participated in worship along with men. For the most part, in these matters Corinth followed the traditions they had received when Paul was among them. But some women either were actually praying/prophesying , or they were arguing for the right to do so, without the customary “head covering.” Probably this is related to their being pneumatikoi and to their somewhat overrealized eschatology. It is also difficult to understand Paul’s answer unless their “spiritualized” eschatology also involved some kind of breakdown in the distinction between the sexes. Since they already had arrived in the Spirit, they were perhaps also already acting as those who would be “like the angels,” among whom sexual distinctions do not exist. As a part of their understanding of being people of the Spirit, they were apparently disregarding some very customary distinctions between men and women, which would culturally otherwise have been regarded as disgraceful. Paul feels strongly enough about the issue to speak to it, even if his argument lacks its customary vigor. Since it is difficult to imagine Paul caring for “custom” per se, especially following, as it does, his very strong affirmation of the believer’s freedom regarding food sold in the marketplace , it is probably the larger theological issue that leads him to this answer at all.

An Argument from Culture and Shame

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,a and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
a. Or of the wife is her husband
After an opening word of praise for their keeping the traditions, Paul begins the argument proper with a theological construct in which he uses the word “head” metaphorically to designate three kinds of relationships—man/Christ; woman/man; Christ/God. This metaphor is the lead-in to the two kinds of “covering” described in the first set of gender contrasts , where the “head” specified in the qualifying sentence will be dishonored by the man’s and woman’s actions. The idea of “dishonoring” then leads Paul to elaborate in terms of the woman , in an attempt to help her see the validity of being “covered.”
The metaphor with which it all begins , which traditionally had been interpreted as defending the need for the woman to maintain her place of subordination to her “head” , was also often seen as the point of the whole passage. More likely, however, this is simply an attempt on Paul’s part to remove the problem from the “head” literally by putting it into a broader context of relationships. In any case the literal problem came first, and Paul has used the word metaphorically at the beginning to set the literal problem into a larger theological framework.
These opening words seem to flow easily from what has immediately preceded . Having exhorted the Corinthians to imitate his imitation of Christ, he now commends them for doing so with regard to the “traditions,” which Paul himself had “passed on to” them. Nonetheless these words are surprising—in two ways. First, one is scarcely prepared for any words of “praise” in this letter, especially “praise for remembering me in everything”; indeed, apart from the opening thanksgiving, little else up to this point even remotely resembles praise or commendation. Rather, it has all been a combination of rhetorical argument and exhortation, most of which has been intent on changing either their behavior or their attitudes toward him. Second, although he commends them for “holding to the traditions,” nonetheless in what follows there does not seem to be a single instance of their doing so; indeed, in the next matter up they are doing anything but. Moreover, according to the final sentence in what follows there are still further concerns regarding these matters that this letter does not address. How, then, is one to understand these opening words?
Even though some have suggested that they are intentionally ironic, or even sarcastic, more likely, they serve in a more general way, as a kind of captatio benevolentiae to introduce this entire section regarding their gatherings for worship , in which the apostle here sets them up with praise with reference to unmentioned “traditions” that they are keeping so as to come down on them with greater force in the areas where they are not. Or they aim specifically at what follows , setting up the matter of women’s head “coverings” as a contrast to the next issue , a matter in which he cannot praise them. The problems with this latter suggestion, however, are several: the adversative “but” in the initial sentence implies that the following instruction is not commendation but “correction” of some kind; in the present passage Paul is in fact correcting them, not commending them, even if not as strongly as in what follows ; and the word “traditions” is plural; were it referring only to the present matter one would expect the singular, as at the beginning of the next passage .
Thus, even though he may very well be picking up language from their letter, and perhaps in the first instance speaking to something they are advocating, this opening sentence most likely serves to introduce the whole of these correctives regarding their gatherings for worship . Even though they “remember” him in everything, there are some areas with regard to the “traditions” where praise is not in order. They may indeed be following the “traditions,” as it were, but not in proper ways.
The “but” with which this argument begins suggests that some things are not quite as the Corinthians had portrayed them. Nonetheless, this answer lacks the rhetoric of much that has preceded. Thus Paul begins with the milder “I want you to realize that.…” What he wants them to take note of is expressed as a theologoumenon that will serve as the point of reference for the response that immediately follows . The statement itself is in three parts, each using the word “head” metaphorically to express a different relationship: man/Christ, woman/man, Christ/God. What is not immediately clear, especially to the English reader, is the sense of the metaphor “head,” and thus the nature of the relationships that each of the clauses intends.
It should be noted that this theological statement is not something Paul sets out to prove, nor is it the main point of the section. Indeed, after the references to “every man” and “the woman” shaming their “heads” at the outset , there is no further direct reference to it. Moreover, the first two items appear in that same sequence in the opening sentence, where Paul takes up the problem itself. This suggests that even though the theologoumenon appears as the first item in the argument, the behavioral problem itself really came first, and that that problem, having to do with women’s heads, dictated both the fact and the form of the appearance of this construct. Paul seems concerned to shift the problem from one of individual freedom to one of relational responsibility. The problem lay squarely on the women’s heads, but it was affecting men’s and women’s relationships in the present era. By making their own appearance such that it would seem also to put some kind of pressure on the distinctions between the sexes, they were bringing shame on that relationship, which had not yet been abrogated, even though the new era had been inaugurated.
The metaphor itself is often understood to be hierarchical, setting up structures of authority. But nothing in the passage suggests as much; in fact, the only appearance of the word exousia refers to the woman’s own authority . Moreover, the concluding affirmation explicitly qualifies the crucial clauses so that they will not be understood in this way. Indeed, the metaphorical use of kephalē to mean “chief” or “the person of the highest rank” is rare in Greek literature —so much so that, even though the Hebrew word roʾsh sometimes carried this sense, the Greek translators of the LXX, who ordinarily used kephalē to translate roʾsh when the physical “head” was intended, almost never did so when “ruler” was intended, thus indicating that this metaphorical sense is an exceptional usage and not part of the ordinary range of meanings for the Greek word.
Paul’s understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is “head” as “source,” especially “source of life,” or origin. This seems to be corroborated by the two explanatory sentences in the next paragraph , the only place where one of these relationships is picked up further in Paul’s argument. There he explicitly states that man was the original source of the woman . Thus Paul’s concern is not hierarchical , but relational . Indeed, he says nothing about man’s authority; his concern is with the woman’s being man’s glory, the one without whom he is not complete . To blur that relationship is to bring shame on her “head.” This means that the middle clause, “the man is the head of woman,” refers to the creation account also alluded to two times in the argument . “The man” would refer to Adam, and “the woman” to Eve; thus, “the man is the source of the woman’s life.” But as the second passage makes plain, that is only part of the story; in a much more significant way, “all things,” both man and woman, “come from God.”
If this is the meaning of the middle line, and the rest of the context seems to demand such a conclusion, then what about the first and third lines? The first is the more difficult. There are two viable options: In terms of creation, Christ is the source of every man’s life; In terms of the new creation, Christ is the source of every Christian man. In favor of the first option are: the possibility that the three clauses are thus chronological—Christ created man; through man came woman; God is the source of Christ in his incarnation; the fact that elsewhere in Paul’s letters Christ is viewed as the one through whom all things came to be; this makes good sense of the adjective “every”—through creation he is thus the ultimate source of every man; the reference to the man’s being God’s image and glory also refers to the creation narrative .
In favor of the second option are: Paul’s explicit statement in his next letter to them that the “new creation” is the result of one’s being “in Christ” ; in a much later letter Paul refers to Christ as the “head” of his body, the church, in a context that implies he is the source of its being; when he first picks up this clause , he repeats “every man” in a context that refers not to “man” in general but to believing men in the Christian assembly. On the whole, this seems to be the more likely option. The major objection to this view, besides the language “every man,” is that Christ in this sense is also the “head” of every Christian woman. But that is to make too much of the statement as an isolated theologoumenon, which it is not. Paul, after all, is not trying to give a theological compendium; this is an ad hoc construct, aimed specifically at what he will say next . Thus the unique relationship that the Christian man has to Christ as the source of his being disallows him to “have hanging down the head” while praying and prophesying; otherwise he brings shame upon Christ, who gave him life.
This suggests, then, that the final clause, “God is the kephalē of Christ,” is not a christological statement in the ontological sense; that is, Paul is hardly thinking of the “eternal generation” of the Son from the Father. Rather, it refers to the incarnational work of Christ. God is the source of Christ, who through his redemption became the source of “every man.” For the argument that follows, the first two items are all that are necessary; however, in a way reminiscent of an earlier moment in the letter , Paul is not content merely to assert the first two relationships, but presses back to God, who is the ultimate source of all things . Christ is the “head” of every believing man because lying behind all things is the eternal God, “from whom are all things” . With that proper theological point of reference, Paul will now proceed to explain why the women must not be “uncovered” when they pray and prophesy.
Paul begins his argument with the men. Although they may also have been involved in a form of “dress” that was breaking down the distinctions between the sexes, that seems unlikely, since the argument in each case, and especially in this one, is directed toward the women . Rather, Paul seems to be setting up his argument with the women by means of a hypothetical situation for the man that would be equally shameful to his relationship to his “head” as what the women are doing is to theirs.
Thus he asserts, “Every man,” meaning every Christian man, “who prays or prophesies having down the head dishonors his ‘head.’” The two verbs “pray and prophesy” make it certain that the problem has to do with the assembly at worship. One may pray privately, but not so with prophecy. This was the primary form of inspired speech, directed toward the community for its edification and encouragement . The two verbs are neither exhaustive nor exclusive but representative: they point to the two foci of Christian worship—God and the gathered believers—speech that is either Godward or humanward, that is, praise, prayer, adoration or information, instruction, exhortation.
The “head” that would be shamed is man’s metaphorical “head,” Christ. Several things make that clear: the asyndeton gives the sentence the closest possible tie to the preceding “thesis statement” ; Paul uses the personal pronoun “his” rather than the reflexive “his own”; for Paul to refer to himself in this way compounds metaphorical usages without warning; otherwise the preceding theological statement has no place in the argument whatever. Therefore, Paul is asserting that if the man were to “have down the head” when praying/prophesying, he would bring shame to Christ in some way, or at least to the relationship established by Christ’s being his “head.”
The question, of course, is what “having down the head” means, or to put that in another way, “having what down the head?” Some have argued that this refers to having long hair “down the head,” a position that has been refined by Murphy-O’Connor, who has shown that disdain for long hair on men was usually in conjunction with homosexuality, where longer hair was artistically decorated to resemble a woman’s. The problem with this, however, is that these passages always refer to hair, and never remotely resemble the language Paul uses here. If Paul had intended long hair, this idiom is a most unusual way of referring to it. On the other hand, although Paul’s idiom is somewhat unusual, it is not without precedent. In the book of Esther, Haman is said to have “hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered” . The LXX translators had rendered this last phrase kata kephalēs . So also Plutarch speaks of Scipio the Younger as beginning to walk through Alexandria “having the himation down the head,” meaning that he covered his head with part of his toga so as to be unrecognized by the people. Almost certainly, therefore, by this idiom Paul is referring to an external cloth covering.
Beyond that, everything is more speculative. There is almost no evidence that men in any of the first-century cultures covered their heads. Since at some point in time the cloak prescribed in the Law and mentioned by Jesus came to be used by Jewish men as the tallith , it is tempting to see in this another disavowal by Paul of Jewish customs that divide Jew and Gentile . This is especially attractive in light of the reference in his next letter to Moses’ “veil” still remaining over the hearts of Jews when the Old Covenant is read ; however, in that passage the “veil” is used figuratively of the blindness of God’s ancient people, and the issue has to do with the face being uncovered, not the head. But the greater problem is that the evidence for the use of the tallith in prayer is much too late to be helpful to establish Jewish customs in the time of Paul. There are other options: since men, as well as women, covered their heads for mourning, one could shame Christ by praying or prophesying in the sign of mourning; since the prophet in the Isis cult wore a head covering, this may be some kind of prohibition against appearing before God in a manner resembling the mysteries. In the final analysis, however, we simply have to admit that we do not know. In any case, whatever it was, Paul’s usage is hypothetical; and whatever it meant, he would expect the Corinthians to agree that such a covering for men would bring shame to Christ.
a By way of contrast Paul now addresses the women with a sentence that is in perfect balance with what has preceded , except for the differences in appearance. In place of “having down the head,” a woman brings shame on “her head” if she prays or prophesies “uncovered as to the head.” As before, “her head” must refer to “the man” in the thesis statement . Although this could mean that she thereby disgraces her husband, more likely, in light of what was just said and the ensuing analogy , as well as the argument that follows , this probably refers to bringing shame on “the man” in terms of male/female relationships. That is, their action disregards this relationship by breaking down the distinctions.
But as before , it is extremely difficult to determine what she was doing in being “uncovered” that would at the same time shame her “head” in this way. The situation here is complicated in several directions: The true opposite of the man’s example would seem to be an external covering; but since removal of this in the assembly brings about shame either to the male/female relationship in general or to her husband in particular, the problem lies in determining what is customary that would have caused such shame. In this case, even if we were sure of prevailing customs, we would need to be able to distinguish between Greek, Roman, and Jewish customs as well as differences in geography, how one dressed at home, outside the home, and in worship, and differences between the rich and poor. This diversity is well illustrated in the various samplings in Goodenough. But it is also this very diversity that makes one wonder how Paul would consider the discarding of the customary covering to be the same thing as being shorn . This has caused some, on the basis of combined evidence both from the LXX and from prevailing hair styles, to argue that the adjective akatakalyptos refers to “loosed hair,” that is, long hair flowing loose down over the shoulders and back. The word akatakalyptos occurs only once in the LXX , where it translates a Hebrew idiom that says the leper’s “head shall be unbound.” More significantly, a cognate verb is used in Numbers to translate “he shall loosen the hair of the woman” , indicating that the suspected adulteress must wear loosed hair as part of her shame. Since the evidence from Paul’s era shows that women did not appear in public with long, flowing hair, it seems altogether possible that “loosed hair” is the “uncovering” that caused shame. The difficulties with this view lie primarily with the concluding word about the woman , which implies that long hair is a woman’s glory and therefore a good thing, and with the imperative “let her be covered” , which does not easily lend itself to the connotation of putting her hair up. It is also true that this does not appear to be the precise opposite of the man’s activity in the thesis sentence ; the contrast, however, possibly lies in similarly “shameful” actions, not in precise opposites, since that is not demanded by the context.
As with the man’s situation, one must finally admit that we cannot be certain as to particulars. On the basis of what is said twice of the man , it seems more likely that some kind of external covering is involved; nonetheless, the linguistic ties with the LXX and the parallels from pagan ecstasy offer a truly viable alternative in favor of hairstyle. But in either case, her action must have been deliberate, must be understood to bring shame on her “head,” and probably had inherent in it a breakdown in the distinction between the sexes. Thus Paul wants her to return to what is customary, and will so argue in what follows.
b– Picking up on the theme of shame, Paul offers a nice piece of logic to support his contention, finally spelled out without ambiguity in the final imperative, that the woman “be covered.” The common denominator of shame to which he appeals is that of a woman’s having her hair cut short or her head shaved. Either of these apparently would constitute such shame that they would be unthinkable actions. The shame in this case would seem to be her own; however, since the argument is by way of analogy, Paul probably intends it to carry over from the preceding “thesis statement” . In any case, the shame seems clearly to be related to her becoming like a man with regard to her hair, thus by analogy suggesting that the women were blurring male/female relationships in general and sexual distinctions in particular.
On this common predicate of shame in a woman’s having mannish hair, Paul builds a simple, clear argument. First, he asserts that to pray or prophesy “uncovered” makes her “one and the same thing with her that is shaven” . He then drives that point home with a pair of conditional sentences, the first of which repeats the point of the “thesis sentence” in light of its accompanying assertion . Thus, “If a woman does not cover herself” , which means that she is bringing shame on her “head,” “then let her also be shorn” , that is, let her go the whole way to shame by having her hair like a man’s. Finally, with a second conditional sentence he brings all this together specifically in terms of shame: But if it is a disgrace for a woman either to have her hair cut short or be shaved —and it obviously was—then let her be covered . This final imperative, which ordinarily implies an external covering, creates special difficulties for the “put-up hair” view.
This is the closest thing to rhetoric that one finds in the present argument. The point is made by way of analogy. One kind of action is just like another . If the latter is shameful, so too is the former. This kind of argument makes one wonder whether the Corinthians sensed the shame of their own actions. In any case, the analogy seems to suggest that the problem lay ultimately with a breakdown in sexual distinctions, which fits the Corinthian theology well.
Although various Christian groups have fostered the practice of some sort of head covering for women in the assembled church, the difficulties with the practice are obvious. For Paul the issue was directly tied to a cultural shame that scarcely prevails in most cultures today. Furthermore, we simply do not know what the practice was that they were abusing. Thus literal “obedience” to the text is often merely symbolic. Unfortunately, the “symbol” that tends to be reinforced is the subordination of women, which is hardly Paul’s point. Furthermore, it would seem that in cultures where women’s heads are seldom covered, the enforcement of such in the church turns Paul’s point on its head, by calling unnecessary attention to the women that should be reserved for God alone. In any case, the fact that Paul’s own argument is so tied to cultural norms suggests that literal obedience is not mandatory for genuine obedience to God’s Word, and in many cases might create an opposite, attention-getting response.

An Argument from Creation

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have authority over her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
The structure and content of this paragraph suggest that Paul is now offering a supporting argument as to why the woman should be “covered” when praying and prophesying, since being “uncovered” in some way brings shame on her “head.” However, the supporting evidence that follows is both complex and full of surprises. The “for” with which the argument begins indicates that Paul intends to reinforce the preceding affirmations , that men ought not to be covered, while women should be. That in fact is said of the man; but the apparent reason, “being the image and glory of God,” is especially surprising in light of the opening “thesis” statement , where Christ, not God, is designated as man’s “head.” More difficult yet is what is said of the woman, who by way of contrast is called “man’s glory,” but with no mention of her being covered. What follows rather is an explanation, based on the creation narrative , as to why she is man’s glory .
Then comes the truly surprising moment , which, because of the verb “ought,” seems to correspond to the preceding statement over against “ought not.” But again, instead of mentioning a covering, Paul argues that she should have authority over her head because of the angels. This is followed in turn by two sets of male/female clauses , which in reverse order correspond precisely—but by way of qualification—to what was said in the preceding sentences . Thus the entire argument points to the middle sentence as the crucial moment, but unfortunately a passage so difficult for later readers that it has defied our best scholarly guesses over the centuries. At the same time Paul displays considerable eagerness that part of the explanation as to how he got there not be misunderstood.
That Paul intends what follows to elaborate on the preceding assertion is made certain both by the explanatory “for” and by the contrasting particles “man on the one hand/woman on the other hand.” The elaboration seems designed to explain how the woman’s praying or prophesying “uncovered” brings shame on her “head.” The argument that follows, however, is just enough convoluted so that for many readers the explanation tends to muddy the waters rather than to enlighten. Part of the difficulty lies with Paul’s syntax: What exactly did he intend to be in contrast to these opening assertions , and how in turn does that relate to the “conclusion” ? There are two options. It is possible that the second part of v. is elliptical, and that he intended the reader to fill in the missing words from the man’s side; in this case the assertion regarding the woman serves as a conclusion on its own, flowing more directly out of the preceding contrasts . Thus: It is likewise possible that the two crucial assertions are intended to serve together as the intended contrast, but that the content of the latter was modified by the intervening explanation as to how the woman is man’s glory. Thus they form an AB-BA chiasm.
Most likely Paul’s syntax is moving in this latter direction, but perhaps not by intent when the sentence began. What is missing is any reference to the woman’s being covered, which is almost certainly to be understood, given the nature of the argument both in what precedes and what follows , including the way the man’s situation begins in this verse. This, of course, is what has given rise to understanding the woman’s “authority” to be the covering itself.
The first clause is simple and direct: “A man ought not to cover his head.” In a very direct way this repeats the point made at the outset . But the reason he now advances, “since he is the image and glory of God,” is less than clear, since Paul offers no further explanation, and we are left to derive its sense from what he says next by way of contrast about the woman. Thus a few observations are in order: It is often assumed that this passage is a further reflection on the opening thesis statement , that Paul is herewith explaining by means of the creation accounts in Genesis how the man’s “headship” came about. But except for the allusion found in the further explanation that follows as to how woman is man’s glory, nothing either in the language of this text or in its explicit statements refers directly back to that opening statement, which makes this view especially difficult to sustain. Thus the essential relationship for man posited there is not so much as alluded to; rather, Paul is here concerned with a man’s relationship to God. In saying that man is God’s “image,” Paul is certainly alluding to the creation narrative ; but he is not trying to interpret that text. Nor does he here offer any further explanation as to the significance of this word. It is often pointed out that in Gen. man and woman together are in God’s image and likeness, a point with which Paul certainly would not disagree—after all, he carefully avoids saying that the woman is man’s image. But in this present argument he appears to be thinking of the two accounts together in a somewhat harmonized way. Hence, the order of creation narrated in Gen. , where God made the man directly from the dust of the ground, but the woman through the man, has precedence in his thinking . Thus he can assert that man, because in the order of things he was created directly, is God’s image and glory. Paul’s own interest, however, is finally not in the man as being God’s “image,” but in his being God’s “glory,” a word that does not appear in the creation accounts. This is Paul’s own reflection on the creation of human beings, and it is the word that finally serves as the means of contrast between man and woman. But to define the term “glory” is like trying to pick up mercury between one’s fingers. The most frequent suggestion is that man reflects God’s glory; that is, being in God’s image, the male human being is somehow a reflection of God himself. This is perhaps possible, although there is very little linguistic evidence for such a meaning. Moreover, by way of parallel, that would mean that woman is man’s glory because she is a reflection of him in some way, but that is not how Paul himself explains this second relationship. More likely, therefore, in light of his further reflection , and in light of its earlier usage , Paul probably means that the existence of the one brings honor and praise to the other. By creating “man” in God’s own image, who is “imaged” as Father, God set his own glory in the “man.” “Man,” therefore, exists to God’s praise and honor and is to live in relationship to God so as to be God’s “glory.” What we are not told here is why being God’s glory means no covering; the earlier assertion indicates that it had to do with his not shaming Christ. But that, too, was left unexplained.
As before, however, this word about man is not the point of the argument; it exists to set up Paul’s real concern—to explain why women should be covered when prophesying. But in coming to that concern, he picks up on the word “glory,” saying only that “the woman, on the other hand, is man’s glory.” The implication is that by praying and prophesying in a way that disregarded distinctions between the sexes , she brings shame on the man whose glory she is intended to be. Paul does not hereby deny that woman was created in God’s image, or that she, too, is God’s glory. His point is singular. She is related to man as his glory, a relationship that somehow appears to be jeopardized by her present actions.
The real difficulty with the argument for us at this distance emerges in what is said next. What one expects is for Paul to say that the woman should therefore be covered. This is precisely why the crucial assertion to come historically has been so interpreted—because the sense of the argument seems to call for it. But even though it seems implied that the woman should be covered because she is man’s glory, that in fact is not stated; neither therefore is any explanation offered as to how the woman’s being the man’s glory calls for a covered head when prophesying. To be sure, interpreters regularly offer reasons, as though to help Paul out with his argument, but he himself is silent. Rather than move in that direction, Paul appears to feel compelled to offer further explanation of what he has just said, how it is that the woman is man’s glory.
– Although both of the next two sentences begin with an explanatory “for,” the second is not intended to explain the first; rather, the two together are intended further to explain the sense of the immediately preceding phrase, that woman is man’s glory. The two sentences together are reflections of two passages in the Genesis narrative . In the present context they seem to correspond to both of the preceding “thesis” sentences . This is how man is the woman’s “head”: he is the source of her life . Beyond that, she is also his “glory,” in that “the woman was created for the man’s sake.”
Although at first blush these sentences sound as if they indicate her subordination to him, the succeeding explanation makes clear both that Paul did not intend them to be so and that he also realized that they could be taken so. Thus the concluding explanation is not intended to “correct” these two sentences; it is intended to qualify them so as to limit their application to the immediate argument alone. Since Paul himself will not allow that “for man’s sake” means “for his dominion” or “for him to exercise authority over,” one must ask what concerns him at this point. How does the woman’s coming from the man and being created for his sake make her his glory?
Most likely the answer lies in what has already been suggested; and in this instance Paul really is reflecting the sense of the OT text to which he is alluding. Adam by himself was not complete; he was alone, without a companion or helper suitable to him. The animals will not do; he needs one who is bone of his bone, one who is like him but different from him, one who is uniquely his own “glory.” In fact, when the man in the OT narrative sees the woman he “glories” in her by bursting into song . She is thus man’s glory because she “came from man” and was created “for him.” She is not thereby subordinate to him, but necessary for him. She exists to his honor as the one who having come from the man is the one companion suitable to him, so that he might be complete and that together they might form humanity.
Paul’s point, of course, is that in the creation narrative this did not happen the other way around—man from woman and for her sake. Hence he is her “head” and she is his “glory.” She must not be uncovered when praying and prophesying, and thereby disregard one of the visible expressions of differentiation, because in so doing she brings shame on him by trying to dissolve the rightful male/female relationship that still obtains in the present age.
After the brief preceding explanation , Paul now brings to a conclusion the second phase of the argument. By all counts this is one of the truly difficult texts in this letter. It needs to be noted at the outset that our difficulties are directly related to the ad hoc character of the passage. The solution probably lies with what the Corinthians themselves have communicated to Paul; indeed, the key words “authority” and “angels” have very likely come from them in some way. Our problem is that at this point we are left on the outside looking in, with these difficult words as our only clues. Hence we must forever be content to “look through a glass darkly” and learn what we can in the midst of admitting how little we know.
Although the difficulty lies primarily in the language, it begins with the syntax. The inferential conjunction “for this reason” with which the sentence begins can point either backward or forward, that is, it can draw an inferred conclusion on the basis of what has been said, or it can anticipate a reason that will be given in what follows. Its role in this sentence is made the more complex as the result of the final prepositional phrase, “because of the angels.” Most likely “for this reason” functions here, as it often does in Paul, in both directions at once. It first of all indicates that what is about to be said is the proper inference from what has immediately preceded: the woman ought to have authority over her head because she is man’s glory. At the same time it anticipates yet another closely allied reason to be given in the conclusion that is being advanced. The NIV has caught the sense—and the difficulties—by translating, “for this reason, and because of the angels.”
But the greater difficulties lie with the content of the conclusion itself, “the woman ought to have authority over her head,” and with the second reason that is offered, “because of the angels.” The first matter, though complicated by several factors, can basically be narrowed down to a single reality, namely, that one is led to expect one thing and gets another. On the one hand, because of the context, and especially because of the repetition of the verb “ought” in contrast to the “ought not” , one expects this inferential conclusion to express the opposite of what is said about the man. What one gets, however, is a Greek sentence that by all normal rules of language and grammar says something quite different from that. This sentence, therefore, has been handled in two ways: either to rework what it says so that it means what one expects, or to let it mean what it says and try to understand that in the context.
The problem is twofold: finding a proper sense for exousia , and determining the nuance of the preposition epi . The traditional view, which saw the context as referring to the subordination of women, tended to go one of two directions: Some took exousia in a passive sense. To “have authority over her head” means that she “has” someone else function as authority “over” her. The “covering,” though not mentioned, is assumed to be the “sign” that this is so. Thus the original NIV translated, “the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head,” while the Living Bible more boldly asserted: “So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority.” The difficulty with this view is that there is no known evidence either that the word exousia was ever taken in this passive sense or that the idiom “to have authority over” ever referred to an external authority different from the subject of the sentence. Others take exousia as a metonym for “veil,” and epi as “on.” Thus the original RSV: “That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head.” The difficulty with this, as Robertson-Plummer candidly admitted, is to find an adequate explanation as to why Paul should have chosen this word as his metonym. Had Paul intended an external covering, he would surely have said that, since several such words were available to him. A third alternative has been to understand “to have authority” to mean “a sign of authority,” but in the sense of “as a means of exercising authority.” Thus some have argued that the “authority” is to be understood as the woman’s new freedom to do what was formerly forbidden, namely to pray and prophesy along with the men. She should therefore continue to be covered, but to do so now as a sign of her new liberty in Christ. Attractive as this solution is, one must finally admit that it is not adequately supported in the text itself. That leads finally to those who understand “to have authority” in its ordinary sense of “freedom or right to choose.” In this view epi carries its ordinary sense of “over.” Thus: “For this reason the woman ought to have the freedom over her head to do as she wishes.” The problem with that, of course, is that it sounds so contradictory to the point of the argument to this point.
So where does that leave us? Given the fact that there is no evidence for a passive sense to this idiom, and that such a view basically came into existence for contextual reasons that do not seem to be in the text itself, solution seems to be the best of the possibilities. The problem is to find an adequate sense for it in the context. Perhaps here is where the ad hoc nature of the answer should come more clearly into focus. There can be little question that exousia was one of the Corinthians’ own words . Very likely that is the reason for this choice of words, which otherwise appears to be so unusual. Exactly what they would have asserted, and how Paul now intends this response to be heard in light of that, remains moot. Perhaps he is here affirming their own position, that in these matters they do indeed have exousia; nonetheless, in light of the preceding argument, and because of the angels, the women should exercise that authority in the proper way—by maintaining the custom of being “covered.” But finally we must beg ignorance. Paul seems to be affirming the “freedom” of women over their own heads; but what that means in this context remains a mystery.
So too does the perplexing phrase “because of the angels.” A common interpretation, that they were “male” angels who on seeing the women without veils lusted after them after the manner of the “sons of God” in a later Genesis narrative , may be ruled out at once, since that assumes a kind of “veiling” on the part of the women for which there is no first-century evidence. But beyond that we are pretty much in the dark. Angels appear in three other texts in Corinthians, which may offer clues of some kind. Earlier in the letter angels are understood as part of the “whole universe” before whom Paul’s Christian life is on display. Some have therefore argued that the angels were present at the Christian assembly as “watchers of the created order,” or, on the basis of Qumran evidence, as giving assistance in public worship. This would especially be fitting for those who see exousia as a “sign of her authority,” although it is difficult to imagine how the angels themselves are affected. In the case of litigation Paul reminds the Corinthians of something he assumes that they should know, namely that in the Eschaton believers will be involved in the final judgment of the angels. In light of what is said there Paul could here be urging that, since these same women will some day be judging the angels, they should be able to make a good judgment in the present about their appearance in the gathering for worship. Perhaps, as with exousia, the clue lies with the Corinthian believers’ own position. Given their arguments with Paul throughout, and especially the nature of the present problem, this whole sentence may reflect an argument from some of the Corinthian women: that they have exousia to be “uncovered” because they were already as the angels or perhaps because they were speaking the language of the angels . If so, then the following qualification would be directed both to this position of theirs and to what has preceded . The order of argument that follows, that the woman is not independent of the man, would certainly allow such a possibility.
In this case, Paul’s argument will have taken a slight turn. Having affirmed that a man should not be covered, and by implication that a woman should be because she is man’s glory, he turns for a moment to affirm the woman’s freedom. But that is not the whole story; since the woman is not independent of the man, he is also arguing that she properly exercise that freedom by continuing the custom of being “covered.” But finally, again, we must admit that we cannot be sure.
– With these two sets of sentences, in each of which woman and man are in balanced pairs, Paul qualifies the preceding argument. Both the fact that they immediately follow the preceding assertion with the adversative “nonetheless” and that he has changed the order from “man/woman” to “woman/man” suggest that they partly function to qualify that sentence in some way. In fact, the sequence “woman/man” makes almost impossible the view that what has preceded has to do with the man’s having authority over the woman. In that case the proper qualifier would have been: “Nonetheless, in the Lord man is not independent of woman.” But the fact that he says, “woman is not independent of man,” indicates that he is qualifying her use of exousia in some way. This tends, therefore, to support the suggestion made above that the preceding assertion represents in part at least the viewpoint of the Corinthians, with which Paul agrees, but which also needs to be qualified toward propriety and not creating shame .
Since the two pairs are a perfect double chiasm and correspond precisely to what has immediately preceded, however, they seem clearly designed also to set limits on how those explanations are to be understood. Thus :
This correspondence is so close that it can hardly have been accidental. The qualifiers in the second sets are what make the difference. While it is true that woman is man’s glory, having been created for his sake , Paul now affirms that that does not mean that woman exists for man’s purposes, as though in some kind of subordinate position to his aims and will. To the contrary, God has so arranged things that “in the Lord” the one cannot exist without the other, not meaning of course that every Christian man and woman must be married, but that as believers man and woman are mutually dependent on each other.
Some have argued that “in the Lord” does not fully qualify the preceding assertions about the man but rather sets up the equality of man and woman in Christ in terms of their salvation. But that hardly seems to be Paul’s point, especially since in this final sentence he equally qualifies the earlier one , but now in more general terms, referring to the fact that man is now born of the woman, who at creation came from his side. Furthermore, the final qualifier, “and all things are from God,” which includes at least woman and man, puts the whole of this second phase of the argument into proper Pauline perspective. Both man and woman, not just man, are from God. The one was created from dust, the other through the man, and now finally both through woman. This seems clearly designed to keep the earlier argument from being read in a way that would subordinate women to men.
As pointed out throughout the exegesis, this is a passage in which the apostle has been rather badly handled in the church. Although the paragraph begins with further arguments as to why women should be “covered,” Paul seems to leave that concern momentarily to affirm both that women do have authority over their own heads and that even though in the new era the distinctions between male and female must be maintained, that does not mean that one is subordinate to the other. To read the text as though it said the opposite of what the concluding assertions of the paragraph seem clearly to say is to do Paul an injustice and possibly to put one in the position of disobeying the intent of God’s Word. Moreover, such a poor reading of the text by men has often led to terribly unfortunate marriage relationships that exemplify issues of “power” rather than the primary biblical concern—which Paul himself has elsewhere urged—that husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for “her” response.

An Argument from Propriety

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
In the preceding paragraph Paul’s argument moved slightly afield—from a concern over a woman’s being “covered” to a concern for her having “authority” over her head without being either independent of or subordinate to a man. With this final paragraph he now returns to the original argument , including the motif of “shame.” But the appeal in this case is slightly different—to the Corinthians’ own judgment and sense of propriety , based on “the nature of things” . This appeal takes the form of two rhetorical questions: the first one , obviously expecting a negative answer, picks up his earlier language and asks, in terms of propriety, whether a woman should “pray to God with her head uncovered ”; the second one , which expects a positive answer, functions to reinforce or to clinch the first one. Thus he points to the “nature of things,” in which man has short hair and woman long. Apparently he intends this appeal to make two points: that “nature” itself has thus distinguished between the sexes, and that a woman’s long hair should teach them the propriety of being “covered” when they pray. The question that must be answered has to do with how this question functions in the argument, whether this is the actual problem or whether it serves as an analogy to clinch the earlier argument. In any case, Paul can scarcely leave an argument there, so he concludes that the person who is being contentious over this matter needs to reckon with what goes on elsewhere in the churches. They have no “such custom” .
In a way similar to the argument against attendance at temple meals , Paul turns at the end to appeal to their own judgments. Although he is certainly trying to get them to agree with him , the appeal is to their own sense of propriety, as that is further illustrated by “nature” itself. Once they have thus “judged for themselves,” of course, Paul expects them to see things his way.
Also as before , the appeal to their good sense is followed by a rhetorical question. But the rhetoric is not sharp. The issue is one of propriety: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” The question itself clearly picks up the language of the primary assertion at the beginning , thus indicating a return to the problem as it was addressed there. The nature of the argument does not differ greatly from the opening appeal to “shame” , although in that case the shame was given a theological basis and accrued to one’s “head.” Here the propriety , disgrace , and glory are assumed to have a more universal basis. Whether the Corinthians themselves would have thought it not “fitting” is a moot point, especially since some apparently were doing otherwise.
Paul now proceeds, by means of a second rhetorical question, to reinforce the point of the preceding question, and thus to clinch the argument. The appeal in this case is unique in the Pauline corpus: “Does not nature itself teach you?” It is hardly possible for Paul as a Hellenistic Jew not to have known the far-reaching significance that “nature” had in Greek thinking, especially in contemporary popular philosophy, Stoicism in particular. Nonetheless, even though this question has a very Stoic ring to it, Paul makes no theological significance of the idea as one finds it in Stoicism. For him this is not an appeal to Nature, or to “natural law,” or to “natural endowment”; nor is Nature to be understood as pedagogic . Rather, for Paul it is a question of propriety and of “custom” , which carries with it “disgrace” or “glory” . Hence, this is an appeal to the “way things are,” which the NIV translators have rightly put into a corresponding English idiom , that is, to the “natural feeling” that he and they shared together as part of their contemporary culture. Thus Paul is not arguing that men must wear their hair short, or that women must have long hair, as though “nature” meant some kind of “created order.” Indeed, the very appeal to “nature” in this way suggests most strongly that the argument is by way of analogy, not of necessity.
As in the two preceding arguments , Paul begins with the man in order to set up what he wants to say about the woman. What “nature” thus teaches is that “man, on the one hand, if he has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.” This seems to be clear evidence that by “nature” Paul meant the natural feelings of their contemporary culture. After all, according to the narrative in Acts Paul had apparently worn long hair for a time in Corinth as part of a vow. But the very nature of the vow—both letting the hair grow long and cutting it again—demonstrates the “normalcy” of shorter hair on men, as is also evidenced by thousands of contemporary paintings, reliefs, and pieces of sculpture. The “disgrace” lay in the very “unnaturalness” of long hair in Greco-Roman culture.
For the woman, on the other hand, the opposite prevails. What is dishonor for the one is glory for the other. “Glory” in this instance, since it is the opposite of “dishonor,” must mean something like “distinction” or “honor.” Long hair does not give her glory; it functions as something that distinguishes the splendor of the woman. Although he may be thinking of the hair as it is done up in public, more likely he is not thinking of the public appearance of women but of the more “natural” phenomenon of the hair itself, which at home would more often be on display and without shame. That is, Paul’s concern by this analogy is not how people appear, but how they are by the nature of things.
This seems to be the point of the final clause, which is tied to the rhetorical question with a causal conjunction. Long hair is the woman’s glory because it has been given in the place of a covering. The natural meaning of these words is that her long hair, let down, functions for her as a natural covering. The question is whether the preceding rhetorical question was intended to deal with hair specifically, thus implying that this had been the issue right along, or whether that question functioned as an analogy to reinforce the preceding arguments that the woman should not be “uncovered” when praying or prophesying.
Much has been made of the preposition anti, which ordinarily serves for the concept of replacement—one thing instead of another. To make anti mean that here would tend to force one to take long hair, either loosed or put up, as the “covering” for which Paul has been arguing throughout. We have already noted the difficulties with the “long hair” view. If put-up hair is the concern, then the preceding rhetorical question is not so much trying to reinforce the preceding question as it is itself the point of the whole argument from its very beginning . The problem with this view is threefold: If put-up hair has been the issue throughout, why does Paul not say so clearly in the sentences that follow immediately ? Why use such ambiguities in the earlier part of the argument when it is clear from this passage that he does not need to? It is difficult to find an adequate reason for this last sentence, since, according to this view, nothing in the preceding argument has so much as hinted at the possibility that a woman should have an external covering. Why now should he cap the whole argument with this irrelevance, that long hair has been given to her instead of another covering of some kind? How does one reconcile the clear force of the present contrasts, that the woman has “long hair” by nature, with the idea that the whole point of the argument is for her to put it up—all the more so, since the word “covering” ordinarily refers to a garment that functions as a shawl or “wraparound”? On the whole, this sentence, which proponents of this view see as in its favor, is in fact its Achilles’ heel.
Since there is sufficient evidence that anti can also mean “that one thing is equivalent to another,” there is no need to force the rigid concept of replacement onto this sentence. Most likely, therefore, just as before , Paul is arguing by analogy that, since women have by “nature” been given long hair as a covering, that in itself points to their need to be “covered” when praying and prophesying. If the argument is not tight for some modern tastes, it is in fact perfectly understandable.
By appealing finally to their own sense of propriety, as “nature” by way of analogy helps them to see that, Paul brings to a close his argument over the “rightness” of the women maintaining the “custom” of being covered. But Paul is never quite comfortable concluding an argument in this fashion. Hence he draws the whole together with a final appeal to what goes on in the “churches of God.” That he is dealing strictly with “custom” is now made plain, as is the fact that this argument, for all its various facets, falls short of a command as such.
The opening sentence, “If anyone wants to be contentious about this,” is one of four such sentences in this letter, each indicating that this is what some are doing. Most likely this refers to some women who are discarding a traditional “covering” of some kind. Paul’s final appeal to these women is that “we have no such practice—nor do the churches of God,” referring to communities of believers outside of Corinth. The words “such practice,” therefore, must refer to that which the “contentious” are advocating, and which this argument has been combating.
This is now the third time that Paul has tried to correct Corinthian behavior by appealing to what is taught or practiced in the other churches. As noted regarding the opening salutation , this probably reflects something of the independent spirit that is at work in this community. The distinction between “we” and “the churches of God” is most likely between the Pauline and other churches. If so, then Paul is also reminding the Corinthians of how much greater a body it is to which he and they belong.
Even though Paul has now spent considerable effort on this issue, the very nature of his argumentation reveals that it is not something about which he has great passion. Indeed, there is nothing else quite like this in his extant letters, where he argues for maintaining a custom, let alone predicating a large part of the argument on shame, propriety, and custom. Two final observations, therefore, need to be made.
First, the very fact that Paul argues in this way, and that even at the end he does not give a commandment, suggests that such a “church custom,” although not thereby unimportant for the Corinthians, is not to be raised to canon law. The very “customary” nature of the problem, which could be argued in this way in a basically monolithic cultural environment, makes it nearly impossible to transfer “across the board” to the multifaceted cultures in which the church finds itself today—even if we knew exactly what it was we were to transfer, which we do not. But in each culture there are surely those modes of dress that are appropriate and those that are not.
Second, the more casual way Paul argues against this present “deviation” in comparison with what follows, seems to indicate the greater significance—for him at least—of the next one. Here he can appeal to shame, propriety, and custom ; in the abuse that follows there are only attack and imperative. What they were doing with the supper cuts at the heart of both the gospel and the church; therefore, much is at stake. But here it is not quite so. The distinction between the sexes is to be maintained; the covering is to go back on; but for Paul it does not seem to be a life-and-death matter. It falls considerably below the urgency and rhetoric that one meets next regarding the Lord’s Supper—which matters indeed and calls for change without qualification.

Bercot, David W. (1992) - Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding Scripture.

"The historical evidence is strikingly clear. The record reveals that the early churches all understood Paul to be talking about a cloth veil, not long hair. ... Hippolytus, a leader in the church in Rome around the year 200, compiled a record of the various customs and practices in that church from the generations that preceded him. His Apostolic Tradition contains this statement: "And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering." This written evidence of the course of performance of the early Christians is corroborated by the archaeological record.

The pictures we have from the second and third centuries from the catacombs and other places depict Christian women praying with a cloth veil on their heads. So the historical record is crystal clear. It reveals that the early generation of believers understood the head covering to be a cloth veil – not long hair."

Biblia Paulistów

Nakrywanie głowy podczas modlitwy. W starożytności Grecy uważali, że odkryta głowa u mężczyzny jest symbolem wolności i godności. Dlatego podczas modlitwy nie nakrywali oni głowy. W przeciwieństwie do nich Żydzi (Ez 44,18) i Rzymianie w czasie sprawowania liturgii nakrywali głowy na znak poddania Bogu. Paweł, pisząc do Koryntian, opo wiada się za zwyczajami greckimi. Jego nakaz, aby kobiety nakrywały głowy, jest nawiązaniem do panującego wów- czas przekonania, że kobiece włosy budzą pożądliwość u mężczyzn (Łk 7,38+), a wyzywające fryzury świadczą o lek- kich obyczajach. Paweł dostosowuje się więc do obyczajów i wymogów swojego czasu, a jego praktyczne wskazania uwarunkowane są ówczesnym poczuciem przyzwoitości i nie mają charakteru ponadczasowego. Paweł nawiązuje rów- nież do biblijnego opisu stworzenia człowieka, aby potwierdzić te wskazania. W istocie jednak celem tego odwoła- nia jest podkreślenie prawdy o godności mężczyzny i kobiety. Apostoł stwierdza, że mężczyzna i kobieta mają przed Bogiem tę samą godność dzieci Bożych. Oboje zostali w taki sam sposób zbawieni przez Chrystusa i oboje odziedzi- czą tę samą chwałę przygotowaną dla odkupionych. Fizyczne i duchowe różnice między mężczyzną i kobietą ozna- czają, że w różny sposób są oni obrazem jedynego Boga.

Thomas Aquinas - Commentary On the First Epistle to the Corinthians

We must consider why man should not veil his head, but the woman. This can be taken in two ways: first, because a veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. Therefore, the man existing under God should not have a covering over his head to show that he is immediately subject to God; but the woman should wear a covering to show that besides God she is naturally subject to another. Hence a stop is put to the objection about servant and subject, because this subjection is not natural. Secondly, to show that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed; but man’s glory is to be concealed. Hence it says in Ps. 113:9: “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to thy name give the glory.”
Then when he says, That is why, he draws the intended conclusion, saying: That is why, namely, because man is the image and glory of God, but woman the glory of man, a woman ought to have a veil on her head, when she places herself before God by praying or prophesying. In this way it is shown that she is not immediately under God, but is also subjected to man under God. For the veil put on the head signifies this. Hence another translation has it that the woman ought to have power over her head, but the sense is the same. For a veil is a sign of power, according to Ps 66 (v. 4): “Thou didst let men ride over our heads.”
Then when he says, because of the angels, he gives a third reason, which is taken on the part of the angels, saying: A woman ought to have a veil on her head because of the angels. This can be understood in two ways: in one way about the heavenly angels who are believed to visit congregations of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. And therefore at that time women as well as men ought to present themselves honorably and ordinately as reverence to them according to Ps 138 (v. 1): “Before the angels I sing thy praise.” In another way it can be understood in the sense that priests are called angels, inasmuch as proclaim divine things to the people according to Mal (2:7): “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.” Therefore, the woman should always have a covering over her head because of the angels, i.e., the priests, for two reasons: first, as reverence toward them, to which it pertains that women should behave honorably before them. Hence it says in Sir (7:30): “With all your might love your maker and do not forsake his priests.” Secondly, for their safety, lest the sight of a woman not veiled excite their concupiscence. Hence it says in Sir (9:5): “Do not look intently at a virgin, lest you stumble and incur penalties for her.”
Augustine explains the above in another way. For he shows that both man and woman are made to the image of God, according to what is said in Eph (4:23): “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds and put on the new man created after the likeness of God according to the image of him who created him,” where considered according to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female; consequently, the woman is the image of God, just as the male. For it is expressly stated in Gen (1:27) that “God created man to his own image, male and female he created them.” Therefore, Augustine says that this must be understood in a spiritual union, which is in our soul, in which the sensibility or even the lower reason has itself after the manner of the woman, but the superior reason after the manner of the man, in whom the image of God is considered to be. And according to this the woman is from the man and for the sake of the man, because the administration of temporal or sensible things, in which the lower reason or even the sensibility is adept, ought to be deduced from the contemplation of eternal things, which pertain to the higher reason and is ordained to it. Therefore, the woman is said to have a veil or power over her own head, in order to signify that in regard to dispensing temporal things man should apply a certain restraint, lest he transgress the limits in loving them. This restraint should not be applied to the love of God, since it is commanded in Dt (6:5): “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart.” For no limit is placed in regard to loving the end, although one is placed in regard to the means to the end. For a doctor produces as much health as he can, but he does not give as much medicine as he can, but in a definite amount. Thus a man should not have a covering on his head. And this on account of the angels, because, as is said in a Gloss: “Sacred and pious signification is pleasing to the holy angels.” Hence Augustine also says in The City of God, that the demons are attracted by certain sensible things, not as animals to food but as spirits to signs.