Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism

Close this search box.


I’m currently writing an article about 1 Corinthians 11:7 that I hope to post in a day or two. I thought it would be useful, however, to first hear what some scholars suggest this verse might mean. In this post, I first quote from past scholars and then from more modern scholars.

Even though the more recent interpretations below are kinder to women than those of past scholars, and are more faithful to scripture, I am not completely convinced that any of these are exactly what Paul meant when he wrote,

“For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man” 1 Corinthians 11:7 (NET).

1 Corinthians 11:7 is a baffling verse and there are many ways it is interpreted. We need to be careful, however, that we don’t lose sight of the overall context of 1 Corinthians 11:7 which is the appropriate appearance of men’s and women’s heads, in regards to either hairstyles or head-coverings, as they pray and prophecy in Corinthian assemblies.

Click here to read my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:7.

Past Scholars


Augustine (354–430) was the Bishop of Hippo and was made Doctor of the Church by the Roman Catholic Church, one of its highest honours. He references 1 Corinthians 11:7 in a work called in English, The Literal Meaning of Genesis:

“… woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”
De Genesi ad literatum 11.42

In another work entitled On the Trinity, which doesn’t specifically reference our text, Augustine wrote,

“… the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that the whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”
On the Trinity, Book 12 7.10


John Chrysostom (died 407) was the Archbishop of Constantinople. Writing around the same time as Augustine, he commented on 1 Cor. 11:7 and tersely stated,

“Therefore the rule of the man is natural.”
Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians


Thomas Aquinas, an Italian priest and influential theologian who lived in the 1200s, wrote,

“Some object that because the image of God in man is regarded with respect to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female, as it says in Gal (3:28), therefore, there is no more reason why man is called the image of God than a woman is. The answer is that man is here called the image of God in a special way, namely, because man is the principle of his entire race, as God is the principle of the entire universe [principle = fundamental source or basis of something] and because from the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments of blood and water, from which the Church has been organized. Furthermore, in regard to what is within, man is more especially called the image of God, inasmuch as reason is more vigorous in him. But it is better to say that the Apostle speaks clearly here. For he said of man that he is the image and glory of God; but he did not say of the woman that she is the image and glory of man, but [Paul] only that she is the glory of the man. This gives us to understand that it is common to man and woman to be the image of God; but it is immediately characteristic of man to be the glory of God.”
Commentary on 1 Corinthians, section 607 (Italics added)


John Calvin wrote in the 1500s and said this about men in his commentary on 1 Corinthians:

“God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity, the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.”

In the same commentary, Calvin says this about women:

“Woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honour that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, and has made her subject to him …” (Source: Bible Hub)


John Wesley in the 1700s had similar views as those before him.

“A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image of God—in the dominion he [man] bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory. But the woman is only matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear, but with her head veiled, as a tacit acknowledgement of it.” (Source: Bible Hub)

Recent Scholars

Leon Morris

The reason a man should not cover his head is that he is the image and glory of God. In the creation story we read that God made man [i.e. humanity] in his own image (Gen. 1:26–27). Genesis makes no distinction between the sexes at this point, but Paul understands it particularly of the male. Glory is not mentioned in the Genesis story (though cf. Ps 8:5, and passages where ‘heart’ or soul’ renders the Hebrew for ‘glory’, e.g. Ps. 16:9; 57:8). Man shows forth God’s glory as does nothing else; the expression may also be meant to direct attention to the state of man before the Fall. When people worship, this high dignity must be recognized; the glory of God is not to be obscured in the presence of God (by covering the head of its bearer). The woman is not made in the image of man (it was Seth, not Eve, who was in the image of Adam, Gen. 5:3). Her relation to the man is not the same as that of man to God. She has a place of her own, but it is not the man’s place. She stands in such a relation to the man as does nothing else, and thus she is called the glory of man. And it is precisely the glory of man that should be veiled in the presence of God. In worship God alone must be glorified.”

Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 151. (Italics are original, square brackets are added.)

Craig Keener

“In short, Paul says, because woman was taken from man, she reflects man’s image, and therefore she ought to cover that image in worship lest it distract observers from attention to God’s image.”

Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 37.

Gordon D. Fee

“Paul probably means that the existence of the one brings honor and praise to the other. By creating man in his own image God set his glory in man. Man, therefore exists to God’s praise and honor, and is to live in relationship to God so as to be his ‘glory.’ What we are not told here is why being God’s glory means no covering; v. 4 indicates it had to do with not shaming Christ. But that, too, was left unexplained. As in v. 4, 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 (apparently) disregarded distinctions between the sexes (being already as angels), 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.”

Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 516.

Cynthia Westfall

Cynthia Westfall sees textual ties between 1 Corinthians 11:7 and 1 Esdras 4:14–17 (the Greek version of Ezra in the Septuagint). She writes,

“In 1 Esdras 4:17, the statement that women bring men glory, or rather produce glory for men, may be recast in the singular as ‘woman is the glory of man.’” Because these verses in 1 Esdras may be taken to imply that women have power over men, Westfall states that “Paul qualified his statements with a caveat ‘Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man’ (1 Cor. 11:11).” In summing up her discussion about verse 7, she writes, “… when it comes to external appearance, there is a difference between the glory of men and the glory of women. In common with the culture, Paul believed that God had created women to be more attractive or more glorious, so that she is the glory of man. This becomes a pragmatic problem at the very point when women attempt to manifest the Spirit in prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5; 12:7, 10), or when they lead in prayer in order to worship God.”

Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 66–70. (A short review of Cynthia Westfall’s excellent book is here.)

Derek and Diane Tidball

The Tidballs believe Paul got his idea of “glory” from Psalm 8:5. And they write,

“In saying that woman is the glory of man (vs 7) he is not denying that she is also born in the image of God. That was a given. Paul’s interest simply lies elsewhere, in the idea of glory rather than image. By saying that woman is the glory of man he may be expressing the simple idea that a woman is man’s ‘pride and joy’, the one in whom the man glories.”

Derek and Diane Tidball, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace and Gender (The Bible Speaks Today) (Nottingham, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 2012), 216–217. (Their italics.)

Kenneth Bailey

“’Woman is the glory of man’ can mean ‘woman is the glory of humankind.’ She was created as the final climax of the creation story. … the [creation] process was on an ascending scale that mentions the creation of man (in passing) and reaches its peak with the creation of a woman who is the glory of man[kind].”

Kenneth Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 306. (His parentheses and his second set of square brackets; the first square brackets are mine.)

Alice Mathew

“. . . Paul at no point speaks about ‘authority.’ His concern is with the woman being the man’s ‘glory,’ the one without whom he is incomplete (1 Corinthians 11:7–9). In Genesis 2, man by himself was incomplete, and when he sees the woman, he ‘glories’ in her, bursting into song (Genesis 2:23). She came from man and was created to complete him.”

Alice Mathews, Gender Roles and the People of God: Rethinking What We Were Taught about Men and Women in the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017) (Google Books)

Philip Payne

Philip Payne’s interpretation is unlike the others. He believes the issue in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 was “men who wear effeminate hairstyles and women who let their hair down to symbolize rejection of Christian marital and sexual morality.” In this context, Payne interprets 1 Corinthians 11:7c (“and woman is the glory of man”) as implying that “woman, not another man, is the glory of man.”

Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 175, 179.

Lucy Peppiatt

“Attempts to read this verse as a benign message that men and women are simply different, or that women are creation’s crowning glory, or that both women and men are glorious, just in different ways, are not satisfactory.”

Peppiatt believes the statements in verse 7 are not Paul’s, but come from the Corinthian church. (She may be right. See my article on the structure of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, here.)

Peppiatt also writes,

“If this is now understood as the voice of the Corinthians, it becomes much clearer why there is a corrupted form of Genesis 1:26–27. [Genesis 2:26f uses the words “image” and “likeness” not “image” and “glory” as in 1 Corinthians 11:7.] The Corinthian prophetic leaders and teachers who claim that they ‘have the word of God’ are teaching that men are the image and glory of God, and that women are merely the image and glory of man—the perfect rationale for the subordination of women and the superiority of men. This theology of glory has superseded any sense of what it means for both men and women to be in Christ. This, and a particular understanding of an angelic presence in worship, underpins their view that the wearing of head coverings for women was honoring for God, men, and the angels. Moreover, this would also serve as the perfect rationale, not just for head coverings, but for keeping women silent before their husbands, as they must necessarily adopt a subordinate role …”

Lucy Peppiatt, Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co, 2015, 2017), 51–52, 100.

Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld

(These two paragraphs were added on September 8th, 2023. They touch on how I understand “glory” in 1 Corinthians 11:7 and Paul’s concern for conventional morality.)

“There is a heavy use of the language of convention in this passage [1 Cor. 11:2–16], and Paul’s final plea at the end of the section [1 Cor. 11:16] … uses the word “custom” rather than ‘command,’ ‘law,’ or the like. This same passage contains various words having to do with honor and shame, concepts that have to do with the perception of Christian standards by the outside world. Even the word ‘glory’ [in 1 Cor. 11:7, 15] relates to this, as does the concept of doing things in an ‘orderly manner.'”

“In short, 1 Corinthians 11 cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. The language is too loaded with significant terms of conventional morality to ignore the world in which the first-century churches existed. Paul knew that the appearance and behavior of women in the church would be a symbol to the watching world.”

Ruth A. Tucker and Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1987), 78.


In most cases, the quotations from recent scholars are snippets taken from longer discussions on 1 Corinthians 11:7. I hope I have conveyed the views of the scholars faithfully, and I apologise if these brief quotations do not do justice to their views. In my next post, I present my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:7.

Click here to read my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:7.

You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!

Explore more

Man and Woman as the Image and Glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7)
Women’s Hair in Corinth and in Sydney
1 Corinthians 11:9, in a Nutshell
More articles on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 are here.
Articles on Gender in Genesis 1–3 are here. 
Misogynistic Quotations from Church Fathers and Reformers

artigos em portugues sobre igualdade entre homens e mulheres no lar e na igreja

20 thoughts on “What scholars say about 1 Corinthians 11:7

  1. Thanks again for your conscientious approach to investigating these things, I ambetter informed for ir

    1. Thanks, George.

      I’ve provided these quotations as a resource, but I’m not sure that they tell us what verse 7 means. What they do show is that this verse is very hard to understand since we don’t really know why Paul wrote (or quoted) these words.

    2. The area not well addressed is verse 10 and “because of the angels.”

      1. Hi Neil, I’ve written about the “angels” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 in a somewhat lenghty footnote here: https://margmowczko.com/women-authority-exousia-subordination-1-corinthians-11-10/

  2. Marg,
    Read this scripture this morning, and was baffled by it also. Pleasantly surprised when I received email covering this topic. Reflecting on context of chapter, seems like Paul was writing based on the culture of the time. Looking forward to your thoughts. Interesting topic for sure!

    1. Glad it was timely, Alice.

      I think culture plays a big part in the hairstyle/head-covering and “glory” issue.

      1. In a membership conversation with a pastor recently, my hesitation in becoming a member was because they declared they are complementarian and agreeing to that was one of their seven “pillars,” for want of a better word, to a covenant membership with them. I tried to discuss my hesitation which turned in to a bit of an argument of sorts, but his reasoning for being against egalitarianism in part was because he said Paul didn’t speak to the culture. That baffled me. Can you give some insight to this?

        1. Hi Jeni, I’m not exactly sure what he meant by “Paul didn’t speak to the culture,” but each of Paul’s letters was written in response to specific concerns in specific churches (or, in the case of the letter to Philemon, specific issues concerning Onesimus). And these churches were situated culturally in the first-century Greco-Roman world.

          Paul didn’t just sit down one day and think, “I’m going to write a letter to the Christians in Corinth.” Letter writing was an expensive process in the first century and people usually needed a strong motivation to bear this expense. Paul was motivated to write the letter we know as 1 Corinthians because he had received a report from people in Chloe’s household about significant problems in Corinth.

          That paragraph comes from here: https://margmowczko.com/pauls-theology-1-corinthians-14-34-35/

          There are customs, values, and items mentioned in Paul’s letters that we don’t have in westernised, 21st-century cultures.

          One clearish example where Paul echoes culture is in Titus 2:3-5. The virtues he lists are found on gravestone inscriptions of non-Christian (pagan) wives. I look at some of these epitaphs in footnote 10 here: https://margmowczko.com/busy-at-home-how-does-titus-24-5-apply-today/

          And I touch on the social dynamic of honour-shame in a few articles, including one on 1 Corinthians 11:7.

  3. Wow, what different points of view in only a passage, yet all of them interesting. I like all the different views. I’ll be reading your next post on this topic.
    Thank you for posting all these resources.

  4. Being a military man, when I read the beginning of chapter 11, I see a clear chain of command being established. Then it picks up in verse 4, paraphrasing, that if a man covers his head he dishonoureth Christ.

    Well I see this as if a man is covering himself, he is clearly trying to disguise himself or not it be known that it is him, the one praying ect. A man should honor God by praying openly (not boastfully) but not ashamed rather.

    Now in verse 5, the women is not treated the same as the man but she is underman (in this chain of command theory). She prays ect (with her head covered) in a more softer approach, not to cause strife between her and her husband.

    The rest of the verses go on to establish though women and man or together complete as one, however they clearly have different roles.

    1. Hi Christian,

      Thanks for explaining your context. Paul, however, was not a military man, and there is no “divine” chain of command (among brothers and sisters in Christ) given anywhere in Paul’s letters or in Jesus’ teaching. (More about Jesus’ teaching on leadership and community here.)

      Furthermore, it’s hard to see how Paul’s arrangement of the three partners in 1 Corinthians 11:3 presents any kind of chain:

      “… the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” 1 Corinthians 11:3.

      Whichever way you see the chain of command moving, either from left to right or from right to left, it doesn’t work. For starters, Christ is second from the right and second from the left. I’m not a military person, but I think it’s fair to say that chains of command are not structured this way.

      Furthermore, the Bible shows that even under the former covenant (in Old Testament times), God frequently bypassed husbands or fathers and spoke to women directly, or he sent an angel to speak to them. There was no chain. (More on this here.) But with the new, better covenant, we all have direct access to God because of Jesus and through the Holy Spirit. Women do not need a middleman, as Jesus is our middleman or mediator.

      “For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the human Christ Jesus” 1 Timothy 2:5.

      We need to be careful that we don’t step in the way of this relationship and this connection.

      1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is about the appearance of the heads, and the hair in particular, of the men and women who were praying and prophesying in Corinthian assemblies. (The word “praying” occurs three times, and the word “prophesying” occurs twice, in the passage.) Paul wanted the women and the men to look respectable according to the standards of the time.

      This passage is also about origins. We all, men and women, ultimately have our origin in God (1 Cor. 11:12; cf. 1 Cor.11:3).

      Nothing in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is about passing on commands. And there is nothing about men and women having different roles in this passage; both men and women were praying and prophesying aloud in church meetings. There is also no mention of “man” in 1 Corinthians 11:5, there is nothing about being open or soft when praying, and there is nothing about being “complete as one.”

      I appreciate your sincerity but your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seems to based on several “nothings” and on your military perspective. It’s not based on Paul’s actual words or on the context of the first-century Corinthian church.

      I hope you will read my article on 1 Corinthians 11:7 which is here:

      All my articles on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are here:

      1. Learn to read:

        “… the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God”

        The hierarchy is obvious here if you understand the English language.


        You are seeing what you want to see and what isn’t actually. “Several nothings” as you put it. The male-female dynamic and hierarchy is extremely clear and discussed in numerous places within the Bible. Women and men are not equal anywhere in the Bible, or in life.

        1. Lafontane, there are several hasty presumptions in your comment, not to mention your unfounded cockiness.

          You do realise Paul wrote in Greek and not in English, don’t you? I can read and understand ancient Greek and English.

          The word “hierarchy” is not mentioned at all in the article or in my comments on this page. So why assume I don’t believe there is a hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11:3?

          I actually think there is a hierarchy of status in this verse. Paul, however, undoes this hierarchy in 1 Cor. 11:11-12 for those who are “in the Lord.”

          I’ve written more about how the Greek word kephalē (“head”) was used by Paul here, and by other first-century authors here, and I’ve written about how kephalē in 1 Cor. 11:3 was understood by some early church fathers here.

          Regarding a previous comment and “several nothings”: there is nothing in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 about people passing along commands. We are all brothers and sisters, and Jesus can and does give commands, instructions, and encouragements, etc, directly to women without the need of a human mediator (1 Timothy 2:5 NRSV).

          Importantly, there is simply no verse where Jesus or Paul or Peter, or any New Testament person or author, tells husbands to command or lead their wives. When Paul addresses husbands directly in Ephesians 5:25ff he uses the word “love” six times.

          Love, not leadership, is Paul’s instruction to husbands in Ephesians 5:25-33 and in Colossians 3:19.

          Male and female humanity were equal at creation (Genesis 1:26-28 NRSV) and they are equal in the New Creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).

        2. Lafontane,

          Are you saying that Christ is not fully God?
          Your heirarchy would put him as less than God.

          Kind regards,

        3. Lafontane,
          If Paul meant authority here, this would be a poor translation as the head of Christ is God would’ve been first. But since he didn’t, it is obvious he is speaking of head as source. Why do you think it is mentioned that women come from men, but men (including Christ) are born from women, and everyone has their origins in God? Source is the idea here not authority!

        4. Lafontane, That’s quite a combination of hardcore misogyny plus hardcore arrogance plus hardcore ignorance, that is.

        5. Yep, men are clearly inferior because they commit over 95% of all crime, both in scripture and throughout history. (Yes, this is sarcasm to make a point. I do believe men are equal to women.)

          I also notice you didn’t back up your unfounded assertions with any references to multiple places in scripture where your ideas about hierarchy “are clear.”

        6. Aside from how rude, and condescending your comment is, you’re actually wrong. As you said, “You are seeing what you want to see and what isn’t actually.”

          You have the order right, but your conclusion is wrong. It’s like saying “A is better than Z.”

          “Women and men are not equal anywhere in the Bible…”

          Oh, really? Maybe you missed these:

          • Galatians 3:28
          • Genesis 1:27
          • 1 Corinthians 11:11
          • Romans 2:11
          • Ephesians 5:21
          • Mark 12:31
          • Genesis 5:1-2
          • Acts 10:34-35

          The order is of origin, not authority.

          Stop assigning your own meaning of words to The Word.

        7. “Learn to read” “…understand the English language.”

          I’m sorry, but for some reason I find this hysterical. Oh wait! Perhaps it’s because the original was written in Greek! Ok. Now I know why I find this comment so funny. And ridiculous. Oh, and ignorant.

          Maybe Lafontane, you should “learn to read”, Greek? Andi

  5. […] Despite the fact that the Bible nowhere teaches that men better represent God’s image and likeness, the Church has traditionally taught that men are the superior sex, that men more fully represent God, and that only men can be church leaders. In many regards, this message continues today. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Marg's Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Join Marg's Patreon

Would you like to support my ministry of encouraging mutuality and equality between men and women in the church and in marriage?