Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 11:4-7

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." — 1 Corinthians 11:4-7 (ASV)

After presenting the doctrine, the Apostle adds an admonition, the reason for which is taken from the doctrine just mentioned. He addresses this in two parts:

1. He gives the admonition concerning the man.
2. He gives the admonition concerning the woman (1 Corinthians 11:5).

First, therefore, he says that since the head of the woman is the man, any man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. It should be noted that anyone assisting a judge should display a certain dignity, especially when assisting God, who is the judge of all. Therefore, those who assist God should conduct themselves in the most well-behaved and suitable way, as it says in Ecclesiastes 5:1: Guard your steps when you go to the house of God.

Now, a man assists God in two ways. One way is by relating human affairs to God, which is done by praying: He will make supplication before the Most High; he will open his mouth in prayer, and make supplication for his sins . The other way is by bringing things down from God to men, which is done by prophesying, according to Joel 2:28: I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. This is why the Apostle is careful to say, man praying or prophesying, for in these two ways a man assists God as Judge, or assists the Lord.

A person is said to prophesy in two ways. First, insofar as a person announces to others what has been divinely revealed to him, as it says in Luke 1:67: And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel…” A person also prophesies by uttering things that have been revealed to others; hence, those who read the prophecies or other sacred scriptures are said to be prophesying. It is taken in this sense below in 1 Corinthians 14:4: He who prophesies edifies the Church. It is also taken in that sense here.

But it pertains to a man’s dignity not to wear a covering on his head, as will be clear below. Consequently, he says that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head—that is, he does something unbecoming for a man. For just as in a body, beauty depends on the proper proportion of its members and on fitting light and color, so in human acts, beauty depends on the proper proportion of words or deeds, in which the light of reason shines forth. Conversely, ugliness is present when something is done against reason and proper proportion is not observed. Hence it was said above in reference to 1 Corinthians 7:36: If someone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, because she is of full age.

An objection is raised against this: Many people pray in church with their heads covered without any dishonor, as they wish to pray more privately. The answer is that prayer is twofold. One kind is private and is offered to God in one’s own person. The other is public and is offered to God in the person of the entire Church, as is clear from the prayers said in the church by priests. It is this latter type of public prayer that the Apostle has in mind here.

There is also an objection against a gloss which states that prophesying means interpreting the Scriptures. According to this, anyone who preaches is prophesying. But bishops preach with their heads covered by a miter. The answer is that one who preaches or teaches in the schools speaks in his own person. Hence even the Apostle calls the gospel his own (Romans 2:16), namely, on account of the energy he used in preaching it. But one who recites Sacred Scripture in the church—for example, by reading a lesson, an epistle, or a gospel—speaks in the person of the whole church. This is the kind of prophesying that the Apostle means here.

An objection is also raised concerning those who chant psalms in a choir with their heads covered. The answer is that psalms are not chanted as if by one person singly presenting himself to God, but as by the whole multitude.

Next, when he says, but every woman, he gives an admonition as it applies to women. He says that any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered—which is unbecoming, considering her state—dishonors her head; that is, she does something unsuitable regarding the covering of her hair. But against this is the Apostle’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:12: I permit no woman to teach in church. How, then, can it be fitting for a woman to pray or prophesy in public prayer or teaching? The answer is that this must be understood as referring to prayers and readings that women say in their own groups.

Then, when he says, it is the same as if, he proves the preceding admonition. First, he presents a proof, and second, he submits the proof to his hearers for their judgment (1 Corinthians 11:13). In presenting the proof, he first offers the argument and second, excludes an objection (1 Corinthians 11:11). He presents three proofs:

1. The first is taken from a comparison with human nature.
2. The second is from a comparison with God (1 Corinthians 11:7).
3. The third is from a comparison with angels (1 Corinthians 11:10b).

Regarding the first proof, it should be noted that nature, which provides other animals with sufficient aids for life, offers these aids to humans imperfectly. This is so that through reason, skill, and practice, a person can provide these things for himself with his hands. For example, nature gave bulls horns for defense, whereas humans prepare weapons for defense by the direction of reason through their hands. Hence, human skill imitates nature and produces things that nature cannot make.

Thus, for covering the head, nature gave humans hair. But because this covering is not sufficient, a person prepares another covering for himself through skill. The same explanation holds true for both the natural and the artificial covering. It is natural for a woman to have long hair, for she has a natural disposition for it, and there is also a definite inclination in women to care for their hair. It is true in the majority of cases that women take more pains with their hair than men. Therefore, it seems a condition suitable to women that they use an artificial covering for the head more than men do.

In this regard, he does three things.

1. First, he mentions the parallel between a natural and an artificial covering. He says that a woman not covering her head dishonors it, for being deprived of an artificial covering is the same as if she were shaven—that is, as if she were deprived of the natural covering of hair. This is predicted as a punishment for certain people: The Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts (Isaiah 3:17).
2. Second, he argues to an unacceptable conclusion, saying: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair. It is as if to say: If she throws aside the artificial covering, let her for the same reason cast aside the natural one—which is unacceptable. An objection to this is the fact that nuns have their heads shaven. To this there are two answers. First, by the very fact that they take a vow of virginity or widowhood with Christ as their spouse, they are elevated to the dignity of men, being freed from subjection to men and joined to Christ himself. Second, they assume the garb of penance when they enter a religious order. Now, it is a custom for people in times of sorrow not to take care of their hair. Hence it says in Jeremiah 7:21: Cut off your hair and cast it away; raise a lamentation on the bare heights.
3. Third, he concludes his proposition, saying: But if it is disgraceful—that is, unbecoming—for a woman to be shorn or shaven, meaning to be deprived of her natural covering by skill or by nature, let her wear a veil.

Next, when he says, For a man, he presents the second proof, which is taken from a comparison with God. First, he introduces the proof, and second, he proves what he had supposed (1 Corinthians 11:8). In introducing the proof, he first lays down the reason as it pertains to the man, and second, as it pertains to the woman (1 Corinthians 11:7).

First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn, just as it is for her not to be veiled. For a man, however, it is not disgraceful. The reason is that a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.

In saying that man is the image of God, the Apostle excludes the error of those who claim that man is only made to the image of God but is not himself the image. The Apostle states the opposite here. Those who hold this error say that the Son alone is the image, because it says in Colossians 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God. Therefore, one must say that man is said to be both the image of God and made to His image. He is an imperfect image, whereas the Son is said to be the image but not to the image, because He is the perfect image.

To clarify this, it should be noted that three things are generally involved in the concept of an image:

1. A likeness is required, not just any likeness, but one in the very species of a thing, as a human son is similar to his father. Or it can be a likeness in something that is a sign of the species, such as the shape in bodily things; hence, one who draws the shape of a horse is said to depict its image. This is what Hilary says in his book On the Councils: that an image is an undifferentiated species.
2. Origin is required. For if two men are similar in species, one is not the image of the other unless he originated from him, as a son from a father.
3. The concept of a perfect image requires equality.

Therefore, because man is similar to God in memory, intelligence, and will—which pertain to the species of an intellectual nature—and because he has this from God, he is said to be God’s image. But because equality is lacking, he is an imperfect image of God. For this reason he is said to be made to God’s image, as in Genesis 1:26: Let us make man to our image and likeness.

It should also be noted that “the glory of God” is spoken of in two ways.

1. It can refer to the glory by which God is glorious in himself. This is not how man is God’s glory; rather, God is man’s glory, according to Psalm 3:3: But you, O Lord, are a shield about me, my glory.
2. It can refer to his splendor derived from him, as in Exodus 40:34: The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. It is in this second sense that man is said to be the glory of God, insofar as God’s splendor shines on man, as it says in Psalm 4:6: The light of your countenance has been signed upon us, O Lord.

Then, when he says, but woman, he presents the part concerning the woman, saying: But woman is the glory of man, because, as it says in Genesis 2:23: She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.

Some object that since the image of God in humanity is found in the spirit, where there is no difference between male and female (as it says in Galatians 3:28), there is no more reason for a man to be called the image of God than for a woman.

The answer is that man is called the image of God here in a special way. This is because man is the source of his entire race, just as God is the source of the entire universe. It is also because from the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments of blood and water, from which the Church was formed. Furthermore, with regard to internal qualities, man is more especially called the image of God insofar as reason is more vigorous in him.

But it is better to say that the Apostle speaks clearly here. For he said of the 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 only that she is the glory of the man. This leads us to understand that being the image of God is common to both man and woman, but being the glory of God is immediately characteristic of the man.

We must now consider why the man should not cover his head, but the woman should. This can be understood in two ways:

1. A veil placed on the head signifies the power of another over the person wearing it, according to the order of nature. Therefore, the man, who exists under God, should not have a covering on his head, to show that he is immediately subject to God. The woman, however, should wear a covering to show that, besides God, she is naturally subject to another. This addresses the objection concerning servants and subjects, because that kind of subjection is not natural.
2. The covering signifies that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed, whereas man’s glory should be concealed. Hence it says in Psalm 113:9: Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give the glory.