1 Corinthians 11:7-9

“The man indeed, being the image and glory of God, ought not to cover his head: but the woman is the glory of the Man 1:8. For the man is not taken from the woman; but the woman from the Man 1:9. And the man indeed was not created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

The γάρ, for, leads us to expect a confirmation drawn from a domain other than the preceding. The omission of the article before the words εἰκών, image, and δόξα, glory, gives these two substantives a qualitative significance.

The meaning of the first is that man, by his sovereignty over the terrestrial creation, visibly reflects the sovereignty of the invisible Creator over all things. We here find the idea of man's lordly position in nature, as it is expressed Genesis 1:26-28, and celebrated in Psalms 8

The second, glory of God, expresses the honour which is shed on God Himself from this visible image which He has formed here below, especially when man, carrying out his destiny, voluntarily renders Him homage for his high position, and adoringly casts at His feet the crown which God has put on his head. Analogous to this is the meaning in 2 Corinthians 8:23, where the deputies of the Churches are called the glory of Christ, because they make the Lord's work, in the Churches they represent, shine before the eyes of those to whom they are delegated.

The man existing in this double character (ὑπάρχων), as image and glory of God, ought not to veil this dignity by covering himself when he acts publicly. This would be in a way to tarnish the reflection of the Divine brightness with which God has adorned him, and which ought at such a time to shine forth in his person. But in virtue of the very same law, the woman ought to act in an opposite way. If, in the discharge of such an office, the veil is opposed to the man's sovereignty, it is from that very fact in keeping with the woman's condition. She, indeed, was created as the glory of the man, because, as is said in the following verses, she was taken from him and formed for him (1 Corinthians 11:8-9). It is an honour, the highest of all undoubtedly, for one being to become the object of another's love and devotion; and the more the being who loves and is self-devoted is exalted in talent and beauty, the more is this honour increased. Can there therefore be a greater glory to man than to possess, as a loving and devoted helpmeet, a being so admirably endowed as woman! All the perfection that belongs to her is homage rendered to the man, from whom and for whom she was made, especially when she consecrates herself freely to him in the devotion of love. Critics have been exercised, and justly, about the reason why the apostle has not in the second case repeated the term image. De Wette has thought that had he made woman the image of man, the apostle would have denied to her the possession of God's image. Meyer thinks that this expression would wrongly imply, on the part of the woman, a certain participation in the sovereignty of the man. The second ground seems to me truer and more in keeping with the context. The image of the husband in the family is not the wife, but the son. It is he who is heir of the paternal sovereignty.

The inference from this relation in regard to the woman's demeanour will be drawn in 1 Corinthians 11:10.

Vers. 8, 9 serve to prove the expression: glory of the man. In 1 Corinthians 11:8 the narrative of Genesis (Gen 2:22-23) is referred to, according to which the man did not appear as proceeding from the woman; but inversely. And why so? For a reason (γάρ) which is at the same time a new proof (καί) of the expression: glory of man, in 1 Corinthians 11:7. The woman proceeded from the man because she was intended to serve as his helper, and to complete his existence.

The διά, on account of, alludes to the saying of Genesis (Gen 2:18): “It is not good for man to be alone: let us make a helpmeet for him.”

The practical conclusion, 1 Corinthians 11:10: