What does Paul mean that woman is the glory of man?

Explanation:

In first-century Corinth, married women covered their hair in public to indicate that they were unavailable to other men.⁴ Paul knows that there are married women in Corinth who pray or prophesy in public without a covered head, so he explains to the Corinthians that this dishonours their husband (1 Corinthians 11:5. To bring force to his exhortation, Paul uses God’s created order to demonstrate why woman should not dishonour their husbands. He explains that man is the image and glory of God, and woman the glory of man (1 Corinthians 11:7). He also notes that woman was made from man (1 Corinthians 11:8). Based on these statements, we can see that Paul refers to Genesis 1:27 where we learn that God created man in his image. He also refers to Genesis 2:21–23 where the author explains that woman was created from man. It is based on the fact that woman was created from man that Paul says woman is the glory of man.⁵ So what does it mean that woman is the glory of man? Most likely Paul means that just as the existence of the man brings praise and honour to God, so the woman, by her conduct, brings praise and honour to her husband.⁶ The inference is that the woman completes the man, and her conduct can bring shame or honour.^7,8 Therefore, since it is dishonourable for a married woman to leave her hair uncovered in public, she should cover her hair when she prays or prophesies.

Counterargument:

If Paul’s point is that the woman completes the man, this implies that the man completes God. Of course, it is repugnant to suggest that man completes God, who is complete in and of himself. Paul says that just as the man is the glory of God, so the woman is the glory of man. If we take the argument above seriously, we are to infer that to be the glory of someone is to complete that being. In other words, just as the man is the glory of God and completes God, so the woman is the glory of the man and completes the man. Since it is repugnant to suggest that God should be completed by anything, we must conclude that Paul’s point is not that the woman completes the man.

Response to counterargument:

There is merit in this counterargument. It is true that the woman completes the creation order, but we should be careful to say that in this context, Paul’s point is that the woman completes the man. Based on the structure of his argument this would infer that the man completes God, which is repugnant. Still, we can emphasize the fact that, to be the glory of a being is to be in a position to bring praise and honour to that being. Thus, just as the man is in a position to bring praise and honour to God, so a woman is in a position to bring praise and honour to her husband.

Explanation:

In first-century Corinth, it was dishonourable for a woman to worship in public without her head covered because it indicated that she was available. Such an indication dishonoured her husband. Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is that a woman is the glory of her husband, so she should not dishonour him. In other words, just as a man’s behaviour reflected on God, so a woman’s behaviour reflected on her husband. An honourable wife was cherished because she reflected well on her husband, and we have other sources that confirm this. For example, in the Septuagint we read, A gracious wife brings glory to her husband (Proverbs 11:16).⁹ Also, there appears on a Jewish tomb in Rome the inscription Lucilla, the blessed glory of Sophronius.¹⁰ In light of the precedence for the notion that a wife was the glory of her husband, Paul’s reference to Genesis 2:21–23, and the context of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, we can see that Paul exhorts the women of Corinth to behave such that their conduct honours their husbands.

Counterargument:

While it might be that there are other references to the fact that a wife was the glory of her husband, we need to understand this statement in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:7. There Paul is not talking about a husband and wife, but about man and woman in the created order. In other words, since man is the glory of God’s creation, he is the crown of God’s creation, and he reveals how beautiful a thing God could create. Since women are made from man, women reveal how beautiful a thing God could create from man.¹¹ Since Paul’s point is rooted in the creation order of man and woman, his intention may simply be to remind the Corinthians that man is above the woman.¹²

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument simply reinforces the fact that a woman should be mindful of her behaviour because it can reflect honourably or dishonourably on her husband. If man is the crown of God’s creation because he is the glory of God, then a wife is the crown of her husband. As the author of Genesis explains in Genesis 2:24, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. The fact that the woman is the crown of her husband, and the two have become one flesh, affirms the notion that a woman’s behaviour reflects either positively or negatively on her husband. Therefore, since it was dishonourable for a married woman to go in public with her head uncovered, she should cover her head when she prays and prophesies so as not to dishonour her husband.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it depends on the fact that Paul addresses a married woman not covering her head because it signalled that she was available. The fact is, it is very difficult to see from 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 why Paul exhorts the women to cover their heads, so we must infer this from historical research. If this inference is mistaken, the interpretation might still go through, but it would be more strained. Still, there is good historical evidence that in first-century Corinth, a married woman covered her head to signal that she was unavailable.

Explanation:

The woman is subordinate to the man, and therefore a woman should cover her head. In first-century Corinth, a person would show that they were under subjection by covering their head. This was true in the case of slaves. Paul explains that the women in Corinth should also cover their heads to show that they are subordinate to men. To make his case, he reflects on Gen 2 and the fact that the woman was made from the man’s rib. The creation narrative shows that men are above women.¹³

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it is inconsistent with the broad literary context and the rest of Scripture. When we interpret a verse, it should be consistent with its immediate and broad literary context. It should also make sense in light of the canon of Scripture as a whole.

First, when it comes to the broader literary context, we can see that Paul anticipates and refutes the notion that men are above women. In 1 Corinthians 11:11–12, Paul explains that man is not independent of woman, for as woman initially came from man, now, through childbirth, man comes from woman. Thus, Paul cautions his audience from thinking that his point here is that man is over woman.

Further, the canon of Scripture indicates that men and women are equal. First, in Genesis 1:27 we learn that God created male and female in his image. To be created in God’s image means that both men and women have the same intrinsic value. Paul himself confirms this when he writes in Gal 3:28 that there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Here Paul clearly states that men and women are equal under Christ.

Given the broad literary context and the fact that men and women are intrinsically valuable because they are both created after the image of God, we have to conclude that Paul is not suggesting that men are superior to women. Men and women may have varying roles in the created order, but varying roles does not imply superiority.

Explanation:

Paul is concerned that women do not cover their heads when they pray or prophesy, so he exhorts them through 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. He begins by setting up a hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11:3, where he explains that men are the head of women.¹⁴ He now continues that hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11:7 by reflecting on Genesis 2:1–25. The fact that the woman is the glory of man, having been created from man, reinforces the fact that the man is above the woman.¹⁵

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it assumes that the woman is below the man, and then interprets Paul accordingly. Paul anticipates this approach and refutes it in 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 when he writes that man is not independent of woman, and that men come from women through childbirth. This means we have to interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 with this important point from Paul in mind. Of course, it is possible to do so, because it is not at all obvious that Paul sets up a hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Rather, he says that as Christ is the head of man, so man is the head of the woman. Further, in 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 he explains that if a man covers his head, he dishonours his head, and if a woman uncovers her head, she dishonours her head. Plausibly, Paul’s point from 1 Corinthians 11:3–5 is that everyone has a spiritual head, and one’s conduct will reflect either negatively or positively on that head. With this in mind, we can see that Paul does something similar in 1 Corinthians 11:7. There he reinforces his point by saying that as man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man. This implies that the behaviour of man reflects on God, while the behaviour of a woman reflects on her husband.

Given that Paul refutes any hierarchy between men and women in 1 Corinthians 11:11–12, it is imminently more plausible that when Paul says woman is the glory of man, he means that a wife’s behaviour reflects on her husband.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it fails to see 1 Corinthians 11:7 as one aspect in Paul’s larger line of thought in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. By isolating 1 Corinthians 11:7, authors are tempted to think that Paul sets up a hierarchy between men and women, but Paul himself undercuts this notion in 1 Corinthians 11:11–12.