For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.
και γαρ ουκ εκτισθη ανηρ δια την γυναικα αλλα γυνη δια τον ανδρα
8 Church Fathers comment on this verse
This is the second advantage, or rather the third and fourth. The first is that our head is Christ, and we are the woman's head. The second is that we are the glory of God, and our glory is the woman. The third is that we are not from the woman, but the woman from us. The fourth is that we are not for her, but she for us.
He sets forth the reasons why the man has preeminence over the woman. Namely, the woman was created from his rib, and he was not created for her, but she for him. For it is said, "Let us make him a helper" (Gen 2:18). How, then, should the man cover himself, when he has been so honored by God? In that case he would seize for himself a woman's garment. He would do the same as if, having received a diadem, he took it from his head and put on a slave's garment.
The man, he says, was not created for the woman. Rather, as all things were created for Adam, so Eve too was made for Adam.
This too is sufficient to prove that the man is worthy of supreme authority, because he was not brought into being for the woman's need, but she for the man's need.
Here the Apostle Paul condemns men who pray or prophesy with covered heads (v. 4), and also those who let their hair grow long: "If a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him" (v. 14).
The Stundists apply this to the clergy of the Orthodox Church and accuse them of violating the apostolic commandment, because they wear long hair and place miters, kamilavkas, and skufias on their heads during divine services.
But the Apostle Paul writes at the conclusion of these instructions: "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such custom," that a man should let his hair grow long and a woman should not, vv. 14-15, "nor do the churches of God."
These words indicate that what the Apostle set forth above is a matter of custom. If anyone wished to argue with this, he would be reproved not by the Lord's commandment, compare 7, 10, but only by existing custom. Customs change.
In particular, concerning men growing their hair, the Apostle finds that nature itself teaches that this is a dishonor for a man (v. 14). Here too he refers not to the Lord's commandment, but only to "nature," considering long hair natural not for a man, but only for a woman (v. 15).
Yet naturalness is not always an obligatory property of human actions. In other words, not everything that is natural is obligatory. For example, it is natural to go barefoot in hot weather, but it is not obligatory.
As for covering the head, there is a distinction between simple covering and crowning the head. The miters of Orthodox bishops, and the kamilavkas and skufias of priests, are head ornaments, like diadems or crowns, that is, bands or wreaths.
The Apostle could not have condemned such ornaments. As a zealous visitor to the temple in Jerusalem, he of course saw the headpiece, in Greek the mitra, on the head of the Jewish high priest (Ex 29:6; Lev 8:9). He also saw head coverings on the priests (Ex 29:9; Lev 8:13).
Therefore he could not have thought that every ornament or crowning of the head was contrary to the commandments of God.
That this is truly the Apostle's thought is clear from the fact that he himself adds, as a reason or proof, that man is not from woman, but woman from man, and that man was not created for woman, but woman for man.
The second ground for the impropriety of the distorted relation of man and woman to the covering of the head lies in the woman's dependence on the man, established by God.
First the man was created according to the image of God. Then the woman was created as it were according to his image. Therefore she is the likeness of the man, as he is the reflection of God's glory.
The woman was commanded to be in subjection to the man, and the seal of this relation is the veil. According to Chrysostom's remark, the man must not be covered not only because he has Christ as his head, but also because he has authority over the woman.
When one who has authority comes to the king, he must bear the sign of his authority. The same must be said of the woman: for her also it is dishonorable not to have the signs of her subordination.
According to the order of creation, primacy belongs to the man. It belongs to him also because the woman was created in response to the man's need to be in communion with a person like himself.
Finally, since some women removed the veils from their heads not only from the desire to be equal to men, but for other and still less excusable reasons, the Apostle arouses in them the feeling of modesty innate in women.
He does this by reminding them of the Angels, who always stand before us and at the same time are close to God, so as constantly to bear witness concerning the immodesty of our thoughts.
The man was created first, and therefore he displays a certain independent significance. The woman was created because the man needed to be in communion with one like himself, and she was created to be the man's helper.
By this her dependent and subordinate position was expressed. "Thus the man has primacy according to the order of creation. This is sufficient proof that authority and the right to direct belong to the man, because he was not brought into being for the woman's need, but she for the man's need" (Theodoret).
"This is the second advantage, or rather the third and fourth. The first is that our head is Christ, while we are the head of the woman. The second is that we are the glory of God, while the woman is our glory.
The third is that we are not from the woman, but the woman from us. The fourth is that we are not for her, but she for us" (Chrysostom).
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 13 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS