Just recently, the Southern Baptist Conference made a ruling that solidified women should not have pastoral/elder/overseer positions in church. It was claimed to be a return to the tradition of scripture.

While philosophers, Bible scholars, and ethicists argue for and against this, there’s another hot button topic that hits female servants at the core of their creation.

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”

Taken at face value, the verse implies that ἀνήρ (men) were created in the Image of God (the highest value of his creation), while γυνή (women) were created in the image of men (often interpreted as a servant position). In many arguments to define the female gender as incapable or inadequate for certain roles, this verse is often cited. This logical conclusion did not come up overnight, as the this idea is rooted in Greek  and Socratic theology.

First, we must look at the verse that seems to contradict the above verse. God’s order of creation in Genesis 1:27 says:

So God created man in his own image;

he created him in the image of God;

he created them male and female.

In the original Hebrew it reads like this: Created God אָדָם  (humankind). In His own image, in the image of God He created אֵת (referring to the direct object in the last sentence). זָכָר (male) and נְקֵבָה (female) he created them.

The Talmud and the Midrash understood that God was blessing both sexes in his image. The ancient theory was that the first Adam was androgynous and in Genesis 2, God split Adam into male and female. That is just a Jewish theory, but it shows that the Image of God was believed to be for both genders.

The idea that both sexes are under the image of God is even understood through reformed theology as Luther states in his commentary of Genesis 1:27.

However Moses here joins the two sexes together and says that God created them male and female for a further reason that he might thereby signify that Eve also being alike created of God, alike with Adam became thereby a partaker of the divine image and similitude, and also of the dominion over all things. Hence woman is still a partaker of the life divine to come, as Peter says, “As being heirs together of the grace of life,” 1 Pet. 3:7

The idea of male and female sharing the same divine mandate is a New Testament belief (we are co-heirs in Christ) and a reformed theology understanding. So why is 1 Cor 11:7 such a thorn in the side of the previous verse?

Many scholars emphasize the importance of understanding the context of 1 Corinthians 11. The main idea of this section is that women, especially when prophesying, should wear head coverings. The term he uses for women could also refer to married or betrothed women. The issue isn’t trying to define a woman’s worth within God’s created order but avoiding miscommunication of immodesty in the church setting. Paul didn’t want the revolutionary church of Christ, which granted new freedoms to women, to be misrepresented in culture. Therefore, it was acceptable for men to show their hair, as it was believed to carry only honorable intentions, but for women, it symbolized seduction or prostitution .

When Paul says that women are the glory of man, is he suggesting that God’s divine declaration in Genesis 1:27 is invalid? Not quite. Notice that Paul is not saying that women were created in the image of man or that the glory of man is the only way to define women in creation. Both can be true. A woman can glorify her husband by choosing to wear a head covering and still be the glory of God. It could mean that Paul is encouraging women to continue the patriarchal rules of Jewish worship, which required them to cover their hair. We see that rule still applies in the Middle East, where Muslim females wear head coverings.  

But, scholars argue that these traditions are not clear in the ancient world as there is not significant proof that culture held these rules. This is why the passage is so contested.

Perhaps, the most straight forward answer that embodies the entire message of the verse is found in this article from Got Question

When a Christian woman covered her head in worship, she showed honor and respect to her husband. The word translated as “glory” in 1 Corinthians 11:7 means “radiant beauty” in the original language. A woman can radiate beauty, like a crown of jewels on her husband’s head (see Proverbs 12:4). In this way, she brings him honor and respect. A woman who went without a head covering in worship was likely to be a sexual distraction to men in church. Such a thing would bring dishonor to her husband and God. Therefore, Paul taught women not to be a stumbling block and to reflect God’s glory by covering her head in worship.

But also understand that this passages confuses most scholars and the consensus of the verse differs among different interpreters. As written by hinehyeshua.com.au

There is no consensus between the different commentators. David Stern explains that it seems that there seems to have been a problem of “forwardness and insubordination of Corinthian women.”[iii] Even within the congregation, the women seemed to be following worldly fashions and not dressing modestly. Verlyn Verbrugge mentions that it may simply have been because the congregations met in homes.[iv] In her home, a married woman was free to remove the veil, but since others were now invited in, this may have seemed a little forward. But in contrast to both these views, Michael Marlowe shows that there was no consistent Greek, Roman or Jewish customs with regards to head coverings, and this may simply be a tradition that Paul had passed on to the congregation.[v]

As Christians, we need to take a full-Bible view of creation and order. Men and women are required to honor each other (Ephesians 5:21) and be co-heirs in Christ (1 Peter 3:7) . Whatever fault or problem was created in sin is corrected and abolished in Christ the redeemer (Galatians 3:28).