The
Text
Rex Banks
Verse
16 But if one is
inclined to be contentious, we have no other (marginal reading lit "such”)
practice nor have the churches of God (NASB).
But if any man seem to be contentious, we
have no such custom, neither the churches of God (KJV).
Practice,
custom
The word translated “practice” or “custom”
is συνήθεια (sunētheia) from a compound of 'sun” and “ethos.” W. E. Vine has:
1
“ethos (G1485) denotes (a) "a custom, usage, prescribed by
law," Act_6:14; Act_15:1; Act_25:16; "a rite or
ceremony," Luk_2:42; (b) a "custom, habit, manner," Luk_22:39;
Joh_19:40; Heb_10:25 (KJV, "manner").
2 sunetheia (G4914), sun, "with," ethos (see No. 1), denotes (a) "an intercourse,
intimacy," a meaning not found in the NT; (b) "a custom, customary
usage," Joh_18:39; 1Co_11:16; "or force of habit,"
1Co_8:7, RV, "being used to" (some mss.
here have suneidsis,
"conscience"; whence KJV, "with conscience of").
Some have attempted to make a sharp
distinction between the two words, arguing that the former designates a
practice prescribed by law, while the latter is used of human custom. This
argument is unconvincing for various reasons. Consider for example the use of
these two words in Matt 27:15 and Jn 18:39: Mat 27:15 “Now at the
feast the governor was accustomed (from ἔθω)
to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished.” Jn
18:39 "But you have a custom (from συνήθεια)
that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Do you therefore want me
to release to you the King of the Jews?"
Both συνήθεια
and ἔθω are used of this
practice. (Interestingly Luke describes it as a “necessity” 23:17). Having described Josiah's great
Passover Josephus has: “And indeed there had
been no other festival thus celebrated by the Hebrews from the times of Samuel
the prophet; and the plenty of sacrifices now was the occasion that all things
were performed according to the laws, and according to the custom (from συνήθεια) of their forefathers” (Antiquities 10:4.5). Before he died in 1991 Theologian
Paul J. Jewett was a zealous advocate of the ordination of women and a major
figure in the egalitarian movement. In light of this his comment on “custom” in
v 16 is revealing: “Therefore the
apostle’s remark (v. 16) that the churches of God have no such custom (συνήθεια) of
women unveiling themselves during public worship cannot mean that he regarded
the whole matter as a mere custom. Though one may argue that such is the case,
one cannot say that this is what the text means. Quite the contrary, this
particular custom, in the thinking of Paul, was part of the apostolic tradition
which he had given them and by which they were bound. This, in fact is the note
on which he opens the whole discussion, praising them for holding fast
traditions (παράδοσις)
‘even as delivered them to you’ (v. 2)” (Man as Male and Female p 118). Finally consider a comment from
brother Coffman. He says that "one other colossal fact should be noted,
that being the word 'custom' which appears in 1 Cor. 11:16, at the end of the
paragraph ... The word ‘custom’ as used in 1 Cor. 11:16 clearly identifies the
subject under consideration in this paragraph as the customs of the times, and
not as an apostolic treatise on what either men or women should wear in
religious services..." (Emphasis mine). This is a
surprising comment in view of the fact that Paul expressly says of the “custom”
under discussion that it is one which neither “we” nor “the churches of God”
have. It is difficult to follow this reasoning. The adversative The particle "δέ" (but) is adversative
here. Verse 16 is closely linked to vv 13-15. The
focus of vv l3-15 is Paul's question, “is it proper
for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered." They should of course answer this question in
the negative after all that Paul has said about shame etc. He wants them to say
"no it is not proper." But will they all concur? Does Paul have cause
to doubt that some may resist his authority? The Corinthian condition Keep in mind the
"independent course" which characterizes the Corinthians, their
claims to be "wise" and the number of times that Paul has had to
remind them of the apostolic pattern binding upon all the churches. (See About
the church at Corinth) Later in
dealing with other problems in the assembly he says “What? Came the word of God out
from you? Or came it unto you only?” (Cor 14:36) He
seems to be saying: “Are you about to
obey me? Or, if you set up your judgment above that of
other churches. I wish to know, do you pretend
that your church is the first church from which the gospel word came,
that you should give the law to all others?” (Jamieson
Fausset and Brown). Remember that some Corinthians in their
pride had examined or "judged" Paul (4:3); some had become
"arrogant" as though (Paul was) not coming to them (4:18). Some had
questioned his apostolic authority (9:1). Bakers New Testament Commentary:
“In view of Paul's three-year absence from the Corinthian
church (52 to 55), some of its leaders had become arrogant; they opposed and
challenged the leadership of Paul and his fellow workers (1Co_4:18-21;
1Co_9:1-6; 1Co_16:10-12) … They were …opponents of Paul's efforts
to teach and apply Christ's gospel.” The Corinthians
possess a "highhandedness that prompts them to break with the practice of other churches and even question Paul's
authority" (Carson [on 14:36]). “A tendency on the part of the
Corinthian church to be a law to itself, without reference to Christian
procedure elsewhere, is implied below in 14:36” (Bruce p.108). Even after this
letter Paul has to deal with opposition (see 2 Corinthians). Quite reasonably then Paul anticipates
opposition despite his detailed argument based upon the headship hierarchy,
male and female glory, nature and so on.
Hence the words: “But if one is inclined to be contentious ...” Fee has: "The opening sentence, 'If anyone
wants to be contentious about this' (i.e. the matter of the head covering) is
one of four such sentences in this letter, each indicating that this is what
some are doing " ( p 529 [emphasis mine] ). The word “contentious " is significant in this
closing verse. It is φιλονεικος, meaning “love of strife." In Luke 22:24 we read of
a "dispute" among the disciples as to who is the greatest, and in
Ezek.3:7 (Sept) God laments the fact that Israel is "stubborn" (same
word) not being "willing to listen" to Him. Paul has every reason to believe that some may be
contentious about this and unwilling to listen to him and he has one last word
on the subject: “we have no such custom/practice,
(not 'other') neither the churches of God.” Likely by “we” Paul means “we
apostles” but if not it is nevertheless the case that there is but one apostolic
pattern binding upon all “churches of God.” Thus whatever Paul has in mind by “no such
custom” he is referring to a practice which is foreign and unacceptable
to “the churches of God” everywhere. Keep in mind that throughout this epistle,
Paul has had to remind the Corinthians that there is but one body of teaching, and that it is to this body of teaching
that they must return. He has said: "For this reason I have
sent to you Timothy. . . and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ just as I teach everywhere in every
church" (4:17) "Only, as the Lord has
assigned to each one, as God has called each, in that manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches"
(7:17). "(For) for God is not a God of confusion but of peace
as in all the churches of the saints"
(14:33). Fee comments on 4:17 "Given the nature of the
aberrations in Corinth, it is important, as he does everywhere in this letter,
to remind them that what he and Timothy have taught them is in keeping with what
is taught in the church universally at least in all the Pauline churches."
This is Paul's point in 11:16. He begins
by stressing his apostolic authority (v 2) and he ends on the same note. “With … (contentious) persons
all argument is useless. Authority is the only end of controversy with such
disturbers of the peace” (Hodge). “(Those) that are
obstinate and fond of quarrelling should rather be restrained by authority than
confuted by lengthened disputations" (Calvin). Keep in mind that based upon
the unchanging headship hierarchy (God Christ man woman) Paul has argued that
the man who worships with covered head and the woman who worships with
uncovered head are bringing disgrace upon their head (vv 3-5). The obligation upon the
man to remain bareheaded and the obligation upon the woman to remain covered is
further grounded upon unchanging order creation order, man being the glory of
God and woman being the glory of man (vv 7-10).
Moreover the uncovered female head is equivalent in shame to the shaven female
head, and the shaven female is one whose God-given glory has been assigned to
the rubbish bin (vv 6, 15). The man who has long hair
is choosing to place the symbol of female glory upon his head, but the
male was designed to be God's glory. This is a perversion of created
order and the same word (ἀτιμια)
describes the shame of homosexuality also a perversion of Rom 1:26. Paul
invites the Corinthians to make a proper judgment on this matter in light of
all that he has said (v 13) and asks two rhetorical questions designed to
reinforce his argument. In light of this the following comments capture the
obvious meaning of v 16: Rienecker, Rogers: "He (Paul) means we
have no such custom such as women praying or prophesying with head uncovered
(Morris)" (p. 424). Wycliffe Bible
Commentary: “The churches have
“no custom of women worshiping without coverings” (p.1248). Grosheide: “The naming of the churches of God implies that the apostle does not ask anything
special of the Corinthians; what he asks of them he asks everywhere (7:17;
14:33). These passages concern the position of the woman. The
Corinthian women should not think that Paul demands of them what he does not
demand of others” (p 261). William Barclay
renders v 16: "Let it suffice to say that we have no such custom as the
participation of unveiled women in public worship, nor have the congregations
of God." F. F. Bruce has:
“we have no such custom as you are trying to introduce, and neither have the
churches of God elsewhere" (The Letters of Paul). McGuiggan: "If anyone (tis) wants to haggle over it here is Paul’s last
word on it: 'That is not how it is done in the church of God. Women don't pray
or prophesy unveiled '" (p. l54). Barnes on 1 Cor 14:33:"You have
adopted customs which are unusual. You
have permitted women to speak in a manner unknown to other churches. On 11:16:
“The churches elsewhere. It is
customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is
not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as
proper; and will offend these churches.” Clarke: “If any person sets himself up as a
wrangler - puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may
pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach,
have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are
they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the
Gentiles.” Jamieson, Fausset
and Brown: “(No) such custom--as that of women praying uncovered” Charles R. Erdman: “As to the custom of removing the veil it had not the sanction of
the apostles, nor is it the custom of any of the churches”. Pulpit Commentary: “We have no such custom. The emphatic
“we” means the apostles and the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem and Antioch.
Such custom. Not referring to “contentiousness,” but to the women appearing
with uncovered heads. Neither the
Churches of God. If you Corinthians
prefer these abnormal practices in spite of reason, common sense, and my
arguments, you must stand alone in your innovations upon universal Christian
practice. But catholic custom is against your ‘self-opinionated particularism.’” Finlay: “The advocates of feminine
emancipation may have supposed that Paul the champion of liberty was himself on
their side, and that the rejection of the veil was in vogue elsewhere; he
denies both” (p. 876). David Dickson: “If any perhaps should not been moved by these Arguments,
but should contend, the Apostle opposeth to their
contentious Apologies, the received and established custome
of the Jews, and the rest of the Churches: Other Churches have no such custome, that women should bee
present at publick assemblies, with their heads
uncovered, and the man with his head covered: Therefore your custome not agreeing with decency, either according to
natural use, or of the Churches, is altogether unseemly” (
Scottish Divine David
Dickson’s Commentaries on the EpistlesPrinted 1659. Chapter 11,
Seventh Article Concerning Order and Decency). Godet: “Paul means that neither he, nor the Christians
formed by him, nor in general any of the Churches of God, either those which he
has not founded or those properly his own, allow such procedure in their
ecclesiastical usages; comp. xiv. 36, 37, where the idea simply indicated here
is developed.---The material proof of this assertion of Paul’s is found in the
Christian representations which have been discovered in the Catacombs, where
the men always wear their hair cut short, and the women the palla,
a kerchief falling over the shoulders” (Frederic Louis
Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians p 560). Gill: “That is, if anyone will not be
satisfied with reasons given, for men’s praying and prophesying with their
heads uncovered, and women’s praying and prophesying with their heads covered;
but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and cavilling, showing
that they contend not for truth, but victory, can they but obtain it any way;
for my part, as if the apostle should say, I shall not think it worth my while
to continue the dispute any longer; enough has been said to satisfy any wise
and good man, anyone that is serious, thoughtful, and modest; and shall only
add, we have no
such custom, nor the churches of God.” David
Lipscomb: “The custom referred to must be women wearing
short hair and approaching God in prayer with uncovered heads. He reasoned on the
subject to show the impropriety, but adds in an authoritative manner ,if any
are disposed to be contentious over it ,neither we nor the churches of God have
any such custom ….” (Commentary
On The New Testament Epistles vol 2
p. 169). Leon Morris “We have no such
custom, i.e., such as women praying or prophesying with head uncovered. Exactly whom he means by we is not clear,
but the addition, neither the churches of God, shows that what he has just
outlined is the habit throughout the Christian churches” (1 Corinthians p 136). Alfred Plummer: “If such should question the dictates of
decorum and of nature in this matter they may be told that the teachers have no
such usage as permitting women to be unveiled, -a thing unheard of in Christian
congregations” (First Epistle of St.
Paul to the Corinthians p 235). Fee “The words ‘such practice’ therefore,
must refer to that which the ‘contentious’ are advocating, and which this
argument has been combatting” (p. 530).
Some at least are contending for a head
covering practice which is contrary to apostolic practice and the practice of
the churches of God, and this is typical of the Corinthian church. Paul is saying that neither the apostles nor
the churches have such a head covering practice as the Corinthians contend for
in their typically independent manner. Keep in mind that when Paul made this
statement, churches existed throughout the world. These churches were made up
of people from different backgrounds, cultures and races, but from v 16 it is
clear that in none of them was it the
practice for women to pray to God with heads uncovered. This is very important
because some have argued that Paul's words simply reflect a local custom. Far
from this being the case, Paul actually uses the example of all the churches to
make the Corinthians conform to apostolic teaching. Whether in the East or
the West, whether Greek, Jewish,
Roman or whatever, the churches had but one practice despite the practice of
the surrounding culture. This is only to be expected if, as I have argued, the
head covering practice was part of the unvarying apostolic pattern grounded
upon the headship hierarchy and male and female glory but it is inexplicable if
Paul is simply encouraging conformity to some local custom. Some have come up with some very unlikely
meanings for v 16. The Believers Bible Commentary has this following sensible comment on v 16: “Does Paul mean, as has been suggested,
that the things he has just been saying are not important enough to contend
about? Does he mean that there was no such custom of women veiling their heads
in the churches? Does he mean that these teachings are optional and not to be
pressed upon women as the commandments of the Lord? It seems strange that
any such interpretations would ever be offered, yet they are commonly heard
today. This would mean that Paul considered these instructions as of no real
consequence, and he had just been wasting over half a chapter of Holy
Scripture in setting them forth!” In similar vein Schreiner has: “Paul concludes his argument
by saying, ‘But if one is inclined to be contentious,
we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.’ Now, some have said
that Paul actually rejects the wearing of head coverings by women with these
words because the Greek literally says ‘we have no such practice’ and
thus they conclude that the practice of wearing head coverings is renounced
here by Paul. But such an understanding is surely wrong. Paul in this verse is
addressing the contentious, who, the previous context makes clear, do not
want to wear a head covering. The practice of certain Corinthian women who
refuse to wear a head covering is what Paul refers to when he says ‘we have no
such practice.’ Thus, he says to the contentious that both the apostolic circle
("we") and the rest of the churches adhere to the custom of head
coverings. The instructions Paul has given reflect his own view of the matter
and the practice of the other churches. Those who see this advice as limited
only to the Corinthian situation have failed to take this verse seriously
enough.” If, by “no such custom” Paul
means “no such custom as praying to God with uncovered heads” it follows that
sisters in all churches everywhere wore the covering. Of course if all churches
everywhere observed this practice we cannot appeal to local custom in
Corinth. Let's consider the suggestion
that Paul's meaning is that “there was no such custom of women veiling their
heads in the churches” (above). I am genuinely confused by this argument when
it is made by brethren who, in dealing with v 5, have done their very best to
prove that the uncovered female head was considered disgraceful in first
century society. Here is what I am
trying to understand: in dealing with v 5 some good brethren argue that Paul is
instructing women to cover their heads so as not to outrage social custom,
and they invoke customs of North Africa Tarsus and elsewhere but in dealing
with v 16 they insist that the churches have no such custom of women covering
their heads. Some have suggested that the words “no such
custom” mean no such custom as that of being contentious” (eg
Chrysostom). I do not believe that this
is the natural meaning here, and most reject this suggestion. But even if this
was the meaning here, let’s be careful about the conclusions that we draw. It
does not follow that the apostle is saying: “Since we have no custom of
contentiousness do not argue over this matter but let each person chose for himself or herself.” Those who argue that the custom under
discussion is contentiousness must concede that Paul could be saying: “Since we
have no custom of contentiousness do not argue over this matter but simply
accept the apostolic ruling. I’ve told you that the covered male head and the
uncovered male head is disgraceful so let that be an
end of the matter.” In my view v 16 strongly
supports the position presented in this paper. NEXT