·         4:17 "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."

·         7:17 "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.

·         14:33 "for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints" (NASB). Or “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches” (ESV).

·         11:16 "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no … such (marginal reading NASB) practice, nor have the churches of God."

The “independent course" taken by the Corinthians in other matters has also extended to this matter of the head covering.  I share the following view of Paul’s meaning in this closing verse (although not agreeing with all that these individuals say on the subject):

Rienecker, Rogers: "He (Paul) means we have no such custom such as women praying or prophesying with head uncovered (Morris)" (p. 424).

Fee: “Most likely this refers to some women who are discarding a traditional ‘covering’ of some kind. Paul’s final appeal to these women is that ‘we have no such practice’ – nor do the churches of God.’ The words ‘such practice’ therefore, must refer to that which the ‘contentious’ are advocating, and which the argument has been combatting” (p. 530).

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. See chpt 11:16. You have admitted irregularity and confusion unknown in all the others...(The Corinthians) ...could... claim no right to differ from others...The same argument is employed in 11:16 ( [emphasis mine] ).

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”  (Commentary).

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 Epistles. Printed 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).

Archibald Robertson and 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).

Matthew Henry:  “It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled.”

Joseph Beet: “This warning suggests that from a boasted love of strife, some defended the women who rejected the head dress” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians p. 187).

 Henry Alford: “(v 16) will hardly admit to a question that the custom referred to alludes to the practice of women praying uncovered. So Theodoret and many others.  He thus cuts of all further disputation by appealing to universal Christian usage: and to make the appeal more solemn adds the words of God to the churches, not the Church. The plurality of independent testimonies to the absence of the custom is that on which the stress is laid” (The New Testament for English Readers p. 204).

Simon J. Kistemaker: “(T)he passage itself conveys the sense that Paul has in mind the cultural practice of that day: that women wear head coverings during public worship services. He is saying that he, his fellow apostles, and the rest of the churches abide by the rule of being properly attired at worship. In brief, Paul appeals to the witness of the entire Christian church.” (Although I would not have included “of that day.”)

I believe that this is a correct understanding of v 16. 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.

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!” 

This does indeed seem strange but some are forced to this conclusion by their position.  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” (Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Thomas R. Shreiner Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood editors John Piper and Wayne Grudem Kindle Edition).

I agree. 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.” I am genuinely confused by this argument when it is made by brethren who, in dealing with earlier verses, 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 discussing verses like 5 and 6 “brother John” contends that Paul’s head covering instructions simply reflect first century custom. He insists that in the first century the bareheaded woman in public was considered disgraceful, and perhaps even immoral. Hence Paul’s instructions.  However when he comes to v 16 “brother John” insists that Paul and the churches do not adhere to the head covering custom.  Of course this would mean that Christian women all over the first century world were acting in a manner considered disgraceful by society – the very thing that, according to “brother John” Paul was discouraging in vv 5, 6.

Conclusion

Hopefully I have made the point that my view of 1 Cor 11:16 is not some novel position forced upon me by my overall understanding of this passage.