Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
16. But if any man seem to be contentious ] Some commentators refer these words to what follows; but it would seem best to apply them to what has gone before. The Apostle would deprecate further argument, and appeal to the custom of the Churches as decisive on a point of this kind. See note on ch. 1Co 14:33.
we have no such custom, neither the churches of God ] The word custom has been interpreted (1) as referring to contention, “it is not our custom to be contentious,” or (3) to the practice of permitting women to appear unveiled at the services of the Church. The latter yields the best sense. This appeal to the Churches must not be understood to imply that all Churches ought in all respects to have the same ritual. But in a matter such as this, involving the position of women in Christian society, it were far wiser for the Corinthian Church to follow the universal practice of Christendom.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But if any man seem to be contentious – The sense of this passage is probably this: If any man, any teacher, or others, is disposed to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reason why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many and should, therefore, be avoided.
We have no such custom – We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.
Neither the churches of God – 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. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious] 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. We have already seen that the verb , which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If any man seem to be contentious; if any man hath a mind to quarrel out of a love to show his wit in discoursing what may be said on the other side, or out of a desire to hold up a party, and contradict us.
We have no such custom, of womens praying or prophesying with their heads uncovered, or mens praying or prophesying with their heads covered; or we have no such custom of contending for these little frivolous things;
neither any of the churches of God; and good Christians, in their practices, ought, in things of this nature, to have an eye and regard to the custom of their own church, and also of other Christian churches. Thus the apostle closeth this discourse, and proceedeth in the next verses to tax other abuses which were crept into this famous church.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. A summary close to theargument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches.
if any . . . seemTheGreek also means “thinks” (fit) (compare Mt3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) tobe contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself rightin being so. A reproof of the Corinthians’ self-sufficiency anddisputatiousness (1Co 1:20).
weapostles: or we ofthe Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whoseusages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiledthemselves when in public, according to TERTULLIAN[ESTIUS]. The formerexplanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context:but he often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by theexpression, “weus” (1Co 4:9;1Co 4:10).
no such customas thatof women praying uncovered. Not as CHRYSOSTOM,”that of being contentious.” The Greek term impliesa usage, rather than a mental habit (Joh18:39). The usage of true “churches (plural: not, as Romeuses it, ‘the Church,’ as an abstract entity; but ‘the churches,‘as a number of independent witnesses) of God” (thechurches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in thecase of external rites, especially, negatively, forexample, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, oughtnot to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, orthe essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [SCLATER](1Co 7:17; 1Co 14:33).
neithernor yet.Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but ageneral test of decency.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But if any man seem to be contentious,…. 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; meaning, either that men should appear covered, and women uncovered in public service, and which should have some weight with all those that have any regard to churches and their examples; or that men should be indulged in a captious and contentious spirit; a man that is always contending for contention sake, and is continually cavilling and carping at everything that is said and done in churches, and is always quarrelling with one person or another, or on account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he to be suffered to continue in the communion of the church, to the disturbance of the peace of it. This puts me in mind of a passage in the Talmud n.
“The Rabbans teach, that after the departure of R. Meir, R. Judah said to his disciples, do not let the disciples of R. Meir enter here, , “because they are contentious”.”
n T. Bab. Nazir, fol. 49. 2. & Kiddushin, fol. 52. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Contentious (). Old adjective (, ), fond of strife. Only here in N.T. If he only existed in this instance, the disputatious brother.
Custom (). Old word from (, ), like Latin consuetudo, intercourse, intimacy. In N.T. only here and 8:7 which see. “In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short” (Vincent).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Custom. Not the custom of contentiousness, but that of women speaking unveiled. The testimonies of Tertullian and Chrysostom show that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches. In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close – fitting head – dress, while the men have the hair short.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But if any man seem to be contentious.” (ei de tis dokei philoneikos einai) “But if anyone seems, thinks, or presumes to be contentious” – Paul conceded the possibility and probability that the worldly minded among both men and women might tend toward contention against nature’s teaching on this matter.
2) “We have no such custom.” (hemeis toi auten sunetheian ouk echomen) “We have or hold no such custom.” Paul and his missionary companions held or required no compliance of any specific hair-length for men and women among the people they served.
3) “Neither the churches of God.” (oude hai ekklesias tou theou) “Neither (do) the churches of God.” What is more, the churches, taught by Paul and his missionary companions, set up no compulsory rules for hair length among men and women. So long as customs did not break some command or conflict with some principle of Christ, Paul admonished, but did not order Christians regarding personal conduct and influence, 1Co 9:22-23.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. But if any man seem A contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs — raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful — who do not yield to reasonings — who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those ( ἀκοινώνητοι) would be singular persons (641) who, from a foolish affectation, (642) aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church (643)
(641) “ Qui ne se veulent en rien accommoder aux autres;” — “Who are not disposed to accommodate themselves to others in anything.” — The Greek word made use of by Calvin here ( ακοινωντος) is employed by classical writers to mean — having no intercourse, or not caring to have intercourse with others. See Arist., Top. 3. 2, 8.; Plat. Legg., 774 A. — Ed
(642) “ Et appetit sans raison;” — “And unreasonable desire.”
(643) “ Que ce n’est point la coustume de l’Eglise d’entrer en debats et contentions;” — “That it is not the custom of the Church to enter into strifes and contentions.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) But if any man seem to be contentious.The argument, and the appeal to their own good sense having been completed, the Apostle now adds that if, after all, some one continues to argue the matter captiously, and is not satisfied with the reason given, the answer to such a one must be simplyWe, the Apostles and the churches of God, have no such custom as that women should pray and teach with uncovered head. It has been suggested that the word custom refers, not to the uncovering the head, but to the contention just mentioned. But the former interpretation seems more natural; and the Apostles object here is, not so much to merely censure the contentious spirit, as to show how such an objector must be dealt with. It is noticeable that the appeal is made to the practice of the churches (plural), not the Church. Thus it is not the authority of the Church as such that is quoted, but it is the uniformity of practice in the several Christian churches that is appealed to. The Church in Corinth has no right to become exceptional.
It may be well to make two general remarks on the scope and bearing of this remarkable passage.
1. As St. Paul taught regarding Slavery (1Co. 7:21) that the object of Christianity was not to suddenly efface existing political arrangements, so he teaches here that Christianity did not seek to obliterate these social distinctions which were universally recognised. We know now how mighty an instrument Christs Religion has been in elevating the social condition of woman, but this has been accomplished by gradually leavening the world with Christian principle, and not by sudden external revolution. The arguments and illustrations which the Apostle here employs have a more abiding and a wider application than the particular case to which he applied them. They have been written for our learning as well as for the instruction of those to whom they were originally addressed. And the lesson which they teach us is, that Christianity did not come to unsex woman, but to raise, dignify, and ennoble her as womanto abolish for ever her real wrongs, but not to yield to a revolutionary clamour for imaginary rights. Old and New Testament alike emphasise the truth that (as has been quaintly and truly said) woman was not made from mans head to be his ruler, nor from his feet to be his slave, but from his side to be his equal, and from beneath his strong arm to demand his protection.
2. The influence of St. Pauls instruction as to women not uncovering their heads in public worship has lasted long after the necessity for that particular expression of her relationship to man has passed away. While, in succeeding ages, again and again, some have forgotten the principles of the teaching, which are eternal, the particular application of them, which was only temporary, has been continuously and universally observed. Surely this is an illustration and evidence of the Divine Wisdom which withheld the apostolic writers from, as a rule, laying down minute directions for worship, or dogmatic formulas of faith. Men would, in a servile obedience to rules, have soon and completely forgotten the living principles on which they were based. To this day the universal custom in Christian places of worship, of women being covered and men uncovered, and the increasing revolt against the acknowledgment of the subordination of woman to man, of which that practice was originally the avowed symbol, is a striking proof of how the same spirit, which led Jews of old to be scrupulous in their observance of certain external ordinances, while forgetting the weighter matters of which they were to be the outward expression, was not merely a Jewish but a human weakness.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Contentious The whole question had, it seems, been a subject of Corinthian debate. Men, perhaps, maintained, that according to Jewish and Roman custom their heads should be uncovered in worship. Women, perhaps, maintained that Christ had emancipated woman from her reserve and subjection. The apostle replaces the law of propriety and of God in their proper authority.
Such custom As these mistaken reformers would introduce.
Churches The debate, probably, had scarce extended beyond Corinth. At least propriety and apostolic and churchly authority had elsewhere settled the question. The authority of the churches of God in this, the age of the gifted Church, was co-ordinate with the authority of the inspired apostles.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the churches of God.’
Paul now anticipates contention. Let those who disagree recognise that in the churches of God there is no such custom as to allow a woman to pray to God uncovered (1Co 11:13, the only probable antecedent). So having appealed to the word of God, and to nature, he now appeals to the example of him and his fellow-workers and to the example of the wider community, ‘the churches’, who all observe this principle.
When we come to modern worship the principle remains. Women are to be the helpers, even important helpers, but not the ones in overall authority. And this should be symbolised in some way by wearing a covering, not one that draws attention to the woman and brings glory to her, but one that brings glory to God. For it is to be made clear to the angels as well as to men that both observe and enjoy their rightful positions before God.
(Note. In this sphere as in many others man continually reveals his rebellion against God. On the one hand women are kept under harsh subjection in certain parts of the world, and the veil is a sign of her subjection, (although somewhat hypocritically portrayed otherwise when trying to justify it). That is not the idea here. On the other the veil is as it were thrown off and woman reveals, with man’s approval, her total disregard of decency and chasteness by the way she dresses and behaves, or alternately her total disregard for God’s order by trying to usurp man’s place. Paul describes the happy medium as laid down at creation, a woman with freedom to serve God while still maintaining a true relationship with man. A woman who is chaste, accepting her role given to her from the time of creation, fulfilling her role as his true helpmeet, complementary to man, and working with him both as his equal and yet in respectful submission because it was for that that she was made. This is something only truly possibly under the Kingly Rule of God where the man also remembers his own responsibility in the partnership, loving his wife and womankind as Christ loves His church, His people.
And this brings out another aspect of the matter. We live in a sex ridden society. Women dress scantily and do up their hair in order to attract men. Men encourage it because they like to lust after women. But in church it is not to be so. There the woman should be bringing glory to the man and to God. The man should be bringing glory to God. The woman who trips into church with her latest hairstyle on display, and in her ostentatious or suggestive clothes is dishonouring God. She is reversing the scale of things. She is attracting worship to herself. To be fair to women they usually have no idea of the feelings they arouse in man. They do not realise that they are making true worship difficult for men and arousing thoughts that they should not have while seeking to worship God. They think men feel the same way as they do. But Paul knew. And God knows. And so He told women to keep themselves covered up in church).
Perhaps it may help to put the whole position in diagrammatic form:
The Forces of Good.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 11:16. But if any man seem to be, &c. Be, or is disposed to be, &c. “If any one, from a love of disputing, or from his own different views of what is naturally decent, should controvert what I advance, I shall not contend further; but content myself with saying, that we have here no such custom, for women to appear with their heads uncovered; neither do I know of its prevailing in any other of the churches of God, whether planted by me, or any of my brethren. I think, therefore, that it ought to be avoided, as a singularity which may appear like affectation, and give offence, even if it be not judged a natural indecorum.” See Doddridge and Cal
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 11:16 . The apostle has done with the subject; but one word more of warning now against all controversy about it.
] Vulg.: “si quis autem videtur contentiosus esse.” This would imply that sort of forbearing courtesy in the , according to which one “ videri aliquid esse, quam vere esse dicere maluit,” Fritzsche, a [1803] Matth. p. 129. Comp Frotscher, a [1805] Xen. Hier. p. 92. Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 757 f. So de Wette and Winer, p. 570 [E. T. 766]. But one can see no reason for Paul’s choosing any such special delicacy of phrase. If, again, we understand the words to mean: if any one likes to be , or has pleasure in being , contentious (Luther, Grotius, Rckert), that is to confound the expression with the construction . [1806] The simplest explanation, and, at the same time, quite literally faithful, is, as in Mat 3:9 , Phi 3:4 : if any one is of opinion , if he thinks , or is minded to be , etc.; but to import the notion of permission into the infinitive here, in connection with this rendering (Billroth), would be arbitrary, because without warrant from the text (Khner, a [1807] Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1).
. . [1808] ] declarative: Let him be told that we , etc. Comp Rom 11:18 . See Winer, p. 575 [E. T. 773].
] I and those who are like-minded with me .
.] such a custom . Interpreters refer this either to the censured practice of the women being unveiled (Theodoret, Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, Semler, Rosenmller, Heydenreich, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann), or to the custom of contention (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Calovius, and others, including Rckert and de Wette). The latter suits the immediate context, and is required by ; hence we cannot, with Theophylact and Osiander, leave it an open question which of the two references should be preferred. The . . is not against this view; for what is asserted is not that all individual members were free from the love of strife, but only that the churches as a whole were so. These last are distinguished by . . from the individuals implied in . Neither does the expression throw any difficulty in the way of our interpretation; on the contrary, occurring as it does in this short concluding sentence of deprecation, it lends to it a certain point against the readers, some of whom seem to have allowed this vice of contentiousness to grow with them into a habit ; it was their miserable custom !
The abnormal position of isolation, into which their controversial tendencies would bring them, should surely suffice to prevent their indulging them!
[1803] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1805] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1806] So, too, , lubet, volo. See Ast, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 251. Also . See Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 552.
[1807] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1808] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Ver. 16. Seem to be contentious ] A doctore glorioso, et pastore contentioso, et inutilibus questionibus, liberet Ecclesiam suam Domiuus, said Luther. From a vain-glorious doctor, from a contentious pastor, and from endless and needless controversies, the good Lord deliver his Church. The word rendered “seem,” signifieth, “is pleased to be, desires and hath a will to be, yea, boasts and prides himself in it,” . This is a foul fault in any, but especially in ministers; who must see (saith Luther) that those three dogs follow them not into the pulpit, pride, covetousness, and contentiousness. A quarrelsome person is like a cock of the kind, ever bloody with the blood of others and himself; and divisions are Satan’s gun powder plot to blow up religion.
We have no such custom ] viz. To strive about trifles, but to submit to our teachers, Heb 13:17 . It is a vile thing, saith Bifield, on 1Pe 3:1-22 to vex our ministers by our obstinace; yea, though they were not able to make so full demonstration, yet when they reprove such things, out of a spiritual jealousy and fear that they corrupt the people’s hearts, they are to be heard and obeyed.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] Cuts off the subject, already abundantly decided, with a settlement of any possible difference, by appeal to universal apostolic and ecclesiastic custom. But if any man seems to be contentious (i.e. ‘if any arises who appears to dispute the matter, who seems not satisfied with the reasons I have given, but is still disputatious;’ this is the only admissible sense of in this construction: see reff.: for the meaning, ‘ if it pleases any one, ’ &c. would require : and ‘ if any one thinks that he may ,’ &c. would not agree with , which is in itself wrong ).
] declarative: let him know that ; so, , , , Rom 11:18 . We , the Apostles and their immediate company, including the women who assembled in prayer and supplication with them at their various stations, see Act 16:13 .
] The best modern Commentators, e.g. Meyer and De Wette, agree with Chrys. in understanding this, . ., . . . p. 235. And so Ambrose, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calov., al. But surely it would be very unlikely, that after so long a treatment of a particular subject , the Apostle should wind up all by merely a censure of a fault common to their behaviour on this and all the other matters of dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify the conclusion : ‘If any will dispute about it still, remember that it is neither our practice, nor that of the Churches, to dispute .’ It would seem to me, but for the weighty names on the other side, hardly to admit of a question, that the alludes to the practice (see ref. John) of women praying uncovered . So Theodoret, Grot. Michaelis, Rosenm., Billroth, Olsh., al., and Theophyl. altern. He thus cuts off all further disputation on the matter by appealing to universal Christian usage : and to make the appeal more solemn, adds to ., the assemblies which are held in honour of and for prayer to God, and are His own Churches . Obs. , not . The plurality of independent testimonies to the absence of the custom , is that on which the stress is laid. This appeal, ‘to THE CHURCHES,’ was much heard again at the Reformation: but has since been too much forgotten. See, on the influence of this passage on the Christian church, the general remarks of Stanley, edn. 2, pp. 198 200.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 11:16 closes the discussion sharply, with its appeal to established Christian rule. If, after all that the Ap. has advanced in maintenance of the modest distinction between the sexes, any one is still minded to debate, he must be put down by authority that of P. himself and his colleagues ( ), supported by universal Christendom; cf. 1Co 14:33 ; 1Co 14:37 ff. , not “seems,” but “ thinks ( presumes ; see parls.) to be contentious”; takes ind [1660] of the case supposed (as in 1Co 10:27 ), and too likely in quarrelsome Cor [1661] , not amans victori (Est.) as if from , but avidus litium (from ), a disputer for disputation’s sake. , in contrast with , means not “I and those likeminded” (Mr [1662] ), but “I and my fellowministers” or “I and the Apostles generally” ( cf. 1Co 4:6-13 , 1Co 15:11 , 2Co 1:19 ; 2Co 4:13 , etc.). , the custom described in 1Co 11:4 f. above, which gave rise to the whole discussion; not, as many understand it, the custom of being contentious (a temper , surely, rather than a custom): no one could think of the App. ( ) indulging such a habit! The advocates of feminine emancipation may have supposed that P., the champion of liberty, was himself on their side, and that the rejection of the veil was in vogue elsewhere; he denies both. For , Lat. con-suetudo , see 1Co 8:7 ; for , 1Co 1:2 , 1Co 4:17 , the pl [1663] conveying the idea of unanimity amongst many. Those who explain “such a custom” as that of “being contentious,” usually link this ver. with 1Co 11:17 ff. It is true that the of the sequel, like the of 1Co 1:11 , tended to ; in truth the disputatiousness of the Cor [1664] ran into everything a woman’s shawl, or the merits of the Arch-apostles!
[1660] indicative mood.
[1661] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1662] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[1663] plural.
[1664] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
any man = any one. App-123.
contentious = fond of strife. Greek. philoneikos. Only here.
custom. See Joh 18:39.
neither. Greek. oude.
churches. App-186.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] Cuts off the subject, already abundantly decided, with a settlement of any possible difference, by appeal to universal apostolic and ecclesiastic custom. But if any man seems to be contentious (i.e. if any arises who appears to dispute the matter, who seems not satisfied with the reasons I have given, but is still disputatious;-this is the only admissible sense of in this construction: see reff.:-for the meaning, if it pleases any one, &c. would require : and if any one thinks that he may, &c. would not agree with , which is in itself wrong).
] declarative: let him know that ; so, , , , Rom 11:18. We,-the Apostles and their immediate company,-including the women who assembled in prayer and supplication with them at their various stations, see Act 16:13.
] The best modern Commentators, e.g. Meyer and De Wette, agree with Chrys. in understanding this, . ., . . . p. 235. And so Ambrose, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calov., al. But surely it would be very unlikely, that after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up all by merely a censure of a fault common to their behaviour on this and all the other matters of dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify the conclusion:-If any will dispute about it still, remember that it is neither our practice, nor that of the Churches, to dispute. It would seem to me, but for the weighty names on the other side, hardly to admit of a question, that the alludes to the practice (see ref. John) of women praying uncovered. So Theodoret, Grot. Michaelis, Rosenm., Billroth, Olsh., al., and Theophyl. altern. He thus cuts off all further disputation on the matter by appealing to universal Christian usage: and to make the appeal more solemn, adds to .,-the assemblies which are held in honour of and for prayer to God, and are His own Churches. Obs. , not . The plurality of independent testimonies to the absence of the custom, is that on which the stress is laid. This appeal, to THE CHURCHES, was much heard again at the Reformation: but has since been too much forgotten. See, on the influence of this passage on the Christian church, the general remarks of Stanley, edn. 2, pp. 198-200.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 11:16. , but if) A curt [abrupt] hint,[95] as at 1Co 14:37. Paul perceives, that some exceptions may be taken, but he authoritatively represses them.- , seems contentious) A disputer of this sort might think that he was contending rightly; but Paul calls him contentious. This is what he says: If any one wishes to contend, and deems himself right in doing so. In this passage it is rather intended to teach the Corinthians modesty, than to bind all: comp. 2Co 2:9. For he especially restrains their , puffed up spirit: comp. 1Co 14:34-38.-, we) your teachers, of the Hebrew nation.-, custom) that a woman should not cover her head, especially when she prays.- , the churches of God) which ought not to be despised, 1Co 14:36.
[95] The word in the original is prcisio, explained by Cicero to be a figure which rather gives a hint to the understanding, and leaves it to supply what is not expressed.-See De Or. iii. 53, Her. iv. 30.-T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 11:16
1Co 11:16
But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.-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. [With such disturbers of the peace of the church all argument is useless. Authority is the only thing that will silence them. The authority here adduced is that of the inspired apostles, which was decisive, because they were invested with the authority not only to preach the gospel, but to instruct the church and to decide everything relating to the worship.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
seem: 1Ti 6:3, 1Ti 6:4
such: Act 21:21, Act 21:24
the churches: 1Co 7:17, 1Co 14:33, 1Co 14:34, 1Co 16:1, 1Th 2:14
Reciprocal: Jer 32:11 – according Rom 2:8 – contentious 1Co 4:17 – my ways 2Co 12:20 – debates 1Ti 6:5 – Perverse
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 11:16. This verse is often pounced upon by the quibblers, like a “drowning man grasping at a straw,” in their desperate attempt to find some justification of women in their unnatural and unfeminine act of cutting their hair. I have never yet heard anyone who made a serious effort to show this passage to be related in the remotest degree to the issue at hand. Any man is from the one Greek word TIS, which means any person or thing, indefinitely, and would apply to a woman as well as a man. Contentious is from PHILO-NEIKOS, which Thayer defines at this place, “fond of strife, contentious.” No one would be contentious over anything that was not objectionable to another. It would have to be over something he wished to do that some other one did not want him to do. In the present case it could not be over short hair for women, for nobody was wanting that. Instead, verse 6 shows that there was common objection to that, which was a basis for one of Paul’s arguments. The only thing in dispute was whether a woman should cover her face with her hair, or keep it away in a manner that would look as if it were shorn, a condition which Paul states would be a shame. Since no person was contending for short hair with women, the contention could not be over that. The point the apostle is making in this verse, is that the custom of all the other churches was for the women to veil their faces with their hair when praying in the presence of men.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:16. But if any man seemeth to be contentions, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God:If in the spirit of contradiction a man will not yield to such considerations, let him know at least that he is setting himself against the universal practice, and disturbing the peace of Gods churches.
Note.To those who, in a narrow spirit, insist on having Divine prescription for the most insignificant details of religious life and public worship, this appeal to nature itself, as a great guide in relation to the decencies of public worship, should read a wholesome lesson. Nature, though uniform in its essential features, varies in all that is subordinate in different regions and at different periods. In matters of feeling, taste, and decorum, as to the way in which the relation of the sexes should be expressed, eastern and western ideas notoriously and widely differ, and they should be allowed their natural and proper development. This applies to all arrangements for public worship as well as social usage. Whatever in church organization and public worship is injurious to vital Christianityto spiritual lifeis to be discountenanced, as sacrificing the end to the means; but within those limits, not a little variety, suggested by national taste or climatic conditions, is surely admissible.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 16. But if any man seem to be contentious…we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.
Holsten and others regard this saying as a kind of confession that the apostle feels the insufficiency of the proofs which he has just alleged. But such a supposition would do violence to his moral character, and Paul’s words do not really signify anything of the kind. They simply prove that there are at Corinth controversial spirits, who, on such a subject, will never tire of arguing and raising objections indefinitely. That does not mean that, as to himself, he does not regard the question as solved and well solved. The word is used here in the same sense as 1Co 3:18, 1Co 10:12, Gal 6:3, to denote a vain pretence. Undoubtedly nobody takes glory from a fault, such as love of disputation (); but Paul means to say: If any one wishes to play the part of a man whom it is impossible to reduce to silence, who has always something to answer… This was one of the natural features of the Greek character.
The principal proposition does not correspond logically to the subordinate one beginning with if; we must understand a clause such as this: Let him know that… or: I have only one thing to say to him, namely, that… I cannot understand how eminent critics, such as the old Greek expositors, then Calvin, de Wette, Meyer, Kling, Reuss, Edwards, could imagine that the custom of which the apostle speaks is that of disputing! The love of disputation is a fault, a bad habit, but not a custom. To call the habit of discussion an ecclesiastical usage! No. The only custom of which there can be any question here is that on which the whole passage has turned: women speaking without being veiled. 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. 1Co 14:36-37, 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, and which can be raised so as to conceal the face (Heinrici, p. 324).
The complement of God is intended to bring out the dignity and holiness of all these Churches, and consequently the respect due to their religious sentiment, which contrasts with the presumptuous levity of the Corinthians.
We hope we have justified the thought expressed by the apostle regarding the social position of woman, as well as the particular application which he deduces from it. Holsten thinks that whatever may be said, the apostle thereby puts himself in contradiction to the principle so often enunciated by him: In Christ there is neither male nor female, and on this account when he came to the end of the passage, he felt, as it were, the ground going from under him. But the apostle’s personal conviction, as he expresses it here, was certainly very deliberate; the loyalty of his character forbids us to doubt it. Was this conviction solely a matter of time and place, so that it is possible to suppose, that if he lived now, and in the West, the apostle would express himself differently? This supposition is not admissible; for the reasons which he alleges are taken, not from contemporary usages, but from permanent facts, which will last as long as the present earthly economy. The physical constitution of woman (1Co 11:13-15) is still the same as it was when Paul wrote, and will continue so till the renewing of all things. The history of creation, to which he appeals (1Co 11:8-12), remains the principle of the social state now as in the time of the apostle; and the sublime analogies between the relations of God to Christ, Christ to man, and man to woman, have not changed to this hour, so that it must be said either that the apostle was wholly wrong in his reasoning, or that his reasons, if they were true for his time, are still so for ours, and will be so to the end. As to the parity of man and woman in Christ, it is clear, and that from this very passage, that Paul means to speak of their relation to Christ in redemption, and not of the social part they are called to play.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
But if any man seemeth to be [a mild way of saying, “if any man is”] contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. [Knowing the argumentative spirit of the Greeks, and being conscious that it was likely that some would even yet want to dispute the matter, despite his three reasons to the contrary, Paul takes it entirely out of the realm of discussion into that of precedent. The settled and established practice of the church had from the beginning followed the course outlined by Paul, which showed that other apostles besides himself had either established it by rule, or endorsed it in practice. In this appeal for uniformity Paul makes it clear that all churches should strive to make their practices uniform, not variant. Paul is here discussing how men and women should be attired when they take a leading part in public worship. He will speak later as to whether or not women should take any such part at all in public worship (1Co 14:34-35; 1Ti 2:12). We to-day as males worship with uncovered heads in consequence of Paul’s instruction; but not for his reasons. It is now an expression of reverence, which the Jew then expressed by taking off his sandals. “Holland,” says Stanley, “is the only exception. In Dutch congregations, men uncover their heads during the psalmody only.” In Western countries a woman’s hat has never had any symbolism whatever. We see nothing in Paul’s argument which requires us to make it symbolic. The problem in Western assemblies is how best to persuade women to take their hats off, not how to prevail upon them to keep them on. The principle, however, still holds good that the woman is subordinate to the man, and should not make any unseemly, immodest, vaunting display of an independence which she does not possess.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
16. If any one seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do the churches of God. During Pauls absence of three years in Asia many changes had taken place among them. A multitude of preachers from Judea, and other countries, had been there preaching; Peter, Apollos and other godly heralds of truth and righteousness, and still others whose Christian character was probably to be discounted. Many had backslidden. The church was racked with controversies on many different lines. Among other things, they wrote to Paul in reference to the women who were preaching among them bareheaded, like men, raising no controversy about their preaching and praying and taking an active part in the public worship, as Priscilla and others had done while Paul was with them. But there was quite a criticism against the habit of some of their women preaching and praying bareheaded, like men, the costume at that day being so identical among men and women that the veil of the latter and the shorn locks of the former became the ordinary designation of the sexes. While Paul is disposed to lay no emphasis on the latter, stating to them that it is unworthy of controversy, because the churches have no fixed custom requiring the woman to have something on her head when she exercises in public, yet, for the sake of harmony and to obviate unprofitable criticism, he advises all of the sisters to put something on their heads when they pray and preach in the meetings, setting forth a beautiful concatenation, beginning with God, then Christ, then the husband and then the wife. God is over Christ, and Christ over the husband, and the husband over the wife in the domestic government, which is the basis of all civil society and state government. The man is to have nothing on his head, indicative of the fact that he is king in the home government, no earthly authority being over him; while the woman is to have something on her head, symbolic of her husbands authority over her. The apostle reminds them that the angels are present in their meetings, which is a beautiful and consolatory truth. We should remember that a portion of our congregations is unseen by mortal eyes, and yet present, i. e., ministering angels hovering round. As we fix up to go out in company, we ought to be decorous in the presence of the angels. Hence he advises the women to extend courtesy not only to the human portion of the audience, but to the angels present, by putting something on their heads so they wouldnt look odd nor uncouth. While he thus answers their questions, advising the women praying and preaching to wear something on their heads by way of decorum, relieving them of unnecessary criticism, at the same time he attaches no gravity to it, as there is no such principle settled in the churches.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 16
Seem to be contentious; is not satisfied with the considerations above presented, but still resists.–We have no such custom, &c.; that is, the settled practice of the churches forbids that a woman should appear in public, in the bold and open manner which is proper for man. The principle established by the apostle may be generally stated thus,–that when woman appears before the assemblies of Christians as a speaker at all, she must do it in a modest and unassuming manner, suited to her subordinate position, and according to the forms prescribed by the established usages of society.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 11:16. Reveals the probable source or support of the practice objected to.
Thinks: looks upon himself, and with approval, as one fond of strife. But strife is opposed to an abiding custom of the apostles and of the churches of God. This warning suggests that, from a boasted love of strife, some defended the women who rejected the head-dress. To such Paul says that in loving strife they stand alone among the churches.
REVIEW of 20. Paul cannot pronounce what is virtually a censure without remembering his readers’ care to follow his directions in all matters of worship. To his implied censure he paves a way by stating the great principle that subordination is a rule of the kingdom of God, one extending even to the Eternal Trinity. This suggests, and the tenor of the whole section implies that the real source of the evil before us was a desire of some Christian women to claim equality with men. This claim Paul meets by reminding us that in the order and purpose of creation woman was made subordinate to man; and says that upon this original distinction rests the universally admitted obligation that the sexes be visibly distinguished in dress. His readers’ instinctive sense of the propriety of this, he seeks to strengthen by reminding them that they worship in the presence of angels and that in their prayer they draw near to God; and by pointing to the shameless women who obliterated still further than the women in question the visible mark of their sex, and who did so evidently because they had deserted the dignity of womanhood. To the propriety of the visible distinction of the sexes, even Nature bears witness, by giving to women a more abundant covering. But, while insisting thus upon the subordinate position of woman, Paul declares that, in the spiritual life as in the order of Nature, neither sex is independent of the other. That he treats so seriously a matter apparently so trivial, warns us that in the Christian life even small defects may be serious; either as implying forgetfulness of important principles, or as first steps in a dangerous path.
From this section we learn that whatever is purely human, i.e. whatever is older than man’s sin, is not set aside, but is glorified, by Christ in the Christian life. We learn also the value of our instinctive sense of right and wrong; and that it is strengthened and purified by study of the great truths objectively revealed, and by thought of the presence with us of those heavenly beings who do perfectly and always the will of God and of the presence of Him before whom even angels veil their faces.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
11:16 {13} But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
(13) Against those who are stubbornly contentious we have to oppose this, that the churches of God are not contentious.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
If any of his readers still did not feel inclined to accept Paul’s reasoning, he informed them that the other churches followed what he had just explained. This is one of four similar statements in this epistle that served to inform the Corinthians that they were out of step with the other churches in their conduct (cf. 1Co 3:18; 1Co 8:2; 1Co 14:37). Some women were evidently discarding their head-covering in public worship because they were repudiating their place in God’s administrative order.
This section contains five arguments for women wearing head-coverings in that culture. First, Paul referred to the divine order (God, Christ, man, and woman; 1Co 11:3-6), second, creation (1Co 11:7-9), third, the angels (1Co 11:10), fourth, nature (1Co 11:13-15), and fifth, universal church practice (1Co 11:16).
As with the issues of eating in idol temples and meat offered to idols, Paul dealt with a cultural practice when he dealt with head-coverings. As should be clear from his argumentation, he did not feel that this was a major issue. He appealed to maintain a custom, not to obey God, and he used shame, propriety, and custom to urge the Corinthians to cooperate, not Scriptural imperatives or apostolic authority. However, important issues lay behind the practices. In the case of head-coverings, the issue is women’s position in the life of the church, in particular their relationship to the men. Today no item of clothing consistently identifies a woman’s acceptance or rejection of her role in God’s administrative order. At least none does in western culture. It is usually her speech and her behavior that do. The important thing is her attitude toward her womanhood and how she expresses it, not whether she wears a particular item of clothing.