Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Corinthians 11:16

"But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." — 1 Corinthians 11:16 (ASV)

But if any man seem to be contentious.—After the argument and the appeal to their own good sense have been completed, the Apostle now adds that if, after all, someone continues to argue the matter captiously and is not satisfied with the reason given, the answer to such a person must be simply this: We, the Apostles and the churches of God, have no such custom that women should pray and teach with uncovered head.

It has been suggested that the word “custom” refers not to the uncovering of the head, but to the “contention” just mentioned. But the former interpretation seems more natural, and the Apostle’s object here is not so much merely to 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 rather 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 (1 Corinthians 7:21) that the object of Christianity was not to suddenly erase existing political arrangements, so he teaches here that Christianity did not seek to obliterate these social distinctions which were universally recognized. We know now what a mighty instrument Christ's 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 woman—to abolish forever her real wrongs, but not to yield to a revolutionary clamor for imaginary rights. Old and New Testament alike emphasize the truth that (as has been quaintly and truly said) “woman was not made from man’s 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. Paul's instruction regarding 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 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 for women to be 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 that led Jews of old to be scrupulous in their observance of certain external ordinances, while forgetting the weightier matters of which they were to be the outward expression, was not merely a Jewish but a human weakness.