A letter responding to argument number 8, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, July 18, 2011. The eighth argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16. We finally arrive at your eighth and final argument to support the perpetual use of head coverings on the part of women in the public worship of God. You wrote, quote, number 8. In verse 16, it appears that Paul, for the second time, appeals to apostolic tradition so that should anyone challenge his argument they are, quote, contentious, unquote. I would ask, how could someone ever cease to practice head covering and not be labeled contentious? Verse 16, unquote. From your email dated January 20, 2011. We have covered a lot of ground in studying Paul's inspired words concerning head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11, and yet I pray it has been a profitable study for us all. By way of summary, as we approach Paul's last argument in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, let us do a quick review of his previous arguments leading up to his final argument. We have previously observed from our study of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 that Paul has now, up to this point, laid four distinct pieces of the foundation to his argument in addressing the particular abuse reported to him within the Corinthian church. The first piece of the foundation of Paul's argument is the argument from moral-slash-theological principles of headship and submission, found in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, quote, The head of the woman is the man, unquote. These moral-slash-theological principles of headship and submission are then applied by Paul to the confusion and schism within the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4-6. 2. The second piece of the foundation of Paul's argument is the argument from creation ordinances in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7. He, i.e., man, is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. The verse without the interjection is, He is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. These creation ordinances are further demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9, and then are applied to the confusion and schism within the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, and in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head. 3. The third piece of the foundation of Paul's argument is an argument from propriety and decorum in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13. Judge in yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Which question Paul then answers, after a brief parenthesis in verses 14 and 15, in verse 16, we have no such custom. 4. The fourth piece of the foundation of Paul's argument against the scandal of role reversal on the part of Christian women in Corinth who were removing the cultural sign of feminine submission, the covered head, when they appeared in the public assembly of Christians in Corinth in order to worship God, is an argument from nature, i.e., the light of nature, as found in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15. Doth not even Nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering." We now come to Paul's fifth and final piece of the foundation of Paul's argument against the public scandal raised in the Corinthian church by women who were removing the cultural and customary sign of female submission when they gathered for the public worship of God, an argument from ecclesiastical uniformity. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." That is 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16. First, Paul begins his final argument in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, with an adversative conjunction, but, de, in Greek, to counter any yet remaining opposition from the Corinthians. It's as if Paul stated, I have presented a number of convincing arguments in what I have already said that should settle the scandal that has divided the Church of Corinth. But for those who choose to continue to dispute this matter and divide the Church over it, I now appeal to my final argument. Second, after the adversative conjunction but, Paul introduces his final argument with a conditional if sentence, i.e. a sentence beginning with the Greek word ei, which is a conditional sentence of reality, i.e. a conditional sentence which Paul assumes to be true and consistent with what is really the case, at least among a number of those in the Church of Corinth. If we were to bring out the full force of this conditional sentence of reality, we would understand Paul to be saying at this point, but if anyone seems to disagree with me and to be contentious as to the scandal involved over a woman praying in the public worship of God in the customary sign of male headship, i.e., an uncovered head, after all that I have argued, and I assume that some will yet be contentious over this matter in the Church of Corinth, Thus Paul actually anticipates further condemnation by some within the church of Corinth. Third, the consequence of the conditional if sentence stated by Paul then follows, quote, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God, unquote. In other words, if, as Paul anticipates, there are those in the Church of Corinth that still seem to be divisive, after what he has already stated, then those contentious individuals must finally face the consequence that they are entirely alone in their view. For neither the apostles nor the churches of Christ agree with such a custom as a woman praying in the public assembly with her head uncovered." In this statement is displayed an argument from ecclesiastical uniformity, where the we of the apostles is combined with the churches of God, to demonstrate that even in the matter of custom that is brought into the church from outside the church, ecclesiastical uniformity is a very important consideration. whether it be the uncovered head as a customary sign of headship and the covered head as a customary sign of submission, or foot-washing as a customary sign of loving service, or kissing as a customary sign of friendly greeting, or bowing as a customary sign of subjection, or gender-segregated seating as a customary sign of distinction between men and women, etc. Such customary signs that clearly pertain to the cultures and nations into which the gospel of Jesus Christ comes have a place in the public worship of God when the customary signs are in agreement with moral slash theological principles, creation ordinances, propriety and decorum, nature, and ecclesiastical uniformity. Fourth, I submit that the accurate translation of the Greek adjective toiaten is such, quote, we have no such custom, unquote, as is translated in the Authorized Version, Young's literal translation of the Holy Bible, the New King James Version, and not other, as is translated in the New International Version or New American Standard Bible. For as standard Greek lexicons indicate, toyotin clearly means such rather than other. See a Greek lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, the University of Chicago Press, pages 828 and 829. Also Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, page 708. manual Greek lexicon of the New Testament by Smith, University Press, Aberdeen, page 447, and Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament by Thayer, Broadmond Press, page 627. It is most important that we maintain the accurate translation of the words used in the Greek text in order to be faithful interpreters of God's Holy Word. But in this specific case, only the word such clarifies what Paul means within the context. For Paul had asked a question in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, quote, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered, unquote. And after his parenthetical argument from nature in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15, the question he had asked in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, is given an answer in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, quote, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God, unquote. If Paul had meant to say, ìWe have no other custom,î it would have appeared that Paul was contradicting all that he had previously said by now saying, ìWe have no other custom than for a woman to pray with her head uncovered.î Clearly, Paul did not contradict what he had previously said. Thus, the accurate translation of the Greek adjective ìtoiotinî is ìsuch.î ìWe have no such custom.î Fifth, we move on now to consider the noun custom, which the adjective such modifies. Paul declares, quote, we have no such custom, unquote, where the Greek noun sunithia is used. The Greek noun sunithia means a, quote, habit, custom, usage, unquote, according to a Greek lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature by Bower, Art, and Gingrich, the University of Chicago Press, page 797. A quote, use custom habit usage, unquote, according to Greek English lexicon by Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, page 676. A quote, habit custom, unquote, according to manual Greek lexicon of the New Testament by Smith. University Press, Aberdeen, page 429, and a, quote, custom, unquote, according to Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, by Thayer, Broadman Press, page 604. Paul infers that the use of a head covering by women in the public worship of God was not determined by the regulative principle of worship, but was rather a custom that was brought into worship from the general practice of women in society wearing a head covering in the cultural context of Corinth. For if Paul declares that there is no such, quote, custom, unquote, for women to pray in public worship without a covered head, then Paul also infers that it was a received, quote, custom, unquote, for women to pray with a covered head in worship. The only other usage of this Greek word for custom, sunnethia, in the received text of the New Testament, is found in John chapter 18, verse 39, where it refers to the, quote, custom, unquote, of the Jews to release one prisoner at the time of the Passover, which was obviously a national custom for the nation of the Jews alone and not for all nations throughout time, just as the covered head for women was a national custom among the nations and societies of the Greeks and not for all nations throughout all time. Here Paul refers, by inference, to the veiling of women as a, quote, custom, unquote, which is precisely what the Reformers called it as well, a custom or customary sign. But a custom or customary sign is not the same thing as a scripturally regulated act or practice of worship. A customary sign first becomes a custom in the society or culture at large, and is then carried over into worship when a church is planted in that cultural society, because to dismiss such a customary sign in worship would introduce confusion, disorder, and schism into the church, especially when that customary sign is agreeable to moral-slash-theological principles, creation ordinances, propriety and decorum, nature, and ecclesiastic uniformity. However, when in a society, nation, or culture there is no such general or universal custom of women covering their heads when they are in public, or for men to uncover their heads when they are in public, I submit there is no sound reason for the covering of the head in the case of women or the uncovering of the head in the case of men to be used in the public worship of God, per Paul's requirement. The Corinthians are here rebuked by Paul because the women removed the customary sign of female submission, i.e. a covered head, when they appeared in public worship, thus completely inverting their respective role as outwardly indicated by the customary sign of that general society within Corinth. No other divine ordinance in scripture is ever referred to as a mere custom or habit, sunnethia. Thus, I submit that Paul distinguishes the veiling of women as a, quote, custom, unquote, within Greek society at large, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, from the regulated divine ordinances or apostolic traditions referred to in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 2 and 23. Sixth, I submit, therefore, that the, quote, custom, unquote, referred to in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, quote, we have no such custom, unquote, does not refer to some alleged custom of being contentious. for being contentious is not a mere custom, but is rather a divisive and scandalous sin in all cultures and in all ages. The Greek word used for contentious is philonikos, which literally means a love of strife. However, the Corinthians had begun practicing and tolerating within their assemblies a pernicious and scandalous, quote, custom, unquote, of women being uncovered as they prayed jointly with other Christians in the public worship of God. It is far more reasonable and agreeable to the context of 1 Corinthians 11 to understand the, quote, custom, unquote, here addressed by Paul, to be a practice that deals with outward adornment and decorum, which is the thrust of Paul's remarks in 1 Corinthians 11, than for the, quote, custom, unquote, to be an express moral evil. The following commentators seem to me to handle the text at this point most accurately. A. R. Fawcett, in A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, William B. Erdman's Publishing Company, First Corinthians, Volume 3, page 315. Fawcett says, quote, no such custom as that of women praying uncovered, not, quote, that of being contentious, unquote. The Greek sunithean, custom, implies usage rather than a mental habit. See John, chapter 18, verse 39. Frederick Louis Godet, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Kregel Publications, pages 559 and 560, 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." Charles Hodge, in a commentary on 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Stillwater's Revival Books, page 214. Calvin and many of the best modern commentators give a different view of this passage. They understand the Apostle to say that if anyone seems to be disputatious, neither we nor the churches are accustomed to dispute. It is not our want to waste words with those who wish merely to make contention. The only reason assigned for this interpretation is Paul saying, ìWe have no such custom,î which they say cannot mean the custom of women going unveiled. But why not? The apostles and the churches constituted a whole. Neither the one nor the other, neither the churches nor their infallible guides, sanctioned the usage in question. Besides, no other custom is mentioned in the context than the one which he has been discussing, quote, if anyone appear contentious, unquote, is not a custom and suggests nothing to which the words such a custom can naturally refer, unquote. G. G. Findlay, in the Expositor's Greek Testament, William B. Erdmann's publishing company, First Corinthians, page 876, quote, the custom described in verse 4 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." Henry Alford, in Alford's Greek Testament, an exegetical and critical commentary, Guardian Press, 1 Corinthians, page 569. 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 behavior on this and all the other matters of dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify the conclusion. To paraphrase, 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 sunithia, custom, alludes to the practice of women praying uncovered." See John chapter 18, verse 39. Gordon D. Fee, in the New International Commentary on the New Testament, William B. Erdman's publishing company, First Corinthians, pages 529 and 530. Quote, the opening sentence, quote, if anyone wants to be contentious about this, unquote, is one of four such sentences in this letter, each indicating that this is what some are doing. 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, quote, we have no such practice, that is custom, nor do the churches of God, unquote. The words, quote, such practice, interjection, custom, unquote, therefore must refer to that which the, quote, contentious, unquote, are advocating and which this argument has been combating, unquote. Seventh, Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 16 is an argument from ecclesiastical uniformity. Quote, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God, unquote. Ecclesiastical uniformity is so foreign to contemporary churches because such an argument strikes at the worldly principles of independence, autonomy, diversity, pluralism, and multiformity upon which contemporary churches so much thrive. But biblical unity within the Church of Jesus Christ is not only a mystical and spiritual unity, but is also a unity that is to manifest itself in ecclesiastical uniformity, at least to the nearest degree possible. Consider the ecclesiastical uniformity of the Old Testament. See Exodus 12, verses 48 and 49, Numbers 18, verse 5, Joshua 22-11-29, 1 Kings 12-26-33, and of the New Testament, see 1 Corinthians 4-17 and 1 Corinthians 14-33. the, quote, oneness, unquote, that is ours spiritually in Christ, is to be evidence in a visible unity in, quote, one, unquote, doctrine, quote, one, unquote, worship, quote, one, unquote, church government, and quote, one, unquote, church discipline. See John chapter 17, verses 20 and 21, Ephesians chapter 4, verses 1 through 6, and 1 Corinthians 1.10. This biblical principle was the stated purpose and end of the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 that bound the kingdoms and churches of Scotland, England, and Ireland and all their posterity. 1. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies. the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches, and shall endeavor to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for worship and catechizing, that we and our posterity after us may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us." In fact, it was the Solemn League and Covenant that was the first document approved by the Westminster Assembly, and that was intended to be the covenantal basis for uniformity among the three kingdoms and churches of Scotland, England, and Ireland, and all their posterity, in approving all of the other documents, the Confession of Faith, the Director for the Public Worship of God, the Presbyterial Form of Church Government, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. In the title page of each of these documents approved by the Westminster Assembly, one will find the following notation, ìAgreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, as a part of the covenanted uniformity in religion betwixt the Churches of Christ in the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland.î What Paul was teaching, by way of ecclesiastical uniformity, even in matters related to cultural customs among those who had the same cultural customs, is perfectly consistent with what was decided by the synod that met in Jerusalem, see Acts chapter 15. There the apostles and elders of the churches met together to resolve matters related not only to moral issues, like justification by faith alone and fornication, but also to certain Jewish practices carried over from the Old Testament into the New Testament age that were not intended to be perpetually binding for all ages to come, such as circumcision, eating meat offered to idols, meat that was strangled, or blood. The differences between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians on some of these issues, that were neither related to the moral law of God or to the regulative principle of worship in the New Covenant, were causing schisms, divisions, and scandal within the Churches of Christ. Thus, in order to promote biblical unity among the Churches of Christ at that time, the apostles and elders decided what were the matters that must be avoided, whether of a moral nature or of a customary nature, in order to promote unity and uniformity among the Churches of Christ. This is precisely Paul's line of argument in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, when he implicitly appeals to the uniformity of a cultural, quote, custom, unquote, followed at that time by the apostles and the churches of God. The fact that Paul addresses a cultural custom in 1 Corinthians 11 and implicitly appeals to the apostles and the churches of God by way of ecclesiastical uniformity does not make the cultural custom of the head covering any more universal for all churches in all ages. then the use of ecclesiastical uniformity in Acts chapter 15 verse 20 regarding meat that is strangled makes that judicial law universal for all churches in all ages. for ecclesiastical uniformity may apply not only to matters that are doctrinal, but to matters that are cultural as well, when the peace, purity, and unity of the Church are threatened. Eighth, I would therefore have to disagree with you when you indicate that 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16 is an appeal to, quote, apostolic tradition, unquote. you wrote, quote, in verse 16 it appears that Paul for the second time appeals to apostolic tradition, unquote. I do agree that Paul refers to apostolic tradition when he mentions, quote, ordinances, unquote, in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2. You might want to review what was said in the first letter concerning the use of the word ordinances. However, I disagree that Paul refers to apostolic tradition when he mentions the word custom in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16. As already noted, a cultural custom is not apostolic tradition or revelation given by Christ to His Church. A cultural custom is that which is practiced by society in general and may be brought into worship when it is agreeable to moral slash theological principles, creation ordinances, propriety and decorum, nature, and ecclesiastical uniformity, and when to disregard that cultural custom would bring division, disorder, and confusion into the Church of Christ. Paul's appeal is not to apostolic tradition, but is rather an appeal to ecclesiastical uniformity in regard to the cultural custom of men being uncovered and women being covered in the public worship of God within the Church of Corinth. Ninth, you ask, how could someone ever cease to practice head covering and not be labeled contentious? I respond, the same question might be asked with regard to a host of other cultural customs that prevailed in ancient times, such as washing the feet of the saints, greeting the saints with a holy kiss, gender-segregated seating, etc. If any group of Christians in the churches at the time of the apostles refused to honor the cultural practices mentioned above, there would no doubt result division and disorder within the Christian congregations, and Paul would have addressed these resulting scandals in the same way that he addressed the scandal associated with head coverings. Those who might refuse to follow the cultural custom of greeting one another with a holy kiss, and might prefer to shake hands instead, would likewise be addressed as contentious by Paul. For they would be disregarding established customs that were at least agreeable to moral-slash-theological principles, propriety and decorum, and ecclesiastical uniformity. Since greeting one another with a holy kiss is commanded on a number of occasions by Paul, see Romans chapter 16 verse 16, 1 Corinthians chapter 16 verse 20, 2 Corinthians chapter 13 verse 12, and 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 26, I might ask, how could someone ever cease to practice greeting one another with a holy kiss and not be labeled contentious? In that cultural context, one could not cease to do so without being contentious. However, in a cultural context in which greeting one another with a holy kiss is not a custom in society at large, then it would not be contentious for a group of Christians to shake hands with one another rather than giving a holy kiss. So it is likewise the case with the cultural custom of the covered head of a female and the cultural custom of the uncovered head of a male. In the cultural context of Corinth, where the covered head of a woman in general society was a sign of feminine submission, a woman could not remove her head covering when she gathered to worship the Lord without being contentious. However, in a cultural context in which the covered head of a woman in general society is not a customary sign of female submission, then it would not be contentious for a woman to join in the public worship of God with her head uncovered. This concludes my response to your eighth argument. Please send me any follow-up questions you might have for my response, or any comments that you believe would be helpful. Having completed my responses to all of your arguments, I would like to conclude my correspondence on this matter by collating the words of a number of writers, commentators, and divines who corroborate the position that Paul viewed the matter of head coverings in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 as being a cultural custom or customary practice rather than a practice regulated by the moral law of God or the regulative principle of worship. Thanks again. Yours for the cause of Christ, Greg L. Price. Still Waters Revival Books is now located at PuritanDownloads.com. It's your worldwide online Reformation home for the very best in free and discounted classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, mp3s, and videos. For much more information on the Puritans and Reformers, including the best free and discounted classic and contemporary books, mp3s, digital downloads and videos, please visit Still Waters Revival Books at PuritanDownloads.com. Stillwater's Revival Books also publishes The Puritan Hard Drive, the most powerful and practical Christian study tool ever produced. All thanks and glory be to the mercy, grace, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ for this remarkable and wonderful new Christian study tool. The Puritan hard drive contains over 12,500 of the best Reformation books, MP3s, and videos ever gathered onto one portable Christian study tool. An extraordinary collection of Puritan, Protestant, Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Covenanter, and Reformed Baptist resources, it's fully upgradable and it's small enough to fit in your pocket. The Puritan hard drive combines an embedded database containing many millions of records with the most amazing and extraordinary custom Christian search and research software ever created. The Puritan Hard Drive has been produced to assist you in the fascinating and exhilarating spiritual, intellectual, familial, ecclesiastical, and societal adventure that is living the Christian life. It has been specifically designed so that you might more faithfully know, serve, and love the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as to help you to do all you can to bring glory to His great name. If you want to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, then the Puritan Hard Drive is for you. Visit PuritanDownloads.com today for much more information on the Puritan Hard Drive and to take advantage of all the free and discounted Reformation and Puritan books, mp3s, and videos that we offer at Still Waters Revival Books.