"custom" in I Cor 11:16 (KJO)

[Deleted]

My name is William Earl. I am in Taiwan with my wife and our two children. I am from Hillsboro, Texas(70 miles south of Dallas). I believe that God has preserved his word in the King James Bible.

In examining any difficult passage such as this, I try to stick with the English. I am willing to look at the(correct) Greek or Hebrew if it will shed any light on the English. My purpose is not to supplant the English, but to understand the English. I make the assumption that the English is always correct. The only other English versions that I would consider in this process would be versions used in the translation of the Authorized Version. I have never done this yet.

My purpose in examining the meaning of the word "custom" in this verse is to verify that my interpretation is correct and to be able to convince the large number of baptists that do not believe that a woman should cover her head when she is praying.

I am not doing this to start a fight. When I read I Corinthians 11, it seems to me that this is not at all a trivial doctrine. I believe this is tied closely to Genesis 6. I believe it is important in the protection of girls and women. I am only trying to nail down the correct interpretation of the key verse(subject) without appealing to other modern versions of the Bible. I am looking for an interpretation that makes sense in 17th century English. The interpretation of this group has strong circumstantial evidence. I am looking for something stronger.

I have an Oxford English Dictionary(1971, 1979 printing). I have a Strong's Concordance. Getting information on the internet is possible, but there is a lot of junk to wade through. I have not expressed my opinions about the word, "custom", yet. I will if this discussion gets started. I wish I could say I have this verse nailed down solid. If I did I would start this thread with an explanation instead of asking for help from the brethren. Please do not refer to the ideas of other men unless you feel that you have a reasonable grasp of their interpretation.

If this work has already been completed at this site, please forgive me for not noticing it.

Sincerely
a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ,

William K. Earl

[Brother Ben]

So everyone will know which verse it is as follows:

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. I Cor. 11:16

Many who disagree with the covering on sisters seem to see this as the verse which UNDOES everything Paul just got done explaining. In other words, and I paraphrase:

But, if any man seem to be causing contention, i.e., division, trouble, etc., over this covering issue, don't worry about covering, it is not a custom we believer, neither do the churches of God." (Ug!)

This is a gross misinterpretation if we take the verse into context. Look at Pauls openning remarks in this chapter:

1Cor11:1Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
1Cr 11:2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Paul wants the readers to remember him, the giver of "ordained" things. I have thought about this from time to time and we can get hung up on our preconception of the word ordinance. Most say, the church has two, the Lord's Supper, and Baptism. But, that is not so. The ordinance, simply means, things that are ordained of God, or set in order. The headship teaching is one of the things that are ordained of God. Verse five shows what the Christian sister's part is in that ordinance.

1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Why, oh dear brethren, would Paul make such a bold statement, and then turn around several verses later and say, "Well, we actually don't follow this custom, neither do the churches!?!?!?!"

This is contradictory and confusion and God is not the author of counfusion. Yes, this is an ordained thing, and a custom. As I have said before, go to the Middle East, go to the Old Country, look at the chaste women...they cover, even if they are not Christian. It is ordained in the creative order. That is why it is/was practiced by so many cultures. Paul, through Holy Writ, ordains it to the Christian sister.

Furthermore, he confirms this is not just for the Corinthians, just as the Epistle to them is for ALL believers to consider.

1Cr 1:1 ¶ Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes [our] brother,
1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Clearly, this epistle is to them at Corinth and to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, and to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ...

To deny this is to ignore plain scripture. So, is it the custom for believing sisters to cover, why yes, of course it is. Was it common? Indeed. To argue otherwise would be to cause contention, because the churches have no such custom of ignoring the headship order, and the sisters just throwing the covering to the wind.

I close my remarks with these from, 'Barnes Notes on the Bible,' a very conservative commentary trusted by many beleivers:

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.

Bro. Ben

[Andrea]

Wow! Thank you for such a clear explanation. The word "custom" has not made complete sense to me ... until now.. That really sums it up. It's hitting me right in the face now. It's never been more clear.