OUR TEXT: “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers [imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:32,33; 11:1).

VEILS IN AMERICA. There is a mourning veil and a bride's veil. Is anyone old enough to remember women wearing fancy hats along with a netted veil over the face when "dressed up" in public? I remember them as a child during the 30's and 40's. I think this was just a formal dress for the ladies. At least, the men did not wear them. Throughout history there have been different kinds of veils that served different purposes. To this day, head coverings play a significant role in many religions, including Muslims, Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism. ^xvi I suppose certain veils always differentiated the genders.ⁱ It would have been a catastrophe I'm sure for a man to wear the ladies' veils.

“SOCIAL DISTANCING” might be a touchy matter in some beliefs. The purpose of this study is to note that some tenets in Christianity are really subject to social customs which may be different in different times and places which out of courtesy and respect for one another must be observed. The women's veil of 1 Corinthians 11 is an example of this. Social rules during a pandemic might be considered in the same category.

OUR “CUSTOMS” TEXT. 1 Corinthians 11 teaches us how to respect customs in public while respecting Biblical principles. How does one “fit into” a society's norms while yet being true to one's own faith? Is it not by simply respecting the other one's culture of “non-essentials” which require our not compromising Truth? When in Rome, “should not one do as the Romans do” as long as it's righteous behavior? Can one expect to save souls by insulting them by violating their customs?ⁱⁱ

IMITATE THE APOSTLE IN OBSERVING CUSTOMS. The apostle in our noted text admonishes the reader to imitate him (verse 1) in respecting customs in the world into which they are sent to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20) while remaining faithful to the Law of Christ. In fact, does not the Law of Christ require us to do so (Galatians 5:14ⁱⁱⁱ; James 2:8)? Paul honored the customs of the Jews (although he was in Christ free from their restrictions); to the Gentile, he also honored their customs where possible. The converted are reminded in the Bible epistles to respect society's way of doing things. It's called customs.^iv

PREAMBLE TO PRAYING CUSTOM. Our text is not only a summation of preceding remarks in the epistle but is also a preamble and bridge to the observance of the customs of dress style and hair. It was “uncomely” [hence, by custom] for a woman to pray uncovered (v. 13).^v It's how the behavior is "seen by others". In other words, it is what was custom[ary] in that area. A man did not customarily pray or prophesy with something over his head (11:4). The word for “custom” here is “nature” and is used for the man's style.

MAN'S HAIR CUT: “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14). Like Ephesians 2:3's “conversation” (how one lives^vi) makes one by nature (according to Thayer: "when figurative, 'usage'"^vii) "children of wrath".

MALE AND FEMALE BEFORE GOD. Some commentators think that some sisters would cast caution to the wind and abandon the local custom of a veil that showed that the woman was respecting her feminity in public according to that society. Had the Corinthians misunderstood the Spirit's teaching from Galatians 3:28 [which was probably circulated at that same time] that "There can be no male and female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)? Sometimes we jump to conclusions based on our prejudices.

BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE OF GENDER RELATIONSHIP. But Paul here reminds them that there is a difference between the genders and should be respected. (1) the male is subordinate to Christ; (2) female is subordinate to man; (3) while Christ is subordinate to God. Whether "authority" or "source", the application is the same. Respect for this distinction between the genders must be observed in public according to the custom. A commentator says that though both genders have a common spiritual position with God "but just as in the case of slavery (7:21), Christ did not come to abolish existing societal relationships"^viii; i.e., customs. Woman's role in public must be respected with the restrictions in assembly that Paul states later in this letter, 1 Corinthians 14:34 and in such passages as 1 Timothy 2:8-12 and Ephesians 5:22f.^ix

THE CUSTOMS. One commentary: "Every woman who worships without her veil, thus violating the custom among women of good character, acts discreditably and brings shame upon herself." "By nature (prevailing custom) woman has long hair for a natural veil." Man: "By nature (prevailing custom) man has short hair." ^x

HAIR LENGTH CUSTOM. Why do I think this passage deals only with local custom? One custom example in 1 Corinthians 11's argument was that men “naturally” (can mean "custom"^xi) had short hair to distinguish themselves from women (who wore their hair long). Therefore, a believing man would not by custom have his head covered. "The acceptable style in the Roman world was to be clean shaven and short-haired.”^xii They were uncovered. This may not have been true for teachers where Jesus taught.^xiii Jewish teachers are said to have "worn the customary white linen 'napkin' (sudarium ), wound round the head as a turban, with the ends of it falling down over the neck."^xiv By the way, Jesus was not a Nazarite like John the Baptist who would have had long hair. He was a "Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23); a citizen of Nazareth. So he would have "naturally" followed Nazareth's customs of short hair.

THE SPIRIT'S CONCLUSION. The conclusion in verse 16 should clearly remind us that the church does not make up customs but we just respect them.

(KJV) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

(ESV) If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
(ISV) But if anyone wants to argue about this, we do not have any custom like this, nor do any of God's churches.
(TS2009) If, however, anyone seems to be contentious, we do not have such a habit, nor do the assemblies of Elohim.

The verse has been mistranslated in some social versions which has the passage commanding the wearing of veils for women in every society.

To help to persuade us, this is the Greek sentence parsed for us:

Verse 16: But ^{G1487 PARTICLE} if ^{G1161 DEPENDENT CONJ} anyone^G5100 thinks^G1380 to be contentious,^{G5380 G1510.1} we^{G1473 P-1NP}[such^G5108 custom^G4914 do not^G3756 have],^G2192 nor^{G3761 CONJ} the^G3588 assemblies^{G1577 G3588 N-NPF} of [the^G3588] God.^G2316 (ABP+)

P-INP= PRONOUN, FIRST PERSON, NOMINATIVE (SUBJECT), PLURAL;

N-NPF = NOUN, NOMINATIVE (SUBJECT), PLURAL, FEMININE

Based on this, I suggest this as an comparable translation:

16 (But) Neither we nor the churches of Christ have such custom if anyone is contentious.

DIAGRAM OF PAUL'S CONCLUSION. The subject of the main clause is compound (i.e., two subjects: WE and CHURCHES) and they are negative: (neither subject has the custom; i.e., “we” [do not] nor “churches” [do not]). We know that a “mean” contentious behavior is condemned in Scriptures (e.g., Romans 2:8). Being "ugly" contentious is not under consideration but the customs are, described as “natural” and “comely”, and the question is, should they not be binding on all Christians everywhere? I would understand that the veils, if not practiced in another culture, would be just like the hair length not binding.

THE WORD “CONTENTIOUS”? Thayer said that this Greek word for “contentious” is also been used for “emulation”^xv in “a good sense” [in the classic Greek] by Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, Plutarch and others. The Greek word is a compound one [only used here in the New Testament] which includes the expression “friend” and “disagreement”. So is not the “contention” meaning that the negative appeal of objection may be a rational one? If so, then Paul is saying that the custom is not bound therefore upon the local church in cases where it is not a custom. I believe this to be the reasonable application of the passage and consistent with the context. An application therefore could be that if we can't get to a barber because of a pandemic then we would be excused from not having a hair cut.

RESPECTING GENDER IN PUBLIC IS BOUND. But the argument of the gender relationship is related to creation, and, hence, is valid, universal,, and is commanded later in this epistle (1 Corinthians 14:34f, “wives silent in the assemblies”) and in other epistles, e.g., Ephesians 5:24f, 1 Timothy 2:8-15; etc., and must be reflected, in cultural practices of all Christians.

P.S. ON HATS. I have known couples that believed that 1 Corinthians 11 applied in the Twentieth Century's America for sisters (wives) must wear hats in assembly. There is no mention of hats in this passage; it was a veil with a larger covering (kata-kalupto) apparently than that of Moses’ kaluma which was used in covering the glory of his face (2 Corinthians 3:13; Exodus 34:33). His wasn’t a hat either. But if this had been indeed the local custom, sisters would want to "fit in."

GAYLON WEST

"THROW OUT THE LIFELINE"