Have you ever wondered why Paul spent half a chapter going over the head covering details, just to come to the end at verse 16 telling everyone not to be contentious?
Like really! Why’d he spend all that time and energy. . . only to conclude that it doesn’t make any difference. Therefore don’t be argumentative about it!
I don’t know about you, but I often came away with the feeling of why he wasted my time providing all the details.
The whole discussion was confusing for 15 verses, then he just says . . . . . “Never mind.”
Have you been taught that the “contentious brethren” are those who try to influence a woman to wear an artificial covering?
That’s what I was taught!
Once a certain perspective is pressed into our brains, we as humans struggle to see reality.
For a simple illustration, as a kid, the annual rifle season to hunt deer always brought the hunters from the city. These guys were itching to pull the trigger and eagerly came to the woods dead set on taking home a deer.
Every season brought accidental shootings when a city hunter clearly saw a deer, shot it, and then saw the true reality – it wasn’t actually a deer. Before the trigger was pulled, the city hunter saw a deer just clear as day.
The running joke with my peers always ended with, “Okay, buddy! Just let me get my saddle off and you can have your deer!”
Once you have been taught that a passage has a specific meaning, then it becomes difficult to see the passage having any other meaning. Just like the city hunter with the image of a deer burning in his brain sees a “deer” as he kills a saddled horse, we struggle to read verse 16 as Paul meant it.
Jesus spoke to this principle of not seeing the truth when He told the multitudes that having eyes, they did not see. He called the Pharisees blind guides. For those who might not know, the Pharisees were the educated and religious leaders of the day. For more details see Mark 8:11-21.
In short, the Pharisees “did not see the Messiah” standing in their presence doing miracles.
We like to think that “there’s no way that we could do something like that!”
Well, my friend, that is pride getting in the way. None of us are immune from our preconceived biases affecting our thinking.
In jury trials, there is a procedure called voir dire (the jurors are questioned to see if they hold predispositions about issues to be decided). If a man is accused of rape, then letting 12 women who have been raped decide his guilt or innocence will not give the man a fair trial.
Understandably, these women cannot be objective on the subject. In short, humans tend to see what we already believe (including me).
In 1st Corinthians 11:16 NKJV, the Bible reads, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
The warning against being contentious is given to those who argue that a woman does not need an artificial covering.
Unfortunately, I formerly was one of the ones being contentious by asserting women did not need to externally cover their heads. I was wrong.
The contentious folks are those who say no covering is needed, despite what Paul and the Holy Spirit had just instructed.
Paul is saying “I have provided multiple reasons for a woman to cover her head. Anyone who doesn’t like what I just said, is just being contentious!”
I had to open my eyes to see before I was able to understand what Paul was saying. Much like the joke about “let me get my saddle off and you can have your deer,” I could not see the truth.
Like the city hunter, maybe you see the contentious person as being the one demanding a woman to wear a veil or cover.
In reality, that is not what verse 16 is telling the reader.
Paul is really saying that it would be strange indeed for anyone to challenge the practice of women veiling or covering their heads, i.e. an ordinance that was being universally observed throughout all the churches.
In explaining the “why” behind the proper head covering for both men and women, Paul gets to the end telling us, “That’s the way it is. If you don’t like it, then just keep quiet.”
Paul says, “we have no such custom.” Is Paul saying, we don’t have a custom of being contentious?
The Greek word translated for “contentious” is “philoneikos” which according to Strong’s Concordance (the definitions section) means fond of strife.
Paul just convicted himself! He’s contentious and fond of strife!
He talks about head covering for 15 verses. In the first 6 verses, Paul tells men not to cover their heads and instructs women to veil or cover their heads.
Is Paul fond of strife (or in other words being contentious)?
If he is being contentious, then why not leave out the 15 verses altogether?
I recognize Paul was writing on a scroll without the benefit of a fancy word processor with a delete key. [I mean like I hit “delete” about 50 times a sentence!]
Considering the letter was going to be read for over 2,000 years by Christians throughout the ages, it sure seems like the head covering part should have been left out.
Blotting out these 15 verses would also avoid Paul being placed among the contentious, in violation of verse 16. Let’s not forget that it is Paul who said the woman should wear a covering.
One could ponder, why wasn’t Paul just inspired to start a new scroll?
Of course, that gets you wondering why the Holy Spirit inspired verses 1-15 in the first place.
If the first 15 verses telling women to cover their heads are contentious, it is indeed curious the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write these verses.
Reading verse 16 to mean that those who oppose a woman wearing a veil or covering are contentious fits better with the passage being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I just cannot see the Holy Spirit inspiring Paul to write 15 verses of contentious arguments before getting to verse 16 to let everyone know to avoid doing what Paul just did.
In order to understand the command (not to be contentious about the subject of head covering), you have to first understand who Paul is telling not to fight over the issue.
If you look back up to verse 2, we find the answer. 1 Corinthians 11:2
Paul is giving praise to the church for keeping the traditions that he had previously delivered to them. The traditions were for the men not to cover their heads and praising the women who wore an external covering over their hair. Of course, the KJV uses “ordinances.”
In praising them, Paul has just given his approval and endorsed the practice of women covering or veiling their heads with an external cloth (and praised the men for not wearing any kind of covering).
In this regard the Corinthians were keeping the apostolic tradition that he delivered to them, therefore they were the ones receiving Paul’s approval.
The ones who opposed head covering were the ones fond of strife.
Remember Paul has heard there are divisions in the church. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13
Chloe’s household had reported to Paul there were quarrels with some claiming to follow Paul while others said “I am of Apollos” or “I am of Cephas.”
Knowing there were already factions in the church, it is unimaginable that Paul would bring up a woman needing to cover her head if the other apostles did not preach the same. Doing so would just add another source of friction for continued divisions.
Caveat: The English word “custom” in verse 16 of the NKJV sounds a lot like “traditions” or the word from verse 1, but it is not.
The Greek word in verse 16 is “synetheian” defined as a habit or habitual use. [Strong’s Concordance (the definition section)]
As you read 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 don’t confuse “traditions” which are commands with the word “customs” which are more of a practice or habit.
In English, these words have a much closer meaning than the actual meaning of the Greek words that were used.
In short, neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit are contentious. Therefore, the only logical construction or interpretation is that those who oppose head covering are the ones who are contentious and argumentative.
