Does 1Corinthians 11:16 negate the wearing of head coverings?

     Does 1Corinthians 11:16 negate the wearing of head coverings?

     Paul states in 1Corinthians 11:16, “But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of Yahweh.”

Many use this passage to confirm that in the event a dispute arose over the head covering that it was no longer needed. However, this would conflict with Paul’s earlier statement in verse 5 that if a woman refused to wear a covering she might as well be shorn, which was a show of disgrace in antiquity.  In verse 16, Paul is simply confirming that if someone became contentious about the head covering, the assembly had no other form of worship. In other words, they were to honor this practice.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary confirms that this head covering was a common practice and a sign of decency in the early assembly: “Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so.” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary adds, “…no custom of women worshiping without coverings. …for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch, and Africa the custom became the norm.”

The wearing of a veil or covering was not only a custom in the early assembly but also in the Old Testament. Evidence for this is seen from Rebekah (Genesis 24:65) and Ruth (Ruth 3:15).

As with many other biblical norms and customs, the wearing of the head covering has been disparaged in light of today’s social reengineering of culture and family.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Posted in Q&A - Miscellaneous.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sarah Hostkoetter
Sarah Hostkoetter
7 months ago

Perfect. Thank you. I always find it interesting when people spend a loarge amount of time on anti-headcovering, but use early church fathers as reference in many places in their walk…then fail to note that the early church fathers’ wives, most all of them, wore a veil. ref: headcovering movement site references