A Corinthian Mess

 A Few Words About 11:2-16

Click here to watch the sermon from Sunday. 

All scholars will tell you that the church in Corinth was one big mess. Many of those same scholars will tell you that some of what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians is also a bit of a mess. The perfect example of this truth is what Paul says about men, women, and head coverings in chapter 11. Speaking about this particular section of 1 Corinthians, one scholar suggested that there have been more theories proposed than there are scholars proposing them. The implication being that some scholars can’t decide, so they offer more than one theory.

I don’t want to spend too much time on this particular section of 1 Corinthians because the difficulties associated with the passage have little to do with whether or not a woman can serve or lead in the public worship gatherings of the church. I find it difficult to deny that Paul believes both men and women will be leading the church in prayer and prophesying. That seems to be a given. The issues that Paul seems most interested in addressing in 1 Corinthians 11 is how both men and women should go about doing this appropriately. This is where the real difficulties lie when interpreting this passage.

Like the demon-possessed man that Jesus encounters in Mark 5:9, the difficulties of this passage can be called “Legion” because they are many!

• What are the head coverings? Are they veils? Is it simply different hairstyles? Long hair verses short hair?
• Is this all about their culture and what was culturally acceptable at the time? Or, does this transcend cultures?
• In the Greek language there is only one word for male and husband. The same is true of female and wife. Is this passage about husbands and wives, or about all males and all females?
• In some ancient cultures a head covering or a veil on a woman indicated she was married. Not wearing a veil meant she was making herself available.
• Is this primarily about males looking male and females looking female, according to their culture?
• What does the Greek word kephale mean in this passage? Scholars are most divided over this question. It can literally mean “head” as in putting a hat on my head. It can metaphorically mean head as in authority. It can also mean source as in Lake Itasca is the source of the Mississippi River. Then there are various other meanings suggested by scholars.
• Who is saying what? In other words, is Paul quoting something the Corinthians have said and then correcting them? Paul does this occasionally in his letters. Sometimes it is difficult to determine when Paul is doing this because Greek doesn’t use quotation marks. Scholars and interpreters have to decipher, based on textual clues and context, when Paul is quoting someone else. Why might some scholars suggest Paul is quoting the Corinthians here?
• Because Paul seems to contradict himself later, or at least go back on what he originally said. In verses 3 he says that “Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ” (NRSV). He then goes on to say, “Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man” (verses 8-9). But later, as if he is now backtracking, he says, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God” (verses 11-12). Another translation starts that sentence with, “However…” (CEB). And another starts, “But among the Lord’s people…” (NLT).
• Some scholars suggest that Paul is using one of Jesus’s old trick. Jesus was known to say, “You have heard it said… But I tell you…” Could it be that Paul is doing that here? Perhaps the Corinthians are the ones saying that the man/husband is the head of every women/wife, and therefore by women not covering their literal heads they are disgracing their metaphorical heads (the men). Perhaps Paul quotes them, then says, “Nevertheless… However… among the Lord’s people… woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.”
• What is the deal with the angels in verse 10?
• What do we do with Paul’s comment about “nature” teaching us that long hair on a man is degrading but that long hair on a woman is to her glory? Does nature really teach us this? How long is too long for a man? How short is too short for a woman?

Who knows what Paul is really saying in these verses? Who knows what the Corinthians were doing wrong? Who knows exactly what this means for us today? Just this past week, I read so many commentaries and papers on this section of 1 Corinthians 11 that I gave myself a headache, literally. I had to stop.

I love what Richard B. Hays says in his commentary on this section of 1 Corinthians 11. He writes: “More than any other passage in this letter, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 presents severe problems for the interpreter. The first principle that should be applied in our readings of this text is the principle of hermeneutical honesty: we should never pretend to understand more than we do. In the case of this passage, the teacher or preacher should be prepared to acknowledge that we can neither understand it entirely nor accept it entirely (the latter perhaps follows the former). Telling the truth about such matters will do much to clear the air, and it may help members of our congregations recognize more clearly the great cultural distance between first-century Corinth and our world.”

Again, as it relates to our topic at hand, the one thing I am certain of is that Paul assumed both men and women would be leading prayers and prophesying in the worship assemblies of the church. It seems really hard to get around that fact.

A Few More Words About 14:34-36

If you do any in-depth study of these verses, reading a variety of different scholars, you will quickly discover that there are some textual questions surrounding these verses. By textual questions, I mean questions about the exact structure of the sentences, the exact ordering of the verses, who is speaking, and whether or not some of the lines are even original to Paul or added later by a scribe. The answers to these types of questions greatly impacts our interpretation of Paul’s message and its relevance to us today.

First, a basic Greek lesson. There is no punctuation in Greek. Lesson over.

If there is no punctuation in Greek, how do we know where sentences begin and end? How do we know if a sentence is connected to what came before or what comes after it? Those are all great questions! The best answer I can give is that we rely on the experts in ancient languages to help us navigate those issues, and we trust their translations. The problem is that even the experts encounter situations they can’t figure out. The transition between verse 33 and 34 is a perfect example of this. I’ll start with verse 32 in the examples below:

32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. (NIV)

--------------------------

32 And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33 for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. (NRSV)

Do you see the difference? Does “as in all the churches of the saints” go with what came before it (order and peace) or what comes after it (women)? It makes a huge difference in the message.

Another textual dilemma, where does verse 34-35 belong? I bet you didn’t know that was even a question. Most Bibles will put a footnote after verse 35 informing the reader that there are ancient manuscripts that place these two verses after verse 40. Some scholars have suggested this is a scribal error. In other words, an ancient scribe accidentally got the verses out of order. If true, which is the correct order? Which is incorrect?

Try this. Read verses 32-40, omitting 34-35:

32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

It seems to flow pretty seamlessly. It is almost as if the two sentences about women disrupts the flow of the text. This has actually led some scholars to believe that verses 34-35 are actually not from Paul himself, but most likely added by a later scribe. Our very own Dan Knight finds this to be a real possibility.

Another textual dilemma. If this truly is from the pen of Paul, is he commanding the Corinthians or quoting the Corinthians when he writes, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says”? In other words, is this Paul’s own words, giving a command? Or, is Paul quoting something he has heard the Corinthians say?

Scholars offer two reasons for suggesting that Paul may actually be quoting the Corinthians here. First, the statement that women must remain silent is based on the law. Verse 35 ends with, “as the law says.” If you know anything about Paul, then you surely know that he has never had anything good to say about the law. And he has definitely never commanded Gentile Christians to do something based on Jewish law. Is Paul now really using the law as his basis for this command to keep women silent? If so, what law is he referring to? There is actually no law that can be found in the Old Testament that commands women to be in submission to men. So, what law? This is one reason why scholars suggest he is quoting a false Corinthian teaching. It could be that the Corinthians were demanding women remain silent, and then basing that command on some law.

The second reason some scholars suggest Paul is actually quoting the Corinthians is related to the first. In the NIV, the very next sentence says, “Or did the word of God originate with you?” If you read a lot of the older translations, like the RSV, that sentence reads, “What? Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?” It is as if Paul is incredulous at what he has heard (Gilbert’s translation below):

Paul: You guys say, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” What?!?! Did the word of God originate with you (the men), or are you (the men) the only ones it has reached?

If you heard my sermon this past Sunday, you know that I have approached this text from a slightly different angle, but I have to remain open to this possible reading. I believe there is some merit to this approach. My current position, though, is that this is a temporary situation in Corinth, and just like the prophets and tongue speakers who might be contributing to the chaos in the Corinthian churches, Paul also silences certain wives who were disrupting the worship service by blurting out questions during the service. This silencing would not include the women who were gifted to pray and prophesy in the services. It would have only applied to those who were contributing to the disorder of their worship services. This is my understanding of the text at the moment.

I simply share all of this confusing information about the different textual questions to show how difficult this passage can be. What is being said here is not as “clear and obvious” as we would like it to be. My personal opinion is that when the “correct” interpretation of a passage seems out of reach, the “loving” interpretation of the passage is the most Christ-like approach.