From: A Torah
Commentary on First
Corinthians 7-12 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2011
Chapter 11
In
spite of all the chaos they had brought upon themselves, Paul candidly
recognizes that, in many ways, they had remained loyal to him and uses this as
the jumping off point for the criticisms he makes in this chapter. He says this, assuredly, because it was
true—or, at least, the truth as most Corinthians would have perceived it
to be. (Sometimes it isn’t worth arguing
whether the perception is true or not; it may be far better to simply accept
the exaggeration and use it as a tool to encourage the real change that
is needed.)
Yet his reasoning
surely goes beyond this. He had rebuked
them for a number of problems—some quite serious and some as much a matter of
pride and ego as substance and, as a practical matter in structuring his
argument, it was desirable to put front and center the recognition that it
wasn’t a totally bleak picture.
There were good things to say about them and he wished them to
recognize this even as he is about to delve into further problems.
Much
of what he says in this chapter is often described as being about gender
relationships, though “marital relationships and roles” would actually be more
accurate. Just as there is a proper
power relationship between God and Jesus, with the former the superior, the
same is true between a husband and a wife.
Note the terms “husband” and “wife.”
Contrary to the widespread misuse of this and similar texts, the New
Testament does not teach that “women are ‘subject to’ men” but that “wives
are ‘subject to’ their husbands.”
To the extent that
the former is true at all, it would be that in Pauline society the vast bulk of
women were married and one might fall into that broader rhetoric even
though wives were specifically in mind.
Cf. verse 9 where he speaks of “man” and “woman” though he clearly has
in mind those who are or would be married ones. In short, women were to be subject to one
male and one male alone—the one they were married to. No others.
The vague idea of “gender inferiority” is clearly not in the
apostles’ mind nor should it be in ours as we interpret his meaning.
We
like in a society that exalts “equality” and is often horrified at the idea of hierarchy,
of being “subject” to others. Yet
exactly that is our everyday reality. You
work at a job and you are “subject” to the orders of your boss, who can run the
gauntlet: from fair minded to cynical to
self-absorbed; that boss may make your job easier or harder; that boss can
get you fired.
[Page 154] For
the record, in my last 31 years of secular work before retirement, 90% of the
time my bosses were female. My next to
last one was so good I suspect to read of her climbing the corporate totem
pole—high and I do mean high. With her
array of talents and common sense in dealing with people and problems, she’s
the kind of manager/executive anyone in their right mind wants. Yet she—a female--was still my superior and I—a
male--was her subordinate.
“Subordination” is
a matter of power and authority and being given the right to exercise them—not
of gender. Hence the recognition of a
“subject” to “superior” relationship in a marriage is quite parallel to what
every person is involved with in working life.
We rightly condemn the abuse of that superiority, but do any of
us really think business life could survive without it?
The
same is true of a family: a chain of
authority is essential to its success.
And if the person who is supposed to be “in charge” isn’t as responsible
and dedicated to making the situation work as the person “subject to that
authority,” then the situation is going to spin out of control. In a corporate relationship it may be only to
the cost of the “inferior (in authority),” though few of us are unacquainted
with cases where it ultimately gutted the unwise and self-centered order giver
too. The same is even more
true in marriage—where if both parties are not working toward
shared goals and aspirations the relationship is going to weaken and even
disintegrate.
In
the marital relationship, how one acts reflects either
an embracing of the proposition of marital “subordination” or a rejection of
it. Paul does not deal with how, even in
the Roman world, that this relationship might vary in its visible expression—either
dramatically or in minor ways. (Human
beings being human beings, it invariably does:
what is important to one is not to another, etc.) At least in Corinth one easily detectable
method of determining whether one accepted traditional gender marital roles lay
in whether a wife prayed or taught (“prophecies,” ATP) with a covered head and
her husband with an uncovered one. Those
harmless distinctions were to be embraced rather than brazenly rejected as if
one were at war with one’s spouse and the very society one lived in.
Knowing
that male arrogance has never exactly been an unknown problem in relationships,
Paul hastens to burst the maleocentric ego by
reminding the reader that both male and female are necessary for the
working out of God’s will and even the survival of the human race.
His
teaching, he notes, is simply embracing the general cultural consensus in
regard to “nature” (i.e., the “natural” way of doing things): for example, women should have “long hair”
and males “short hair.” In the “real
world” such lengths could only be defined in comparison with each other. The two words themselves are comparative
ones and there is no way one can possibly define the two in absolute
terms by how many inches long the hair is.
In other words, when looking at a husband and wife, the former was
supposed to have shorter hair compared with his spouse.
The cultural
standard was not evil, depraved or encouraged the ill treatment of others. Therefore Paul embraced it. (If the general pattern of church members was
to ignore such standards, would they not have been viewed as social
anarchists?)
In using such
“hair language,” it can hardly be overstressed that Paul is defending his
teaching that women should pray and teach with a “covered” head and a man with
an “uncovered” one. The introduction of
hair length into the picture makes no sense unless [Page 155] a female
“covered” head was being equated with one “covered” with “long hair” and the
male’s “uncovered” head being a euphemism for a head “uncovered” with the kind
of long hair the woman had.
In
shifting from matters of covered versus uncovered heads and the apparently
synonymous issue of long versus short hair he contrasts the problem about to be
examined with the matter he had just covered:
“In the following instructions I do not commend you, because when
you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (Revised Standard
Version, verse 17). Such contrastive
language is common: Bible in Basic
English, God’s Word, Holman, International Standard Version, Rotherham, and Weymouth).
Others, in particular the New King James Version (“Now in giving these
instructions I do not praise you”) and the New American Standard Bible (“But in
giving this instruction, I do not praise you”), they hedge the wording as to
whether the entire context (past and coming) is under consideration or
only the latter.
In our judgment,
the latter is the case and it implies something very significant: the apostle did not regard the problems of
covered versus uncovered heads and long hair versus short hair as major difficulties
when compared with what was to be discussed next. Yes, they were problems and needed to be
dealt with, but there was such widespread understanding of the rightness of his
teaching on the matter that, comparatively, this was only a trivial matter that
needed to be straightened out.
Since Paul had
stressed at the beginning of the chapter how they embraced his teaching on so
many matters, this was an excellent problem to introduce in that context: it showed a specific attitude or practice
where dissent was minor and acceptance of his principles widespread. It was a way of saying, in effect, “you do
have a lot of things right and here is a specific case where only a few have it
wrong.”
One
other point: “In the following
instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is
not for the better but for the worse” (Revised Standard Version). He is shifting to a new topic—what is
happening inside the church assembly; hence, the covering/uncovering he
has previously discussed was being done outside the church meeting. He is not discussing attire unique to
a church setting (as the text is typically used) but attire that is proper and
necessary to wear in ALL societal settings in and out of church. Hence if he is actually talking about wearing
an “artificial head covering” (i.e., roughly equivalent to a “hat” or “veil” rather
than long hair) then he is talking about what they should be doing in all
circumstances and not just in a religious one.
Dealing
with the Lord’s Supper he is discussing the heart of the worship service. Yet this unifying moment had become an
embodiment of their very divisiveness.
Indeed, the situation had so far degenerated that it wasn’t necessarily even
their cliques eating a common meal together to the exclusion of those who were
not members of the group. It had
disintegrated so far that even individuals/specific families brought their own
meal and proceeded to eat and drink at any time they preferred, regardless of
whether others had arrived and regardless of whether there were those who were without
anything at all. Paul found nothing wrong
with them having feasts but it had to be in their own private homes (11:22)
because that was where such things belonged rather than in the joint assembly
where it could humiliate the poor.
Paul’s
teaching on the solemnity and separateness of the Lord’s Supper from normal
meals could not be dismissed because he had gained his teaching directly from [Page 156]
the Lord Himself. Every
time they partook it was to remember the Lord’s death—what He went through,
why, and what it accomplished—and to serve as a kind of living memorial until
the Lord Himself came again.
Because
of its unique status, each believer should engage in a self-examination
of whether it is being partaken of in a respectful manner and with a mind on
its purpose and intent. Because of lack
of concern in such matters, a number of the Corinthians had fallen into a kind
of spiritual death sleep.
Then
he returns to what he had just discussed:
have the common courtesy to wait for each other before partaking of the
Communion. You don’t need to eat a
common meal at all: fill up before you
go to the assembly; don’t use the time for joint spiritual uplift to humiliate
the poor.
How the Themes Are Developed
Before
moving on to matters they may question,
Paul begins by stressing how faithfully
they had
previously followed the teachings
he had
provided (11:1-11:2)
ATP text:
“1Follow my example, just as I follow the example of
Christ. 2Now I praise you
because you remember me in all matters and hold firmly to the traditional
teachings, precisely as I delivered them to you.”
Development of the argument: Since the 1980s the intellectual and social
pacemakers of society have increasingly rejected the propriety of gender
distinctions. This has resulted in vehement
controversy about the rightness of such in the church’s leadership and
worship. In 1950 this would have been
regarded in the western world (with a few exceptions) as an absurdity; in 2050
it may well be so again. On the other
hand the changes may set down sufficient roots as to permanently alter the
scholarly and religious landscape.
No
one knows and for our purposes it is an irrelevancy. What we are seeking is a fair and responsible
reading of what Paul means and intends regardless of whether it is in
conformity with the secularist biases dominant even within much of the
“Christian scholarship” world. We have
no right to alter the intent of that teaching because changing theological
trends make him sound too “chauvinist” to some or too “liberal” to others.[1] Such individuals must make the decision
whether their insight and perceptivity [Page
157] is superior to that of the
apostle. Stripped of its veneer, that is
what holders of the “new biases” clearly believe: They have it right; Paul had it wrong. Yet “biases” are “biases;” because
ours are more recent does not automatically prove they are valid. His at least came with the claim that
he was being directly divinely guided in what he wrote.
A more forthright earlier
generation would have rejected the New Testament, adopted a new religion, or
formed one of their own, believing Paul’s biases were best left to him rather
than to “redefine” his concepts out of the way or utilizing his language in a blatantly
unpauline manner.
This would have been regarded as the treatment someone even in the wrong
deserved.
Here we are concerned with
exegesis of that language; its application to current practices and beliefs is,
in general, best left to a different venue.
Where we do venture into current practice, our remarks will be based
upon applying his teaching in a way that seems most consistent with his words
and intents. Dealing in Pauline
exegesis, doesn’t that remain the only proper course?
Paul
begins his discussion by laying a foundation of respect for himself. He calls on them to imitate him just as he
also imitated Christ (11:1). The modern
claim that “Paul created the Christian religion” would have seemed laughable to
him. Why bother to so carefully follow
the precedent of Jesus if he were really going to gut and rebuild it into a
distinctly different system? And why
would he have thought he could get away with it with so many first generation
disciples and apostles still alive?
They
are praised for “keep[ing] the traditions” (traditional practices and beliefs =
“traditional teachings,” ATP) that he had delivered to them. They had not modified or altered them: they followed them “just as I delivered them
to you” (11:2).[2] Hence there was a “continuum of faith:” from Jesus to Paul
to the disciples. Same
faith, same teachings.
By presenting himself as
the reliable and faithful conveyor of these spiritual truths Paul “places
himself within the mainstream of church tradition as it existed at that time.”[3] If they had trouble with his teaching it was
not because they dissented from something he had originated, but because
they disagreed with that body of convictions shared throughout the fellowship
of believers.
Furthermore, because he
himself was imitating Jesus, there is a strong inference that without following
the example of Paul, they were effectively eliminating following the example
of Jesus as well: if he really was
exhibiting the example of Jesus (in behavior and doctrine) in what he chose to
do and teach, then to repudiate his apostolic teaching was to simultaneously
repudiate that of Jesus as well. The
generality is a simple one: Paul either
walked firmly within the boundaries of Jesus’ desires and wishes or he did
not. If the former, they could not avoid
obeying his apostolic instructions without flying in the face of Jesus’ as
well.
We say “the generality is
a simple one” because there are places, such as divorce in chapter 7, where
there was no teaching of Jesus available on the subject and the apostle
candidly gave his own judgment to deal with a situation Jesus had not
encountered. This bears witness that
Paul made no attempt to “fudge” such questions but readily admitted where the
lack of precedent existed.
[Page 158]
Just as the right authority relationship
was to be
observed with God,
so it was also to be maintained
within the marital
relationship:
the wife was to
publicly pray and prophesy with
a covered
head and the husband with
an uncovered
one (11:3-11:10)
ATP text: “3But I want you to understand
that Christ is the ultimate authority over every man, and the man is the
ultimate authority over his spouse, and God is the ultimate authority over
Christ. 4Every male who has
something on his head while praying or teaching as a prophet dishonors the one
having ultimate authority over him. 5Likewise
every married woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors
her authoritative head and that should be considered just as bad as if her head
were shaved naked. 6If such a
woman does not cover her head, she should have her
hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful
for a woman to have her hair cut short or have her head shaved, let her wear
something adequate on her head. 7For
a male ought not to have his head covered, since he reflects the image and
glory of God; but the woman reflects the glory belonging to the male. 8The reason is that the male was
not created from the woman, but the woman from the male. 9Neither was the male created for
the benefit of the woman, but the woman for the male. 10Therefore a married woman ought
to have something on her head to show that she is under someone’s authority,
out of respect for the angels.”
Development of the argument: Apparently alluding to those teachings
that they had received and which are mentioned in verses 1-2, he asserts that
“the head of (ATP: ultimate authority
over) every man is Christ” and “the head of (ATP: ultimate authority over) woman is man.”[4] But they are both subject to Deity
(11:3).
Who is the “woman”
he has in mind? Is he asserting that the
female gender is subject to the male gender?
Paul is living in a society in which virtually every man and woman of
reasonable maturity is married. In
short, he primarily has in mind the relationship of the married woman to the
married man--a theme the apostle develops at length in Ephesians and
Colossians.
Furthermore, Paul
is quite emphatic in that latter context that a married woman is subject not to
males in general but only to one male in particular, her
husband: “your own husbands” is the
expression used in both Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18. And even that is tempered by a recognition that this gives no right to the husband to treat
her different from the way he himself would wish to be treated (Ephesians
5:28-33; cf. Colossians 3:19).
A similar phenomena seems present in Corinthians as well. In 14:34-35 we read, “Let your women keep silent in the churches . . . . And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in
[Page 159] church.” The “women,” then, are married women. (Note also “their own husbands;” it is
one specific male who had responsibility toward her and her toward them;
definitely not “all women” toward “all men.”) Indeed, if we are to take the “veiling” to be
literally such, then there is yet further evidence that married women are under
discussion: to the extent that veiling
occurred, it was a phenomena that was enjoined exclusively upon married females
rather than the unmarried.[5] Hence our rendering of
“woman” in the ATP of 11:3 as “spouse.”
How
then does he develop his argument about the proper decorum of married
women? He insists that the male must
pray with uncovered head or else he “dishonors his head” (11:4). The opposite is true of the woman who, if she
dares pray with uncovered head, “dishonors her head” (11:5). If she thinks that little of herself, then
she might as well have her hair all shaved off (11:5-6). It is common to hear it claimed that this
would place them on the same level with prostitutes, who shaved their heads.[6] As punishment for being caught in some
infraction of the law,[7]
perhaps, but since longish hair was considered most becoming to a woman, it
would seem strange for prostitutes to voluntarily undercut their appeal by such
an extreme action. Or for public
officials to normally require it since prostitution was so common. A social stigma loses its power the more
people who bear it.
Paul
roots the need for longish hair on a woman in the fact that man is a direct
reflection of God’s glory while woman is a reflection of the man’s (11:7). But lest any males get puffed up, Paul
immediately points out that just as woman would not have been created if it had
not been for the male, males would cease to exist if it were not for
females: they produce the new generation
(11:8, 12). Yet since woman was created
for the male (11:9) there should be some “symbol of authority” on her head
(11:10; ATP: “something on her head to
show that she is under someone’s authority”).
In some sense, this seems
fairly interpreted as a “protective” symbol:
it warns the human observer that, to use the modern expression, “she is
not available,” for any purpose fair or foul.
From her standpoint, a protection against harassment; from the husband’s
standpoint, a warning that she is already attached to someone else and is not
to be bothered. A wedding ring or band
often functions in a somewhat parallel manner in American society.
Lest this be read as some kind of
endorsement
for male arrogance,
the readers were reminded
that each gender
was ultimately dependent
upon the other
(11:11-12)
[Page 160] ATP text:
“11Nevertheless, in the Lord the woman is not independent
of the male nor is the male independent of the woman. 12For as the woman came into
existence from the male, so also the male has his birth through the woman, but
all things came originally from God.”
Development of the argument: Having stressed the importance of married
women reigning in their behavior lest it reflect rebellion against their proper
form of religious devotion, Paul again immediately reigns in his rhetoric lest
it be abused and reminds his reader that “neither” male nor female is truly
“independent” of the other “in the Lord” (11:11). Although the man is born of the woman, the
prototype woman of Genesis came from the side of the first man. And lest either side get too
conceited, they both owe their ultimate origin to God.
Jewish
tradition embraced this reasoning as well.
For example, “In the past Adam was created from dust and Eve was created
from Adam; but henceforth it shall be ‘in our image, after our likeness’
[Genesis 1:26]; neither man without woman nor woman without
man, and neither without the Sheikinah.”[8]
“The
battle of the sexes” is as old as the human species, with one side or the
other—often both—so full of their “rights” that they forget that, in the final
analysis, both need each other. Not only
for the perpetuation of the human species, not only for there to be a “next
generation” of our own lineage, but to bring the maximum goodness and
potential out of each other. In short,
we re-orientate from the egotistical “me” and make room for the needs of
both. We may practice “the golden rule”
to others, but if we don’t begin with its practice in the family environment do
we really believe in it at all?
This teaching was in full conformity
with their
contemporary
understanding of human “nature:”
a woman was
to have long hair and
a male short
hair (11:13-11:16)
ATP text:
“13Judge for yourselves:
Is it proper for a woman to pray to God publicly without a covering on
her head? 14Does not even
nature itself teach you that if a male has long hair, it is degrading to
him? 15In contrast, if a
woman has long hair, it is a thing of pride to
her: For her hair is given to her to be
a covering. 16If any one is
inclined to be contentious, we recognize no other practice nor have any of the
local assemblies of God.”
Development of the argument: Paul challenges the Corinthians to make their own judgment: It is really proper for “a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered” (11:13)? To him the answer is obvious.
Some have thought
that the answer Paul expected from the Corinthians was a negative one,
i.e., they were going to deny that “nature” taught any such thing.[9] Hence Paul promptly proceeds to the blanket
statement that all the churches follow this custom (11:16). Although Paul’s transition to universal
practice certainly dealt with any who might reject his conclusion, Paul’s approach
seems to presuppose that they would concur [Page 161] in his judgment
on the subject. They might not be implementing
the principle as consistency would require, but the theoretical foundation was
already acknowledged. In this context,
the “universal practice” of other congregations merely added power to his
argument rather than being a rebuke for a local denial of the underlying
assumptions.
Gillian
Beattie rightly stresses that Paul is convinced that he had presented a
compelling case as well as undermines the scenario of Corinthian dissent on the
matter,[10]
Paul
now turns to the Corinthians and challenges them in a direct address to “judge
for yourselves.”
It is testimony to Paul’s communicative skills that in a passage where
he is working so hard to enforce his own will upon the Corinthians, the first
imperative verb they encounter is one telling them to make up their
own minds on the matter. This is
hardly the act of a man who is unsure that his argument so far has been
successful.
It
may indeed have been the case that the Corinthians
were accustomed to seeing women praying with their heads covered, but Paul does
not rely on that. His challenge is best
paraphrased thus: “In the light of
all I have said, does it seem proper to you that a woman should pray to God
with her head uncovered?” Paul is
confident that he has made his case effectively.
In other words, he was not fighting against
the inclinations of the local Greeks but making an argument that they would
find quite reasonable, natural, and appealing.
We live in a different age where the customs have shifted—for females
shorter hair (but not the ultra short/Marine recruit style not uncommon today)
seems to have come into popularity in the 1910s and 1920s, became longer and/or
“puffier”—making there to at least seem to be more of it—in the 1930s and
1940s, and returned to relatively short in the 1950s. The general rule throughout the years,
though, was that the volume of hair at least appeared larger and longer
than what the male gender grew. For males,
extremely long hair came to the front in the late 1960s as part of the
“anti-war” movement. First century
culture doubtless also had its passing fashions but the generality of male =
short(er) hair and female = long(er)
hair was so dominant that Paul felt he could launch a major argument that would
go unchallenged. And, as far as we can
tell, it wasn’t.
Hence he appeals to “nature” (at least as understood in the culture of his day)[11] and how it also teaches that it is improper for a man to have long hair but right and desirable for a woman to have such (11:13-15). This criteria of short hair for males and long hair for females—not in absolute terms but in comparison with the length the other gender was wearing—had been the pervasive standard for centuries.[12] Frescoes and sculptures of the first and adjoining centuries typically represent males with relatively short hair and women with a much longer head covering.[13] Women’s hair is normally depicted as worn in braids and towering over their heads[14]—a living head covering/veil, so to speak. This custom is specifically documented in regarded to Corinth.[15]
The powerful emotion that clearly lies behind the “extreme” statement of his position argues that Paul may well be making other, unstated, connections in his own mind. Ancient texts had no problem linking male long hair with homosexuality, a subject that Paul felt passionately about (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Hence Paul could [Page 162] easily be viewing male long hair as simply another indication that one has rejected one’s proper gender role and identification.[16]
However this is far from likely Paul’s point in the current passage. As John P. Heil wisely puts it, “Whatever may have been the connection between long hair for males and homosexuality, it should be noted that Paul does not use this as motivation in his argument. He argues that men should have short hair to distinguish them from women, not homosexuals.”[17]
Note how Paul has
“shifted” from head covering to long hair.
“Proper” hair length is used to teach what is right about the head
covering. This points
strongly in the direction that earlier Paul has used an euphemism: a person having their head “covered” is the
one with long hair and the one who has an “uncovered” head is the one with
short or minimal hair. Be that as it
may, Paul ends this part of the discussion by stressing that all the other
churches follow the same teaching on the matter (11:16; ATP: “recognize no other practice”). Hence it was one that aroused no controversy nor any movement that criticized it. In short, there was a broad-based consensus.
Their local factiousness had even
resulted
in the Lord’s
Supper being turned into
individual and clique
meals (11:17-11:22)
ATP text:
“17However in giving the next instructions, I do not
praise you, since when you come gather together it does not make you the better
but the worse. 18In the first
place, when you come together as a congregation, I hear that opposing groups
exist among you and part of me believes the report. 19You see,
factions are inevitable among you, so that those who have God’s approval may
become obvious to all of you. 20When
you meet together, it is not really to partake of the Lord's Supper. 21The reason is that everyone goes
ahead and eats their own meal separately from the
others and the result is that one is hungry and another is drinking to
excess. 22Do you not have
your own homes in which to eat and drink?
Or would you rather show contempt for the assembly
of God and humiliate those who are in need?
What shall I say to you about this?
Shall I commend you? Of course not!”
Development of the argument: Paul’s appeal to “nature” as backing up his teaching (11:14) brings us back to the question of maintaining respect in the surrounding community. If the men and women were doing something that seemed abhorrent to “nature” would this not undermine the credibility of the church in the community? The same is true of the factionalism that had transformed the remembering of Jesus’ death into an adjunct to feasting (11:17-34). Even the untutored outsider would usually recognize the evil of such divisiveness and wonder whether he or she really wanted to be part of such a group.
[Page 163] Paul introduces the theme by noting that their worship assembly had become a force to “worse[n]” rather than improve them (11:17). He was hearing credible reports of division among them in the assembly but he hedges his words with the caution that “in part I believe it” (11:18): a discrete way of saying, “I know its true but I don’t want to humiliate you by rubbing your folly in your face.”[18] After all, the accusations made sense in light of the fact that he realized that divisions were inevitable so that one could distinguish between those truly seeking to serve God and those only claiming to do so (11:19).
Approached a different way, he might simply mean that they were credible because of what he did know for sure, i.e., he personally knew of behavior that would naturally lead to just such excesses unless carefully reined in. Or yet another possibility, some of the people had manifested the kind of thinking that would make them act this way. He might not be sure it was happening yet—and even less sure whether it was pervasive—but it did fit what he knew of too many of them. Hence he felt quite justified in assuming the worst.
So extreme had the
common behavior become, that it was not really “the Lord’s Supper” that they
were partaking of any longer (11:20). It
had gotten lost in the shuffle. What it
had become was an adjunct to their feasting or an excuse for it. But not feasting for one and all, but only
for the prosperous and well blessed.
Every one else went hungry (11:21).
Paul responds with indignation to the perpetuators: Don’t they have homes to eat in? Do they despise the church? Do they want to shame those who are poor?
(11:22). Whether
they intended to or not, the reality was that they were.
We
have here a very vivid example of how church divisions can have vicious side
effects. Whoever has loyalties to a
different faction—or none—doesn’t really count any more. Church cliques are like a feuding family at
its worse; determined to get their way at all costs and ignoring all
others. You won’t do others overt “harm” exactly;
you just “turn your back” or “ignore” them.
How
are people supposed to stay Christians if they get treated this
way? It doesn’t take a faction to
accomplish it either. I know of cases
where snobbery drove out of the church a minor as soon as she got old enough to
be an adult. If this was Christianity,
she wanted no part of it! Doubtless the
reader is acquainted with similar cases.
Apply that knowledge to the Corinthian situation: can you imagine how put down those who were
“without” must have felt? Yet it speaks
highly of their faith that they were able to resist the temptation to leave it
all behind.
One
ultimately “goes to church” not because of the people who are there but because
of the Lord who is worshipped there.
But does the Lord take kindly when even going becomes a “test of
faith” due to the unthinking behavior of others?
Paul had not originated his teaching
about the
communion but
it had derived
from the Lord (11:23-11:26)
[Page 164] ATP text:
“23I received from the Lord the teaching that I also
delivered to you: That the Lord Jesus
took bread on the night when he was betrayed, 24and when he had
given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My
body which is for you. Eat this to
remember Me."
25In the same way He also took the cup after supper, and
said, "This cup is the new covenant which My
blood makes possible. Every time you
drink it, do it remembering Me." 26This means that every time you
eat this bread and drink this cup you tell about the Lord's death until He
returns.”
Development of the argument: According to Paul, the source of His
teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper was first hand: he had “received [it] from the Lord.” It wasn’t even from the apostles; it was from
the One who created the remembrance.
Implicit is the message: you may
disagree with me on a number of points, but my source of information on this
issue is impeccable by anyone’s standards.
Furthermore he was recycling that which he had already “delivered to you” in the past (11:23). The teaching was one that they should already have a well grounded knowledge of. The fact that he is going to give it again may be intended to carry an undertone of quiet rebuke that there should be a need to.
The participation of the Communion was clearly a time-limited phenomena. Both the bread was to be taken “in remembrance of Me” (11:24) as well as the fruit of the vine “in remembrance of Me” (11:25). Then comes the time-limit on participation: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes” (11:26). “Till” indicates a definite duration—a period being ended and brought to an end--and the inherent logic is obvious: once Jesus returned they would not need to “remember;” it would be a matter of regularly “seeing” Him. Although the Apocalypse waxes eloquent on heavenly worship one thing it conspicuously does not refer to and that is the regular memorial Christians partake of while in the flesh.
It was not to be an empty rite; something one “does” without concern or thought. One was to take advantage of the opportunity to “remember” Jesus. Upfront would obviously be the sacrifice He had made on their behalf (11:24-25) In itself that would set in perspective whatever lesser hassles they had to endure, when compared to the One who ultimately gave His very life for them. But they might also need to “remember” other aspects of His teaching that they were inclined to “forget” during the annoyances of life—how to treat ones spiritual kin, how to treat the unlearned who set out to annoy us, how to give the right word of encouragement when it is needed. But all those ultimately led back to the cross itself.
It wasn’t
something they were to do sporadically, as if it little mattered. It was to be a regular observance until He
finally returned (11:26). The practice
was a linkage between the Christ of faith that they remembered with the Christ
of history that the first generation of Palestinian believers had observed,
known, and followed. Furthermore, it was
a linkage as well between all of the following generations with those that had
come before. A chain
of unbroken faith that would span the centuries.
[Page 165]
A person stood self-condemned by the
behavior
of using
clique allegiance or any other excuse
to turn this
observance into an instrument of
division and away
from its original pattern of
being a unifying
force to believers (11:27-11:32)
ATP text:
“27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of
the Lord in an unworthy manner will sin against the body and blood of the Lord. 28That
is why everyone must first self-examine themselves and only then eat the bread
and drink the cup. 29When you
eat and drink, you eat and drink condemnation on yourself if you are not
consciously remembering the Lord’s body.
30That is why many of you are weak and ill and a number have
even completely fallen asleep. 31If
we judged ourselves correctly, we would not be condemned. 32But when we are judged in the
wrong by the Lord, we are punished so that we may not be condemned along with
the rest of the world.”
Development of the argument: The proper attitude for partaking grows out
of the importance of the Supper: one
must partake of it in a respectful manner rather than an “unworthy” one
(11:27). While partaking, the participant is to “examine (ATP: self-examine) himself” (11:28), for partaking
in any other manner brings Divine judgment upon the participant (11:29). This does not refer to some future day of
reckoning; rather in their very act of misusing the Communion they were
bringing in a condemnatory judgment on themselves.[19] This lack of respect had been common in
Corinth and caused many to be spiritually “weak and sick among you.” Some were even spiritually dead (11:30).
Some have suggested that
there is an implicit invocation of the Old Testament concept of a “cup of
Divine wrath” on God’s disobedient people.[20] Certainly one had been “poured” on them in
consequence of their behavior.
If
we were permitted to judge ourselves, no one would be condemned for their
failures (11:31). But judgment by Christ
is inevitable, not merely at some distant point in the future but here and now
(11:31). He knows what we are
doing and “chasten[s] (ATP: punish[es])” us so we will improve and escape the fate of
the rest of the world (11:31). In other
words adversities can be learning experiences—but it requires the willingness
to learn. The old adage about “you can
lead a donkey to water but you can’t make it drink,” has its all too obvious
human parallel. We are given the spur to
go “set our houses in order,” but it remains up to us, individually, whether we
do it.
Two methods of avoiding such abuses:
wait for
everyone to arrive and reserve
your feasting
for home pleasure (11:33-11:34)
[Page 166] ATP text:
“33So then, my spiritual comrades, when you come together
to partake of this observance, wait for every one to arrive. 34If anyone is hungry, eat at home
first, lest you come together for condemnation.
As for the other matters, I will provide instructions when I come.”
Development of the argument: The Corinthians were in need of this
admonition: it was important that they
wait until every one expected had arrived before partaking (11:33). Not wait for the leaders, but wait for the
members in general—whether “important” or not.[21] It was a very practical means to show
courtesy and respect for those society ranked low on
the social totem pole.[22] These would be people like “slaves and common
laborers, foundry workers and tired dock hands” whose work obligations delayed
them beyond more well off members.[23]
In short they were
to be interested in all of their members and show courtesy to every one. Since it reflects positive attitudes and
behavior to wait for each other in this manner (11:33), some have suggested
that the practical “freight” carried by the words are far more than their
literal meaning: they are to “welcome
one another, show gracious hospitality to one another,” and throughout the
service overlook their differences in social rank and prestige.[24]
Furthermore, if
they enjoyed their banqueting so much, fine and good! But “let them eat at home” rather than
allowing the centrality of the communion to be weakened (11:34). There are places to have a good time socially
and there are places to worship God—but not both at the same time.
Some have speculated that the early church’s services came in two forms: one service at which the Communion was partaken of (the kind described here) and one in which the word was preached.[25] There seems no appealing reason for making this type of separation, especially if we assume both were done on even a fairly regular basis. Arguing against it is the practicality of assembling a significant number of people from over a geographically large area in an age before easy mass transportation was available. Though today’s world has it available, even those who observe the Supper only periodically normally “add” it to a regular service rather than having one for that purpose alone.
It
has also been argued that prior to Paul, the Communion
was a routine part of a larger, normal meal.
Indeed, it may well have been divided into two major segments, with the
thanking for the bread at the beginning and the offering of the cup, and
accompanying thanks, at the end.[26] If so, one wonders why Paul would have had
the audacity to demand the two be joined together. The line of attack on him would have been
obvious: “every place we’ve ever heard
of does it this way!”
Georg
Strecker insists that the implicit order to eat in
their own homes (11:22) isn’t intended to limit the assembly simply to the
communion part of what they were doing, “This does not
mean a separation of the fellowship meal from the sacral meal but bringing them
into the right relationship. Fellowship
meal and eucharist are united in a celebration that
is organized with a concern for brotherly agape.” This is to be done by getting rid of the
drunkenness and excess.[27]
To make such a line of
reasoning clear, Paul would have to restructure his own rebuke on the local
behavior. Something along this line
would surely have been required: [Page 167]
“No one else has this problem.
Purge out the excess like everyone else does and partake with the
seriousness found everywhere else!”
But he conspicuously does
not tell them to modify the fellowship meal.
Instead he demands,
“What! Do you not have
houses to eat and drink in? Or do you
despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?” (11:22). The challenge is not to fix the
common meal but to move it back to where it belonged, in their homes. Indeed the last verse of the chapter makes it
even more emphatic, “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you
come together for judgment” (11:34).
Where they met is contrasted with where they were to eat. The command is to “eat at home,” not “ ‘eat at church’ but with these following restrictions etc.
etc.’ ”
(Yes, if it were a house
church the family would be eating at the same place but, if the admonition of
these verses were followed, not at the same time the church was
there. In modern usage the difference
might be described as “keeping the private and the sacred space separate” even
when they involve the use, at different times, of the same physical location.)
An
aside here is perhaps appropriate before moving on. It is often said that the Supper was
instituted during a meal. Not quite
true. It was instituted during a ritual
meal, the once a year Passover celebration of Israel’s redemption by God
from Egypt. Yes, it was a “meal” but not
your normal, regular meal. It was a Divinely ordained sacred, commemorative meal.
Therefore one would not
have anticipated early Christians perpetuating the observance of the Communion
as part of a regular meal—it would have required a sacred meal first. Its setting had been unique and they had no
substitute for it in everyday life.
Invoking of Explicit Old Testament
Quotations to Justify His Teaching:
None
How Old Testament Concepts Are
Repeatedly Introduced and Woven
into the Heart of His Argument
[Page 168]
11:4: The propriety of women
“prophesying (ATP: teaching as a
prophet).” Although males
played the dominant role as prophet in the Old Testament, we read various
references to women periodically being granted the gift as well. As early as the triumph over the Egyptian
army at the crossing of the “Red” Sea we find Miriam (sister of Aaron, the
chief priest) described as a “prophetess” (Exodus 15:20).
In
the next verse she declares before the people (and to fellow women in
particular), “Sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into
the sea!” (verse 21).
When we read this immediately after the assertion that she possessed the
prophetic ability, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this is intended to
be considered as an example of the prophetic ability being exercised.
The
gift could encompass related responsibilities that gave her direct authority
over the males of the community. Hence
we read of how Deborah was both a “prophetess” and “was judging Israel at that
time” (Judges 4:5). “The children of
Israel came up to her for judgment” and there is not the slightest hint that
the males shunned submitting their cases to her (4:5). As prophetess she issued war orders to the man
who commanded the Israelite assault against Barak and his forces (4:6-10).
When
King Josiah first heard the Torah read, he was shocked at the fact that the
nation was living in disobedience to its contents and Divine wrath had come
upon them as the result (2 Kings 22:11-13).
Hence he sent key advisers to “go, inquire of the Lord” as to what
should be done (22:13). So this high power
delegation went to “Huldah the prophetess” (22:14) who gave them words of encouragement
(22:14-20).
They
wanted and needed a person with a prophetic gift. Their instruction was open ended: it did not specify the name of the person or
the gender. Yet they knew that this
was the one person they could count on to provide a reliable oracle. A woman.
Isaiah
calls his wife a “prophetess” (8:3).
Whether that is to be taken as literally so, a courtesy title (due to
her being married to a prophet), or a fact that her child would have a symbolic
role as a statement of prophecy (8:4) is unknown.
In
the time of the return from Exile, Nehemiah refers to a reported prophetic
ability being used against his mission to recreate the fallen nation in
its homeland. Nehemiah refers to how
“the prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the prophets” attempted to strike fear
into his heart (Nehemiah 6:14). It is
intriguing that all the males rest in obscurity; it is only the woman’s role
that sticks in his mind. Clearly she
must have been the dominant personality and the most influential.
The
gift could be sporadic, even a one time blessing. Hence we read of the mother of John the
Baptist being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:41) and speaking a short
word of encouragement (1:41-45). The
expression seems to be used in a longer term sense of “Anna, a prophetess” who spent all of her
free time in the temple even though she was of advanced age (Luke 2:36-38).
In Acts 2, when the apostles are described as
preaching their message to the pilgrimage goers in Jerusalem, they openly declared
that their ability to speak in the native languages of the listeners “is what
was spoken by the prophet Joel” (2:16).
But [Page 169] this was only a partial
fulfillment because the Joel proof text begins with the words, “And it shall
come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My spirit on
all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men
shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
and they shall prophesy” (2:17-18, quoting from Joel 2).
Since
that phenomena does not happen at this point, it is
not surprising that we run into it later.
In the travels of Paul, the recorder draws attention to how the apostle
and his fellow travelers stopped in the city of Caesarea and stayed with
“Philip the evangelist” (Acts 21:8). “Now this man,” Luke informs us, “had four virgin daughters who
prophesied” (21:9). The gift is
not attributed to Philip, however, even though he was both male and their
father.
11:4-5: Male/female public praying or prophesying with head covered / uncovered. Paul insists that it is improper for the woman to pray or prophesy without her head covered. This is typically interpreted to refer to some type of “artificial” head covering though verses 14-15 more naturally suggest her having “long hair” as the proper meaning. In contrast, he argues that men should not pray “uncovered.” This raises the question of the treatment of hair coverings in the Old Testament.
There are obvious occasions when Paul’s remark about males would not have been considered applicable, even by the apostle (cf. his reference to “the helmet of salvation” when describing spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:17): He was well aware that in times of battle, for example, a soldier obviously covered his head with his helmet for additional protection (Psalms 140:7). Likewise the high priest was instructed to “not uncover his head,” implying that he normally worn a garment over it as part of his ceremonial attire (Leviticus 21:10).
The references to males covering their heads in contexts different from these involve events of severe embarrassment and humiliation--not as part of normal everyday routine. As David fled Jerusalem during the rebellion of Absalom he left with “his head covered and went barefoot” as signs of mourning over the revolt (2 Samuel 15:30). “And all the people who were with him,” the text continues, “covered their heads and went up, weeping as they went” (15:30). Although in a different context “all the people” would naturally include women, in a context of a regal flight of this nature, it was far more likely to be mainly a coterie of his male advisers and close friends.
When word reached David that Absalom was dead we read of how “the king covered his face” (19:4; presumably with the covering he was already wearing over his head--see above) and mourned aloud of his sorrow over the death of his offspring.
David is painted in the scriptures as the prototype honorable monarch. The opposite personality was that of Haman, portrayed in Esther as second in importance to only the Persian king himself. Yet he also is pictured as showing intense grief in the same manner: “But Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered” (6:12).
In time of drought such conduct symbolized despair, “Because the ground is parched, for there is no rain the land, the plowmen were ashamed; they covered their heads” (Jeremiah 14:4).
[Page 170] Just as a male covering his head symbolized embarrassment and humiliation (= Paul’s “dishonor”?), a woman shaving her head also carried a similar connotation. Part of the required ritual for marrying a woman captured as battle spoil (Deuteronomy 21:10-11) was to have her “shave her head and trim her nails” (21:12). During the month following she was to “mourn her father and her mother” (for their death or, more likely, having to marry a foreigner and never seeing them again) and only afterwards was the marriage to take place (21:13).
Likewise
a woman having to uncover the head in public (i.e., remove whatever she wore
over her hair or untie it and let it flow loose; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:5) could
be an indication of doubts of her moral propriety. Having a suspected adulteress “uncover” her
head was the beginning of a ritual to test the validity of the suspicion
(Numbers 5:16-31). The act of uncovering
has been taken to mean that “the priest loosed her hair, which in general was a
sign of mourning (cf. Leviticus 10:6).”[28] In other words, the priest “undoes her
hairknot so that her hair hangs loose”[29] In this type of context a hair covering would
seem more likely.
In Isaiah 47:1-3, where Israel is depicted as a woman, removal of such garments are pictured as part of the national humiliation. Grief, embarrassment, or some other power would strip them of their normal covering.
Hence males having their heads covered and women having their heads uncovered (or shaved) occur in contexts where such behavior has a negative and undesirable connotation. Yet there were certainly times when a woman (in certain eras) could appear in public—at least in certain contexts--without a head covering, certainly without a “veil” that was sometimes its accompaniment. We read of Rebekah riding without a veil with Isaac’s servant until they came within eyesight of her future husband. Then she dismounted the camel and “she took a veil and covered herself” (Genesis 24:61-66).
11:17-18: Religious worship is not inherently a virtue. Worship consists of two elements: (1) outward forms and (2) inward intent. The human instinct seems to be to seek out one of these and define it as what is essential and ignore or downplay the importance of the other. Paul criticizes the Corinthians on both scores. Their form was wrong (having joined a feast to the Lord’s Supper, 11:22-26) and they also had the wrong attitude toward each other as well (such as one having food to eat and another not having any, 11:20-21).
The Old Testament carefully prescribed the forms of worship but it also criticized those who fell into the trap of regarding such as adequate by itself alone; if they manifested destructive traits of behavior toward others (as the Corinthians were doing during their own worship), it made the rituals themselves unacceptable. In Isaiah 1:11-17, the emphasis is on how their own evil character and unjust treatment of others had caused Yahweh to become appalled of their holy feasts, “Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me. I am weary of bearing them” (1:14). And would remain so until they reformed for the better (1:16-17).
Israel
in this period was a paradox. Yahweh
concedes to his people that “they seek Me daily, and
delight to know My ways” and obeyed the required “ordinance[s] of [Page 171]
their God” (58:2). They
paid lipservice to justice (58:2) and faithfully fasted (58:3). But neither kept them from taking advantage
of their workers (58:3) and taking pleasure in needless “strife and debate”
(58:3-4). The modern description might
well be, “They have religion on their lips but not in their hearts.”
11:21: The impropriety of exulting in one’s success while others who one personally knows are lacking the makings of even a decent meal. Here Paul has specifically in mind doing so during a religious activity, feasting in the assembly of the church. The danger of letting religious forms blot out one’s social obligations to one’s co-religionists was nothing new. In the days of Isaiah, the leaders of society took pleasure in the long-ordained fasts (58:1-5, see above), but they were cautioned that a true fast also meant willingness “to share your bread with the hungry” (58:6-7). If one were to do that during one’s own period of fasting, how much more so during an occasion of feasting, as the Corinthians had expanded the Lord’s Supper into!
In a similar vein, Yahweh, as recorded by Ezekiel, lists “giv[ing] his bread to the hungry” (18:7) as one of the qualifications for God counting a person as truly “just” and as being one who does “what is lawful and right” (18:5). Deuteronomy 15:11 gives as the reason for assistance the fact that “the poor will never case from the land.” Their number may be fewer (or more screened from public view through inattention or other means) but the class will continue to exist. Hence they need to never forget their needs.
Paul warns (11:22) that self-centered behavior “shame[s] those who have nothing.” In action, though probably without the conscious intent, they were guilty of “mock[ing] the poor.” Proverbs 17:5 warns that such a person “reproaches his Maker.”
Paul clearly would not have approved of shifting the nature of the Communion from a spiritual “rite” to honor Jesus into a mere part of a feast even if the more well-to-do had shared with the poorer. Even so, one would think that having someone literally sitting in the room would have been so conspicuous as embarrass those with even a minimum of civility. (Or did they enjoy a discrete touch of conscious mockery of the poor?)
On the other hand, when the Feast of Tabernacles was first observed after the exile, this idea of mutual assistance was not so obvious that it did not require an explicit mention by Ezra (Nehemiah 8:10-12). Perhaps there is a “natural” tendency to become oblivious to things (and people?) who are not really “important” and who simply form part of the background “scenery” to our existence.
11:27-29:
Spiritual self-examination in the Old Testament. The Old Testament admonition for
self-examination is set in the broader context of examining one’s entire
lifestyle, though the principle would have a natural application to one’s
religious lifestyle in particular.
Lamentations 3:40-42 urges, “Let us search out and examine our ways, and
turn back to the Lord; let us lift our hearts and hands to God in heaven. We have transgressed and rebelled; You have not pardoned.”
Yet. But
the implication is that it is still obtainable.
Likewise with Paul’s remarks: just because they had observed in an
“unworthy manner” did not exclude them from doing things the right way and with
the right attitude in the future.
[Page
172] In Haggai, Yahweh’s
rebuke includes a demand for candid self-examination. Twice comes the
admonition to, “Consider your ways!” (1:5, 7).
In this prophet it is a call to rebuild the ruined temple; their
ignoring it and only seeking out their self-interest and self-profit had
benefited them nothing (1:3-11).
Historical Allusions to the
Old Testament: None
Problem Texts
11:2: What are the “traditions (ATP: traditional teachings)” the Corinthians were to maintain? Since they were “keep[ing]” rather than just “believing” these traditions (11:1), it follows that the traditions more likely had something to do with what they were doing rather than the abstract convictions they held. This would indicate he has in mind the teachings related to either their social, moral, or religious behavior--or all three.
Perhaps we place too restrictive an understanding on “keep,” since it could also hold the connotation of hold to, preserve, cherish--in which case the reference would be to teaching of all types. Some of the teaching they had received is identified: Paul states that he had “delivered to” them the teaching He had received about the institution of the communion (11:23). Likewise he describes the teaching about the resurrection in general and that of Jesus in particular as “that word which I preached to you” while working amidst them (15:2; cf. 15:1).
Paul is quite pleased with them on this matter: he “praise[d]” them because they “remember me in all things” and “keep the traditions,” as if we should add the mental gloss “all” there as well (11:2). At least “most.”
How we square his profession that they were obedient to these traditions to his vigorous denunciations on several different themes is perplexing. Yet since it is the same man delivering both sets of assertions, there must have been some explanation in his own mind as to how both could be true. Perhaps the best way to see how he reconciled these rival positions is that there were wide areas where they were conforming to the tradition, [Page 173] but also wide areas where they had misunderstood, misapplied, or otherwise “bent” it, especially under the impact of undue loyalty to factional leaders. They meant well, but they were still falling far short.
The teaching is not one that began with Paul. He describes it as that which he had “delivered” to them: he was the conveyor of preexisting doctrine (11:2). But who did he get it from? Paul’s insistence that his fundamental beliefs were not gained from the earlier apostles (Galatians 1:11-2:20) would argue that he does not have that source in mind. The exclusion of that rootstock and his mention of imitating Christ in the preceding verse (1 Corinthians 11:1), would argue that he had either received it from Christ directly or through revelation of the Spirit.
It is common belief, however, that these traditions were oral ones, delivered via apostles, eyewitnesses, and even later converts.[30] That there were such oral traditions, on this and other matters, is certainly true. In fact, it would be incredible if it were not. On the other hand, the “writing instinct” took hold early on, as Luke 1:1-4 and the prevalent theories of source documents for the canonical gospels provides witness. Hence the “oral” emphasis must be tempered with a healthy recognition that written sources--in some form or other--soon became available as well.
And, as we saw above, in Paul’s case he acts as if he relied for his key information on neither of these. This may have reference, however, to the origin of his beliefs rather than the confirmation they would have received as he found them repeated in the oral and written beliefs of the primitive Christian community.
11:4: Male head covering rejected during
prayer: Why the divergence from later
synagogue customs? Assuming an
artificial head covering is under discussion (but it may well not be, see the
discussion of 11:13-15 below), how did church custom come to differ so
dramatically from that of the synagogue?
Is Paul reacting against synagogue custom? Or did the synagogue later react against church
custom?
The
available evidence suggests that during the first century, the typical Jewish
male would cover his head only in a time of grieving. It would not normally have been done when
engaged in normal, everyday prayer.[31] Occasionally it may have been encountered in
synagogues of that period, but it seems to have been unusual[32] and unlikely to have begun before several
decades after the writing of this epistle.[33] Hence, the custom of requiring the wear
wearing of a scarf (tallith) and skullcap (yarmulke) can only be documented
beginning at a later date.[34]
In contrast, women
worshipers always made sure they were veiled in the first century.[35] This has led some to argue that Paul is
enjoining upon the mixed or predominantly Gentile congregation a historically
Jewish custom.[36] If so (and if a literal veiling is under
discussion), one would probably best interpret this as an effort to maintain
the Jewish-Gentile unity within the church against the stresses that could have
torn it apart.
In
ancient Israel Aaron and his descendants were to wear a “turban” on their heads
as they officiated in their priestly duties (Exodus 28:33-38). In Ezekiel’s vision of a new temple, the
priests and Levites (Ezekiel 44:15) were to wear “linen turbans on their heads
and linen trousers on their bodies; they shall not clothe themselves with
anything that causes sweat” (44:18).
These clothes were to remain within the temple and to be worn only when
carrying out their religious duties within it (44:19).
[Page 174] In
these cases it was not the people (or males) at large who were instructed to
wear such attire, but strictly those officiating. It was, if you will, a mark of their priestly
office. Neither males nor the general
population were instructed to wear such attire when worshipping God in general
or engaged in prayer in particular.[37]
Indeed,
the only time that even the priestly-Levite class would seemingly have engaged
in prayer with such a covered head would have been when singing the Psalms,
which were often a form of vocalized prayers.
Indeed, if the ideal temple of Ezekiel can shed any light on the
subject, even the priests and Levites were to leave such headdress behind when
outside the temple. And it would
presumably be outside the temple where a considerable amount of their own
prayer life would exist, arguing that even for them there was no one required
uniform pattern for head coverings while praying.
Polytheistic
religion was no different. Only when a
man was leading/presenting a ritual offering was his head covered.[38] This was true whether the individual was
acting in a private capacity as the offerer of a sacrifice to his god or in the
more formal sense of an acknowledged priest of a deity. Interestingly, surviving depictions show this
to be the case for both men and women offering sacrifices to their
gods. Equally conspicuously, no one
else present--of either gender--is wearing a head covering.[39]
In
private individual religious observances, the same pattern of a male covered
head was also found.[40] Plutarch argued that males kept their heads
uncovered even in the presence of the most powerful rulers lest the rulers be
condemned as expecting the same treatment as the deities. As to why the head was covered in the first place,
he explained, “But they thus worshipped the gods, either humbling themselves by
concealing the head, or rather by pulling the toga over their ears as a
precaution lest any ill-omened and baleful sound from without should reach them
while they were praying.”[41]
Interestingly, in regard
to private prayer, covered heads among both genders were so pervasive among
Romans (and those imitating their practices) that Greek authors called
attention to it as a distinctive “Roman” practice.[42] This carried the implication of the practice
being distinct from that with which they themselves associated with piety.
11:5-6: The tension in regard to women prophesying between chapters 11 and 14: Understanding how Paul could teach here that women could “pray or prophesy” so long as the head was “covered,” while in chapter 14 silence is demanded of women in the church assembly. Whether there is an inconsistency here hinges, in large part, on whether Paul has the church’s meetings under consideration in the current context.[43] Although the assumption is widespread that female praying and prophesying automatically involved the right to do so in the assembly, Peter Richardson’s comments are of special interest here because he explicitly puts the behavior of chapter 11 within the context of congregational worship,[44]
The dispute
was probably based upon different attitudes toward the validity of this
participation and different arguments about the need to follow the practices of
the synagogue. In 1 Corinthians, chapter
11, Paul acknowledges that women are praying and prophesying in public worship
(11:5). He does not suggest that they
should cease. Instead, he commends the
congregation in 11:2 because it follows the tradition he handed on to them (cf.
also 11:23) and thereby [Page 175] may imply that the practice of women
praying and prophesying in the community gatherings is something he taught
them.
The
problem, which should be immediately apparent to anyone who takes the time to
read 11:5, is that Paul is only arguing that they were praying and
prophesying and makes no remark clearly or explicitly placing those female
activities within their religious gatherings.
Those who insist that it had such a setting create the problem of
reconciling the “permissive” teaching of chapter 11 with the “restrictive”
admonitions of chapter 14. If, however,
Paul does not have such a setting in mind here, then there is nothing against
the scenario that he is conceding the propriety of women’s praying and
prophesying outside the assembly while prohibiting such inside.
Since
prophesying involved speaking aloud so others could hear it, presumably the
praying referred to was of a similar nature.
But in what non-congregational format would such occur?[45] In our age we have women of similar spiritual
interest meeting together for private study and prayer and one can properly
assume that similar motivations would have encouraged first century Christian
women to have done the same when practical.
What Paul would be doing would be to say that in parallel “private,” non-congregational
contexts it was proper and even desirable for women to take a leadership role
that was inappropriate when the entire church met together.
The
analysis becomes chancier when we interject the possibility of male Christians
being present as well: would it have
been right for women to speak prophetically and to lead prayer in that context
as well? Some would say that Paul is so
firmly against women “usurping” the role of males in the church assembly that
his logic would have required its application to such private meetings as
well. Perhaps so. On the other hand, if the prohibition against
female prophesying was not intended to apply outside a formal
congregational setting, one must be very cautious in asserting such a
conclusion. It would be a possibility,
not a certainty.
Be
that as it may, this entire analysis hinges upon Paul having in mind a
noncongregational setting. One of the
strongest arguments in its favor is that however one chooses to define Paul’s
“inspiration” it would have been impossible for his readers to have missed the
inconsistency and challenged him upon it if both sides did not understand a
non-church meeting to be under discussion.
The lack of any such challenge being mentioned either in this epistle or
in 2 Corinthians reinforces our belief that all readers recognized that he had
a different context in mind.
Furthermore
Paul comes down hard in the following verses on women having “short” hair and
men “long” hair (11:12-16). This
could hardly have been only in the assembly. If it was “short” (or long) in one place, it
was in the assembly as well. Hence he is
dealing with a behavior that would be found throughout normal life and
only because of that also found in the church meeting. This may well be the reason that he discusses
the propriety and rightness of female prayer and prophesying before its
limitations: throughout normal life
it was proper; it was only within the confines of the church’s meeting that it
crossed the line into something undesirable.
The strongest argument in favor of a congregational setting is that beginning in verse 17, Paul does begin to discuss church worship. In particular he has in mind the abuse of the Lord’s Supper and the merger of it into a fellowship meal for the membership. Yet he labels as the “first” of their problems their divisions (11:18),
[Page 176] especially as expressed in regard to the Lord’s Supper (11:20). Yet the actual wording of 11:18 is, “For first of all, when you come together as a church” certainly doesn’t sound like he is continuing a church meeting discussion but introducing it. “First of all” concerning congregation meetings we must consider this problem of the communion. If he had already been considering such conclaves, then this would have been the “second” or later issue to be discussed concerning it.
Furthermore “when you come together as a church” argues that not all of their “coming together” was as a church; there were meetings not considered church meetings. In turn, that would carry the implication that church meeting rules would not (necessarily) apply in such a different social context.
11:10: Women are to have “a symbol of authority”
on their heads “because of the angels”.
In what sense is it a “symbol” and how do the “angels” become involved
in the matter? There are two
separate, but closely related, issues that deserve consideration in this
verse. The first is what is meant
by “a symbol of authority” and the second concerns the angelic rationale behind
the teaching. There are three basic
approaches to the “symbol” interpretation:
(1) It represents submission to the authority of
the male, i.e., to the male under discussion, her husband.
(2) A woman wears the veil to symbolize her
“honor and dignity”—her right to be respected.
The failure to wear it demonstrates her willingness to forfeit that
societal respect.
(3) The veil symbolizes not her submission to another
but her embracal of that level of authority that is rightly hers and none
should take from her.
If
one takes, the first approach (and it is the most common one) the introductory
words “for this reason” link it with the husband’s “supremacy” discussed in the
preceding text and this seems the most likely Pauline intent.[46] If so, then the linkage to angels would lie
in the fact that she is being as submissive in her marital relationship as
angels are in their relationship to God.
Going beyond that parallelism, the phrase “because of the angels” has
stirred endless curiosity and speculation as to what else it may mean.
The
text could apply to either “good” angels or “bad” ones, with the latter
providing the more dramatic interpretations of the text. If the latter is in mind, then the “veil” could
be intended as somehow being “protection” against them.[47] Interpreting Genesis 6 and its reference to
“sons of God” as angels who sexually intermingled with the daughters of earth,
Paul’s admonition has been taken by some as a warning against arousing these
beings to excessive sexual desire by being unveiled.[48]
The
ancient Book of Enoch (6:1-3) certainly embraced a parallel gloss on
Genesis, “And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in
those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven,
saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the
children of men and begat us children.’ ”[49] Even in this “Enochian”
version it is still marriage and not mere bed mates that are
sought. It seems assumed that they are
capable and willing of either expressing or reining in their desire or there
would have been no need to “marry” rather than immediately “take” the person of
their interest; where then the danger to human females from their
interest?
[Page 177] There
is no text that I can think of in the New Testament suggesting the danger of
angelic rape or carnal seduction by them.
Furthermore, Paul provides no indication that he is thinking in terms of
“fallen” angels (rather than righteous ones) and without that gloss there would
be no way of linking the text with Genesis 6.[50] Even so this interpretation is documented as
far back as the writings of Tertullian and still is
preferred by many commentators,[51]
which, I suspect, tells us more about the popular scholarly evaluation of early
Christians as credulous and superstitious than it provides any real insight
into Paul’s motives and intents.
The
New Testament does recognize, however, the idea of the need for angels
to recognize their “place” in the Divine scheme and of being punished for
forgetting or rebelling against it (Jude, verse 6). Hence, the example of the angels would be a
warning to women believers not to rewrite their proper role in the church;[52]
“because of the angels” would then carry with it the warning that these mortal
women could no more escape Divine wrath than did angelic, supernatural
beings.
Furthermore
at least some angel beings are pictured as being “covered” when the Lord “sit
on a throne” in the heavenly “temple” (Isaiah 6:1). Above the throne “stood seraphim; each one
had six wings: with two he covered his
face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew” (6:2). Hence a partial “covering” of the woman would
be “because of the angels” because they--at least some of them—do the same
thing. It would be an imitation of the
restraint that even angels manifested.
Some
explain the verse as an indicating that angels were considered present during
the worship and that they expected and required such restraint.[53] Certainly, the Essenes considered angels as
present during their worship services,[54]
indicating that the concept existed in the first century. Their documents speak of how anyone “with a
bodily defect, injured in feet or hands, or who is lame, blind, deaf or dumb,
or who has a visible blemish in his flesh [must stay out, RW] . . . . for holy angels are in their congregation.”[55] Paul never expresses an interest in keeping
the physically imperfect out of the assembly nor even the morally imperfect,
excepting only the extreme cases in the latter group (such as the man living
with his father’s wife).
The
Apocalypse (1:20) speaks in terms of “the angels of the seven churches” and the
mini epistles in chapters two and three are each addressed to “the angel of” a
particular church (2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14). Assuming “angels” in the strict sense are
under consideration (and alternative explanations are common), this would
indicate that each had a special interest and concern over a specific
congregation,[56] but the
nature and form of their duties is not developed. Their “attention” if not “presence at” the
worship services would be a natural application of the concept.
Psalms
138:1, however, seems to be edging up to this idea of an angelic presence
during worship.[57] There the Psalmist declares, “I will praise You with my whole heart; before the gods I will sing praises
to You.” The Hebrew term is, literally,
that of this English translation, i.e., “gods.”[58] The LXX opts for “angels” as the rendering,[59]
as does the Latin Vulgate.[60] The Syriac chooses “kings.”[61] The Targum (part translation, part
paraphrase-interpretation) renders the word with the equivalent of the English
“judges”[62]
or “rulers.”[63] Later Jewish tradition took these “gods” to
be equivalent to angelic-type beings.[64]
In
spite of the usage of such versions and traditions, a goodly number of
commentators prefer to interpret the term in its strict sense as “gods,” i.e.,
in the sense of [Page 178] idols. Taken this way, the text means that even in
the presence of idols, the Psalmist refused to be psychologically intimidated
and remained a faithful worshipper of Yahweh of Israel.[65] Some interpret the assumed context to be an
Israelite in a foreign land where polytheism represents the religious
establishment and the danger of spiritual inferiority feelings would be the
greatest.[66]
Earlier
we argued that the first half of the chapter is specifically discussing life outside
the church assembly. However one reacts
to the previous possibilities concerning angelic observation or “presence” at
Christian worship, it is desirable to seek out an interpretation that puts the
primary emphasis on this different setting.
Taken
in a general (rather than specifically worship sense), the New Testament speaks
of angels being fully aware of what is going on earth: consider the on-going descriptions of angelic
knowledge and intervention in the book of Revelation. Angels are presented as knowing what
Christians do and say. In 1 Timothy 5:21 the author warns his reader(s) that the
“charge” (duty) he was giving was “before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the
elect angels.” Hebrews 1:14 speaks of
their on-going desire to benefit Christians in their daily lives, “Are they not
all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit
salvation?” Since they had knowledge of
how Christians were acting, the woman’s “covering” would be non-verbal
acknowledgment to them that she recognized and accepted her proper place in the
hierarchy of power.[67]
Some
flip this argument over (more in a sermonic development of the positive
implications of the text than as direct exegesis) and stress that the
“covering” was an implicit reminder to males that they were to remember their
own obligations as well. They were to
treat her with the respect and courtesy a God-fearing woman was supposed to
enjoy.[68]
To
return to the church meeting context preferred by most, some interpreters strip
the word “angels” of the supernatural connotation we normally read into
it. Strictly speaking, any messenger was
an angel. Taken this way, the women were
to have their heads covered lest they “scandaliz[e] visitors from other
churches,”[69]
especially official or unofficial delegations that might be carrying
information or requests from other places.
The point is interesting, but there is a very great difference between
“visitors” and “messengers.” Though the latter would be included in the first
category, one would be surprised if they represented anywhere near a majority
of such individuals.
If the approach has any
validity it would be that the practice enjoined by Paul was so universal that
any deviation from it would not only be noticed but regarded as a scandal. This strikes the current commentator as far
more a matter of the repercussions of following a different course than
providing a reason not to do so.
And providing a reason is clearly Paul’s intent.
A
variant of the messenger scenario is that Paul has in mind unofficial visitations
from the government (or by individuals secretly acting on its behalf) to
observe what was going on. Since private
associations of all types were viewed with considerable reserve as potential
seedbeds of sedition, it was important that any behavior be of such a nature
that the observers would be reassured rather than fear the Christian assembly
as a potentially destabilizing influence in their town.[70] Although one might be able to shoe-horn this
into the current text, the use of “angels/messengers” as a euphemism for spies
is unexpected and, barring a particularly good contextual reason, to be
considered less likely than other approaches to what Paul has in mind.
[Page 179] 11:13-15: What is the head covering a woman is expected to wear? An initial reading of the preceding text (verses 4-12), makes one think that Paul had in mind some type of man-made head-covering: In today’s society we would conjure up the image of a scarf or perhaps even hat--which only three or four decades ago was universal female attire on formal occasions. In ancient society, reference to a female head covering would most likely make the listener think in terms of some type of a veil.[71]
Veils could come in two forms in ancient society: those that covered the head and those that were utilized to cover the face as well.[72] Paul specifies that it is not “proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered” (11:13). He conspicuously does not insist that it would not be “proper for a woman to pray to God with her face uncovered.” Hence if a literal veil is under discussion it would far more likely to be of the former type rather than the latter.[73]
One must wonder why they were appearing in this fashion in the first place. The typical reconstruction of this period argues that “respectable woman” typically went without a veil only when inside her own residence.[74] In public it was worn, unless one was a prostitute[75] or openly spiteful of public expectations.[76] Why then would it not be worn in the assembly? Paul doesn’t tell us; we are left to conjecture. But since the church is conceived in the New Testament as one’s extended family (as one’s spiritual brothers and sisters), it may well be that they considered themselves at home when among them. In that context a veil would not have been required in the first place.
Caution
must be exercised for the data clearly does not all go in the same direction;[77]
the evidence indicates considerable regional variation.[78] Greek
pottery frequently shows women of the area in public settings, yet without a
veil, as if this were a quite acceptable way to present oneself publicly.[79] This would seem to argue that the social
stigma attached to a barehead only applied to a woman with extremely short hair
or who was literally shaved.[80] Furthermore catacomb drawings portray
Christian women at worship, but without a veil.[81]
Most germane to our topic, of the many terracotta images depicting women in Corinth (covering a period of centuries)[82] only a few depict veils and they are from centuries before the period we are interested in.[83] This lack of veil wearing is in keeping with much of the custom of the period, but not with the custom as often assumed when dealing with the current chapter.
Another possibility for the absence of a veil in the church meeting could have arisen from the customs of women in the pagan cults. Some wonder whether the prophesying was done “like [the] mantic prophetesses, [who] unbraid their hair and let it fly freely while they spoke” in ecstatic bodily motions and ecstatic rhetoric.[84] If so it would refer to “disheveled hair.”[85] Human nature is normally very conservative. If one has associated prophesying with a specific form of behavior or attire (or lack of), then one would tend to duplicate those outward appearances when one engaged in the behavior oneself.
In spite of the popularity of the reading of the text as alluding to a literal veil, when we get beyond the initial discussion (11:3-12) and reach the current verses (11:13-15), we discover that Paul has in mind something quite different from what the reading of the preceding verses has led us to expect, “Judge among yourselves: Is it proper for a [Page 180] woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (emphasis added). Hence we would be better advised to seek out an explanation on grounds of societal hostility to short hair on woman rather than its opposition to women going without some type of artificial heading covering. The woman was, indeed, to have her head covered: fully covered (“veiled,” if you wish to use the term)--but with hair.[86]
This type interpretation has been objected to because the Greek term translated “covering” in this section is different from that translated by the similar term in the earlier verses.[87] On the other hand, the fact that this is a continuation of the same discussion, would argue that even though different words are used the same point is in mind, the proper covering for the woman’s head--and that Paul points out that it is long hair rather than some artificial covering such as a veil.
There is another major problem with the traditional veil interpretation as well: Paul is contrasting a woman praying with an uncovered head (11:5) with a man not praying with a covered head (11:7). If the “covering” is a veil, then it should be so in both references. Under what possible set of historical or religious circumstances could it be conceivable that a first century Christian male would have normally lived everyday life with a “covered” (= veiled) head, and, therefore, would pray with one as well? We can see one in which he would both worship and live life with “long” hair (consider how much of western male society adopted this style in the 1960s and 70s), but there seems none in which a male would adopt a veil for public attire.
If this text were specifically in regard to church worship and that alone, we might think of the custom of the officiating priest/priestess in pagan cults having something over their heads when offering a sacrifice, but even that would concern one single individual--in contrast to all others present, both male and female. Even in the context of the temple worship only the priest going about his official duties would have had a covered head; all other males present who were engaged in prayer and other acts of worship would have been doing so with uncovered heads (see our earlier discussion).
Furthermore the contrast in 11:6 is for women to be either “covered” or “be shorn,” i.e., have all the hair cut off. If going veil-less was automatically to inflict upon oneself social shame (as if often assumed), why would cutting off all the hair be mentioned at? She was already “shamed” by going without the veil! On the other hand, if her head “cover” is her long hair, then she would be exposed to shame by either short hair or, worse, removing all her hair. Hence only within a covering = long hair interpretation can we adequately explain the introduction of a shame that did not previously exist.
A variant of the hair-as-covering approach is that the Corinthian women were permitting their hair to be worn loose rather than bound together in some appropriate form. Such loose hair was normally a sign of sorrow (over death or disaster) or because one felt shame for having been accused of adultery.[88]
The problem with the “loose hair” scenario is to find a textual reference that would encourage that approach. The term “covered” would easily fit (11:5) either a veil or a woman whose hair fully and abundantly covered the head. It is more difficult to see how it would fit as a description of “binding” in some form of hair styling. It might, however, fit in well with the pagan prophetesses and their custom of “loose (long) hair” in their ecstatic mutterings (see above).
[Page 181] This approach can be blended with that of a literal veil. Taken from this direction, the veil becomes not an end in itself but a means to an end. It encourages or guarantees that she will have “the equivalent of carefully tended, well-ordered hair” in contrast with it being “loose” and “untidy.”[89] The underlying purpose would be to assure publicly visible differentiation of the genders.[90]
11:21-22, 34: The nature of the feasting that had been introduced into the church assembly. Perhaps this had begun innocently enough, with every one bringing what they could and all sharing from the combined supply.[91] If so, it certainly had not remained that way!
For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. . . . But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment . . . (11:21-22, 34).
Paul
had no problem with them getting together to dine and having a good time: he simply stresses it should be done in their
“houses” and “home(s)” rather than becoming a function of the church’s meeting
(11:22, 34). He stresses the social
injustice of what was happening: people
were going hungry and others in the same meeting didn’t even pause (11:21),
presumably because they themselves or the faction they were aligned with had
plenty (cf. 11:18-19).[92]
Yet
he does not call for the reform of the situation: he calls for its abolishment so that they may
put their minds front, center, and exclusively on the Lord’s Supper
(11:23-26). To him the church service
and anything directly connected with the church’s gathering was for the worship
of God. It was not even for what would
be totally innocent and even desirable activities if partaken of in a different
setting. With this approach to the
subject it is hard to imagine that Paul would have looked with sympathy on
modern church fellowship suppers, social activities, and recreational and
entertainment events even when separated from the communion[93]--though
virtually universal they have become.
It
is intriguing that the apostle rebukes them with the criticism that “in eating,
each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry
and another is drunk” (11:21). It sounds
like the situation had so disintegrated that even factional loyalty could not
get them to wait—at least often!
But
there is also an economic class element here.
Those who could afford the indulgence likely arrived “ahead of others;”
those who did not have the resources to join in as equals arrived latter,
presumably after the meal could be expected to be over.[94] Whether intended or not this “shame[d] (=
embarrassed, humiliated) those who have nothing” (11:22). This would not be atypical of the “snobbish”
element of upper class mentality and, historically, this mind frame was common
among the Roman elite and those who imitated their ways.[95]
[Page
182] An alternative scenario
is also possible: the meals provided
were available to all--if they got there on time.[96] Those well-to-do (or more-or-less so) would
have had the leisure to come early as well as provide an elaborate meal for
themselves (and select friends) while those at the other end of society’s totem
pole (such as tradespeople and slaves) might well be restricted as to how
quickly they could escape from their duties to attend the services.[97]
By
going ahead with the eating, knowing full well that certain members were not
present who could be counted on to be there under normal circumstances,
guaranteed that these late arrivals would go without. Intended explicitly as such as not, it was
the triumph of self-centeredness, selfishness, and indifference over concern
for those who, on the spiritual level, were supposed to be counted as their
brothers and sisters.[98] At least if they had waited and shared, they
would have experienced that “bonding” experience that typically occurs when
human beings share a friendly meal together.[99] This they denied both themselves and the
others as well.
Yet
a third possibility grows out of known Roman customs of the era. During the Roman Saturnalia, the rich were
supposed to feed their servants but the unscrupulous were known to assure that
they themselves got the best portions and the servants a pittance. Paul’s description is compatible with the
poorer Christians being treated in such a contemptible manner.[100] Indeed, this also could explain why some might
not arrive until after the meal--they did not desire to be embarrassed by what
was going on.
A
variant of this approach is that there was, indeed, plenty of food available
for one and all—provided by the more well-to-do members. What was happening was that, for reasons
conscious or unconscious, good or bad, they hogged more than their fair share
and this resulted in “lesser” members being left with nothing at all.[101]
Of
course the Communion, standing alone, could also be abused by the “prestigious”
element in the congregation. It was
quite possible that when the “right” (= important, influential, wealthy)
members arrived, they would go ahead with the Supper even though others who
were likely to come had not arrived.
Hence the admonition that when they “come together to eat” the Supper,
they must “wait for one another” before partaking, lest anyone be left out
(11:33). Today we would call it common
courtesy. Among them it was sadly
lacking.
Among other things, Paul
was attempting to rein in here and in other areas of his letter an excessive
Corinthian exuberance—the self-centered, “lets worship with our faction and
have a good time” mentality that counted others as of little value so long as
“we” are happy. They were “unfeeling” in
regard to how they treated others and how these people would react.[102] The terms arrogant, self-centered, and callous
would also be epithets describing their mind frame. What was worse is that they were probably not
even aware of what they were doing: it
had become so engrained as a behavior style it became the expected norm.
As the result they were
willing to sacrifice restraint and decorum in worship in a manner that
demonstrated something bordering on blasé unconcern. The forms remained (communion,
speaking in tongues, prophetic teaching, etc.) but they were overwhelmed by the
self-centeredness of it all. The poorer
and less well off were ignored.[103] The impact upon visitors was ignored. Everything was interpreted in the narrowest
context of individual and clique self-interest.
[Page
183] Although such an
orientation remains in the worship service of certain religious bodies today (and
factions of others), if Paul were to write a “Third Corinthians” epistle to a
more or less typical congregation of our age, his critique would likely target
the very opposite extreme—a careful formality and “correctness” that is so
“proper” and “respectful” that all the real passion that should accompany it
has disappeared.[104]
Anyone who has worshipped
at a place that routinely turns joyful hymns of praise into funeral dirges will
readily grasp the phenomena. Or at a
place where “everything has its proper place and time” to such an extent that
any spontaneous change to meet an unexpected circumstance is viewed as
disruptive no matter how circumspectly implemented.
11:23:
The origin of Paul’s teaching regarding the Communion. The apostle asserts that what he taught about the
Communion he had “received from the Lord” (11:23). This could mean that he had received a
personal, direct revelation from Jesus.[105]
His emphasis in Galatians upon apostolic independence from reliance upon the
other apostles certainly argues a disinclination to be more than
necessarily dependent on lesser sources.
Furthermore, the Acts and
Pauline epistles emphasize Paul having been converted through the direct
personal appearance of the resurrected Jesus to him. One who works from this assumption would be
inclined to suspect that Paul’s next questions (as soon as he regained normal
functioning from the physical blindness on the road to Damascus) would involve
the desire to know as much more from Jesus as He would be willing to directly
reveal, including the nature of the proper worship of the Risen One—a matter
inevitably involving the appropriate remembering of that death and resurrection
in the collective regular Christian devotionals.
But this is argument from
assumption, suggestive at the most. Is
there anything in the current context that might more clearly point in this
direction? Perhaps there is: the passage is one of the few in which Paul
directly asserts having received a teaching from the Lord, which suggests a
direct personal reliance upon Christ’s revelatory work that differs from the
other cases.
The description of
receiving from the Lord, however, could also mean that “what he preached had
its origin with the Lord, and so he can state that he received it from
the Lord” (our emphasis).[106] In favor of this would be the idea that
“revelation” had the primary purpose of revealing, i.e., that which had
not been known before. When a subject
was already well known to many (as the story of the last night of Jesus would
have been), one would anticipate it being shared in written or oral form and
that there would be few if any occasions where there would be a need for it to
be presented by any other means.
Suggestive
as it is, this is far from conclusive.
Repeatedly the Hebrew Testament prophets hit on similar themes time and
again rather than merely appealing to what earlier prophets had spoken. These affirmations are accompanied countless
times by the assertion, “thus says the Lord”—as if the Lord had directly given
either the words or the substance of the critique to the prophets. For Paul to argue that he received knowledge
of the institution of the communion in a similar manner would be consistent
with this prophetic tradition and also work to reinforce his claim to be
independent of relying upon the apostolic work of his predecessors.
[Page
184] Leander E. Keck
reconstructs the situation this way to justify a church transmitted rather than
a directly Christ transmitted origin for the teaching: he argues that Paul, both here and in his
discussion of the resurrection in 15:3-7, utilized what amounted to technical
terminology. He used[107]
the
Greek equivalent of technical rabbinic terms for receiving and delivering tradition. It is likely that he received these
traditions when he became a member of the church, just as it is likely that the
traditions themselves had been formulated by the Hellenistic Jewish Christians
in Damascus or Antioch, who in turn relied, in part, on motifs and phrases used
in Palestine.
Similarly,
William R. Farmer similarly rejects the option of a direct message being
delivered to Paul on the subject because “[a]ll the technical terminology used
by Paul indicates that this tradition like that concerning the Resurrection
appearance he mentions later (15:3-7), has been handed on as a well formulated
statement in the conventional manner of the time.”[108]
Actually Paul specifies
in regard to the Communion who he had received the teaching from, that
“I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you” and then
proceeds to concisely narrate the institution of the Supper (11:23). In marked contrast, he asserts in regard to
the resurrection that “I delivered to you first of all that which I also
received” (15:3) without telling whether that source was the Lord or those
of the first generation of believers who were personally acquainted with the
events.[109] Hence the argument is based upon the assertion
of the same source existing in both texts and that assertion is conspicuously
missing.
Keck’s
reconstruction has even greater problems:
not only did Paul not receive the teaching from Christ in any direct
fashion, but the indirectness itself virtually guaranteed the transmission of
the minimal amount of historically reliable data. The reconstruction argues that Paul received
the teaching from either Damascus or Antioch and, even then, it was “second
hand,” so to speak, and borrowed from a Palestinian root and was modified in
various ways in doing so. Hence we have
Paul using a Syrian teaching which was based upon a Palestinian teaching which,
presumably, was in some manner based upon the remembrance of Jesus’ own
teaching. Could Paul responsibly use the term “from the
Lord” to describe such an elusive, vague, and extremely indirect process?
In normal usage one would, rather, anticipate
his meaning he obtained the knowledge miraculously and supernaturally, the
reliability of it being confirmed by the reminiscences of the other apostles and
the first generation disciples he met.
Of course one may argue that Paul is merely assuming
that the indirectly received teaching ultimately originated with the
Lord,[110]
but is this the way we would expect him to describe such a conception? Hence, whether we personally accept the
validity of Paul’s blunt claim, we are faced with a man who thought the record
he presented was vouched for by no one short of the One who had originated the
practice.
Turning to C. F. D. Moule,
he also makes the same essential argument that the terminology of receiving and
transmitting require that the data have been obtained from a purely human
source.[111] He reveals a fundamental assumption that
likely underlies [Page 185] many such arguments: as he sees it, the only means that the
Lord “revealed” anything to the apostle was through visions: “it is intrinsically improbable, in any case,
that what is here described should be the contents of a vision.”[112] The arbitrary limitation of Divine revelatory
means to this one form seems quite inappropriate, especially in light of this
epistle’s emphasis in the following chapter that God provided guidance through
multiple means including the prophetic (i.e., giving the message to be taught).
Even if we limit ourselves
strictly to visions, that in no way necessarily undermines the historic
reliability of what is described. (The
modern scholarly theory of visions seems to dismiss the phenomena as totally
subjective rather than as a means of directly conveying supernaturally
originated information. In other words,
we generate our own visions rather than they being tools utilized by God.) As a scholar of an earlier generation rightly
points out, such a genuine visionary origin is quite congenial in this
particular case,[113]
In what
form the revelation came to him, we are not told. Did it come in the form of some dramatic
vision of the Last Supper and of what was said and done there? In that event, the vision would be compacted
partly out of materials of knowledge that had lain previously in Paul’s own
mind [and] partly from the new element of knowledge regarding his Lord’s will
concerning the rite.
In this
case, there would be no difficulty in understanding how Paul was led to put the
words, “This do in remembrance of me,” into the mouth of Jesus at the Last
Supper. Had he not himself heard them
spoken there?
11:24-26: The Communion as a memorial of Jesus’
death. The Corinthians are
described as “eat[ing] this bread and drink[ing] this cup” (11:26) which
suggests that the membership at large was participating in both elements of the
observance. The fact that Paul is
describing what happened regularly in their service and since we know that they
had their weekly service on Sunday (16:1-4), the conclusion seems inescapable
that it was partaken of on that day on a weekly rather than irregular
basis. (The customs of daily or
less-than-weekly observance grew up much later.)
The
“bread” referred to was presumably unleavened since the Supper was instituted
at the time of the Passover (Matthew 26:17-29; Luke 22:14-23) when leavened
products were not permitted in the household at all.[114] Similar reasoning would suggest that what was
in the “cup” both Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:25) and Paul allude to (11:26-28) and
which the synoptics describe as the “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:29; Luke
22:18) would be unfermented grape juice.
In actual practice, however, it appears that the reasoning was only
applied during the Passover to the bread that was eaten rather than the wine
that was drunk.
For
those basing their conclusions on the words actually used (rather than their
historical context), they would indicate “bread”—any type—would be permissible
and “fruit of the vine”—anything from grape juice to actual wine. This lack of specificity would permit the
maximum adjustment to local needs, availability, and conditions. Did Paul and the others expect us to
interpret the words in the light of their historical context or as “standing on
their own” since many in future generations would know little or nothing of the
former?
[Page
186] Before giving the
apostles the bread, Jesus “had given thanks” (1 Corinthians 11:24). We read that before giving them “the cup” he
acted “in the same manner” (14:14), i.e., he also gave a prayer of thankfulness
for it. The Greek term for “had given
thanks” is eucharistesas and it is from this act of prayer before the
participation that the term “Eucharist” came into use as a synonym for the
entire observance.[115]
Chronologically
Paul is careful to separate what Christians were doing from the Passover.[116] It was “after Supper” that the cup was
given (11:25) and not during it. Unless
one wishes to attempt to place the offering of the bread (11:24) at a
dramatically different time that evening, this would imply that the offering of
both were done after the Passover rituals were completed. Yet having been first offered on Passover,
the depiction of Jesus as the Christians’ “passover” was a quite natural spiritual
conceptual development of that original historical context (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Paul
provides at least five descriptions of the importance of the memorial
attributed to Christ:
(1) The observance is “in remembrance of Me
[Jesus],” spoken of both the bread and the cup (11:24, 25). Just as we have national holidays to remember
important individuals and events, likewise the Lord’s Supper remembers Jesus’
life and death. Just as earthly holidays
in the late twentieth century often passed from days of honoring to days of
self-enjoyment, the remembrance of Jesus can become so “humdrum” that the
intended memory-provoking purpose can be lost. Conscious intent makes the difference.
The
Communion is properly thought of as a testament to our faith in Jesus’
resurrection. Indirectly it bears
witness to our conviction that He is still alive and at work even today through
us and the church.[117] Even so the central purpose is to remind us
of the pain and anguish that occurred in His dying so that we will never fall
into the trap of undervaluing the high cost at which our human souls were
redeemed.
The
historical legitimacy of these words has been challenged on the grounds that it
is irreconcilable with Jesus’ conviction that His kingdom was imminent. There simply was no need for such an ongoing
observance in such a case.[118] This assumes the validity of the widespread
modern belief—from extreme conservative at one end of the theological spectrum
to extreme liberal at the other end--that the kingdom
and church are to be viewed as two distinct phenomena. In New Testament terms there is significant
evidence that they were regarded as two different descriptions of different
aspects of the same institution. The
most concise and telling evidence of this is Jesus’ promise to Peter to build
His church, while in the very next verse promising that Peter would utilize
“the keys of the kingdom of heaven” within that church (Matthew
16:18-19).
Furthermore,
even if one utilizes “imminency” rhetoric, the question would remain of how
imminent. Assuming a gap of even a
decade or two, and an on-going observance would make perfect sense as a tool to
keep it all fresh in the believing community’s collective memory.
(2) The observance is of personal
significance: of the bread in
particular, Jesus is quoted as saying, “this is My body
which is broken for you” (10:24). What
is of personal importance is normally valued more highly than that which is
not. For example, we think far more
highly of a gift given to us than one given to a stranger. Likewise Jesus’ death is pictured as something
done for each of us as individuals--and to be remembered and honored for that
reason.
[Page
187] Within the context
of the collective “you” of all believers and the worship service in particular,
it was designed to be a unifying force, reminding them all of the shared
Lord they had in common, their shared goals, their shared aspirations, their
shared salvation.[119] It was an open display and proclamation of the
relationship that existed in both directions.
Hence any act of dishonoring the remembrance was a double dishonoring,
simultaneously--of each other and of their Christ. By dishonoring the remembered Christ they
dishonored each other.
Furthermore they publicly
became “one,” so to speak, by partaking of the same “one” loaf and the “one”
cup;[120]
thereby they became united with each other and with Christ.[121] It was not literally so but terms like
“figurative” and “symbolic” don’t quite seem to do the idea justice
either. One scholar suggests that “this
blurriness” in Paul’s language is intentional and that he is utilizing a kind
of “poetic evocation” for sentiments that can best be expressed only in such
language.[122]
The
nature of the observance has produced exhaustive (and exhausting!) discussions
of the significance of “body” and “is” in this verse. “It has been disputed whether is
should be interpreted ‘is like,’ ‘represents,’ ‘symbolizes,’ ‘stands for,’ ‘conveys,’
or ‘means the same as’; and many theologians have insisted that it means ‘is
identical with,’ ‘is the same thing as,’ or ‘has the same substance as.’ ”[123] Yet the fact that Jesus was sitting right
there with them argues that the apostles were hardly like to interpret it with
much literalness. They saw the
body of flesh and blood; to interpret the bread and fruit of the vine as identical
would have defied the appearance and taste of what they partook.
(3) “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (“This cup is the new covenant which My blood
makes possible,” ATP) Paul quotes Jesus as affirming in 11:25. Instead of referring to the liquid in
the cup, the cup itself is made to represent the blood since holding
and containing that fruit of the vine is the purpose for the cup to be
used at all.
The importance of “blood”
in Jewish thought was that it was the source of life, an insight that is traced
as far back as the early chapters of Genesis (9:4-5). The redemptive power of Christ’s blood was
forefigured in the ancient sacrifices, “For the life of the flesh is in the
blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your
souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement to the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). Yet it was not just the shedding of the blood
but the application of it that brought its ultimate spiritual value (cf.
Hebrews 9:19-22).[124]
The
words “new covenant” shows that Jesus had in mind the establishment of a new
religious system and that just as that of Moses had been instituted with the
shedding of blood so would that of Jesus (cf. the reasoning in Hebrews
9:16-28). Hebrews 13:20 preserves the
imagery in its use of the phrase “the blood of the everlasting covenant” in
connection with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Here
we have the blending together of the two ideas of a new covenant (as in
Jeremiah 31:31) and that of blood establishing the covenant as in Exodus 24:8,
“This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according
to all these words.”[125] By “covenant” Moses meant one embodied in
“all these words” (Exodus 24:8) that they had heard from “the Book of the
Covenant [that he had just] read in the hearing of the people. And they said, ‘All that the Lord has said we
will do, and be obedient’ ” (Exodus 24:7).
The shedding of the blood showed the seriousness of the [Page 188]
covenant and the fact that it conveyed life (the ancient belief
and all too true reality--that life is in the blood; without it there is
no life). It being “shed” upon the
listeners showed that the “life blood” was now on them as well and symbolized
how seriously God took the arrangement for human behavior and worship that He
had revealed.
“Every Jew present in that Upper Room knew
there was already a covenant established by God; when Jesus grants another one,
it is necessarily a new one.”[126] It would be new in a number of senses. Since it was designed to ultimately include
Gentiles, its provisions obviously had to be different. The same fact grew out of the fact that it
was self-consciously designed from the outset to be for a world-wide religion
(cf. the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20) rather than this being the
result of a diasporia of a group originally intended to be located in only one
region.
Other reasons have also
been suggested for the needed appellation of “new” to describe the
covenant. Donald Parsons, for example,
speaks of the new “interior quality of the covenant and the immediacy of the
relationship between God and the believer.”[127] In addition, he mentions the gift of the Holy
Spirit to all (Acts 2:38).[128]
(4) The
partaking was to be accompanied by “giv[ing] thanks” (11:24). In the immediate context, it would be giving
thanks for the bread and fruit of the vine since those are the direct actions
about to be carried out. From a
post-resurrection perspective this would involve giving thanks for the death
and resurrection that the observance is to bring to our minds. Fritz Chenderlin suggests that the
terminology is so broad that it could also possibly include “a prayer of some
length, including praise, thanks, and petitions for blessings related to”
Christ’s redemptive sacrifice.[129]
(5) The
first four explanations of the importance of the observance are derived from
the institution accounts that Paul quotes or refers to. In 11:26, Paul adds one of his own: It is intended to be a permanent, on-going
memorial. It is one that will “proclaim
the Lord’s death till He comes.” Paul
had a passionate hope, as seen in other places, that Jesus would soon
return. Yet in places like this, the
text only makes sense if Paul also recognized that he had no way of knowing for sure. He wished them to be prepared no matter how
long it might be.
Both
Jews and Gentiles had “memorial” elements in their religion. In the Gentile tradition, regular observances
were sometimes held in honor of individuals considered heroic or pivotal in a
community’s development—memorials that openly took on elements of not just
respect but outright worship.[130] For Hebrews, the supreme example of a
“memorial” was the Passover, to bring alive each year the drama of Israel’s
rescue from captivity in Egypt.
11:27-29:
Self-examination as to one’s motives and behavior in order to avoid
partaking in an “unworthy manner.”
An earlier generation (and quite possibly many today)[131]
take the KJV’s prohibition of partaking
“unworthily” as a reason not to take the Communion whenever they feel concerned
over their spiritual state or some particular situation in their life. Peter Verkruyse
recalls, “as a young boy,” visiting at the services of
a congregation that felt particularly strongly on the need to measure up to
that standard. “I watched while each
person, in turn, received the goblet and tray and silently passed it on. In the end, not one person had tasted the
wine or the bread.”[132]
[Page
189] Even the rendering, an
“unworthy manner” can be similarly misread, though with more difficulty. Close attention makes plain that it is not
criticizing a “sinner” for partaking (who isn’t one?)[133] but the inappropriate “manner” involved—how one does it
and not what one is.[134]
The
Corinthians’ “unworthy manner” is easy to detect in a series of errors that
demeaned the Death they were honoring:
(1) not waiting for each other; (2) not sharing with all; in effect
“mistreating the poor;”[135]
(3) getting drunk, and so on. Robert L. Deffinbaugh,
suggests, with considerable justice, that their problem actually went far
deeper than this veneer of unconcern and excess: they were guilty of a fundamental
“irreverence.” The physical body being
remembered through the bread and fruit of the vine were treated, in effect, as
unimportant for reverence and the spiritual body, the church, with at least
equal disrespect.[136]
This
does not mean that a person who knows full well they’ve done something
atrocious is respecting the Supper any more than those who “rolled over” the
self-respect of other partakers in Corinth.
But there is a profound difference between this and magnifying one’s
imperfections far beyond their actual nature.
If one is concerned over such matters the appropriate action would be to
pray for forgiveness before partaking of the service and--when one leaves the
service--be determined to do the right thing in the future.
The exaggeration of the
degree of purity required to participate is far from a new one. That the text requires a person to be personally
“worthy” before being admitted to participation goes back at least as far as
Augustine in his Homilies on the Gospel of John (Tractate 62, 1).[137]
Of course there is nothing wrong or improper in one confessing sin to God as
part of one’s personal preparation for participation, but that is not the point
the apostle is trying to communicate.
Partaking in an “unworthy manner”
could, of course, involve matters not specifically under consideration by
Paul. For example, it could easily also
include the frame of mind of the participant. If one is not concentrating on the
observance, if the mind is a million miles away on the golf game that afternoon
(to give but one of innumerable possible illustrations) how can the observance
be considered as being done in a “worthy manner”? We aren’t really paying attention to it. We are doing the right “act” but there is no
substance of belief or commitment behind it.
We are going through empty motions and nothing more.
By
acting in such a way, they were not “discerning the Lord’s body” (vs. 29)—not
giving it its proper understanding and respect.
Although there may be an allusion here to the “body” in the Ephesian epistle sense of the church as Christ’s earthly
body,[138]
this is far more likely an appropriate sermonic application of the text rather
than its original intent: by their
disrespect, discourtesy, and excesses they were betraying a lack of spiritual
insight into the proper relationship with their coreligionists. They had failed to recognize what all those
who are of faith have in common.[139] It was not an abstract disrespect for the
“Lord’s body” in a theoretical and “institutional” sense, but an actual
disrespect for those members of it among whom they worshipped and lived.
Yet something far more
basic than even this seems to be the center of attention. Christ’s personal
body is being scorned. They are, if you
will, engaged in active sacrilege.
[Page 190]
The “Lord” reference is sometimes omitted in translations because
a number of the earliest and presumably most accurate manuscripts lack it;[140]
it is contained in the bulk and the thrust of Paul’s argument seems to
require that we assume that that subject is under discussion whether explicitly
included as part of the text or not.
Hence, either way, their observance is supposed to carry their minds
back to the time of crucifixion so they can “discern” what He had done for the
human race through redemption.[141]
Those
who believe in the “real presence” often take this one step further as implying
that their sin involved a failure to recognize that He was, in a quite
“literal” sense, there as well.[142] Since their problem in regard to the
Communion lay in their behavior rather than their theology, this is a very
major step beyond what the author intended.
They were wrapped up in joyous partying
and had lost sight of where their attention should have been. As the result they were eating and drinking
self-judgment/self-condemnation upon themselves. As such they became guilty of Christ’s blood
and body (verse 27). They were just as
guilty of rejecting Christ now as those were who had carried out the actual
crucifixion—the form differed, but the disrespect, dishonor, and
repudiation was shared.
11:33: How large was the Corinthian congregation? Did
the Corinthian “church” consist of a number of “house churches?” These two questions are potentially interlocked;
it is assumed that the
more “house churches,” the larger the city-wide church than if the church were
all meeting in a single place together. This
is because the fact that a meal was partaken of as the heart of the service has
been used to estimate the size of the Corinthian congregation. Wealthy homes that have been evacuated at
Corinth indicate limited space, even if both courtyard and dining room were
utilized simultaneously. Working with
this combination, estimates begin in the range of twenty to thirty attendees,[143]
in other words thirty at the maximum and that would be stretching it.[144]
Others are more generous
suggesting thirty to forty worshippers,[145] while
others increase that number to under fifty[146]
or sixty individuals.[147] Hence if the entire congregation actually met
in one person’s home, then the maximum membership had to be sixty or under. In all fairness, probably
half that number if that many.
Such low estimates creates
the immediate problem of whether we could imagine the degree of havoc depicted
in 1 Corinthians as existing in that small a group. However, you calculate the capacity of an
individual house, the picture of the Corinthian worship found in the epistle
would seem to imply considerably more than this number being present. Indeed, a defender of such modest numbers
concedes that sixteen members of the Corinthian church are mentioned in passing
(Acts 18:7-8, 17; Romans 16:1, 21-23; 1 Corinthians 16:17-19). At least some--most likely, nearly all--were
married and some of their servants (households) were Christians as well.[148] Even assuming that this is anywhere near a
complete list--and since these were not intended as a formal listing of the
entire membership this is hardly likely--it is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that the attendance and membership must have been at least quadruple
the “low” estimates and double the higher ones, i.e., 100-120 minimum.[149]
[Page 191]
A text that may require a number even larger is Acts 18:9-10. There Paul receives a vision in which Christ
urges him to speak confidently rather than being silent “for I am with you, and
no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this
city.” Some take this to be an
indication of the church’s membership, which creates a severe problem for those
who picture the Corinthian group as numbering only, say, in the 30s-50s range.[150]
It
seems far more likely that the “many” refer to sympathizers as well as
converts and one can usually anticipate far more of the former than the latter.
Yet, if there were
“many” sympathizers would it not be probable that this was at least partly the
result of there being “many” members as well?
One
way to avoid the difficulty of too many people for too small a meeting place
(i.e., a private home) is to postulate that the “church” in Corinth actually
consisted of a number of “house churches.”[151] Taken together these house churches constituted the church in a given
city.[152] This
would permit the collective “church” to have a very large membership
while the individual “house churches” had a very modest one.
Possible indications of
the existence of house churches in Corinth. The house church reconstruction of Christian
religious life in Corinth gained an amazing amount of support in the last
decades of the twentieth century in spite of the weak evidence in its
behalf. The pivotal problem is that if
the Corinthian troubles existed within such a context one would anticipate
explicit indications that their religious life took place in such a form and
the evidence from this epistle seems very far from supporting it.
For
example 1 Corinthians 14:23 refers to “if the whole church comes together in one
place” and this has been cited as evidence that these house churches
periodically met together.[153]
Of course this is based upon the
assumption that house churches existed in the city. The passage would equally well be explained
with the scenario that “the church” exists in a community whether at worship or
not but that it all only “comes together in one place” at a time of
worship. The point of comparison would
not be house churches but how at most times the members were dispersed carrying
out their normal daily lives.
It
is also argued that the very divisiveness Paul rebukes in chapter one would
easily arise in the context of a variety of house churches within Corinth.[154] Anyone associated with modern religious life
recognizes that it can equally well arise in any significant size congregation
as members move in and out, external events affect the group, and new
theological trends rise to challenge and sometimes anger segments of the
membership.
Furthermore, if they were
separate house churches, one would anticipate the “Paul” faction meeting in one
home; the “Apollos” faction in another; the Cephas” group in a third; and the
“Christ” followers in yet a fourth. The
problem of internal division would have been automatically “solved:” they would have
been having nothing to do with each other!
Each individual house church would be united in its own little faction
rather than facing the internal divisions pictured in the epistle. Why even bother to meet with the other
groups; this would “eliminate” squabbling and allow a peaceful worship of the
Lord. Hence no
“divisions” because the groups would never meet and, therefore, their
differences would never be on display.
One
might try to avoid this argument by arguing that the multiple divisions
criticized existed in those house churches.[155] On the other hand could a house church
be as divided as depicted in the epistle without totally ceasing to exist? It seems unlikely. A [Page
192] large group might stumble
on, but one so small would be far more likely to collapse. Alternatively, one could easily arrive at the
scenario already suggested, with each faction meeting separately. No internal divisions--for those who
disagreed would be meeting elsewhere and one would not have the “divisive” situation
Paul depicts for no one bothered to talk with each other!
Jurgen
Becker argues that all the house churches met together only upon “important
occasions” which occurred at “irregular intervals.”[156] The matter of church discipline in chapter 5,
for example, had to be dealt with in such a meeting or the offender could
simply take refuge in a different house church.[157] Yet, in this scenario, what would keep a
house church from refusing to go along with the decision and providing the
offender with a safe harbor? The only
way the man could be stripped of such a shelter was if all the
Christians met together in one congregation at one time—at least in the
meetings they regarded as “church” rather than informal social or spiritual
gatherings for “private” study or enjoyment.
Becker
also cites the need of a city wide meeting of house churches for the collection
in chapter 16 since an individual house church “should not and would not want
to take care of the collection for Jerusalem.”[158] Of course this poses a difficulty with the
popular scenario that the setting aside of the charitable contribution took
place individually and was only pooled together when Paul came: now it is transformed into a group
collection, but in the much smaller group of a “house church” (which would
typically be expected to include at least some outsiders) rather than in
private, at home by each individual or family.
As to the assumption that a house church would not want to be involved,
the logical response would be: Why not
if they thought the cause was truly important?
Now
let us look at the other side of the coin.
What evidence is there that
the entire congregation met in one place? 1 Corinthians 14:23 (above) again comes to the
forefront as referring to at least some such gatherings. Barring imminent danger one would be hard
pressed to see why they would have avoided doing so on an on-going basis.
The distinction between church and
household groups seems implicit in Paul’s exiling of communal meals from the
church assembly, “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you
come together for judgment . . .” (11:34).
Now if they were meeting in house churches how could Paul exile
individual and larger groups (verse 22) to such places when they were
already there and services were nearly always in such a context?
One could argue that Paul
is referring to those city wide meetings of the church where the Lord’s Supper
was held, but then one would be faced with the dilemma of how such a pivotal
part of their worship was exiled from the place and time when they most often
met in collective worship. (Of course in
those places where there were house churches there must have been some
way of distinguishing private meetings from church meetings. How to do so is a matter we would expect Paul
to have raised in 1 Corinthians if house churches were the norm in that
city.)
To minimize
the danger of factionalism arising from house churches and infrequent area wide
meetings, one would anticipate the local Christians doing their best to
maximize the number of such “city” gatherings.
In such a context, “household” groups might well hold such periodic
gatherings for private edification of themselves and
invited guests as versus the “congregational” meeting which was intended for
everyone. Such is [Page 193]
done today upon occasion; it would have been a natural format for
the first century as well. But without the smaller groups being considered formal “churches.”
Another
indication of a one-site meeting of all Christians in Corinth is, oddly enough,
found in Romans 16:23. Again assuming we
are dealing with Corinth (which is normally granted), the text refers to “Gaius, my host,
and the host of the whole church. . . .” This has been taken as evidence that the
entire congregation at least periodically utilized the home of Gaius to meet. Wayne A. Meeks adopts the “several household
groups” scenario but concedes, on the basis of this text, that they met
“occasionally” at Gaius’ home.[159] If “occasionally” why not
“regularly”? Especially as Meeks’
admission clearly implies it was quite spacious enough to hold them all?
Of course the problem of any
large group meeting in Gaius’ home arises from the
fact that homes could not physically accommodate such a large number of
people—on either an on-going or occasional basis. We emphasized the words “the host” in the
quote above because they are lacking in the actual text and have been provided
by the translators to complete the sense.
It is a quite probable reconstruction, but it is also ambiguous: a person could be “host” either in their own
house or in the sense of providing a meeting place large enough for the entire
congregation to meet, i.e., a place owned or controlled by Gaius but not his
home. In other words we may have here an
indication of who owned the place the entire group met even if we can
not identify whether it took the form of a warehouse or something else
entirely.
In Troas, for example we read of the
Christians gathering in an “upper room” (20:8) that was on the “third story” of
the building (20:9). Whether this be a warehouse or other commercial facility, they had
obtained the use of it. Would the
Corinthians be any less inclined to do so?
Indeed, one would not be surprised if Gaius or some other prosperous member
owned such a facility.
What we have said is not
to deny the existence of house churches, especially when the ministry in a city
was young and immature nor in those cases where a family was geographically so
separated from the others in the city that attendance would have been
impractical (likely the situation in Rome, where the epistle to Rome includes a
reference to the house church of Aquila and Priscilla [16:3-4], as if it were
separate from the church in that city).
What we are contending is that the introduction of house churches
into the Corinthian situation is far too conjectural, lacks adequate
evidence, and would have created a situation where explicit references to it by
Paul would have been required to adequately and accurately describe their
problems and how to solve them. And,
whatever faults critics may attribute to the apostle Paul, he was hardly likely
to have fallen short on such a score.
If there were house churches can any of
them be identified? If there
were house churches in Corinth, the importance implied about Stephanus (chapter
16) makes his home the likely meeting place of one.[160] Stephanus himself was apparently a man who
enjoyed financial independence. The
“household of Stephanas” is described as “the firstfruits (= converts) of
Achaia” and the entire household had “devoted themselves to the ministry of the
saints” (16:15). Without a significant
income that could be relied upon, it would have been impossible for them to so
fully have devoted themselves to the service of the church as their primary
goal--and that appears the clear implication of the text.
[Page
194] The importance of
the information obtained from Chloe’s household in chapter 1 would certainly
make her home the likely meeting place of another group.[161] The fact that she had the financial capacity
to send out representatives argues that she would have been an excellent
candidate for having a relatively large home by the standards of the day.
Assuming that Romans was
written from Corinth and that that epistle’s “Gaius” is the same individual referred
to by Paul in the current letter (1 Corinthians 1:14; cf. Romans 16:23), his
home would certainly have represented another likely site. Romans 16:23 mentions another individual
besides Gaius, “Erastus, the treasurer of the city” (of Corinth): his leading
role immediately makes his residence the likely place for another group to
meet.[162]
If the Crispus of 1 Corinthians 1:14 is the
same as the Jewish religious leader of Acts 18:8—and it is often assumed that
he was converted after the civil disturbance described in Acts--then it is
quite likely that he also was a person of independent means.[163] Hence we can isolate a minimum of five
specific individuals to connect with such groups. If one rejects the “house church”
reconstruction, as we do, these names at least enable us to identify at least
part of the socio-economic “upper class” of that congregation.
Yet
Paul speaks as if the problems he discusses all entail one group meeting in one
place at one time. Hence serious
consideration should be given to the possibility that Christians were somehow
able to obtain the use of some alternate facility: perhaps a floor of a warehouse or other
property owned by one of the members, as suggested earlier.
Kristine A. Haig estimates
the membership at around two hundred (though providing no line of reasoning to
explain how she came to that number),[164]
and a membership of such a size would certainly have been sufficient to be the
“seed bed” for the degree of successful divisiveness referred to in the
epistle. Indeed, it seems to virtually require
a hundred or two hundred to have produced this flagrant a series of breaches of
decorum and unity.
Notes
[1] For a
survey of typical Greek views of women—with the emphasis on the negative
aspects—see Bristow, 3-9. For their
status in Egypt, see 9-12.
[2] For a
negative evaluation of the theory that 11:2-16 is an interpolation, see David
E. Blattenberger, III, Rethinking 1 Corinthians
11:2-16 through Archaeological and Moral-Rhetorical Analysis (Lewiston, New
York: Edwin Mellen
Press, 1997), 6-8.
[3] John Drane, Paul: Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of
the Major Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975), 62.
[Page
195] [4] Some
have argued that the text is better rendered as “source” rather than “head” in
the occurrences of kephale in this verse. For a detailed defense of this view see Brauch, 134-140.
Barrett, Corinthians, 248-249 prefers to speak in terms of
“origin,” though with the same basic idea in mind. Among others who take this type of approach
is Bassler, 326.
On the other side of the question, for a thorough
examination of the use of the term in the Septuagint and other ancient sources
that it properly conveys the sense of “authority or supremacy over someone
else” (87) see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, According to
Paul: Studies in the Theology of the
Apostle (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1993), 83-88. A
second detailed negative critique of the preference for “source” over “head”
can be found in Blattenberger, 15-22. Thiselton, 811,
argues “that Paul deliberately uses a polymorphous concept, through a word that
has multiple meanings.” He believes that
“head” does not adequately include the various connotations that the word
carried, that “source” lacks adequate “lexicographical evidence” and that
“pre-eminent, foremost and synecdoche for a representative role” best defines
the ideas in mind (820-821).
[6] Quast, 68, stresses the lack of evidence for a shaved
head/prostitute correlation.
[7] One
might conjecture such situations as the result of being a public nuisance due
to drunkenness, belligerent behavior, or for theft from customers.
[8] Gen. Rab. 8.9, as
quoted by Ciampa and Rosner,
734.
[9] Marianne
Sawicki, Faith & Sexism: Guidelines for Religious Educators (New
York: Seabury
Press, 1979), 49.
[10] Gillian Beattie, Women and Marriage in Paul and
His Early Interpreters (London: T
& T Clarke, 2005), 52.
[11] Robert M. Grant, Paul, 38, quotes and
summarizes ancient views and argues that Paul misunderstood the ancient
Greco-Roman attitude. On the contrary,
the evidence he quotes is far more ambiguous:
Zeno defends both long hair and cutting it (i.e., making the
preference hinge upon what one is doing).
Dio Chrysostom
endorses long hair on males, which is essentially irrelevant if he expected even
longer hair on women as well (i.e., men had “short” hair when compared
with women). Epictetus
makes the male-female difference one of being able to have a beard, but there
the emphasis is on physical ability versus cultural enjoined expectations of feminity and masculinity.
For evidence that Dio Chrysostom
actually expected short hair on males and how that was the expected
Greco-Roman norm, see Winter, Corinth, 131-133.
[12] Blattenberger, 53-54.
[Page
196] [13]
Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile
Churches: Halakhah
and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 2000), 133.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., 133-134.
[16] For quotations and interpretations, see
Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 144-146.
He notes that some argue that certain of his interpretations are
conjectural (161-162) but argues, implicitly, that even if that were granted, the objection would only apply to some of the texts
and not all.
[17] Heil, n. 9, 180.
[18] On the
rhetorical style being utilized in approaching the subject this way, see Anders
Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof:
Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998), n. 30, 183.
[19] Allen, 140.
[20] Jon L. Berquist, Ancient Wine, New Wineskins: The Lord’s Supper in Old Testament
Perspective (St. Louis, Missouri:
Chalice Press, 1991), 54-61, quotes Isaiah 51:17, 21-22; Jeremiah
25:15-18, 28-29; 49:12; Ezekiel 23:31-33; and Habakkuk 2:15-17. The difficulty with this scenario as more
than sermonic application is that Paul mentions both the bread and cup
and the wrathful Divine giving of only the latter one
can be documented.
[21] Chow, n. 2, 183.
[22] Ibid., 183. Otfried Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper
Tradition: Reflections on 1 Corinthians
11:23b-25,” in One Loaf, One Cup:
Ecumenical Studies of 1 Corinthians 11 and Other Eucharistic Texts, edited by Ben F. Meyer (The Cambridge
Conference on the Eucharist, August 1988) (Macon, Georgia: Mercer, 1993) observes that the word “wait”
carries (according to context of usage in ancient Greek sources), the ideas of
“receiving,” “welcome,” “accept,” “take someone under one’s charge” and “take
someone under one’s wing” (93-94, with accompanying footnotes providing
specific cases). Hence the “waiting”
conveyed the ideas of courtesy and respect that we suggested.
[23] Baird, Urban
Culture, 123.
[24] Ben Witherington III, Making
a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of
the Lord’s Supper (Waco, Texas:
Baylor University Press, 2007), 60.
[25] Otto Knoch, “ ‘Do This in Memory of Me’ (Luke 22:20; 1
Corinthians 11:24-25): The celebration
of the Eucharist in the Primitive Christian Communities,” in One Loaf, One [Page 197]
Cup: Ecumenical Studies
of 1 Corinthians 11 and Other Eucharistic Texts, edited by Ben F. Meyer
(The Cambridge Conference on the Eucharist, August 1988) (Macon, Georgia: Mercer, 1993), 3-4, citing 12:14 as evidence
of preaching services, though 14:26 would seem a better text to argue
from.
[26] Georg Strecker, Theology of
the New Testament, completed by Friedrich W. Horn, translated from the
German by M. Eugene Boring (New York:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 168.
[27] Ibid., 170.
[28] R. K.
Harrison, Numbers, in the Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 110.
[29] A. Noordtzij, Numbers, translated by Ed van der Maas, in the Bible Student’s Commentary series
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 55. Others who take this kind of approach include
Riggans, 49, and Katharine D. Sakenfeld,
Journeying with God:
A Commentary on the Book of Numbers, in the International
Theological Commentary series (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1995), 36-37.
[30] For example, Raymond Bryan Brown, 353.
[31] Mare, 255.
[32] Ibid.,
256-257
[33] Graydon F. Snyder, 150-151.
[34] Orr and Walther, 259.
[35] Polhill, 244-245.
[36] Holtz, 62.
[37] Orr and Walther, 259.
[38] Graydon F. Snyder, 151.
[39] Witherington, Conflict, 233-234.
[40] Meggitt, 125.
[41]
Plutarch, Moralia, “The Roman
Questions,” 10, as quoted by Boring, Berger, and Colpe,
423.
[43]
Bristow, 58, for example says that these activities were “during public
worship,” a thesis he later repeats (61).
This common assumption is explicitly stated by such other scholars as Danielou, 9, Wilfrid Harrington, Jesus
and Paul: Signs of Contradiction
(Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier,
1987), 151, and Ute E. Eisen, Women Officeholders
in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies, translated by Linda
M. Maloney (Collegeville, Minnesota:
Liturgical Press, 2000), 68. Eisen provides a detailed collection of source documents
related to women in various leadership roles in the early centuries as well as
an extensive review of the possible meaning of the descriptive texts. John L. Thompson, Reading the Bible with
the Dead: What You Can Learn from the
History of Exegesis Is That You Can’t Learn from Exegesis Alone (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 115, simply concedes
that it was happening “presumably in public worship.” He notes that that the distinction between
what women could do in a worship versus private
setting was common in “patristic and medieval writers” and among Reformation
era Protestants, though in the latter often more grudgingly and cautiously
conceded (118).
[44] Richardson,
Freedom, 63. For another effort
to move the argument that public worship is under consideration beyond mere
interpreter’s assertion, see Boyer, 99-100.
[45] Freed, 273, is clearly inclined to think of a
“contradiction” between the two passages and hence suspects that the limiting
verses in chapter 14 are “a later interpolation.” If Pauline, he concedes that the two chapters
“may have in mind” different types of meetings, but does not pursue in what
ways they might be different. Mare, 277,
accepts the idea of two different contexts (private versus public worship)
being under consideration.
[46] For a
concise but detailed summary of the three approaches, see Richard Boldrey and Joyce Boldrey, Chauvinist
or Feminist? Paul’s
View of Women (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976),
36-40.
[47] Susanne
Heine, Women and Early Christianity: A Reappraisal,
translated from the second German edition by John Bowden (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), 97.
[48] Viewed favorably but without embracing it, by Getty, 1121, and Lambrecht, “1 Corinthians,” 1620.
[49] Quoted by Beattie, n. 70, 50.
[50] Orr and Walther, 261.
[Page 199] [51] De virginibus
velandis 7:2 and Adv. Marcionem
5.8.2, as noted by Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 418,
who notes its continuing popularity.
[52] Cf. Coffman, 171, and McGuiggan, 149.
[53] Viewed
favorably but without embracing, by Lambrecht, “1
Corinthians,” 1620, and Wilbur E. Nelson, Believe & Behave: A Study of First
Corinthians (Nashville, Tennessee: Sceptre Books, 1979), 117, and embraced by Harris, 145, and
Hooker, 116.
[54] Raymond Bryan Brown, 354; Bruce, Corinthians, 106; Kugelman, 270. For a lengthy
Qumran extract (4 Q 403, 1, 1.30-46) see Boring, Berger, and Colpe, 423-425.
[55] 1QSa 2:3-9, as quoted by Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 419. Also quoted in a slightly
different translation by Beattie, 49.
[56] Orr and Walther, 264.
[57] Weiss, Commentary,
225, sees it as clear-cut evidence of such a conviction.
[58] Edward
J. Kissane, The Book of Psalms; volume 2: Psalms 73-150 (Dublin, Ireland: Browne and Nolan, Limited, 1954), 289..
[59] A. A.
Anderson, 2:901 and Fitzmyer, Corinthians,
418. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms; Books IV and V, Psalms XC-CL
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1901), 784, speculates that it did so “probably fearing to seem to attribute a
real existence to heathen gods. . . .”
[60] A. A.
Anderson, 2:901.
[61] A. A. Anderson, 2:901; Kirkpatrick, IV and V, 784; Kissane, 289.
[62] A. A. Anderson, 2:901; Kirkpatrick, IV and V, 784.
[63] Kissane, 289.
[64] Brauch, 149.
[65] George
H. Livingston, “Psams 73-150,” in Job-Song of
Solomon, in the Wesleyan Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1968), 441.
[66]
Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III: 101-150, in the Anchor Bible
series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday
& Company, Inc., 1970), 276-277. G.
A. F. Knight, Psalms, volume 2, in the Daily Study Bible series
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983),
317, provides an impressive conjectural reconstruction of a situation in which
this might occur.
[68] Cf.
Price, 805, who takes this in the narrow sense as her right to be free of
“assault or molestation.”
[69] Murphy-O’Connor, Doubleday, 115.
[70] Winter,
Corinth, 136-138.
[71] For
examples of the prevalent interpretation of the covering as a literal veil, see
among others, Bruce, Corinthians, 106;
Cartledge, 105; Frederick C. Grant, 93; Hargreaves, 144; Hughes, 271; Kugelman,
270; Lambrecht, “1 Corinthians,” 1621; MacGorman, 132; Neil, 459; Parry, xlviii; Price, 805;
Robertson and Plummer, 226, 230, 324; Ernest F. Scott, 136; J. Selby, 365;
Russell D. Snyder, 473; Henry C. Thiessen, 206;
Thrall, 78; Vanderwaal, 24; Weiss, Introduction,
275.
[72] Gerd Theissen, Psychological
Aspects of Pauline Theology, translated from the German by John P. Galvin
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987),
159-160, divides it into three types (and provides a description), all of which
covered the head and one of which could be adjusted to cover the face as
well.
[73] Goodspeed, 51, makes this point though without actually
quoting the text.
[74] Connick, 279.
[75] Raymond Bryan Brown, 353; Boldrey and Boldrey, 59; and Connick, 279.
[76] Price,
805-806. The late twentieth century
expression of this was the popular western attitude that one should do “do your
own thing” even if it makes everyone else annoyed and even nauseous.
[77] On
contradictory evidence as to the “need” for a headcovering
in the then current society, see Talbert, 67.
[78] For a
survey of grave reliefs in this context, see Theissen, Psychological, 161-162.
[79] Mare, 255, 256; Witherington, Conflict,
234. For a lengthy discussion of
the evidence, see Blattenberger, 56-61.
[80] Witherington, Conflict, 234-235.
[81] Coffman, 164.
[82] Blattenberger,
n. 53, 57.
[84] Luke T.
Johnson, Writings, 285.
[85] Bruce, Converts,
85.
[86] Not
quite embracing this interpretation but recognizing its appeal, Richards, Gospel.
50, suggests that “He toys (our emphasis) with the idea that female hair
is already a kind of veil—nature’s own indication that women’s heads should be
covered.” For a detailed defense of the
scenario that hair and not veils is actually under discussion see Blattenberger (entire work). Fiorenza, 227,
takes the approach that the “veil” is the hair and the subject is the hair
style to be utilized while praying or prophesying, i.e., it is not to be
disheleved or in disarray. She argues, in effect, that such echoes the LXX’s association of lack or orderly hair with uncleanness,
“Numbers 5:18 (LXX) prescribes that the woman accused of adultery be marked
publicly by loosening her hair.
Similarly, in Leviticus 13:45 (LXX), one of the signs for the
uncleanness of a leper is loose hair” (228).
[87] Bruce, Answers,
95.
[88] Cf. the
discussion of this view in Mare, 255, where it is discussed without making a
commitment; in the discussion on 256, Mare appears more receptive to the
approach.
[89] Murphy-O’Connor, Message, 107.
[90] Ibid.
[91] Mare, 259.
[92] Zahn, 284-285.
[93] This is
in contrast to the dominant view that Paul is protesting against the abuse of
the common meal rather than its very existence as part of the church
meeting. For a defense of the
traditional approach and understanding see McGuiggan,
154-157. For a survey of options as to
where one could eat outside one’s literal home, see Witherington,
Conflict, 191-195.
[94] Implied by Henshaw, 236-237.
[95] Cf. Grosheide, 267-268.
[96] This
seems to be the approach of Thrall, 83.
For a discussion of the varied ways in which food, even when provided by
the host, could be used as a tool of snobbery or disrespect, see Chow, 111-112.
[98] Price,
806; Roetzel, Paul, 87; and Rafael Avila, Worship
and Politics, translated from the Spanish by Alan Neely (Maryknoll, New York:
Orbis Books, 1981), 56.
[99] Cf. Jurgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation,
translated by the German by Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 266.
[100] For
the use and abuse of the Saturnalia, see Witherington,
Conflict, 241-242.
[101] Barry
D. Smith, 91.
[102] Chenderlin, 179.
[103] Avila, 56.
[104] Koenig, 69.
[105] Lipscomb and Shepherd, 172.
[106] Grosheide, 269.
[107] Keck, 30. For the
same argument, among others, also see Barrett, Corinthians,
264-265. Perkins, Ministering,
43, opts for Paul having learned the tradition specifically in Antioch.
[108]
William R. Farmer, “Peter and Paul, and the Tradition Concerning ‘The Lord’s
Supper’ in 1 Corinthians 22:23-26,” in One Loaf, One Cup: Ecumenical Studies of 1 Corinthians 11 and
Other Eucharistic Texts, edited by Ben F. Meyer (The Cambridge Conference
on the Eucharist, August 1988) (Macon, Georgia:
Mercer, 1993), 36.
[109] McFadyen, 160.
[110] Thekkekara, 112, “The apostle had received it from the Lord
through the community.”
[111] Moule, Worship, 24.
[112] Ibid.
[113]
Alexander B. MacDonald, 144-145.
MacDonald (148) did not believe that Jesus actually instituted the
commemoration. Also presenting the
vision scenario as one reasonable explanation of Paul’s remarks is McFadyen, 160.
[114] Mare, 259.
[116] Vine, Corinthians, 157.
[117]
Harrington, 174-175, suggests that the Corinthians may have fallen into the
trap of viewing Jesus as only a historic figure of the past rather than still
alive and at work through them.
[118] Knoch, 7.
[119] Cf.
Paul Bradshaw, Early Christian Worship:
A Basic Introduction to Ideas and Practice (Collegeville,
Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1996), 40.
[120] George
Panikulam, Koinonia
in the New Testament: A Dynamic
Expression of Christian Life (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 19.
[121] Moloney, 161.
[122] Branick, House
Church, 110.
[123] Orr and Walther, 271.
[124] Donald
Parsons, The Holy Eucharist; Rite Two—A Devotional Commentary
(New York: Crossroad Books/Seabury Press, 1976), 69-70.
[125] Cf. Ciampa
and Rosner, 736.
[126] Ibid., 70.
[127] Ibid.
[128] Ibid., 70, though without citing any specific text in
particular.
[129] Chenderlin, 201.
[130] Ibid., 217.
[131]
“Most,” says Robert L. Deffinbaugh, Let Me See Thy
Glory: A Study
of the Attributes of God ([N.p.]: Biblical Studies Press, 1997), 67.
[132] Peter Verkruyse, Building
Blocks for Bible Study: Laying a
Foundation for Life ([N.p.]: College Press, 1997), 62.
[133] Brauch, 137.
[135] Schreiner, 382, oddly defines Paul’s expression
exclusively in this aspect, overlooking that there were several forms it was
taking.
[136] Deffinbaugh, 68.
[137] Francis J. Moloney, A
Body Broken for a Broken People:
Eucharist in the New Testament, Revised
Edition (Peabody, Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 153.
[138] Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (London: Epworth Press, 1971), 81.
[139] Berquist, 62.
[140] Brauch, 158.
[141]
Harris, 154, stresses that the practical result is the same in either interpretation: once we grasp “the close connection of
‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ relationships,” it follows that when we recognize
that Christ is present through the Supper then that knowledge requires
us to undertake “a worthy eating [of it], which excludes acts of unbrotherliness” as well.
[142]
Wainwright, 81-82.
[143] Puskas, 49.
[144] Branick, House Church, 64, and Kistemaker,
Exposition, 509.
[145] Yeo, 91.
[146]
Raymond E. Brown, 522, embraces very cautiously the possibility that an
invited meal situation may be under consideration. Footnote 35, 522, mentions the 50 person
capacity and uses it to conjecture the possibility that the most important
members ate in the dining room and the less important members in the
courtyard. Those with nothing, of
course, did not come till the estimated time for the formal worship and
communion. This still presents the problem of inadequate size for the number of
likely church members.
Perkins, Reading,
177-178, also speaks in terms of fifty individuals but identifies those in the
eating room as “friends of the host” while “the others would be crowded sitting
in the courtyard.” The picture in
Corinthians, again, seems to differ; there we seem to have either individuals
and/or multiple groups eating separately while the others have nothing. This type of scenario has room for only one
group doing the eating. Also there is
the problem of whether cliques of the type Paul rebukes can be reduced to a
mere family friendship circle.
Murphy-O’Connor, Doubleday, 118, thinks in
terms of a range around forty-fifty individuals.
[148] Murphy-O’Connor, Doubleday, 118.
[149] Cf. Verdiere, n. 20, 45,
suggests 50-100 members in a single meeting house-home. The lower number might, barely, be
feasible, but the latter seems clearly “over-reaching” for a single home.
[150] Branick, House Church,
64, suggests that the author of Luke-Acts may have had a faulty memory. Also taking the view that a large
congregation is in mind are (by implication rather than direct assertion)
Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, Paul: Saint of
the Inner City (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1990), 41, and William H. Willimon, Acts, in the series Interpretation: A Bible Commentary
for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1988), 145.
Parker, 153, indicates a large congregation by describing verses 9-11 as
depicting “a period of steady growth.”
[151] For example, Dodd, 34.
[152] Branick, House
Church, 22; of Corinth in particular, 24.
[153] Ibid., 23.
[154]Ibid. Implied by Yeo, 91-92.
[155] Kistemaker, Exposition,
386.
[156] Becker, 255.
[157] Ibid.
[158] Ibid.
[159] Wayne A. Meeks, “Corinthian Christians as Artificial
Aliens,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen
(Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2001), 132.
[160] Branick, House Church, 63.
[161] Fuller, 42.
[Page 206] [162]For an interesting critique of whether such an officer
had to be a socially prominent and wealthy individual, see Meggitt,
135-136. Meggitt
makes the case that Erastus was the “treasurer” of
the church in the city of Corinth.
[163] For the case that Crispus’
post did not carry such a connotation, however, see Ibid.,
141-143.
[164]
Kristine A. Haig, In the One Spirit: Paul’s First Letter to the Christians in
Corinth ([N.p.]: Congregational Ministries Division,
Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., 1995), 4, is content to simply mention that “some
scholars” (unidentified) have suggested that number and she, herself, gives no
indication of dissent from it.