From: A Torah
Commentary on First
Corinthians 1-6 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2011
Chapter 3: [Page 43]
Focuses for Conflict within the
Congregation
1.
Paul’s Immediate Reason for Writing:
Rampant Factionalism
To judge by his lengthy indignation and discussing the matter before anything else, the major reason for Paul writing was profound annoyance at the Corinthian divisiveness (chapter 1). Even so, he had the need to communicate with them on other matters as well since they had questions which they desired to have him answer (7:1) and since these either could or already had become the excuse for local cliques. These questions certainly included matters of sexual conduct (celibacy, divorce, remarriage after divorce) since these are discussed immediately after being introduced by the statement “concerning the things of which you wrote to me” (7:1).
Chapter 8 begins with the statement “concerning things offered to idols:” in light of the similarity to the earlier statement (7:1) and in light of this following immediately afterwards, this was virtually certainly another subject matter over which they had expressed concern to Paul.
Each
of these areas represents issues that call forth strong emotions and were
natural points around which division could arise. The fact that Corinth was division stained
and in light of the fact that these were issues that were presented to him, it
seems inescapable that these issues had become factional issues as well, with
one group favoring a given view on each of these in contradiction to those of
the other groups. Whether members of a given faction agreed on
each of these must be speculatory: if
modern experience is any guide, a church with even just a handful of factions
may well find a minority within a party agreeing with the dominant view on that
subject found in a different group. Yet
they maintain their own loyalty to a given clique because the points where they
are in agreement with their own camp are counted as of greater importance than
where they were in agreement with the views of competing groups.
Did the Corinthians send questions on other issues over which they were divided and which Paul treats in his letter? The discussion of miraculous gifts in the church is prefaced with the remark, “Now concerning spiritual gifts brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant” (12:1). The similarity in language to that introducing the controversies over sexual morality and offerings to idols could indicate that he has returned to another of their queries.[1] Since the utilization of these gifts certainly represented a matter over which envy and assertiveness could aggravate factional pride, it is inherently probable
[Page 44] that they had such differences whether
or not they raised the subject to Paul.
In
discussing the contribution for the needy, Paul introduces it with the remark,
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the
If they had raised a question it is likely to have been one of genuine interest rather than factional maneuvering. To this commentator, however, it reads more like Paul is simply incidentally using similar language to introduce a completely new topic, i.e., this was the first time that he had mentioned his desires to them on the matter. If it was, it is unlikely to have already been a topic of division! Alternatively, his prior remarks may not have been specific enough to galvanize the immediate action that was required and he wished to correct that situation.
The
final use of “concerning” language is about Apollos, “Now concerning our
brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to come to you with the brethren, but he
was quite unwilling to come at this time; however, he will come when he has a
convenient time” (
In addition to possible disagreements over these matters, Paul explicitly refers to divisions in the assembly at the time of the partaking of the Lord’s Supper (chapter 11) and the common denial of a personal bodily resurrection (chapter 15). These issues may or may not have been included in the letter the Corinthians sent, but since he was discussing divisive issues he clearly felt they had to be dealt with--on his own initiative if they had not introduced the subjects themselves.
The danger in expanding their query list too broadly lies in the fact that Paul’s use of other sources (see next section) would have been needless if they had already introduced all the matters themselves. Of course, it could be that what his other informants had provided him were details of the passion, intensity, and venom with which the disagreements were accompanied. This could easily transform matters of concern to Paul into matters of intense worry.
Some
have detected a unifying theme among the various contradictory beliefs in the
Corinthian rival factions: each claimed
to have a unique insight/knowledge (“gnosis”) that the others did not
share. Since this led to behavior that
was destructive of the apostolic standard of orthodoxy, this is understood as a
kind --or, since the beliefs were contradictory, perhaps we should use the
plural “kinds”--of primitive Gnosticism, in which the initiated and elect have
possession of “truths” the mass of believers are either unaware of or unwilling
to accept. In this approach, the full fledged
form did not evolve till the next century but the basic mind-frame leading to
it was already at work.[4]
Taking it from this standpoint, a belief in being “above” the world and the world having lost its controlling “power” could lead in very contradictory directions. For one it could lead to an extreme asceticism, such as forsaking the marital obligations to engage
[Page 45] in fasting. For another it could lead to consorting with prostitutes and promiscuous dealings with outsiders in which the lack of standards established the tone of the relationship. After all, if one was “free” from the world, its worse could do no harm.[5]
At this stage, there was almost certainly no formal Gnostic theory to formally justify such excesses.[6] We are dealing with extremes that could easily arise from Pauline teaching and which--if persevered in for a lengthy period of time--would only then be formalized into a organized body of thought. It is not so much that Gnosticism created such behavior as such behavior required the ultimate invention of Gnosticism to justify itself.
2.
Paul’s Sources of Information on
the Internal
Corinthian Divisions
Three
distinct sources of information were available to Paul in preparing his
epistle.
First there was the
earlier letter written by the Corinthian congregation (referred to in 7:1),
which certainly informed Paul of some of the subjects that were in contention
within their church. On the other
hand, the fact that the presence of the incestuous man seemingly had raised no
(or, at most, merely token) objection argues that there would have been no need
felt to mention the matter. Nor, if they
mentioned the lawsuits at all, were they likely to explicitly bring up the fact
that some of their members had unquestionably been acting dishonorably and
dishonestly (6:8), thereby creating the legal challenges in the first place.
Hence on at least these
two subject matters it is unlikely that Paul gained much or any of his
knowledge of internal conditions from their epistle to him. What, then, were Paul’s sources of
information on the matters they had omitted or downplayed?
Perhaps
the most obvious source were the people of Chloe’s household (
W. B.
Harris speculates, on the basis of the fact that it was a common name among
slaves, that she herself was a freedwoman who had obtained success in some type
of business venture.[9] The
fact that she could afford to send messengers argues that she was
financially well off. With that would
have come a recognition of her as “a woman of prominence and power” within her
home congregation.[10]
Theoretically she could have been a resident of Ephesus (where Paul was apparently currently residing) who had sent her representatives to Corinth—presumably for trade purposes[11]—and they brought back the alarming word of what they had seen and heard. The Corinthians might be able to hide the seriousness of their problems by
[Page 46] not
communicating them to Paul, but they would have no way of hiding them from
outsiders who, alarmed at the situation, would pass word on to the apostle the
next time they saw him.
More common seems to be
the assumption that she was a resident of
Against Chloe being a
resident of
On the other hand it seems
more probable that she was a very respected member of the group.[13] Even in a divided congregation there are
usually a few people who seem able to “stand above the storm” and to enjoy the
respect of the bulk of members and she could well have been one such person. Certainly Paul would have been unlikely to
give her name if she had been a controversial member or one who could have been
easily retaliated against for passing word to him as to the local
circumstances.
But that still leaves the question
of just what specific information did her people provide the
apostle? Did they mention the other
problems Paul discusses? Since the
answer is not explicitly given, we must deal with deduction and inference and
those lead commentators in significantly different directions.
Some believe that since that
household had provided information, that there is no good reason to
limit it to the one topic of general divisiveness that is specified. Indeed, having claimed division
existed, one would have expected specific examples to be given—indeed,
the more there were, and the more significant they were, the more likely Paul
was to be aroused to intervene.[14]
Furthermore, referring to Chloe’s household as the source of his facts,
could constitute an implicit ruling out of any responsibility (or blame?) being
put on the three man delegation of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus who were
now with him (16:17).[15] Some have speculated that this argues
that the divisions erupted after they had left to go to Paul.[16] The argument, however, is based on the
assumption that they arrived at
Finally, there was the likely facts
provided by of the three man delegation of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus
(
[Page 47] It has been reasonably speculated that
the Corinthian letter to Paul was delivered by this three man group,[18]
perhaps functioning as an official delegation from the congregation. The very letter itself would provide an
insight into either current or potential problems for the group and would raise
obvious questions for Paul to present to whoever brought the correspondence. They could hardly have avoided answering them
without making Paul even more concerned as to the true situation.
Furthermore, the query was
surely inescapable, “Are there any other problems?” which would directly
lead to a mention of one or more of the issues not specified in the
letter. Indeed, any effort to dodge a
straight answer would have provoked an even greater Pauline determination to
get out of them—or other sources—the complete story. Whether from them or not, whoever did
deliver the epistle would certainly have faced just that situation. And whoever came later, face inquiries as to
whether the situation had been accurately presented and still persisted.
While only unidentified
members of Chloe’s household had come to Paul, here the householder,
Stephanas himself, had undertaken the long journey. We do not know who “Fortunatus and Achaicus”
were but they may well have been members of his household as well--again either
bondservants or freemen. Certainly it
would be surprising if a man of such substance would have traveled without the
presence of such individuals and Paul’s passing over such attendants in silence
would be odd, if they also were believers.
If, however, they were other important members of the congregation
rather than members of his personal household, the number of Paul’s sources of
independent information were even greater.
If some make Chloe’s
household the primary source of Paul’s information (above), a very different
reconstruction, not surprisingly, is available that deduces the very
opposite: that these three men were the main
basis of Pauline knowledge, at last of certain significant matters. For example, W. B. Harris suspects that the
information about the problems discussed in chapter 11 (and presumably the
following chapters as well) were primarily dependent upon the delegation’s
report, though possibly supplemented by information from Chloe’s people as
well.[19]
The most important thing,
of course, was not the exact source that Paul gained his information but the
fact that he obtained it at all. Having done
so, he felt it not only useful but vital to deal pointedly with the various
matters that were tearing away at the congregation.
3.
Sexual Morality As a
Source of Disagreement
Contrary to the late twentieth century delusion that the generation coming to adulthood in the 1960s and 1970s had discovered the joys and pleasures of unrestrained licentiousness, the first century world was equally aware of them. They engaged in all its forms from visual and written pornography to unrestrained sexual expression outside the
[Page 48] bonds of matrimony. Indeed, it had some forms that would have
been embarrassing even to the “modern” mind, in particular religious cultic
prostitution.
Hence it is not surprising
that the apostle Paul was forced to deal with such matters when writing to a
congregation located in a major seaport, where the financial and psychological incentive
to provide and enjoy such “pleasures” would have been regarded as quite
natural. Furthermore the city’s
reputation for indulgence to a degree that surpassed most other cities would
have further predisposed many toward acceptance of such behavior.
In
the case of the Corinthian church, the issues involved both matters socially
condoned by most and those that were even beyond the pale of contemporary
society’s generous boundaries on sexual conduct. Prostitution was readily available and,
though Paul does not explicitly accuse the members of involvement, his
sustained argument against participation (1 Corinthians
Since so many other issues
were tearing the congregation apart, perhaps he simply thought it best to avoid
explicitly stirring in yet another one. Prostitution, by its very nature, was
private. Deniability was nearly always
an option. Rather than go down that
path, he chooses to deal with issues that were not so easily hidden.
Other
sexual sins are referred to--but only in passing--in his list of behaviors that
would keep a person from “inherit[ing] the kingdom of God” (6:9-10): fornication (pre-marital sexual intercourse),
adultery (sexual intercourse with someone besides one’s spouse) and
homosexuality (being careful to specify both the “active” and “passive”
partners lest one try to use the distinction to wiggle around his rebuke). He pointedly notes that “such were
some of you” but that they had been transformed by their conversion (
What
he could not ignore or disguise behind the semi-transparent veil of “abstract”
teaching, was the son who had his father’s wife (5:1). Whether we take this in terms of actual
marriage or simply living with the woman after his father’s death or
divorce—issues which will be examined in the commentary itself—the key fact was
that the first century Gentile could hardly imagine a more shocking
behavior. Even by their lenient standards,
the Corinthian church had hit rock bottom by tolerating such a person.
In
addition to the individual’s own salvation (5:5) and the impact it had on
degrading the moral behavior of other believers (5:6), such conduct created a
horrendous obstacle to converting outsiders.
Hence it had to be dealt with because of both its internal and
extra-church repercussions.
In
chapter seven, Paul turns to subjects on which there are, on at least several
of the matters, equally moral choices:
for example, choosing celibacy instead of marriage, deciding to marry
after a long-term engagement versus leaving things as they were due to the societal
“distress” facing them, and that of celibacy instead of remarriage after the
death of one’s spouse.
In addition there was the potentially divisive issue of if and when there could be divorce by a believer: did Jesus’ fundamental opposition apply to divorce in situations involving a non-believer (marriage with such a person being virtually incomprehensible within the geographically Palestinian context in which Jesus had labored and taught). Or
[Page 49] was this such a dramatically distinct
context, that a different approach was permissible? This issue, ironically enough, deserved discussion
within a chapter devoting so much of its space—directly or indirectly—to
celibacy and that was because celibacy would be at least one of the options
available to the divorced. Indeed, quite
possibly, the preferred choice for a good number of Corinthians.
How different our
contemporary world, in which divorce is virtually assumed to “inevitably” lead
to remarriage! Different
societies, with different sets of assumptions, yet still wrestling with the
same fundamental issues of if and when marriages can or should be terminated
and, if so, what would then be the best and right course of behavior.
4.
The Abuse of the Communion
As a Source of Discord
C. F. D. Moule is
quite correct in reminding us that the New Testament provides no “technical
name” for the commemoration.[20] Even so, it does offer us data suggesting
that several appellations were considered appropriate in the first century. Four of the five terms used to describe the
Communion—or forms of the term—are found in the current epistle. The fifth is the “Mass” and, that comes in
the post-apostolic period from the Latin word missio and originally
referred to the “closed” nature the celebration had become: outsiders and catechumens were dismissed from
the meeting and the members then partook of the bread and fruit of the vine.[21]
Paul
H. Jones describes the English derivation of the four scripturally related
terms,[22]
One of the
most common terms is “Holy Communion.”
Its scriptural usage is found in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “the cup of
blessing that we bless, is it not a koinonia in the blood of
Christ?” Although traditional
translations (King James Version) render koinonia “communion,” more
recent translations use “participation” (Revised Standard Version and New
International Version), “sharing” (New Revised Standard Version and Today’s
English Version) or “means of sharing” (New English Bible).
A second
term, “Lord’s Supper,” represents the usual translation (King James Version,
Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New English Version) of
Paul’s phrase kyriakon deipnon, which describes the church’s common meal
that in Paul’s view is being defiled by the Corinthians, “When you come
together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20).
A third
term, “the breaking of the bread,” is found in Acts
The fourth term, “eucharist,” is derived from the Greek word eucharistia
[Page 50] which means “thanksgiving.” Although the noun form is not found in the
New Testament, except as a variant reading in 1 Corinthians 10:16; its verbal
form, “to give thanks,” may be found in Mark 14:23, Luke 22:17, 19 and 1
Corinthians 11:24. Within a short time
it became the favorite expression which the early church used to designated its
communal meal.
One
major worship problem that the Corinthian church suffered from was an abuse of
the Lord’s Supper. Whether we take the
factional partying (11:21) as incorporating the Communion or as technically separate
from it, Paul tore into the behavior not merely because it blatantly manifested
their internal division, but even more so because it humiliated their poorer co-religionists
(11:22).
Paul conceived of
the church as an institution whose members behaved in a loving manner toward
each other. This
concept of loving in deed rather than just in word lies behind
the lengthy discussion in Chapter 13 on the nature of love. Indeed, if they had been able to fully grasp
this principle, that alone would have resolved many if not all of their
internal problems. Instead, their separate
cliques’ determination to dominate permitted them to ignore or roll over the
inhibitions and limitations of others.
This
was bad enough when it came to giving more loyalty to faction leaders than to
Christ (
Hence
to restore the unifying intent of the Lord’s Supper, Paul had even more reason
to vigorously insist that it be partook of in a respectful manner (
In
our modern context the problem is virtually 180 degrees diametrically
opposite: To the Corinthians it was a
matter of partaking while visibly acting in a manner indicating that it was not
being taken seriously. The modern
participant is unlikely to fall into that trap.
The modern danger is typically that of partaking without adequately
meditating upon the significance of what one is doing. It becomes, too often, an empty form and
ritual and not a true “communing” with the Lord.
Where
did Paul gain his knowledge of the Supper and its institution? He describes it in this fashion, “I received
from the Lord that which I also delivered to you” (
True,
Paul might have learned this Jesus tradition from more than one source. In the case of the Communion, Paul had been
on his way to
[Page 51] church. His own teaching (barring learning anything
suggesting to him it was defective) would naturally reflect what he had seen
and heard there.[23] Yet that would not preclude him--assuming
one believes that “inspiration” was a genuine, externally produced phenomena--from
receiving more details of how it was instituted or having that teaching
confirmed by direct revelation.
5. The Abuse
of Tongue Speaking
and Prophecy
As a Source
of Conflict
Paul makes crystal
clear that he had no problem with the presence of miraculous gifts being
utilized in the church assembly. Indeed,
in regard to tongue-speaking he asserts that he exercised the gift more than
others (
In
criticizing the Corinthian practice he does so with two major factors in mind:
(1) The use of such gifts was to be for the
collective good and not for the enhancement of one’s personal prestige. In doing this he is attempting to repair the
damage that Corinthian factiousness had inflicted upon their congregation.
Hence
we read of the essentiality of one prophet yielding to another when an
additional message had been received (
Another
limitation was that when “tongues” were involved they were not to utilize that gift
unless an interpreter is present (
(2) The use of such gifts was never to be in such
a manner as to lower the reputation of the church in the surrounding
community. He warns that “if the whole
church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come
in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out
of your mind” (14:23). Hence the need to
limit the number of speakers and assure that there was an interpreter
present. Otherwise their collective
wisdom—yea, even sanity—would be questioned.
Prophecy was to be
utilized to “convince” and “convict” the listener (
How
common were these phenomena?
[Page 52] only
student of the question to conclude that, “Charismatic worship, in the form in
which St. Paul describes it, was perhaps more characteristic of the early
Hellenistic converts, who quickly moved away from Jewish models, than it was of
the sober Mother-Church at
The sad fact is that we do
not have any other New Testament epistle that provides such in-depth data about
any congregation’s worship, either Jewish or Gentile dominated, and any
conclusions must reflect that scarcity of information. It would be just as compatible with the
Corinthian data to conclude that the utilization of these “gifts” was just as
common in other churches and that the only reason they were discussed at length
here was due to their abuse.
If we deny that such
practices were widely known and followed, the common emphasis upon the apostolic
letters normally growing out of “real life problems”—rather than being abstract
analyses—comes back to haunt us: Unless
there were blatant excesses, phenomena like tongue speaking and prophesying
were unlikely to be mentioned in the first place.
Furthermore,
if the “gifts” weren’t widespread, Paul would surely have felt obligated to
make some reference to the “special blessing” that the Corinthians had
received: It was bad enough that they
were abusing their gifts of the Spirit; how powerful an argument if he could
have said that they were some of the few—or even the only ones—to have them! To look at this from another viewpoint, assuming
that the exchange of epistles was widespread, one would have anticipated some
explanation of the phenomena, at least in passing, to make them comprehensible
to those in other places where they were not available or exercised. Yet they are presented in a straightforward,
matter-of-fact manner, as if any reader who encountered the epistle would have
an understanding of what was being described.
Furthermore,
there are at least some indications of the phenomena in other
congregations. In 1 Thessalonians there
is the admonition, “Do not quench the Spirit.
Do not despise prophecies. Test
all things; hold fast what is good” (
The
Corinthian epistle itself clearly implies the use of tongue speaking at other
places that
Dealing with tongue-speaking and the associated phenomena described in this epistle, forces the modern mind to confront fundamental religious/theological issues: Has God, can God, would God ever actually act in the “literal” manner the text clearly conveyed to its original readers? This involves not only a historical question but one of
[Page 53] underlying assumptions. If one believes God either can not or would
not, then one has to seek out an alternative scenario to explain what we read.
The
most obvious explanation is pure unmitigated invention. Yet that approach suffers (regardless of
one’s presuppositions) from the fact that the phenomena is described in such a mixed
manner. Paul is not trying to encourage,
but to rein in what is happening.
Indeed, if it were pure invention with a Pauline origin, one
would anticipate a glowing and totally positive presentation and the avoidance
of any rebuke to what was happening. If
a purely local invention one would expect the other extreme of a
thorough and complete repudiation. The
fact that we have the combination of theoretical acceptance and even
endorsement with efforts to control the way the phenomena was expressed, argues
that something objectively “real” (and controllable) was under discussion.
Exaggeration
is another explanation that can be utilized to explain what was happening. There was a genuine “something” to at least some
of the phenomena, but its practitioners—and Paul in his zeal—exaggerated its true
significance and origin. Then there is
the possibility of the psychological origin of the phenomena, which fits in
well with the exaggeration scenario, especially if we opt for the “ecstatic”
(rather than real languages) interpretation of the tongues.
Rarely in
Scripture do we have God providing an external verbal message to an
audience. Moses at the burning bush and
God’s praise of Jesus at His baptism are the two most easily remembered
exceptions. “Inspiration” of all
types—however accomplished—was an internal phenomena, the interaction
between the recipient and the Almighty.
It was not something that others normally saw or heard.
To
those who believe that there was a genuine and objectively real interaction,
the mode could be anything from dictation to a warning sensation when the
writer was getting ready to deviate from what God wanted. To those who believe that all “inspiration”
comes from an inner reach for that mysterious “something” that lies beyond mortal
flesh, it all comes from elevated human aspirations and striving for moral
excellence.
Assuming
that the miraculous gifts in Corinthians were objectively and historically
real, that would still leave the question of whether they continue to exist
today and, if so, whether they would be manifested in the same form and manner. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 certainly reads as if
at some point such phenomena were to come to an end. Have we reached it?
When one reads the
restrictions on the phenomena given by Paul (a limited number of speakers,
their speaking one after another rather than simultaneously, the prohibition of
women exercising the gifts in the public assembly) we are faced with the
virtual abandonment of them in that segment of the modern religious world that claims
to be the advocates of “spiritual gifts.”
Shall we interpret this as an indication that the phenomena has passed
from genuine (first century) into the psychological (today) . . . that the
modern practitioners are in blatant defiance of the apostolic regulations and
hence are sinners . . . or that somehow the rules have been changed (and if so
by whom and when, since the majority of such practitioners claim to go by the
“scripture alone” standard)?
It is one of the oddities of contemporary religious discussion that some of the most liberal and the most conservative join together in interpreting Biblical tongue speaking as primarily or exclusively ecstatic or, to be blunt, “jibberish.” To the liberal
[Page 54] this permits one to dismiss the entire
phenomena as subjective and as having nothing truly and overtly Divine; to the
conservative this permits one the liberty of learning “how” to speak
tongues—rather than waiting to receive it from God. This is accomplished by the repetition of a
routine of nonsense syllables that, combined with the proper frame of mine,
ultimately encourages one to utilize it in collective worship. Hence one can literally be “coached” in
techniques that permit one to “speak in tongues” in this sense of the term.[26]
To
further complicate the picture, there appear to be occasional well documented
contemporary cases in which an individual does speak in such services in
a genuine foreign language which he or she is consciously unaware of having
heard.[27] How does one seeking to totally dismiss the
objective reality of modern tongue-speaking deal with this? Even more perplexing (but to those on the
other side of the issue), how does one explain that such a tiny fraction of
modern glossolia represents genuine “language-tongues?”
In
this context we can only outline the potential lines of division and note
potential answers for them. Some of them
we can provide partial answers to in the text of our commentary. In the final analysis, however, the answers
generally are inescapably linked to one’s working presuppositions. The claim of “total objectivity” is virtually
untenable in this area of analysis no matter how much the twenty-first century
“scientific” mind would prefer for it to be.
6.
Women’s Role in the
Congregation As
a Source
of Division
Of all the issues
discussed in the epistle, this is probably the most contentious one as the
effort is made to apply the teaching to the modern world. For what comfort it may be, it should be
noted that Paul himself implied that the teaching was going to be such that
many of his contemporaries would not like.
Otherwise his prolonged argumentation would not have been
necessary. Yet if a goodly number of them
did not feel comfortable with it, why should it be surprising that many in our
contemporary world feel similar discomfort?
On
the positive level, Paul expresses clear respect for specific women. Although he does not explicitly praise Chloe
(
Yet on the practical level, he provided guidelines for female behavior in general, some of which seems odd (due to our different cultural setting) and others which are antithetical to current dominant theological interpretations of women’s proper status and
[Page 55] role.
Dominant, that is, in certain theologies, in certain religions, and in
certain strata of certain religions. Different
theologies, different religions, and different segments of
specific communities of faith quite often feel anything from actual reassurance
to only mild discomfort. Because we
react with one degree of intensity, it would be unwise to assume that everyone
else does as well.
As
to Paul’s specific teachings regarding women three areas draw special attention:
* The women were to maintain traditional
sexual distinctions in attire that allowed males and females to be readily told
apart. In chapter 11, Paul refers to
the need for women to have long hair and to have their heads covered while
repudiating both for males. Whether one
takes the “covering” (as we do) as equivalent to the long hair or as two
separate phenomena, he is clearly enjoining two separate types of physical
appearance or attire for the genders. Both
genders wore what we today would call “skirts” just as our contemporaries of
both sexes, commonly wear “pants,” yet there clearly were sufficient stylistic
differences between them that one could still quickly tell the difference
between the male and the female—in part because of the distinct hair styles
expected of the two sexes.
* They were
to avoid asking public questions or disrupting the assembly. Rather than pressing their questions in the
assembly they were to discuss them with their husbands at home (
Yet
however much a public leadership role in the service was being restricted, the
apostle went on record firmly in favor of women having the right to prophesy
(11:5), implying that there were other contexts in which that supernatural teaching
gift could be rightly exercised.
* Finally, there is the depiction of man as
“head of woman” (11:3). The
anti-hierarchical nature of modern feminism rebels against the concept but—for
better or worse—virtually no business or organization can exist without some
form of it. It always comes down to who
will form the leadership and on what terms that “power” will be exercised. If an organization (or even marriage) desires
to prosper and be effective, then the concept of hierarchy will be utilized in
a cautious and respectful manner; repressive treatment undermines the cooperation
required for full success.
Yet
there were areas where the participation of both genders simultaneously
rather than in competition with each other was regarded as clearly proper and
desirable. When they partook of the
Communion (
Only when it came to taking what a later generation would call “leadership roles” was female participation limited. (How modern scholars attempt to eliminate the restrictions through their textual analyses, is discussed in detail in chapter 14.) Yet this was also a double-edged sword: just as it limited the public roles that some women would have desired to exercise, it also required the public participation of certain males
[Page 56] who would have preferred to remain
silent and in the background. Hence it
created obligations that, to a certain percentage of both genders, would have
been viewed as undesirable.
Some theoreticians
speak of “female suppression” being involved in the Pauline teaching, yet one
would be thoroughly unwise to overlook the considerable element of “male
obligation” that the apostle is also demanding.
He is imposing standards of potential discomfort to many of both
genders.
Notes
[1] Fuller,
42, affirms it does.
[2] Ibid. 42.
[3] As
implied by Ibid.
[4] For a
favorable presentation of this approach see Ibid.,
43-44.
[5] Cf. Ibid., 44, on how apostolic concepts could have been
developed in very unapostolic contradictory directions.
[6] Indeed,
the more primitive form we claim it to be, the less reasonable is the
attachment of the term “Gnosticism” to it.
Hence Russell Pregeant, Engaging the New Testament: An Interdisciplinary Introduction
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995),
365, argues that the concepts are presented so vaguely and left so undeveloped
that the term can not properly be applied to the movement(s).
[7] Ellis, 49.
[8] Robert G. Bratcher, A Translator’s Guide to Paul’s
First Letter to the Corinthians, in the Helps for Translators Series
(New York: United Bible Societies,
1982), 8. Gundry, 263, believes they
were “probably slaves.” The same opinion
is held by Witherington, 99. Gerd Theissen, Social Setting, 57, who provides concrete
arguments in behalf of this conclusion.
Brian J. Dodd (The Problem with Paul [Downers Grove,
Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996], 25), adopts the
interpretation though without giving a reason for the opinion.
[9] Harris, 37.
[12] On the uncertainty of her actual home town, see Luck,
16, and Margaret T. MacDonald, “Reading Real Women through the Undisputed
Letters of Paul,” in Women & Christian Origins, edited by Ross S.
Kraemer and Mary Rose D’Angelo (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999), 201.
[13] Mary A.
Getty, “1 Corinthians,” in The Collegeville Bible Commentary, edited by
Dianne Bergant and Robert J. Karris (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1989), 1107.
[14] Tambasco, 67, argues that the problems described in
chapters 1-6 are discussed because of Chloe’s information. Certainly in chapter 7 Paul explicitly begins
discussing the issues the Corinthians themselves had written about.
[15] Nils A. Dahl, Studies in Paul:
Theology for the Early Christian Mission, assisted by Paul Donahue (Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House,
1977), 50.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Howard, 16.
[18] Gromacki,
202; Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of
Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 1, translated from the German by
A. J. K. Davidson (New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1889), 267.
[19] Harris, 141.
[20] C. F.
D. Moule, Worship in the New Testament (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1961), 27.
[21] Paul H.
Jones, Christ’s Eucharistic Presence:
A History of the Doctrine, in the American University Studies
series (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), n.
10, p. 20.
[22] Ibid., 20-21.
[23] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Paul and His Theology: A Brief Sketch,
Second Edition (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1989), 94, sees the teaching as “possibly derived” from
the worship practice of that congregation.
[24]
[25] Alexander
B. MacDonald, Christian Worship in the
[Page 58] [26] Carl
B. Bridges, Jr., Paul and the Penumatics: A Study in Social
Control (Ph.D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary [Richmond,
Virginia], 1990), 30-31.
[27] C. F. D. Moule,
The Holy Spirit, in the Contemporary Christian Insights series
(New York: Continuum, 1978; reprint,
2000 reprint), 87.
Roland H. Worth, Jr.
A Torah Commentary on First Corinthians 1-6:
Interpreting the Text in Light of
Its Old Testament Roots
© 2011