Paul of Tarsus vexes his interpreters with respect to women. At times he is the champion of modern feminist, at others he locks women back into their cages from which they had been liberated by Jesus. [] On the whole, his genuine letters appear to be radically egalitarian compared to the temporally and geographically adjacent cultures and it is clear that he worked closely with women leaders in the Church. [] However, his most influential early interpreters, the writers of the Pauline letters [] and early Church fathers, are progressively patriarchal compared to the same cultures. The easiest and most commonly appealed to explanation of this shift is enculturation. The pressure of Greco-Roman culture which was steeped in patriarchal logic was so great that it was impossible for the egalitarian bubble erected by Jesus and maintained by Paul to be free from pagan diffusion of gender roles. As such, we have the adoption of Roman household codes in the Pastorals [] and persecution of egalitarian Pauline traditions by the Church fathers. []
This neat divide between the egalitarian Paul and patriarchal later interpreters breaks down towards the end of 1 Corinthians. In chapter eleven of this letter to the Christian assembly in Corinth, Paul advises the Christians on matters of public worship, including matters of women prophesying. During this discussion, Paul makes series of clear statements concerning ontological priority of the genders, [] the epitome of which is “And I want you to know that Christ is the head of all men, and man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ.” [] This statement is in stark contrast with the baptismal formula quoted by Paul in his letter to the assembly in Galatia: “Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female is among [you all], for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” [] It is however, much more in line with statements made in the Pastorals, such as 1 Timothy 2:12-14: “But I neither permit a woman to teach nor have authority over a man, but to be in stillness.” [] Prima facie, Paul is being blatantly inconsistent here.
In the next post, I will further explore problems with this text, including the bizarre reference to “διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους” or “due to the angels” in verse 10, and offer up my hypothesis for setting the problems.
Here is the text of the passage in question:1 Corinthians 11:1-22
Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
Posted on January 1st, 2009 by Henry Imler in Christianity , Religion - Comments (1)