1 Cor 11.2-16 - Midrashic Intertextual Response

7/28/2019 1 Cor 11.2-16 - Midrashic Intertextual Response

1/17

JBL 112/2 (1993) 231-246

"BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW . . .":

PAUL'S MIDRASHIC INTERTEXTUAL RESPONSE

TO THE CORINTHIAN WORSHIPERS (1 Cor 11:2-16)

L. ANN JERVIS

Wychffe College, Toronto, Canada, M5S 1H7

The presence of Genesis creation subtexts in 1 Cor 11:2-16 suggests its

intertextual character.1

The task of the investigation undertaken here is to

discover the nature and intention of Paul's intertextuality in this passage.

The position of this study is that in 1 Cor11:2-16 Paul responds to a mis

apprehension and consequent misappropriation of his previous teaching on

the unity ofman and woman in Christ.2

His goal is to help his converts under

stand how they have misinterpreted that teaching. In order to clarifyhis earlier

teaching Paul must recast the scriptural exposition on which it had been based.

Paul's initial teaching had relied on an exposition of the Genesis 1 creation

account. His strategy for correcting the Corinthians' misunderstanding is to

1J Jervell recognizes that both Genesis creation stones underlie this passage (Imago Dei Gen

I, 26ftm Spatpidentum, in der Gnosisund m den paulinischen Briefen [Gottingen Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht, 1960] 292-309) See also M Hooker, "Authority on Her Head An Examination of

I Cor XI 10," NTS10 (1964) 411, E E Ellis, "Traditions in 1 Corinthians," NTS32 (1986) 493,F F Bruce, 1 and 2Corinthians (London Oliphants, 1971) 105, G Trompf, "On Attitudes Toward

Women in Paul and Pauhnist Literature 1 Corinthians 11 3-16 and Its Context," CBQ 42 (1980)

205, and A Feuillet, "L'Homme 'Gloire de Dieu' et la Femme 'Gloire de l'Homme', (1 Cor, XI,

7b)," RB 81 (1974) 182

W Meeks understands that Paul is here alluding to Gen 1 27 ("The Image ofthe Androgyne

Some Uses of a Symbol m Earliest Christianity," HR 13 [1973] 201) See also Richardson, Paul's

Ethic of Freedom (Philadephia Westminster, 1979) 64

Paul's allusion to the creation story of Genesis 2 is recognized by R Scroggs, "Paul and the

Eschatological Woman," J AAR 40 (1972) 298, J Murphy-O'Connor, "1 Corinthians 11 2-16 Once

Again," CBQ 50 (1988) 270, A Padgett, "Paul on Women in the Church The Contradictions ofCoiffure in 1 Corinthians 11 2-16," JSNT 20 (1984) 81

2This passage will be considered as an integral part of the letter W O Walker's proposal


2/17

232 Journal of Biblical Literature

combine the second creation account with the first. In 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul

consciously intertwines and engages two scriptural texts so that, on the basis

of a clearer sense of the meaning of these texts, his readers might understandthe significance of his practical directives.

I. The Nature of Paul's Intertextuality

Paul's intertextuality has recently been analyzed in Richard Hays's im

portant bookEchoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul? Hays, developing the

insights of John Hollander? presents Paul's intertextuality as a type that echoes

scripture, either consciously or unconsciously. Furthermore, according to Hays,

Paul, who believes that God speaks through him in "a time of God-dominated

events,"5

uses scripture so that it stands in counterpoint to the word of the

gospel.6

Paul does not seek to prove that scripture is fulfilled but rather places

scripture in dialectical tension with the gospel so that it provides "a mutually

interpretive relation."7

The apostle's intertextuality is such that the "original'

meaning of the scriptural text... by no means dictates Paul's interpretation."8

While noting that the intertextual nature of both rabbinic midrash and

of Paul's letters makes them "natural analogues," Hays avoids using the category

of "midrash" for Paul's hermeneutic on the basis that (1) previous studies haveapplied this category in unhelpful and misleading ways and (2) Paul, believ

ing that he stands in a privileged moment in which God is speaking directly,

performs a distinctly different type of hermeneutic than the rabbis, whose

task was to reinterpret the ancient "deposit" of God's word. For Hays these

radically distinct "temporal sensibilities" result in there being a categorical

distinction between the hermeneutical approach of Paul and that of the rabbis.9

Hays's presentation of the distinction between Paul and the rabbis invites

examination, for it has significant consequences concerning our perceptionof Paul's hermeneutical approach and strategies. In fact, despite the obvious

differences between Paul and the rabbis, particularly with respect to their

eschatological convictions, they exhibit important and revealing similarities.

The areas most relevant to this study in which the rabbis and Paul share evident

hermeneutical kinship concern (1) their understanding of the goal of inter

pretation and (2) the manner in which scriptural texts were treated so as to

reveal their meaning.

3R Hays, Echoes of Scripture m the Letters of Paul (New Haven Yale University Press, 1989)


3/17

Jervis: Paul's Response to Corinthian Worshipers 233

By presenting scriptures "contrapuntal" role for Paul, Hays acknowledges

that Paul accorded scripture the function of providing a framework and

challenge for his interpretation of God's present activity. The rabbis' midrashicactivity, of course, accorded scripture a similar function.

10

The rabbis, it is true, approached the scriptures with a sense of "temporal

gulf" and did not believe as Paul did that the eschatological Spirit was reveal

ing the scriptures' secrets to them. Yet, as the following rabbinic text makes

plain, midrash was considered an activity through which God's original mean

ing in the scriptures came alive in a particular historical moment.

Ben-Azzai was sitting and interpreting (making midrash), and fire was all

around him. They went and told Rabbi Aqiba, "Rabbi, Ben-Azzai is sittingand interpreting, and fire is burning all around him." He went to him, "Iheard that you were interpreting, and the fire burning all around you." Hesaid, "Indeed." He said, "Perhaps you were engaged in the inner-rooms ofthe Chariot [theosophical speculation]." He said, "No. I was sitting and stringing the words ofTorah [to each other), and the Torah to the Prophets andthe Prophets to the Writings, and the words were as radiant/joyful as whenthey were given from Sinai, and they were as sweet as at their original giving. Were they not originally given infire,as it is written, And the mountainwas burning with fire' [Deut 4:11]." (Song ofSongs Rabba 1:52)

u

The hermeneutical practice of the rabbis was a continuation of the interpretative strategies of the biblical writers, that is, the expression of "new teachings by

means of strategic revisions of earlier traditions" made in light of"a practical

crisis of some sort."12

While scripture was considered to stand in dialectical ten

sion with the historical moment, this did not exclude the interpreter in this

mode from considering that scripture's original meaning had been understood.13

10 As D. Patte notes, midrash took place "in between the two poles 'Scripture and the

'worshipping community'" (Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine [Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,1971] 319). Cf. J. A. Sanders, who describes midrash as "the mode whereby. . . one explained

the world by received tradition properly brought to bear on the situation for which wisdom was

sought. . . . The sense or meaning was sought not as a thing in itself, as biblical criticism insists

on doing out of its respect for the text, but rather as illumination on life" (Canon and Community:

A Guide to Canonical Criticism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 26). Also R. LeDaut, "Apropos

a Definition of Midrash," Int 25 (1971) 270.11 Quoted from D. Boyarn, "Old Wine in New Bottles: Intertextuality and Midrash," Poetics

Today 8 (1988) 547. Boyarn remarks: "The rabbis, as assiduous readers of the Bible, developed

an acute awareness of [the] intertextual relations within the holy books, and consequently their

own hermeneutic work consisted of a creative process of further combining and recombining

biblical verses into new texts. . . . This recreation was experienced as revelation itself, and the

biblical past became alive in the midrashic present" (Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash


4/17

234 Journal ofBiblical Literature

Paul's hermeneutical approach exists on the same continuum as that of

the rabbis: scripture illuminates the meaning of the present, and its true mean

ing may be discerned by him (cf. 2 Cor 3:16).In order to achieve their understanding, the rabbis, as Daniel Boyarn

demonstrates, produced intertextual writings which, through "recombining

pieces ofthe canonized exemplar into a new discourse," allowed the biblical

text "to generate its meanings ite original meaningsin ever new social and

cultural situations."14 Paul, as will be demonstrated with regard to 1 Cor 11:2-16,

took a comparable strategy and approach toward interpretation.

A midrashic intertextual understanding of Paul's hermeneutic is different

from Hays's approach to Paul's intertextuality in that it understands Paul as

considering that, through recontextualizing scripture, he was interpreting it

in accordance with its original meaning.

In 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul's purpose is to recombine scripture so that its

intended meaning might speak directly to the problem at hand.

II. The Subtexts in 1 Cor 11:2-16

As stated above, the creation accounts ofGenesis 1 and 2 are subtexts

in 1 Cor 11:2-16. The other subtext is Paul's previous preaching concerningthe liberty ofsalvation, which has been misunderstood by the Corinthian

spirituals.15

In v. 11 ofthis passage Paul reaffirms his original proclamation.

This verse shares much in common with Gal 3:28, and so Paul's initial teaching

was almost certainly something like the proclamation of Gal 3:28.16

14 Boyarn, Intertextuality and the Reading ofMidrash, 38, 2015 J C Hurd proposes that the prehistory ofthis passage is that when Paul had been present

with the Corinthians he had allowed the type of behavior they were now displaying Paul's previous

letter, however, banned this practice The Corinthians then responded by inquiring about this

change ofmind, and Paul's response to their query is 1 Cor 11 2-16 (The Origin of I Corinthians

[Macon, GA Mercer University Press, 1983] 185)

It is indeed probable that in this passage Paul is responding to an inquiry from the Corin

thians It is less likely, however, that the query was based on the fact that when he was with them

Paul had allowed the practice he now condemns Such a proposition makes nonsense of w 13-16

Hurd explains the discrepancy between Paul's criticism of the present practice and his former

acceptance ofit by suggesting that even then he "considered it indecent and unnatural" (p 281)

As Gal 2 14 makes clear, however, this would be extremely atypical ofPaul's behavior Rather,

the Corinthians' inquiry is based on having developed in their faith along Jewish-Hellenistic lines

(as will be argued below) The Connthians considered that their spirituality had progressed sincePaul was with them (see 1 Cor 2 1-2 for an example ofPaul's ironic reply to their spiritual hybns)

d th t th i ti th i f P l' i i l l ti f th lib t


5/17


Given that Paul's original declaration of the unity of man and woman in

Christ relied on an exposition of Gen 1:27,17

when Paul commends his readers

for holding onto his traditions (v. 2) he is referring to their appropriation (albeitin a mistaken fashion) of his interpretation of the first Genesis creation story.

Paul's corrective strategy is typically midrashic: that is, in order to solve an

exegetical and practical difficulty he combines another scriptural text with

the one that is at the root of the problem. And so what Paul wants his readers

to know (v. 3) is that the second creation account elucidates the real meaning

of the first and thereby clarifies what the Corinthians need to understand about

the nature of their redemption.

III. The Nature of the Corinthians' Misinterpretation

of Paul's Earlier Teaching on Being in Christ

There is broad scholarly consensus that the Corinthian spirituals ap

proached the gospel from a Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom perspective.18 One of

the best analogies for their religious worldview, therefore, is Philo Judaeus.19

It is, then, worth our while to comment briefly on Philo's understanding of

the restoration of the divine image. The premise of this examination is not

that the Corinthians read Philo, but that their attitude toward the nature of

17 Several scholars have recognized that Gen 1:27 is a subtext in Gal 3:28, noting particularly

that the kai in the male-female pair parallels the LXX of Gen 1:27 and that the words used are

"technical terms from Genesis 1:27' (K. Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women [Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1966] 32). See also Meeks, "Image of the Androgyne," 181; Scroggs, "Paul and the

Eschatological Woman," 292 n. 29; and E. Schssler Fiorenza, In Memory ofHer: A Feminist Theo-

hgical Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983) 211.18

See B. A. Pearson, who characterizes the Corinthian spirituals' stance as one of "Hellenistic-Jewish speculative wisdom" (The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study

in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents for Paul and Its Relation to Gnosticism [Missoula,

MT: Scholars Press, 1973] 82). Also H. Koester, "GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature

of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity," in Trajectories Through Early Christianity

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 149; and Meeks, "Image of the Androgyne," 202.

Fee's rejection of the proposal that the Corinthians took a hellenized Jewish stance on the

grounds that (1) the parallels between the sources and the Corinthians' attitude are more in terms

of Hellenism than Judaism and (2) the letter is written to Gentiles (First Epistle to the Corin

thians, 14) erroneously assumes (a) that it is possible to draw a line between Jewish and Hellenistic

features in the Wisdom sources and (b) that Paul would not have taught Gentiles about theirnew Jewish heritage. In fact, it is reasonable to expect that Gentile believers who had been con

verted by Paul would have become familiar with Jewish ideas Romans is an example of Paul


6/17


7/17


life is to be transformed from the image of the "molded man" into the image

ofthe man made "after the image" through attaining all the ethical and religious

conditions. The person who is transformed in this way experiences a "secondbirth."23

Thus ifthe proper ethical and religious conditions are met, a person

could again live in the harmony and unity ofthe original creation (Opif Mundi

81) and bear the divine image.

The man made "in accordance with the image" is "intelligible and

incorporeal and a likeness of the archetype . . . a copy of the original seal"

(Quaest. Gen. 1.4). Despite the fact that Philo refers to God as "father" (e.g.,

Opif. Mundi 74, 84), the divine image after which this man is made is

genderless,24

for the man's image was given before God divided humanity into

separate genders: "And when Moses had called the genus 'man,' quite admirablydid he distinguish its species, adding that it had been created 'male and female,'

and this though its individual members had not yet taken shape" (Opif.

Mundi 7).

In Philo the divine image ofthe man made "after the image" is, then, essen

tially genderless. "But man who came into existence after the image of God

is what one might call an idea, or a genus, or a seal, an object of thought, in

corporeal, neither male nor female, by nature incorruptible" (Opif. Mundi 134).

The spiritual goal is to be born again into one who corresponds to this image.

25

2 3A man like Moses who has had a "second birth" is changed in accordance with the man

made "after the image" (Quaest Ex 2 46) ForPhilo, Moses is an examplea "sacred guide" (Somn

1164, cf L Mack, "Imitatio Mosis Patterns of Cosmology and Sotenology m the Hellenistic

Synagogue," Studia Philonica 1 [1972] 27-55) In speaking of Moses, who achieved such perfec

tion, Philo writes, "For when the prophetic mind becomes divinely inspired and filled with God,

it becomes like the monad, not being at all mixed with any ofthose things associated with duality

But he who is resolved into the nature of unity, is said to come near God m a kind of family

relation, for having given up and left behind all mortal kinds, he is changed into the divine, so

that such men become kin to God and truly divine" (Quaest Ex 2 29) It is the man made "after

the image" who is received by God and becomes the tiller and guardian of the garden (Gen 2 15),

that is, it is his privilege to practice and remember the virtues (Leg All 153)2 4

For neither is God in human form, nor is the human body God-like it is in respect of

the Mind, the sovereign element of the soul, that the word 'image is used" (Opif Mundi 69)

It is to be noted that Philo is also concerned to portray Sophia as beyond gender despite the

feminine gender ofthe words used to speak ofher See Horsley, "Spiritual Marnage with Sophia," 35

R Melnick's contention ("On the Philonic Conception ofthe Whole Man,"/S/ U [1980] 1-32)

that Philo understood God m gender terms, sometimes as male (p 27) and sometimes as female

(p 31) is based on seeking to follow Philo's images and descriptions (especially those in Proverbs

8 and Hebrews 8 30, 9 33) further than they were intended to go Philo's own words are perhapsthe best response to Melnick God "is not apprehensible even by the mind, save in the fact that

h i " (D I 62) A R Willi f Phil "G d i i i d k


8/17


The Corinthian spirituals in all likelihood apprehended Paul's original

proclamation of the unity of man and woman in Christ in which he referred

to Gen 1:27 in the context of a Jewish-Hellenistic understanding of restoration of the original (genderless) image.26

As the following exegesis will

demonstrate, Paul wants to emphasize that God provided a divine image to

humanityin the shape of two genders. Accordingly, Paul's practical directives

for the appearance ofmen and women at worship function to admonish them

to witness to the God-ordained distinctiveness of the genders (w. 13-16).27

IV. Paul's Midrashic Intertextual Response

to the Problem at Corinth

Paul's Introductory Statement (v. 2)

Verse 2 is Paul's acknowledgment that he carries much of the blame for

the practice that he is in the process of rebuking. His converts are holding

on to what they have been taught.28

It may also function as a prod to realizing

2 6D Steenburg suggests that Philo's identification ofthe Logos with the image ofGod relies

on Genesis 1 ("The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image ofGod," JSNT39 [1990] 105) This

leads him to say that while in Philo the name "Adam" is used for the "molded man," nevertheless

there is "Adam speculation woven into Philo's Logos concept" (p 105) Wedderburn inter

prets Philo's discussion ofGen 1 26-27 in De Conf Ling 62-63 to be saying that the first man s

divine image was equivalent to the Logos ("Philo's 'Heavenly Man,'" 317, see also 309 2,

where Wedderburn relates Adam to the "heavenly man")

These observations clarify how a Jewish-Hellemstie (Philonic) perspective might readily

appropriate Paul's use ofthe same scnpture Since the Jewish-Hellenistic mindset regarded Adam

as possessing the genderless image ofGod, Paul's reference to Gen 1 27 along the lines of Gal

3 28 would be understood to be declaring that believers had been granted that same image

Paul's reiteration of his preaching m 1 Cor 1111 further demonstrates how easy it would

have been to misunderstand his meaning See J Kurzinger's argument that the best translation

of is "different from," "of another kind," "unlike," etc ("Frau und Mann nach 1 Kor11 llf,"

BZ 22 [1978] 273)2 7

Cf Meeks, who states that this passage is solely concerned with "the symbols that distinguish

male and female" ("Image of the Androgyne," 201) Also Murphy-O'Connor, who says that Paul

was reproving "the Corinthians [who] felt free to blur the distinction between the sexes" ("Sex

and Logic," 490) Cf Fee "the problem lay ultimately with a breakdown m sexual distinctions"

(First Epistle to the Corinthians, 512) See also C L Thompson "he clearly wants to mark the

distinction between men and women by the contrast of hairstyles" ("Hairstyles and Head-coverings,

and St Paul Portraits from Roman Corinth," BA 51 [1988] 104)2 8 Hurd argues that Paul's reference to what he has previously passed on is to his original

allowance ofthe verypractice that he is now discouraging (Origin, 281, see my criticism ofHurd


9/17


that the scriptural text which he is about to introduce in v. 3 is not entirely

new to them. As E. E. Ellis has demonstrated, the Genesis 2 creation story

was almost certainly used by Paul in his previous teaching on divorce and thebody.29 And earlier in the letter Paul has used the Genesis 2 story as an analogy

for being "united with the Lord" (1 Cor 6:17).

The Believers' Understanding of Creation (v. 3)

Paul gets right to the point in v. 3, where he introduces the second crea

tion account.30

The first thing that must be said about this verse is that it has

nothing to do with the "order of creation."31

Not only is this commonly used

phrase (by which the priority of the male is typically implied) an anachronism32

but, as a phrase signifying the divine warrant for particular gender "roles," it

bears no relation to the debate between Paul and his converts. Paul's goal is

to correct behavior based on a mistaken soteriology. His concern is to dis

tinguish his previous exposition of Genesis 1, in which he had asserted that

in Christ men and women are one, from a Jewish-Hellenistic understanding

of salvation as the restoration of a genderless divine image. Paul's appeal to

the Genesis 2 creation story is, then, made in accordance with this primary

concern.In two important ways Paul interprets this story as he introduces it: (1) he

uses the word kephal and (2) he inserts Christ into the story. Paul uses the

word kephal because the practical issue concerns the kephal of men and

women, and so in a straightforward manner he relates the text of scripture

See Engberg-Pedersen, who recognizes that the most natural way to read 2 is as an

introduction to w 3-16, which makes plain that Paul "is not blaming them for the behavior theyhave hitherto adopted for the precise reason that in that behavior they have been conforming

to something he had himself taught them" ("1 Connthians 1116 and the Character of Pauline

Exhortation," JBL 110 [1991] 681) Although not clear on this point Engberg-Pedersen seems to

concur with myview that the previous teaching to which Paul refers does not include the specific

practice he is now rebuking (p 687)2 9

Ellis, "Traditions in 1 Corinthians," 4883 0

See 1 above and also J A Fitzmyer, "Another Look at m 1 Corinthians 113,"

NTS 35 (1989) 511 23 1

The interpretation of Paul's use of the Genesis subtext in 3 is generallyalong two broad

lines either Paul evokes the idea of the "order of creation" so as to affirm or to reject it Forexamples of those who fall within the first category, see Fitzmyer, "A Feature of Qumran Angelology

and the Angels ofI Cor U10," m Essays on the Semitic Backgroundof the New Testament(Missoula,


10/17


to the text oflife.33

That is, by Paul's introduction ofkephal into the Genesis

2 creation story he makes it clear that the story has something to say about

the matter at hand.34

Kephalhere carries the connotation of "source."35

This is clear from the

fact that v. 3 shares the same subtext as w. 7-9, that is, the second creation

account. This subtext requires that the idea conveyed by kephal is "source

of being."36

Paul's allusion to the Genesis 2 creation story is, of course, from an "in

Christ" perspective. From this perspective Christ was present at the original

creation.37

So, in contrast to the first human beings who disregarded the truth

that God was the creator and they the creatures, the Corinthian believers know

that they exist in creaturehood, that is, that the kephalof every male is Christ.

By referring to Christ twice in this verse Paul reminds his readers of the nature

33 Cf Boyarn, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 12234 Ibid , 122,128-29 Boyarn notes that midrashic intertextuality works by intruding themes

or words both "into the world of the text and into the text of the world," thereby revealing mean

ing both in the text and in the world We will see that Paul uses the same strategy with the word

doxa later in this passage

Paul's use of the word kephalin order to indicate the close relationship between the exegecaland practical issue is noted by others, e g , R Oster, "When Men Wore Veils to Worship The

Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 114," NTS 43 (1988) 50435 So S Bedale, "The Meaning in the Pauline Epistlesr/re 5 (1954) 214, R Scroggs,

"Paul and the Eschatological Woman Revisited,"/AAf 42 (1974) 534, Murphy-O'Connor, "1 Cor

inthians 11 2-16 Once Again," 269, D Ellul, "'Sois Belle et Tais-Toi'' Est-ce vraiment ce que Paul

a dit? A propos de I Co 11,2-16," Foi et Vie 88 (1989) 52, and Fee, FirstEpistle to the Corinthians, 50336 As noted by Murphy-O'Connor, "Sex and Logic," 49237

Cf H Conzelmann, I Corinthians (trans J W Leitch, Philadelphia Fortress, 1975) 183,

and J Hering, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (trans A W Heathcote and J

Allcock, London Epworth, 1962) 102Murphy-O'Connorargues against understanding this as a reference to Christ as the "instru

mental cause ofthe first creation," dismissing the importance of1 Cor 8 6 as corroborating evidence

for such a Pauline view of creation, since the Stoic and Philonic texts usually cited in support

of such an interpretation of8 6 are not really parallel ("Sex and Logic," 493-94) Murphy-O'Connor's

view, however, discounts the freedom with which Paul replaces God with Christ in scriptural

texts (e g , Rom 1013, Phil 210-11) Clearly Paul considers that m the "new creation" the promises

and intentions of the "first creation" are fulfilled through Christ (cf 1 Cor 2 6-10, Rom 8 19-21,

etc ) It was then consistent for him to regard Christ as present at the original creation It is un

necessary, as Murphy-O'Connor does, to divide 3 into references either to the first or the new

creation ("Sex and Logic," 494) For Paul the new creation has instituted an entirely new contextfor the first creation (Rom 8 28-39), and the hope is for the time when the first creation will

realize all the promises of the new creation The two creations are not distinct but intertwined


11/17


ofkephal-ness self-sacrificing love. And by ending the verse with an affir

mation of God as kephalPaul interprets the word to convey the sense of one

who is self-giving and life-creating.The horizons within which man is woman's kephal are defined by the

fact that Christ is man's kephaland God is Christ's. Man as woman's "source"

is an acknowledgment (1) of his creaturehood and (2) that his "source" is the

ultimate example of unselfish love (cf. 1 Cor 11:24-25) whose "source" in turn

is the one whose purpose for humanity is liberty (Rom 8:1-11; Gal 4:1-9; 5:1)

and who calls believers to harmonious living (1 Cor 1:9).

Man as woman's "source" signifies a reaffirmation and restructuring of the

two genders. For it reminds the readers of the second story of creation in which

the genders were created in distinct ways, and it challenges them to realize

the quality of love which God intends there to exist between the genders in

light of divine love.

It is to be noted that the relationship between these four beings (Christ,

man, woman, and God) is not presented in terms of a chain of command,38

but (with Genesis 2 as the subtext) as a relationship between distinct beings

whose difference is one which God intended from the beginning and which

is fully appreciated and realized in redemption.

The Practical Issue (vv. 4-6)

In w. 4-6 Paul makes explicit reference to the issue that concerns him:

men and women are praying and prophesying in ways he considers to be

shameful. The word kephal in these verses, occurring as it does in the con

text of v. 3, refers both to the physical heads of the men and women, and to

the basis on which Paul gives his directives. Men who pray with their heads

covered39

shame their "head," that is, their physical head and Christ. Womenwho pray and prophesy with their heads uncovered or with their hair un

bound40

shame their own physical head and men.41

The shame of one sex

38 As Murphy-O'Connor notes, this is not a "series, whose purpose is to indicate priority"

("1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Once Again," 270).39

Oster demonstrates that in "Greek literature contemporary with the New Testament. . .

can clearly mean 'on the head '" ("When Men Wore Veils to Worship," 486) and further

more that men routinely wore veils in Roman worship (pp. 503-4). Later on Paul will further

maintain that he also considers long hair to be inappropriate for men (v. 14).4 0"The meaning of, as Philo and the LXX use it, is 'with unbound or loosened

hair'" (Padgett "Paul on Women in the Church " 70) As Padgett points out the word


12/17


exchanging customary head garb or hairstyles forthat ofthe othersex is such

that it disgraces42

and disappoints43

the new concord established in Christ.44

Paul is saying in w. 4-6 that, when one is praying and prophesying, gendersymbols are significant and should be in accordance with God's gift in Christ

of a redeemed, dual-gender humanity.

Pauls Injunction to the Corinthian Men (vv. 7-9)

In w. 7-10 Paul makes clearthat the creation stories are the warrant for

his injunctions. The first injunction is to the male (w. 7-9). The reason Paul

gives as to why the male should not his head is a midrashic

recombination of the two Genesis creation stories. The introduction of the

word doxa into the interpretation ofthe first creation story (v. 7a) is, as many

have remarked, a typical Jewish interpretation of what it means that Adam

is the image of God.45

As noted earlier in relation to the word kephal, the

word doxa also places the practical situation involving hair (cf. v. 15) into

relationship with the text of scripture. Furthermore, the introduction of the

word "glory" provides for a midrashic retextualizing of the two creation stories,

for it allows Paul to avoid saying that woman is the image of man while point

ing to the good and divinely ordained contrast between male and female inthe second creation story.

46

self-sacnfical love The concern about shame here is, then, of a different order than that of "cultural

shame" (contra Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 512) Paul is saying that the particular practice

he finds so offensive denies and distorts the truth of what the Corinthian believers know that

God has made available in Christ42 So BAG43

Cf Rom 5 5 and 1 Cor 11 22, where means "to disappoint"4 4

It is instructive to note that the same word occurs in a comparable context earlierin the letter In 1 Cor1 27-31 God is the one who does the disappointing In contrast to the

world's expectations, God chooses the foolish, weak, and lowly of birth "over against" those in

the world who consider themselves worthy (cf G R O'Day, "Jeremiah 9 22-23 and 1 Corin

thians 1 26-31 A Study in Intertextuality," JBL 109 [1990] 265) In 1 Cor 11 4-5, on the other

hand, it is the believers who are shaming (choosing against) the true structure ofexistence Note

also that in both passages Paul affirms that believers know that the source oftheir life is God

m Christ (11 3, 12, 1 30) In both contexts, then, the word is used where believers

are being reminded of the privilege they have of participating in the new creation4 5

So E E Ehs, Paul's Use of the Old Testament(Edinburgh Oliver & Boyd, 1957) 63, Hooker,

"Authority on Her Head," 411, Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," 299, idem, TheLast Adam A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia Fortress, 1966) 27, 49 Paul applies

the complementary terms "glory" and "image" also to Christ (2 Cor 4 4) Cf a similar description


13/17


When Paul says that woman is the glory of man (v. 7b), he explains this

in terms of the second creation account (w. 8 and 9). While the first story

of creation (upon which the Corinthians' practice and attitude are based) maynot speak of a differentiation between the genders, through a midrashic recom

bination of the first story with the second, Paul is able to bring out what he

considers to be the meaning of the stories:47

men and women are distinct and

that distinction is good.48

And so, Paul's admonition to the Corinthian men concerning appropriate

hair length and head covering is based on his appeal to the creation stories.

Believing men should not disregard what Paul considers to be appropriate

masculine appearance at worship but rather recognize and give witness to

the God-ordained differentiation between the sexes.

Pauls Injunction to the Corinthian Women (v. 10)

Paul's admonition to the Corinthian women is in v. 10. As the opening

of his injunction makes clear (dia touto), Paul considers that his directive to

the women is based on the same rationale as that to the men: God created

the genders in separate ways and their distinction must be symbolized when

the redeemed worship.Paul also gives another rationale for his admonition to the women

"because of the angels." Since the subtexts of this passage are the creation

stories, the mysterious angels of v. 10 should probably be understood in con

nection with these stories.49

Paul's reference to angels may be to the cherubim who guarded Adam

and Eve from approaching the tree of life (Gen 3:24).50

Since the angels' former

role of separating men and women from the tree of life (Gen 3:24) is abrogated

in this time when the end of the ages has come (1 Cor 10:11),

51

they are nowpresent at worship.52

Whether or not Paul considered that precisely the same

angels who used to guard the tree of life were present at the worship, in light

of the Jewish-Hellenistic orientation of his readers, Paul's appeal to the angels

is a reminder of God as creator (Cher. 27-28) and of God's beneficent and

47 Cf. Boyarn, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 39; cf. J. Hollander: intertextuality

"distortjsl the original voice in order to interpret it" (Figure ofEcho, 111).48 Cf. Murphy-O'Connor's observation that Paul is pointing out "the differentiation of sexes

based on Gen 1:26-27 and 2:18-22 (w 7-9)" ("Sex and Logic " 498)


14/17


revelatory presence with the worshipers.53

Philo considers that God cannot

communicate directly as "friend with friends" with souls who are still in the

body and so God gives "Himself the likeness of angels" (Somn. 1.232). Paulaffirms that angels are present with women who are experiencing theirsalva

tion in gifted intimacy with God through prayer and prophecy.54

Because women are participating in the pneumatic privilege of believers,

they ought to have authority over their heads.55

The word signifies

"authority over," "right," or "control" (cf. 1 Cor 9:18; 7:4). Since women do not

worship God as genderless beings, the authority which they have over their

heads appears to be that of garbing their heads in a feminine way.56

Verse 10

5 3It is unlikely that Paul is referring to evil or lustful angels As W House points out, the

Jewish speculation on lustful angels "is foreign to the New Testament, for believers are freed

from the power of Satan and his angels" ("Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach before Men?"

BSac [1988] 157 54) Although there are unsympathetic angels in Paul's cosmology (e g , 1 Cor

4 9, Rom 8 38), these are not the angels who are present at worship Theissen's proposition that

the angels of 1 Cor 1110 are agents of Satan leads him to the curious conclusion that the "veil"

functioned "to ward off sexual fantasies" in the women (PsychologicalAspects of Pauline Theology,

172)

It is also unlikely that Paul considers the angels of 10 as guardians ofthe "old order," since,

as argued above, the creation subtexts of this passage function to remind his readers not of the"orderofcreation" but rather ofthe nature ofthe original image to which they have been restored

Those who interpret the angels of 10 as the guardians of the "old order" erroneously under

stand Paul's directive to the women to be based on his conviction that even as "new creatures"

they need to respond to the ordinances that obtained m the old system For such scholars Paul

is saying that women are constrained, even if only in a symbolic way, either to defer to or to

demonstrate their liberty from their "natural" role as the subordinate sex See A Thiselton "In

terms of realized eschatology 'there is neither male nor female' (Gal in 28) But in xi 2-16 Paul

is concerned with arguments which relate strictly to the order of 'nature' and to the order

of creation (represented by the angels, 10)" ("Realized Eschatology at Corinth," NTS 24 [1978]

521) Cf Scroggs, who suggests that Paul may be saying that "the angels would be hostile to theradical distinction between the old and the eschatological orders" ("Paul and the Eschatological

Woman," 300 46) See also Hooker, "Authority on HerHead," 413, G Caird, "Paul and Women's

Liberty' BJRL 54 (1971-72) 278 Even Murphy-O'Connor, who in "Sex and Logic" (p 498) is clear

that Paul's appeal to the second story of creation in w 7-9 functions to emphasize the differen

tiation (not the hierarchy) ofthe genders, interprets the angels as guardians who watch for breaches

of the Law and so "needed to be shown that things had changed" (p 497, see also 499) It

should be noted that in a later article Murphy-O'Connor instead adopts the view ofJ Lightfoot

that here "the angels" refer to human messengers, interpreting this to mean that Paul is con

cerned about their perception ofthe Corinthians' behavior ("1 Corinthians 11 2-16 Once Again,"

271)

5 4Paul refers in 1 Cor 13 1 to the believers' experience of speaking with the "tongues of angels,"

that is, "communicating in the dialect(s) of heaven" (Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 630)


15/17


is not, as some have suggested, a response to male chauvinism at Corinth.57

For Paul has just dealt with men in a similar fashion. Rather in v. 10, just as

in his previous injunction to the men, Paul seeks to correct his readers' conviction that redemption has accorded them an asexual divine image.

Pauls Reaffirmation of His Teaching

on Being in Christ (vv. 11-12)

Verse 11 is Paul's reiteration of his previous teaching that in the Lord men

and women find harmonious unity. While Paul has had to recast his basic

teaching because of his converts' offensive practice of disregarding gender-

specific appearance at worship, he nevertheless () affirms that teaching.

Paul considers the Corinthians' misinterpretation to be so serious, however,

that directly following his reassertion of his original preaching Paul repeats

his point concerning male-female distinctiveness. The unity ofman and woman

in Christ has not obliterated the distinction between the genders (v. 12a, b).

The differentiation of the genders established at creation ( ,

. 12a; cf. v. 8) is still clearly seen in the process of reproduction and birth

(v. 12b). Paul closes this section ofthe passage by referring again to God's role

as creator of all (v. 12c), thereby reaffirming his statement of v. 3c.

Paul's FinalAppeal (vv. 13-16)

In Paul's final address to the problem at Corinth (w. 13-16) he changes

both his manner5 8

and the basis of his appeal, shifting to an appeal to nature

and culture59

and the practice of other churches. Since he does not continue

to rely on the creation subtexts, these verses are not germane to the present

discussion. Verses 13-16 contribute to our analysis of this passage only insofar

as they confirm that Paul considered his practical directives accorded with

gender-appropriate practice.

herway of doing her hair clearly defines her sex, it becomes a symbol ofthe authority she enjoys"

("Sex and Logic," 498).5 7

E.g., R. W. Allison, "Let the Women be Silent in the Church, (1 Cor. 14. 33b-36): What

Did Paul Really Say, and What Did It Mean?" JSNT 32 (1988) 32-34.5 8

So Engberg-Pedersen, "1 Corinthians 11:16 and the Character of Pauline Exhortation," 687.


16/17


V. Conclusion

In 1 Cor11:2-16 Paul is concerned to correct the Corinthians' interpretation of his preaching on liberty in Christ and its consequent reprehensible

practice. On the basis of their Jewish-Hellenistic approach to Paul's earlier

teaching on the unity of man and woman in Christ, the Corinthian spirituals

considered that they had been transformed into the image of the one who

is beyond gender. Accordingly, they believed that customary gender-specific

hairdressing and apparel no longer expressed their new life. Thus in pneumatic

worship they disregarded the related cultural norms.

Paul's midrashic intertextual strategy for dealing with the practical issue

at Corinth is to retextualize the first account of creation, which had formed

the basis of their misunderstanding, with the second. This strategy allowed

Paul, through illuminating the original text, to clarify his proclamation and

thereby to address the problematic situation. Through a midrashic recombina

tion of the two creation stories Paul interprets their meaning in the context

of the situation at Corinth. What he highlights through his midrash is that

God intended there to be two distinct genders who would live in harmony

in the Lord.60

While Paul reaffirms his original proclamation (v. 11), he does not do sountil he has clarified the appropriate context in which to understand it.

Paul's goal in 1 Cor 11:2-16 is to correct what he considers to be a

fundamentallyflawed understanding ofthe nature and consequences of being

in Christ, which has resulted in the Corinthian spirituals' disgraceful behavior.

What Paul wants his readers to know is that the unity of man and woman in

Christ does not obliterate the diversity of the sexes, but rather establishes it

in all of its gloryand believers should not disguise this.61

6 0As Genesis Rabbah demonstrates, this use of the creation stories to teach about salvation

at the end of days was typical also of later midrashic writing (see J Neusner, What is Midrash?

[Philadelphia Fortress, 198 52-59)6 1

While accepting full responsibility for the views of this article I would like gratefully to

acknowledge the helpful advice and encouragement I received from Dr Peter Richardson and

Dr Jerome Murphy-O'Connor


17/17

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

1 Cor 11.2-16 - Midrashic Intertextual Response