15:29 Baptism for the Dead?
The proper response to those who persecute is to bless, not curse, them (Rom 12:14).
The evil done to you should not be repaid by evil (Rom 12:17). In situations of conflict, Christians ought to be about the search for peace (Rom 12:18). Where the world’s values would call for retribution and vengeance when evil is done to us, we are, on the contrary, to respond in love and kindness, going as far as giving food and drink to enemies who are hungry and thirsty (Rom 12:19–20). Why? Because God is the one who judges and holds evildoers responsible in the final judgment (Rom 12:19).
When we respond to evil in the radically unexpected form of goodness, we are in effect pouring “burning coals” on the head of the perpetrator of evil (Rom 12:20). Paul drives home this radical Christian response to evil, urging that we refuse to “overcome by evil,” but instead “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21).
Romans 12:21, in confirmation of the entire context of the passage, demonstrates that the figure of “pouring burning coals” is to be understood as an act of goodness, as something which “overcomes evil with good.” This meaning of the figure is confirmed even by the context in Proverbs 25:21–22, which closes with the words “and the Lord will reward you.” And in the Old Testament, God’s rewards are always seen as response to human acts of kindness.
This analysis of the context shows that the image of burning coals must have a positive meaning. It does not tell us precisely what that meaning is, what “pouring burning coals” on an enemy’s head is to accomplish. To that question we now turn.
Romans 12:2 implies that the “burning coals” image refers to an “overcoming” of evil.
How is the evil of the enemy overcome? Help in answering this question comes from both biblical (internal) and nonbiblical (external) sources. In the narrative of the prophet Isaiah’s call (Is 6), the recognition of his sinfulness receives a divine response of purging and purification. A burning coal is taken from the altar and applied to his mouth, with the assurance that “your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven” (Is 6:7
RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ). This connection between burning coals and repentance and cleansing is also present (though not as directly) in Malachi’s picture of God as one who is “like a refiner’s fire” (Mal 3:2). As fire refines silver and gold to purify it, so God will “purify the sons of Levi … till they present right offerings to the Lord” (Mal 3:3 RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ). The point of this passage is that Israel’s sin and disobedience shall be separated out through the refining process of
A possible cultural background, outside the Bible, for the connection between burning coals/fire and the purging of sin/evil is to be seen in the ancient Egyptian custom in which a penitent demonstrated his repentance of a wrong committed by carrying a dish of burning coals on his head. Some commentators see this as the immediate background of the proverb which Paul cites (Prov 25:21–22).
In light of the above discussion, the purpose of “pouring burning coals” seems to be that, by means of responding to evil with good, the doer of the evil may be brought to repentance. It is the enemy’s benefit which is intended. When the adversary is treated with kindness, when good is returned for evil, then evil may be overcome; the antagonist may be transformed by a renewal of mind, a change of orientation from darkness to light.
13:1–7 Submitting to Government?
How do Christians deal with the tension created by their presence in a society in which the need to preserve their integrity as individuals and to be faithful to their understanding of the lordship of Christ may conflict with the demands of that society?
In Romans 13 Paul focuses on the tension between the individual and society at large in terms of the problem of civil obedience or disobedience. The question which is raised concerns the individual’s responsibility toward the social order, insofar as that social order is regulated by laws that are upheld and enforced by government authorities.
Individual Christian responsibility has often been compromised on the basis of a one-sided use of biblical injunctions. Thus Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13–14 are often cited as proof that the state always demands and deserves our total and unquestioning obedience. But Revelation 13 and 18 are neglected. The former pictures the state as a beast opposed to God’s purposes; the latter speaks of the downfall of any nation that becomes a modern Babylon, corrupted by wealth, materialism and injustice.
Some Christians are quick to condemn any person who upsets or threatens to upset social norms and regulations. But those same Christians tend to disregard Acts 17:6–7, where the apostles are described as “men who have turned the world upside down”
and who “are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ).
The Gospel accounts also make clear that Jesus did not accept all legal and governing authorities as ultimate dispensers of God’s will. Wherever he went, he bucked the system, upset the status quo and challenged the authorities’ claim to the right and the truth. And in the context of a life of discipleship, countless martyrs have given their lives because they resisted the decrees of the authorities.
Thus a serious look at the scriptural material will prevent us from viewing the demands of society and its rulers with uncritical acceptance and automatic approval. Are there conditions when the demands of the social order must be resisted and the worth of the individual as a responsible being before God must be affirmed and defended?
If we cannot give uncritical and unquestioning allegiance to the demands of society and
its governing authorities, we must also be careful not to go to the other extreme, that of concluding that government is inevitably an evil institution which should be resisted, disobeyed, distrusted or ignored. For we are instructed to honor and pray for those in authority. The Bible makes clear that government has a positive role to play in God’s plans for human community. According to the New Testament, all authority is ultimately under the rule and judgment of Christ.
In light of this double perspective, how are we to understand Romans 13, which seems to come down on one side of this double perspective? First, we need to read Romans 13 more carefully than it has often been read. Second, we need to read these admonitions in light of the context of Paul’s missionary activity, which took place in a world in which Roman law and rule had created relative peace and order, conducive to the rapid spread of the gospel.
Let us carefully follow, in outline form, Paul’s argument:
Statement:
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities” (Rom 13:1).
Hypothetical Question:
Why
Answer:
Because all authority exists ultimately by God’s design, including the authority of the state (Rom 13:1)
Conclusion:
Therefore, to resist the authorities is to resist God’s intent (Rom 13:2
Hypothetical Question:
But what is God’s intent?
Answer:
It is God’s intent that through his “servants” (governing authorities) evil acts are punished (Rom 13:4); bad works are restrained through fear of punishment (Rom 13:3); and the good pronounced and encouraged (Rom 13:3)
In summary, Paul’s argument is this: It is God’s intent that human life in the context of community will be life in harmony and peace and order (see Rom 12:10, 18). Since life in community becomes chaotic and anarchistic without the presence of regulatory laws enforced by authorities, the presence of these are part of God’s overall intent for human existence. Therefore, insofar as the state and its rulers exercise their authority in keeping with God’s intent, they act as God’s ministers for the common good of society.
If, however, the authority of the state runs counter to this divine intent, then that authority should not be understood as God-given. In fact, it becomes quite clear from Revelation 13 and 18, as well as other places in the New Testament, that the state which persecutes Christians, which dispenses injustice instead of justice, which
supports moral decay, which tramples on the weak and powerless, has been usurped by demonic powers and forces diametrically opposed to God’s intents and purposes.
The passage that follows Paul’s discussion about the relationship between the individual and the demands of the social order (Rom 13:8–10) is very instructive for a proper understanding of that relationship. Most commentators feel that Paul has completed the considerations about obedience to the state and is now speaking about morality and ethics in general. It seems to me, however, that such an understanding of the thrust of the argument overlooks Paul’s specific intent at this point.
Indeed, the admonitions concerning love for others (Rom 13:8–10) are not a departure from the previous topic but are rather a climax of the entire discussion. Romans 13:8
picks up very pointedly from Romans 13:7. There the argument for obedience to the state and for responsible existence within the social order is driven home in terms of specific things that we owe: taxes, respect, honor. But beyond these specifics, Paul goes on to argue (Romans 13:8–9) that what we really owe is to love others even as we love ourselves.
According to Paul’s Jewish heritage, government authorities are intended to be guardians of the commandments which make community life possible. The commandments “do not kill,” “do not steal,” “do not commit adultery” and so forth, if violated, lead to the destruction and fragmentation of community. Since the law is summed up in the command “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom 13:9
RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ), the loving of one’s fellow human beings—
not doing any wrong to them—“is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:10 RSV [RSV
Revised Standard Version] ). It is responsibility for both the protection and the enforcing of this law which is given to human authorities by God’s design.
What if, in our expression of love to our fellow human beings, we run smack into the laws of the society in which we live? What if the rulers act in opposition to their intended purpose as stated in Romans 13:3? What if they become “a terror for those who do right”? What if the demands of the social order require us to be molded into a lifestyle that is contrary to the implicit and explicit demands of the gospel?
There are no pat answers to these questions. Anyone who suggests easy solutions or indeed the Christian response fails to take seriously the complexities of the world in which we find ourselves. Nonetheless, we must be sensitive to the issues raised by these questions and must respond in keeping with our understanding of the call of Christ. And that call is decisively a call to be there for others in love. If we fail at this point, even the most carefully woven cloth of orthodox belief and pious practice will finally become nothing but a tattere
14:15 To Eat or Not to Eat?
Romans 14:15, together with the related texts in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, contains what has often been called the “stumbling block” principle. It is the principle of Christian life and conduct that whatever we do or say should not become a hindrance to the faith and life of a Christian brother or sister.
The difficulty this principle has created for many Christians is related to understanding not so much its import, but rather its implementation. What guidance does the apostle
give in this regard? How can we know whether what we eat (or drink or wear or participate in) merely offends fellow Christians and is rejected as inappropriate by them, or causes fellow Christians to stumble and fall in their faith-pilgrimage and perhaps even reject the faith?
These are precisely the issues with which Paul deals in Romans 14. We shall carefully trace his argument, completing that investigation with insights from 1 Corinthians, where Paul struggles with similar concerns.
In the previous chapters of this epistle (Romans 12–13), Paul has laid down central principles for Christian conduct, both within the community of the church and in the larger world of human relationships. Within the fellowship, we are to be more concerned with others than with ourselves (Rom 12:3, 10). In the larger human society, we are to respond to evil with good (Rom 12:14) and thus overcome the evil (Rom 12:21). Both of these “principles” for Christian conduct are undergirded by the most central principle: “Love does no harm to the neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10).
It is this principle with which Paul now confronts a problem that was very acute in several of the young churches. For Gentile Christians, the issue was whether they could eat meat that was sold in the open marketplace but had come from animals sacrificed in heathen temples. It was a very concrete problem in the context of their continuing social relationships with heathen neighbors and friends. For Jewish Christians, in the context of fellowship with Gentile Christians, there was the tension between Jewish ceremonial laws regarding “clean” and “unclean” foods and the freedom of Gentile believers from those regulations. We see early Jewish Christians struggling with that issue in the Acts accounts of Peter’s vision (Acts 10) and of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).
Most likely Paul wrote Romans from Corinth. Thus his views about the issues facing believers in Rome would surely have been informed by the way he treated this matter in the church in Corinth. There (1 Cor 8, 10) he talks about the “weak,” those who are young in the faith, whose consciences are tender, who are still prone, due to their heathen background, to make the link between the idol and the meat sacrificed to the idol. The “strong” are those who know, who are clearly convinced that idols (and the gods they represent) have no real existence. For them, therefore, meat offered to these gods in sacrifice is neutral. One cannot be defiled by it. The “strong” are clearly
“correct” in their theology; the “weak” are definitely “wrong.” And yet, Paul argues, those who have correct knowledge should take care that their knowledge does not lead to the ruin of a brother or sister (1 Cor 8:7–9). For the freedom of the “strong” with regard to this matter may lead the “weak” to return to the sphere of idolatry (1 Cor 8:10–13; 10:23–32).
We must recognize that Paul is not concerned here about simply offending others by doing something with which they disagree, or which they deem inappropriate or unacceptable for Christians. Rather, he is concerned about the eternal welfare of these
“weak” Christians, about acts which cause them to fall in their spiritual journey, leading to the destruction of their young faith (1 Cor 8:9, 11–13; 10:32).
The principles which Paul lays down are identical to those given in Romans 12–13: Do nothing that causes fellow believers to come to ruin (1 Cor 8:13; 10:32); rather, build them up in love (1 Cor 8:1); seek the good of others (1 Cor 10:24, 33).
With this background from the Corinthian situation, we are now ready to follow Paul’s similar argument in Romans 14. There the “weak” seem to be Jewish Christians, who have not yet been able to become free from the ritual and ceremonial laws concerning clean or unclean foods (Rom 14:1–6) or the observance of special days (probably a reference to sabbath observance—Rom 14:5). The majority who stand in tension with the weak are most likely Gentile Christians, for whom there is no such thing as
“unclean foods” or special days to be observed.
Their conflict with each other apparently manifested itself in an attitude of haughtiness or spiritual superiority by the Gentile believers and a condemning, judgmental spirit toward them by Jewish believers. Paul comes down hard on both for three reasons: (1) God has already accepted both (Rom 14:3); (2) we are ultimately accountable in these matters to God and not subject to each other’s limited perspectives (Rom 14:4, 10–
12); and (3) since participation in the kingdom of God is not determined by what we eat or drink, neither abstaining nor partaking is a cause for judgmentalism (Rom 14:13, 17).
Having shown that both the strong and the weak are to be faulted for their attitude toward each other (Rom 14:10), Paul nonetheless surfaces a special concern for the weak ones (Rom 14:15–16). In this he is clearly in keeping with the special divine concern for “the weak ones” throughout the Old and New Testaments. A strong faith is less vulnerable than a weak faith. In the race of faith toward the finish line (see Phil 3:13–14), the strong are less likely to stumble over some obstacle than the weak.
Therefore, the eating of foods which the weak believe to be unclean is an act that is potentially dangerous for those of young faith (Rom 14:13–14). It is an unloving act by the strong if a fellow Christian “is distressed because of what you eat” (Rom 14:15). In light of the rest of the verse (“Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died”) the NIV [NIV New International Version] rendering “distressed” is probably too mild. The Greek word lypeoµ, in addition to “grieve,” “pain,” “distress,”
can also mean “to injure,” “damage” (as in RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ).
Injuring another’s faith may lead to its ultimate destruction.
As in 1 Corinthians, so here also Paul is deeply concerned about Christians’ growth toward mature faith and their eternal well-being. The imperative of love (Rom 14:15) means that Christians are to act in ways that build each other up rather than in ways that tear each other down (Rom 14:19–20), in ways that hold each other up and help each other along rather than in ways that cause others “to stumble” and “to fall” (Rom 14:20–21).
The basis for this kind of Christian conduct is the principle that “each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up,” which Paul articulates at the conclusion of the discussion (Rom 15:2) and grounds in the life of Jesus: “For even Christ did not please himself” (Rom 15:3). In the final analysis Christian conduct is grounded in Christ’s self-giving, sacrificial love (Rom 15:8).
Paul does not tell us how to discern, specifically, when our conduct will bring injury to a fellow believer’s spiritual life and possibly to a falling into sin’s sphere of domination.
What he does seem to believe deeply is that when life is lived in fellowship with Christ, driven by his love, seeking to imitate his life, then we will have the kind of sensitivity to each other which will prevent us from harmful acts.
1:18 Salvation: Past, Present or Future?
See comment on 1 peter 1:9.
3:17 Destroying God’s Temple?
The difficulty of 1 Corinthians 3:17 has to do both with the meaning of the important terms used and with the implications of it for our living as Christians. Who, or what, is God’s temple? By what actions or lifestyle or words can this “temple of God” be destroyed? Are the words or deeds which destroy this temple of God like the
“unforgivable sin” of Matthew 12:31–32, since they bring down the judgment of God (“God will destroy him”)?
The most common understanding of the text is that Paul is here talking about our individual bodies as temples or dwellings of God’s Spirit. If we destroy these
“temples”—through the way we live (for example, through sexual impurity) or by what we put into them (for example, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, excess food) or by what we do to them (for example, suicide)—we become the objects of God’s final, destructive judgment. For, since our bodies are both created by God and the objects of God’s redemptive work, they are sacred and should not be destroyed by us in these ways.
These are all significant insights, and Paul specifically addresses the issue of the proper use of our physical bodies with regard to sexuality later in this epistle (1 Cor 6). But Paul is not speaking to these important issues in this text. Our physical, individual bodies are not what he is here concerned about. For both grammatical and contextual reasons, this understanding must be set aside in order to truly hear God’s word for the Corinthians and for us in this text.
First Corinthians 3:16–17 forms one unit of thought and must be treated as such. This is recognized by most English translations, which set verses 16–17 apart in a distinct paragraph, and it is clear from the fact that both verses speak of God’s temple.
The question “Who or what is God’s temple?” is answered when we understand Paul’s use of the personal pronoun “you” here. In Greek there are different words for singular
“you” and plural “you” (that is, “you all”). Further, verbs have distinct endings that show whether the subject of the verb is singular or plural, first person (“I,” “we”), second person (“you,” “you all”) or third person (“he,” “she,” “it” or “they”). Thus the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 is unambiguous regarding the number of the
“you” addressed; the verb endings and pronouns all reflect the plural.
Among modern translations, only the NIV [NIV New International Version] and TEV
[TEV Today’s English Verision] make a partial attempt at accurately rendering the Greek. In 1 Corinthians 3:16 the NIV [NIV New International Version] reads, “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple?” And in 1 Corinthians 3:17 TEV
[TEV Today’s English Verision] reads, “and you yourselves are his temple.” Yet even these do not bring out the meaning as clearly as the Greek. The following annotated rendering is an attempt to catch the precision of the Greek: “Do you (the many) not
know that you (the many) are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in (among) you (the many)? Anyone who destroys God’s temple will be destroyed by God; for God’s temple is sacred, and you (the many) are that temple.”
This recognition of the nuances of Paul’s Greek shows that he is not here thinking of individual Christians as temples inhabited by God, but of the church, the fellowship of believers in Corinth, among whom the Spirit of God dwells and is operative. Paul expresses this same sense in 2 Corinthians 6:16 where he says that “we are the temple of the living God.” If he had wished to address individual Christians in their physical bodies, Paul would have had to say, “Don’t you know that you are temples of God?”
and “You are those temples.” (And in 2 Corinthians 6:16, “We are the temple of the living God.”)
In many ways, 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 reveals Paul’s foundational understanding of the church and is a key to the meaning of the entire letter. Namely, the church, the people of God among whom God’s Spirit dwells, is God’s option, God’s alternative to the fragmentation and brokenness of human society. The Christian congregation gathered in Corinth was called to model that alternative in the midst of the brokenness of Corinthian society. But their divisiveness, their immorality, their enthusiastic spirituality which disregarded concrete, bodily dimensions of life—all these were destroying the viability of God’s option, God’s temple in Corinth. And it is that destruction which stands under God’s judgment.
This corporate understanding of God’s temple is confirmed by the context. Paul is occupied in the first four chapters of this epistle with divisions which are threatening the very life of the church (1 Cor 1:10–17; 3:3–4). These schisms apparently centered around loyalty to certain teachings that the Corinthian Christians had received from their founder (Paul) or from leaders who worked among them after Paul’s departure (Apollos, Peter, see 1 Cor 1:12).
In this section (1 Cor 3:10–15), Paul shows that those called to leadership in the church, and perhaps all Christians, are accountable to God for the way in which they participate, through life and work, in the growth of God’s building. It is possible to build with materials that endure (gold, silver) or with materials that are of inferior quality (hay, stubble). The end-time judgment (“the day”), pictured here and elsewhere in Scripture as a fiery ordeal, will reveal with what materials individuals have built. It may be, as some commentators have suggested, that Paul has the followers of Peter and Apollos in mind. The former may be attempting to build their own legalistic Jewish practices into the structure of the church; the latter may be building with eloquent (worldly) wisdom and superspirituality. These “building materials,” as Paul shows throughout his writings (particularly Gal and 1 Cor), are ultimately useless. Though Christians who build with these materials are not excluded from God’s salvation, their passage through God’s judgment into eternity will be accompanied by the experience of failure and loss.
But beyond the danger of using worthless building materials in the growth of God’s people, there is the greater danger of acting and living in such a way that “God’s building” will in fact be destroyed. It is that danger which Paul addresses in 1
Corinthians 3:17.
The congregation of people composing the church at Corinth was in danger of destroying itself. As the entire catalog of problems with which Paul deals in this epistle
reveals, the possibility of this church’s destruction was real: their haughtiness regarding the presence of flagrant immorality (1 Cor 5); their use of pagan courts for settling internal disputes and the continuing participation of certain members in pagan rites of cultic prostitution (1 Cor 6); the use of Christian freedom and knowledge in such a way that the “weak in faith” would fall back into sin and be destroyed (1 Cor 8, 10); the rejection of Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body in favor of an emphasis on purely “spiritual redemption” (1 Cor 15), which led the Corinthians to a total disregard for the concrete, practical dimensions of life within the fellowship and the larger society.
To destroy the church, this temple of God, is to destroy God’s alternative to the brokenness of human society; it is to make it impossible for God’s redemptive presence and work, through his “temple” in Corinth, to redeem Corinthian society. Those who thus oppose the very redemptive purposes of God—by factious and contentious, acrimonious behavior; by false doctrines which reject the message of the cross as scandalous and foolish; by perverting the freedom of the gospel into unrestrained libertinism; by replacing salvation by grace through faith with legalistic dependence on works—are liable to God’s destroying power. Their destruction, however, is not to be seen as an act of vindictive retribution, but rather as the inevitable result that comes to those who reject God’s way of salvation.
It is in this sense that the one who “destroys the temple of God” belongs to the category of those who, according to Jesus in Matthew 12:31–32, commit the unpardonable sin. There, it is the rejection of the redemptive presence of God’s Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus. To reject that work of God is to refuse God’s forgiveness. For Paul, it is the destruction of God’s way of salvation through the church, in which the Spirit of God is operative (1 Cor 3:16), that leads to destruction.
For to destroy this work of God (see Rom 14:20) is, in the final analysis, the rejection of God.
5:5 Hand Him Over to Satan?
This instruction of Paul to the Christians in Corinth, part of his call for the excommunication of a member because of serious immorality, needs careful interpretation, or considerable distortion of his meaning is possible.
Questions such as the following are often asked: What does “handing over to Satan”
really mean? Why would the apostle want anyone to be handed over to Satan? Though the man committed a grievous sin, is there no room for discipline and forgiveness within the Christian community? What is envisioned in the idea “destruction of his sinful nature” (literally “flesh”)? And how can that possibly be a means toward the salvation of his spirit?
In the preceding discussion of 1 Corinthians 3:17 it was suggested that Paul understood the church in its local manifestation in Corinth (and any other place) to be God’s alternative to the fragmentation and brokenness of human society. The viability of that alternative was being undermined in a number of ways in the church at Corinth.
First Corinthians 5, where this hard saying is located, deals in its entirety with one of these ways.
The specific problem is the sexually immoral life being led by one of the members. The
larger problem is an attitude about physical life among the Corinthian Christians which allows them not merely to be tolerant of the immoral behavior of a brother, but to exhibit a certain pride, even arrogance, about the matter.
Paul lays the matter clearly before them in 1 Corinthians 5:1. The word rendered
“sexual immorality” (NIV [NIV New International Version] ), or simply “immorality”
(RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ), is the Greek word porneia (from which we derive “pornography”). Literally, it means “prostitution,” but Paul uses it, as normally throughout the New Testament, in its broader meaning of sexual impurity of various kinds. The following sentence, “A man has his father’s wife,” points out the nature of the immorality. The verb has is in the present infinitive form, indicating that the situation is not a single occurrence, but a continuing immoral affair. It is not defined as incest, so the woman is likely his stepmother. Nor does Paul speak of adultery; thus, her husband is either dead or she is divorced from him.
From Paul’s Jewish perspective, such a relationship is a serious break of divine law.
Leviticus 18:8 clearly forbids it, and according to rabbinic tradition, the offender was liable to stoning. What makes the situation even more grave is the recognition that such a sexual relationship is “of a kind that does not occur even among pagans.” By this Paul is probably not claiming that this kind of immorality never occurs among pagans; rather, he must be referring to the fact that even Roman law (as stated in the Institutes of Gaius) forbade such a practice (that is, “Even in the pagan world this is unheard of as acceptable behavior!”). It was clearly detrimental to the moral fiber of the entire congregation, as well as to the viability of its witness in the pagan world.
The seriousness of this matter, which elicits Paul’s rather harsh judgment and direction for congregational action, is undergirded by his assessment of the congregation’s attitude, which apparently not only tolerated this illicit union, but found in it an occasion of prideful boasting. Indeed, Paul may have seen, behind their attitude, a view of Christian faith and life which promoted and nurtured the kind of sexual immorality addressed (both here in 1 Corinthians 5 and another form of it in 1 Corinthians 6).
“The man is having sexual relations with his father’s wife—intolerable in both Jewish religious and Roman civil law—and you are proud” (see 1 Cor 5:2). This judgment on their attitude is anticipated already in 1 Corinthians 4. Here, Paul throws a series of sarcastic barbs at their lofty pride: “already you have become rich!” “you have become kings” (1 Cor 4:8); “you are so wise in Christ!” “you are strong!” (1 Cor 4:10). Then he sums it up with the words “Some of you have become arrogant” (1 Cor 4:18). After his instruction about the excommunication of the offender, he points again to their attitude: “your boasting is not good” (1 Cor 5:6).
What is the ground for this lofty arrogance? It has long been recognized that many of the problems Paul addresses in the church at Corinth seem to be grounded in a religious mindset that devalued physical life and emphasized spiritual liberation. This view developed out of Hellenistic syncretism, with contributions from both philosophy and mystical cults that spread across the Roman Empire from the East.
Plato had taught that the body was the tomb of the soul; that death brought liberation from physical captivity; that already in this life one could transcend the negative arena of matter by a higher knowledge of ultimate reality. Various Hellenistic cults offered immortality via union with the god or gods, sometimes symbolized or achieved through cultic prostitution. Within such a religious philosophical climate, Paul’s
teaching regarding freedom “in Christ” and life “in the Spirit” was all too often, and particularly at Corinth, perverted into an enthusiastic libertinism that rejected moral restraints, particularly in the realm of the physical. Since the physical realm is by definition of no account—so they seem to have argued—it does not really matter what we do with our bodies. Indeed, their arrogant pride regarding sexual immorality in their midst indicates that they may have seen this matter as the very proof of their spiritual perfection. Theirs was a religion of enthusiastic intoxication without moral enthusiasm!
The proper response, both to the intolerable case of sexual immorality, as well as to their imagined superior spirituality, should have been mourning, not pride. And a repentant attitude would inevitably lead to the removal of the offender from the fellowship.
That some form of excommunication is intended is clear not only from 1 Corinthians 5:2, but from the Passover analogy in 1 Corinthians 5:6–8 (“Get rid of the old yeast”) and the citation of Deuteronomy 17:7 (“Expel the wicked man from among you”—1
Cor 5:13). The nature of the removal is expressed in the ambiguous phrase “hand this man over to Satan.” Its purpose is twofold: (1) that his “sinful nature” or “flesh”
would be destroyed and (2) that his “spirit” would be saved (1 Cor 5:5).
The phrase “hand over to Satan” must be recognized in some figurative, metaphorical sense, since a person literally abandoned to Satan would seem to be lost irrevocably.
Yet here such an end is not envisioned.
Some have seen behind the expression the Jewish practice of excommunication, imposed particularly for infringement against marriage laws. In banning an offender, it was believed that separation from the people of God, and therefore from God’s special care, would lead to premature death. (Yet, within Jewish practice, the hand of God was understood to execute this punishment, not Satan.) Premature death, in this view, could be referred to by “destruction of the flesh.” How this premature death would affect a final salvation is not clear.
It seems best to find an explanation within the larger background of apocalyptic Jewish thought which Paul shared. According to that thought, Satan was understood as the
“prince of this world” (see Jn 12:31), as the “prince of darkness” with sovereignty over
“this present evil age” and the realm of death. According to the Gospels, Jesus’
teachings and deeds are the reign of God breaking into the realm of Satan’s dominion (see Lk 11:14–22). For Paul, Jesus’ death and resurrection were the decisive events: the evil powers had been robbed of their control (Col 2:15); the “end of the ages” had broken into this present evil age (1 Cor 10:11 RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version]
); the “new creation” had dawned (2 Cor 5:17); Christians were people who had been delivered “from the dominion of darkness” and transferred into the kingdom of God’s beloved Son (Col 1:13).
Within this larger understanding of Paul’s view the expression “hand him over to Satan” must be interpreted. The new creation had begun, but had not yet been consummated; the dominion of evil had been invaded, but had not yet ended; the new age had superimposed itself on this present evil age, but had not yet replaced it. Thus the church was the arena of Christ’s presence and continuing work; it was the community of God’s Spirit. To be excommunicated was therefore to be transferred out of the kingdom of God’s Son into the dominion of darkness (a reversal of Col 1:13!).
Such a transaction is aptly described as a “handing over to Satan,” that is, into the world, the sphere of his continuing domain.
If that is the proper sense of the phrase, then how are we to understand the stated purposes of this transaction?
A literal reading of the phrase “for the destruction of the flesh” leads to several possible meanings: (1) abandonment of the man’s physical existence to the powers of destruction; (2) premature death, in keeping with Jewish ideas; (3) physical sufferings.
Two difficulties arise: (1) How do any of these lead to the stated purpose of the excommunication, namely, salvation? (2) In light of Paul’s teaching regarding bodily resurrection and his rejection of Corinthian libertinism (with its antiphysical thrust), would he be promoting the dichotomy: destruction of the flesh versus salvation of the spirit?
These difficulties disappear when we take seriously the way in which Paul generally uses the terms flesh and spirit when speaking about human life. Paul clearly rejected the dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual so prevalent in Greek thought.
When he contrasts “flesh” with “spirit” in human existence, being “in the flesh” with being “in the spirit,” he is contrasting two means of existence, two orientations of life.
“Flesh” represents the total being (including the human spirit) in its opposition to God;
“spirit” designates the total being (including the physical) as redeemed by God, in relation with Christ. (See the discussion on Romans 7:14, 19.)
The Greek says literally, “for destruction of the flesh”; the NIV [NIV New International Version] rendering “so that the sinful nature may be destroyed” rightly catches Paul’s “religious” use of the word flesh. The aim of the excommunication would then have been the destruction of the offender’s “way of life.” Surely he had grasped something of God’s grace, experienced dimensions of Christ’s love in the fellowship, witnessed the Spirit’s transforming power in the lives of his brothers and sisters. Excluded from this sphere, might he not come to his senses (like the prodigal son)? Might he not come to the recognition that his immorality would only lead to death, but that the death of his immorality would lead to life?
Only in such an understanding is the concept “destruction of the flesh” an appropriate preliminary step to “salvation of his spirit.” In this last phrase, “spirit” denotes the human being as regenerated by the Spirit of God, living “in the Spirit” or “according to the Spirit” (see Rom 8:5–11 RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ). As such, the one who had once again been claimed from the dominion of darkness, through the destruction of his “fleshly” orientation, would be saved “on the day of the Lord.”
6:9–10 Who Inherits the Kingdom?
After reading 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, some people breathe a sigh of relief. They see that they are not included in this list of vices that disqualify from membership in the kingdom of God. Others read this list and even though they are not guilty of the major sexual sins and criminal activities listed, they recognize that they are sometimes dishonest, or want more things than they need, or have said things which hurt other people, or have an alcohol problem. Are they excluded from the kingdom? Still others reading this text who have misused the gift of sexual intimacy outside the boundaries of the covenant of marriage, or who find themselves overpowered by a homosexual
orientation and its expression, hear in this text a harsh word of judgment and condemnation.
The question “Who inherits the kingdom?” becomes even more acute when we recognize that the list of sins enumerated here is only representative and not exhaustive. Paul catalogs several other vices that exclude people from kingdom membership. In Galatians 5:19–21, in addition to sexual immorality, idolatry and drunkenness (which are in the 1 Cor text), Paul lists the following: impurity, debauchery, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, orgies. He closes the list with these words: “Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
The lists in Ephesians 5:3–5 and Colossians 3:5–9 share some of those already in the other two and add a few more: obscenity, foolish talk, coarse joking, evil desire, anger, malice, lying. The Ephesians list also speaks of disqualification from kingdom membership (Eph 5:5). In Colossians, Paul assigns these sins to the “earthly nature”
(Col 3:5), the “old self” (Col 3:9), “the life you once lived” (Col 3:7), and tells them they must rid themselves of these (Col 3:8), for they have no place in the “new self”
(Col 3:10) which “will appear with [Christ] in glory” (Col 3:4).
Once we have read all of Paul’s lists, we become painfully aware that even those among us who breathed a sigh of relief after reading 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 are also tainted and, as such, disqualified from kingdom membership. And so we are tempted to ask, with Jesus’ disciples, “Who then can be saved?” (Lk 18:26). We shall see that Paul’s answer to this question is surely the same as Jesus’ response to his disciples:
“What is impossible with men is possible with God” (Lk 18:27).
In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul has addressed the presence of a particularly scandalous case of sexual immorality. After calling for action that could lead to the offender’s salvation, Paul speaks about the nature of the Christian fellowship via elements from the Jewish Passover (1 Cor 5:6–8). The church is like the dough used for the Passover bread.
Yeast, which in the Old Testament symbolizes evil, is to be removed so the dough can become uncontaminated, unleavened bread. So in the church a little yeast (for example, sexual immorality, a haughty spirit) contaminates the whole batch of dough (the church, 1 Cor 5:6). The church must remove the yeast so it can be a new batch without yeast, which, in a real sense, it already is (1 Cor 5:7).
We have here a typical example of Paul’s understanding of both the church and individual believers as living in the tension between the “already” and the “not yet.”
The church is the present expression of the reign of God, the kingdom of God in the midst of the world; but it is still on the way, not yet identical with the kingdom of God at the end of history. Christians have been set free from the bondage to sin; yet they must appropriate that freedom in specific decisions to continually resist the encroachments of evil (see Rom 6).
In 1 Corinthians 6:8 Paul exposes another fragment of “yeast” that needs to be dealt with. The spectacle of church members taking each other to civil court underlines the
“not-yet” dimension of the church. They cheat and wrong each other!
These evidences of unrighteousness among the Corinthian believers lead Paul to denounce all forms of evil as incompatible with the kingdom of God: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?” (1 Cor 6:9). Why not?
Because by definition, the future kingdom of God is one of absolute righteousness, since the forces of evil have been overcome (see 1 Cor 15:24–28). In such a kingdom, the unrighteous will have no part.
As we saw in the discussion of 1 Corinthians 5:5, not only was Paul concerned about specific acts of immorality or conduct incompatible with our status as the community of the Spirit. He was also concerned with a religious view that disregarded practical morality and thus encouraged, perhaps even affirmed, immoral and unethical behavior.
Toward that stance, Paul is emphatic: “Do not be deceived” (1 Cor 6:9 RSV [RSV
Revised Standard Version] ). The Corinthians were deluding themselves into believing that God’s moral demands did not need to be taken seriously. But to reject God’s moral imperatives is to reject membership in God’s kingdom (1 Cor 6:9–10).
Having laid the cards on the table so there could be no misunderstanding about the lofty goal of Christian life and faith (that is, a kingdom of perfect righteousness), Paul now reminds them of God’s transforming intervention in their former lives of unrighteousness. “That is what some of you were” (1 Cor 6:11). Paul had founded the church several years earlier (1 Cor 4:15), and the faces of his converts, including the lives they had lived, may have flashed across his mind as he was penning the list of representative vices. “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).
Paul reminds them of what is possible when the broken and sin-scarred wrecks of human lives are yielded to God in faith and touched by his grace. They were the result of a miracle, redeemed sinners won from destructive ways of life by God’s power. The image of having been “washed” surely recalled their baptism and reminded them of what the ritual symbolized: an inward cleansing brought about by God’s forgiving love in Christ. Further, they were “sanctified.” In this context the term does not have the more technical meaning, namely, that of moral-ethical growth toward perfection.
Rather, it reminds them that through baptism they became part of the people of God, whom Paul called “saints.” Finally, they are reminded that they were justified, called back into right relationship with God, on the basis of God’s relation-restoring love in Christ.
On the ground of this action of God and their faith response in the past, Paul can speak of them in analogy to the Passover dough as really unleavened, free from evil. Yet, on the basis of their present reality, marred by acts and lifestyles of unrighteousness, he can call them to become what they are, to remove from their fellowship and their individual lives “the yeast of malice and wickedness” (1 Cor 5:8), to “flee from sexual immorality” (1 Cor 6:18), to honor God with their bodies (1 Cor 6:20). How is that possible? It is possible because their bodies are the dwelling places of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 6:19), who can continue to transform them toward conformity with the image of their creator (see also Col 3:10).
Who inherits the kingdom? All those whose lives have been scarred by one or more of the sins in the Pauline lists with which we began, whose scarred lives have been healed and cleansed by the grace of God, and who reject the continuing encroachments of sin, moving in the power of the Spirit toward the coming kingdom of the Lord.
Paul’s words to the Christians in Ephesus, in the context of one of his catalogs of vices, are an apt summary for this chapter: “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light. … Have nothing to do with the fruitless
deeds of darkness” (Eph 5:8, 11).
See also comment on romans 1:27.
7:1 Is It Good to Marry?
Paul’s statement that “it is good for a man not to marry,” at the beginning of a chapter in which he deals with issues of singleness, celibacy and marriage, as well as the appropriate place for the expression of sexuality, has raised numerous questions. This is so especially for those who take the Bible seriously as the ultimate authority for Christian life and faith.
If Paul is teaching that singleness and celibacy are superior expressions of Christian spirituality, then are all Christians who are married and choose to marry opting for an inferior lifestyle? How are Christian young people, in the process of making vocational and relational decisions about their future, to respond to Paul’s words? Are they deciding against “the best” God has for them and for “the lesser good,” namely, their physical-psychological needs, the passions of their flesh, if they decide to marry?
Yes would seem to be the obvious answer in light of both this text and others, such as in 1 Corinthians 7:7 (“I wish that all men were as I am”), 1 Corinthians 7:8 (“It is good for [the unmarried and widows] to stay unmarried, as I am”) and 1 Corinthians 7:26
(“It is good for [virgins] to remain as you are”).
Even if we are not to take Paul’s apparent preference for celibacy as an expression of God’s optimum will, the value and expression of physical, sexual intimacy seems to be viewed somewhat negatively, in light of statements such as 1 Corinthians 7:2 (“But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife”), 1 Corinthians 7:5 (“Come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”) and 1 Corinthians 7:9 (“But if [the unmarried] cannot control themselves, they should marry”).
If we are to deal fairly with this hard saying and the way in which Paul explores its implications in the rest of chapter 7, we need to take seriously some important principles for the interpretation of the Epistles. One of these is the recognition that the Epistles (and 1 Cor more so than perhaps any of the others) are occasional documents, written for specific situations in the life of Christian congregations. Thus, in the case of 1 Corinthians, in chapters 1–4 Paul is responding to concerns and problems that have been communicated to him orally, apparently by a church delegation. In chapter 7 he begins his response to matters that had been laid before him in a letter: “Now for the matters you wrote about” (1 Cor 7:1; see also 1 Cor 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Though Paul does not explicitly tell us what they wrote, we have a good general idea about what the issues were for which they sought his advice or counsel.
A second principle of importance is the recognition of the particular historical or cultural or church context within which the needs or questions addressed by the apostle are located. Thus the pervasive sexual immorality in Corinthian society, which even spilled over into the church (Paul deals with it in 1 Cor 5–6), needs to be kept in mind when we read 1 Corinthians 7:1–24. Also to be remembered is the Corinthian Christians’ view regarding the dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical, which led to various responses regarding human sexuality and resulted in a libertine view of
sex (“anything goes!”). In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul seems to be responding to the
“ascetic” implications of their negative views regarding the physical.
A third principle of significance for understanding this saying (as well as many other sayings dealt with in the following chapters of this book) is to recognize that the inspired, authoritative word of the apostle may be either normative for Christian life and faith generally, transcending all times and situations, or it may be corrective, intended to address a particular issue in a particular context, without necessarily intending to have universal application.
With these perspectives in mind, the issues Paul raises for us in 1 Corinthians 7:1 and several other hard sayings in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, 20 and 29 can be more easily understood.
The Greek sentence translated “It is good for a man not to marry” in the NIV [NIV
New International Version] and TEV [TEV Today’s English Verision] is more literally translated “It is well for a man not to touch a woman,” as in the NASB [NASB New American Standard Bible] and RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] . The NIV [NIV
New International Version] gives this alternative reading in a footnote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” That rendering recognizes that the term “to touch” is a biblical euphemism for sexual intimacy (see Gen 20:6; Prov 6:29).
Since for Paul sexual intimacy and the covenant of marriage clearly belong together, the term “to touch a woman” can legitimately refer to marrying. The verses which follow strongly support such a meaning.
On the basis of the introductory phrase, “Now for the matters you wrote about,” and several other places in the letter where Paul seems to be quoting slogans that the Corinthians waved in his face in support of their position (see 1 Cor 6:12–13 and 1
Cor 10:23), several modern translations suggest an alternative reading for 1
Corinthians 7:1: “A man does well not to marry” (TEV [TEV Today’s English Verision] ; see also the footnote rendering in the NEB [NEB New English Bible] , “It is a good thing for a man to have nothing to do with women”). Attributing the hard saying to the Corinthian position might lessen the problems raised at the outset, except for the fact that, if it is their slogan, Paul seems to cite it with at least restrained approval and certainly personalizes the sentiment in the same chapter (1 Cor 7:7, 8, 26).
What the slogan—whether a citation from the Corinthians’ letter to Paul or Paul’s summary of their views—clearly reveals is an attitude about marriage and sexual expression within it that advocates asceticism. The lofty (and haughty) spirituality of some believers in Corinth expressed itself—in relation to concrete, physical things—in the attitude “everything is permissible” (1 Cor 6:12). That same spirituality could also express itself in an ascetic attitude, the rejection of all physical, sensual aspects of life.
That is apparently the view with which Paul does battle in most of chapter 7. Not only did some reject marriage as such as unworthy of “true spirituality”; some even rejected the expression of sexual desire within marriage. And for still others, divorce seemed to be desirable as a means for developing their spirituality apart from the sexual intimacy of marriage.
Within this larger context, then, Paul’s personal preference for celibacy, and his equally strong affirmation of the goodness of marriage and of sexual intimacy within it, needs to be understood.
The affirmation “It is good for a man not to marry” does not necessarily or logically lead to the conclusion “It is not good for a man to marry.” Paul affirms the value of singleness and the celibate state, but he does not devalue marriage and sex within it.
This is shown in what follows, where he strongly qualifies the statement “It is good not to marry” and lifts up the purposes of marriage.
In 1 Corinthians 7:2–7, he affirms one of these good purposes: “Since there is so much immorality,” normally people should marry. This conviction is grounded in Paul’s view of created design and order, based on Genesis 1–2. God created the human species as male and female (Gen 1:26–27), with and for each other, in complementary polarity.
Aloneness “is not good”; God creates the woman “corresponding to him” (Gen 2:18).
Therefore the man and the woman are united in the covenant of marriage and become
“one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
Paul recognizes this divinely created and ordained context for human intimacy and the expression of the sexual drive. In light of the pervasive sexual immorality (that is, sex outside the male-female covenant of marriage) in Corinth and even in the church (1
Cor 5–6), Paul affirms that one of the purposes of marriage is the legitimate expression of the God-given drive toward physical union. Sex in marriage is not to be rejected.
Setting it aside should only be by mutual decision and for a limited period of time (1
Cor 7:5), not (by implication) because it is of no value or hurtful. God-given sexuality is a strong force. If it is not given its proper context for expression, it is in danger of spilling over into sexual immorality (1 Cor 7:5).
For Paul, the temporary setting aside of sexual intimacy in marriage is “a concession, not a command” (1 Cor 7:6). The norm in marriage is the mutual right of the partners to each other in physical union. The concession (a limited time of abstinence for the purpose of prayer) seems to be for the sake of the Corinthian ascetics, who probably wanted to abstain totally.
Paul concludes this carefully balanced discussion by affirming that his own celibacy, which he has experienced as a great good and therefore wished for others also, is a gift from God (1 Cor 7:7). This gift provides singleness of purpose in the service of Christ (1 Cor 7:8–9, 32–35). Those who are not gifted in this way have other gifts which they should exercise.
The latter part of the chapter (1 Cor 7:25–35) makes clear that Paul’s preference for celibacy and his wish that others follow his example is strongly grounded in the early church’s expectation that the reign of God—which had broken into this present age in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection—would soon be consummated, perhaps even in their lifetime (1 Cor 7:26, “because of the present crisis”; 1 Cor 7:29, “the time is short”; 1
Cor 7:31, “this world in its present form is passing away”). In light of this brevity of time, Paul is concerned that Christians who have the opportunity—because they are not yet, or no longer, married—be involved in the work of the Lord, spreading the good news (1 Cor 7:32, 35). This eschatological urgency helps to explain Paul’s passionate commitment regarding the value of celibacy, while at the same time strongly arguing against the Corinthian ascetics in behalf of marriage and the expression of God-intended sexual intimacy within it.
See also comment on matthew 19:12.
The distinction which Paul makes here between a command which has its origin in the Lord and instruction which he gives to the church has raised questions for many readers. If, in terms of authority, there is no proper distinction between a word from the Lord and Paul’s opinion, why does Paul seem to distinguish so clearly between what the Lord commands and what he himself has to say? If Paul intends to make a distinction between levels of authority, what are the implications of that distinction for the authority of the Gospels relative to Paul’s letters? Do we need to scrutinize all of Paul’s writings in light of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels and elevate those parts of his letters which are clearly corroborated by Jesus’ teaching above those which are clearly the product of Paul’s thought?
Beyond these questions regarding the authority of what Paul wrote is the more basic issue of Paul’s apostolic authority. In several documents from his hand (including the Corinthian correspondence), his apostolic authority is a key concern. His sometimes harsh words to the schismatics at Corinth, as well as to the hyperspiritualists (1 Cor) and his opponents (2 Cor), seem to be grounded in a clear sense of apostolic authority, which he asserts and defends vigorously. What then does he mean to communicate by saying, “I say this (I, not the Lord)”?
Paul’s understanding of his apostolic authority must be seen against the background of his Jewish heritage and in light of his experience of the risen Lord and his sense of divinely ordained vocation.
Within Judaism, rabbinic authority was grounded in the God-given Torah. Those learned in the law received, interpreted and passed on the authoritative tradition because they sat “in Moses’ seat” (Mt 23:2). Their authority as teachers of the law was a derived authority, but it was nonetheless binding because it was understood to be in continuity with the primary authority.
Just as Paul once was a student of the rabbis and was “extremely zealous for the traditions” of his fathers (Gal 1:14)—who derived their authority from Moses, and therefore from the God who gave his law to Moses—so he now could pronounce a curse on anyone who preached any gospel other than the one he preached and the Galatians had accepted (Gal 1:8–9). Why? Because the gospel which he preached was not of human origin; rather it had its origin in the Lord (Gal 1:11–12). Thus not only Paul’s gospel, but the teaching derived from it, is rooted in the authority of Christ.
Therefore Paul’s instruction to churches and individuals is to be received, not as merely human words, but as the word of God (1 Thess 2:13).
Further, Paul stands within the chain of “receiving” and “passing on” the authoritative tradition (see 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1–3). He knows that he has been grasped by Christ (Phil 3:12), that he is a recipient of Christ’s authoritative revelation (1 Cor 15:9–11) and that he is called to be an apostle not through human instrumentality, but by direct divine intervention (Gal 1:1). Though it is doubtful that the word apostolos had in this early period the later technical sense of “office” (occupied by the Twelve plus Paul), its primary meaning, “one sent,” certainly involved for Paul the authority of the Sender (see Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1).
Paul is endowed with the authority of the Sender, and his message and preaching are a
demonstration of the power of God’s Spirit (1 Cor 2:4). He is God’s Sent One ( apostolos), and his instruction to excommunicate an offender is accompanied by “the power of our Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:4).
In light of his self-understanding of apostolic authority, it is very improbable that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:10 and 12 indicate a lessening of that sense of authority.
Throughout this chapter Paul frequently adopts a pastoral role, giving advice and counsel. He expresses the wish that others were as he is (1 Cor 7:7). He lays options before them and calls on them to make responsible choices (1 Cor 7:8–9, 28, 36–38).
He gives instruction for a course of action in light of his concern for them (1 Cor 7:32–
35). When Paul speaks in this mode, it is quite clear that he is not demanding obedience; yet he makes it also quite clear that he does not simply express neutral human opinion. His opinion does have behind it “the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 7:40), and he does want them to know that he is trustworthy as one guided by the Lord’s mercy (1 Cor 7:25).
However, the instruction which follows the words “I say this (I, not the Lord)” is surely an application—in a new situation—of the instruction which follows the words
“I give this command (not I, but the Lord).” The distinction Paul makes is simply this: in the matter of divorce and remarriage, Paul is in possession of a direct command of the Lord. It can hardly be doubted that his instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 is based on the teaching of Jesus preserved for us in Mark 10:2–12. But for the question of what is to be done when a believer is married to a nonbeliever, Paul was not in possession of a direct teaching from Jesus. Jesus did not address this issue during his ministry. Thus, after appealing to the direct teaching of Jesus regarding the sanctity and permanence of marriage as intended by the Creator, Paul goes on, after simply acknowledging that he does not have another direct word from the Lord, to apply the implications of that divine intention to the complex situation of marriages between believers and unbelievers. The thrust of the passage makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assume that Paul intended his words to convey a lessened sense of authority.
7:17, 20 Remain in Slavery?
The difficulty with which 1 Corinthians 7:17 and 20 present us arises primarily from the surrounding verses in the paragraph (1 Cor 7:17–24). In 1 Corinthians 7:21 the situation chosen as an illustration is that of slavery. In 1 Corinthians 7:17 the various situations in which persons found themselves when they were called to faith in Christ are understood as assigned or apportioned by the Lord, and they are told to remain in those situations. That instruction is given further weight in the sentence “This is the rule I lay down in all the churches” (1 Cor 7:17).
In light of these statements, Paul has often been charged not only with failure to condemn the evil system of slavery, but indeed with abetting the status quo. These charges can be demonstrated to be invalid when the paragraph which contains this text is seen within the total context of 1 Corinthians 7 and in light of the historical situation as Paul perceived it.
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul is dealing with questions about marriage, the appropriate place for sexual expression, the issue of divorce and remarriage, all in response to a
pervasive view in the church which rejected or demeaned the physical dimension of male-female relationships. In the immediately preceding paragraph (1 Cor 7:12–16), Paul’s counsel to believers who are married to unbelievers is twofold: (1) If the unbelieving partner is willing to remain in the marriage, the believer should not divorce (and thus reject) the unbelieving partner; for that person’s willingness to live with the believer may open him or her to the sanctifying power of God’s grace through the believing partner (1 Cor 7:12–14). (2) If the unbeliever does not want to remain in the union, he or she should be released from the marriage. Though the partner may be sanctified through the life and witness of the believer, there is no certainty, especially when the unbeliever desires separation (1 Cor 7:15–16).
Having recognized the possibility, and perhaps desirability, of this exception to his general counsel against divorce, Paul reaffirms what he considers to be the norm (“the rule I lay down in all the churches”): that one should remain in the life situation the Lord has assigned and in which one has been called to faith (1 Cor 7:17). In light of exceptions to general norms throughout this chapter, it is probably unwise to take the phrase “the place in life that the Lord has assigned” too literally and legalistically, as if each person’s social or economic or marital status had been predetermined by God.
Rather, Paul’s view seems to be similar to the one Jesus takes with regard to the situation of the blind man in John 9. His disciples inquire after causes: Is the man blind because he sinned or because his parents sinned (Jn 9:2)? Jesus’ response is essentially that the man’s blindness is, within the overall purposes of God, an occasion for the work of God to be displayed (Jn 9:3).
For Paul, the life situations in which persons are encountered by God’s grace and come to faith are situations which, in God’s providence, can be transformed and through which the gospel can influence others (such as unbelieving partners).
The principle “remain in the situation” is now given broader application to human realities and situations beyond marriage. The one addressed first is that of Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor 7:18–19). The outward circumstances, Paul argues, are of little or no significance (“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing”). They neither add to nor detract from one’s calling into a relationship with God, and therefore one’s status as Jew or Gentile should not be altered. (It should be noted here that under the pressure of Hellenization, some Jews in the Greek world sought to undo their circumcision [1 Maccabees 1:15]. And we know from both Acts and Galatians that Jewish Christians called for the circumcision of Gentile Christians.) Once again, it is clear that the general norm, “remain in the situation,” is not an absolute law. Thus we read in Acts 16:3 that Paul, in light of missionary needs and strategy, had Timothy circumcised even though Timothy was already a believer. Paul’s practice in this case would be a direct violation of the rule which he laid down for all the churches (1 Cor 7:17–18), but only if that rule had been intended as an absolute.
Paul now repeats the rule “Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him” (1 Cor 7:20), and applies it to yet another situation, namely, that of the slave. Paul does not simply grab a hypothetical situation, for the early church drew a significant number of persons from the lower strata of society (see 1
Cor 1:26–27). So Paul addresses individuals in the congregation who were of the large class of slaves existing throughout the ancient world: “Were you a slave when you were called?” (that is, when you became a Christian). The next words, “Do not let it trouble you,” affirm that the authenticity of the person’s new life and new status as the
Lord’s “freedman” (1 Cor 7:21–22) cannot be demeaned and devalued by external circumstances such as social status.
As in the previous applications of the norm (“remain in the situation”), Paul immediately allows for a breaking of the norm; indeed, he seems to encourage it:
“although if you can gain your freedom, do so” (1 Cor 7:21; note the RSV [RSV
Revised Standard Version] rendering: “avail yourself of the opportunity”). As footnotes in some contemporary translations indicate (TEV [TEV Today’s English Verision] , RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ), it is possible to translate the Greek of verse 21 as “make use of your present condition instead,” meaning that the slave should not take advantage of this opportunity, but rather live as a transformed person within the context of continuing slavery. Some scholars support this rendering, since it would clearly illustrate the norm laid down in the previous verse. However, we have already noted that Paul provides contingencies for much of his instruction in chapter 7, and there is no good reason to doubt that Paul supported the various means for emancipation of individual slaves that were available in the Greco-Roman world.
And yet, Paul’s emphasis in the entire chapter, as in the present passage, is his conviction that the most critical issue in human life and relations and institutions is the transformation of persons’ lives by God’s calling. External circumstances can neither take away from, nor add to, this reality. The instruction to remain in the situation in which one is called to faith (which Paul repeats several more times, in 1 Cor 7:24, 26, 40, and for which he also grants contingencies, in 1 Cor 7:28, 36, 38) can be understood as a missiological principle. To remain in the various situations addressed by Paul provides opportunity for unhindered devotion and service to the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35), or transforming witness toward an unbelieving marriage partner (1 Cor 7:12–16), or a new way of being present in the context of slavery as one who is free in Christ (1 Cor 7:22–23).
The transforming possibilities of this latter situation are hinted at elsewhere in Paul’s writings. Masters who have become believers are called on to deal with their slaves in kindness and to remember that the Master who is over them both sees both as equals (Eph 6:9). The seeds of the liberating gospel are gently sown into the tough soil of slavery. They bore fruit in the lives of Onesimus, the runaway slave, and Philemon, his master. The slave returns to the master, no longer slave but “brother in the Lord”
(Philem 15–16).
Note too that the three relational spheres which Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7—
male-female, Jew-Gentile (Greek), slave-free—are brought together in that high-water mark of Paul’s understanding of the transforming reality of being in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). As a rabbi, Paul had given thanks daily, as part of the eighteen benedictions to God, that he had not been born as a Gentile, a slave or a woman. It was his experience of Christ that led him to recognize that these distinctions of superior and inferior were abolished in the new order of things inaugurated in Christ.
Surely in this vision the seeds were sown for the ultimate destruction of slavery and all other forms of bondage.
Finally, Paul’s understanding of the historical situation in which he and the church found themselves provides another key for his instruction that believers should remain where they are. He, together with most other Christians, was convinced that the eschaton, the climax of God’s redemptive intervention, was very near. Statements in 1
Cor 7:26 (“because of the present crisis”) and 1 Cor 7:29 (“the time is short”) underline that conviction. This belief created a tremendous missionary urgency. The good news had to get out so that as many as possible could yet be saved (see 1 Cor 10:33). This expectation of the imminent end was surely an important factor for the Pauline norm “remain where you are.”
See also comment on exodus 21:2–11; ephesians 6:5–8.
7:29 Live as Though You Had No Spouse?
What does Paul mean? How can one live with one’s spouse “as if” one had none? And why should we have to or want to? How and why is “shortness of time” a factor in favor of living “as if”?
In the preceding paragraph (1 Cor 7:25–28), Paul has just counseled single persons, in view of “the present crisis,” to remain single (1 Cor 7:26). Should they, however, decide to marry, they would not be sinning. Yet, as married persons, they would “face many troubles in this life,” and he wants to spare them this difficult time (1 Cor 7:28).
This reference to difficult experiences is most likely connected with the earlier mention of a “present crisis” (1 Cor 7:26), as well as with the reference to “the time is short” (1
Cor 7:29). An understanding of the image-world behind these cryptic phrases is imperative if we are to follow Paul’s reasoning.
Early Christianity, in continuity with Jesus’ teaching about the inbreaking of the kingdom of God and its future consummation, was heir to Jewish understandings of the present and expectations about the future. Their understanding is known as apocalyptic eschatology. The word eschatology comes from the Greek words for
“last” and “word,” and means “teaching about the end.” The word apocalyptic comes from the Greek word apokalyptoµ, which means “to reveal.” Its noun form is apokalypsis (“revelation”).
Apocalyptic eschatology, as a particular way of understanding the present and envisioning the future, arose in Judaism during the last three centries b.c. The canonical book of Daniel is its earliest literary expression, which was followed by a host of apocalypses, literary works published in the names of worthy figures in Israel’s past, which sought to “reveal” the meaning of Israel’s present experience of bondage, deprivation and evil in light of God’s purposes. Some of these apocalyptic works were part of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, read by Diaspora Jews (that is, Jews living outside Palestine) and later Gentile and Jewish Christians.
The main features of the worldview of these visionaries within Israel are the following: (1) the belief that this present age was largely under the control of evil powers; (2) the conviction that the suffering of God’s faithful people in this present evil age was a necessary part of the outworking of a divine plan; (3) the certainty that history was quickly moving toward its climax and that the time immediately prior to the cataclysmic destruction of this world and the creation of a new one would be a time of intense tribulation and crisis; (4) the participation, in the outworking of God’s purposes, of a transcendent figure seen as one like a man, or the Son of Man; (5) the belief that the day of the Lord, the day of his victory over the powers of evil, would be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead (or at least of the righteous dead).
It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus taught and carried on his ministry in light of this Jewish apocalyptic understanding. The battle with evil powers was signaled in his exorcism of demons and interpreted in parables, such as the one about the strong man, whose realm is invaded by one stronger than he (Lk 11:17–22). Satan’s power over this present age is breaking (Lk 10:18); the “prince of this world” shall now be cast out (Jn 12:31). Jesus is the apocalyptic Son of Man in whom the reign of God is already breaking into this age, and who will come again to gather his righteous ones (Lk 13:27), raise the dead (Jn 5:28–29) and exercise judgment (Mt 25:31–32). The Olivet discourse, Jesus’ teaching about the crisis of the present and the judgment to come (Mk 13; Mt 24–25; Lk 21), conveys a sense of urgency and imminence. And Matthew’s account of the signs accompanying Jesus’ crucifixion (darkness, earthquake, raisings of the dead—Mt 27:45, 51–53) surely communicates the conviction that this event signaled the coming of the last days.
On the basis of Jesus’ life and teaching, his death and resurrection, and the experience of the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (which was perceived as an evidence that the last days had come—Acts 2:14–21), the early church lived under the intense conviction that the final chapter of the scroll of history was being unrolled.
Paul shared this conviction. In his correspondence with the Christians in Thessalonica, he expresses his hope regarding the nearness of the Lord’s return (1 Thess 4:13–14) but also reminds them that his return will be preceded by a time of tribulation, the evidence of evil’s last struggle to retain control of the world (2 Thess 2). In the cross, the principalities and powers are defeated (Col 2:15). Jesus’ resurrection is the downpayment, the first fruits, of the resurrection to come (1 Cor 15:2–23). And because the era of resurrection has already been inaugurated, believers are those who have been transferred from the dominion of darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Col 1:13); they are those on whom the end of the ages has come (1 Cor 10:11).
At the same time, believers are participants in the final end-time struggle against the powers of evil (Eph 6:10–18).
Against the background of this world-view and within the context of these convictions about living in the last days, Paul’s language about “the present crisis” and “the time is short” must be understood. His counsel to the various groups addressed in 1
Corinthians 7 “to remain” in their present relational and institutional contexts, and in those contexts to “live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor 7:35), is eminently appropriate. Life can no longer be lived in its normal, ordinary way, “for this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor 7:31).
This conviction about the transitional nature of the present determines Paul’s thinking about the various arenas of life in 1 Corinthians 7:29–31. Christians are “new creations” (2 Cor 5:17), and even though they are still living in this world they are no longer of this world (see Jn 17:15–16), but already part of a new order (“the old has gone, the new has come,” 2 Cor 5:17). Therefore, “from now on those who have wives should live as if they had none.” This statement is followed by four more “as if”
contrasts, representative of various areas of life and work and relationships. The point Paul makes is simply that all of life—in light of the fact that Christians are already people of the new creation and that the old order is therefore no longer determinative—must be lived in a new key.
In contrast to the Corinthian spiritualists who wanted to reject marriage, Paul affirms
it, but the values and priorities of persons living in this and other human institutions must be kingdom values. There is a higher loyalty than even that to one another in the covenant of marriage. The ordinary structures and expectations which are part of this present order of things—such as the use of power and status to subject others, whether in marriage or social arrangements like slavery—are no longer valid and determinative.
Christians are members of a new order while still living in the final days of the old order. And so they should live “as if” the new order had already arrived. And in that new order, even divinely ordained institutions like marriage will be radically transformed.
8:5–6 Many Gods and Lords?
Paul expresses a number of ideas in 1 Corinthians 8:5–6 which, at least on the surface, create some inner tension or dissonance. Though he clearly states that “there is but one God,” a phrase that reaffirms what he has already said in the previous verse (“we know
… that there is no God but one”), that conviction seems to be qualified by the phrase
“for us.” Is Paul admitting the existence of divine beings “for others”? A second, corresponding problem is created by Paul’s concessive statement “even if there are so-called gods” and the apparent qualification which follows: “as indeed there are many
‘gods’ and ‘lords.’”
These difficulties can be solved once we understand the problem which Paul addresses, the situation in Corinth and Paul’s general Jewish-Christian worldview.
In 1 Corinthians 8–10 Paul is apparently addressing a second problem the church had laid before him in their letter (the first one was addressed in chapter 7; see discussions on that chapter). The question was: Is it permissible for Christians to eat food that has been offered to idols (1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:14–30)? In light of practices in the pagan world, that question arose in at least three settings. Animals which were sacrificed to pagan divinities at the various temples and shrines were not wholly consumed in the sacrificial flames; often only certain organs were actually offered. The meat not consumed was sold by the priests to merchants, who resold it to the populace in the meat markets (1 Cor 10:25). The heathen called such meat “sacrificed for sacred purposes” (see 1 Cor 10:28), while Jews and Christians, recognizing idols as the work of human hands (Is 40:18–20), called it “idol-meat” (see 1 Cor 8:1, 4; 10:19).
In addition to public sacrifices in the temples, there were also sacrificial rituals performed in private homes. Food remaining from such events was then consumed at regular meals. Would Christians invited by their pagan friends or neighbors be contaminated by such food (1 Cor 10:27–28)? Sometimes banquets were held by individuals or associations in temple courts, and Christians could be invited (1 Cor 8:10). Since such meals were associated with the god or gods worshiped in these temples, the question of pagan defilement was very acute, not only for Jewish Christians, but for Gentile Christians who were “still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol” (1 Cor 8:7).
Within this context the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:5–6 are to be understood. He affirms, in concert with those believers in Corinth who had arrived at true knowledge, a deeply held and central belief of his Jewish heritage: “There is no God but one”; and because this is the ultimate truth (see Deut 6:4; Is 44:8; 45:5), “an idol is nothing at all in the world” (1 Cor 8:4). From the perspective of both Jewish and Christian
convictions (Deut 4:15–19; Is 40:18–19; Acts 17:29; Rom 1:18–19), idols represent no god; they represent nothing at all. That means therefore (at least on the level of true knowledge) that food offered to idols is in essence neutral.
Paul also recognizes, however, that human actions and thoughts and habits are often shaped and determined more by “perceived reality” than by “true reality,” more by humanly created superstitions than by divine revelations. It is this recognition which stands behind the words about “so-called gods” and “gods and lords.”
The words “so-called gods” appear one other time in the New Testament (in 2 Thess 2:4, though “god” is in the singular here), where Paul speaks of “the man of lawlessness” who “will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped,” prior to the coming of the Lord. In both cases, Paul simply recognizes that the pagan world is involved in the belief in, and worship of, gods. Temples to the various Roman and Greek gods in Corinth were ample testimony to this reality. In neighboring Athens, according to Acts 17, Paul addressed the Athenians as “very religious,” for he found there many “objects of worship,” including an altar “to an unknown god.”
Yet, while recognizing this pervasive reality in the pagan world, Paul emphatically qualifies it by claiming that these are only “called” gods. In other words, whatever the degree of reality or unreality assigned to these “objects of worship,” what Christians mean by “God” when they speak of the God of Israel and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be claimed for these pagan idols.
Having acknowledged the pagan perception concerning the terrestrial and heavenly worlds as peopled by a host of divinities, and having qualified these as “so-called gods,” Paul goes on to acknowledge that even though what pagans worship cannot be called “God,” there is a reality that claims pagan allegiance and dominates their lives.
The statement “there are [indeed] many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’” (1 Cor 8:5) could be interpreted as a further acknowledgment of the spurious character of all those supposed beings whom the pagans defined as both “gods” and “lords.” That interpretation would certainly seem to be confirmed by the next sentence, where the claim “yet for us there is but one God … and but one Lord” represents the direct Christian counterclaim.
Without setting this view aside, it is also possible that we see in the phrase “as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’” a reflection of the Jewish and early Christian view of the world as populated by superterrestrial (not divine!) powers, angels, demons, largely opposed to God’s purposes, enslaving humans and leading them into idolatry. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul speaks of the head of this host of spiritual powers as
“the god of this world [who] has blinded the minds of unbelievers.” In Colossians 1:16
and Ephesians 1:21 Christ is pictured as above all “authority,” and in Ephesians 6:10–
11 Christians are seen as those who are engaged in spiritual struggle with powers that are clearly superterrestrial. It is also clear that Paul acknowledged the existence of angelic beings (1 Cor 4:9; 6:3), but just as clearly denounced the worship of such beings (Col 2:18).
In light of this larger view of reality, we can understand why Paul, in the continuation of the discussion about “meat offered to idols” in 1 Corinthians 10, maintains that though idols are not real (1 Cor 10:19), what pagans sacrifice to them they are actually, unwittingly, offering to demons. The point seems to be that the evil spirit-
powers called demons use the pagans’ idolatrous practices to separate the creature from the Creator.
For Paul, there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6). The designations “gods” and “lords” for the objects of pagan worship are false and inappropriate. What Christians are to be concerned about, however, are forces and powers of evil against which they must stand “strong in the Lord and in his mighty power” (Eph 6:10).
8:1–13 To Eat or Not to Eat?
See comment on romans 14:15.
10:8 Twenty-three Thousand or Twenty-four Thousand?
In the warning of 1 Corinthians 10:8 we notice that the main point is that Christians should not commit immorality. Yet the number surprises us when we look at Numbers 25:9: “But those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.” Which text is correct?
Why did Paul use one number if the book of Numbers has another?
In some situations of this type the solution is easy: the New Testament is citing the Greek version of the Old Testament, while the Hebrew version, the basis of English Bibles, reads differently. In this case that is not the solution. All of the various versions of the Old Testament and all known Jewish traditions agree that 24,000 is the correct number. How could Paul have gotten a different number?
Some apologists have resorted to speculation. One theory says that while the total number who died was 24,000, the number that died “in one day” was only 23,000.
Another theory argues that the true number was 23,500, and while Numbers rounded it up, Paul rounded it down. The truth is that both of these ideas are pure speculation.
No Jewish tradition contains either of these ideas, nor does Paul give any explanation in this verse that would lead us to believe that he is doing one of these things. While either of these theories could be true, only special divine revelation could have revealed them as truth to Paul, and Paul does not claim such special revelation in this passage.
It is difficult to explain exactly what happened. The one place where 23,000 appears in the Old Testament is Numbers 26:62 (the number of the male Levites a month old or more). It is possible that Paul, citing the Old Testament from memory as he wrote to the Corinthians, referred to the incident in Numbers 25:9, but his mind slipped a chapter later in picking up the number. Paul dictated his letters, and if he had written copies of the Old Testament to check, which he often did not, they would have been scrolls and thus awkward to use. It is unlikely that he would unroll one to check a number in a passage. It is certainly not because 23,000 was meaningful that Paul chose it, for it is 24,000 that is a multiple of 12 and which appears in other places in the Old Testament (for example, multiple times in 1 Chron 27). Of course we cannot rule out the possibility that there was some reference to 23 or 23,000 in his local environment as he was writing and that caused a slip in his mind, although given that he was thinking about the Old Testament the explanation from Numbers 26:62 is the more likely.
What does this mean? In this passage in Corinthians Paul was not attempting to instruct people on Old Testament history and certainly not on the details of Old Testament history. What Paul is doing is using a known Old Testament text as an illustration. He assumes that his readers know the Old Testament text and will recognize the incident. Their knowledge that the Old Testament incident happened should then warn them that God might do something like it again, if they behave like Israel did. In regard to the point that Paul is making, there is no difference whether 10
individuals or 1,000 or 20,000 or 24,000 died. The point is that they committed immorality and they died, as the Corinthians may also die if they commit immorality.
Thus here we have a case in which Paul apparently makes a slip of the mind for some reason (unless he has special revelation he does not inform us about), but the mental error does not affect the teaching. How often have we heard preachers with written Bibles before them make similar errors of detail that in no way affected their message?
If we notice it (and few usually do), we (hopefully) simply smile and focus on the real point being made. As noted above, Paul probably did not have a written Bible to check (although at times he apparently had access to scrolls of the Old Testament), but in the full swing of dictation he cited an example from memory and got a detail wrong. Since he is not writing an Old Testament commentary, the issue is not that he slipped, but whether or not we will take warning from his teaching and not presume on our baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper to save us from judgment should we fall into immorality like the ancient Israelites did. The issue is not the missing 1,000 from the Old Testament, but whether we will be counted among those judged by God in the New.
10:14–33 To Eat or Not to Eat?
See comment on romans 14:15.
11:3 Head of Woman Is Man?
These words in 1 Corinthians 11:3 are easily part of one of the most difficult and debated passages in all of Paul’s epistles. What, precisely, does he mean when he says that “man is the head of woman”? How are we to understand the assertion of 1
Corinthians 11:7, which follows the “head” passage, that man “is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man”? And finally, who are “the angels” in 11:10, due to whom “the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head”?
These sayings, because they appear in the same immediate context (1 Cor 11:2–16) are closely tied to one another; thus in my interpretation I shall occasionally need to refer to matter treated in one or both of the other sayings.
In 1 Corinthians 11:3 the often-heated debate centers on the meaning of the word head (a literal rendering of the Greek kephaleµ). For most English readers of the text, the common figurative sense of “head” as ruler, leader, chief, boss, director suggests itself almost immediately. Such an understanding of “head” as connoting “authority over”
leads to an interpretation of this text (and of Eph 5:22–23) as Paul’s teaching about hierarchical order in the relation between men and women. Some who stand within this interpretive tradition go so far as to posit a “chain of command,” where authority is
passed along: from God to Christ to man to woman.
While the NIV [NIV New International Version] , RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] , NASB [NASB New American Standard Bible] and NEB [NEB New English Bible] are cautious in their translation, rendering the Greek kephaleµ with its literal English equivalent “head,” other contemporary versions opt for a figurative meaning. Thus the TEV [TEV Today’s English Verision] renders kephaleµ with
“supreme over.” The LB [LB Living Bible] ’s paraphrase becomes even more interpretive when it renders the text: “a wife is responsible to her husband, her husband is responsible to Christ, and Christ is responsible to God.”
Even when such explicit interpretations of the term kephaleµ are not employed, the literal “head,” as in the NIV [NIV New International Version] , implicitly suggests an interpretation along the same lines because of the common understanding of “head” in English when applied to persons in relationships such as marriage or other institutions.
Common phrases like “she is head of the division” or “he is the head of his family”
illustrate this everyday metaphorical meaning of “head” in our language.
Apart from the question whether this common English meaning is also the common Greek meaning of “head” when used figuratively, serious issues are raised by such an interpretation. How are we to see the relation between Christ and God? If God occupies a rank superior to Christ, then we have here a revival of the ancient heresy of
“subordinationism” and a challenge to the classical doctrine of the Trinity.
Further, if husbands (or men; the Greek word is the same) are under the authority of Christ, and wives (or women; the same Greek word) are under the authority of husbands/men, do we then not have a situation where women stand only in indirect relation to Christ, via their husbands? Such a conclusion is in fact reached by some when they understand the series (God – Christ – Man – Woman) as indicating a
“growing distance from God,” or by others who extend the “chain of command” to children (on the basis of Eph 5:21–6:4) and maintain that the woman’s authority over her children is a “derived” authority; that is, she exercises that authority “on behalf of”
her husband.
The core issue in our attempt to grasp Paul’s instruction is this: what meaning, or meanings, did the word kephaleµ have in the common Greek language of the New Testament period? How would Greek-speaking Christians in Corinth have heard Paul when he used kephaleµ And how did this help them understand Paul’s instructions concerning appropriate decorum in their public worship (1 Cor 11:4–16)? To answer these questions attention will be given to linguistic data, Paul’s use of kephaleµ
elsewhere in his epistles, and the thrust of his argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.
The linguistic evidence points strongly, if not overwhelmingly, away from the common reading of head as “chief,” “ruler,” “authority over,” though there are many conservative scholars who would challenge this. The most exhaustive Greek-English Lexicon covering Greek literature from about 900 b.c. to a.d. 600, among numerous metaphorical meanings for kephaleµ does not give a single definition to indicate that in ordinary Greek usage it included the meaning “superior rank” or “supreme over” or
“leader” or “authority.”
What is especially interesting in this lexicographic evidence is that in the 1897 eighth revised edition of this lexicon, the final entry under “metaphorical” meanings is “of
persons, a chief.”1 [1 Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 2 vols., rev. H. S. Jones and R.
McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 1:944–45.] But not a single citation from the literature is given to support or illustrate such a definition. Therefore, in light of the lack of evidence, that definition is not included in the later editions. However, among the range of meanings which kephaleµ had in ordinary Greek were “origin” or “source”
or “starting point” and “crown” or “completion” or “consummation.” As we shall see below, these meanings do far greater justice to the Pauline usages of kephaleµ than the “authority” nuances conveyed by the English “head.”
Strong support for the linguistic evidence (that is, that the metaphorical range of meanings of kephaleµ did not normally include the ideas of “authority over” or
“superior rank”) comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Septuagint) made between approximately 250–150 b.c. by a large group of Jewish scholars for the Jews living outside Palestine whose first, and sometimes only, language was Greek.
Like the English word “head” and the Greek word kephaleµ, the Hebrew word roµ
<sû has first of all the literal meaning “head of man or beast.” But like English and Greek, it also has numerous figurative meanings. In an exhaustive study of how the Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew word roµ<sû,2 [2 Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen,
“What Does Kephaleµ Mean in the New Testament?” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 97–110.] the following data emerged. In the more than 200 times when it refers to a physical head, the translators almost always used kephaleµ. About 180 times, roµ<sû clearly has the figurative meaning of “leader” or “chief” or
“authority figure” of a group. There is thus a close similarity between the English
“head” and the Hebrew roµ<sû; figuratively, both frequently designate an authority figure.
When the translators, however, sought the appropriate Greek word to render this figurative meaning, they used not kephaleµ but archoµn (and its derivatives) in the great majority of cases (138 times). Archoµn means “ruler,” “commander,” “leader.”
Its derivatives include meanings such as “authority,” “chief,” “captain,” “prince,”
“chief of tribe,” “head of family.” Most of the remaining occurrences of roµ<sû (when it designates an authority figure) are translated by several other specific Greek words (such as hegeomai, “to have dominion over”). In only eight out of 180 cases was kephaleµ used to translate roµ<sû when it designated the leader or ruler of a group.
It is very possible that one of the figurative meanings of kephaleµ (namely, “top” or
“crown”) allowed the translator to use it in describing a prominent individual. It may also be that in these few cases one of the Septuagint translators simply used the literal equivalent for roµ<sû, namely kephaleµ (since both mean “head”). This is in fact what happens all too frequently in any translation when it is too literal. The exact equivalent may, in fact, distort the meaning conveyed by the original in its own context.
It is clear from this data that the Greek translators were keenly aware that kephaleµ
did not normally have a metaphorical meaning equivalent to that of roµ<sû.
This linguistic evidence, which suggests that the idea of “authority over” was not native to the Greek kephaleµ, has led numerous scholars to see behind Paul’s use of
“head” either the meaning “source, origin” or “top, crown, completion.”3 [3 See, for example, Stephen Bedale, “The Meaning of Kephaleµ in the Pauline Epistles,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 5 (1954): 211–15; C. K.
Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968); H. N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of Theology, trans. J. Richard deWitt (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 379–82; S. Scott Bartchy, “Power, Submission, and Sexual
Identity Among the Early Christians,” in Essays on New Testament Christianity, ed. C. R. Wetzel (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1978), pp. 50–80.]
Another factor to take into consideration is that nowhere else in the New Testament is kephaleµ used to designate a figure of authority. If that had been a prominent meaning, it could have served well in numerous places in the Gospels where the head or master of a household appears; yet it is never used to convey this meaning (see, for example, Mt 10:25; 13:52; Lk 13:25; 14:21).
If the readers of Paul’s Greek did not hear our “headship” concept in the word kephaleµ, but rather the idea of “source, origin,” what did it convey to them, and how did that meaning in 11:3 lay the foundation for Paul’s admonitions about appropriate hair length and decorum in public worship? Cyril of Alexandria, an important Greek-speaking leader of the church in the fourth century, commenting on this text wrote:
“Thus we say that the kephaleµ of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephaleµ of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise, the kephaleµ of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature.”4 [4 G. W. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 749.]
This interpretation meets all the requirements of the passage and its context, and at the same time sheds light on several other of Paul’s statements where both Christ and the man are designated as “head” of something or someone (Eph 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:15–20; 2:19). Paul, as other New Testament writers, affirms Christ as the one by whom all things were created (Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16). Thus Paul can say that Christ, as God’s agent of creation, gave the first man, and thus every man, life (“Christ is the source of man’s life”). Such a meaning is confirmed by the fact that in the same passage (1 Cor 11:7–9) he clearly has the creation narrative of Genesis 1–2 in mind.
Though it is obvious that, in a final sense, Christ/God is also the source of the woman’s life (1 Cor 11:12), Paul is here considering the sequence of creation of the human species in Genesis 2.
This temporal, sequential thought continues in the sentence “And the head of the woman is man” (that is, “the man is the source of woman’s life”). According to Genesis 2:21–23 Adam is the origin of Eve’s being. And it is precisely this Old Testament text which Paul has in mind (1 Cor 11:8, 12). That “source” is the appropriate meaning of kephaleµ in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is confirmed by Paul’s
“source” language in his appeal to Genesis 2.
Behind this temporal sequence stands God (“everything comes from God”; that is, God is the source of everything; see 1 Cor 8:6). Therefore, “the head of Christ is God” (that is, the source of Christ’s being is God). Cyril of Alexandria said, “the kephaleµ of Christ is God because he is from him according to nature” (emphasis mine). Though Cyril’s language reflects the later trinitarian discussion, his affirmation is solidly grounded in the New Testament. According to John 1:1–14, the Word, which was God and was with God, came forth and became flesh in the Incarnation. In John 8:42, 13:3 and 16:27 Jesus is said to have come from God.
It would therefore seem best to translate 1 Corinthians 11:3 as “I want you to understand that Christ is the source of man’s being; the man is the source of woman’s being; and God is the source of Christ’s being.” When read like this, it lays a solid foundation for, and sheds light on, the rest of the passage (1 Cor 11:4–16), in which the next two hard sayings are located.
See also comment on genesis 2:18; 1 corinthians 11:7; 11:10.
11:7 Woman the Glory of Man?
Once again Paul seems to put women one step further removed from God than men.
Why is man said to be the glory of God, while woman is the glory of man? Why are women not also said to be the glory of God? And does the fact that God’s image is affirmed for man, but not for woman, mean that only the male half of the species is made in God’s image? And what does covering of one’s head (with a veil or one’s hair) have to do with being or reflecting someone’s glory?
In 1 Corinthians 8–10, Paul has been dealing with the issue of Christian liberty in light of true knowledge (“correct beliefs”), caring love for one’s fellow believers, and concern for living and acting in ways which “build up” others or the church. That is, Christian freedom with respect to externals—to rules and regulations, to forms of ritual and ceremony—is not an absolute freedom. Christian freedom, based on the liberating grace of God, is freedom for the other, for the other’s good, for the growth of the fellowship in love and faith and hope.
Paul sums up this discussion with these words: “whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). How do we live and act for the glory of God? By not causing “anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God. … For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved” (10:32–
33). Both with respect to the outside world and the fellowship, this principle of Christian behavior is the source for Paul’s specific instructions which follow.
Concerns about propriety with regard to appearance in the context of public worship are addressed first (1 Cor 11:2–16). This is followed by a severe criticism of their misunderstanding of the nature of the Lord’s Supper and its consequence in their actions (1 Cor 11:17–34). Finally, Paul addresses the use and misuse of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:1–14:40). In each of these situations, the principle for Christian action laid down in 1 Corinthians 10:31–33 must be kept in mind.
What precisely is the problem regarding proper appearance for worship in 1
Corinthians 11:2–16? As frequently is the case in this “occasional” letter, we must make deductions from Paul’s answers. From 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 we may assume that social, cultural or ritual norms were being ignored or deliberately set aside in the context of worship. It is possible that their libertine enthusiasm, which had led them to a demeaning or total rejection of male-female sexuality and distinctions (see 1 Cor 7), had also led them to reject other cultural and religious norms. Thus, perhaps in a deliberate attempt to wipe out distinctions, some men may have worn a head covering in worship (1 Cor 11:4), while some women rejected the covering prescribed for them by cultural or religious conventions (1 Cor 11:5).
Though the Greek word for “veil” does not appear in this text (and therefore some commentators have argued that Paul is here speaking only of hair as a covering), it is best to understand the phrase “having [something] down from the head” (1 Cor 11:4) to refer to a head covering that concealed the hair and shoulders. First Corinthians 11:6 seems to confirm this sense, where “not covering the head” is likened to shaving or cutting the hair short. The sense seems to be that “if you are not going to cover
(veil) your head, you might as well cut off your hair; it amounts to the same thing!”
Why does a man who prays and prophesies with his head covered dishonor his head (1
Cor 11:4), while a woman who prays and prophesies with her head uncovered dishonor her head (1 Cor 11:5–6)? The answer to this question is cryptically given in the hard saying in 1 Corinthians 11:7. But in order to understand that answer, the problem of honoring and dishonoring the head needs some unraveling.
The first uses of “head” in these sentences (“with his head covered” and “with her head uncovered”) are obviously references to their physical heads. Does “head” in the phrases “dishonor his/her head” refer also to their physical heads or to their figurative heads given in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (Christ, of the man; the man, of the woman)?
Commentators are fairly divided, with some holding that both meanings may be intended.
In either or both cases, dishonor is the result. When a man wears a covering on his head, it is as if he wore long hair; but long hair on men is against “nature” (1 Cor 11:14). For Paul, as in popular Greek philosophy, cultural customs were perceived as extensions of natural law (and for Paul, more specifically God’s created order of things). Therefore, wearing a covering was against God’s purposes. It demeans God’s design and thus dishonors both God and man. Woman’s long hair—also designed “by nature” (that is, God)—is her glory (1 Cor 11:15). To uncover it is the same as cutting it off. That disgraces her, since her very being is demeaned. It may also disgrace her
“figurative” head (that is, her husband), since appearing in public without a covering brings reproach on him from the society (especially if, as some have argued, it was the practice of prostitutes and other libertines in Corinth to move in public without a covering).
In light of Paul’s principle for Christian life—to act in ways that lead to the good, the salvation of as many as possible (1 Cor 10:32–33)—he is concerned that Christians maintain the kind of public worship which does not bring disgrace through unacceptable, shameful practices. The church was God’s alternative to broken Corinthian society (see discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:3). Its flouting of contemporary cultural conventions could bring social criticism and hinder the gospel.
Yet Paul is much more than a pragmatist. He grounds his reasoning in an understanding of God’s revealed intention. This intention is focused in 11:7, though its foundation is already laid in 11:3. If, as we have argued in the previous chapter, Paul’s use of the Greek word kephaleµ (“head”) is to be understood not in terms of our idea of “headship” (that is, authority over), but rather in terms of “source/origin,” then a central, unifying theme in his argument emerges.
Paul’s guiding principle for Christian conduct (1 Cor 10:32–33) is grounded in the even higher principle: “whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31).
Since the word glory appears three more times in the passage which follows (1 Cor 11:7, 15), we can assume that the manifestation of God’s glory and human participation in that glory is a central purpose of community worship.
In biblical thought, that which is made, or emerges out of another, manifests or reflects the glory of its maker or origin. Thus, “the heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork” (Ps 19:1 RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ). The worshiper is exhorted to declare God’s glory (Ps 96:3–8) and stands
under judgment when God’s glory is perverted in false worship and distorted human living (Rom 1:22–32). According to both John and Paul, Jesus’ life reflected God’s glory (Jn 1:14; 13:31–32; 17:4; Col 1:27). Since in Christ the fullness of God expressed itself (Col 1:19), Paul could say that “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God [was revealed] in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). Not only that, but Christ is the very “image of God” (2 Cor 4:4).
This complex of ideas seems to stand behind the language and ideas here. Insofar as the man is the result of God’s creative work (Gen 1:26; 2:7) and has his existence out of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), who is the glory and image of God, “he is the image and glory of God.” And insofar as the woman has her existence out of the man (Gen 2:21–23; 1
Cor 11:3), she “is the glory of man.”
What Paul does not say in this context is important. He does not say that woman is the image of man; she is only his glory. For Paul knew that, according to Genesis 1:26–27, human beings as male and female were created in God’s image. He is also clear that both the man and the woman have their being ultimately out of God’s being as a result of God’s creative act (1 Cor 11:12). Thus the woman as man’s glory is only a recognition of the temporal sequence of God’s creative activity, since her being is derived from the being of Adam. But no less than man, woman is the glory and image of God since she too is “from God” (1 Cor 11:12).
The purpose of worship is to glorify God. In contexts where cultural-religious norms and customs for proper attire and length of hair were understood as reflecting, at least to some extent, the order of “nature” (1 Cor 11:14–15),5 [5 See the discussion of this matter in C. K.
Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 256–57.] the rejection of those customs in the worship of the church in Corinth undermined the purpose of worship. A
“covered” man or an “uncovered” woman would bring dishonor rather than glory. It is this concern which motivates Paul’s thought in this difficult passage.
11:10 What Is the Sign of Authority?
Who are “the angels,” because of whom women are “to have a sign of authority” on their heads when praying and prophesying? Why should they be interested in women’s appearance in worship? What is the “sign of authority” on a woman’s head, and whose authority does it signify?
In the discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 we saw that Paul argued for the appropriateness of women praying and prophesying in public worship with a head covering for both practical evangelistic reasons and biblical-theological considerations. Now he adds yet another dimension to the discussion. The opening words of the sentence, “For this reason,” are most naturally a reference to the preceding discussion and the reasons already given for the propriety of a woman’s head covering. Some see this statement as pointing forward to the phrase “on account of the angels.” A good example is the TEV [TEV Today’s English Verision] , which reads, “on account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering.” To take it in that way would make the whole prior discussion, with its various reasons for a head covering, meaningless.
Why is “because of the angels” another reason for the observance of the custom? What do angels have to do with the situation? Because of the obscurity of this statement,
various interpretations have been offered throughout the church’s history.
Among early church fathers the interpretation of the “angels” as priests or bishops was prominent. The Greek word angelos literally means “messenger” and could refer to a human messenger in the sense of an envoy, one who is sent. Thus the “angel of the church in Ephesus” (as well as the other “angels” of the churches addressed in Revelation 2–3) were held to be the bishops of those churches. From this the conclusion was drawn that the “angels” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 referred to visiting leaders from other churches, who would be offended by women’s inappropriate appearance in worship.
This interpretation is unsatisfactory because nowhere in Paul’s epistles, or the rest of the Epistles, is the word angelos ever used as designation of a church leader. In all but one case, Paul uses the word exclusively for supernatural, spiritual beings, the servants of God. The one exception is Galatians 4:14, where it is a self-designation:
“You welcomed me as if I were an angel of God.” Since it is used as an analogy, it really belongs to the category of Paul’s normal usage.
A second line of interpretation sees these “angels” as a threat to women, against which the head covering in worship protects them. On the basis of Genesis 6:2–4, where it is said that the “sons of God” were attracted by the beauty of human females and impregnated them, Jewish traditions arose which interpreted these “sons of God” as angelic beings, who, as fallen angels, lusted after women. There are numerous passages in the noncanonical intertestamental literature that build on the Genesis narrative and speculate on the danger to humanity from these fallen angels.6 [6 See the passages in the following books of the Pseudepigrapha: Enoch 6–7, 67–78; Testament of Reuben 5; Jubilees 5; Apocalypse of Baruch 56:8–13.] This linkage of 1 Corinthians 11:10 with Genesis 6 and subsequent speculation is at best problematic. There is no indication whatever in this text that Paul is concerned about women’s protection from evil angelic beings. And how would the veil, while the women were praying or prophesying, protect against their lustful advances?
A third interpretation, which seems more fruitful as a context for Paul’s cryptic allusion, sees behind the reference “because of the angels” the common Jewish belief that God’s servants, the angels, are present especially in the worship of God’s people.
In Psalm 138:1 the worshiper exclaims, “I will praise you, O Lord, with all my heart; before the ‘gods’ I will sing your praise.” These “gods” were understood as heavenly beings, servants in the divine court and guardians of the created order. Hebrews reflects these ideas when it envisions the ultimate context of worship, the heavenly Jerusalem where God and “thousands of angels in joyful assembly” are present (12:22).
Paul elsewhere posits angels as observers of human conduct as well (1 Cor 4:9).
A more specific background for this text from Judaism is to be found in the Qumran writings, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. J. A. Fitzmyer has shown that these Jewish sectarians believed that angels were present when the community assembled for worship, and that they would be offended by any acts which transgrssed created order.7 [7 See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Corinthians 11:10,” New Testament Studies 4 (1957–1958): 45–58.] Paul confirms the presence of such a belief in a word addressed to Timothy: “In the presence of God and of Christ and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules” (1 Tim 5:21 RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ).
We have here, as in 1 Corinthians 11:3, the connection between worship, congregational norms and angels who are present.
If, in light of this background, the angels of 1 Corinthians 11:10 are to be understood as guardians of those orders which are according to “the very nature of things” (1 Cor 11:14), then women’s uncovered heads would be an infringement on that order. Thus,
“because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”
What, then, constitutes the “sign of authority”? Why “authority”? Whose authority?
The text reads literally, “The woman ought to have authority on the head.” Because of the emphasis on a head covering in the context, one would have expected Paul to say,
“The woman ought to have a head covering.” This expectation in fact caused some early church fathers to replace the word authority with the word veil. The identification between the head covering and “authority on the head” seems certain (note the RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] decision to translate, “That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels”). By using the word
“authority” (the Greek exousia, “authority,” “power,” “right”), Paul apparently intends to interpret the significance of the covering for the woman’s participation in the prayer life and prophetic ministry of the congregation.
Since the head covering cannot by itself possess authority, some commentators and translations have opted for “a sign of authority” (that is, the veil is a sign for something else); examples are the NIV [NIV New International Version] and NEB [NEB New English Bible] (NASB [NASB New American Standard Bible] renders “symbol of authority”). Such a rendering leaves open the questions “Authority for what?” and
“Whose authority?” In my judgment, both TEV [TEV Today’s English Verision] and the LB [LB Living Bible] go significantly beyond both the textual and contextual evidence. The TEV [TEV Today’s English Verision] translates, “A woman should have a covering over her head to show that she is under her husband’s authority.” That translation decision answers the questions posed above by giving the husband authority over the wife. The LB [LB Living Bible] interprets essentially the same way, except that it generalizes the concept of authority: not only is the wife to be under the authority of her husband, but “woman … is under man’s authority.”
These readings of the text presuppose two things and then import them into the text: (1) They assume that the relationship between man/husband and woman/wife as posited in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is a relationship of “authority over,” and that this
“principle of headship” determines all aspects of the rest of the passage (1 Cor 11:4–
16). I have attempted to show (see discussion on 1 Cor 11:3) that such a reading is likely incorrect. (2) They assume that the head covering is in fact a symbol of the husband’s authority over his wife. Yet no convincing proof of this assumption exists. A parallel has been sought in the Greek word basileia, which usually means “kingship”
or “kingdom,” but also can have the meaning “royal crown”; and the crown was a
“sign of royal power/authority.” This supposed parallel breaks down when we recognize that here the power and authority of the wearer is meant, and not that of another person.
In view of these problems, the text needs to be read much more literally. What really does Paul say? The text reads: “the woman should have exousia [‘power,’ ‘right,’
‘authority’] on the head.” By choosing the word exousia rather than “head covering,”
Paul seems to suggest that by wearing the covering—and thus conforming her outward appearance with “nature/custom”—the woman has authority. Such an understanding of the text is strongly supported by recent studies.8 [8 M. D. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Corinthians 11:10,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963–1964): 410–16. Walter L. Liefeld, “Women, Submission
and Ministry in 1 Corinthians,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 145–46. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp.
254–55; William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians, The Anchor Bible, vol. 32 (New York: Doubleday, 1976), pp.
260–64.]
Authority for what? is the final question. We have seen that the ultimate purpose of worship is to give glory to God. A part of the way by which the glory of God is reflected is through the prayers of the worshipers and the proclamation of the gospel.
Now since the woman has her origin in the man and thus reflects his glory, she ought to wear a head covering in worship in order to conceal “man’s glory” and therefore be in a position to reflect the glory of God in praying and prophesying. By being veiled, women would not distract attention from the worship of God and avoid accusations of disgraceful behavior.
At the same time, the covering also represents her God-given right to bring glory to God through praying and prophesying, a gift of the Spirit (see Acts 2:17–18) which transcends former religious and cultural limitations imposed on women in public worship. As Walter Liefeld has shown, Paul used the word exousia (“authority”) five times within the larger context of 1 Corinthians 8–14, always in the sense of Christian freedom from externals for the sake of others and the progress of the gospel.9 [9 Liefeld,
“Women, Submission and Ministry,” pp. 145–46.] By linking this same concept with the woman’s covering Paul is, at one and the same time, affirming the need for restraint regarding externals and her right (authority) to participate in that which is essential; namely, the expression of her direct relation to God in prayer and the exercise of the gift of prophetic proclamation for the edification of the church and the glory of God.
This understanding of the text leads naturally to the next two verses. The statement that “in the Lord” man and woman are interdependent and complementary (1 Cor 11:11–12) has often been taken to represent a halfhearted concession by Paul. In light of the interpretation of the previous verses which has been offered, these verses are a ringing affirmation that in the new era which has been inaugurated (that is, “in the Lord”), despite the need for temporal limitations, man and woman have their being in God (“everything comes from God”) and are called to do everything “for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31).
See also comment on 1 corinthians 11:3; 11:7.
11:29 Discerning the Body?
The ominous words of 1 Corinthians 11:29 are written by Paul right after he reminds his readers of the tradition about the institution of the Lord’s Supper (or Eucharist) and the words of interpretation Jesus gave as he broke bread and passed the cup on the night before the crucifixion (1 Cor 11:23–26). These words were usually spoken before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the churches where I grew up. The emotions they called forth from me were not only a sense of seriousness and awe, but also, and perhaps overwhelmingly, a sense of fear. What if I did not properly discern or recognize “the body of the Lord”? How would, or could, I make sure that in my eating of the bread and drinking of the cup I would not sin “against the body and blood of the Lord”? (1 Cor 11:27; this warning comes just before the hard saying we are looking at and is followed by the admonition “a man ought to examine himself … ”) The fear of “sinning against” and “not discerning” at times caused me to avoid participation in the Lord’s Supper or to stay away from worship altogether on those
Sundays when Communion was celebrated. In some Christian traditions, these warnings and admonitions have been used to exclude persons from the celebration who are identified as having committed particular sins and are thus “unworthy” to partake of the elements.
The criterion of “worthiness,” whether self-imposed or imposed by others, is really the crux of this passage. What makes one worthy and thus not subject to judgment? And if one’s worthiness is related to moral-ethical perfection or spiritual maturity, can anyone ever qualify to participate at the Lord’s table? These questions are particularly troublesome since they arise from a text related to the celebration of that event—the passion of our Lord—where God’s unconditional love for sinners is revealed (see Rom 5:8, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us”).
For me it was amazingly liberating to discover, after giving greater attention to the problem that Paul was addressing in Corinth and the special terms he used, that my fears were not warranted; that the celebration was indeed a powerful reminder that Christ gave his life to save sinners like me; that it was a challenge to discern, again and again, the significance of his death for my own life.
The larger context for our saying begins at 1 Corinthians 11:17, and it is clear from Paul’s introductory words (“In the following directives … ”) that he is moving away from a discussion of women’s decorum at worship (1 Cor 11:3–16) to deal with a second problem in their life as a gathered congregation. What is that problem? Paul shoots rather straight: “Your meetings do more harm than good” (1 Cor 11:17). Then he proceeds to articulate the nature of the harm that results when they “come together as a church.” He has heard that “there are divisions” among them and that these divisions manifest themselves precisely at the point where they “come together” (1 Cor 11:18, 20).
What a paradox! Were they not, as a gathered fellowship, the temple of God’s Spirit (1
Cor 3:16)? And wasn’t the Spirit the one who had incorporated them, as diverse a group as they were, “into one body … so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other” (1 Cor 12:13, 25)? Paul’s vision for the fellowship of God’s people in Corinth was far from being realized.
Indeed, at the very occasion where one would have expected the greatest realization of that vision for mutuality and caring—at their common meals—they manifested a haughty, individualistic disregard for others.
In the verses which follow the introductory charge (1 Cor 11:20–26), it is apparent that the occasion at which their divisions manifest themselves is an ordinary meal that includes symbolic actions and the recital of significant words. These festal occasions came to be known as love feasts (see 2 Pet 2:13; Jude 12). What was to be central—a caring love for one another grounded in Christ’s sacrificial death—was manifestly absent: “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat” (1 Cor 11:20).
Rather, they were eating and drinking in an individualistic, selfish manner (1 Cor 11:21). Some, apparently the more affluent among them, had brought their food and, without waiting for others, had gone ahead and eaten their meals. There was even excessive drinking of the wine. All of this took place while the poorer members of the fellowship, who were able to bring little or nothing, were humiliated (1 Cor 11:22).
Rather than sharing out of their abundance (as the Jerusalem Christians had done; Acts 4:32), those of means acted as if they were in their own homes. It was not the Lord’s
Supper they were eating, but their own!
Having laid bare the irregularity at their love feasts, which he describes as a “despising of the church of God” (1 Cor 11:22), Paul reminds them of the words which Jesus spoke at his last meal with the disciples (1 Cor 11:23–25). In those words, symbolically represented in broken bread and poured-out wine, Jesus interpreted the significance of his life and death: it was for them (1 Cor 11:24); a new covenant had been inaugurated through the sacrifice of his shed blood (1 Cor 11:25); they had become participants in that new covenant community, as Paul had already reminded them earlier (“Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body” 1 Cor 10:17). When they ate and drank, and heard the words of the Lord, they were to
“remember” him. Their eating and drinking was to be a declaration and proclamation of the Lord’s self-sacrifice (1 Cor 11:26).
Some commentators understand the emphasis on “remembering” the Lord and
“proclaiming” his suffering servanthood on our behalf as a special call to discipleship and the imitation of Jesus. In light of Paul’s teachings elsewhere (for example, “Be imitators of God as beloved children and walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us,” Eph 5:1), this is surely what Paul wanted believers in Corinth to be doing. Instead, they were eating the bread of the Lord and drinking the cup of the Lord
“in an unworthy manner” (1 Cor 11:27).
Thus the issue for Paul is not the “worthiness” of individuals. If that were the case, none would ever be “worthy.” Rather, they were participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner by demonstrating contempt for the community as a whole, by actions that were not controlled by love for the needy brothers and sisters. In this they are “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27).
The phrase “guilty of sinning against” (NIV [NIV New International Version] ) translates the Greek word enochos. It is used mostly as a legal term, meaning “liable for,” “answerable for” or “guilty.” The thrust of Paul is then that those who eat and drink unworthily (in the sense indicated above) are guilty of Christ’s sacrificial death.
They oppose and contradict in their loveless behavior the purpose of Christ’s death, namely, to create a new covenant community which will model, in the midst of a fragmented, broken world, a new way of servanthood which seeks the good of others.
It is within the context of these concerns of Paul and this understanding of the meaning of their love feasts that the admonition to “self-examination” (see 1 Cor 11:28) and properly “recognizing the body of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:29) must be heard. The Corinthians are to examine themselves with regard to the spirit in which they approach their participation: Is it other-directed or self-centered?
Some of the earliest and best Greek manuscripts do not have the phrase “of the Lord.”
It is therefore quite probable that Paul’s original letter simply read, “recognize the body.” But in either case, the context indicates that Paul is speaking about that reality which elsewhere he designates “body” or “one body” or “the body of Christ” (see 1
Cor 10:17; 12:12–13, 27; Eph 2:16; 3:6; 4:4; Col 1:18). Not discerning the body (or the body of the Lord) is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Christian community and act in ways which undermine its vitality, its life and witness. It is that which stands under God’s judgment, for to do harm to Christ’s body is to oppose the purposes of God for which the Lord’s body was broken and his life’s blood was poured out.
See also comment on mark 14:22–24.
11:31–32 Believers Judged by the Lord?
See comment on 1 peter 4:17.
14:5 Should All Speak in Tongues?
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14:5 and the surrounding discussion of the presence and function of spiritual gifts in individual believers and the church have raised numerous questions: What is the place of “speaking in tongues” in the church? Are those who have experienced this gift more spiritual Christians, more open to the Spirit’s working, than those who have not? Is Paul’s point that all Christians should have this gift? Or is it rather that all should participate in prophetic work, assigning a negligible place to
“speaking in tongues”?
Some Christians, on the basis of this and other texts, have come to feel superior, or more complete, because they have the gift of tongues, and wish with Paul that their brothers and sisters could have this same rich experience. Other Christians, on the basis of the same texts, consider glossolalia (from the Greek glossai, “tongues”) a manifestation of primitive, immature faith, and they believe that the absence of this gift or experience is a mark of greater maturity. Still others, seeing the lively, enthusiastic faith and witness of some who have the gift of tongues, feel somehow not quite in tune with God’s Spirit and earnestly desire or seek an experience of the Spirit that would bring vitality into an otherwise static faith.
These concerns and positions which have been present in parts of the church to some degree throughout church history have come to the fore again more recently in what has become known as the charismatic movement (from the Greek charisma, “gift”).
Since this movement has crossed denominational boundaries and influenced believers in virtually all Christian traditions, it is particularly important that we come to understand this hard saying.
A brief definition of Paul’s terms will help. The two activities that are being contrasted are “speaking in tongues” and “prophesying.” The phenomenon of “tongues,” which Paul identifies as a gift of the Spirit (in 1 Cor 12–14), must be clearly distinguished from the phenomenon which accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (in Acts 2:1–12).
In Acts, the Spirit enabled Jesus’ disciples to “speak in other tongues” ( glossai, Acts 2:4, 11) in such a way that the audience, made up of peoples from various language groups throughout the Greco-Roman world, “heard them speak in their own languages
[ dialekton, “dialect/language”] the good news of Jesus” (see Acts 2:6, 8). Here it is clear that a miraculous speaking and hearing is indicated in which intelligible meaning is articulated and perceived. Peter’s interpretation of this phenomenon also shows that it is to be taken as intelligible proclamation of the wonders of God. He cites the prophecy of Joel 2:28–32, where the outpouring of the Spirit leads to prophetic proclamation (Acts 2:17–18).
In Corinth, on the other hand, the phenomenon of tongues with which Paul is
concerned is identified as “unintelligible utterance”: no one understands it (1 Cor 14:2); it needs to be interpreted if it is to benefit the church (1 Cor 14:5); it is contrasted with “intelligible words” (1 Cor 14:9, 19) and “all sorts of languages …
none of them without meaning” (1 Cor 14:10); it does not involve the mind (1 Cor 14:14); others won’t know what is being said (1 Cor 14:16).
With this gift of “tongues” Paul contrasts the gift of “prophecy.” This word does not mean simply “predicting the future.” Prophesying sometimes included this predictive element (among both Old Testament and Christian prophets), but this aspect is neither exclusive nor primary. The prophets of Israel primarily addressed the word of God to their people’s present reality. This is also the primary aspect of prophetic proclamation in early Christianity.
In Acts, Joel’s prophecy (that “your sons and daughters will prophesy,” Acts 2:17–18) is fulfilled in the declaration of what God has done in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22–36). In 1
Corinthians 11, praying and prophesying are spoken about as two characteristic aspects of Christians in communal worship. Prayer is addressing the Lord; prophecy is addressing the word of the Lord to worshipers. In 1 Corinthians 14:29–33 the activity of Christian prophets is defined as addressing the content of divine revelation to the church for its instruction and encouragement. This purpose of prophetic speech is central in Paul’s contrast of prophesying with speaking in tongues: strengthening, encouraging, comforting (1 Cor 14:3).
Thus Paul understood “tongues” as inspired, ecstatic utterance that in itself is unintelligible. Its native, proper place is the arena of prayer (1 Cor 14:2, 16). He understands “prophesying” as inspired utterance of revelation (probably including both the gospel, that is, God’s act in Christ, and further revelation of God’s purposes based on that event), which is addressed to the church in intelligible speech for its continuing growth.
The larger context is provided by the preceding chapters, where Paul addresses problems in the church’s corporate life, specifically in the setting of worship. A primary and central principle for Christian action is the principle of edification. All Christian life and action is to be governed by the questions: Does it benefit others?
Does it lead to their salvation and/or growth in faith? Is it for their good? (1 Cor 8:1, 9, 13; 9:12, 19–22; 10:23–24, 31–33; 11:21, 33). This principle continues as a guiding trajectory in Paul’s discussion of the place and function of spiritual gifts in 1
Corinthians 12–14.
The focus of that discussion in 1 Corinthians 14 is on the relative merits of “tongues”
and “prophesying.” But Paul uses “prophesying” in order to deal with what seems to be the core of the issue in Corinth: a glorification of the gift of speaking in tongues in such a way that the other gifts, as well as those who possessed them, were minimized.
Those who spoke in tongues apparently saw this gift as a sign of their superior spirituality. Such a view would naturally emerge among a faction of the believers in Corinth who believed themselves to have been freed from all responsible relationships and practical ethical concerns.
In the context of worship, these superspiritualists gloried in an obviously inspired phenomenon as the ultimate validation that they were free from earthbound existence, including rational, intelligible speech. Paul’s question to them here, as earlier in connection with other problems, is: How does this gift contribute to the salvation or
strengthening of others, rather than just the edification of the self (1 Cor 14:4)?
The foundations for tackling the issue are carefully laid in 1 Corinthians 12–13. In summary, Paul’s thought develops as follows. There are diverse gifts available for believers, but they all have their origin in God’s Spirit (1 Cor 12:4–6). The implication is that no one has any ground for pride! The manifestation of this one Spirit in the diverse gifts is for the good of all (1 Cor 12:7). Thus, the possession of a particular gift is not for one’s own benefit. It is the Spirit who determines how the gifts are distributed (1 Cor 12:11). Therefore, the possessor of one gift has no basis for feeling especially favored or in any sense elevated over one who does not have the same gift.
This series of thoughts is now buttressed by the picture of the church as the body of Christ, compared to the living organism of the human body (1 Cor 12:12–27). The main purpose is to affirm that, despite all the variety of persons and their gifts in the church, there should be no division; all parts should be concerned about all others (1
Cor 12:25).
Having stressed the importance and validity of all members of the body, and with them their diverse gifts, Paul now goes on to show that with regard to the guiding principles of Christian life and action—namely, that others may be saved and built up—some callings and gifts take priority, are more foundational than others, and contribute more directly and substantially to that purpose.
Though he begins the list of callings and gifts by enumerating (“first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers,” 1 Cor 12:28), he does not continue that enumeration through the remaining list of gifts. The threefold ministry of the word—namely foundational apostolic witness to the gospel, prophetic proclamation of the gospel to the church and instruction in the meaning and practical implications of the gospel—is clearly primary, while the other activities designated by the gifts (1 Cor 12:28) are dependent on, and secondary to, the “word” ministries. The fact that the gift of tongues is named last does not necessarily mean that it is “least” in a hierarchical order (since the five gifts are not numbered). It is more probable that Paul names it last because for the Corinthian enthusiasts it had top billing. It is, however, eminently clear that “tongues” belongs to a group of gifts which stand on a level below that of the ministries of the word. That is confirmed by Paul’s summary sentence in 1 Corinthians 12:31, “But eagerly desire the greater gifts.” It may be assumed from what follows in 1
Corinthians 14 that prophetic proclamation (preaching) and teaching are those “greater gifts.”
The injunction to desire the greater gifts is followed by a call to an even greater preoccupation, “And now I will show you the most excellent way” (1 Cor 12:31—“a still more excellent way,” RSV [RSV Revised Standard Version] ). Even better than seeking the greater gifts, Paul argues, is following the way of love (1 Cor 13:1). For, as he so eloquently shows, both the lesser and the greater gifts will someday cease. But love is eternal. Paul may have introduced this magnificent call to love because he knew that love is purely other-directed and would be the motivating power for seeking those gifts that build up others.
The stage is now set for the specific discussion of the nature, function and relative merit of tongues and prophecy (in which this hard saying is located). “Tongues” is the language of the heart, addressed to God (1 Cor 14:2). “Prophecy” is God’s word addressed to people for their encouragement and comfort (1 Cor 14:3). “Tongues” are
primarily a private matter; they edify the self. “Prophecy” is a public matter; it edifies the church (1 Cor 14:4).
Paul affirms the importance of both the personal and the public dimension of the contrasting gifts when he expresses his wish that they all had the gift of tongues, and then immediately qualifies that wish with his even greater wish: “but I would rather have you prophesy” (1 Cor 14:5). Private, ecstatic experience, especially in the intimacy of one’s prayer relationship with God, is not to be rejected (“Do not forbid speaking in tongues,” 1 Cor 14:39). Paul knows its value from personal experience (1
Cor 14:18). Even in the context of public worship, it can have a place if it is made intelligible through interpretation (1 Cor 14:5) so that others can be “edified” (1 Cor 14:16–17).
Since “tongues” is recognized as a gift of the Spirit and is at the disposal of the Spirit, Paul can say, “I wish you all had it.” It would be an evidence that the Spirit was at work in them. And yet, his operative principle (the good of others) leads him unqualifiedly toward preference for prophetic proclamation: “But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor 14:19).
This analysis leads to these concluding, summary observations: None of the spiritual gifts is an absolute; only the way of love is. Therefore, neither the possession nor the exercise of any of them is a mark of spiritual superiority. Believers are to be open to the Spirit’s gifts and when they receive them to exercise them gracefully and humbly.
Any earnest seeking for particular gifts ought to be guided by the desire to be involved in strengthening the church so that the whole people of God may truly be the divinely ordered alternative to the brokenness of human society.
14:33–34 Women to Keep Silence?
Several acute problems are raised by 1 Corinthians 14:33–34 for the Bible reader who seeks to be a faithful interpreter of the whole counsel of God revealed in Scripture as well as an obedient follower of Christ.
First, a series of questions is forced on us by the text itself and the verses which follow: Does the New Testament as a whole show that women were routinely excluded from verbal participation in Christian worship? Why are they not allowed to speak? Which
“Law” is referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:34? How are “submission” and “silence”
related?
A second series of questions is raised by the relation between this hard saying and the immediate and wider biblical context. How can Paul say earlier in this epistle that women are to have a head covering on while praying and proclaiming the gospel (1
Cor 11:3–16) and now in the same letter forbid verbal participation? Further, how are we to take the apparent discrepancy between this blanket prohibition and the fact that there are numerous examples of women’s active participation in the worship life of early Christianity?
The text we are looking at is located at the conclusion of a lengthy section (1 Cor 11–
14) in which Paul deals with problem situations in the context of worship. He has dealt with proper decorum of men and women while praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:2–
16); with irregularities at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–34); and finally with the nature, function, use and abuse of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12–14), with special consideration of the ecstatic phenomenon “speaking in tongues” and “prophecy” (1
Cor 14:1–25).
It is apparent in the immediately surrounding context (1 Cor 14:26–40) of this saying that the elevation and glorification of ecstatic, unintelligible utterance by some faction in the congregation created disorder and confusion in worship (see comment on 1 Cor 14:5). Thus in addressing those who speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:27–28), he calls for order: they should speak “one at a time.” The utterances should be interpreted (1 Cor 14:27), since without interpretation it would confound the hearers and cause them to wonder whether there is madness here (1 Cor 14:23). Without an interpreter, “the speaker should keep quiet in the church” (1 Cor 14:28). In addressing those who have the gift for prophetic proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor 14:29–33), the concern for order in worship is also evident. Their speaking is to be “in turn,” that is, not all at the same time. The purpose of all verbal communication is “the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor 14:26) through the instruction and encouragement of everyone (1 Cor 14:31). That purpose, as Paul sees it, can only be accomplished when there is order in worship, “for God is not a God of disorder, but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33; see also 1 Cor 14:40).
All of the above shows that Paul is dealing with abuses and actions in worship which disrupt God’s purposes and which therefore need correction. Within such a setting, the text seems clearly to belong to the category of “corrective texts” whose purpose is focused toward a local situation. Paul’s word that “women should remain silent in the churches” would therefore seem, at least primarily, to have authoritative import (“What I am writing to you is the Lord’s command,” 1 Cor 14:37) for the particular situation in Corinth (as well as similar situations; for example, the one addressed in 1
Tim 2:11–12). One must be careful therefore not to immediately jump to the conclusion that Paul’s injunction has implications for all women in all churches.
Support for restraint in this area comes from both other things Paul writes and practices in the early churches which show that women’s vocal participation in worship and in other instructional or leadership roles was accepted and affirmed. Paul himself acknowledges in this same letter the validity and appropriateness of women as full participants in public prayer and the proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor 11:5, 13). What he finds invalid and unacceptable is that they engage in this activity without a head covering, since that rejection of cultural/religious custom creates a potential stumbling block. Paul even affirms in that context that “the churches of God” recognize no other practice (1 Cor 11:16), namely, the appropriateness of a head covering for women who are praying and prophesying in the church.
If Paul believed that women should be silent in the churches in a comprehensive, universal sense, he would not have spent so much time instructing women what to do with their heads; he would have simply forbidden their practice of praying and prophesying in the assembled congregation.
Paul’s larger view—which acknowledged and validated the vocal participation of women in the churches—is supported in other New Testament writings. Thus the proclamation of the “wonders of God” (namely, his redemptive work in and through Jesus of Nazareth—Acts 2:11, 22–36) is interpreted in Peter’s Pentecost sermon as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2:28–29 that in the last days, under the inspiration
of God’s outpoured Spirit, “your sons and daughters will prophesy. … Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18, emphasis mine). In keeping with this prophetic word and the commencement of its fulfillment at Pentecost, Luke mentions matter-of-factly that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who were engaged in the prophetic ministry of the good news (Acts 21:8–9).
In light of this evidence that women in the early churches were moved by the Spirit to engage in ministries of the Word side by side with men, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand Paul’s injunction as a categorical imperative intended for all churches in all places in all times. Rather, the injunction must be understood within its own context as addressing a problem in Corinth which needed correcting.
We have already seen above that the particular problem was disorder and confusion in public worship. This situation was apparently caused by the inappropriate expression of both the gift of prophecy and speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:26–31). It is thus probable that the admonition to silence is in some way related to women’s participation in the inappropriate use of these gifts. It is possible that women in the Corinthian congregation, due to the liberating experience of the gospel from all sorts of cultural and religious bondage, may have been at the forefront of noninterpreted, unintelligible utterance (glossolalia) and enthusiastic prophetic proclamation which did not yield the “congregational floor” to others. Some may have continued to speak at the same time another was prophesying, creating noisy confusion in which no one could be “instructed and encouraged.”
That such a connection existed between the women who are asked to be silent and the disorderly expression of tongues and prophetic speech receives support from two sets of parallel phrases in these texts. In addressing those speaking in tongues without the benefit of interpretation, Paul says, “The speaker should keep quiet in the church” (1
Cor 14:28). Then, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, he uses the same words: “the women should keep quiet in the churches.” The NIV [NIV New International Version] variation in translation does not reflect the fact that the Greek verb ( sigaoµ) is the same in both.
Second, in addressing the issues of disorderly prophetic speaking (1 Cor 14:29–32), Paul again urges silence on some so that others can speak. The NIV [NIV New International Version] ’s “the first speaker should stop” (1 Cor 14:30) again does not reflect the fact that the verb sigaoµ (“remain silent”) is also used here. But more important, in calling on the prophets in the congregation to recognize that they are mutually accountable to each other, Paul says, “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets” (1 Cor 14:32). The Greek word rendered “subject to the control of” is hypotassoµ. That is the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where he follows the admonition to silence (according to the NIV [NIV New International Version] ) with the words “[they] must be in submission.” In other words, prophets must be in submission to other prophets (and thus to each other) in the church.
If, as seems likely, women were prominently in that group of prophets who were disposed to be “disorderly,” Paul may be addressing them specifically with regard to this matter of submission to other prophets for the sake of order and peace (1 Cor 14:32–33). These parallelisms in the imperatives to “keep quiet” and “to be in submission” strongly suggest that the problem of disorderly participation in prophetic proclamation and tongues was particularly prominent among women believers in
Corinth, and that it is with respect to this context that Paul’s admonitions must be understood.
A final problem needs brief attention. What is the “Law” on which the injunction to submit is based (1 Cor 14:34)? Assuming that the submission envisioned is to the men/husbands in the congregation, some have sought Old Testament texts to ground such an injunction. The most common text cited from “the Law” is Genesis 3:16. Two factors militate against it. Wherever Paul deals with the relation between men and women, he never appeals to this passage. Further, it is clear from the context of Genesis 2–3 that 3:16, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” does not announce God’s created design for “male leadership” but is the statement of a cursed existence because of sin. Surely Paul knew that Christ’s redemptive work freed human beings from the curse of Eden.
Others see in Paul’s term (“as the Law says”) a reference to both Jewish and Gentile norms which restricted women’s public participation, and these restrictions existed within the context of male-dominant cultures. Yet Paul uses the word “be submissive”
without saying “to whom.” Thus the assumption that it is to men/husbands may not be warranted. It is more likely that he is referring back to the statement that “prophets are to be submissive to (other) prophets” (see 1 Cor 14:32). The question “Submissive to whom or what?” would then have an answer in the immediate context: either to other prophets or to the principle of order which has its origin in God (1 Cor 14:33).
Paul’s operative principle for congregational life and worship is constant. Whatever hinders the movement of the gospel, causes confusion rather than growth, offends rather than encourages or strengthens, builds up the self at the expense of others—all this is contrary to God’s intention. And insofar as the women in Corinth and elsewhere in the young churches used their gifts contrary to God’s intention, the injunction to silence is an appropriate, authoritative word. The principle which underlies the injunction is authoritative for both men and women in all churches.
See also comment on 1 timothy 2:11–12.
15:2 Salvation: Past, Present or Future?