Differentiation and Mutuality of Male-Female Relations in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Yeo Khiok-khng ABSTRACT Based on the hypothesis that Paul

l addresses the gender issue to a mixed audience - loose-haired feminists and a conservative group concerning hairstyles the paper demonstrates that Paul was a Chnstological mutualegalitarian advocate Paul affirms both the mutuality male and female shared and the umqueness each gender has nChnst Modern readers preoccupied with categorizing Paul as chauvinistic or egalitarian may find 1 Cor 11 2-16 puzzling and self-contradictory, not to mention inconsistent with Gal 3 28 1 and other passages in 1 Corinthians 2

Galatians 3 28 seems to suggest an egalitarian theology but not at the expense of eliminating sexual distinction Baptism into Christ constitutes a liberation from the bondage of sin and death including gender relationships Christian freedom is the result of spiritual justification and the reversal of the Fall It is noteworthy that the phrase "male and female" follows the technical formula in the creation account The first pair (Galatians) is loined with "nor" but this pair (Genesis) is joined with ' and," indicating the inter-dependence of male and female See Richard and Toy ce Boldrey, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul's View of Women (Grand Rapids Baker, 1976), 33 Lone Fatum's discussion on Galatians as "In Christ There is no Sexual Differentiation" is unconvincing Being a scholar critical of androcentric and patriarchal texts, Fatum seems to be unaware of her reading as she employs similar patriarchal bias, tool and hegemony to read into Pauline texts See Lone Fatum "Image of God and Glory of Man Women in the Pauline Congregations," Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (ed E Borresen, Oslo Solum Forlag, 1991), 56-137 2 In 1 Corinthians 9 5 Paul maintains that he, like other apostles, has the right to be supported financially and the right to be accompanied by female comissionanes, because other apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas, were entitled to take with them a "sister" as "woman/wife" The double accusative object "sister woman' ( ) is best understood as a missionary co worker Even in 1 Corinthians 7, the mutuality of husband and wife is obvious The three big questions of race, freedom, and sexes are dealt with in 1 Cor 7 1739 (Was an>one at the time ot his call already circumcised? Was anyone at the tmie of his call unurcumcised? [v 18], Were you a slave when called? [v21], Are you bound legally or morally to a woman? Are you free from a woman? [v 27]) On the sex issue equality and mutuality in marital obligation and relationship is stressed 7

This theological inconsistency is compounded by the complex history of research 3 which has revealed the "notorious exegetical difficulties" of 1 Corinthian 11, v i z , its uncertain logic, its imprecise terminology, its underly ing customs, and its literary unity 4 For example, Scroggs argues that "this is hardly one of Paul's happier compositions The logic is obscure at best and contradictory at worst The word choice is peculiar, the tone, peevish " 5 Fatum summarizes "Paul's arguments are here remarkably incoherent and awkward "6 Fiorenza argues that Paul's rhetoric here is so convoluted that "it can no longer be unraveled completely "7 Walker dismisses the pencope as inauthentic that it is to be judged an interpolation because the passage "so obviously breaks the context of the letter at this point " 8 He also argues on the basis of the vocabulary, and its theological contradiction with Gal 3 28, that the pencope is unpaulme 9 This paper attempts to read the text as clues to our understanding of the communication process between Paul and the mixed audiences at Corinth I shall also attempt to show how that the pencope at hand is one of the most revolutionr) of Pauline passages because it interprets male-female relationships in terms of differentiation and reciprocity 10
For the history of research on this pencope, from John Calvin up to 1970's, see Linda Mercadante, From Hierarchy to Equality A Comparison of Past and Present Interpretations of 1 Cor 11 2-16 (Vancouver Regent College, GMH Books, 1978) 4 Problems include the question ot authenticity, of hairstyle or head covering, the meaning ot head" the context of tins pencope, and the logic ot Paul's argument For details, see Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1987), 492 5 Robbin Scroggs, Paul and the Eschatological Woman," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40 (1972) 297 6 Fatum, Image of God and Glory ot Man," 73 7 E S Fiorenza, /;/ Memory of Her A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York Crossroad, 1983), 228 8 0 Walker, "1 Corinthians 112-16 and Paul's Views Regarding Women," Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975) 94-110, especially 99, reply by J Murph\-O'Connor, "The Non-Pauline Character ot 1 Corinthians 11 2-167" Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976) 615-617, Meier, "On the Veiling of Henneneutics (1 Cor 11 2-16)," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978) 212222, and recentl\ Walker's new response "The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11 3-16 Pauline or Non-Pauline?" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989) 75-88 9 Walker, "1 Corinthians 11 2-16 and Paul's Views Regarding Women," 94-110 and "The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11 3-16 Pauline or Non-Pauline?" 75-88 10 Wayne Meeks and Robert Jewett have concluded similarly on the theme o differentiation and mutuality in 1 Corinthians 11, but they have not traced the rhetorical response ot Paul to the Corinthian audience They have not explained the seemingly contradiction of verses 2-9 and 10-16 See Wayne A Meeks, 8
3

Proto-gnostic Women and their Hairstyle It is the working hypothesis of this paper that Paul addresses the gender issue to a mixed audience loose-haired femimsts and a conservative group that holds to traditional teachings and cultural norms concerning hairstyles The conservative group sees men as authontative heads of women n The other side of the problem anses from the desire of certain Connthian women12 and is more prominent they wish to be free from certain cultural rules and norms Specifically they want to assume a masculine lifestyle It is probable that Paul has received information about the agitation of proto-gnostics who are challenging traditional sexual roles and definitions 13 The presence of the proto-gnostic segment is evidenced by the peculiar vocabulary and content of the passage in 1 Corinthians, for example, those (2 15) who possess wisdom reXeioi (2 6), (3 18), "already begun to reign" in the new age (4 8) The conjecture can be made that some of the Connthian women, influenced by the proto-gnostic idea, perceived reality eschatologically and assumed that they already reigned with Chnst (cf 4 8) and that their bodies had no part in the tnumphant life (cf 15 12) Furthermore, Paul had taught that there is no "male and female" in Christ (Gal 3 28) Perhaps this group misunderstood Paul's conviction to mean that in Chnst there is only one sex "One sex" can mean either asexual androgyne or bisexual androgyne Asexual androgyne refers to the new creation in Christ in whom opposites of sexes are unified and distinctions eliminated Bisexual androgyne refers to the new Adam in 'Image ot the Androgyne Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13 (1974), 200, 202-203, Robert Jewett, Paul The Apostle to America Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship (Louisville Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 49 n I n the Taceat (1 Cor 14 34-25) we have evidence that the Paulimsts, a group of Jewish Christians which held to a conservative Pauline theology See Yeo Khiok-khng, Feminist Hemieneutics and Theology [m Chinese] (Hong Kong Alliance Seminary, 1995), 101-112 12 The argument ot David W J Gill ('The Importance ot Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 2-16," Theological Bulletin 41 [1990] 244-256) that the pencope is dealing with wives rather than women is not convincing because the discussion on hairstyle pertains to male-female rather than husband-wife, the discussion of creation order cannot be limited just to husband-wife relations, if the discussion is on husband-wife, then married wife and single women would have different hairstyles, and the difference between the two are not ditferentiated in the pencope RSV renders verse 2 as "the head of the woman is her husband ', NRSV renders it as "the husband is the head of his wife " 13 See mv reconstniction ot the audience in tenus of proto-gnosticism and mystery religions Yeo Khiok-khng, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Leiden Brill 1995), Chaps VII and VIII 9

Christ \ lz the undifferentiated bisexual person 14 Since 1 Cor 114 and 7 mentions man dressing like woman, it is possible that some Connthian males dressed their hair like females so as to attain androgynous humanity, either asexual or bisexual 15 Howe\er, I suspect the fcmale becoming female' or androgv ne complex is less senous than the problem of female becoming male As Kan Vogt's survey of early Chnstian and Gnostic literatures has suggested, 'female becoming male' is a more common metaphor than 'male becoming female' 16 I think the descnption of 1 Cor 11 4-7 on male dressing their hair as female is merely rhetoncal It is more probable that Connthian females thought they had to become male since Chnst is male It is safe to say that the proto-gnostic women in Connth suffered from considerable confusion with regard to the gender role and function The\ behe\ed that women had to become men in order to be saved 1 7 To demonstrate their new status in Chnst these women did not dress their hair as other women did Connthian feminists held to the gnostic conception of male identitv and hence sought e\ idence of rebirth by the application of male svmbolism ( e hair do) This is a misunderstanding of Paul's message of 4 being in-Chnst Though Paul never intends to sav that those who are nChnst are male heirs (the emphasis should rather be on heirs" see Gal 3 29 4 7) of God except for the grammatically masculine (' sons"), \et it is not \ ei \ clear that is a com entional temi that w ould ha\ e included both male and female Proto-gnostic w omen w ould adopt a male hairsty le But hairsty les so deeph rooted in gender and sexual mores, had senous social implications and a unisex hairstv le ran against the social norms of Greco-Roman societv 18 Wa\ne Meeks has written a verv resourcetul article tracing the idea ot androgv ne m antiquitv see Meeks Image ot the Androgv ne 165-196 15 Wavne Meeks discussion of Gal ^28 and 1 Cor 11 seem to suggest this possibihtv see Meeks Image ot the Androgyne 180-181 185 191 200 The baptismal lonnula ot Gal 1 28 might mean tor the Connthian women that the unage ot God is restored in man and woman as the difterence and division of being male and female are eliminated in Christ Meeks writes, The baptismal reunification lonnula thus belongs to the tamihar Urzeit-Endeit pattern and it presupposes an interpretation ot the creation story in which the divine image after which Adam was modeled was masculotemmine (185) 16 Kan Vogt Becoming Male A Gnostic and Earlv Christian Metaphor Borresen ed Image oj God and Gender Models m Judaeo-Christian Tradition 172-187 1 Gospel ol Thomas [II 2] Saving 114 Zostnanos ([VIII 1] 1) asks believers to flee troni the bondage ot lemininitv and to choose tor themselves the salvation ot masculimtv 18 See Cvntlua I Thompson Hairstv les Head Coverings and St Paul Portraits from Roman Corinth Biblical Archaeologist (lune 1988) 99-114 on the distinct hairstv les ol men and women in the culture ot Paul s world 10
14

A woman with a male hair do was seen as a prostitute, a lesbian, or a cultic 19 heretic Pauline Chnstianity would surely seek to safeguard itself against this practice The issue under discussion here has nothing to do with "veil" or 20 "covering", the language that is so prevalent in both RSV and NRSV. From Assyrian times through the Talmudic period, Jewish and oriental women were not veiled at home, in public, or at familiar gatherings.21 If Paul is familiar with this veiling custom, as he surely was, then his discussion of a man ( "having . . . on the head"; 11:5) cannot be referring to veiling custom. Nor can his discussion of a man ? ( "having on the head"; 11*4) be referring to the Jewish tallith or prayer shawl worn by the Jewish male, because that practice by man was deemed by Paul here to be a dishonor to God In the Old Testament, the lugli pnest is urged to come before God with an elaborate headgear (Ex 36 35-37) Surely Paul is not contradicting himself with this custom on the men (in verse 4), and he is not imposing this Jewish custom on the women (in verse 5 ) 2 2 The object of ("having") cannot be ("veil") since "veil" is never mentioned in the text as a noun 2 3 The only conclusion open to us is that "having . . on the head" (v 4) refers not to hair-covenng or to custom regarding veils, but most probably to hairstyle

Robin Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman Revisited," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42 (1974) 536, J Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor 11 2-16 and 1 Cor 14 33b-36," Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973) 203 interprets Num 5 18 (LXX) and its reference to the uncleanness of adultery as wearing a male hairstyle Fiorenza (/// Memory of Her, 227) mentions that disheveled hair was typical of mystery cults Short hair marked females as lesbians (cf Apuleius, Metamorphoses 7 6, 11 10) 20 This interpretation of a woman's wearing a veil in Corinth can be detrimental to one's reading of Paul's text here For example, partly because of this interpretation, Fatum writes that, "The insistence on a woman's duty to wear a veil during worship, vv 5-6, is actually just the consequent demand for a practical or social testimony of her submission to the distribution of power and authority institutionalized by creation " (Fatum, "Image of God and Glory of Man," 78 ) 21 We cannot read the Muslim custom of veil into the Jewish and Christian traditions See Hurlev "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women'?" 196, n 16 22 On veiling of the women in ancient Near East, see A Oepke, "," TDNT 3 556-558, R De Vaux, "Sur le voile des femmes dans l'Orient ancien," Revue Biblique 44 (1935) 397-412 23 J Murphy-O'Connor, "Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11 2-16," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980) 484 11

19

A similar argument for the hair-style interpretation is evident in other verses In verse 5 the preposition with the genitive may refer to "covering on head", as Oster argues 24 But the word 'covenng' is ambiguous is it "veil" or is it "wrapper"? The subject of (bound) should be (hair) rather than (cover/veil) to complete the phrase Paul is saying that they have to dress their hair up When Paul wntes of a woman being , he is speaking here of "loose hair" (that is, "unbound") rather than of the lack of a shawl Verses 14 and 15 are concrete evidence that "hair" rather than "veil" is the issue of Paul's discussion, because the word ("hair") is supplied 25 If it were an issue of veils, it would pertain to a practice that was anti-Jewish 26 The issue under discussion here is the custom of weanng hair pinned up or wrapped into braids and placed on the top or at the back of the head (rather than hanging loose) 27 So, "long hair has been given to her as a wrapper [TrepioXaioy]" ( 15) means feminine hairstyle, \\ e 1 1 -dressed and wrapped up in the conventional custom Paul's Henneneutical Process The Divine Model of Relatedness Paul begins his argument with the traditional teaching of the hierarchy of relationships (viz , God, Christ, , and woman), which obviously aims at affirming the conservative group while clanfying the tradition for the "loose-hair" party The point is made based on Paul's understanding of the relationship of God and Chnst, of Chnst to human beings, and of human beings to each other as male and female Of course, w hat that relationship is has implications for questions of leadership (which is a question of authonty) and of se\ roles (whether one is subordinate to another) In any case these questions are open to interpretation since the relational realities involved are R E Oster, "When Men Wore Veils to Worship The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11 4," New Testament Studies 34 (1988) 486 2<i In Ep 1 and Cor horn 26, 1, also Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple A Study with Special Reference to Mt 19 13(sic)-12 and 1 Cor 11 316 (Lund, Glenip Copenhagen Munksgaard, 1963), 166, William J Martin, "1 Corinthians 11 2-16 An Interpretation," in Apostolic History and the Gospel Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F F Bruce m his 60th Birthday, ed W W Gasque (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1970), 233, Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence ot Women?" 199 26 So Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, 165-186, Alan Padgett, "Paul on Women in the Church The Contradictions of Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11 2-16" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 20 (1984) 70, and Martin, Corinthians 11 2-16 An Interpretation," 233 27 See the archaeological evidence of female hairstyle in Thompson, "Hairstyles, Head-Covenngs, and St Paul," 99-114 12
24

not explicitly stated Even if one reads the text as pertaining to leadership roles and admits that a certain hierarchy is involved, the relationship is still not one of domination, since the God-Christ relationship is the model, and Chnst is subordinate to God only in mission, not in essence, based on the common understanding about Tnnity Not only is Paul's teaching based on the divine model, it is also a tradition that he has taught the Connthian church Paul's praise for his readers' efforts to "hold fast those traditions which he delivered to them" (v 2) seems iromc because in the next verse (v 3) he wntes, "but I would have you know " 2 8 The irony is caught by James Hurley who paraphrases verse 3 as "You have utterly discarded that which I taught you4?"29 The tone of verse 16, which accuses Corinthians of having abandoned the universal custom of the church of God, is clearly one of displeasure 30 The commendation found in verse 2. however, is not iromc or sarcastic as some have argued,31 for it states clearly Paul's traditional teaching (see w 2-9) Paul praises the Corinthians for following the tradition on sexual differentiation but adds (vv 10-16) that his own teaching will provide a certain nuance to the tradition -- sexual mutuality Not surprisingly, misunderstanding has arisen in the process of handing on the tradition Commumcation breaks down On the one hand, Paul needs to preach the liberation of women in contrast to the mores of the patriarchal culture m which they live On the other hand, Paul needs to maintain sexual differentiation ithout going as far as the radical feminists If the problem here is one of miscommunication, as certainly it seems, it is best explained in terms of rhetoncal hermeneutics in which what is said has not been fully understood as the rhetor intends There are two possible reasons for the misappropriation of Paul's traditional teaching either interception occurs in the commumcation process or there is a shift in the circumstances of the audience Interception may be due to the audience's inability to understand the message The change in circumstances may be
28

See E Evans, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1930), 117, John C Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (New York Seabury, 1965), 182-184, Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (New York Harper & Brothers, 1938), 149, and Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?" 191 29 Hurlev, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?" 191 30 Robert Jewett however see this as an interpolation of a later and more conservative Pauline school, see "The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School," Journal of the American Academy of Religion Supplements 46 (1978) 389-440 31 Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians, 182, Evans, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 117, Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?" 205 13

due to the difficulty of applying Paul's message to the new issue of liberated women For example, the Pauline tradition is re-stated in verses 3-7 "man is the head of woman, and that God is the head of Chnst" Paul may mean by this a generative-relational rather than an ontological, hierarchical relation That is, just as Chnst is begotten and sent by the Father (cf Gal 4 4-5, Rom 8 3), so woman in the first Creation is born out of Adam's flesh (cf Gen 2 21-22), and man and woman [believers] are bom out of Chnst (v 3) 3 2 Paul may here be explaining the difference between male and female, but the conservative group may have heard it as hierarchical Paul may here be affirming the equality of men and women (as Chnst and God are equal), but the liberated women may have heard equality as meaning uniformity on sex roles, an idea used as a spnng board for umsex hairdos Male-Female Differentiation m the Order of Creation According to Paul, hairstyle has the connotative meaning of male-female differentiation in human relationships In his understanding of human relationships, Paul uses the divine-human paradigm 1 Cor 113 presents us not with a hierarchy but with the order of creation of humanity 33 Paul uses ("Chnst"), not ("lord") or ("master") morder to avoid any notion of subordination, if the last two terms would connote that In verse 8 Paul stresses the fact that Eve denves her being from Adam ( , cf Gen 2 18-22) And this seems to be the key to what he means in verse 3 by designating the male as "head" ( ), that is, the male is ("head") in the sense of ("source") relative to the female 34 The meaning of head should be seen in the pnmordial reality of God and Chnst, with God as Father (1 Cor 13, 8 6, 15 23-24) and Chnst as Son (1 Cor 1 9, 15 28) The temi thus becomes a Christological hermeneutic used to infuse the creation account with new meamng (as we will see in verses 11 onwards), but in verses 2-9, this radical and transforming connotation is hidden Paul believes that the relationship between male and female can be understood conespondingly to be that of the Father and the Son, and Christ is responsible for the new creation of all

32

See also the similar argument ot O'Connor, "Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11 2-16," 494 33 So Scroggs, 'Paul and the Eschatological Woman," 298 On the way Paul uses symbols of present order in 1 Cor 11, see Meeks, "Image of the Androgyne," 208 34 S Bedale, "The Meaning of in the Pauline Epistles," Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954) 214 14

believers, male and female The Christological hermeneutic of Paul in verse 35 3 is subtle' Paul's concern in verses 3-4 is with distinction not discrimination. The hairstyles of men and women are not to be the same. Paul's use of the order of creation was intended to respond to the audience's misconception regarding the created order, a misconception which was intended to introduce similanty and dispense with hierarchy. The issue in discussion (hairdo and the created order) was not whether women should or should not pray and prophesy (that was assumed to be acceptable); the issue was how males and females should co-exist in differentiation, rather than living in an undifferentiated form of androgynous being. It is for this reason that the notion that the woman is to be subordinated to her "head" as her "lord" and "authonty" is absent from Paul's argument altogether The only reference to authority is in fact that o/the woman's in verse 10 36 But many might argue that the word "head" itself denotes subordination The meamng of the word in verse 5 and throughout the passage remains an exegetical problem 37 The semantic range of the word is often not taken senously, and how Paul uses the term elsewhere is not taken into consideration There is no denying that the word denotes "head" and connotes "authority and supremacy over."38 But what is being said here is that Paul's hermeneutic transforms the traditional understanding of the word to mean both head as "leader" and head as "source." The use of ("head") as a metaphor for "source" is not impossible 39 It is true that in the LXX (Paul's "Bible"), appears

35

Contra Fatum's analysis of 1 Cor 11 that Paul "bases his argumentation on creation theology instead of chnstology and eschatology as elsewhere in the letter" ("Image of God and Glory of Man," 72) 36 Contra Fatum's conclusion on her reading of 1 Cor 11 that "As women and as females they have no right and are not entitled to make any claims for themselves" (Fatum, "Image of God and Glory of Man," 73) 37 Bedale, "The Meanmg of in the Pauline Epistles," 211-125, Schlier, "," TDNT 3 673-682 38 Grudem, "Does ("head") mean "source" or "Authority over" in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 examples," 38-59 See also idem, "The Meaning of Kephale ("Head") A Response to Recent Studies," Trinity Journal 11 (1990), 372, Joseph A Fitzmyer, "Another Look at m 1 Corinthians 11 3," New Testament Studies 35 (1989) 503-511 39 Bedale, "The Meanmg of in the Pauline Epistle," 211-125, C Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York Harper & Row, 1968), 249, Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," 298-299, Murphy-O'Connor, "Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11 2-16," 492-293, Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 503, Kitty Diane Bendixen-Park, "Dramatism and Headship A Survey of Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Theory to Elucidate Paul's Use of 15

281 times as the translation for ros in the sense of chief or ruler, when used of authontatrve figure, an (ruler/onginator) or (chief/leader)40 Looking through the LXX, Philo, and Josephus, Fitzmyer argues that "a Hellenistic Jewish wnter such as Paul of Tarsus could well have intended that in 1 Cor 11 3 be understood as 'head' in the sense of authonty or supremacy over someone else " 4 1 But this is to assume that Paul's use of the word cannot exceed the semantic range of his contemporaries An analysis of Paul's exegesis of Exodus in 1 Connthians 10, for example, reveals that Paul is a creative thinker who often uses old patterns and concepts in a new way to prove his point 4 2 In the passage at hand, contextual analysis indicates that Paul is shifting the metaphoncal sense of from "authontatrve figure" to "source" as evidenced in "the head of a woman is the man" ( , 3b) and "woman from man" ( , 8) The use of the word "image" is yet another hint that generative relation is meant "Image" has both relational and source connotations, that is, male (and female) being in the image of God bear the glory of God, but the female also bears the glory7 of man, woman comes from man Man is the head of the woman because he is the source or the medium of her creation The Glory and Authority of Woman Paul responds to the problem of pneumatic women by turning to Genesis 2 21-22 (rather than Gen 1 26-28)43 in 1 Connthians 11 7-9 which indicates that the male (the female is not mentioned) bears the image of God The "image" language, if alluding to the Genesis creation accounts, no doubt comes from Gen 1 26-28 Yet Paul in w 2-9 does not explicitly say that both male and female bear the image of God Perhaps, Paul is using the argument of the conservative group, but his seemingly favontism towards their argument is onl> short-live His allusion to their argument is

in First Connthians 11 2-16" (PhD Diss, Northwestern University, 1994), 484 40 R Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman Revisited," 534, n 8, also Murphy -O'Connor, "Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11 2-16," 492 41 Fitzmver, "Another Look at m Connthians 11 3," 510 42 See Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Connthians 8 and 10, Chaps VIII and VI 43 0n the different theologies of Gen 1 and Gen 2 with regard to male and female, see Ph> lhs A Bird, 'Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts, Image of God and Gender Models m Judaeo-Christian Tradition 11-24 16

significant as a means to lay the groundwork for later reversing their M traditional view of male-female relations Why did not Paul use Genesis 1, so as to be inclusive of both male and female bearing the image of God? Genesis 1 narrates the story of God's creating humanity in God's own image and likeness and commanding them (male and female) to have dominion over other parts of creation (v 28) Perhaps the audience did not yet share Paul's conviction about Gen 1 26-28 Or perhaps the creation account of Gen 2 21-22 better differentiates the malefemale relationship than Gen 1 26-28 does, though the word "image" is used in Gen 1 In 1 Connthians 11 Paul affirms the order of the creation event However, there is no indication whatsoever that Paul is using the domimon or subjugation theme found in Genesis 1 or 3 45 When speaking of the creation event, Paul does not mention the divine decree of Genesis 3 16 ("Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you") This omission is significant, because if Paul's intention were domimon and submission then the divine decree of Genesis 3 16 would be his strongest argument The omission should not be understood as accidental, in other words, Paul intentionally avoids the meamng of the male ruling over the female The word "gloiy " is used by Paul "Man is the image and glory of God, and woman is the glory of man " (v 8) The word (glory) is not used in the Genesis creation account From the context it means that woman is the glory and splendor of man (v 7b) Paul has re-interpreted the phrase "man is the head of woman" (" 8 /") in 3 Why does being a woman honor or glorify a man? There are two reasons the first one pertains to differentiation, and the second pertains to the order of creation If a woman wants to be a man, then the difference between man and woman is eliminated Woman is created last and is more glonous and honorable than all creatures (cf Ps 8 on the last creation of humanity being the acme of creation) As the last of creation of man (Adam), she thus bears the glory of man (Adam) Paul's own positive affirmation of the distinctiveness of both men and w omen (\ erses 4-9) is his response (a) to the conservatives who

44

The similar rhetorical technique of Paul in 1 Connthians 8 is used as he deals with the issue of idol-meat for the strong knowledgeable group and the weak conscience group first he cites the argument of the knowledgeable on monotheism, but at the end of Paul's interpretation, the Chnstological hermeneutics critiques the knowledgeable group being insensitive to the conscience of the weak, thus causing the weak to sin For more, see Yeo Khiokkhng, Rhetorical Interaction m 1 Corinthian 8 and 10, 180-198 45 Hurle\ argues that Paul is using the theme of dominion here, see Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence ot Women?" 205 17

seek to put down the feminists; (b) to the feminists who seek to conform themselves to manhood; Paul encourages them to accept their womanhood. Paul seeks to transform what is normally thought of as subordination and equality, then to glory, pride, and the authority of the woman (from verse 10 onwards). The phrase ("to have authority") in verse 10 is the gnostic-Corinthian slogan connotating "having the right" or "liberty," 46 rather than simply possessing power passively (9:4-6, 7:37; 8:9, 9:18). "Authority" has traditionally been translated as "a veil"! This translation is far from accurate in light of our discussion above. It is more likely that Paul argues for the right and freedom of women to maintain a feminine hairstyle as a symbol of gender uniqueness. Woman has authority (right and freedom) on her head as far as propriety (cultural acceptance) allows. Paul contends that a woman with an inappropriate hairstyle in worship will dismpt or dishonor the glory of God because the angels present at the assembly are concerned with the created order of God.4^ Paul is admonishing women to accept the unique character of their status within the cosmic design of which hairstyle is a symbolic expression within a culture -- a status which is by no means inferior to man's. The woman's hair functions as a sign of these ontological relationships to herself and to men. Bound hair is a sign of freedom. Not to bind or dress the hair is a sign of rebellion, a symbol of being misplaced in the cosmos and a sign of disgrace. As such, her hair is indeed her glory (v. 15: de v ). Paul's intention here is to express the new worldview. Male-Female Mutuality in the Christological Hermeneutic of Paul Paul's argument explicitly moves to a revolutionary perspective from verse 10 onwards. The change of course has been effected by the Christ
46

R. A. Horsle>. "Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 8-10/' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 574-575. Fee gives several interpretations to the phrase " - " ("to have authority over her head") (a) authority as under man's authority; (b) authority as a metonym for veil (c) a sign of authority as a means of exercising authority; and (d) freedom over her head to do as she wishes Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. 519-521. 47 Angels are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 4:9 in which Paul refers to the apostles as ones whom God has made a spectacle before people and the angels, suggesting that in contrast to the glorious reign the Corinthians assume for themselves the apostles are to suffer as part of the cosmic (show) In 6: Iff Paul points out the irony of the Corinthian "saints," who are supposed to judge the angels but cannot judge their own daily matters In 13:1 and 3, Paul declares angelic speech and knowledge as nothing when pursued without love In 11:10 Paul places woman in a hierarchy above all other things even the angels The role of the angels in 1 Corinthians seem to be that creaturely beings to glorify God 18

event it is the liberation which comes with a New Creation From Paul's point of view the female hairdo is a symbol of this new found authonty as well as being a glory to man Scroggs is nght when he wntes, "In the eschatological community, where freedom reigns, woman no longer stands chained to the roles of the old creation The days of Genesis 3 are gone forever'" 48 The New Creation results in the mutual intenelatedness of man and woman (rather than subordination), which is spelled out in 11 11-12 The word in verse 11 ("only" or "nevertheless"), serves as a pointer to the important statement to follow 49 It introduces Paul's interpretation of Genesis 2 18-22 in which he conects a common misunderstanding (from the conservative group) and offers a reversal Woman came from man, but now man comes through woman, and both are created by God ( , 12) Paul's argument is based on the Chnstological insight that the mission of Chnst was a new creation through the re-creation of an old humanity Paul's Chnstological hermeneutic in verse 12 notes the difference between man and woman by citing the different ways God created man and woman Nevertheless, "neither woman is independent of man, nor man is independent of woman in the Lord" "In Christ" coupled with ("neither is independent") implies that the sexes are indispensable to each other Whatever is true of the first creation needs now to be seen in light of the second creation in Chnst Though man and woman are in many respects different, it is precisely in those differences that man and woman need to relate to each other Man cannot be independent of w oman nor can woman be independent of man. both are mutually //terdependent The key phrase here is "in the Lord" ( ) and "all from God" ( ) which speaks of the same theology as Gal 3 28 Verse 12 underscores the intenelatedness and interdependence of man and woman According to Genesis woman was created from the body of man ( ), but biologically speaking man(kind) is bom through woman ( ["man comes from woman"]) Only of the first creation is it true that "woman comes from man", of all other births it is true that "man comes from woman" Woman was created "for man" ( plus accusative), and he is bom through her ( plus genitive) showing the interrelatedness of male and female 30
48

Robin Scroggs, ""'Paul Chauvinist or Liberationism" The Christian Century 89 (1972) 309 49 Shoemaker, "Unveiling of Equality 1 Connthians 112-16," Biblical Theological Bulletin 17 (1987) 60-63 50 A parallel to 1 Cor 11 11-12 is found in the Genesis Rabbah 8 9 (ascribed to R Simlai, ca 250 CE, in 22 2 ascnbed to R Akiba, ca 135 CE) "In the past Adam was created irom dust and Eve was created from Adam, but henceforth it shall be in 19

From the rhetoncal question in verse 13 and the argument concermng "nature" ( ) in verses 13-15, it is clear that Paul wishes to maintain both sexual differentiation and mutuality "Nature" ( ) does not refer to the natural growth of hair -- if a man does not tnm his hair, it will be long as well "Nature" refers to the awareness of a culture and its values rather than to natural law It includes a cultural perception of propnety The notions of shame and glory are culturally determined concepts which reflect those social relations in which propnety is the main concern In this respect the rhetonc of nature is similar to the discussion of conscience in 1 Connthians 8-10. which involves the weak of conscience on one hand and gnostics on the other Here the argument about nature assumes that each group has a different perception and valuation of a cultural practice This is not to say Paul disallow s nnovatn e practices, rather Paul is concerned w ith inner renovation within an accepted structure He is concerned that w omen dress their hair properly, but he is also concerned that they pra> and prophesy He wants women to affimi their own uniqueness, rather than having to be like males 1 Connthians 11 suggests that both liberated women and male cham mists ha\e the same social consciousness of honor and shame A person's sense of honor and identity, then as well as now, hinges upon one's ability to establish social worth in public The liberated women of Connth believed they were honored through obtaimng a certain ascribed status dressing as a male Such a practice, however, only replaced the individual's tme status and identity w ith a false and distorted one Paul introduces a new paradigmatic understanding of "hierarchy" with his Chnstological interpretation of the Genesis narrative (Gen 1 and 2) He does tins, in tins special case, to argue that "in the Lord" the liberated woman is first and foremost unique, different from the male, and then interdependent in her relations w ith her male colleagues Paul, a Chnstological- and Mutual-Egahtanan The interpretation of 1 Connthians 11 causes us to raise the question of whether Paul was a male chauvinist, as most commentators think 51 It our image, after our likeness [Gen 1 26], neither man without woman nor woman without man, and neither without the Shekinah " Taken trom Madelem Doucher, "Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11 11-12 and Gal 3 28 The New Testament on the Role ot Women, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969) 50-58 M G W Trompt, O n Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Pauhnist Literature 1 Connthians 11 3-16 and Its Context," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980) 196-215 Weiss Der erste Korintherbrief (Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1910), 271 Pagels, "Paul and Women A Response to Recent Discussion," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42 (1974) 543-549, Fatum, ' Image ot God and Glory ot Man," 86 20

would be anachronistic to say that Paul was a feminist-hberationist I also find that our modern categories such as equality and liberation may be inadequate to explain Paul's theology and hermeneutics Paul was a Chnstological mutual-egahtanan advocate and praxist Paul's affirmation that there is "neither male nor female" in Chnst does not mean that in Chnst all are the same one sex, one race, and one social status Paul affirms the common ground upon which all stand before God, the communahty of all races and of both sexes In order to affirm the commonality and communahty of sexes and races, Paul needs first to affirm the uniqueness and distinctiveness of each race and gender In 1 Connthians 11 Paul does precise!) that Man and woman have the same gifts of praying and prophes> ing The question is how they are to maintain their own sexual identits and uniqueness while exercising a common ministry It will be a worthwhile project if Paul's hermeneutics of gender-relations can be located in the vanous creation accounts and interpretations in Paul's time This paper has merely located his hermeneutics in 1 Connthians 11 It is interesting to observe that, if Paul did not explicitly base his argument on Genesis 1 26-28 (both male and female bear the image of God), he seemingly concludes by affirming the mutuality and corporate identity of male and female (as we find in Gen 1 rather than Gen 2), but also maintaining the differentiation between genders (as we find in Gen 2) If this is so Paul's hermeneutics is not only contextualh interactive with the argument of the audiences, but also Chnstologicalh creative as he rereads Genesis 2 (uniqueness) and Genesis 1 (commonaht>) into a theological anthropologv of differentiation and mutuality

21

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.