1 Corinthians 11:2-12: In the Culture or In the Lord?
According to the dictionary, a sophistry is a kind of reasoning that is misleading or unsound, but it sounds clever and plausible. Paul talks about such reasoning in Colossians 2:23,
"Such regulations (Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!) indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."
Note, "appearance of wisdom" and "false humility" do not a perfect Christian make. Paul was addressing the problem of Christian leaders, one of which was James the brother of Jesus, who wanted to "Judaize" the emerging Christian church. Circumcize your male children, avoid pork, keep the Sabbath, do not marry, do not drink wine, wear this, don't wear that...The Jews had hundreds of laws beside the Law of Moses to keep. The veil in such religions between earthly ritual and objects and the unseen interdimensional world was very thin. Ritual created reality so only proper rituals could prepare one to be in God's holy presence. The problem is that Jesus turned that idea on its head, which is one of the reasons they crucified him.
In 1 Cor. 11 we have two ways of looking at the woman question. One is born of the Spirit and the other is a sophistry. Verses 2-10 present the picture of the first century attitude toward women:"2. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as having her head shaved. 6. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. 7. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from the man; 9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels."
As a Catholic in my youth we wore hats, scarves, or doilies to Mass on Sunday. It was sinful if you didn't do so. But that is NOT what Paul is requiring. Tertullian gives us the real ancient viewpoint on this matter. In his treatise On The Dress of Women, he writes, "You are the Devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first forsaker of the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not brave enough to approach; you so lightly crushed the image of God, the man Adam." Therefore virgins must be covered up. He informs us that in his third century era the Corinthian churches were still covering the heads of their virgins, not just to protect the devout men of the church, many who had vowed not to marry, but to protect the angels, who, according to the holy record of Enoch (an ante-diluvian prophet), found the women of ancient times an irresistible temptation.
Women must pray and prophesy with their head covered. She must also have long hair because that is God's natural covering for her, and she must submit to her husband and Christ submitted to the Father.
So a woman who is godly has a trinity of coverings to keep the devil at bay: her hair, her veil, and her man. Apparently, for women, the Holy Trinity of divinity does not suffice when it comes to lusty men and angels.
Here is the reason given-- 1. Man is the image of God. Woman is merely the image of Man. 2. Man was not created for the woman. The woman was created for the man as what we evangelicals used to call a "helpmeet" in the 1960s. The idea was that God created a help "meet" or suitable for the man. Elsewhere it is written that women were created second, but the issue here is "source." Woman came from man, placing her in a subservient and inferior position. Her inferiority is endemic. She was created that way.
This was great preaching in the first century AD. Paul didn't make it be that way. It was already like that in all societies everywhere, and everyone "knew" that it had been that way from the beginning of time. Paul, or someone writing in his name, just summed up the biblical justification about why such subservience is fair and proper and must endure.
Before you lob cabbages at me, my righteous brethren, let me say that I am not mocking the Word of God. I am mocking the commandments of men. For example, how many pastors' wives have long hair? How many of them wear a scarf like Muslim women that really covers their head? How many obey their husbands in ALL things with total subservience? How many Christian women address their husbands as "My Lord" or "Sir?" How many fathers remind their little daughters, especially the ones with really high I.Q.'s, that they are not quite the image of God that men are, that they were created to support some man, that their gifts and talents exist to delight and benefit their husband? Furthermore, many evangelicals forbid anyone today to prophesy. They say that was for the past, not the present. So most of the ordinances of verses 2-10 have already fallen by the wayside.
The word of God in this passage begins with verse 11. In the NIV it is introduced with "however" or "nevertheless."
Women must pray and prophesy with their head covered. She must also have long hair because that is God's natural covering for her, and she must submit to her husband and Christ submitted to the Father.
So a woman who is godly has a trinity of coverings to keep the devil at bay: her hair, her veil, and her man. Apparently, for women, the Holy Trinity of divinity does not suffice when it comes to lusty men and angels.
Here is the reason given-- 1. Man is the image of God. Woman is merely the image of Man. 2. Man was not created for the woman. The woman was created for the man as what we evangelicals used to call a "helpmeet" in the 1960s. The idea was that God created a help "meet" or suitable for the man. Elsewhere it is written that women were created second, but the issue here is "source." Woman came from man, placing her in a subservient and inferior position. Her inferiority is endemic. She was created that way.
This was great preaching in the first century AD. Paul didn't make it be that way. It was already like that in all societies everywhere, and everyone "knew" that it had been that way from the beginning of time. Paul, or someone writing in his name, just summed up the biblical justification about why such subservience is fair and proper and must endure.
Before you lob cabbages at me, my righteous brethren, let me say that I am not mocking the Word of God. I am mocking the commandments of men. For example, how many pastors' wives have long hair? How many of them wear a scarf like Muslim women that really covers their head? How many obey their husbands in ALL things with total subservience? How many Christian women address their husbands as "My Lord" or "Sir?" How many fathers remind their little daughters, especially the ones with really high I.Q.'s, that they are not quite the image of God that men are, that they were created to support some man, that their gifts and talents exist to delight and benefit their husband? Furthermore, many evangelicals forbid anyone today to prophesy. They say that was for the past, not the present. So most of the ordinances of verses 2-10 have already fallen by the wayside.
The word of God in this passage begins with verse 11. In the NIV it is introduced with "however" or "nevertheless."
"11. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of the man, nor is man independent of the woman. 12. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."
The key words are "in the Lord." Isn't that after all the real goal of being a Christian? Don't we always plead with God to help us to be "in the Lord" and not in the world? In the Lord, there is no source but God. It matters not who was first or who came from who because "Everything comes from God." After this flash of brilliance, Paul lapses back into the culture. He actually equates a man's glory (which is the eternal, uncorruptible image of God) with a woman's glory (her hair!). The image of God is spiritual, eternal. Hair can be dirty and flea-ridden. It can be cut, it turns gray, and it rots in the grave! She cannot reflect the glory and image of God but only reflects the glory of man from whom she came.
We deal with this passage today in several ways. We say Paul didn't write it. (That's my thinking. This passage is so misogynistic and damaging to the church, I can't believe Paul wrote it, but maybe he did.) We say that he is quoting someone else in order to refute the statements. (But the quote is long and the refutation is only two verses, and then he doubles down. Nope, that's not the answer.) We say that we don't really understand the Greek. (Actually, we do). We tell women that that is how it is, so be obedient and suck it up. Tertullian assured us that what I have laid out here is the way the early church read the passage. It fit right in with their culture as it had always been. (Sure, let's all pretend that we live in the third century AD and women must be suppressed forever. Then tell women how Jesus loves them and how in the Spirit there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, free or slave, black or white, rich or poor.)
2 Cor. 3:17,18 talks about the real glory that counts. The Lord is the Spirit and the Spirit is the Source of both freedom and glory. Here is the Word of God on the matter:
We deal with this passage today in several ways. We say Paul didn't write it. (That's my thinking. This passage is so misogynistic and damaging to the church, I can't believe Paul wrote it, but maybe he did.) We say that he is quoting someone else in order to refute the statements. (But the quote is long and the refutation is only two verses, and then he doubles down. Nope, that's not the answer.) We say that we don't really understand the Greek. (Actually, we do). We tell women that that is how it is, so be obedient and suck it up. Tertullian assured us that what I have laid out here is the way the early church read the passage. It fit right in with their culture as it had always been. (Sure, let's all pretend that we live in the third century AD and women must be suppressed forever. Then tell women how Jesus loves them and how in the Spirit there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, free or slave, black or white, rich or poor.)
2 Cor. 3:17,18 talks about the real glory that counts. The Lord is the Spirit and the Spirit is the Source of both freedom and glory. Here is the Word of God on the matter:
"And we, who with UNVEILED faces ALL reflect the Lord's glory, are being TRANSFORMED into his likeness with EVER-INCREASING glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the SPIRIT."
All means all, and unveiled means unveiled. So I ask the evangelical denominations, are you in the culture, or are you in the Lord?
For more reading on interpreting the Bible check out https://janetkatherinesmith.blogspot.com/2012/01/babe-and-doctrine-of-inerrancy.html and https://janetkatherinesmith.blogspot.com/2023/07/hearing-shouts-and-whispers-of-bible.html
Comments
Post a Comment