1 Cor 11.16 - Character of Pauline Exhortation

7/28/2019 1 Cor 11.16 - Character of Pauline Exhortation

1/12

JBL 110/1 (1992; 679-689

1 CORINTHIANS 11:16 AND

THE CHARACTER OF PAULINE EXHORTATION

TROELS ENGBERG-PEDERSEN

Copenhagen University, DK-1150 Copenhagen K, Denmark

My aim in this article is not to reconsider yet again in detail the whole

complex set of issues that have hitherto been raised in the scholarly discus

sion of 1 Cor 11:2-16, thereby adding one more item to an already bulky

dossier of literature on the passage. Rather I intend to elucidate the meaning

of the final verse of the passage, which has received only scant attention, and

to employ that verse, together with a certain understanding of the overall

frame of the passage, to throw light on Paul's argument in the passage itself.

Two things stand out if one surveys the rich literature on 11:2-16:

(1) There is not sufficient agreement among scholars on how to understand

a number of points in the passage to prevent them from constantly proposingnew overall readings ofit.1 (2) The nonscholarly interest of scholars very often

influences heavily their decisions on the exegetical questions.2

Let me declare

myself briefly in relation to this connected issue of understanding and

interest.

I believe that, details apart, there is in fact sufficient reason for under

standing the passage in the traditional way: it is genuinely Pauline; it is con

cerned with the behavior of women in terms of headcovering when praying

or prophesying during service; and it advocates that a distinction be main

tained in this respect between men and women, the men being required (orallowed) to pray and prophesy with their heads uncovered and the women

being required to do it with their heads covered.3 In addition, I believe that

1 The most recent example is Thomas P. Shoemaker, "Unveiling of Equality: 1 Corinthians

11:2-16;' BTB 17 (1987) 60-63; he suggests that 11:3-9 is not Paul's own view but "a quote derived

from those who would have women submit to veiling and accordingly to a hierarchical structure"

(Shoemaker's emphasis).2 This observation, of course, is based on an impression and cannot therefore be immediately

confirmed or disconfirmed. I think it applies, for example, to the discussions by Robin Scroggs

in "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," JAAR 40 (1972) 283-303, esp. 297-302, and byElisabeth Schssler Fiorenza in In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983) 227-30.

3 Th t i bl ith th t f th i th th i h d b t t t


2/12

680 Journal of Biblical Literature

there is sufficient reason for understanding central elements in the actual

content of Paul's argument in the traditional way, but this will become clear

later. As for interest, I have none here in showing that Paul is speaking either

for or against women's liberation or any such thing, for the simple reason that

I do not find it in any way binding on us whether he did one thing or the

other. I do have another interest, however, which concerns the question of

how in general to understand Paul's theology in 1 Corinthians. In particular,

if Paul's "religion" is to be understood as an idiom that informs the way in

which Paul and his associates thought, wrote, and acted, then how does he

himself formulate that idiom (in what we call his "theology," the grammar of

that idiom) and how does that formulation interact with his actual writing in

a passage like the one we are considering?4

Here, moreover, I have a more

specific interest, which is to show that in the particular way in which thatpassage argues, it explicitly reflects Paul's theology as developed elsewhere

in 1 Corinthians, thereby supporting an understanding of that theology as

being itselfalso concerned with the question of how to employ the Christian

idiom in one's own argumentative practice.5

The second thing that one may note about the scholarly literature on the

passage is that although scholars speak and write about 1 Cor 11:2-16, very

few actually say anything about 11:2.6

But that, surely, is where we should

start.

I. The Frame (11:2, 3, 17, 22, 23)

When 11:2 is read in its context (both backward, to 11:1, and forward, to

11:17, 22, and 23), three ideas in the verse stand out: (a) that of praising,

(b) that of the Corinthians remembering Paul, and (c) that of their holding

on to his teachings. The second of these ideas takes up directly 11:1 at the

end of the preceding section and I shall come back to it later. The first and

third ideas are connected, as is clear from w. 17, 22, and 23: In v. 17 Paul

speaks of something that he cannotpraise (a); he repeats the point about notpraising in v. 22; and then in v. 23 reintroduces the idea (c) of what he had

himself received from the Lord and had also taught the Corinthians.

The question is therefore: When Paul frames 11:3-16 in this particular

4The talk of idiom and grammar is inspired by George A Lindbeck's development of this

simile for a proper understanding of religion and doctrine, see his The Nature of Doctrine

Religion and Theologym a PosthberalAge (London SPCK, 1984)5

I have argued for this more general understanding of the theology of1 Corinthians m "The

Gospel and Social Practice according to I Corinthians," NTS33 (1987) 557-846

For obvious reasons the commentaries generally fare better here than most independent

articles on the passage The only real discussion I have come across m the many articles on


3/12

Engberg-Pedersen: 1 Corinthians 11:16 681

way, is there anything in that passage itself to which this set of ideas (of

praising and holding on to Paul's teachings) is relevant? Will the idea of

praising the Corinthians for holdingon to Paul's teachings make any sense at

all in relation to 11:3-16?

Before considering this question we should note that the idea of praising

or not praising is not just a more or less natural idea that anybody may hit

upon. It is part of a topos about how to address people in an exhortation.7

Thus, by starting out in this way Paul shows himself to be aware ofthe specific

issue of how to address the Corinthians. How, then, is this relevant to 11:3-16?

The best (because most natural) answer is that in w. 3ff. Paul is cor-

recting something that he had in fact taught the Corinthians and that they

had in fact held on to and applied (in itselfcorrectly) to the question ofhead-

covering. Thus, the meaning ofthe transition from v. 2 to v. 3 will be: I praiseyou for remembering me and holding on to my teachings but there is one

point where your loyalty to my teachings, though praiseworthy in principle,

should be corrected. In 11:3-16, then, Paul prescribes something to the Cor

inthians (as he says in v. 178), but he is not blaming them for the behavior

they have hitherto adopted for the precise reason that in that behavior they

have been conforming to something he had himself taught them.

If this is correct, then it is also important. For it sets the scene in terms

of tone for the whole of w. 3-16.

II . The Argumentative Structure of 11:3-16

I am interested here only in the structure of the argument as opposed

to its content, but since the former cannot be completely detached from the

latter, I shall presuppose a certain understanding of the content and only

refer in the notes to other, more thorough treatments of the various issues.

Up to v. 11, Paul's argument is (to modern ears, at least) strange but

intelligible. The underlying idea is this: there is a certain ontological hier

archy with God at the top and with men being closer to Christ and (throughhim) to God than women, who are one step farther down in the hierarchy;

9

7

And so we are, as it were, in Malherbe territory; see Abraham J. Malherbe, MoralExhorta

tion: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook(Library of Early Christianity 4; Philadelphia: Westminster,

1986), and also his collection of papers, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1989).8

With Nestle-Aland 26th ed. I read . . . and under-

stand both as referring backward and as the direct grammatical object of .

This is linguisticallymost straightforward, whereas in terms ofmeaning it represents something

of a lectio difficilior, since it preciselyraises the question I am pressing about the meaning ofthe frame of 11:3-16. If that question can be adequately answered, the chosen text will be the

correct one


4/12


and this ontological hierarchy should be reflected in the behavior ofmen and

women in terms of headcovering during service, that is, when they address

God in a specifically religious setting. Thus, since the male has Christ and

through him God as his figurative "head," that is (as Paul fortunately explains),

since he is the (direct) image and reflection10

ofGod, he should have his own

(nonfigurative) head uncovered so that during service it will stand in the rela

tionship to his figurative "head" that corresponds to the ontological relation

ship. By contrast, were the male to cover his head during service, he would

bring shame11

over his head (presumably both the figurative and the non-

figurative head). But since the female has only the male as her head, she

would bring shame over her head (and presumably again in both senses) were

she to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered.

Notethat up to v. 11 the argument is basically religious (as we wouldsay). In w. 5b-6, however, Paul brings in a reference to a certain social norm,

but the beginning ofv. 7 shows that it is the religious idea of an ontological

hierarchyin relation to God that bears the brunt m the argument. The

ofv. 7 cannot refer back immediately to v. 6. Rather it takes up the line of

thought from w. 4-5a, thereby making w. 5b-6 somewhat parenthetical.

Why, then, does Paul add the reference to the social norm? The reason,

I suggest, is that his point about bringing shame over one's head does not in

fact work, in the case of the women, in the specifically religious terms that

he has chosen. Here he is talking ofa relationship ofwomen to men, and thisis not a religious one. Paul may have felt the awkwardness of this turn of his

argument, which is why he throws in a reference to a norm that is social.12

J Delobel claims that although there is a reference to "priorityand secondary place," in the

woman's case this "does not necessanly involve her inferiority"how so? (Delobel, "1 Cor

11,2-16 Towards a Coherent Interpretation," m LAptre PaulPersonnalit, style et conception du

ministre [ed A Vanhoye, BETL 73, Louvain Leuven University Press, 1986] 378) Or again

when Gordon D Fee says that "Paul's concern is not hierarchical (who has authority over

whom), but relational (the unique relationships that are predicated on one's being the source

of the other's existence)" what does this mean? (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians

[NICNT, Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1987] 503) Or finally, from the "progressive" side, when m

response to Delobel, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor altogether denies that Paul is thinking in terms

of a senes whose purpose is to indicate prioritywhat else could Paul mean? (Murphy-

O'Connor, "1 Corinthians 11 2-16 Once Again," CBQ 50 [1988] 270)10 Another minefield See m particular A Feuillet, "L'homme gloire de Dieu' et la femme

'gloire de l'homme (/Cor, xi, 7b)," RB 81 (1974) 161-82 However, does not a passage like 2 Cor

3 7 virtually prove that Paul could use to stand for the reflection of something that is a

glory? In anycase, is not the Platonic (and later philosophical) sense of as a secondary form

ofwhat is most genuine and primary (in Plato's case knowledge, ) highly relevant to

Paul?11

I should be happyto understand this idea better As far as I can see no one has explained

it properly Is it a traditional idea and if so what is its religious meaning? Or is it rather (as so


5/12


I pass by v. 10, which is notoriously fraught with difficulties.13

At v. 11,

then, one gets a minor shock. After all, there is no hierarchy "in the Lord."

Here man and woman are interdependent on the same level, and everything

is (presumably directly) from God. The strongly contrastive, even correctivesense of the initial should not be missed,14

and the content of w. 11-12

conforms with this. Whereas in w. 8-9 Paul was alluding to Genesis and the

foundational story of the creation of man and woman in order to back up his

ontological picture ofa hierarchy, in v. 11 he speaks ofthe relationship ofman

and woman "in the Lord," which necessarily means after Christ, and he backs

up his point by a reference to the coming into being of human beings in the

world as it is now. Quite apart from any residual difficulties in the two verses,

it should at least be clear that they constitute such a strong contrast with

what precedes that the original listeners and readers of the letter must haveasked, puzzled: But where, then, is the argument for the need for a distinc

tive behavior on the part of men and women during service?

We may also take it, as many scholars have done, that the understanding

of the relationship between men and women "in the Lord" that is being

expressed in the two verses is more in line with Paul's ordinary teaching than

the one that was put forward in the preceding verses. Indeed, we mayguess

that when the Corinthians were laudably holding on to Paul's teachings (by

11:2), they were precisely applying the Pauline rule of no distinctions15

ofGal

3:28 though applying it in a way that was neither foreseen nor acceptedby Paul.

So Paul is visiblyin difficulties. How then does he proceed? He appeals

to the understanding of his addressees: "Judge for yourselves" (v. 13a). And

he refers to a social norm in terms of what is fitting (, v. 13b) and to

the teaching of "nature itself" (w. 14-15). By themselves these supports are

Pauline arguments, between specifically "religious" ideas and more "social" ones. I am not

saying, however, that the distinction was necessarily clear to Paul himself.13

In the present context the onlything that matters is that there is a clear contrast betweenw. 10 and 11. I have no opinion on the angels, and, as for , the best exegesis seems to

be one that builds directly on 1 Cor 7:37. In that case, the point will not be that women have

"authority" over their heads in the sense of a freedom to choose, but rather in the sense of an

ability to control themselves.14

This is one point where one has to insist. Translations of such as "The point; is"

(Shoemaker, "Unveiling,"62) or "The key thing" (Scroggs, "Paul," 300 a "rather free translation,"

as Scroggs admits) are entirelyunwarrantedand certainly not warranted by a reference to

Blass-Debrunner claiming that is used byPaul to mean "only" (nur) or "at least" (jedenfalh)

in order to "conclude a discussion and emphasize what is essential" (Blass-Debrunner, German

16th ed. 449.2; Eng. ed. 1961, p. 234). For that claim is itself unwarranted by the Pauline

passages referred to, e.g., Phil 4:13-14, where "the nuance of correction is not absent" (asDelobel admits against his own interpretation of as introducing a "complement" ["1 Cor

11 2 16 " 384]) (Cf l Phil 3 16 th content f hi h i itself rele ant t th interpretation f


6/12


clearly of a far lower status than the grand idea of a religiously based onto

logical hierarchy. In addition we may note that what the reference to the

social norm yields is itself in a very low key compared to what was said in

the earlier reference to the social norm (w. 5b-6): if it is not "fitting" for

women to pray with their heads uncovered, then that is very far from saying

that it is positively "shameful" (, v. 6). Also we may note that the

reference to nature's teaching argues in positive rather than negative terms

when it suggests that having long hair (and by implication covering ones

head) is a glory for women. In sum, Paul is arguing in a low key now, and he

is appealing to the understanding of his addressees. They must judge for

themselves on the basis of what nature itself teaches them.16

If all of this is basically right, then we may conclude that there is a pat

tern to the development of Paul's argument: from high key to low key, froman authoritative stand to an appeal.

III. 1 Corinthians 11:16

Then comes the concluding verse. If, says Paul, somebody (among the

Corinthians) should want17

to be contentious: we do not have that habit nor

do the congregations of God. What habit is Paul referring to?

Most modern scholars take him to refer to the habit of women praying

with their heads uncovered. By contrast, in earlier scholarship it was rathermore normal, though disputed, to take him to refer to the habit of not being

contentious. Which is right? I believe that Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer

was right in insisting in 1856 that the presence in the text of the "we" ()

proves that Paul is referring not to the habit of women praying with their

heads uncovered but to the habit of being contentious.18

For who are the

"we"? Johannes Weiss rightly insisted on this question in his 1910 rewriting

of Meyer's commentary19

and Weiss found it so difficult to answer (because

he had first decided for himself that the habit refers to the women) that he

ended up first by suggesting that the phrase "nor do the congregations ofGod" is a catholicizing gloss and next by admitting the possibility that the

habit might after all refer to contentiousness.

1 6Note here Paul is not just talking of what nature (itself) teaches anybody who cares

to notice, but what nature teaches Paul's addressees1 7

Commentators play around with the meaning of here, but a reference to LSJ (sv

3b) should settle the question1 8

H A W Meyer, Des Paulus erster Brief an die Konnther (MeyerK 5, 3d ed , Gottingen

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1856) 2431 9

J Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (MeyerK 5, 9th ed, Gottingen Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht 1910) 277 Incidentally it is altogether unclear which understanding of the referent


7/12


Indeed (this is Meyer's argument), (i) the "we" must refer to a certain

group ofindividuals, since it is immediatelywidened to include, and thereby

logicallyimplied to be distinct from, the congregations. (And here itwill not

do to understand as if the text ran . . . or . . . as suggested by some

scholars,20

for the text does not run like that.) (ii) But then, if the "we" are

Paul and his group ofitinerant apostles and messengers (as opposed to the

stationarycongregations), the habit that Paul says he does not have cannot

refer to praying with one's head uncovered. Being a man, Paul would and

shouldpray with his head uncovered. (Here again the various expedients that

have been suggested reveal their falsity by their very tortuousness, for

example, when Lietzmann/Kmmel provide the following exegesis: I do not

have the habit of praying without a covering, that is, I do not lay down thatpractice when I create a congregation.

21Or when Theissen exegetes: Paul did

not himself have the reproved habitthat is, of praying with his head

covered?2) (iii) So let us take it (with Calvin, de Wette, Meyer, and other

incisive and well-argued readers of former times23) that the habit that Paul

denies to be his is that of being contentious. What, then, would his point be?

Up to now I have, in the main, been traditional. Indeed, that has been

part of my point. Here, however, I shall part company with almost all readers

of the verse that I know of. One reading that has been adopted is this: that

in denying that he is himself contentious Paul is saying that as a matter ofprinciple one must not be contentious (and in fact God's congregations are

not) and so those potentially contentious people should simply comply with

Paul's view on the matter at hand. In other words, Paul ends up by falling back

on his apostolic authority and virtually ordering the Corinthians how to

behave. The idea, in brief, would be this: Christians are not contentious so

you must not be contentious; you must not insist.

This is Calvin's reading, and Calvin becomes quite eloquent when he

explains the need for relying on one's auctoritas when faced with people who

are pervicaces et rixandi cupidos.24 However, this does seem to be a ratherconvoluted way of arguing. If Paul had in fact wanted to end on an authoritative

20 : Weiss, Korintherbrief, 277. : H. Lietzmann/W. G. Kmmel, An die Korinther

I~ll (HNT 9; 5th ed; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1969) 55.21

Lietzmann/Kmmel, An die Korinther, 55.22

Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte, 164. Fortunately Theissen only claims for his reading

"eine gewisse Logik!"23 loannis Calvini in Novum Testamentum Commentarli V (ed. A. Tholuck; Berlin: Eichler,

1834) 392-93; W. M. L. de Wette, Kurze Erklrung der Briefe an die Corinther (Kurzgefasstes

exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 2/2; Leipzig: Weidmann, 1841) 93.24 Nunquam enim contentionum erit finis, si cenando velis hominem pugnacem vincere: quia

i i f i bi Dili l i ("F th ill


8/12


note, it would have been far more clear-cut if he had said of the habit of

women's praying with their heads uncovered that it is just not normal prac

tice in God's congregations and so the Corinthians must give up their deviant

behavior. That, in fact, is how Conzelmann understood the verse inhis

rewriting of Meyer's commentary (the most recent one) when he paraphrased

Paul as simply saying sic volo, sic iubeo.25

However, we know that the habit

is not that of women praying with their heads uncovered. So why does Paul

bring in the topic of contentiousness?

There is one scholar who has taken this question seriously: Jean Hring

in his commentary from 1949:

Verse 16 ends this discussion on a slightly resigned note The apostlerealizes the difficulty in convincing the Corinthians, who are of a com

bative spirit () He declares that he wants to conform to thegenerallymore peaceful habits ofthe Christian churches, that means thathe will give no further answer to the replies and attacks that the page thathe has just written will no doubt earn him

26

This, I believe, is almost right,27

but we must take one further step. Paul

is not contentious (so he says); indeed, he makes it a Christian principle not

to be so. But what this means is that ifanybodyamong the Corinthians should

wish to insist on the kind of behavior that Paul is attempting to correct, by

contending against what Paul has said, then Paul on his side will not be con

tentious, not because he has, somewhat wearily, given up the Corinthians inadvance, but precisely on principle: it is their own decision or, as he has

himselfjust said, "Judge among yourselves." This, then, is myproposal: Paul

is leaving the decision to the Corinthians themselves because on principle

he does not want to enforce his own view ofthe matter in the way in which

potential contentious people do want to enforce their view. Here, then, the

idea is: Christians are not contentious so / will not be contentious; I will

not insist.

Someone might counterhere by saying that this looks rather like having

Paul make a virtue of necessity; Paul is throwing up his hands but at thesame time turning that into a principle. Fine! In itself such a procedure

would hardly be un-Pauline, and so the counteronly serves to strengthen my

proposal. However, it might also be that in addition to making a virtue of

necessity Paul is, in fact, applying an idea that did have the status of some

sort of a principle for him. I shall explore this possibility in a moment.

2 5 Conzelmann, Dererste Brief an die Konnther (MeyerK 5, 11th ed , Gottingen Vanden

hoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 2252 6

J Hring, La premire ptre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT 7, Neuchtel/PansDelachaux & Niestl, 1949) 96 (my translation)

27 Unfortunately the point is missed again in Chnstophe SenfVs rewriting of Hring's com


9/12


IV. Summary of the Argument

First let me pull together the argument for my proposal.

(1) As for v. 16 itself, I need only repeat here the basic structure of the

argument: first to decide on what is referred to by the "habit" that Paul speaksof, by settling the question of who the "we" are and what, then, the habit can

be; and next to explore the two possible meanings of the second half of the

verse in relation to the first one once the question of the referent ofthe habit

has been settled.

(2) In relation to w. 3-15 the argument for the proposed understanding

of v. 16 is that this understanding fits so smoothly into the development of

Paul's thought that we noticed from v. 11 on. Paul starts out in a highly

authoritative manner backing up his prescription rather grandly by a refer

ence to God himself and to the order of creation. Suddenly, however, the

alternative, genuinely Christian point of view comes in so as noticeably to

disturb the picture. Next Paul backs down from his grand stance by appealing

to his addressees' own judgment and to certain comparatively low-grade

considerations about what is fitting and a natural gloryto women. Finally he

yields everything to the Corinthians' own decision.

(3) In relation to the overall frame of the passage (w. 2, 17 and 22), the

argument is again that the proposed understanding of v. 16 fits exactly into

a frame that has Paul praising the Corinthians for holding on to his teachingsbut also wanting to correct them by prescribing to them a type of behavior

that apparently goes against what he had originally taught (in general terms,

that is). In such a situation it would be rather difficultindeed, almost

inexplicablefor Paul to end up just being authoritative.

V. The Character of Pauline Exhortation in 1 Corinthians

I do not believe that it is merely by chance that Paul argues in the

passage in the way I have attempted to work out. On the contrary, it seemsthat he is both invoking and applying to his own case a genuine principle for

how to address people (when preaching to them and exhorting them) that

he has both formulated and used elsewhere in 1 Corinthians.

Thus, in 1:18-4:21 Paul quite obviously works with the idea of a special

relationship between the content of the gospel and a certain manner of

preaching it. This, indeed, is part of his very point in 2:1-5 (on Paul's own

mannerof preaching when he came to Corinth for the first time) in relation

to 1:18-25 (on the very content of the gospel) and 1:26-31 (on the Corin

thians' reception ofthe gospel). Similarly, once Paul has introduced (from 2:6on) what he calls a genuine form of Christian wisdom, he employs chaps. 3


10/12


() in all the congregations.28

What Paul is referring to here is cer

tainly not just his teaching in the way we would immediately understand this

(as a Lehre29

a set ofdoctrines, etc.), but such "doctrines" (whatever they be)

as they are put into practice, and here Paul's own practice when relating to

the congregations.

Note also how central throughout 1 Corinthians are Paul's use and

reference to his own example.30

Ofcourse, Paul refers to his own example in

the other letters too. But it does seem that this approach is particularly

marked in 1 Corinthians, and one may hazard a guess why. For the problem

to which this letter basically responds seems to be that of division in the

Corinthian congregation as reflected in the fact that some people in the con

gregation (the "strong") pay no attention whatever to certain other people

(the "weak"). To this problem Paul responds first by insisting on that formulation of the content of the gospel (the cross, agape) which provides an ideo

logical frame for the idea ofthe congregation itself as a body, a that may

be highly differentiated but still is held together as a single, coherent entity.

But, second, he takes this insight into the content of the gospel even further

back by applying his rule of no distinctions to his own parakletic practice,

therebyshowing himself as a model to be followed. I have already stated that

I take him to be saying this himself in 4:14-21, and he certainly does it also

in 9:19-23.

So there is a self-conscious theory in 1 Corinthians of the implicationsof the content of the gospel for the character of Paul's own preaching and

exhortation, and Paul spells these implications out as part of his attempt to

show (both in word and deed) the "strong" in the Corinthian congregation

how they should behave toward the "weak." I repeat: there is a theory here.

This is important, for it shows that according to Paul himself a certain

practiceboth stated and realizedis an intrinsic element in the religious

idiom that he is both using and also formulating in 1 Corinthians. The letter

(i.e., what it does) is itself a constitutive part of Paul's theology according to

1 Corinthians.Of course, Paul can also be verysharp and insist single-mindedly on one

particular type of behavior as opposed to just letting people decide for

themselves on the issue. But I believe that this is where he thinks that the

principle that he is otherwise following in his own paraklsis is in danger of

being done away with altogether. If a given type of behavior threatens to

annihilate (a) the persistent direction of people's minds toward Christ, (b) the

28 I have argued in more detail for these claims about 1:18-4:21 in "Gospel and Social

Practice."29 Thus Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 112: "Die 'Wege' sind hier speziell die

Lehre des Paulus wie der erklrende -Satz zeigt " (Conzelmann's emphasis)


11/12


idea of the congregation as a coherent body, (c) the basic attitude of agape,

and (d) the rule of no distinctions itself, then Paul fights back.

In conclusion, there is in Paul an awareness of his own argumentative

practice that makes it possible for us not simply to observe the "polyphonic"quality of Paul's argumentative practice, which Wayne A. Meeks has so

illuminatingly detected,31

but also to explain it as grounded in the gospel as

Paul himself saw this. As I have interpreted 11:16, this verse fits completely

into this pattern when it states that the Corinthians must decide for them

selves since Paul as a matter of universal Christian principle does not have

the habit of being contentious.

31 See Wayne A. Meeks, Th e Polyphonic Ethics of the Apostle Paul," The Annual of the

Society of Christian Ethics (1988) 17-29.


12/12

^ 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.

1 Cor 11.16 - Character of Pauline Exhortation

Documents

Transcript of 1 Cor 11.16 - Character of Pauline Exhortation