Theology for the Masses

In my previous post I defined the gospel in terms of how the Gospels and Acts looked at the gospel. That is to say, they viewed the gospel as God fulfilling his promises made to Israel to establish a new creation by his Spirit, ruled by his Servant-King from the house of David, ending Israel’s exile, and drawing the Gentiles out of their pagan darkness into the light of this new Israel in this new creation. God fulfilled these promises by raising up Jesus of Nazareth, who came and took dominion over the present evil age and creation, offered up his life as an atoning sacrifice for his people’s transgression, and was resurrected as the firstfruit of the new Spirit-wrought creation and the king over that new creation.

Now how does the Apostle Paul fit into this picture? When one reads his letters one does not see a lot of talk about a kingdom. He rarely speaks about Jesus earthly life and ministry, his teachings and healings that demonstrated him to be the Spirit-indwelt Servant-King from the stump of Jesse. Paul speaks minimally about the kingdom, though it is not absent from his theology. He talks about the gospel in terms of Jesus’ person, death and resurrection and their meaning. He is combating a certain form of Judaism that requires Gentiles to convert to Judaism to be accepted into the people of God. So how does his battle’s over the meaning of justification and the gospel fit into the picture seen in the gospels? continue reading…

The other psalm that I want to look at in regards to the background to justification in the NT, specifically Paul who articulated the doctrine more clearly than any other writer, is Psalm 98. This passage’s understanding of sdq is very influential upon Paul, particularly in Romans as we shall see momentarily. I have to thank Dr. Mark Siefrid for pointing me to this psalm in his book Christ Our Righteousness. I hope to show in this post that the righteousness language in the OT that forms a large part of the background of Paul’s framework is more complex than many in my own Reformed tradition often present it. continue reading…

In this post I want to move to a text that many contemporary exegetes and theologians have really disappointed me when they interpret Paul here, namely 2 Corinthians 5:21. In this post We’ll look at this text and how Isaiah 53:11 impacts the text and how we should understand Paul here in light of it.

Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul here is speaking of God’s new creation that has come into effect through the reconciling work of Jesus Christ. Paul speaks of being Christ’s ambassador, pleading with the world to be reconciled to God. He is the means by which God appeals to the fallen and sinful world to come back to God and participate in the new creation. In reconciling the world to himself, God does not count their sins against them because, employing a traditional formula, the innocent Christ has become sin for our sake so that in him we can become God’s righteousness.

Now let us note the parallel between Isaiah 53:11 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. In Isaiah 53:11, the innocent Servant was wounded and crushed for Israel’s iniquities and rebellious deeds. After the Servant suffered, he is resurrected the Righteous One and as a result the many are justified–restored to proper covenant relationship with I AM.

continue reading…

In this post I wish to look at the impact of Isaiah 53:11 and Romans 5:18-19 and how they influence justification. Romans 4:25 has been shown that Paul (or someone from whom Paul adapts a traditional Christological formula) does in fact read Isaiah 53:11 into his doctrine of justification in that the resurrection of the Righteous One, Jesus Messiah, effects justification for the people of God. This follows what was seen in Acts 13:38-39 and that Jesus being the Righteous One comes from being raised by the Spirit of God, vindicated or justified in that resurrection or by that resurrection. It does seem that Isaiah 53:11 is playing a very central role in how Paul understands our justification. continue reading…

In reading Michael Bird’s The Saving Righteousness of God, I have come to realize just how important Isaiah 53:11 is to many of Paul’s passages that formulate and utilize his doctrine of justification when dealing with his audiences and troubles, for example the Jew-Gentile divide in Romans and Galatians. I want to briefly delve into this simple text and paint a background for the many places that Paul speaks of justification that does not seem to fit neatly with the traditional Protestant view (this post follows much of what Bird said in The Saving Righteousness of God). Then in the coming posts I want to just illustrate how Isaiah 53:11 impacts those Pauline texts in his letters and in Acts that reflects this verse and understanding. continue reading…

Such a reading as proposed in my post series presents challenges to modern interpreters of the text. Those wishing to do a historical study of Paul and early Christian movements are need not be troubled by this. We see a Paul that is consistently egalitarian in the sense that women were on par with men from an ontological and practical standpoint. His statements on gender in Galatians and his mention of women co-workers and patrons in Romans and elsewhere no longer are besieged by the contradictions found in 1 Corinthians 11.

However, one needs to be careful that Paul is made into a modern day feminist. Paul lived in a different world from us and practical matters still trumped idealistic concerns. [1] If we construct a reading of Paul that is too clean, too idealized, then we are in danger of allowing our ideologies to overshadow the text. I do not thing this is the case in my reading, but is a very real possibility. Further exploration of the topic is needed to protect against this. I have only been able to flesh out the beginnings of my hypothesis.

Another issue of importance is that if my hypothesis is correct, then the interpolation was canonized was canonized along with the rest of the letter. This has serious implications for modern interpreters that seek a unified interpretation in the modern New Testament canon. Diametrically opposed views on gender are canonized. If the textual hypothesis is correct, then 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 stands firmly against what the historical Paul thought and taught about gender and Church practice. However, there is another voice which was canonized – a voice that showed up very early and intensified quickly as evidenced in the Pastorals and the Early Church Fathers. Therefore, interpreters must not strip out the interpolations, but to craft interpretations that are able to adequately deal with separate and distinct authors, traditions, and interpretations with the text itself.

Then the question becomes, what do we do with multiple and opposed voices within our text?  How do we, as removed interpreters, hold them in tandem, one along side with the other, without quelling either?

1. See 1 Corinthians 14 and the silencing of women, see Paul’s views on eating meat sacrificed to idols, etc. [↩]

As I am nearing the completion of my degree and am on the cusp of having time to think on theological matters once again, I am struck by the inclusion of letters, letters, from Paul [1] to various peoples in the Canon.  I am an absolute Canonist (this will show up in an upcoming post which will complete my Paul and 1 Cor 11 series which has been on hold as I completed many school projects.) and take as an article of faith that what shows up in our present Canon belongs in the Canon.

However, having a sentence included in the Canon does not mean it should be taken as completely prescriptive 100% of the time prime facie.  When we have letters, we have to realize that a) letters are very different beasts than Gospels, Apocalypses, etc. and b) there are many different types of letters out there, each meant to be read in a particular way. 

With this in mind I have been pondering how we are to read the Pauline letters.  If we do straight theology from them, we might (but we might not) be missing something…I can’t think of any examples in the specific (and I will have my mind back early next week).

Any thoughts?

1. or people writing in Paul’s name [↩]

I have just finished reading a pair of books engaging in the New Perspective on Paul debate and dealing with justification. The books presented a middle ground that I am still trying to put my mind around. I like what was said in the two books but I need to read them again to make sure I have understood them, and do some more checking upon their exegeses. But here are some questions that came to mind from reading these books.

1.) What impact does 1 Kings 8:32 and Psalm 82:1-3 and each usage of sdq (LXX: dikaiow) on how we are to understand justification (cf. Luke 18:1-8 and the woman crying out for vengeance)? In each case sdq isn’t merely a declaration of a person being righteous but that I AM in 1 Kings 8 is being asked to act in accordance with his declaration, as I AM commands the “gods” to vindicate, both to declare the poor and afflicted to be in the right and to act on their behalf. How does this relate to Paul, specifically, and the NT as a whole, the the discussion of justification?

2.) What role does the resurrection of Christ play in justification? In Acts 13:32-29, Paul links justification and forgiveness of sins to the resurrection of Christ. In Romans 4:25 Paul links our justification explicitly to Jesus’ resurrection, not to mention defining the gospel in terms of Jesus resurrection (Romans 1:2-5; Romans 10:9-10). To further complicate matters, 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 1 Timothy 3:16 speaks of justification not only in terms of resurrection but also in terms of the Spirit.

3.) Nowhere in the NT is it stated that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the one who believes. We are righteous “in Christ” (e.g. Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Yet one cannot deny that the NT utilizes “imputation” language (e.g. Romans 4:4-8) in reference to justification. How does imputation and union with Christ work together?

4.) Romans 1:16 is Paul’s declaration of him being unashamed of the gospel. In Romans 1:16-18, Paul uses γὰρ three times to introduce a new phrase or idea. In Romans 1:16 it says that the gospel is the power of God for salvation. In Romans 1:17 it appears that Paul is using γὰρ to say that the gospel reveals (ἀποκαλύπτεται) God’s righteousness from faith to faith and then cites Habakkuk 2:4 in support of his claim. Then in Romans 1:18 is Paul using γὰρ in the same way as in Romans 1:16-17? The parallel between Romans 1:17 and 1:18 in the use of ἀποκαλύπτεται is striking. Does God reveal his wrath against unrighteousness in the same gospel that reveals God’s righteousness and that is God’s power to save? How does this change one’s understanding of the gospel and justification and salvation if the answer to this question is an affirmative answer? Is there any change to Protestant position if the answer is in the negative?

Earlier I talked about the authorship of the Pauline letters.  For those of you wanting a brief introduction to these issues, check out the following on Google Books:

The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, pages 133-143

I know some of you might not agree with his or the majority of scholarship’s conclusions, but it is at least helpful to understand from where the the other is coming.

Synopsis:

Paul did not write 1 Cor 11: 3-16.  Read on for my reasons why.  I’ll post who I think wrote it and what we should do with it later this week.  I know this is not a popular interpretation around these parts.  I resisted it at first, thinking it was a cop out.  But it is the best conclusion I have come up with, given the data available.  I’d love to get your thoughts, especially on the manuscript and rhetoric sections.

Recap:

So far in our examining of 1 Corinthians 11, we have discussed the problems with standard interpretations, the bizarre appeal to angels, ideological considerations, the general purpose of the letter, and the body in antiquity. Now, I am going to set the stage for working towards a newer interpretation of the chapter, one that will seem deconstructionist at first, but I promise I’ll put things back together by the end of the series.

The Hypothesis:

It is quite possible to consider verses 3-16 of 1 Corinthians 11 as an interpolation. Under this view, someone in the later Pauline community inserted verses 3-16 that crystallized their solution to problems of public worship. There are several arguments supporting such a view. First, the theological content and word use in 3-16 is unique in all of genuine Paul. Secondly, the removal of the verses recovers the tight argumentative style typical of Paul. Thirdly, the proposed interpolation hooks show signs of textual smoothing. Lastly and most importantly, removal of the section will restore the unity of Paul’s philosophical underpinnings of the body and Parousa of Christ.

Unique Among Paul:

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 contains several unique ideas to Paul. First is the ideological subordination of women under men. Occasional theology aside, in real life Paul worked closely with and offers praises to women leaders in the local assemblies. [1] Nowhere else does Paul advocate“any form of male priority and female subordination” [2] As mentioned several times above, this is a far cry from the clear subordinate relationship between men and women that is outlined throughout the section. Even in 1 Corinthians this is the case; in chapter 7 Paul acknowledges explicit authority of married partners over each other in relation to conjugal rights. Additionally, Paul sees baptism as the means by which “the removal of the body of flesh” occurs. [3] Additionally, when Paul concerns himself with specific practices, he always elevates the practical over the theological. [4] The sentiments expressed in 11:3-16 are much more at home in the deutero-Pauline letters and the Pastorals such as Col 3:18-19 and Eph 5:22-33 than in the genuine Pauline Corpus.

Several key words are used uniquely in the passage. When Paul speaks of the “δοξα” of god elsewhere, it is never framed in terms of man in his present existence. [5] In fact, glory in places such as Romans appears as a concept lost to the whole of humankind until the Parousa. Additionally, the use of κεφαλὴ, or head, is odd. In the deuteron-Pauline Ephesians and Colossians, the writer twice uses κεφαλὴ the same way as in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 5. In Col 1:18, 2:10 and in Eph 1:22, 4:15 and 5:23 κεφελὴ is used to refer to hierarchically based authority claims. This is not so in the genuine Paul. The only time it shows up in genuine Paul is 1 Cor 12:21 and the context here is hardly hierarchical; head here is placed on equal footing with the other organs of the social body of the community.

Restoring the Rhetoric:

Second, when 3-16 are removed, verses 2 and 17 suddenly leap out as a continuous thought. Under the unified view, Paul begins chapter 11 with a command to imitate him and sets the stage for a light admonishment by means of praise followed quickly by rebuke. However, he quickly abandons this line of reasoning for the moment in favor of a theoretical discussion about the ordering of creation. Given the use of rhetorical forms that Paul employs through his writings, this is out of character for Paul. However, if we connect verse 1 and 2 with verse 17, then we see the return of highly structured rhetoric parallel praise and rebuke:

1) μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε καθώς καγὼ Χριστοῦ. 2) Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καί, καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε. 17) τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε.

Become imitators of me just as I am of Christ. I praise you all because you all have remembered all of my things and just as you all hold fast to the traditions I have handed to you. But in this instruction I do not praise you because you all come together not for the greater, but for the worse. [6]

This restores the elements of paraenetic and admonishment letters that are lost in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Paul uses the example of his modeling of Christ’s behavior and then mildly rebukes them for the purpose of correcting their behavior. He approaches them as a father would his children, establishing a firm, but positive relationship. Paul attempts to “expose and constructively criticize” the behavior of the Corinthian assembly so that they can amend their behavior. [7] The mere presence of paraenetic features is by no means evidence of genuine or pseudo-Pauline authorship as the Pastoral Epistles contain elements of paraenesis. [8] However, when one inserts verses 3-16, the tight admonishment of Paul vanishes. Two verses separated by a self contained unit, the removal of which leaves a smooth connection between the two verses, is often evidence that there has been an editor at work. [9] As such, the unity in thought between verse 2 and verse 17 in light of the self contained rhetoric of 3-16 is evidence for the insertion of verses 3-16.

Hook!  Hook!  Hook!

Third, Walker proposes that there is strong manuscript evidence for such an insertion, saying:

Furthermore, there is strong manuscript evidence suggesting that some alteration of the text has occurred. Vs. 2 reads: ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καὶ καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς ταραδόσεις κατέχετε, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” Vs. 17, according to the RSV, begins But in the following instructions I do not commend you because…” (τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι…). This reading follows ﬡ, G and a the majority of MSS, but A, C*, and the Latin and Syriac versions have τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν ὄτι…, while B has τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶν ὅτι…, D* and a minuscule have τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι…. [10]

He says that the proposed “hooks” for the interpolation show signs of smoothing in the manuscript record. [11] The alterations he lists in the blockquote strongly indicate that later editors and copyists were attempting to smooth out the rough transition from verse 16 to 17. [12]

Conclusion:

Given the above, we have strong reasons to suspect the work of an editor in the text. If we separate this 1 Corinthians 3-16 from the rest of the text we find two separate and, most importantly, consistent arguments for gender relations. Genuine Paul no longer has any place where there is an ontological priority assigned to either male or female which blatantly contradicts the fundamental ontological equality peppered all throughout his letters. In addition to this, we rescue the logic of 1 Cor 11:3-16 from its blatant contradiction of the rest of Paul. By removing and setting it aside (for now) we allow for the passage to stand out for its internal logic and to be heard, instead of being swept under the rug and only allowed to speak when it agrees with the interpreter’s views.

If verses 3-16 are an interpolation, then most of our problems with the passage fall away, because Paul no longer has to live up to them. Under this view, the problems that arise only do so because they are the thoughts of someone else. However, from whence did interpolation come? We will address this question in the next post, though we have alluded to the answer earlier.

1. See Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Reading Real Women Through the Undisputed Letters of Paul.” [↩]
2. Wm. O. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul’s Views regarding Women,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94, no. 1 (March 1975): 104. [↩]
3. Wayne A Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 155. [↩]
4. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11,” 106. [↩]
5. Ibid. [↩]
6. – 1st Corinthians 11:1-2;17. [↩]
7. Stanley Kent Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Westminster John Knox Press, 1988), 127. [↩]
8. Ibid., 97. [↩]
9. Wayne A. Meeks, Writings of St. Paul (W. W. Norton & Company, 1972), 41. [↩]
10. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11,” 98. [↩]
11. Ibid. [↩]
12. Ibid. [↩]

A few days ago, we looked briefly at some characteristics of Paul’s Jewish/Christian appocalypticism. Today we will turn to an in-depth analysis of how the Strong in Corinth would have constructed their genders and bodies. This will be of great importance for our understanding of 1 Cor 11. We are still exploring Martin’s reading of Paul.

In addition to the invocation of Jewish Apocalypticism, Marin’s reading of 1 Corinthians 11 relies heavily on ancient constructions of gender and the body. It is the principle strength of his reading. Masculinity and Femininity were two poles on a spectrum that could be traversed. On one end, you have the masculine, rational, self-mastery, the hot, the active, the powerful; on the other you have the feminine, the erotic, the erratic, the cool, the passive, the weak. One was not granted a spot on the line by their genitalia; rather, it was their role and actions within the social body that determined how masculine or feminine a person was. Granted, males were much more likely to be on the hot, powerful, active side of the scale, but women could gain masculinity in rare cases if they broke out of their stereotypical societal roles and men could lose masculinity in the same manner. It was very rare, but it did happen on occasion.

The figure below represents the poles that one could traverse in Roman antiquity. It is ironic to note how much this schema has influenced and lingers within the evangelical body of Christ! How often have you heard quips giving life to the below?

For Martin, one’s physiology determines one’s initial location on this scale. Animals, females, males, and the supernatural beings all have different grades of bodies. Humans stand at the junction of the heavenly and the earthly. Human forms are composed of three substances, σάρξ (sarx), ψυχή/, (psyche), and πνεῦμα (pneuma). Sarx refers to the fleshy component of a human, psyche to the corruptible mind, and pneuma to the incorruptible spirit. For Paul, σῶμα refers not to a physical body, but to the forms that the various substances take; thus, there is the fleshy form (sarx sōma), the mental form (psyche sōma), and the spiritual form (pneuma sōma). The sarx sōma of male and females are composed a differing degrees of stuff, with the male being comprised of the higher quality of the two. Due to these physiological differences, women and feminized men “are at greater risk from a variety of threats, of pollution, invasion, and corruption.” [1]

The picture below is how the Strong in Corinth, and presumably Paul, constructed and arranged the various bodies and substances of which things were made. Those on the bottom are of higher quality “stuff,” whether it be of better flesh, better mind, or better spirits.

For Martin, despite all of these reversals, Paul’s physiology still circumscribes his theology. Since the Parousia had not come yet; his readers were still stuck in their sarx sōmas until the Resurrection. Paul, in his discussion on the resurrected bodies in 1 Cor 15, sought to convince the Strong of a bodily resurrection while dispelling fears of a zombie resurrection. He did this by delineating the three substances of the current body, sarx, psyche, and pneuma. Paul says the resurrected form will not consist of the sarx sōma (cf. 1 Cor 15:50) nor the psyche sōma (cf. 1 Cor 15:46) in 15:52 but will consist of the pneuma sōma (cf. 1 Cor 15:46). [2]

The sarx and psyche sōma of women originates from and therefore is lower than those of males. As beings constructed out of lesser stuff, they are more susceptible to invasions from outside forces. For this reason, women must be veiled in public worship. One of the most worrisome and threatening forces were spiritual beings who could invade the forms of lesser beings. For Paul, even angels were considered dangerous. Angels were considered dangerous and lusted after women. This understanding originates from Genesis 6:4, where the sons of God have sexual relations with women. Accordingly, the negation of gender by Paul through the destruction of the poles (see above) is real only real in the eschatological sense for the effects of the sarx sōma cannot be escaped whilst we are trapped in these bodies. The sarx sōma that women are trapped in render them susceptible to pollution by outside forces. The issue of veiling demonstrates this intersection of hierarchy and physiology for Paul. He appeals to the physiology of gender to establish the hierarchy of gender. Paul does claim that one day this distinction will disappear (cf. Gal 3:28) but for now it remains because of nature of our sarx sōma.

With these views of the body and gender in hand, 11:2-16 begins to make sense. Because of the nature of their sarx and psyche forms, women are more susceptible to pollution by outside forces, such as angels. The only way to protect them was to veil them with a symbol of authority. Men could neither wear long hair nor prophesy with a covered head for this would feminize them and unbalance the community. All members of the assembly were humors of the body of Christ and need to be kept either in balance or safe from pollution. This would ensure the health of the assembly, which is consistent with Paul’s overarching purpose in this letter. This view makes sense of the reference to angels and is able to harmonize the contradictions between Paul’s statements on gender here with those elsewhere in the Pauline corpus.

This reading makes great internal sense and bypasses the problems we listed earlier.  However, it is not without its own set of problems.  First, reading the angels as malevolent forces does not seem in step with Paul, who generally does not buy into the activity of malevolent spirits outside of God’s control. Paul usually does not ascribe worth to the activities of spirits outside of God’s control; he has no problem with eating meat sacrificed to idols aside from practical image implications. Additionally, there is still the problem with Paul’s activities, if women are as ontologically inferior as this reading suggests   Next, I will explore another reading of this text, one that hopefully will retain the strengths of Martin’s reading while solving the remaining problems.

1. Martin, The Corinthian Body, p. 199 [↩]
2. See Martin, The Corinthian Body, 123-129 for a detailed discussion of this. [↩]

In the last post in this series we were introduced to Dale Martin’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians. He thinks there are two keys to understanding the letter, the differing constructions of the body in antiquity, and the parousia of Christ. We took a few paragraphs to familiarize ourselves with the first key, though we will be returning to it in depth later, and now, let us do the same with the second key.

General Characteristics of Apocalyptic Gospels

We could spend much time on this topic, but a few introductory comments will have to suffice in the interests of time and attention spans. Apocalyptic gospels are quite popular in times of oppression. They tend to imagine or construct mirror worlds to expose the instability of the values of the cultures they are opposed to, in this case, the Greco-Roman culture. [1] For a really interesting discussion of the issues surrounding apocalypticism, see “Apocalyptic AI: Religion and the Promise of Artificial Intelligence (PDF)” by Robert Geraci.

Paul’s Parousia

Our particular apocalyptic gospel, Paul’s, presupposes a “now, but not yet” inverted vision of reality. The structures of the world are contrasted with the structures of the Kingdom of God, which is found restored in the Church, but not fully realized within the rest of the world. There will come a time when the Kingdom of God will be fully ushered in, but that will not happen until the Parousia of Christ.

Currently, there are slaves and freepersons, but in the kingdom of God, there are no such distinctions. To underscore this point, Paul inverts the current model – the slaves are free in Christ and the free are slaves to Christ. [2] Paul does not directly argue for equality, abstract nor realized, but for inversions of current social hierarchies. Paul identifies with the Strong in Corinth on a philosophical level, but subverts their culturally engrained hierarchies by appealing to Parousia of Christ for the purpose of unifying the assembly there. [3] Paul inverts all manners of social society in 1 Corinthians, from socioeconomic status, educational privilege, freedom, and slavery. [4] Paul uses this series of reversals as a rhetorical tool to correct the Strong on matters of wisdom, philosophy, and rhetoric, the Lord’s Supper, non-Christian courts, sacrificial meat, speaking in tongues, and the nature of the resurrection.

Thus, Martin’s Paul sees the Parousia of Christ at the 2nd key to understanding 1 Corinthians. All of the categories of exploitation are reversed through the Parousia; gender is the only non-reversed category, for reasons we will explore next.

1. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 60. [↩]
2. 1 Corinthians 7:21-24 [↩]
3. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 68. [↩]
4. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 199. [↩]

The first few posts in this series laid the groundwork for exploring the problems surrounding interpreting 1 Corinthians 11.  We dealt with both textual and ideological problems that one must be aware of when giving a reading of the text.  Today I will move on to building some background to the Corinthian church which will illuminated the issues raised in the text.

Body Image(s)

Dale Martin, in The Corinthian Body, does not set out to solve the great quandary of 1 Corinthians 11; instead, he reads the letter in light of Greco-Roman bodily constructions instead of Cartesian constructions of the body. Whether or not you buy Martin’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians, the book is an absolute goldmine for understanding the various constructions of the Body in antiquity.  You will not believe the disconnect between how we see the body and how ancients saw the body; there is almost no comparison – something that colors our interpretations of ancient texts!

(This was not how the ancients constructed their bodies.)

Martin assumes that 1 Corinthians is a unified letter and does not address the possibility of insertions, redactions, etcetera.  Martin views Paul’s primarily goal in 1 Corinthians as the unification of two classes of assembly members, “the Weak” and “the Strong,” which differ wildly in terms of economic status and worldview. [1]   Martin thinks that this is the interpretive key which unlocks the text.

An Aside on Class in Antiquity

Class often refers to divisions of people according to their economic level. While this works well for more contemporary analysis, it has often been criticized because contemporary levels of analysis do not reflect the social setting of Antiquity. However, it can be helpful to use class if you look at the exploited and the exploiters. This looks at economic relationship rather than wealth. The four classes in Antiquity were the ordines, humiliores, the poor, and finally the destitute. While the upper class technically is constituted by the first two groups, when I refer to the upper class, I follow Martin in referring to the humiliores, or the ordines and humiliores, unless specifically noted. [2]

Back to Bodies

The Strong consisted of the upper classes of society who lived off of the production of the Weak. The Strong envisioned the body as a collection of humors; health consisted of maintenance of balance among the humors. On the other hand, while the Weak saw the body in similar terms as the Strong, health consisted of protection, not from imbalance, but from invasion of outside forces, such as disease daimons.

It is much harder to construct a clear view of the body by the Weak because almost all of the extant literature in Antiquity comes from the upper classes – the voices of Weak are all but lost in the wind of history. Martin uses material from the magical papyri and glimmers of the Weak’s ideology in the writings of the Strong to grasp at the Weak’s view of the body. [3]

For both the body was a microcosm of society and, as Christians, a microcosm of the body of Christ, the Church. Paul evokes Jewish Apocalyptic thought which inverts status markers to move the Strong’s conception of the body of Christ, which whom he identifies, to unify with the Weak’s.  We will explore these themes in the next few posts.

1. Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (Yale University Press, 1999), 68. [↩]
2. See Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (Yale University Press, 1999), xvi for more on this subject. [↩]
3. “The ideology of the mean, inscribed upon and within the human body, was one of many techniques that enabled the Greco-Roman upper class to maintain its power and hierarchical structure of society. Then, as now and often throughout history, emphasis on the moderation and middle functioned conservatively to solidify the status quo as defined by the upper class. By retaining the power to define beauty, status, and nature, the upper class maintained its position as the creator of the Greco-Roman body” Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (Yale University Press, 1999), 36 [↩]

A while ago Tom wrote about the connection between the bizarre dictums [1] found within the Pauline letter to the Ephesians and the Artemis cult in Ephesos.  While I remain unconvinced about the genuine Pauline authorship of the letter [2] and therefore am more open to early Christian patriarchal forms seeping into the canon than Tom is, his posts on the topic are very good and the counter-point I hold when thinking through issues of authorship and gender relations in the Pauline corpus. [3]

ProTip: Read his posts on the topic!

Part of a frieze from the temple of Artemis, Ephesos.  Greeks under Herakles (marked by his club and lion’s cape) scare off hour Amazons, who seek Sanctuary with Artemis (on block to right, not preserved). Found inn and described by Price in Religions of the Ancient Greeks. 

With that said, I came across an interesting passage in Religions of the Ancient Greeks by Simon Price on this very topic.  After discussing the merits of talking about Panhellenism [4] , Price opens a discussion concerning local versions of myths.  In doing so, he contrasts the Athenian myths of Theseus fighting the Amazons [5] with the Ephesian myth of the town harboring Amazons. 

Not only was Ephesos guardian of a unique image of Artemis, which has supposedly fallen from heaven, but Ephesos also claimed that Artemis had been born there (and not as it was often claimed on the Aegean island of Delos).  The Ephesians also sometimes claimed that her cult had been established by the Amazons, who thus sometimes had a much more positive significance at Ephesos than at Athens.  The benevolence of Artemis towards the Amazons is also illustrated in the local story of how the Amazons successfully sought the sanctuary of Artemis, both from Herakles and from Dionysos.  Artemis remained the protector of both the Amazons and the city right through antiquity.

The city’s connection with something as repulsive to the average Greek [6] as the Amazons, one of the ultimate threats to the Greek way of life, can only lend further support to Tom’s thesis. [7]   It further demonstrates the pull that Artemis had in the city and demonstrates that there was a substantial mythic will in the city to invert the male/female domination scheme, which was a product of the fall.

1. saved through childbirth??? [↩]
2. I am textually liberal, theologically conservative, politically indifferent, and socially… something [↩]
3. could that be a longer sentence? [↩]
4. it is a problematic, but useful term [↩]
5. the fabled feminist threat to the male/Greek way of life [↩]
6. well, often this hypothetical “Average Greek” is constructed from the particular Greek of Athens and then abstracted over all of the Greek cities, a topic for another post [↩]
7. Even though it is circumstantial evidence at best, which I might add, is the best kind of evidence you are going to get either way here.  We simply don’t have the sources to demonstratively demonstrate anything on this topic! [↩]

My last post in this series added to the problem that modern interpreters encounter whenever they seek to interpret 1 Corinthians 11.  This one will briefly address ideological considerations and the salvation of Paul.

This undertaking has both current and historical value. A great many people, for better or worse, appeal to Paul to justify their stance on gender issues; in protestant circles alone, the Pauline tradition is appealed to in the internal debate between complementarianism [1] and egalitarianism. Such a study has historical value for a variety of reasons. It helps us determine how ancient religious groups used and modified texts, and helps us build a composite picture of how the early Christians saw themselves and the world around them.

Interpreters must be weary of trying to “save Paul” from any particular ideological interpretation. A principle concern here is the danger of allowing one’s ideology to color one’s reading of the text. Each reader has some form of vested interest that he cannot fully separate from himself. Because of a mix of background factors, I want Paul to be an idealistic egalitarian; I want him to affirm the basic ontological equality of men and women and to justify the use of women for any task with the body of Christ. My sister, on the other hand, wants Paul to be a modern complementarian because it helps her unify the entire Pauline corpus and will save her collection of sacred texts from the taint of theological error.  No reader brings a tabula rasa to Paul; every interpretation is filtered through his ideology.

The same is true for any reading of texts – both the Arminian and Calvinist alike lie to themselves and each other when they claim a pristine reading of a given text.  Each really puts on their polarizing spectacles prior to reading the text – and is surprised when they find exactly what they were looking for in the text – such is the danger of ideology.  The system becomes an idol – a god that cannot be challenged, a holy writ that cannot be changed.  When your theological system allows no room for movement or questioning it is usually in need of both.  The biblical books are often too wild for such ridgid systems.

It is with this in mind that I am writing this series.  I am trying to make every attempt to allow Paul to speak for himself.  Protection from both modern and ancient interpreters will be attempted even though this cannot fully be accomplished. One may appropriate Paul for her ends, but one should be mindful of what she is doing and not delude herself that she is giving and unbiased reading of the “historical Paul.”  Such a thing is nigh impossible – but is a noble task indeed.  Humility in interpretation is needed.

1. This is the stance on gender issues that proposes that males and females have the same ontological worth, but different designated roles. [↩]