1 Corinthians 11 is a confusing passage. Much of it seems to be outdated, nonsensical or contradicting other scripture. To best understand the truth God has for us here, we first need to know the context Paul was writing to, particularly the understanding of gender in Rome and Corinth.
Rome’s domestic structure revolved around three things: first a patriarchal structure stretching from the gods to Caesar to the heads of household. Men had complete authority over their wives and children, but also responsibility for their actions. Second, an ordered, patron-client model across society. Third, a strong protective structure around the family (contra the more libertine Greek system, and with laws put in place to discourage adultery, etc.).
Marriage was a patron-client relationship, with husband as patron and wives as client. Wives, in turn, were patrons of their household. That was their sphere, while politics, war and public life were that of men.
There was a quiet but growing rebellious underground of dissatisfied women in the Empire, including women competing in sporting events and moving towards demanding rights. As society became more wealthy, this was a natural evolution. Many women used their power over the domestic sphere to build their power and influence. However, this did create significant isolation, as men could connect with each other but women were isolated within their household.
This combination of oppression, low education, isolation and increasing power naturally led to dissatisfaction and the conversation, gossip and “wives’ tales” warned against across Roman writing (and by Paul).
This also led to an increased participation of women in cults, particularly those around women deities and with women leaders. Temple worship was in the public, male sphere, but these cults could meet within the household. There were significant worries that these cults could be seditious, denigrating the societal structure, or men overall. You would get female-centric cults like that of Artemis. Many other cults promoted “oneness” or pantheism, and this blurring of distinctions led naturally to androgyny.
Corinth was a center of this. Rome was a conservative, ordered, structured society. The quiet undercurrents of dissension, feminism and cults in Rome were out and proud in Corinth. The term “Corinthian” was a byword for depravity and prostitution. The average Corinthian lost their virginity at 14, generally through temple prostitution, and homosexual relationships were more common than heterosexual.
So, Paul has the difficult task of navigating Christian truth, Corinthian culture and Roman super-culture. He starts from monotheism, from which comes the created order. From that he derives dualism and distinction between genders, people, etc. He rejects both polytheism and pantheism.
The next principle Paul works from was a radically egalitarian ontology – men and women, masters and slaves, Jews and Greeks, Caesar and subjects, all are equal in worth and in the eyes of God. There are no distinctions in this realm. This was in direct opposition to Greek, Roman and even Jewish culture and values.
Paul confronted Peter over his anti-gospel racist attitudes. He fought to keep Titus from being circumcised. He elevated conscience over culture in decision-making.
Likewise, the leadership function within the church, taught by Jesus and Paul, is radically different than that of the world around it. “The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve.” Christ was God Himself, and yet lowered himself all the way to death in order to serve. Paul echoed this in his teachings on leadership, everything from instructions to elders to calling Philemon to free Onesimus.
We also see it specifically in how women engage with the church. Earlier in Corinthians, Paul called in women to interact with their husbands, not in the absolute obeisance expected in Roman & Jewish culture, but in voluntary submission as appropriate, with clear authority over their own bodies. Such talk was actually illegal.
We see this in specific women as well, from Mary and Martha, to Lydia, to Priscilla, to Phoebe and many others across the gospels, Acts and the epistles.
On the other hand, his sociology is very complementarian – within society, within communities, we should live in the roles in which we find ourselves. We live in freedom, but we submit to the order in which we find ourselves. We do not obey Caesar, but we do submit to him, and in doing so, we submit to Christ.
All this helps us better understand the context in which Paul was writing about women being silent, wearing hats, etc. Men were trained to sit and learn, but women never went through that and had no ingrained understanding of how to go through those processes of learning from teachers. It may well be that when Paul speaks to women being silent, he means be silent during teaching – certainly, elsewhere he encourages women to prophesy.
Paul does not call on women as a whole to submit to men as a whole. He speaks to men and women within the marriage relationship, calling men to be servant leaders rather than absolute paterfamilias, and women to retain authority over themselves.
Overall, Paul’s teaching on women is radically different from the Roman, Greek and Jewish cultures around him. He is speaking to a specific circumstance within a particular cultural context, but is drawing on eternal truths that we can draw from to guide our own lives today.
– Sermon Notes, Brent Rood, Seed Church, June 18, 2017
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Something went wrong with the bible. Please make sure that you are requesting a valid passage! If this problem presits please contact joshuawiecorek@outlook.com