First Corinthians Chapter 11
Originally posted
First Corinthians Chapter
11:2-16 Head Coverings
We
do not have a copy of the letter sent from the church in Corinth to Paul which
contains a series of questions regarding Christian practice. If we did we would
have a better understanding of the basis of the issue of women being
"veiled" during certain parts of the worship. His response makes
it clear that some women had stopped wearing a head covering while praying and
prophesying (all things are lawful to me?). The Greek word translated
as veil means "cover." This is not a covering of the face or any
part of the face as we see to varying degrees in conservative and
fundamentalist Islamic cultures. It was generally a draped covering over
the top of the head that fell below the shoulders. The covering was
often worn by women participating in pagan religious rites as a number
of ancient friezes depict. There are also examples of men wearing similar
head coverings during pagan sacrifices. Alternatively, the cover can refer
to a woman's hair "pinned up," similar to hair braided and gathered,
rather than wearing it long. The pagan priestesses of Paul's time wore their
hair long or let down during religious rituals.
Paul
prefaces his remarks with the traditional and obviously cultural,
three-tiered divine hierarchy accepted in Judaism and other ancient
cultures (see 3:21). He makes one
addition: God is the head of Christ; Christ the head of
man; the man is the head of woman. The words
"husband" and "wife" are not in the Greek text but are
implied. What might be involved in Paul's use of the hierarchy is the issue of
honor/shame which was at the heart of ancient social relationships and the need
to identify them in terms of symbols, such as the required use of the veil
for a woman and not a man. An uncovered woman brings shame to herself
as well as to her husband.
In
this context Paul is referring to his requirement that a woman use a
head covering while praying or prophesying during community worship. According
to the Talmud this head covering would be in keeping with the Jewish
requirement for all married and previously married (widowed) women. Paul
writes that if she does not she is disgraced and it would be just as well were
she to have her hair cut (very short) or shaved. As for a man, in the same
circumstances he would be disgraced were he to have his head covered. It is
worth noting that while certain cultural norms are affirmed, Paul is clear that
both men and women share in openly spoken prayer and prophesy as a
part of the worship. Prophesy was a form of teaching and spiritual
enlightenment for the community. It was a means of providing spiritual
direction to the church and Paul understood that anyone might be the conduit
for God's leading, men and women.
Paul
goes on to support his argument with reference to the Genesis creation
stories. A Woman's head is to be covered but the man's head is to remain
uncovered because:
a.
He is "the image and reflection (glory) of God but the woman is the reflection (glory) of man."
b.
He was not created from her but her from him.
c.
He was not created for her sake but she for his.
He
supplements the Biblical argument for the propriety of a woman's long
hair with one from his cultural preference. It is perfectly natural for a
woman to have long hair. Given as a covering it is her glory. This is
not the case for men for whom long hair would be shameful. This is more Paul's
opinion than a teaching from nature. There was a degree of ambivalence on the
length of a man's hair in Greek culture. In vs. 10 He adds the notion that the woman has long hair so
as "to have authority on her head "because of the angels."
The meaning is not at all clear. It could be based on Gen. 6:1-4, the story of the angels taking human wives. If so
the hair, as her authority (derived from her husband), is the symbol of her
marriage and she becomes "off limits" to heavenly beings.
Paul
seems to be conflicted in his own requirement regarding a woman's head covering
as well as the husband being the head of the wife. He has invested significant
spiritual energy to declare the Christian's freedom from the restrictions
of the law (not from the commandments). In chapter 7 in his discussion of the marriage relationship he
forged a definite image of freedom from such cultural norms. The husband
and wife share an equality of authority, one over the other. They owe each
other their conjugal rights and come to agreements in establishing brief
periods of abstinence. He also partially liberalizes divorce with women gaining
the right to separate (7:12), while
retaining Jesus' command not to remarry. His conflict is demonstrated in the
interjection of "nevertheless" in vs.
11. Paul affirms that the husband and wife are not independent of one
another. A woman may have come from man but man comes through a woman and all
of this is from God. He leaves the conflict unresolved, perhaps for future
generations to solve. For now he will hold to his perspective in all "the
churches of God."
First Corinthian Chapter
10:17-34 Abuses of the Lord's Supper
In vs. 2 Paul has commended the
Corinthians for having followed the traditions he has taught them.
But in the case of the Lord's Supper he cannot commend them. We do not have a
good understanding of the Eucharist in the church this early in its
development. It seems likely, from Paul, that the Lord's Supper was a true
meal, shared together on a regular basis. It would have been a "Pot
luck" dinner including the sharing of bread and wine as a commemoration of
the Gospel Upper Room experience. In Corinth there was a class problem. The
economically more prosperous who had servants would gather early, bringing food
prepared for them. The poor artisans and slaves would come later bringing whatever
they could. Rather than wait so that all could share equally,
the participants that came early were not waiting. They proceeded to eat and
drink such that the poorer Christians went hungry and the others got
drunk!
Another
view that has been offered of what happened is that all arrived at the same
time with the poorer participants having neither the time nor
the means to bring anything. In this scenario those who did bring
food and wine ate and drank what they brought, not offering anything to the
others thus humiliating them. This may be the source of Paul's admonishment in vs. 22 that they should have eaten
before they came together. In that way the Eucharist could retain its spiritual
dignity as the central feature of the gathering. In either case the event has
suffered abuse.
Paul
instructs them in the content and meaning of the Lord's Supper. What he had
received in his visionary experience "from the Lord" he had
passed on to the church in Corinth. He writes of Jesus' actions in
breaking the bread and sharing of the wine. He repeats the words of
institution. The bread is a symbol of his body. The wine is a symbol of his
blood of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). Body and Blood together, he
gives his very self "for" them. They are to do this every time they gather as a
memorial, as a remembrance of Jesus' death until he returns.
The
seriousness of what has happened in Corinth is made clear in Paul's
instructions. They should examine themselves before partaking of the bread and
wine. To partake without clearly understanding what they are doing, without
knowing its mystical nature, is to incur judgment. Paul takes the matter
further, associating the illness and death of some to their having
participated in an unworthy manner. Had they understood and participated in a
worthy manner, these things would not have happened. In Paul's understanding of
cause and effect as belonging to God, what happened to them was a sign of
the Lord's discipline.
His
final words establish a way to achieve harmony in the gathering. Wait
until everyone has arrived before you eat. If you are hungry eat at home and
avoid the abuse of the sacred event that will bring condemnation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note
In
our tradition we receive the Eucharist once a month, which is, we suppose,
in keeping with the instruction to receive the elements as often as we gather.
The sacrament is a communal event, a shared time kneeling before the spirit of
Christ that comes to us anew through the bread and the wine. Although we
receive the elements as individuals we understand we are not alone. The mystery
of the elements is found in an act of faith that believes Christ has given all
that he was so that they will become all that he is within our lives to
enrich our souls and through our lives to enrich the souls of others. There is
no finishing at the altar rail. There is rising. There is being blessed.
There is being filled and ready to take what has been received to a
hungry world with what we have to offer.
No comments:
Post a Comment