Context

Rex Banks

Clearly context is a very important consideration in the discussion of any text. 

"Good exegetical procedure dictates that the details be viewed in light of the total context. Unless the exegete knows where the thought of the text begins and how that pattern develops all the intricate details may be of little or no worth" (Kaiser p. 69). 

All students of scripture accept this, and are careful to explain just why they take the position which they do on context. 

Clearly “praying and prophesying” are acts of worship and in my view most commentators past and present are correct in affirming that in 1 Cor 11:2 – 14:40 we have Paul's response to difficulties which have arisen in the Lord' Supper assembly in the church at Corinth. (Chapter 13 is an excursus in which Paul discusses the characteristics of love. This discussion is placed here because patience, kindness, selflessness and such like would have transformed the Corinthian assemblies).  Of course worship is not limited to the Lord's Supper assembly, but in my view a good case can be made that in 11:2 – 14:40 Paul is dealing with problems which have arisen in connection with this meeting on the first day of the week.

A widely held view

Of course truth is not established by vote, but it is worth noting that although there is much debate about 1 Cor 11:2- 16 most commentators are persuaded that Paul's instructions concerning the head covering (11:2-16) the memorial feast (11:17-34) and the regulation of spiritual gifts (12:1 – 14:40) all relate to the public assembly at which the Lord’s Supper was observed. One brother who shows great familiarity with the commentaries on the book of 1st Corinthians summed up his own research:

"Just about everyone concludes that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5 is thinking about a male/female assembly of saints gathered for corporate worship (Deaver and Grosheide are two exceptions)" (The Book of 1st Corinthians, Looking Into the Bible Series Jim Mc Guiggan p. 232 [emphasis mine]). 

In similar vein Brother Wayne Jackson comments on l Cor.11:2-16:

"This has been understood by the vast majority of scholars both ancient and modern to pertain to the assembled worship” (A Sign of Authority p. 20 [emphasis mine]).

Robert H. Roland was misguided in his attempts to defend female leadership in the assembly, but his comment here is instructive:

“I have yet to meet a Biblical scholar who does not agree that I Corinthians 11 deals with the public assemblies, where most praying and prophesying take place (emphasis mine).  I have met a few people who declare that it was in a worship service until the evidence clearly refuted their stand on female silence. These same people suddenly saw the light and then it wasn't a worship service” (I permit not a woman ...TO REMAIN SHACKLED p. 59).

Wayne House:

“The context of Paul’s correction was that of public worship, which is a point upon which a majority of commentators and authors agree” (The Role of Women in Ministry Today p. 109).

My own experience with the commentaries is similar. Regardless of their understanding of Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 11:2-16 the vast majority of scholars throughout the ages relate his instructions to the public assembly. Aquinas has:

“Then when he says, But I want you to understand, brethren, he proceeds to his intention of instructing believers in the sacrament of the Eucharist. In regard to this he does three things: first, he reproves their errors regarding the rite of this sacrament ... In regard to the first he does three things: first, he refutes their error, by which they erred in clothing, namely, because the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with heads uncovered; secondly, he corrects them in their gathering, because, when they came together for the sacred mysteries, they indulged in quarrels; thirdly, as to food, because they approach to take the sacred mysteries, after they had just eaten" (Commentary On the First Epistle to the Corinthians p. 586).

Points to consider

Synecdoche

Many view “praying and prophesying” as a synecdoche, or a figure of speech in which "one word receives something from another which is internally associated with it by the connection of two ideas " (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible E. W.  Bullinger p. 613). Examples of synecdoche abound in scripture.

·         When Jesus said that John came neither "eating nor drinking," (Matt 11:18) we understand that "eating and drinking" stand for all such aspects of John's austere lifestyle.  (His dwelling, clothing etc. were all equally austere).

·         The meeting in Acts 20:7 was "to break bread," and we understand that "bread" here stands for the elements of the Lord's Supper including "fruit of the vine."

·         When Paul says "I want the men in every place to pray," (1 Tim 2:8) it is likely, in light of what follows, (vv 11, 12) that he has in mind all acts of worship. 

·         Jewish synagogues “were called the place of prayer, by the figure of synecdoche, because prayer was a principal part of that worship which was used there” (Synagogue William Pinchin p. 14). The Temple was “a house of prayer” (Matt 21:13) and so on.

Thus Fee has on 1 Cor 11:

“The two verbs (pray or prophesy - Rex) are neither exhaustive nor exclusive but representative; they point the two foci of Christian worship – God and the gathered believers” (p 506).

Commenting on v 13 Payne has:

“'To pray to God' in this verse substitutes for 'prays and prophesies' in verses 4 and 5, suggesting that 'prayer and prophesy' may similarly be representative categories” (p 14).

It is these   “representative categories” that Paul has in view when he speaks of “the traditions” (v 2). 

The Traditions

Paul’s reference to “the traditions” in 1 Cor 11:2 is cited by many as an indication that he begins here to deal with matters related to the public assembly.  Paul says:

 “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”

Harmonizing 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34, 35

All too often discussions of 1 Cor 11:2-16 become needlessly complex because the text is buried under arguments which are built upon supposed inferences. These supposed inferences are then used as the basis for arguments which go beyond the text. This is not uncommon, and 1 Cor 11:5 supplies us with some good examples.

A good case can be made that in 1 Cor 11:2 – 14:40 Paul is discussing difficulties relating to church worship. Most commentators throughout the ages have concluded that this is the case. However some insist that Paul cannot be discussing the Lord's Day Assembly, and they do so on the basis of an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the text..  Brother Roy Deaver is one who argues that Paul has two different assemblies in view in chapters 11 and 14. He insists that two assemblies are required in order to harmonise the apostle’s instructions concerning women in these two chapters. Here is the point: in 11:5 Paul says:

 “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head.”

However Paul later says in 1 Cor 14:34, 35:

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” 

Brother Deaver explains the supposed problem:

“These verses (11:4, 5) clearly show that some Christian women in the church in Corinth were in position to exercise the gifts of prayer and prophesy.  But, ‘prophesy’ was God’s spiritual gift for edifying the church    (l Cor.  14:4, 22).  But, the Christian woman could not exercise her gifts of prayer and prophesy in the regular public worship assembly, for such would assume the very authority which she was forbidden to exercise. Therefore there had to be another kind of gathering in which her gifts could be exercised - meetings with Christian women (and children, perhaps).  These Christian women would receive edification, and thus a contribution would be made to the edification of the whole church" (Difficult Texts p. 270 [emphasis mine]).

So brother Deaver reasons that in chpt 11 Paul must be dealing with a special assembly at which men were not present since women are forbidden to speak in the assembly under discussion in chpt 14  (14:34, 35).

Others have reached similar conclusions. For example Professor of Biblical literature J. Carl Laney quotes 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Cor 14:34, 35 and asks “How does one understand these apparently differing Pauline statements?” (Gender Based Boundaries for Gathered Congregations: An Interpretative History of 1 Cor 14:34-35 Journal For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood). Laney considers various suggestions (e.g. 1 Cor 14:34, 35 is an interpolation) and offers the following as “a viewpoint … deserving of consideration”:     

“Could Paul have been referring in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to women ‘praying and prophesying’ in contexts other than the meeting of the church? If so, is it possible that his restriction in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 applies only when the church is gathered in public assembly for the preaching of the Word and observing the ordinances of communion and baptism? …. One could make a strong case for the view that Paul is addressing two different contexts in chapter 11 — the first where believers are gathered in small groups for prayer, and the second where the church is gathered for teaching, preaching and communion” (p.12).

So in an attempt to harmonise Paul's instructions in chapters 11 and 14 brother Deaver  suggests that 1 Cor 11 contains instructions for female only assemblies, while Laney inclines to the view that Paul has in mind “believers ...gathered in small groups for prayer.” 

I believe that those who take such positions have a commendably "high" view of scripture. They believe that there is no contradiction here between the two chapters, and this is how they harmonise Paul's instructions. The problem is that they draw a conclusion from 1 Cor 11:5 which goes beyond the text. In my view brother C. R. Nicol also went beyond the text in his influential book God's Woman. He wrote:

“The thoughtful cannot fail to learn from the excerpt (1 Cor 11:4, 5) that women were to 'pray' and 'prophesy.' Paul is not presenting a hypothetical case. He says that women in the church of Christ at Corinth were to pray and prophesy” (pp. 120, 121).

Unfortunately brother Nicol drew an unwarranted conclusion from these verses, and it is a conclusion which pits Paul against Paul.  Paul does not say either explicitly or implicitly “that women in the church of Christ at Corinth were to pray and prophesy.”  This is an important point. Brother Robert Camp reminds us:

“Everything that is ever said is said either EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY or both ways”  (Binding by Implication Rightly Dividing the Word editor Terry M Hightower vol 1  p. 67).  

By way of explanation consider the following statement:

"Any individual doing A and doing B with C is guilty of X."

From this statement alone we cannot draw the inference that the individual is guilty or not guilty of X if he engages in A and B without C. We are not simply involved in a discussion about 1 Cor 11:5. We are involved in a discussion about how we reason. An example based upon my own experiences at secondary school may be helpful.  Senior pupils were removing their school insignia (the school cap) and entering public bars to buy alcohol on their way home from school. The head master said in effect:

“Any student (A) entering licensed premises and (B) buying alcohol (C) with his school cap removed is in violation of school rules.”

Students had no difficult understanding why the statement was made. Students were removing their caps to enter into bars and buy alcohol and the head master was putting an end to this practice. No one concluded that provided the student entered licensed premises and bought alcohol without removing his cap he would not be in violation of school rules. There was another school rule prohibiting the purchase of alcohol under any circumstances.

Suppose a head mistress learned that senior students were attending night clubs in immodest clothing and engaging in modern dancing. She says:

“Any girl entering a nightclub and dancing provocatively with immodest clothing on is disgracing the school.”

The students involved would have no difficult understanding the point and it's unlikely that any would draw the inference that entering night clubs and dancing provocatively was acceptable provided that modest clothing was worn. This behaviour was not being authorized.

Suppose an Old Testament prophet learned that non Levites were donning priestly garments and performing priestly functions. He says:

“Any non-Levite offering sacrifices and ministering in the temple with priestly garments on is breaking the Law.”

Surely the offenders would understand the rebuke. Surely they would not take this statement to mean that it was acceptable for non-Levites to offer sacrifices and minister in the temple provided priestly garments were not worn.

Another example:

“Any 15 year old driving at 150k and talking on a cell phone without his seat belt buckled is breaking the law."

This does not mean that a 15 year old travelling at 150k and talking on his cell phone is not breaking the law provided he is wearing a seatbelt. In fact we know from the road code that the fifteen year old is under aged, that 150k is over the speed limit and that it is illegal to speak on the cell phone while driving.

In his Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries Dr John Robbins says:

“If one were to say, it is wrong to go through a red light while speeding, he cannot be understood to say that it is right to speed. It is wrong both to speed and to ignore red lights. So it is with women speaking in church uncovered. Women speaking uncovered in church is wrong, and so is women speaking in church” (part 1 p. 26).

The following is lengthy but apropos:

“The following examples illustrate the point. A camp director might make a rule, ‘No skinny-dipping after lights out.’ It is obvious that some of the campers have sneaked out after lights out and gone swimming in the raw. One cannot assume, however, on the basis of the director’s statement that such an activity would be permitted in a Christian camp before lights out.

…

One simply cannot assume that the converse of Paul’s statement forbidding praying and prophesying with the head uncovered gives permission to do it with the head covered. Certainly it would be very unclear for Paul to phrase his permission this way when he is going to say three chapters later that women may not speak in the church (Women Speaking in the Church John H. Fish III Emmaus Journal 01:3 Winter 1992 p. 247).

Whatever lies behind Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 11:2:5 we must no go beyond the explicit and implicit teaching of this verse.  This verse does not teach either explicitly or implicitly that the praying and prophesying by women in the setting under discussion is authorised provided the head covering is worn. Frequently commentators ask: “Why would Paul regulate a practice in 1 Cor 11 only to subsequently forbid it?” The answer is that Paul does not “regulate” a practice in 1 Cor 11:5 any more  than the head master and head mistress “regulate” the way in which the pupils purchase alcohol or dance in nightclubs.

It is only when we go beyond the explicit and implicit teaching that problems arise.   Both denominational commentators and members of the Lord’s church have recognised the problem. For example:

·         Henry Alford: “The women overstepped the bounds of their sex in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved -- as well their coming forward to pray and to prophesy, as their removing the veil; here however he blames the latter practice only, and reserves the former till chap. 14:34” (The New Testament for English Readers p. 1041).

·         Calvin: “It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. (1 Corinthians John Calvin).

·         “So that the Geneva annotation upon ver. 5, gives a good sense of that text, 'That women which show themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies, without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves'" (George Gillespie A Treatise of Miscellany Questions p. 75). In 16th century the Geneva Bible was the main one in use among protestants.  

·          Albert Barnes: “It may be further observed, however that the fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church does not prove that it was right or proper … On another occasion in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public, chpt 14:34 (Barnes Notes on the New Testament p. 754).

·         Hodge “He is here speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public itself. When that subject comes up he expresses his judgement in the clearest terms 14:34.”  (Commentary on 1st and 2nd Corinthians p. 208 [emphasis mine]). 

·         Brother Dave Miller “While this passage shows that Corinthian women were presenting oral utterances to the assembly, the verse gives no explicit indication as to whether Paul approved or disapproved of the practice …  However that specific pronouncement is forthcoming in chapter 14:34  (Piloting  p. 26).

·          Brother H.A. (Buster) Dobbs “One proponent of women leading public worship pointed to Paul’s statement, ‘But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoureth her head …” (1 Cor 11:5) This champion of women directing public worship pointed out that Paul did not tell the women of Corinth not to pray or prophesy in the assembly with men present, but only told them to keep their veil on!” Brother Dobbs points out:  “Remember this section on worship must be taken as a whole. Before Paul finished with the subject he specifically told the women to keep silent during preaching in the assembly” (1990 Bellview Lectures What Does God Authorise in Worship Ed Bobby Liddell p. 132).  

·          John Murray “If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5,6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions - praying and prophesying - on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?”  (The Use of Head Coverings in the Worship of God Presbyterian Reformed Church Magazine Winter 1992)

Thus many recognise that Paul is not condoning a practice in chapter 11, only to forbid it later in chapter 14. Nor is he regulating a practice here only to forbid it later on in chapter 14. Paul may simply be responding to information that women are removing their coverings and stepping forward to lead the assembly in prayer and prophesy, and in v 5 he explains that such behaviour is disgraceful.  There is no contradiction here if we observe the basic rule of not going beyond the express and implied teaching of a particular statement. 

It is faulty reasoning which causes us to "get more out of" l Cor 11:5 than the verse itself contains and this faulty reasoning has been a great distraction. Usually we recognise it when individuals "get more out of” other verses like 1 Tim 2:8ff and we are quick to point out this fact. For example Keener, discussing 1 Tim 2:8 ff says the following:

"This passage, like 1 Cor 11, seems to assume women's right to pray in public" (p. 102).

So Keener looks at 1 Tim 2:8 and goes beyond what the passage says explicitly and implicitly to conclude: "This passage, like 1 Cor 11, seems to assume women's right to pray in public." Many in our brotherhood would be quick to point out that 1 Tim 2:8 assumes nothing of the kind. Many in the church still recognise that when we build an argument on 1 Tim 2:8 ff based upon what it "seems to assume" rather than upon what it teaches explicitly or implicitly, we are building upon an unsound foundation. Similarly we must be careful that we do not draw conclusions from 1 Cor 11:5a which go beyond the teaching of this verse, and then use these conclusions as the foundation for an argument about context based upon a supposed contradiction. Our focus must be upon the explicit and implicit teaching of the text.

Perhaps Paul has heard that sisters at Corinth are removing their head coverings and taking a leading role in the assembly and he instructs them to desist. We cannot know that this is the case because we are not told, but it is a reasonable suggestion. 

Conclusion

There is general agreement among scholars that Paul’s instructions concerning the head covering (11:2-16) the memorial feast (11:17-34) and the regulation of spiritual gifts (12:1 – 14:40) are a response to problems which have arisen in connection with the Lord’s Supper assembly. The main objection to this position is that it cannot be harmonised with Paul’s instructions concerning women in 14:34, 35. This is not the case.  

We cannot be sure of the problem at Corinth which required correction. Perhaps Paul has heard that Christian sisters are leading the assembly and is writing to correct this situation. We cannot be sure that this is the case. However since 1 Cor 11:5 contains no explicit or implicit condonation, there is no conflict with 1 Cor 14:34, 35. I incline to this view.