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 discussion 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 proposing new overall readings of it.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 understanding the passage in the traditional way: it is genuinely Pauline; it is concerned with the behavior of women in terms of headcovering when praying or prophesying during service; and it advocates that a distinction be maintained in this respect between men and women, the men being required (or allowed) 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 by Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza in In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983) 227-30. 3 That is, presumably with the top of their thrown over their heads, but not so as to cover their faces. For argument and further discussion (also of the archaeological evidence), see G. Theissen, Psychohgische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie (FRLANT 131; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 161-80.

679

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 that passage argues, it explicitly reflects Paul's theology as developed elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, thereby supporting an understanding of that theology as being itself also 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 cannot praise (a); he repeats the point about not praising 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
4 The 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 Theology m a Posthberal Age (London SPCK, 1984) 5 I have argued for this more general understanding of the theology of 1 Corinthians m "The Gospel and Social Practice according to I Corinthians," NTS 33 (1987) 557-84 6 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 II 2-16 is James Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of I Cor 11 2-16 and I Cor 14 33b-36," WTJ 35 (1972/73) 190-220, esp 191-93 On 193 Hurley m effect raises the question about the relationship between 11 2 and 3-16 that I elaborate below

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 holding on 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 7 upon. It is part of a topos about how to address people in an exhortation. Thus, by starting out in this way Paul shows himself to be aware of the 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 itself correctly) to the question of headcovering. Thus, the meaning of the transition from v. 2 to v. 3 will be: I praise you 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 (through him) 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, Moral Exhorta 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 linguistically most straightforward, whereas in terms of meaning it represents something of a lectio difficilior, since it precisely raises the question I am pressing about the meaning of the frame of 11:3-16. If that question can be adequately answered, the chosen text will be the correct one. 9 I have no qualms whatever about talking of an ontological hierarchy. What else could be meant by the talk of a "head" (hierarchy) and of God (ontology) as the supreme head? It is difficult not to see scholars who deny this as engaged in special pleading. For example, when

682

Journal of Biblical Literature

and this ontological hierarchy should be reflected in the behavior of men 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), 10 since he is the (direct) image and reflection of God, 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 shame 1 1 over his head (presumably both the figurative and the nonfigurative 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. Note that up to v. 11 the argument is basically religious (as we would say). In w. 5b-6, however, Paul brings in a reference to a certain social norm, but the beginning of v. 7 shows that it is the religious idea of an ontological hierarchy in relation to God that bears the brunt m the argument. The of v. 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 of a relationship of women to men, and this is 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 "priority and 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 Paul Personnalit, 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? (MurphyO'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 any case, is not the Platonic (and later philosophical) sense of as a secondary form of what is most genuine and primary (in Plato's case knowledge, ) highly relevant to Paul? 11 I should be happy to 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 often) an idea that Paul creates for his own immediate purposes, but in that case too, what is the religious meaning it is supposed to have? 12 I am obviously presupposing here that some distinction may be drawn, m relation to

Engberg-Pedersen: 1 Corinthians 11:16

683

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 corrective sense 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 of a hierarchy, in v. 11 he speaks of the relationship of man 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 have asked, 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 may guess 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 of Gal 3:28 though applying it in a way that was neither foreseen nor accepted by Paul. So Paul is visibly in 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 only thing that matters is that there is a clear contrast between w. 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 entirely unwarrantedand certainly not warranted by a reference to Blass-Debrunner claiming that is used by Paul 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" (as Delobel admits against his own interpretation of as introducing a "complement" ["1 Cor 11,2-16," 384]). (Cf. also Phil 3:16, the content of which is itself relevant to the interpretation of 1 Cor 11:2-16, as will become clear.) Indeed, I suspect that Blass-Debrunner's claim ultimately stems from nothing other than a false (because apologetic) interpretation of 1 Cor 11:11 itself. 15 As we may call it. It is too dangerous to speak of "equality."

684

Journal of Biblical Literature

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, from an authoritative stand to an appeal. III. 1 Corinthians 11:16 Then comes the concluding verse. If, says Paul, somebody (among the Corinthians) should want 1 7 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 rather more 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 19 of Meyer's commentary 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 of God" is a catholicizing gloss and next by admitting the possibility that the habit might after all refer to contentiousness.
16

Note here Paul is not just talking of what nature (itself) teaches anybody who cares to notice, but what nature teaches Paul's addressees 17 Commentators play around with the meaning of here, but a reference to LS J (sv 3b) should settle the question 18 H A W Meyer, Des Paulus erster Brief an die Konnther (MeyerK 5, 3d ed , Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1856) 243 19 J Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (MeyerK 5, 9th e d , Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 277 Incidentally, it is altogether unclear which understanding of the referent of the habit is favored in the intermediate revision of Meyer's commentary by C F G Hemrici, Der erste Brief an die Konnther (MeyerK 5, 8th ed , Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896) 335

Engberg-Pedersen: 1 Corinthians 11:16

685

Indeed (this is Meyer's argument), (i) the "we" must refer to a certain group of individuals, since it is immediately widened to include, and thereby logically implied to be distinct from, the congregations. (And here it will not do to understand as if the text ran . . . or . . . as suggested by some 20 scholars, for the text does not run like that.) (ii) But then, if the "we" are Paul and his group of itinerant apostles and messengers (as opposed to the stationary congregations), the habit that Paul says he does not have cannot refer to praying with one's head uncovered. Being a man, Paul would and should pray 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 that practice when I create a congregation.21 Or 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 of principle 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 rather convoluted way of arguing. If Paul had in fact wanted to end on an authoritative
: 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 centies victus nunquam fatigabitur. Diligenter ergo notemus locum istum ("For there will never be an end to disputes if you wish to defeat in combat a man who is quarrelsome; even if he be defeated a hundred times, he will never grow weary. Let us therefore carefully take note of this passage.").
20

686

Journal of Biblical Literature

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 practice in God's congregations and so the Corinthians must give up their deviant behavior. That, in fact, is how Conzelmann understood the verse in his 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 apostle realizes the difficulty in convincing the Corinthians, who are of a combative spirit () He declares that he wants to conform to the generally more peaceful habits of the Christian churches, that means that he will give no further answer to the replies and attacks that the page that he 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 if anybody among 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 in advance, but precisely on principle: it is their own decision or, as he has himself just said, "Judge among yourselves." This, then, is my proposal: Paul is leaving the decision to the Corinthians themselves because on principle he does not want to enforce his own view of the 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 counter here by saying that this looks rather like having Paul make a virtue of necessity; Paul is throwing up his hands but at the same time turning that into a principle. Fine! In itself such a procedure would hardly be un-Pauline, and so the counter only 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.
Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Konnther (MeyerK 5, 11th ed , Gottingen Vanden hoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 225 26 J Hring, La premire ptre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT 7, Neuchtel/Pans Delachaux & Niestl, 1949) 96 (my translation) 27 Unfortunately the point is missed again in Chnstophe SenfVs rewriting of Hring's commentary, La premire ptre de Samt-Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT 2d ser 7, Neuchtel/Pans Delachaux & Niestl, 1979) 145 Senft even misrepresents his predecessor's interpretation as being the same as Calvin's
25

Engberg-Pedersen: 1 Corinthians 11:16 IV. Summary of the Argument

687

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 speaks of, 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 of the 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 glory to 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 teachings but 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 seems that 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 manner of 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 of the gospel). Similarly, once Paul has introduced (from 2:6 on) what he calls a genuine form of Christian wisdom, he employs chaps. 3 and 4 to show what manner of preaching accords with that understanding of the content of the gospel and he ends up (in 4:14-21) by explicitly referring to his "ways" () in Christ Jesus, the manner () in which he teaches

688

Journal of Biblical Literature

() 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 of doctrines, 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 Of course, 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 formula tion of the content of the gospel (the cross, agape) which provides an ideo logical frame for the idea of the 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, thereby showing 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 implications of 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 very sharp 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). 30 Explicit in 4:16 and 11:1, both of which sum up substantial sections where this theme has been constantly alive. In addition, of course, 11:1 is taken up directly in 11:2 ( ), that is, in the very passage we have been considering.

Engberg-Pedersen: 1 Corinthians 11:16

689

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 themselves since Paul as a matter of universal Christian principle does not have the habit of being contentious.
See Wayne A. Meeks, T h e Polyphonic Ethics of the Apostle Paul," The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1988) 17-29.
31

^ 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.