Documento de acompañamiento vitivinícola

While Romans 1:18-32 talks about the worship of God in general doxa terms, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 discusses a mishandled situation in relation to a specific setting of community worship in Corinth. The seemingly abrupt nature of this passage and non-Pauline vocabulary has caused some to consider it an interpolation,330 _{but those claims seem to be unwarranted.}331 _{However, this} passage is quite enigmatic332 _{and convoluted in terms of its own cultural-social setting as well as} its apparent theological emphasis. Because of the difficulties and complicated issues discussed in the passage, the history of its interpretation is quite multifaceted.333 _{Many background problems} have been suggested.334 _{The scope of my research problem and the aim of my thesis limits the}

330 _{William O. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul’s Views Regarding Women,” JBL 94 (1976): 94-110; G. W.}

Trompf, “On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and Its Context,” CBQ 42 (1980): 196-215; William O. Walker, “The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16 Pauline or Non-Pauline?,” JSNT 25 (1989): 75-88; Walker, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, 91-126; Wolfgang Schrage, Der Erste Brief an die

Korinther (Zűrich: Benzinger Verlag, neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 2:496-497; Antoinette Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 116-34;

Christopher Mount, “1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” JBL 124 (2005): 313-40.

331 _{J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?,” JBL 95 (1976): 615-621; W. F. Orr}

and J. W. Walther, Corinthians: A New Translation: Introduction with a Study of the Life of Paul, Notes, and

Commentary, AB 32 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 259- 262; John P. Meier, “On the Veiling of Hermeneutics (1

Cor 11.2-16),” CBQ 40 (1978), 218; Anthony Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1978), 520-21; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16,” CBQ 42 (1980): 482-500; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Interpolations in 1 Corinthians,” CBQ 48 (1986): 81-94. Walker’s second article regarding this issue, where he tries to prove that the vocabulary is not very Pauline and has many pseudo-Pauline elements, is not convincing, and the reasoning behind his categories and examples are somewhat circular. Any Pauline passage can be shown to be non- Pauline by this method. Walker’s categories are: (1) Distinctively Pauline Vocabulary; (2) Characteristically but Not Distinctively Pauline Vocabulary; (3) Otherwise Non-Pauline but Not Identifiably Post-Pauline Vocabulary; (4) Distinctively Post-Pauline Vocabulary.

332 _{Even though the structure of the passage is somewhat debated, it is best to see the passage structure as divided into}

five parts (Table 3.5.). Gordon Fee divides the passage into three parts (11:2-6, 7-12, 13-16). Gordon D. Fee, The First

Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 491-530. Philip B. Payne divides the passage

into seven parts. Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman – One in Christ – Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s

Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 109-210.

333 _{For a history of interpretation, see Philip Brown, “A Survey of the History of the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians}

11:2-16,” Aldersgate Forum 2011, May 8, 2014, http://comeafterme.com; L. A. Jervis, “‘But I Want you to Know ...’: Paul’s Midrashic Intertextual Response to the Corinthian Worshippers (1 Cor 11.2-16),” JBL 112.2: (1992): 231-46; Michael Lakey, Image and Glory of God: I Corinthians 11:2-16 as a Case Study in Bible, Gender and Hermeneutics, LNTS 418 (London: T & T Clark, 2010). Lakey has a detailed history of interpretation, including a cosmological interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:2-16. Kari Elisabeth Børresen has also written two helpful articles on patristic and medieval interpretation regarding this passage. Kari Elisabeth Børresen, “God’s Image, Is Woman Excluded? Medieval Interpretation of Gen 1,27 and I Cor 11,7,” in The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition, ed. Kari Elisabeth Børresen (Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1991), 208-227; Kari Elisabeth Børresen, “God’s Image, Man’s image? Patristic Interpretation of Gen 1,27 and I Cor 11,7,” in The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian

Tradition, ed. Kari Elisabeth Børresen (Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1991), 188-207.

334 _{Interpreters do not agree, whether the problem lays with what kind of head covering, hairstyles, or the length of the}

hair, whether the problem covers only women, or women and men, whether it is grounded on theological roots, or influenced by realized eschatology that eradicated the conventional roles of women and men or even sexes being

discussion, however, to the use and understanding of doxa (used three times 11:7 [x2] and 11:15) in this passage.

I will now explore the four main questions in this passage regarding the derivative doxa of God displayed in humanity. First, who does Paul call as the doxa of God?Second, what kind of role does the creation-order play in Paul’s argumentation to portray the relationship of male and female in terms of the image and doxa of God. Third, how does the social-cultural setting in the Corinthians’ church help us to see the parallelism between Paul’s appeal to the contemporary understanding of gender differences and the principle of the creation order in light of doxa? Fourth, what is Paul’s theological foundation for his cultural application in relation to doxa?

Table 3.5. The Structure of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

neutralized by transvestism. It simply is difficult, if not even impossible to state with certainly the problem that caused Paul to address the issue. See, Garland, 1 Corinthians, 505-506.

The dependency of man/husband and woman/wife on God and each other (1 Cor 11:11-13)

In the Lord, woman or man are not independent of each other: Woman is from man and man comes (through) woman

All things are from God

An argument from common sense and nature (1 Cor 11:14-16)

Man/husband wears long hair? Woman/wife wears long hair?

An argument from creation (1 Cor 11:7-10)

Man Woman/wife

is the image and glory

[δόξα] of

is the glory [δόξα] of

God man

A cultural application (1 Cor 11:4-6)

Man/husband who prays with his head Woman/wife prays uncovered: covered dishonors the head (Christ) dishonors her head (man /husband)

An argument from God and Christ (1 Cor 11:2-3)

Christ man/husband God

is the head (κεφαλή) is the head (κεφαλή) is the head (κεφαλή)

of every man of woman/wife Christ

(representing the last Adam, male and female alike)

3.3.1.
The Image and Glory of God and the Creation Order

The first two occurrences of doxa take place in the section that argues from the creation narrative for the particular contemporary appearance attire of the worship setting in Corinth:

For a man [ἀνήρ] ought not to cover his head, since he is the image [εἰκὼν] and glory [δόξα] of God, (but) woman[γυνὴ] is the glory [δόξα] of the man/husband [ἀνήρ]. For man/husband was not made from woman/wife, but woman/wife from man/husband. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (1 Cor 11:7-8)

Paul explicitly calls the male/husband to be the image and doxa of God (1 Cor 11:7) after the story of creation. This description of humanity is one of the most unambiguous accounts of humankind as the derived doxa of God. In 1 Corinthians 11:7 the doxa of God is given only to the male (or husband; ἀνήρ). Some suggest that Paul followed the contemporary Jewish tradition (at least as found in Philo) that considered Genesis 1:27 to apply only to man, not to woman.335 _{But that is} hardly Paul’s point, because later he states, “Just as we have borne the image [εἰκών] (of the man) of dust, we shall also bear the image [εἰκών] (of the second man, Christ) of heaven” (1 Cor 15:49), indicating that every human being shares the image of God.336

The order of the man-woman creation gives the foundation (γάρ), however, for Paul’s view that female/woman glory is derived from male/husband’s glory. Paul most likely draws his understanding of image and glory and creation order from the creation account (Gen 1:26-27; 2:18- 23).

God said, ‘Let us make humankind [ἄνθρωπον] according to our image [κατ̓ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν] and according to likeness [καθ̓ ὁμοίωσιν] and let them rule the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the cattle and all the earth and all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.’ And God made humankind [ἄνθρωπον]; according to divine image [εἰκόνα] he made it; male [ἄρσεν] and female [θῆλυ] he made them. (Gen 1:26 LXX NETS) Out of her husband [ἀνδρὸς] she was taken. (Gen 2:23 LXX NETS)

335 _{Philo says, “Why, as other animals and as man also was made, the woman was not also made out of the earth, but}

out of the rib of the man? (Gen 2:21). This was so ordained in the first place, in order that the woman might not be of

equal dignity with the man [emphasis mine]. In the second place, that she might not be of equal age with him, but

younger; since those who marry wives more advanced in years than themselves deserve blame, as having overturned the law of nature. Thirdly, the design of God was, that the husband should take care of his wife, as of a necessary part of himself; but that the woman should requite him in turn with service, as a portion of the universe. In the fourth place, he admonishes man by this enigmatical intimation, that he should take care of his wife as of his daughter; and he admonishes the woman that she should honour her husband as her father. And very rightly, since the woman changes her habitation, passing from her own offspring to her husband. On which account, it is altogether right and proper that he who has received should take upon himself the liability in respect of what has been given; and that she who has been removed should worthily give the same honour to her husband which she has previously given to her parents; for the husband receives his wife from her parents, as a deposit which is entrusted to him; and the woman receives her husband from the law.” Philo, QG 1, 27. Cf. Apoc. Mos. 10-12; 21:6; 2 En. 21:3; Gen. Rab. 8:10; 12:6.

336 _{Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “I Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old}

Paul makes, however, a significant addition; δόξα is not found, as we have indicated earlier, in the Genesis account. From where does Paul obtain his concept of δόξα coupled with εἰκὼν, and what does it signify in this passage? It is possible that Paul has replaced ὁμοίωμα (likeness) found in the LXX with δόξα.337 _{Additionally, Paul makes a connection between the image of God and glory} from the Old Testament motif of God’s glory.338 _{God’s image and glory (δόξα) are associated in} Jewish Scriptures, as I have shown above.339 _{So even though Genesis does not mention doxa, the} concept is found in a Jewish tradition, and Paul seems to follow it. Most directly, he seems to draw, without direct quotation, from Psalm 8, which itself seems to be an interpretation of Genesis 1.340 Paul “connects the Imago Dei with the concept of the divine glory (doxa). The way was paved by the Old Testament, most directly by the declaration in Psalm 8:5 that God has crowned humankind with ‘glory and honor.’” 341

Paul nuances the glories of man and woman by recognizing the creative order found in the Genesis account.342 _{According to Norbert Baumert, this model does not place emphasis on the} inferiority of woman, but rather sees woman as the ultimate glory of humankind.343 _{However, in}

337 _{Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 833. See also}

Rom 1:23; 5:14; 6:5; 8:3; Phil 2:7 for the use of ὁμοίωμα in Paul (cf. Jas 3:9 ὁμοίωσιν).

338 _{Paul Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred, trans. David Pellauer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 267-68.}

339 _{See my discussion in 2.3.3. Cf. Morna Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Corinthians 11:10,”}

NTS 10 no 3 (April 1964): 410-416, 411; Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen 1, 26f, 100-113; Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, 120; J. B. Hurley, “Man and Woman in 1 Corinthians” (PhD diss., Cambridge University, 1973), 171-174.

340 _{Meredith Kline states, “Image and glory appear as twin models in the Bible for expressing man’s likeness to the}

divine Original. If they are to be distinguished, the distinction might be that image-likeness is reflection of the original. Or, that image is stative and expresses the fact of imageness, i.e., that man is secondary, not the original but different from it because of his createdness, while glory is active and expresses the content of the image, i.e. that man is similar to God in those features comprised by the concept of glory…Both image and glory means likeness.” “Under the concept of man as the glory-image of God the Bible includes functional (or official), formal (or physical), and ethical components, corresponding to the composition of the archetypal Glory. Functional glory-likeness is man’s likeness to God in the possession of official authority and in the exercise of dominion. Ethical glory is reflection of the holiness, righteousness, and truth of the divine Judge (not just the presence of a moral faculty of any religious orientation whatsoever). And the formal-physical glory-likeness is man’s bodily reflection of the theophanic and Incarnate glory.” Kline, “Creation on the Image of the Glory-Spirit,” 268.

341 _{Stanley Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (Louisville:}

Westminster John Knox, 2007), 205. Additionally, as my background chapter discussion evidenced, it is possible that Paul also drew from other Jewish Scriptures that describe Israel as God’s glory as well as from other ancient texts. So, God, who created the world, has also displayed his own glory in humanity and in Israel. According to Greg Beale, this concept of god having made His glory shine through His image is also found in non-Jewish literature. For example, Ramses II says about his relationship to his god: “I am thy son whom thou hast placed upon thy throne. Thou hast assigned to me thy kingdom, thou hast fashioned me in thy likeness and thy form, which thou hast fashioned me in thy likeness and thy form.” Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 88-90.

342 _{A similar kind of model is expressed in Proverbs 11:16 LXX (γυνὴ εὐχάριστος ἐγείρει ἀνδρὶ δόξαν) and in 1 Esdra}

4:17 LXX (αὗται ποιοῦσιν δόξαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις).

343 _{Norbert Baumert, Sorgen des Seelsorgers: Übersetzung und Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefes (Würzburg:}

Echter, 2007), 163. “Entsprechend nun bei der Frau: Sie wird nicht ’Bild’ oder gar, ’Abbild’ des Mannes genannt, sondern doxa – ’Herrlichkeit’, und das heiβt wiederum Aus-strahlung des Mannes, von ihm als Ursprung herkommend, aber nicht als ein minderer ’Abglanz’ (EÜ), sondern eher als der Höhepunkt menschlichen Wesens, so Wie die ’Herrlichkeit Gottes’ der Höhepunkt seiner Offenbarung ist, nicht sein ’blasser Abglanz.’”

the Genesis narrative, to which Paul refers, man was created first (Gen 2:7) and then woman was created out of him, as his helper (Gen 2:22; 1 Cor 11:8-9; cf. 1 Tim 2:13). For Paul, the order of creation shows the derivative relationship of male/husband and female/wife in relation to glory.344 In this manner “she completes the man and creation.”345 _{Female/wife is to relate to male/husband} in all engagements, including the community worship setting, by not jeopardizing the gender distinctions modeled after the creation order.

At the same time, Paul reminds us that the existence of both genders is completely dependent on God. Humanity, both male and female, is derived from God. While in creation male was made first and female was made out of (ἐκ) male (1 Cor 11:8, 12), afterwards male is born through (διὰ) female (1 Cor 11:11-12; cf. Gal 3:28). Although this does not negate the apparel of gender roles in the worship setting, it places them in the ultimate perspective: both genders owe their whole existence to God. In this way, in terms of doxa, the role of female/wife in relation to male/husband in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 becomes analogous to humankind’s relationship to God.

3.3.2.
The Image and Doxa of God Applied to Paul’s Contemporary Social Setting

Paul uses the creational order of male and female in relation to the image and doxa of God to build a case for an attire code to be practiced in the contemporary Greco-Roman socio-cultural setting. In other words, Paul desires the physical appearance of Gentile believers to reflect the creational order of God’s image and the doxa of maleness and femaleness. Paul seems to be concerned with portraying two distinctive genders based on the creation order. The creation order gives a foundation for his warning not to wear any attire that is dishonouring to one’s gender. The importance of distinctives in masculine and feminine appearance in contrast to each other dominates Paul’s thinking.

For males, Paul gives instructions for their appearance to reflect the image and doxa of God. There are two particularities in relation to the doxa motif. First, “a man ought not to cover his head [Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλὴν], since he is the image and glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7). This phrase and the earlier similar rendering in 11:4 are difficult to translate: is Paul talking about a head covering, long hair, or inappropriate hair style?346 _{Even though the Jewish}

344 _{Also, a text found in a Roman catacomb reads, ἡ δόξα Σωφρονίου Λούκιλλα εὐλογημένη (Blessed Lucilla, the glory}

of Sophronius). I am indebted to David Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe: Volume 2, The City of Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 274.

345 _{Garland, 1 Corinthians, 523.}

346 _{Scholars are divided over the meaning of the phrase κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων in 11:4 between either having a liturgical}

head covering (i.e. some kind of material on the head), inappropriate hair styleor long hair.After a long discussion, Thiselton concludes that having “the head covered remains more probable, yet not decisively so.” (Thiselton, The First

texts (Exod 28:4, 36-40; Ezek 44:18; cf. Deut 22:12) and contemporary custom (tallit) do not seem to prevent wearing something over a man’s head, the pagan practice of pulling a toga over the head as a religious worship custom may provide the background for Paul’s restrictions.347 _{Perhaps, Paul} does not want the Christian male of gentile background to be associated with a pagan attirement practice. Or possibly the veil would “rob his own head of its chief function of reflecting the glory of Christ.”348

Second, Paul asks rhetorically,349 _{“Does not nature (φύσις) itself teach you that if a man} wears long hair (κομᾷ) it is a disgrace (ἀτιμία) for him?” (1 Cor 11:14). Φύσις here probably refers to the contemporary culture denoting “how things are” in societal terms, though it is in this context (cf. Rom 1:26) linked to Paul’s argumentation on the creation order as a whole as well. On one hand, many ancient texts indicate that long hair on men was considered effeminate, disgraceful, and abnormal in the Greco-Roman culture.350 _{On the other hand, the Hebrew Scriptures sometimes}

Epistle to the Corinthians, 823-826). Baumert suggests that men should not treat the head in an inappropriate manner

or hairstyle (Baumert, Sorgen des Seelsorgers, 159-160). According to W. J. Martin, L. B. Hurley, Alan Padgett, Richard Horsley, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, and Kirk MacGregor,however, κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων is a reference to long

hair. Moreover, according to MacGrecor, it is “highly probable that κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων refers to long hair, as seen in

verses 14-15. Consequently, Paul forbade men from wearing long hair and women from wearing short hair. Drawing on contemporaneous Jewish, Greek, and Roman sources, this article identifies the purpose of Paul’s injunction as the prohibition of both homosexuality in the church at large and the particular practices of men and women appearing and behaving in ways characteristic of the opposite sex which were indicative of homosexuality.” Kirk R. MacGregor, “Is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 a Prohibition of Homosexuality?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 166 no 662 (Apr 2009): 201-216, 202. Cf. W. J. Martin, “1 Cor 11:2-16: An Interpretation,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Presented to F.F. Bruce, ed. W. Ward Gasgue and R. P. Martin (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 233; J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical

Perspective (Downers Grove: IVP, 1981); Alan Padgett, “Paul on Women in the Church: The Contradictions of

Coiffure in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16,” JSNT 20 (1984), 70; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 154; Jeremy Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Cor 11:2-16