Missing Letters from Corinth and Paul’s Use of Rhetorical Arguments
When considering gender equality, Paul’s letters to the Corinthians are some of the most difficult and seemingly inconsistent texts in all of scripture. Why does he contradict himself? Is this prescriptive for all churches everywhere or a letter to a specific group of believers in a particular time and culture? Does Paul hate women? “Making sense of these passages for any reader, scholar or otherwise, is hugely challenging, and they absorb the commentators with their exegetical possibilities and puzzles.”[1]
What must we keep in mind when reading these difficult New Testament texts concerning women? Consistency in the greater scripture narrative has been a key hermeneutic for my own journey. Consistency is important within a specific biblical book, as well as the entire Biblical text. When 1 Corinthians is read plainly with Pentecost in mind, the reader is then presented with the problem of how a woman can be filled with the Spirit, pray, and prophecy all while remaining silent.
As Fee says, “What we must understand is that the Spirit was the chief element, the primary ingredient, of this new existence. For early believers, it was not merely a matter of getting saved, forgiven, prepared for heaven. It was above all else to receive the Spirit, to walk into the coming age with power.”[2] Is power given if one must remain silent?
In Lucy Peppiatt’s book Women and Worship at Corinth she brings to the discussion the notion that men in the Corinthian house church were seeking to take away the Spirit given power from the women. She notes Paul’s known refutations by saying, “It is already universally accepted that he quotes some Corinthian slogans in 1 Corinthians in order to make a point. These verses include 6:12, 13; 7:1; 8:1, 8:4; 10:23; and 15:12. It is also recognized that he is responding to a written letter from them (i.e., he is in a “conversation” already).”[3] Peppiatt’s work reveals a pattern of Paul using rhetorical arguments throughout his letter. This idea brings forth the concept that Paul was saying exactly the opposite of what one might hear if they read it at face value, especially concerning chapters 11 and 14 regarding women.
Below, I seek to give feminist midrash, combining a fictional missing letter from the Corinthian church, and Peppiatt’s thesis on Paul using rhetorical arguments. I have placed Chloe as a local house church leader[4] who is frustrated with other local male believers who seek to force Roman patriarchal beliefs on the women of the Corinthian house church. If this were plausible, I would imagine her to be quite indignant at the men for taking away her equality and freedom in Christ and replacing it with what she sees as a detrimental subjugation of women.
Letter from Chloe to Paul
Chloe, a servant of Jesus Christ, sister, and fellow coworker with Phoebe, Crispus, Gaius, and many others, as we labor for the gospel to be known in Corinth.[5]
To Paul, an apostle and servant of Christ.[6] Grace and peace to you from Jesus Christ. Greet Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus,[7] and those from my own household who have graciously agreed to deliver this letter on their journey to you. Greet Prisca and Aquila, their presences is greatly missed.[8] Greet our sisters and brothers in Ephesus.
I trust that concerning the rest of this letter, you will allow me to remain somewhat anonymous. This, I hope, will keep divisions down about who said what, and allow us to focus on your response instead. It will also keep me from further scrutiny from a particular group of men as you will see below. If you must refer to this letter in your reply, perhaps “Chloe’s people” could be used as I am representing not just my own thoughts but several women in my house church.[9]This matter is urgent because we are quarreling about many things, to the point that our meetings are doing more harm than good.[10] This is troublesome as I am deeply committed to the unity of believers here in Corinth.[11]
As promised when I saw you in Ephesus,[12] I am writing to you to explain in further detail my plea for help concerning the house churches in Corinth. In my previous letter, I discussed the divisions among us on matters of who we belong to whether it’s you, Apollos or Cephas.[13] The boasting about who they follow is getting out of control.[14]Several in our midst are desiring a higher social status by using your name and defying the servant role that you and Christ emulated for us.[15]
They have transferred their belief in God to a belief in leaders.[16] Some claim a higher status because they were baptized by Apollos, some by Cephas and some by you.[17] The Judaizers among us say they belong to Cephas and even argue we must follow the oral Torah in order to be saved,[18] but Jesus came to fulfill the law.[19] The veil that separated us from God was torn apart through the work of Christ. There is no more court of the gentiles, or court of women. As you told the church in Galatia, we have all been clothed with Christ in baptism and “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female.”[20] We are one in Christ Jesus.
Another matter I need to report is sexual immorality in our body.[21] Despite your previous letter,[22] this continues to be a problem. There is a man in our midst who is no longer the husband of one wife and has taken up living with his father’s wife![23] I have spoken with Gaius, and he is sending another letter with difficulties we are facing concerning marriage,[24] including the unmarried and widows, whether we can eat the food that is sacrificed to idols,[25] and seeking your wisdom on spiritual gifts.[26]
After many conversations with Gaius, we have decided he will expound on how these men bring in Corinthian and Roman cultural rules to the communion table. They seek to infiltrate the fellowship with worldly status symbols. The poor and slaves in our midst are shamed and forgotten.[27] As you know, my circumstances have changed, and I am no longer a slave.[28] It is through this deep empathy that I am moved to write for help. Those of higher status eat first, consuming for themselves what Christ meant for all.[29] They do not see the equality that Christ brings to the table through his broken body.[30] I will let Gaius expand on this issue, but the same status of the heart can be seen in their treatment of the women in our body.
The main point I am writing to you about is how some men among us are seeking to remove leadership from women by implementing cultural practices concerning women that usurp our identity in Christ. We know how Jesus treated women well, and of women like Mary Magdalene, whom Christ himself commissioned to tell the disciples about his resurrection.[31] We are aware that Phoebe is a deacon in the church, and benefactor of you.[32] She has also been gracious to help us build relationships with those at the church in Rome.[33]
Our women are also mindful of Junia, who has given her life in service to Christ, using her status as apostle, her education, and rhetorical proficiencies to lead others to Christ.[34] Of course we know Prisca, who founded our church with her husband. Both are well trained in the Scriptures, as well as having taught Apollos.[35] Though we are women living in a patriarchal world, you have never treated women as anything but equal co-heirs and co-workers in Christ.
Some men among us are claiming their maleness is the source of all women and therefore women must submit. The scriptures, teach that women come from men, but men come from Christ and Christ comes from God.[36] These men have forgotten the key component being that God is the head of Christ.[37] They do not understand that God our Father is the source of everything, including Christ.[38] Would you please explain the source of men, women, and Christ to us in a clear manner? Surely, this does not mean “to rule over” for how can God rule over Christ?[39] They believe you are dedicated to hierarchy and submission, but this is not the way of Christ.[40]
These men have been competitive in the market, as well as politics, and are bringing this way of thinking into leadership of the church.[41] Their contending for power is affecting the women as many women are stressed and earnestly seek to do the right thing, but there is much confusion among us. The women come to me for guidance, desiring to honor Christ but are often confused as to what that looks like in our body. When I, or other women, bring these matters to the men’s attention, they opt to shame us based on their interpretation of creation rather than view us as covered in Christ.[42] They have taken your original teaching and reasoned that our glory,[43] shame, and inferiority as women is to be displayed through the wearing of veils.[44]
These men in our community have been requiring the women to veil when we are together. As you know, we have many cultural customs merging in our house churches, indicative of our greater culture here in Corinth. Roman religious customs require head coverings, and some pagan and Jewish customs do not.[45] I know of Christ’s and your desire for us to be unified in all things. These men are obsessed with status which, you will see from Gaius’s letter, is far more reaching than simply relations with women in our body.
These same men also are saying, “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays for prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head – it is just as though her head were shaved.”[46] The Romans agree with this sentiment, the Greeks in our midst find this distasteful, and it is causing division among us.[47] To confuse this mandate even more it seems there is no other church requiring this apostolic mandate.[48]
Everyone has an opinion on this matter, and I am writing to ask you to help clear up our confusion. It is a grave and serious matter for us women. If we pray and prophecy with our heads uncovered, they seek to shame us as though we were adulteresses and whores![49] They teach that if we refuse to wear veils they might as well shame us and shave our heads like prostitutes, which of course means we should then cover our heads! Their circular logic can only lead to further shame and subjugation.[50] This constant threat to women is not the equality we find in Jesus. I fear it will hurt our witness to Corinth, for what woman would want to be a part of such a suppressing group that falsely represents the freedom found in Christ?
These men go on to say, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”[51]
They do not see the mutuality that Christ brings to the kingdom. They have forgotten that every man is born of a woman. They “are teaching that men are the image and glory of God, and that women are merely the image and glory of man.”[52] If they see that women have derived from man in a hierarchical way, did man not derive from dust?[53] All of us are called to take Christ’s lowly position.[54]
Their subjugation of women in the kingdom sounds more like the teachings of Plato and Aristotle than Christ.[55]Women need the liberation Christ offers and teaching otherwise does not allow us to be fully part of the kingdom on Earth.[56] Will you help us sort this matter out? I fear the very nature of the discussion requires your male voice to help them see their absurd restrictions on women. Despite my position of house church leader, they now refuse to listen to my pleas due to their hierarchical views on gender.
Concerning creation, they are teaching subordination based on Genesis, but are we not new creations in Christ?[57] You told the Galatians several years ago, that we have been crucified with Christ.[58] Have we not risen with him out of the waters of baptism into a new creation? This is evident in the ways we see the Spirit among us, causing us to be more like Christ. If we are new creations, this should change how we interact with each other right?[59] Gaius can tell you more, but they are even saying because “a woman is man’s glory, he has authority over her body, but she has none because she was for his glory.”[60] If we are new creations in Christ, should we not all be submissive to one another out of reverence for the one who gave us life?
So, I ask plainly, can women pray to God with our heads uncovered? These men say no but on behalf of the women in my house church, I’m asking you, Paul, to be clear on this matter. When cultural expectations are many due to the nature of our church, which one takes precedence? Are we not creating a new culture that represents Christ?
There is also the matter of hair length. They claim, like the stoics,[61] “the very nature of things teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.” They have unfortunately either forgotten your hair length when you were with us[62] or are blatantly against your views on this!
Aside from their subjugation through demanding women wear veils, they are also claiming “In all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak; but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”[63] What about our single women, and those whom their husbands are not believers yet? Who are they to ask? They have taken Cato’s speech, as well as oral Jewish law and combined them to silence women.[64]
Paul, we need your help! These men are crafting Cato’s words as if they were God’s. Are Cato’s Roman views of women greater than our identity in Christ?[65] How am I to stay silent in leading my own house church when these men reduce our identity in Christ to that of a Roman woman? How are we supposed to silently pray or prophesy? They have twisted beliefs of the day concerning women with scripture to claim that we are now to remain silent! You reiterated when you were here, that we must look different from the culture.[66] These men seek to make the Corinthian house churches look more like Roman patriarchy than the kingdom of God.
I am concerned that these men seek to pull our churches away from other known churches and create a sect, based on cultural influences, that seeks to subjugate women among other things. The same superiority seen in the Lord’s Supper can also be seen in how they treat women.[67] They have forgotten the stories we have heard from Jerusalem about the Spirit being poured out on men and women. The Judaizers especially seek to elevate the restrictions of the oral Torah above the power of the Spirit within women. We simply want nothing more than the gospel to be known here in Corinth.
We hope to either see you soon or receive a letter from you to help our situation. I and those among my house church look forward to the day you can visit us once again. I trust the Spirit is at work within you in Ephesus, among the men and women there. Greet the churches of Asia, and again, Prisca and Aquila with their house church. We miss then greatly. Greet Phoebe and our sisters and brothers in Rome. May the grace and love of Jesus be with you, your co-worker and sister.
Bibliography
Barr, Beth Allison. The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2021.
Cohick, Lynn H. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
Crocker, Cornelia Cyss. Reading 1 Corinthians in the Twenty-First Century. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.
DeSilva, David A. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation. Second Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2018.
Fee, Gordon D. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Guthrie, George H. 2 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.
MacGregor, Kirk. “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device.” CBE International. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/1-corinthians-1433b-38-pauline-quotation.
Peppiatt, Lucy. Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015.
Webb, William J. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.
[1] Lucy Peppiatt, Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015), 5.
[2] Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 114.
[3] Speaking of Paul, “If he had a letter in front of him outlining their thoughts and practices, both of which he wished to correct, might he not have referred to this at greater length in his response?” Peppiatt, 4. If we consider the consistency of scripture concerning women and read the text in light of Paul responding to letters, as well as potentially using rhetorical arguments, it brings new light to the tough texts of 1 Cor 11 and 14.
[4] Cornelia Cyss Crocker, Reading 1 Corinthians in the Twenty-First Century (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 116. Crocker notes that Chloe was “a woman whose words Paul takes quite seriously and whose communication seems to have influenced the tone of the first part of his letter.” Due to her influence, I chose to make her a leader of her own house church to emphasize her frustration with the leadership of men in the greater church in Corinth.
[5] 1 Cor. 1:11 and 1:14
[6] 1 Cor. 1:1 and Rom 1:1
[7] 1 Cor. 16:17
[8] 1 Cor. 16:19
[9] 1 Cor. 1:11
[10] 1 Cor. 11:17
[11] See Crocker, 114 for her discussion on Chloe.
[12] “Stephanus and Chloe, each of whom had a house with an extended household (probably including slaves) and could finance travel for themselves or their representatives to Ephesus (1 Cor 1;11; 16:17-18), where Paul was staying when he wrote 1 Corinthians.” David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, Second Edition (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2018), 493.
[13] 1 Cor. 1:11-17
[14] 1 Cor. 3:21-23
[15] “In a city where social climbing was a major preoccupation, Paul’s deliberate stepping down in apparent status would have been seen by many as disturbing, disgusting, and even provocative.” Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 21.
[16] In her scholarship, Peppiatt uses sources from Thiselton and Barth stating the main problem in Corinth was their belief in particular leaders rather than their belief in God. Peppiatt, 91.
[17] 1 Cor. 1:12-13
[18] See the following discussion of Paul refuting the oral Torah law that silenced women in 1 Cor 14:33-35. MacGregor, Kirk, “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device,” CBE International, accessed February 28, 2022, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/1-corinthians-1433b-38-pauline-quotation.
[19] Matt. 5:17
[20] Gal. 3:28
[21] 1 Cor. 5:1
[22] 1 Cor. 5:9
[23] 1 Cor. 5:1 Although the Corinthian text does not mention he was married himself, I opted to include this phrase to tie in 1 Timothy 3:2, emphasizing overseers must not be sexually immoral. Paul was not excluding women so much as emphasizing men who are to be overseers must be sexually moral.
[24] 1 Cor. 7
[25] 1 Cor. 8
[26] 1 Cor. 12
[27] 1 Cor. 11:17-22
[28] While there are no details about Chloe’s personal life, Crocker in her scholarship notes that she likely was a “woman of wealth” and there are some who think she was a freed slave. Crocker, 116.
[29] 1 Cor. 11:33-34
[30] “Jesus’ death proclaimed in the sacrament thoroughly contradicts the segregation of rich and poor practiced at Corinth.” Peppiatt, 76.
[31] See Matt. 28:7, Mark 16:7, Luke 24:9 and John 20:17.
[32] See Rom. 16:1-2 and “Phoebe likely had the social clout to help local and visiting Christians with any commercial, political, or social needs.” Lynn H. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 303.
[33] “In the case of Phoebe, then, Paul is likely stressing her role as go-between for the Corinthian churches and the Roman congregation, as well as her specific duty to carry Paul’s letter, with his authority.” Cohick, 305.
[34] Cohick’s scholarship discusses the possibility of Junia being Joanna, who witnessed the resurrection. She also discusses her possible education, social status, and religious benefactor. Cohick, 315.
[35] See Webb’s discussion of Pricilla in William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 99.
[36] 1 Cor. 11:3
[37] Paul “reiterates his teaching, clarifying the language of ‘head’ in the light of the truth that ‘God is the κεφλή of Christ,’ which is to be the key pairing.” Peppiatt, 86.
[38] Ibid
[39] “Whatever κεφλή does mean, it does not mean that as God rules over Christ, Christ rules over man, and man rules over woman, because we cannot claim that God rules over Christ in the first place.” Peppiatt, 91. This is an excellent example of how we must keep in mind all of scripture when interpreting texts that apply to women. Theology matters in terms of orthopraxy. I personally have reaped the harmful social implications of this through the teachings of ESS theology in our last church. Though many proponents of ESS see a hierarchical view of creation, I believe this fails to take into consideration the Spirit falling on men and women alike. If women are filled with the Spirit, just as the men, is the Spirit in the female body then subjugated to men as well?
[40] In her work Peppiatt states, “Once we believe that Paul is committed to a hierarchical sequence of submission, it is hard to think he might have meant something else.” Peppiatt, 96 This quote is a prime example of why it is necessary that we examine our own preconceived biases to the text before we perceive what the text is saying. In my own experience, particularly with some men in a hierarchical leadership, they are committed to patriarchy and therefore read the entire text with a patriarchal lens, unwilling to consider their own predetermined biases. There is an inconsistency in patriarchal hermeneutics in what they deem to be clear scriptures such as 1 Cor 11, and 14 considering the gender neutrality found in Acts 2.
[41] Corinth was a “highly competitive environment, with people vying in business, politics and claims to status.” DeSilva, 487.
[42] How is a woman with social order concerns to be taken seriously by any man who demands a hierarchy position?
[43] See Peppiatt’s views that Paul’s use of κεφλή “has been corrupted by the Corinthians, perhaps especially in a way that has allowed a group of spiritually gifted men to overidentify with the glorious Christ, leading them to become domineering and divisive, and to implement practices aimed at controlling and/or silencing the women.” Peppiatt, 94.
[44] “If Paul’s original teaching on Christ and man and woman had been extrapolated by the Corinthian Christians along the lines of a theology of glory (for the man and imputed glory for the woman), shame (for the woman) and honor, superiority and inferiority, and applied in literal terms with respect to the heads of men and women manifested in the wearing (or not) of head coverings, then we may be seeing here Paul’s attempt to correct that misconception, which he comes to from verse 11 onwards.” Peppiatt, 92.
[45] Witherington, 235-236.
[46] 1 Cor. 11:4-5 and Peppiatt, 139.
[47] In her book, Peppiatt discusses the multicultural perspectives converging at Corinth concerning head coverings. Peppiatt, 34.
[48] 1 Cor. 11:16 and Peppiatt, 35.
[49] Peppiatt, 43.
[50] In his response to the Corinthian argument in 1 Cor 11:6, “Paul exposes the abusive nature of it, and the coercion behind it.” Peppiatt, 99.
[51] 1 Cor. 11:7-10
[52] A quote from Peppiatt who follows it up by saying this is “the perfect rationale for the subordination of women and the superiority of men.” Peppiatt, 100.
[53] See Peppiatt’s discussion on page 100 about the problem of this theology.
[54] “Man, woman and Christ all occupy Christ’s position – Which is what?” According to Paul, in the world’s eyes, it is the lowest of the low.” Peppiatt, 71.
[55] Peppiatt discusses the conditioning of their modern, misogynistic thought that permeated the Graeco-Roman culture. Peppiatt, 68-69.
[56] “What is easier to imagine than converts reverting to their cultural norms and pre-Christian world views? If this were to the case, why would Paul not want to liberate women (a) from bad theology in relation to their status in Christ and (b) from an oppressive practice?” Peppiatt, 69.
[57] 2 Cor. 5:17
[58] Gal. 2:20
[59] In discussing Paul’s future address in 2 Cor. 5:17, “The new bases or understanding others stems not simply from the individual person who has been transformed by the gospel but also from the kingdom values put in place under Christ’s rule; a new eschatological order has been brough in.” George H. Guthrie, 2 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 308.
[60] See Paul address this in 1 Cor. 7:4
[61] See Peppiatt’s discussion on the Stoic influences of the day. Peppiatt, 104-106.
[62] At Cenchreae he had his hair cut, for he was under a vow.” Acts 18:18 (New Revised Standard Version). Peppiatt discussed the possibility of Paul taking a Nazirite vow (Num. 6) while he was in Corinth. Peppiatt, 106. Paul mentions in Acts 18:11 he stayed in Corinth for a year and six months. It is plausible to think he did not cut his hair until he left 18 months later, as indicated in Acts 18:18. Considering the average person’s hair grows half and inch a month, Paul’s hair was likely 9 inches long while he was in Corinth.
[63] 1 Cor. 14:33-35 (New Revised Standard Version).
[64] See MacGregor, page 5, where he discusses the “law” denoting the Jewish oral Torah and not the written Torah as there are no OT texts that restrict women from speaking as well as the subsequent note below discussing Cato.
[65] Barr’s scholarship points readers to Livy’s historical text History of Rome where he records Cato’s speech that Paul possibly echoes in 1 Cor. 14:35. Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2021), 59.
[66] “Paul wasn’t telling the early Christians to look like everyone else; he was telling them that, as Christians, they had to be different.” Barr, 47.
[67] “In many ways such a meal was an occasion for gaining or showing social status. And it might be in many regards a microcosm of the aspirations and aims of the culture as a whole. Paul’s attempt to deconstruct the social stratification that was happening in the Lord’s Supper goes directly against the tendency of such meals.” Witherington, 244.
