It has long been recognised that Paul, in 1 Corinthians, sometimes quotes his opponents before giving his own response to their objections and protestations.

It is generally agreed that Paul has written an earlier letter to this church, and is now addressing issues they have raised in response to that letter.  He is, it is thought, voicing their questions and objections back to them in at least the following verses: 1 Cor 6:12, 13; 7:1; 8:1, 8:4; 10:23; and 15:12.

But does this also include the following texts, which address the vexed question of women’s ministry in the church – 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:20-25; and 14:34-36?

Lucy Peppiatt thinks that it does, and sets out her case in her 2015 book Women and Worship at Corinth.

She contrasts a ‘rhetorical’ reading, as outlined above, with a ‘flat’ reading, which supposes that Paul is expressing his own views throughout.  She argues that, in a ‘flat’ reading, the texts are (a) self-contradictory, (b) inconsistent both with the overall message of Corinthians, and that (c) Paul’s larger argument reverses the hiearchical structure which these texts would others support.

Peppiatt notes that some scholars already employ a rhetorical reading of 1 Cor 14:33-37 (Paul’s opponents’ words in bold):

‘As in all the churches of the saints, 14:34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. 14:35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. 14:36 Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?
14:37 If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command.’

Similarly, Peppiatt argues, a rhetorical reading of 1 Cor 11:2-16 might be adopted:

’11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. 11:5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. 11:6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head. 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 11:9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man. 11:10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11:11 In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 11:12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God. 11:13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 11:16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.’

Peppiatt summarises her argument:

‘That Paul uses rhetoric in his letters is undisputed. That he uses a particular form of rhetoric in these three passages has not yet been generally accepted. I explore the possibility that within 11:2–16, 14:20–25, and 14:33b–36 there are Corinthian ideas, expressions, and theology that have been incorporated and woven into the text among Paul’s own ideas, expressions, and theology, and that Paul has done this in such a way as to construct powerful Pauline arguments against the Corinthian practices of head coverings for women, speaking in tongues all at once, and banning married women from speaking out in worship services. I demonstrate that reading Paul in this way not only yields coherent arguments within each passage itself, but that these arguments then accord with the letter as a whole, and with the theology found in the wider Pauline corpus. There are, therefore, many reasons, both negative and positive, for exploring a new solution to these passages.’

What was the Corinthian ‘problem’ that Paul was addressing in this letter?  It was not with the women, Peppiatt argues (against many interpreters) but with the men.  There were a number of problems with public worship:

‘The first is that women are being made to veil themselves when praying or prophesying, and being made to do so in a coercive manner.

‘The second is that the self-appointed male leaders are behaving selfishly and greedily at the Lord’s Supper.

‘The third is that the Corinthians (or some of them) are exercising spiritual gifts in a way that is unloving and unhelpful, possibly preventing others from taking part in bringing prophetic words, hymns, and revelations to the gathering, acting independently, or ignoring some parts of the body.

‘The fourth is that the “spiritual” tongues-speakers have implemented a strange practice of babbling in tongues all at once on the grounds that they believe this is a powerful witness to unbelievers.

‘The fifth and final problem is that the male leaders are subjecting married women to the requirement of remaining silent.

(Paragraphing added)

Peppiatt identifies three types of objection to the kind of rhetorical reading that she advocates:

1. Paul is committed to patriarchy and the silencing of women in church so there is no need to posit an alternative reading to 1 Cor 11:2–16 or 1 Cor 14:33b–36.’

In response, Peppiatt notes that:

‘In Romans the names Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis are mentioned (Rom 16:6, 12). He was happy with women as leaders of house churches (Lydia in Acts 16:14–15 and Phoebe in Rom 16:1). We know of Priscilla and Aquila, who were both leaders and who both discipled Apollos in the faith (Acts 18:26), and Phoebe, who led a church at Cenchreae (Rom 16:1). Paul refers to his friend and coworker Junia as an apostle (Rom 16:7). Furthermore, he is clearly happy with women prophesying and praying in public in Corinth, and obviously approving of Philip’s four daughters, who were known as prophets (Acts 21:9). Given the way in which he describes the gift of prophecy as being that which edifies the whole church, and given that he elevates the gift of prophecy above the gift of teaching (1 Cor 12:28 is expressed in terms of priority and precedence: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers), it would seem strange for him to implement a contradictory practice that women should stay silent.’

2.  There is nowhere else that Paul cites his opponents using such long passages.’

But this is to beg the question, replies Peppiatt.  We cannot decide beforehand, before examining the passages in question.

3. There is no signal within the text itself indicating that he might be referring to a Corinthian idea.’

True, says Peppiatt.  But this is also the case with the passages that are generally accepted as containing quotations from Paul’s opponents.

In a positive review of Peppiatt’s book, the author summarises where a rhetorical reading of this passage might take us:

1. Paul himself had long hair when he was in Corinth. Why then would he condemn long hair in men?
2. Paul contradicts himself within the passage: Are men independent of women, or are they interdependent?
3. Paul contradicts his own words later in the letter: Do women have to stay silent, or can they pray and prophesy with correct attire?
4. “Apostleship for Paul is marked by public dishonor and disgrace.” (p. 70) Why then does Paul appeal to shame and honor? Did he not say in the same letter that the apostles were disgraced before angels (1 Cor. 4:8–13)?
5. Even if we believed this was motivated by some local custom, historians do not point to any coherent custom in ancient Corinth regarding veils or hair.
6. Paul does quote his opponents elsewhere. “In sum, it seems that Paul does quote texts from others when composing his letters, and that he does not always signal those overtly with written cues . . .” (Campbell’s Deliverance, p. 541).
7. Paul mentioned the headship of Christ over men first. The order is not insignificant.
8. Paul used the word “nevertheless” (Gk. πλήν) in between two apparently contradictory passages.
9. Practically no church obeys the letter of 1 Corinthians 11, even though its argumentation is apparently rooted in the creation order, and therefore—according to Lucy Peppiatt and Michael Lakey—its commands should be considered transcultural if we choose the flat reading of the text.
10. Interpreting male headship as meaning “authority” (in v. 3) requires us to apply the same language to the Trinity, which leads to eternal functional subordination (EFS), which has been historically condemned as heresy.
11. Finally, we have no idea what is meant by the phrase, “because of the angels”! The line of thought drops off quite abruptly.