[Junia]

And then there is the question about verses 11-12. Not sure if anybody has mentioned that yet. How does that come into play?

"Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

Does the "nevertheless" here carry the same connotations in Greek as it does in English? Doesn't it mean "in spite of" or "however" when we use it today? If so, what does that mean, as it is connecting itself with the previous sentences? Is he contrasting a cultural idea with how the reality is while we are "In the Lord?" I don't know exactly how to interpret that.

[Don]

I read it as saying men and women are interdependent (and therefore neither is on top of the other).

1 Cor 11:1-16 is the pericope/teaching unit and is in the form of a chiasm with 1 Cor 11:10 being the center and therefore most important section.

[EricW]

A thought I've had:

I think a reason Christ came as a male was so God's salvation would be seen as involving and including both males and females. Had Christ, born of Mary, been a female, then salvation could be seen as being from and for and involving only females and the female nature.

But the male Christ was born of a woman. And as the first Eve was brought forth from the first Adam, so the second or last Adam was brought forth from the second Eve (as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches regard Mary). 1 Corinthians 11:12.

I think people should sometimes step back from the few specific texts that are always debated in Comp-Egal arguments and look at the larger picture of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, and what these things accomplished and mean.*

From such a larger perspective, I think patriarchal hierarchicalism begins to look not only silly but contrary to the entirety of the Christ event and what it accomplished and fulfilled and will completely accomplish and fulfill.

* I.e., assess things from the perspective of the New Creation (HT to Daniel Kirk for this thought 4/28 at CBE Houston).

[TL]

good points, Eric.

[Marg]

And then there is the question about verses 11-12. Not sure if anybody has mentioned that yet. How does that come into play?

"Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

Does the "nevertheless" here carry the same connotations in Greek as it does in English? Doesn't it mean "in spite of" or "however" when we use it today? If so, what does that mean, as it is connecting itself with the previous sentences? Is he contrasting a cultural idea with how the reality is while we are "In the Lord?" I don't know exactly how to interpret that.

The Greek word plēn can be translated as "nevertheless" or "indeed", etc.

I'll quote a few ideas from BDAG about the use of this adverb:

• Used to mark something that is contrastingly added for consideration.
  Used when breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important.
  Used when breaking off a subject and passing onto a new one.
  Used to mark an exception.

It is not entirely clear in what sense Paul used plēn, except perhaps that he used it to draw attention to this verse.

Some people see a chiasm in 1 Cor 11. But views differ about where exactly the climax is.  I might look into this.

I love Eric's idea.  Lots of food for thought there!   

[Don]

Ken Bailey says the middle of the chiasm is 1 Cor 11:10.

[Junia]

The Greek word plēn can be translated as "nevertheless" or "indeed", etc.

I'll quote a few ideas from BDAG about the use of this adverb:

• Used to mark something that is contrastingly added for consideration.
  Used when breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important.
  Used when breaking off a subject and passing onto a new one.
  Used to mark an exception.

It is not entirely clear in what sense Paul used plēn, except perhaps that he used it to draw attention to this verse.

Thanks, Marg. The way I read it is either the first or the last use. It seems like either a contrast or an exception to me, when compared to what he has just said in the previous verses. But I could be way off!

[Victorious]

A thought I've had:

I think a reason Christ came as a male was so God's salvation would be seen as involving and including both males and females. Had Christ, born of Mary, been a female, then salvation could be seen as being from and for and involving only females and the female nature.

But the male Christ was born of a woman. And as the first Eve was brought forth from the first Adam, so the second or last Adam was brought forth from the second Eve (as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches regard Mary). 1 Corinthians 11:12.

I love this thought, Eric!  Thank you.  Makes sense.

[EricW]

FYI, here is the full BDAG entry with examples/references:

πλήν

1 adv. used as conj. (Trag.+), coming at the beginning of a sentence or clause: marker of someth. that is contrastingly added for consideration
ⓐ adversative but: μὲν … πλήν (indeed) … but (s. B-D-F §447, 6; Rob. 1187) Lk 22:22.
ⓑ only, nevertheless, but (πλήν rather than ἀλλά is the real colloq. word for this idea [Schmid I 133]), so in Mt and Lk but not in Ac (B-D-F §449, 1.—See L-S-J-M s.v. B III 2) πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν nevertheless I tell you Mt 11:22, 24 (ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν in the corresp. pass. Mt 10:15); 26:64 (Mt 17:12 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν; Mk 9:13 ἀλλὰ λέγω ὑμῖν; cp. ApcMos 39 πλὴν οὖν λέγω σοι). πλὴν οὐαί Mt 18:7; Lk 17:1 (οὐαὶ δὲ v.l.). πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλʼ ὡς σύ Mt 26:39; cp. Lk 22:42 (Mk 14:36 ἀλλʼ οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω).—Lk 6:24, 35; 10:11, 14, 20; 11:41; 13:33; 18:8; 19:27; 22:21.—Also looking back at a neg. (TestZeb 1:5; JosAs 23:15; ApcMos 19; Just., D. 44, 2; 88, 7; 93, 1): μὴ κλαίετε ἐπʼ ἐμέ, πλὴν ἐφʼ ἑαυτὰς κλαίετε do not weep for me, but (rather) weep for yourselves Lk 23:28. μὴ ζητεῖτε … πλὴν ζητεῖτε 12:(29–) 31.
ⓒ only, in any case, on the other hand, but, breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important (JosAs 14:9; Mel., P. 95, 729; UPZ 110, 207 [164 b.c.]; Sb 6994, 28; B-D-F §449, 2; Rob. 1187; s. L-S-J-M s.v. B III 2), so in Paul 1 Cor 11:11; Eph 5:33; Phil 3:16; 4:14. Perh. 1:18 τί γάρ; πλὴν ὅτι … what then? In any case … (but the text is not certain; s. also d); Rv 2:25.
ⓓ πλὴν ὅτι except that (Aristoph., Pla., Hdt. et al.; Hero Alex. I p. 188, 1; Dionys. Hal., Comp. Verb. 14, end; Plut., Cato Maj. 350 [23, 6]; Just., A I, 21, 4; D. 71, 3; Schwyzer II 543) Ac 20:23. Perh. also Phil 1:18 (s. c above) τί γὰρ πλὴν ὅτι … ; what then will come of it, except that … ?
ⓔ breaking off and passing to a new subject only, but (exx. in L-S-J-M πλήν B III 2.—Polyb. 2, 17, 1; Plut., Pericl. 170 [34, 1]; Tat. 36, 1 begin new sections with πλήν) πλὴν ἰδοὺ ἡ χεὶρ κτλ. but here is (my informer’s) hand with mine on the table (the narration passes from the institution of the Eucharist to a prediction of Judas’s role as informer) Lk 22:21.

2 used as prep. w. gen. as marker denoting an exception, except, in ref. to pers. or thing (since Od. 8, 207; ins, pap, LXX [Johannessohn, Präp. 342–44; Schwyzer II 542]; TestSol 13:12 C; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 22 [Stone p. 18]; TestIss 7:2; JosAs 2:16; 5:10; ApcSed; Ar. 15, 3; Just., A I, 53, 6 al.; B-D-F §216, 2; Rob. 646 [cp. the use of παρὰ w. acc. in this sense Plut., Cat. Min. 768 (20), Ant. 918 (5); s. L-S-J-M παρὰ C III 5b]) mostly after neg. statements: Mk 12:32 (οὐκ ἄλλος πλήν as Jos., Ant. 1, 182); J 8:10 v.l.; Ac 15:28; 27:22. After a positive statement (Thu. 4, 54, 2; X., An. 2, 4, 27; Appian, Liby. 14 §59; Jos., Ant. 12, 422 ἔφυγον πάντες πλὴν ὀκτακοσίων) Ac 8:1.—DELG. M-M.

[TL]

that was helpful, Eric.