Abstract
To divided Christ-followers in first century Corinth Paul declares: âyou are the body of Christâ (1 Corinthians 12:27, 12-27) in order to call them to unity. Similarly, âbody of Christâ metaphors are often reiterated within present-day ecclesial conflicts: they are perennially used to persuade people to interdependence. Yet at play in such calls for interdependence are power dynamics which risk the âbodyâ becoming unified despite diversity rather than through diversity. This paper, resourced by feminist interpretive approaches and cognitive metaphor theories, interrogates such dynamics by imagining the meanings made by women in the Corinthian ekklÄsia with Paulâs âbody of Christâ metaphors â specifically Chloe, a freedwoman and an influential figure within the Corinthian ekklÄsia (1 Corinthians 1:11). Imagining her meaning-making resists the perpetuation of perceptions of superiority and inferiority through âbody of Christâ metaphors by centring someone who may have been considered a âweaker partâ of the âbodyâ â a reading which illumines the âbody of Christâ metaphors as a potential site of challenge and negotiation of ecclesial relationships.
In 1 Corinthians Paul describes the ekklÄsia, the gathering of Christ-followers in Corinth, in terms of âthe body of Christâ (1 Corinthians 12:12-27, and 6:15; 10:14-17; 11:29). 1 1 Corinthians is Paulâs (and Sosthenesâ) response to disagreements arising within the Corinthian ekklÄsia which were dividing parts of the Corinthian âbodyâ from each other. 2 The causes of these divisions were multifaceted. As is widely recognised, gender was a factor: disagreement about gendered relationships and practices caused fractiousness (as evidenced by 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 and 11:2-16). âWomanâ, Î³Ï Î½Î®, appears thirty-six times through 1 Corinthians: through the rest of Paulâs undisputed letters, Î³Ï Î½Î® appears twice. 3 Comparative to other ekklÄsiai with which Paul interacted, Paul perceived women â more specifically, some practices adopted by some women in Corinth â to be an issue to which he needed to respond as part of his persuasion of the Corinthians to unifying relationships in Christ. 4
One persuasive strategy was his refiguring of established Greco-Roman society as body metaphors around Christ. 5 society as body metaphors were deployed in political contexts to persuade people to unifying interdependence rather than fracturing conflict: there are attestations of the society as a body metaphor from the 5th or 4th century BCE through the 2nd century CE. A frequently discussed iteration of the society as a body metaphor in Paul and âbody of Christâ scholarship is the fable of the members and the belly, associated with Menenius Agrippa (for examples, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 6.86-87; Plutarch, Lives: Caius Marcius Coriolanus, 6.1-7.2; Livy, History of Rome, 2.32.7-33.1). 6 Paul relies on the same society as a body metaphorical structure to construct relationships of interdependence â but does so on the basis of Christ rather than on the basis of a political state.
Many lesbians, gays, bisexuals and others have experienced [their exclusion by the Church of England from some forms of intimate relationships] as a relegation to second-class status and as a denial that they can belong as fully as others to the body of Christ. 7
The âbody of Christâ metaphor is invoked from the perspective of those of marginalised sexualities to articulate experiences of exclusionary power dynamics, and to prompt reflection on diverse peopleâs belonging to the âbodyâ of which the Church of England espouses to be a part. Another example: A. D. A. France-Williams, writing against systemic racism, laments the disregard of minority ethnic members of the Church of England with a comment on 1 Corinthians 12:25-26. He writes: âthe fear of a loss of power and status and the certainty of white superiority lead toâ¦an attack on the parts in pain unaware that we are all part of a larger whole.â 8 The painful experience of systemic racism is brought into dialogue with the âbody of Christâ metaphors. Where Paul states that each âbody partâ suffers with those who suffer, France-Williams identifies a lack of co-suffering and mutual empathy within the church. Interpreting Paulâs âbody of Christâ metaphors through lived experience highlights the fractures that can happen when relationships are not ones of unifying interdependence â and prompts a challenge to reconsider how relationships in Christâs âbodyâ can be constructed.
These brief examples demonstrate how the âbody of Christâ metaphor is today a resource for challenge. Both examples are from the perspectives of people seeking to negotiate belonging within the âbodyâ in the face of exclusionary power. Both question the âbody of Christâ metaphors through their experiences, so creating new, challenging meanings with the metaphors. Similarly, Paulâs readers and hearers in first-century Corinth brought their experiences to Paulâs âbodyâ metaphors and made their own meanings through them. To explore how Paulâs âbody of Christâ metaphors may have been challenged by the experiences of his readers and hearers, I imaginatively reconstruct Chloe as an influential freedwoman within the Corinthian ekklÄsia and seek to read Paulâs âbody of Christâ metaphors from her perspective, the perspective of someone differently embodied and situated than Paul. 9 Chloeâs experiences and meaning-making likely challenged the ways in which Paul constructed relationships of unifying interdependence through the âbody of Christâ metaphors of 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, illumining the idealistic (rather than realistic) and hierarchical character of his construction. The âbody of Christâ metaphors are thus a resource for challenge and negotiation between âlimbs and organsâ, between different people â or bodies â who made (and make) up the âbody of Christâ. 10
1 Imagining Chloe
Little is known about Chloe. She is mentioned once in 1 Corinthians 1:11: âChloeâs people have informed me that there are quarrels among youâ. Because little is stated about her, interpretive choices abound â including whether Chloe and her people lived in Corinth or Ephesus, and therefore what her standing was in relation to the Corinthian ekklÄsia. Those who locate Chloe in Ephesus 11 or who are ambivalent about her location 12 tend not to reconstruct her as influential â rather, as incidental. On such readings Chloeâs people are not infrequently characterised as gossiping with Paul whilst in Ephesus at the same time as him: Chloeâs peopleâs report has been described as âgossipâ, as giving Paul an âearfulâ, or as carried out in an âalarmistâ tone. 13 Such a use of gendered terms to characterise their report is striking: in the hypothetical situation that Paul cited the (male) Apollosâ people, it is unlikely that their report would be characterised as âgossipâ: âgossipâ tends to be used as a gendered term referring, often negatively, to womenâs speech. 14 Because âChloeâ is a womanâs name her people are sometimes characterised in gendered (and negative) terms. The characterisation of her peopleâs speech as âgossipâ implies that they and Chloe stand at a distance from the Corinthian ekklÄsia: they are imagined to gossip about it with Paul rather than intentionally share their concerns. Choice is involved in characterising Chloe and Chloeâs people as incidental to the Corinthian ekklÄsia. That these choices are partially made on the basis of unconscious bias is not unusual: lack of information invites the interpreterâs imagination, guided by their presuppositions, to fill in the blanks.
Yet there are alternative choices that can be made regarding Chloe and her people â choices which reject the negative descriptor of âgossipâ and the construal of women as marginal to the circumstances evidenced by 1 Corinthians. Instead, Chloe can be imaginatively reconstructed as a woman of influence and intention within the Corinthian ekklÄsia and its conflicts. Locating Chloe in Corinth tends to cohere with reconstructions of her as influential within the Corinthian ekklÄsia â which also tend to be reconstructions from feminist or womanist perspectives 15 (male scholars rarely take this position 16 ). The following discusses two such imaginative reconstructions â that of Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza and Mitzi J. Smith. Both of their Chloes are plausible, grounded in the available evidence regarding Chloe and her first-century Corinthian context. The Chloes of their historical imaginations differ, however: Schüssler-Fiorenza imagines Chloe as an authority figure equivalent to Apollos, Cephas, and Paul (1 Corinthians 1:12) and her people as the âofficial delegationâ from the Corinthians to Paul. 17 Smith similarly imagines Chloe as an influential leader within the Corinthian ekklÄsia, equivalent to male leaders â yet characterises her as acting âunofficiallyâ as intermediary between Paul and the Corinthians. Smithâs imagination of the unofficial nature of Chloeâs peopleâs communication with Paul coheres with her choice to reconstruct Chloe as a slave-owning freedwoman: her people were enslaved members of her household who speak with Paul as informants regarding the Corinthian situation, rather than as an official delegation. 18 I choose to work with Smithâs imaginative reconstruction of Chloe and her people, exploring Chloeâs experiences both as influential figure within the ekklÄsia and as slave-owning freedwoman â experiences which challenged Paulâs construction of relationships through âbody of Christâ metaphors (1 Corinthians 12:12-27).
1.1 Schüssler-Fiorenzaâs and Smithâs âChloesâ
Schüssler-Fiorenza imaginatively reconstructs Chloe as powerful within the Corinthian ekklÄsia by drawing a parallel between the possessive genitives ΧλÏÎ·Ï and ΠαÏÎ»Î¿Ï , á¼Ïολλῶ, ÎηÏᾶ, ΧÏιÏÏοῦ: as Paul characterises Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ as having âfollowersâ within the Corinthian divisions, so also Chloe. In contrast, the phrase used in Romans 16:10, 11 â ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á¼Îº Ïῶν á¼ÏιÏÏοβοÏÎ»Î¿Ï / ÎαÏκίÏÏÎ¿Ï â refers to members of Narcissusâ and Aristobulusâ households: as Paul does not use the same for Chloe, Schüssler-Fiorenza contends, âher peopleâ are not members of her household but rather her followers. 19 Schüssler-Fiorenza thus disallows offhanded characterisations of Chloeâs peopleâs report as incidental or gossipy: indeed, she critiques such language (albeit to limited effect, as several uses of âgossipâ post-date her critique). 20 Rather, if Chloeâs people were Chloeâs âfollowersâ (as Schüssler-Fiorenza chooses to imagine), then their report was likely intentional. She further suggests that these followers of Chloe were âthe official messengers of the communityâ, not only speaking with Paul but also delivering the Corinthiansâ letter to him: their journey to Paul was undertaken with the intention of both delivering the letter and conversationally sharing concerns about the situation.
Such a reconstruction demonstrates plausible alternative choices about Chloeâs identity, motivated by a re-examination of assumptions underlying characterisations of her (and women in general) as incidental. Yet, whilst Schüssler-Fiorenzaâs rejection of Chloeâs people as incidental is compelling, characterising them as the âofficial delegationâ from the Corinthians minimises the differences between Paulâs references to Stephanas, Fortunatas, and Achaicus (1 Corinthians 16:15-18) and to Chloeâs people (1 Corinthians 1:11). Paul effusively lauds and commends Stephanas, Fortunatas and Achaicus by name; he neutrally and minimally references Chloeâs unnamed people as informants. He encourages submission to Stephanas and his household, âthe first converts in Achaiaâ (16:15) whom Paul baptised (1:16); he does not encourage submission to Chloeâs people. The most plausible reason for these contrasts is that Stephanas et al officially represented the Corinthian ekklÄsia to Paul, staying for an extended time with Paul in Ephesus and delivering their letter to him and his back to the Corinthians (16:17-18). 21 It can further be inferred from Paulâs commendation that Stephanas was a powerful person or leader within the ekklÄsia, a person with whom Paul may have worked as he preached in Corinth. Paulâs alignment with him may have been strategic on two levels: firstly, aligning himself with Stephanas may have shored up his own authority, ensuring the effective reception of his letter; 22 secondly, identifying a household to which the Corinthians should submit may have been a strategy to mitigate divisiveness around leaders described in 1:10-12. 23 Paul did not align himself with Chloeâs people: he cites them as a source of information but does not elevate them as he does Stephanas et al. Schüssler-Fiorenzaâs imagination of Chloe and Chloeâs people resists relegation of them to a marginal position. Yet, contra Schüssler-Fiorenza, they were not the âofficial delegationâ to Paul and neither were Chloeâs people necessarily her âfollowersâ (Schüssler-Fiorenza overstates the difference between the language of 1 Corinthians 1:10-12 and Romans 16:10-11).
An alternative: Smith imagines Chloe as a leader within the Corinthian ekklÄsia, reading Chloeâs name as juxtaposed with the names of Apollos/Cephas/Paul/Christ. Yet, Smith also reads Chloeâs people not as her âfollowersâ but as âenslaved persons who act as her representatives or messengersâ. 24 Smith contends that Chloe was a freedwoman who owned enslaved people â an imaginative reconstruction driven in part by Smithâs womanist critique of inattentiveness to Corinthian enslaved and freedwomen in scholarship on 1 Corinthians. Smith responds to this inattentiveness by imagining Chloe as a âquasi-independent, well-connected, gifted freedwoman and slave mistress/enslaverâ on two bases. 25 First, Smith contextualises Corinth as a Roman colony which was âheavily populated with freedpersonsâ. 26 Second, she observes that the name âChloeâ was often given to enslaved women. 27 These two pieces of evidence make plausible an imaginative reconstruction of Chloe as freedwoman. Smithâs reconstruction of Chloe is compelling not only on the basis of this evidence â but also on the basis of its responsiveness to scholarly inattentiveness to enslaved and free(d) people in first-century Corinth and the intersection of slave/free status with gender identity. My choice to work with Smithâs imagination of Chloe is partially driven by the importance of attending to such intersecting identities and power dynamics. I am white: I am a not a womanist scholar; yet as a feminist biblical interpreter my job is to attend to intersecting systems of power insofar as I am able â not just those which relate to gender.
1.2 A Complex Chloe: Influential Leader and Freedwoman
Imaginatively reconstructed both as influential and as slave-owning freedwoman, Chloe occupied a complex social position within the ekklÄsia. On the one hand, she was not on the side-lines of the conflict in Corinth but intimately involved and invested in it. Chloe had some form of leadership or influence within the Corinthian ekklÄsia â an imaginative reconstruction strengthened by noting the likelihood of women leaders within the Corinthian ekklÄsia, given Paulâs naming of Chloe (and later Prisca, 16:19) and the ways in which Paul responds to womenâs practices of choosing celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 and choosing to unveil their heads whilst praying and prophesying in 11:2-16. 28 There were women choosing to practice their freedom and faith in Christ in ways which Paul perceived as fracturing the âbodyâ of the ekklÄsia: it is plausible to imagine that Chloe, a woman named by him as a source of information about the Corinthian situation, was a leader or influential figure within such a group of women making those choices. 29 Antoinette Clark Wireâs reconstruction of a group she terms the âCorinthian women prophetsâ further contextualises Chloeâs position of influence within the ekklÄsia. Wire contends that women, coming from a different social position than Paul, experienced their belonging to the ekklÄsia as something which brought them freedom and a higher status â rather than suffering and a lower status, as Paul often describes his own experiences of following Christ (for example, in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33). 30 In the ekklÄsia in Christ Chloe gained rather than lost freedom and status. 31
Yet, even given freedom within the ekklÄsia, imagining Chloe as freedwoman also places her in a precarious social position. To be freed (rather than freeborn) was to be associated with the stigma of enslavement. Her freedom as a formerly enslaved woman was ârelative, contextual, and never absoluteâ â even within the ekklÄsia. 32 Further, being freed did not automatically instantiate the embodiment of freedom: freed peopleâs âbodies, habituated by a lifetime of slavery, conveyed a sense of continuing subordination.â 33 The embodied habits of subordination and attendant postures of deference or fear carry through the process of becoming a freedperson and through the process of becoming a part of the ekklÄsia: Chloeâs body was freed yet habituated, formed, by her experiences as an enslaved woman. 34
Such habits of subordination can be further characterised through evidence that enslaved people were described as objects subsumed into their enslaversâ purposes, their bodies described as tools. Aristotle describes enslaved people as instruments: âFor master and slave have nothing in common: a slave is a living tool [á¼Î¼ÏÏ Ïον á½Ïγανον], just as a tool is an inanimate slave [á½Ïγανον á¼ÏÏ ÏοÏ]â. 35 Similarly Varro (De Re Rustica 1.17.1) describes enslaved people as the âspeaking sortâ of tool in order to differentiate them from other objects and instruments which are mute (carts or vehicles) and semi-mute (animals). 36 Enslaved people were reduced to function â to things, objects, or commodities. An extension of such descriptions are descriptions of enslaved people as âbodiesâ: Jennifer Glancy observes that Ïὸ Ïῶμα âfunctioned as a synonym for ho doulos, âslaveââ. 37 Wills and property listings evidence this use of âbodyâ: enslaved people are listed less as people and more as things. 38 Enslaved people were also described in terms of âbody partsâ â a metaphor which describes enslaved people in terms of their relation to their enslaver. Descriptions of Pliny the Elder reference enslaved people who bathed him, read to him, wrote for him, carried him around Rome. 39 These functions are subsumed into the person of Pliny: the uncredited work of enslaved people is what enables his productivity. Sarah Blake summarises: âThe slaves that attend Plinyâs body might be best understood as âprosthetic limbsââ¦The texts produced by Pliny the Author are no less his own because they have passed through slave eyes, ears, and hands.â 40 Blake also discusses the poetry of Martial, one poem of which describes an enslaved stenographer in terms of a âhandâ fused to the purposeful body of their enslaver whose âtongueâ dictates what they as âhandâ must transcribe: âAs fast as the words may run, the hand is swifter; the right hand is finished, though the tongue is not yet done.â 41 Enslaved people are described in terms of âbody partsâ in these and other texts â evidencing that this was a metaphor which structured thought, perception, and action regarding enslaved people.
Describing enslaved people as âbodiesâ or âbody partsâ illumines how they were thought of and acted towards by those who owned them â as instruments subsumed into their ownersâ actions and purposes. Being described thus likely shaped the self-perception and action of enslaved people: even though descriptions of enslaved people do not reflect the lived experiences of enslaved people (as they are texts authored by free rather than enslaved people), 42 it follows that if such a metaphor structured the thought, perception, and action of the free in relation to the enslaved it structured the thought, perception, and action of the enslaved in relation to the free. Chloeâs formation of self through being treated and described as a âbodyâ or âbody partâ when she was enslaved was an experience which she brought with her as she heard Paulâs letter to the Corinthians.
She also brought her experiences of finding freedom. She was freed from enslavement, even whilst the ambiguity and stigma of being a freed person persisted and even whilst there was a further complexity in that she owned enslaved people. 43 She also found freedom within the Corinthian ekklÄsia: per both Schüssler-Fiorenzaâs and Smithâs imaginative reconstructions of Chloe, she held a position of influence within that emergent network of relationships, and within the group of women who chose to practice their freedom in Christ in part through choosing celibacy and choosing to unveil their heads during prophecy and prayer. Reading Paulâs metaphors from Chloeâs perspective is to read them from a perspective very different than his: Paul was a freeborn man; Chloe was a formerly enslaved woman. Such different perspectives illumine contrasts in meanings constructed through âbody of Christâ metaphors by different meaning-makers. After contextualising 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, the following seeks to read the âbody of Christâ metaphors with Chloe, highlighting three details of those metaphors which may have been particularly resonant to her. Reading with Chloeâs (imagined) perspective highlights how reading the âbody of Christâ metaphors through diverse lived experiences challenges the ways in which Paul seeks to construct relationships of unifying interdependence in Christ.
2 Paulâs âBody of Christâ Metaphors
Paulâs âbodyâ metaphors of 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 are set within a discussion of spiritual gifts. 44 In the context of disputes about the relative value of different gifts, Paul describes the ekklÄsia in terms of a physical body and people within that ekklÄsia in terms of physical body parts â and even further, in terms of the body parts of a specific person, Christ. Paul introduces the âbodyâ metaphors in 1 Corinthians 12:12: âJust as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so also Christ.â Paul initially identifies Christ as that which is being described in terms of a âbodyâ, clarifying in 12:13 that the ekklÄsia is being described in terms of âChristâ: âFor we were all baptized by one spirit so as to form one body â whether Jew or Gentile, whether slave or free.â âChristâ is made up of many parts âforâ (or âbecauseâ) âweâ were baptized by his spirit: âweâ, the individuals of the ekklÄsia, become Christâs âone bodyâ. Concluding the âbodyâ metaphors, 12:27 affirms that the ekklÄsia is described in terms of Christâs body: between 12:12 and 12:27 Paul does not mention Christ; Christ reappears in 12:27 as a gathering of the âbodyâ metaphors into one statement. âWeâ becomes âyouâ, confirming that Paul in 12:12 was describing the ekklÄsia in terms of a body of many parts. âBodyâ, âChristâ, and âweâ or âyouâ are brought together into a metaphor through which Paul constructs relationships of unifying interdependence in Christâs âbodyâ between divided âlimbs and organsâ of the Corinthian ekklÄsia.
Between the introduction and conclusion of the metaphors, Paul describes âbody partsâ speaking to each other (12:15-24a), in some cases voicing their lack of a sense of belonging because they are not like other, seemingly more valuable, âbody partsâ (12:15-17); in other cases voicing a rejection of other âbody partsâ due to their perception that they are less valuable (12:21-24a). Paul rejects both attitudes and affirms that each âlimb and organâ is necessary to the âbodyâ, placed according to Godâs desire (12:18, 24b-25). As Chloe heard these metaphors she made meaning with them â meaning shaped by her own embodied experiences and situatedness within her networks of relationships. The following discusses three ways in which Chloeâs embodied experiences and situatedness challenged and problematised Paulâs idealistic construction that in the âbody of Christâ all âlimbs and organsâ interdependently related to one another in unity. Reading with Chloeâs perspective in response to Paulâs persuasive strategy illumines the âbodyâ metaphors as a resource for multiple meaning-making and negotiation â an opportunity for dialogue which integrates multiple perspectives into constructing relationships within the âbody of Christâ.
3 Chloeâs Meaning-Making
3.1 Body Parts and Enslavement
the partitioning of the body gestures to something darkly familiar: the ways in which she [Blandina, with whom Moss imagines hearing these metaphors] and others were imagined and described as biological appendages to the bodies of their âmasters.â â¦Although Paul drew upon existing understandings of the city as body, his description also mirrored the social structures and fictions of enslavement. 45
Moss further imagines how the repeated use of âhandâ as a metaphor through 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 may evidence an enslaved scribe inserting themselves and their experiences into Paulâs âbody of Christâ metaphors. Whilst this imagination is a stretch, Mossâ exploration of the language of ownership highlights how the logic and language of enslavement is embedded within the language of being the âbody parts of Christâ. Just as enslaved people were described as âbody partsâ of their enslavers, limbs which enacted and extended their enslaversâ purposes, so Paul describes Christ-followers as the limbs of Christ which enact Christâs purposes within the world. Such resonances become particularly noticeable when seeking to read with Chloe as freedwoman.
It is also plausible that as a slave-owning freedwoman Chloe had a complex relationship with this language: whilst she was no longer the âbody partâ of another, she owned people whom she could treat as âbody partsâ of herself. Chloe had a higher status than enslaved members of her household, even within the ekklÄsia: Paulâs reference to Chloeâs people names Chloe but does not name her people, suggesting that she as freedwoman was perceived to have a higher status than her enslaved people. Glancy notes that this dynamic plays out in baptism practices within the earliest ekklÄsiai: enslaved members of households were baptised not necessarily due to their own choice, but due to the choice of their owners for their whole households to be baptised. 46 This could have been the case for Chloeâs people: despite Paulâs statement at the opening of the âthe body of Christâ metaphors that all were baptised into one body âwhether enslaved or freeâ (12:13), there was yet a hierarchy of power embedded in the relationships between enslaved, freed, and free people within the ekklÄsia. Being described in terms of âbody parts of Christâ reinforces such a hierarchy, as particularly noticeable when reading from the complex perspective of Chloe as a slave-owning freedwoman.
3.2 Body Parts and Hierarchy
Second, Chloeâs position as one amongst the women who were choosing to unveil their heads whilst praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) might have made her particularly sensitive to the language of feet and head, κεÏαλή, in 12:21. 47 Outside of 1 Corinthians 11, Paulâs use of κεÏαλή in 12:21 is one of only two other uses of the term in the undisputed Pauline letters. 48 Paul contrasts head with feet in order to instruct the head, the seemingly powerful people within the Corinthian ekklÄsia, to not reject the feet from the âbodyâ, the seemingly weaker people. Whilst Paul does not specify who in Corinth he is thinking of in terms of âheadâ and âfeetâ, to hear this contrast may have evoked for Chloe Paulâs previous construction of a hierarchical relationship between men with women in 11:3. 49 Part of Paulâs response to women unveiling (11:2-16) was the establishment of hierarchy, in which God is the κεÏαλή of Christ, Christ the κεÏαλή of man, man the κεÏαλή of woman, and woman the κεÏαλή ofâ¦no one (11:3). 50 Because of this hierarchy, women should veil their heads to honour their heads â which were not their own physical heads, but (according to Paul) were their men. If men were the head of women, were women the feet of Christâs body in 12:21?
Even though Paulâs admonishment in 12:21 to the head not to reject the feet appears positive, it nevertheless affirms a hierarchy between head and feet â a hierarchy that, due to 11:2-16, carries with it a gendered resonance which is particularly apparent when reading with Chloe. Paul contrasts head and feet without challenging the premise of superiority and inferiority between those âbody partsâ. Even if he does so because that reflects some of the Corinthiansâ attitudes towards each other that he refutes, he still perpetuates the superiority of the head and the inferiority of the feet, even if the head is instructed to stop saying to the feet that they are unneeded. To Chloe, having heard an association of men with âheadâ and women (by implication) with âfeetâ, Paulâs âbodyâ metaphor might have sounded like affirmation of hierarchy â a metaphor which constructs interdependent relationships by encouraging each âbody partâ to keep to its fixed place and respect the fixed places of others, places seemingly here instantiated on gendered hierarchy. Seeking to hear with Chloeâs ears highlights such a resonance between 11:3 and 12:21, 51 problematising Paulâs construction of interdependence through the âbodyâ metaphors by identifying a way in which hierarchy is embedded within that interdependence â in this case, a gendered hierarchy already established in 11:3.
3.3 Co-feeling Across Divinely-Ordered Difference
Reading with Chloeâs experiences has so far highlighted hierarchies between members of the ekklÄsia â hierarchies along the axes of the logic and language of enslavement enslaved/free(d) statuses and gendered difference. These hierarchies were somewhat reinforced by Paulâs description of people in terms of different âbody parts of Christâ: to be described as âbody partsâ is (in Mossâ words) âdarkly familiarâ perhaps to enslaved or freed people, resonating with the precarity of being described and treated as the âbody partâ of an enslaver; to hear language of âheadâ and âfeetâ recalls the gendered hierarchy Paul establishes in 11:3. Such reinforcement is made even more forceful by the theological rationale which Paul gives for this arrangement of Christâs âbody partsâ: God has placed (Ïίθημι) each âbody partâ (12:18) and has âput the body togetherâ (ÏÏ Î³ÎºÎµÏÎ¬Î½Î½Ï Î¼Î¹; 12:24b). The verb ÏÏ Î³ÎºÎµÏÎ¬Î½Î½Ï Î¼Î¹ is elsewhere used to describe painters mixing colours, composers writing harmonies, and divine agencies compounding the elements of a body into one. Paulâs language of Ïίθημι and ÏÏ Î³ÎºÎµÏÎ¬Î½Î½Ï Î¼Î¹ constructs God as the one who places, orders, and arranges people in Christâs body. Through this claim, Paul lends divine authority to his metaphors â and so to his construction of relationships within the ekklÄsia.
Third, then, given such theologically-justified, hierarchical resonances embedded in Paulâs construction of relationships through the âbody of Christâ metaphors, how might his description of âbody parts of Christâ co-feeling have sounded to Chloe? Paul states towards the end of the metaphors: âIf one part suffers, every part suffers; if one part rejoices or is honoured, praised, congratulated, so every partâ (12:26). ÏάÏÏÏ and ÏÏ Î¼ÏάÏÏÏ mean âsufferâ and âsuffer withâ respectively. 52 Î´Î¿Î¾Î¬Î¶Ï and ÏÏ Î³ÏαίÏÏ are more difficult to translate. According to some interpreters, this difficulty is heightened within the context of a âbodyâ metaphor: some find it difficult to understand âbody partsâ âbeing glorifiedâ or ârejoicing withâ each other; co-suffering is easier to understand in terms of a âbodyâ and its âpartsâ. The metaphor is sometimes therefore described as breaking down at this point (12:26); for example, C.K. Barrett comments that the âphysiological metaphorâ of the body here âfailsâ, on the grounds that body parts are incapable of âbeing glorifiedâ or ârejoicingâ. 53 Yet if all terms together refer to âco-feelingâ, both in terms of suffering or pain and of joy or pleasure, they describe peopleâs emotional relationships to each other in terms of the language of how the parts of a physical body co-feel. The metaphor of a âbodyâ continues to structure how Paul is thinking of the ekklÄsia even in 12:26. 54 Within Paulâs construction of relationships through the metaphor of a âbodyâ, interdependence is so inherent, so close, that a handâs suffering means an eyeâs suffering, and a toeâs rejoicing means an earlobeâs rejoicing. To Paul, the suffering of the weakest members of the ekklÄsia means the suffering of the strongest members â and similarly for joy. 55
Yet for Chloe and others like her, perhaps placed on the back foot by the hierarchies reinforced through the âbody of Christâ metaphors thus far, how realistic was âco-feelingâ? Could a freedwoman rejoice with the enslaved people who were a part of her household, given the imbalance of power between them? Could Chloe imagine Paul co-suffering alongside her as his language of âbody partsâ unsettled her, recalling her experiences of enslavement? Could she imagine mutual empathy between men and women of the ekklÄsia, given that the relationship between men and women was a focal point of disagreement within the Corinthian ekklÄsia, and constructed by Paul to be hierarchical? At this point, reading with Chloe becomes for me a series of questions as I seek to imagine myself into her shoes and emotions â questions which circle around themes of whether unity within and belonging to Christâs âbodyâ was (and is) achievable in contexts of power imbalances between differently embodied and situated people. Chloeâs experiences highlight hierarchical resonances and structures within Paulâs metaphors, raising potentially sharp questions about whether she could really belong to the ekklÄsia in a way which results in co-feeling with other members of Christâs body, as described by Paul in 12:26. Perhaps to Paulâs idealism Chloeâs experiences brought realism: whilst the ideal may have been for members of the ekklÄsia â âwhether enslaved or freeâ (12:13) â to be bound together in Christâs âbodyâ by unifying, interdependent relationships, the reality was that intersecting identities and power dynamics made this a fractious endeavour.
4 Bodies of Christ: Concluding Questions
Chloe and Paul plausibly made contrasting meanings of âbody of Christâ metaphors, shaped by their different embodied experiences and situatedness within their contexts. My reconstruction and reading with Chloe is just one way of imagining and empathising with her: a different interpretation of the evidence for Chloeâs embodied experiences and situatedness may result in a different reading of Paulâs âbodyâ metaphors from Chloeâs perspective. Yet, seeking to read Paulâs âbody of Christâ metaphors from a first-century perspective different to his models how reading these metaphors can resource twenty-first-century ecclesiological thinking as a site of challenge, conversation, and negotiation within our own contexts of difference and diversity.
I offer the following questions to prompt such thinking. First, how might diverse experiences and situatedness of churchgoers today make new meanings with âbody of Christâ metaphors? What experiences might we each bring that challenges how interdependence is structured by the âbody of Christâ metaphors? Second, how can we listen and empathise with each otherâs perspectives, as we have sought to hear the âbodyâ metaphors âwithâ Chloe? Did Chloe or her contemporaries within the Corinthian ekklÄsia share their meaning-making with Paul, and what might that dialogue have looked like? What might our dialogue look like, as we integrate diverse and multiple meanings into our understanding of the âbody of Christâ?
I suggest that seeking to read âbody of Christâ metaphors with an openness to challenge and multiplicity of meaning moves us from an ecclesiology in which each part must remain in its place and accept being thought of in terms of relative weakness and strength, to an ecclesiology in which the âbody of Christâ metaphors become a resource for challenge and negotiation of relationships within the âbodyâ. Just as Chloe (in my imaginative reconstruction) questioned Paulâs construction of relationships through âbody of Christâ metaphors, so may each of us, bringing our embodied, complex selves, offer new interpretations of those metaphors for our own contexts and bodies. The âbody of Christâ is made of many âbodies of Christ.â
I transliterate rather than translate Paulâs language of ekklÄsia as a reminder of the difference between emergent first-century âassembliesâ or âgatheringsâ of Christ-followers and todayâs churches.
That Sosthenes co-sent or co-authored 1 Corinthians is evidenced by the inclusion of his name in the opening greetings (1:1). Naming him signals that Paul had co-workers and was not an isolated author(ity); through the rest of this article, however, âPaulâ alone is referred to as author for simplicity, and as it is difficult to establish anything further of Sosthenesâ substantive contributions. (See further: Samuel Byrskog, âCo-Senders, Co-Authors and Paulâs Use of the First Person Pluralâ, ZNW 87 (1996): p. 241; E Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991), p. 47).
The other two Pauline instances of Î³Ï Î½Î®: Romans 7:2 and Galatians 4:4. I read 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which includes two further instances of Î³Ï Î½Î®, as a later interpolation. See Jerome Murphy-OâConnor, âInterpolations in 1 Corinthiansâ, CBQ 48, no. 1 (1986): pp. 81â94.
For further discussion of gendered dynamics, see Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through Paulâs Rhetoric (Fortress Press, 1995); Luise Schottroff, 1 Corinthians, trans. Everett R. Kalin (Kohlhammer, 2022); Lucy Peppiatt, Women and Worship at Corinth: Paulâs Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (Cascade Books, 2015); Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, âRhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthiansâ, NTS 33 (1987): pp. 397â98.
Following Cognitive Linguistic convention, conceptual metaphors are formatted in small capitals.
Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, 1st American ed. (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 71â5, pp. 157â64, pp. 267â70; Daniel Lynwood Smith, âWhy Paulâs Fabulous Body Is Missing Its Belly: The Rhetorical Subversion of Menenius Agrippaâs Fable in 1 Corinthians 12:12-30â, JSNT 41, no. 2 (2018): pp. 143â60.
Church of England. Living in Love and Faith : Christian Teaching and Learning about Identity, Sexuality, Relationships, and Marriage. (London: Church House Publishing, 2020), p. 196.
A.D.A. France-Williams, Ghost Ship: Institutional Racism and the Church of England (London: SCM Press, 2020), p. 188.
Methodologically, this approach builds on feminist and womanist biblical interpretersâ use of historical imagination by resourcing historical imagination with historical empathy â the attempt to place oneself as interpreter in the perspective of oneâs historical subject. It is beyond this articleâs scope to comment further on methodology. For discussion of historical imagination, see Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, 2nd ed. (SCM Press, 1995), pp. 61â4; Mitzi J. Smith, Chloe and Her People: A Womanist Critical Dialogue with First Corinthians (Cascade Books, 2023), pp. 10â4; Peppiatt, Women and Worship, pp. 9â11. On historical empathy, see Thomas A. Kohut, Empathy and the Historical Understanding of the Human Past (Routledge, 2020); S Lanzoni, Empathy: A History (Yale University Press, 2018).
I adopt the translation âlimbs and organsâ for Ïá½° μÎλη as it captures the termâs metaphorical import: individuals are not described as âmembersâ in the way that group âmembershipâ is thought of in modern terms but described in terms of the âlimbs and organsâ of Christ. See Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2000), p. 465; Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans, NTL (Westminster/John Knox Press, 2024), p. 182.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1987), p. 55. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2003), p. 44. Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, ANTC (Abingdon Press, 1998), p. 44.
Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, ed. George W. MacRae, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Fortress Press, 1975), p. 32. Pheme Perkins, First Corinthians, Paideia (Baker Academic, 2012), p. 54.
Dahl states that Stephanasâ people âhad not gossipedâ, implying that Chloeâs people, who had given spoken information to Paul, had by contrast gossiped: Nils Alstrip Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Augsberg Publishing House, 1977), 50, quoted by Schüssler-Fiorenza, âRhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstructionâ, 394. âEarfulâ: Fee, Corinthians, 55; Citing Fee, Thiselton, Corinthians, p. 121. âAlarmistâ: Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 41.
For discussion of âgossipâ as a gendered term: Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles (Walter de Gruyter, 2009), pp. 11â39. Whilst Chloeâs peopleâs speech is also commented upon neutrally as report, news, or conversation (Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, SP 7 (Liturgical Press, 1999), p. 78; Richard Hays, First Corinthians, IBC (John Knox Press, 1997), p. 22; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed., First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYBC 32 (Yale University Press, 2008), p. 141) and positively as reliable testimony or witness (Garland, 1 Corinthians, p. 44) or a clarification (Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Eerdmans, 2010), p. 77), the instances of âgossipâ or âearfulâ are an unhelpfully gendered characterisation that favours a portrayal of Chloe and her people as stirring up contention (rather than intentionally sharing their concerns with Paul).
Reconstructing the identities of women silenced or marginalised within and by androcentric and/or patriarchal biblical texts is a key interpretive move in feminist and womanist traditions. Such reconstruction resources the writing of alternative histories which include women (who were always present) as well as men (who are the ones foregrounded within the texts). See discussion in relation to 1 Corinthians and women in particular in Joseph A. Marchal, âStill After: Reintroducing the Corinthian Women Prophets at Thirtyâ, in After the Corinthian Women Prophets: Reimagining Rhetoric and Power, ed. Joseph A. Marchal, SemeiaSt 97 (SBL Press, 2021), pp. 1â45, as well as literature referenced in n. 9 of this article regarding the feminist and womanist use of historical imagination.
To date, I have not found a sustained argument for Chloe as an influential figure within the Corinthian context written by a male scholar.
Schüssler Fiorenza, âRhetorical Situationâ, pp. 394â395.
Smith, Chloe and Her People, pp. 12â13.
Schüssler Fiorenza, âRhetorical Situationâ, pp. 394â95.
Schüssler Fiorenza, âRhetorical Situationâ, p. 394.
Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, pp. 178â79.
Thiselton, Corinthians, p. 1338.
Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, p. 179.
Smith, Chloe and Her People, p. 12. Jennifer Glancy similarly reads âChloeâs peopleâ as enslaved members of her household: Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 49.
Smith, Chloe and Her People, p. 13.
Smith, p. 13. That Roman Corinth was populated predominantly by freedpersons, within both elite and non-elite classes, has long been recognised. See: Laura Salah Nasrallah, ââYou Were Bought with a Priceâ: Freedpersons and Things in 1 Corinthiansâ, in Corinth in Contrast: Studies in Inequality, ed. Stephen J. Friesen, Daniel Schowalter, and Sarah James, Novum Testamentum, Supplements, Volume: 155 (Brill, 2013), pp. 60â61; Benjamin W Millis, âThe Local Magistrates and Elite of Roman Corinthâ, in Corinth in Contrast: Studies in Inequality, ed. Stephen J. Friesen, Daniel Schowalter, and Sarah James, Novum Testamentum, Supplements, Volume: 155 (Brill, 2013), pp. 38â53; Anthony J.S. Spawforth, âRoman Corinth: The Formation of a Colonial Eliteâ, in Roman Onomastics in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects, ed. A.D. Rizakis (Paris: de Boccard, 1996), pp. 169â70. Nasrallah suggests that references to οἱ Ïῶν ΧλÏÎ·Ï (1:11) and the âhousehold of Stephanasâ (1:16) evidence slave-holding households within the Corinthian ekklÄsia, raising the possibility that both free(d) and enslaved people participated together within ekklÄsiai: Nasrallah, ââYou Were Bought with a Priceâ: Freedpersons and Things in 1 Corinthiansâ, p. 62, n. 37.
Smith, Chloe and Her People, p. 13.
âIt is difficult to believe there were no women leaders among [the Corinthians] when we consider the naming of Chloe and her people and Paulâs attempts to control the bodies of women who actively pray and prophesy in the assemblies and to subjugate them to men.â Smith, p. 12.
For full discussion of the issues and practices to which Paul responds in 7:1-40 and 11:2-16, see: Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, pp. 72â97, pp. 116â34; Arminta Fox, âCorinthian Concerns and Textual Assaultâ, in Sex, Violence, and Early Christian Texts, ed. Christy Cobb and Eric Vanden Eykel, (Bloomsbury, 2022), pp. 71â84.
Using the sociological tool of âGroup/Gridâ analysis, Wire finds that, upon becoming a part of the ekklÄsia, âthe womenâs status has risen across many factors whilst Paulâs has fallen.â Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 188.
Whilst building on Wireâs work and characterisation of Chloe as one of the âCorinthian women prophetsâ, Smith specifically critiques Wire for inattentiveness to enslaved and freed experiences. Smith, Chloe and Her People, p. 11.
Smith, p. 13.
Jennifer A. Glancy, âEarly Christianity, Slavery, and Womenâs Bodiesâ, in Beyond Slavery: Overcoming Its Religious and Sexual Legacies, ed. Bernadette Brooten (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 149.
Glancy summarises habituation or socialisation thus: âwe carry knowledge in our bodiesâ. Glancy, Beyond Slavery, p. 146.
Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1161a30âb6: Translated by H. Rackham. LCL 73. Harvard University Press, 1926. Referenced in Candida R Moss, âThe Secretary: Enslaved Workers, Stenography, and the Production of Early Christian Literatureâ, JTS 74, no. 1 (2023): p. 36.
Cato, Varro. On Agriculture. Translated by W. D. Hooper, Harrison Boyd Ash. Loeb Classical Library 283. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934.
Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity, p. 10.
Glancy, pp. 10â11.
Pliny, Historia Naturalis, 3.5.10-6, quoted in Sarah Blake, âNow You See Them: Slaves and Other Objects as Elements of the Roman Masterâ, Helios 39, no. 2 (2012): p. 193.
Blake, p. 194.
Martial, Epigrams 14.208, quoted in Blake, p. 203.
See Katherine Shaner, Enslaved Leadership in Early Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2018), p. xx. Such descriptions of enslaved people as âbody partsâ serve to erase them and their experiences â as Moss writes, âancient discourse about enslaved labour renders those responsible for it largely invisible.â (Moss, âSecretaryâ, p. 36).
As Smith notes, it was not unusual for freed people to own enslaved people upon becoming free. See further references in: Smith, Chloe and Her People, p. 13.
Prior to the âbodyâ metaphors in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 are other âbody of Christâ metaphors embedded in Paulâs argumentation: 1 Corinthians 6:15, 10:14-17, 11:29 (and potentially 1:10, see Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, pp. 68â75). Each coheres with Paulâs purpose of persuading the Corinthians to relationships of unifying interdependence in contexts of discord.
Candida R Moss, Godâs Ghostwriters: Enslaved Christians and the Making of the Bible (Little, Brown and Company, 2024), p. 215.
Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity, p. 49.
The specifics of the situation to which Paul responds in 11:2-16 is highly contested, and it is beyond this articleâs scope to argue for (rather than state that) womenâs unveiling during prayer and prophecy was at issue. For compelling arguments that this was indeed the case, see: Mary Rose DâAngelo, âVeils, Virgins, and the Tongues of Men and Angels: Womenâs Heads in Early Christianityâ, in Off With Her Head!: The Denial of Womenâs Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture, ed. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz and Wendy Doniger (University of California Press, 1995), p. 133.
Paul uses κεÏαλή in Romans 12:20, quoting Proverbs 25:21-22 from the LXX.
Despite much ink spilled to argue otherwise, Paulâs use of κεÏαλή in 11:3 does indeed instantiate a hierarchical relationship. Commentators, often having extensively discussed κεÏαλή in 11:3, state succinctly that κεÏαλή in 12:21 represents those of higher status and superiority within the âbodyâ â as opposed to the feet. Debates as to whether âheadâ refers to hierarchy in 11:3 give away to brief acceptances of a hierarchical meaning in 12:21. Compare, for example: Thiselton, Corinthians, pp. 812â22, with pp. 1005â6; Ciampa and Rosner, Corinthians pp. 508â12, with p. 602; Fee, Corinthians, pp. 554â58, with p. 678. When interpretive stakes are lower, as in 12:21 (which is considered an extended metaphor for interdependence) than higher, as in 11:3 (which has become a battleground for disagreements concerning gender), the meaning of âheadâ tends not to be interrogated. That fierce debates about gender coalesce around 11:3 but not 12:21 correlates with how women are most considered in connection to parts of Paulâs letters, like 11:3, which deal directly with women â rather than considering how womenâs meaning-making might illumine the entirety of Paulâs letters, including 12:21 and the âbodyâ metaphors. Imagining Chloeâs meaning-making with 12:12-27 intervenes in this particular scholarly trend of confining womenâs interests to âwomenâs issues.â
DâAngelo uses stronger language, commenting that women are âvirtually decapitatedâ in 11:3-16 as Paul constructs a âsort of pun in which the womenâs own head and her man/husband seem to be conflated.â DâAngelo, âVeils, Virgins, and the Tongues of Men and Angelsâ, p. 133.
DâAngelo similarly connects 12:21 (within the context of 12:12-31) and Paulâs argumentation for hierarchical gendered relationships in 11:2-16 by claiming that these texts together âprovide the materials for a new use of Genesis in Ephesians 5:25-31â, in which the husband is the head of the wife. DâAngelo, p. 134.
For discussion of translations of the verbs in 12:26, see: Thiselton, Corinthians, p. 1012.
Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. BNTC. (A&C Black, 1971), p. 292.
Neurocognitive understandings of emotions, when brought into interdisciplinary study of Paulâs emotion language, is illumining of language of co-feeling: Julia Lambert Fogg explores Paulâs âjoyâ language in Philippians, concluding that âPaulâs strategy aims at shaping collective cognition and shared emotional habits in order to build a single, balanced Christ body.â Shared emotions, felt in the bodies ekklÄsia members, build the body of Christ. Julia Lambert Fogg, âA Neurocognitive Approach Reveals Paulâs Embodied Emotional Strategiesâ, Religions 15, no. 946 (2024): pp. 13â5.
Mitchell further observes that co-suffering and co-rejoicing are Greco-Roman topoi, cohering with the persuasive purpose of Paulâs metaphors: âwhen Paulâ¦argues that the members of the body rejoice and grieve together because they share the same interestâ¦he employs another political topos for unity.â Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, pp. 162â63.
