To use modern terminology, their minds must be on the same wavelength; they must be in sync. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, there is the meeting of the minds. However, the minds that met were not ours and Paul's; Paul probably had no idea that you and I would be reading his letter 1,900 years later. Just a brief footnote: the Holy Spirit, of course, knew this, but Paul seems to have thought that the return of Christ was much closer than it actually was. Back to the text.
No, the minds that came together were Paul's and the Corinthians. Paul was purposefully communicating to the Corinthians; he was not purposefully communicating to you and me. First subheading: "Scripture was not written in a vacuum." Paul's letter to the Corinthians was not written in a vacuum. A considerable amount of background information surrounded the letter. First of all, Paul has spent a year and 6 months in Corinth, founding and shepherding the congregation there. You can find that in Acts 18:1 and 11.
In 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul stated, "Now I praise you, because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." So the Corinthians had already received numerous oral traditions directly from Paul. Apparently, his teaching on the head covering was one of those traditions. Paul did not have to explain everything to the Corinthians, as he would if he were writing the letter to us. The Corinthians already knew what Paul was talking about.
Not only had the Corinthians heard Paul teach for 18 months, they had visibly seen Paul live out his Christianity. So Paul could tell them, "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1. When Paul said, "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head," in verse 3, the Corinthians knew what Paul meant because they had literally watched Paul pray.
They knew whether Paul was talking about long hair or talking about a cloth covering, for they had seen him. While Paul was in Corinth, he lived for a while with two faithful disciples, Aquila and Priscilla. I think we can safely assume that Aquila and Priscilla obediently followed Paul's teaching on the head covering. So again, the Corinthians were eyewitnesses of Paul's approved practice on this subject, both as to women (Priscilla) and to men (Paul and Aquila). They were eyewitnesses to many other things.
They had literally watched Paul baptize people, and they had seen other baptisms performed with his approval. So they knew beyond any doubt how he baptized people. They had personally shared communion with Paul and had eaten love feasts with him. So they knew how often and in what manner these ordinances were kept. Besides those things, after Paul had left Corinth, he had written them a letter that preceded what we call 1 Corinthians. You can see that in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11.
In a sense, what we call 1 Corinthians is actually 2 Corinthians. The Corinthians had read a previous letter from Paul that we do not have access to. Some of the matters addressed in 1 Corinthians are a follow-up of things he had previously written them. Furthermore, the Corinthians had also previously written a letter to Paul. 1 Corinthians 7:1. So part of his letter to them is a reply to their previous letter. Finally, Paul had received other reports of some of the things going on in the Corinthian congregation.
You can see that in 1 Corinthians 1:11 and 11:18. So 1 Corinthians 11 wasn't written in a vacuum. There had been a lot of interaction between Paul and the Corinthians. There was a meeting of their minds. If that wasn't enough, Paul told the Corinthians that he would be returning there to follow up on his letter. "The remaining matters I shall arrange when I come," he says in 1 Corinthians 11:34. Did he actually return there? Apparently so, for he seems to have written his letter to the Romans from Corinth.
So even if something in Paul's letter hadn't been clear to the Corinthians, they would have been able to ask Paul to clarify those things. I think then we can safely say that the Corinthians accurately understood what Paul was saying in his letter. After all, if they didn't, then what hope is there for us? Next subheading: "But what about us?" All that may be nice, you may be thinking, but how does that help us? We haven't heard Paul teach. We haven't visibly seen Paul in action.
We haven't carried on any correspondence with Paul, and we aren't able to ask him to clarify his letter. That's all true. Asking Paul would be the best approach. But since we can't do that, we need to look at the next best approach. What would that be? To consult with the original Corinthians who received Paul's letter. As we have seen, they almost assuredly understood everything Paul was saying. Unfortunately, we can't ask the Corinthians any more than we can ask Paul. No, but we are getting much closer now.
What we can do is look at what attorneys call the course of performance. Let me illustrate. Next subheading: "The Course of Performance." Ezra Mast was a skilled Amish craftsman who handcrafted beautiful chairs. Although his workshop was in Ohio, his reputation for high-quality work traveled quite far. James Butler, who owned a quality furniture store in Topeka, Kansas, came across some of Ezra's chairs. Impressed by the workmanship, he contacted Ezra, and soon the two entered into a contract.
The basic terms of the contract were that Ezra would make 10 chairs each month for Butler's furniture store, and Mr. Butler would purchase these chairs at the stated price, adjusted periodically for inflation. For 20 years, Mr. Butler and Mr. Mast carried on the business relationship. The same contract served them this entire time. When Ezra Mast died, his family sold his workshop and business to Bob Thompson. About the same time, James Butler retired, sold his furniture store to Tom Cook, and moved overseas.
The new owners became successors to the original Mast-Butler contract. It was the 15th of the month, and Tom Cook had not yet received his chairs. Somewhat impatiently, he called up Bob Thompson and asked, "Where are the 10 chairs for this month?" "Well, they're right here," Bob replied. "I was wondering what was taking you so long to come and pick them up." "Pick them up? You're supposed to deliver them here." "No, I'm not. You're supposed to pick them up." What was the problem?
It was that the contract did not address the issue of delivery at all. How do you think the men resolved this deadlock? What would be the common-sense thing to do? Ask Mr. Butler and Mr. Mast what they did, you might answer. But Mr. Mast is dead, and Mr. Butler is overseas. Then ask their family or employees. Exactly. And if family and employees are not available, we should look at other evidence, such as trip logs and the testimony of people in the community. In law, we refer to this as the course of performance.
The same principle is true in Scripture, and it's our fifth principle of interpretation. Principle number 5: when Scripture is ambiguous, look at the course of performance of the disciples of the apostles. In law, if a portion of a contract is ambiguous, we look at how the parties themselves interpreted that contract. After all, they best know what they meant, and their actions in performing the contract are the best evidence of the meaning they gave to the contract.
Similarly, in reading Scripture, if we can't ask Paul or the Corinthians what 1 Corinthians means, we can look at their course of performance. We can find out how the Corinthians interpreted Paul's letter by looking at their performance and practices. But where do we get the evidence of their course of performance?