1 Corinthians 14:33b-37 (Genesis 2 and the Law)

We need to read Genesis 2 as Paul would have read the text.

(Gen 2:18 ESV)  18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

This verse begin the narrative of the creation of Eve. Notice that man without woman is the only thing called “not good” in the creation. And so God decides to make a fit helper for Adam.

Now, in English “helper” connotes inferiority. If I’m the cook and you’re my “helper,” you’re subordinate to me. But the Hebrew word carries no such connotation. In fact, it’s almost always used of God as Israel’s helper! A better translation would be “complement.”

(Gen 2:19-20 ESV)  19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.  20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

Clearly, Moses is making the point that no animal could be a complement fit for man. Why not? Because animals are man’s inferior.

Also implicit in the text is that fact that God himself, even though he walked in the Garden with Adam, was not a suitable complement. Why not? Because God is man’s superior.

(Gen 2:21-22 ESV)  21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

We often teach in our weddings a lesson drawn from the rabbis, going back before the time of Jesus. The rabbis taught that God made Eve from Adam’s rib rather than his foot because Adam was not to tread upon his wife. Nor did God make her from his head, so that she might rule him. But God chose the rib so that she would always be at his side.

(Gen 2:23 ESV)  23 Then the man [adam, meaning “man” or “human”] said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [ish].”

Moses refers to Adam as “the man” or “the human” and then speaks of the genders — ish and ishshah — similar words for two aspects of humanity. The emphasis is clearly on similarity as opposed to either animals or God. God made woman to be the male’s companion — a fit complement — because she is like him.

Some argue that the fact that Adam was made first demonstrates that he is superior to Eve, but the animals were made before Adam, as were the plants. The order of creation is from inferior to superior, not the other way around. (This is not the argument Paul makes in 1 Tim 2:11-15. We’ve covered this passage before.)

Others argue that Adam’s naming of Eve indicates his authority over her, but he does not name her “Eve” but rather calls her “woman” — a description, not a name. She isn’t named “Eve” by Adam until Gen 3:20 — after the curse of sin has entered the world and he has been given the “rule” over her in Gen 3:16.

(Gen 2:24 ESV)  24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 

Moses adds a comment making it clear that the relationship described in Gen 2 should be normative for married couples even after the curse. Genesis 2 gives the ideal. Genesis 3 shows how our marriages are broken by sin, but Moses calls us back to the ideal — just as do Jesus and Paul.

“One flesh” describes the sexual union, of course, but also describes the intimate unity of husband and wife that God desires for us. “Hold fast” means to cling or even stick to something. “Join” would be a good translation. The man and woman are to become a unity.

(Gen 2:25-3:1 ESV)  25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

The point of being “not ashamed” is not that they were perfectly formed and so not ashamed of their bodies. Nor is it merely that they were innocent of sin — since husbands and wives generally aren’t ashamed to be naked with each other. Rather, the point surely is that they are so close, so unified, that they could even be naked with each other without shame — because they are very nearly one person. (And we old husbands and wives understand this better than most.)

“Submission”

So what on earth does Paul mean by —

(1Co 14:34 ESV) 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 

“Submission”? Where does Gen 2 command submission of wives to their husbands? Well, we’ve already covered Gen 3:16, and that verse is the very definition of sinfulness and dominance. It proves much more than mere submission — and only in a world in rebellion against the will of God. It won’t do for thoughtful exegetes.

So that leaves the language of Gen 2 — that is, the fact that Eve was created to be a fit complement to Adam. But this language does not require submission. So how do we get from “fit complement” to submission?

I think the answer is found in the culture of the Jews and Greeks. In the First Century culture, a wive would be considered immorally in rebellion against her husband if she spoke to other men — other husbands — outside the home. The culture of that part of the world required women to be silent in settings  such as the Christian assembly or else appear immoral. And the wife — created by God to be a help to her husband — cannot act in ways that appear rebellious and immoral toward him in a given culture.

Is there any evidence for this culture? Yes, indeed.

Jewish women

The ignorance of women in the First Century was not unique to the Jews, but the Jews of that time took special care to keep their women ignorant. There was a saying that wives should only be taught enough of the Torah (the Law) to know the penalty for adultery! And there was no exaggeration in the saying.

This conclusion is buttressed by history:

In Jewish law a woman was not a person; she was a thing. She was entirely at the disposal [of] her father or of her husband. A woman was forbidden to learn the law; to instruct a woman in the law was to cast pearls before swine. Women had no part in the Synagogue service; they were shut apart in a section of the Synagogue, or in a gallery, where they could not be seen, and were allowed no share in the service. A man came to the Synagogue to learn; but, at the most, a woman came to hear. In the Synagogue the lesson from Scripture was read by members of the congregation; but not by women, for that would have been to lessen “the honour of the congregation.” It was absolutely forbidden for a woman to teach in a school; she might not even teach the youngest children. A woman was exempt from the stated demand of the Law. It was not obligatory on her to attend the sacred feasts and festivals. Women, slaves and children were classed together. … Rabbi Jose ben Johanan is quoted as saying, “ …Everyone that talketh much with a woman causes evil to himself, and desists from the works of the Law, and his end is that he inherits Gehenna.”

William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon—The Daily Study Bible (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, Pa., 2nd ed. 1960), page 77. Barclay also notes that among the Jews, a strict follower of the Jewish Talmud would not even speak to his own sister in public.

That Paul had the Jews especially in mind is evidenced by his exclamation at the end of the paragraph, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” Certainly the word of God originated with the Jews. It had reached many other nations, but in the church’s early history, the other churches were largely either Jewish or had a large Jewish component. Thus, the “disgrace” referred to by Paul was particularly in the eyes of the Jewish members of the congregation, the people from whom the word of God originated.

It would seem, therefore, that there is ample evidence in the text that Paul had concluded that preservation of unity and fellowship with the Jewish members and congregations demanded that women take a submissive role in certain church services.

Grecian women

Osburn quotes the Grecian historian Plutarch, a near contemporary of Paul, wrote in Conjugal Precepts 31:

Not only the arm but the voice of a modest woman ought to be kept from the public, and she should feel shame at being heard, as at being stripped. … She should speak either to, or through, her husband.

Barclay comments,

The respectable Greek woman lived a very confined life. She lived in her own quarters into which no one but her husband came. She did not even appear at meals. She never at any time appeared on the street alone: she never went to any public assembly, still less did she ever speak or take any active part in such an assembly. The fact is that if in a Greek town Christian women had taken an active and a speaking and a teaching part in the work of the Christian Church, the Church would inevitably have gained the reputation of being the resort of loose and immoral women.

The risk of being considered immoral was, therefore, very real. Moreover, to appease the sensibilities of the various levels of society, especially the Jews, strict rules would have to be followed. Thus, the silence commanded is the avoidance of such speech as might open the women to charges of moral laxity as measured by the culture of the community. Thus, the direct addressing of a man, where a woman engages in conversation or debate with someone else’s husband, would be a violation of propriety. This conclusion is supported by Paul’s statement that such speech is “disgraceful.”

Everett Ferguson concedes the low estate of Jewish women of this age but points out, “There were plenty of priestesses in Greco-Roman religions, and one historian of ancient Rome, Carcopino, describes a women’s emancipation movement in Rome in the first century.”

Ferguson misses some key points. First, the fact that there was an emancipation movement for women plainly tells us that women felt the need to be emancipated. Moreover, there is no evidence that the movement succeeded. Recall the Women’s Suffrage Movement of the early 20^th Century. Women actually prevailed, gaining the right to vote, and yet continued to suffer severe discrimination for decades thereafter. If a successful emancipation movement doesn’t necessarily grant women equal legal rights, plainly a failed emancipation movement hardly proves that women were emancipated.

Finally, the fact that women could serve as priestesses in pagan religions doesn’t indicate emancipation in their roles as housewives — or even as priestesses. In fact, many of the priestesses were little more than prostitutes, certainly not an elevated status.

Roman women

Rome’s influence was felt, of course, throughout the Empire. Moreover, Corinth was a Roman colony. Rome had its own very negative views of women. As was likely true in all cultures, a sufficiently wealthy woman or one well-married might by cleverness and intellect become influential, even powerful. But these women were exceptional. Among Romans, a woman was expected to be a good housewife, so much so that even Augustus Caesar banished his own daughter for refusing to assume the traditional female role.

Culture

Now, many people disagree with this interpretation, but there is no other sensible alternative. Whatever reading we find in the text has to be consistent with the text. And the text says, “As the Law also says.” Therefore, we can’t just impose Paul’s conclusions on the modern church without finding a reading within the Law that makes sense of the passage.

Otherwise, we’d may as well require our women to wear veils per 1 Cor 11 and give up all gold, pearls, and braided hair per 1 Tim 2:10. Of course, we don’t do that because we recognize the huge influence culture has on these teachings. In them, Paul takes a universal principle and applies it to the local culture — and we easily recognize that the result will be different in very different cultures, such as ours.

But for some reason, we refuse to see the influence of culture in this passage, even though Paul himself says he giving the command to avoid being “shameful” (14:35). Shameful? The BDAG Greek lexicon defines the Greek word here as —

A term esp. significant in honor-shame oriented society; gener. in ref. to that which fails to meet expected moral and cultural standards …) pert. to being socially or morally unacceptable 

Paul uses this sort of language when the local culture is part of his logic.

Further on the culture of ancient Rome

The Pillar commentary offers this cultural analysis, which found very convincing:

Forbes and others have pointed out that in the Greco-Roman world it was considered scandalous for a married woman to carry on a conversation with another woman’s husband: “There existed in the Graeco-Roman world in our period a strong prejudice against women speaking in public, and especially against their speaking to other women’s husbands. In a society with strictly defined gender and social roles, and a strong view of the rights of a man over his wife, such behavior was treated as totally inappropriate.”

While there were opposing points of view, a traditional perspective is reflected in a number of remarkable texts. In his Memorable Deeds and Sayings, Valerius Maximus (from the early first century A.D.), speaking of the harsh treatment of some husbands towards their wives, mentions Quintus Antistius Vetus who “divorced his wife because he had seen her in public having a private conversation with a common freedwoman. For, moved not by an actual crime but, so to speak, by the birth and nourishment of one, he punished her before the crime could be committed, so that he might prevent the deed’s being done at all, rather than punish it afterwards.” According to this text, a wife should not be having a private conversation (where was her attendant?) with a stranger, certainly not a “common freedwoman” (and even more certainly not someone else’s husband).

Plutarch tells us of a woman who accidentally exposed her arm when putting on her cloak: “Somebody exclaimed, ‘A lovely arm.’ ‘But not for the public,’ said she. Not only the arm of the virtuous woman, but her speech as well, ought to be not for the public, and she ought to be modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders, since it is an exposure of herself; for in her talk can be seen her feelings, character, and disposition … For a woman ought to do her talking either to her husband or through her husband, and she should not feel aggrieved if, like the flute-player, she makes a more impressive sound through a tongue not her own.” Plutarch implies a woman’s personal speech is as much an exposure of herself as nakedness.

Even more remarkable is the language used by Marcus Porcius Cato (195 B.C.) who complained when women went out in public and spoke to men of influence, trying to convince them to overturn the Oppian Law, which restricted their use of luxurious goods: “Indeed, I blushed when, a short while ago, I walked through the midst of a band of women. Had not respect for the dignity and modesty of certain ones (not them all!) restrained me (so they would not be seen being scolded by a consul), I should have said, ‘What kind of behaviour is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s husbands! Could you not have asked your own husbands the same thing at home? Are you more charming in public with others’ husbands than at home with your own? And yet, it is not fitting even at home (if modesty were to keep married women within the bounds of their rights) for you to concern yourselves with what laws are passed or repealed here.’”

Jerome H. Neyrey suggests the view “that females should not speak to unrelated males, especially in public space” is the view held in “Rome as well as Greece, and for all periods of [ancient] history.”

Thus, the universal-sounding prohibition could be taken to mean women were prohibited from non-liturgical forms of speech (i.e., they could speak as they participated in the use of gifts and in formal ways, but not in mundane, trivial or merely ordinary conversation). Even more likely is the suggestion that what was being prohibited was for women to approach and ask men in the congregation questions about things they were not understanding.

Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), n.p.