One word remains. It’s the word that anchors the traditional reading, the word that people reach for when they want to argue that this passage lays down a permanent chain of command. Verse 34 says the women are to “be in submission, as the law also says.”
The word is ὑποτάσσω. And it does not mean what most people assume it means.
Good observation regarding "aner" (husbands) vs "ahhren" (males) - that nuance is maligned elsewhere in English versions (as are "gyne" (woman/wife) and "thelus" (female)).
I like how you articulated "submission." Seems to me that "translators" and preachers could have saved much confusion if they learned to use "deference" rather than "submission."
That is, if confusion something they truly wished to avoid - which is another issue altogether, albeit related.
Tell me this: what in 1 Corinthians 14 itself requires "the good order of worship" to be what Paul has in mind in verse 34? Verse 32 shows that ὑποτάσσω can be used of prophets exercising self control, but how does that establish what the women are being told to submit to?
Based on the context and sequence of events, I don't believe that was a law. It is not phrased as a command. It is phrased as a logical response to the Fall. In no way does this imply that it was the design.
And if you're going to call that a law, you would just as well have to call 3:17 a law that men are to toil over agriculture every day of our lives.
Hmmm... Many "laws" in Scripture are basically logical responses to either the Fall or particular sins (i.e. the Law of Sin and Death in Romans 8:2).
In this light, Genesis 3:17 can also be seen as a law. It's true that not all men toil over agricultural specifically. However, the principle of toiling for one's sustenance, regardless of one's occupation, has applied to all human beings since the Fall.
I realize that I'm using "law" loosely. However, in the Scriptures, I see the Hebrew "torah" and the Greek "nomas" used in a broader way than how we usually use "law" in English.
See, the first issue here is we haven't specifically defined what we mean by the word "law." And that's just a recipe for misunderstanding.
Regarding Scripture, my perspective is that a law is something God has commanded is to do. Not a logical reality but something that is expected. Something that when violated constitutes sin.
And from that point of view, I would not consider Gen 3:16 or 17 to be laws.
They are a logical response to the Fall, that is true. And if that falls within your definition of a law then okay, I'll grant you that.
But I think the larger point is that each of them is able to be overcome and that doing so is not inherently sinful.
However, I recognize that I've gone quite far afield of the original point.
So let me return.
Here's what I see in this verse. From The wording and grammar, I think it's clear that Paul's appeal to "the law" is not meant as a call to one specific law but to Torah as a whole. This is why so many English translations capitalize "Law" in this verse.
Which presents pretty clearly the whole rub. He appeals to the law after suggesting women should subject themselves (however one chooses to interpret that word). But what is he actually referring or appealing to?
And more importantly what situation in that actual church was he addressing?
See, that's a lot of the point I've been making throughout this series is that the original context of the original receivers of this letter is incredibly important to our understanding of it.
I respect your efforts to discover the original context and message of 1 Corinthians 14:34. This series is a great example of deductive Bible study, which I appreciate.
I agree that the way Paul used "law" here was as a reference to Torah as a whole, in other words, what we call the first five books of the Bible. I do not see any reason to believe that Paul used "law" sarcastically. In fact, my favorite Bible version, The Scriptures version, uses "Torah" here with a capital "T" to indicate the "Torah of Elohim."
And I think it's also important to reiterate that what Paul said was in the Torah was the command for women to subject themselves, not a command to be silent.
It's my understanding that Paul's "Torah" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 would have included Genesis 3:16. And this verse does teach that wives are to be subject to their husbands. However, if there is another "law" in the Torah that Paul could have referred to, I am open to that idea.
100% agreed. Many translations capitalize Torah or Law here, and I don't see any reason to interpret it differently.
My main objection to Gen 3:16 is the rulership language, which I don't see as a command but rather a consequence.
Although one or two of them require a bit of interpretive license, I think these illustrate the proper posture better and without the oft misapplied rulership language:
Numbers 12:1-15 (Miriam's rebellion and the Lord affirming Moses' authority)
Genesis 2:18-24 (man created first and woman as the helper), and
Numbers 30:3-15 (household vows and the husband's right to affirm or annul the wife's vows).
Yes, those passages complement what Paul taught nicely.
Thank you for sharing and for engaging in this discussion. Regardless of where each of us land, I enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to debate and fellowship with another passionate student of Elohim's Word.
Good observation regarding "aner" (husbands) vs "ahhren" (males) - that nuance is maligned elsewhere in English versions (as are "gyne" (woman/wife) and "thelus" (female)).
I like how you articulated "submission." Seems to me that "translators" and preachers could have saved much confusion if they learned to use "deference" rather than "submission."
That is, if confusion something they truly wished to avoid - which is another issue altogether, albeit related.
Good piece!
Thank you! I really appreciate that.
Yeah, sadly, I fear that much preaching and "interpretation" actually comes from attempts at perpetuating tradition rather than genuine exegesis.
You're welcome!
Yes, tradition and gross negligence. I kind of expect that from people, it's natural. But from leaders I expect much more…
And that is 100% fair.
It's fair. Fact is, I have a lot of beef with leaders and churches in general.
For a 16 part explanation as to why I say that, I'll just tack this here.
https://earthur.substack.com/p/be-reconciled-to-god-1-introduction?r=4c6jfe&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Tell me this: what in 1 Corinthians 14 itself requires "the good order of worship" to be what Paul has in mind in verse 34? Verse 32 shows that ὑποτάσσω can be used of prophets exercising self control, but how does that establish what the women are being told to submit to?
Thanks for your exposition. More blessings ❄️
I appreciate how you lay this out. However, what if the law that Paul was referring to was Genesis 3:16?
Based on the context and sequence of events, I don't believe that was a law. It is not phrased as a command. It is phrased as a logical response to the Fall. In no way does this imply that it was the design.
And if you're going to call that a law, you would just as well have to call 3:17 a law that men are to toil over agriculture every day of our lives.
Hmmm... Many "laws" in Scripture are basically logical responses to either the Fall or particular sins (i.e. the Law of Sin and Death in Romans 8:2).
In this light, Genesis 3:17 can also be seen as a law. It's true that not all men toil over agricultural specifically. However, the principle of toiling for one's sustenance, regardless of one's occupation, has applied to all human beings since the Fall.
I realize that I'm using "law" loosely. However, in the Scriptures, I see the Hebrew "torah" and the Greek "nomas" used in a broader way than how we usually use "law" in English.
See, the first issue here is we haven't specifically defined what we mean by the word "law." And that's just a recipe for misunderstanding.
Regarding Scripture, my perspective is that a law is something God has commanded is to do. Not a logical reality but something that is expected. Something that when violated constitutes sin.
And from that point of view, I would not consider Gen 3:16 or 17 to be laws.
They are a logical response to the Fall, that is true. And if that falls within your definition of a law then okay, I'll grant you that.
But I think the larger point is that each of them is able to be overcome and that doing so is not inherently sinful.
However, I recognize that I've gone quite far afield of the original point.
So let me return.
Here's what I see in this verse. From The wording and grammar, I think it's clear that Paul's appeal to "the law" is not meant as a call to one specific law but to Torah as a whole. This is why so many English translations capitalize "Law" in this verse.
Which presents pretty clearly the whole rub. He appeals to the law after suggesting women should subject themselves (however one chooses to interpret that word). But what is he actually referring or appealing to?
And more importantly what situation in that actual church was he addressing?
See, that's a lot of the point I've been making throughout this series is that the original context of the original receivers of this letter is incredibly important to our understanding of it.
I respect your efforts to discover the original context and message of 1 Corinthians 14:34. This series is a great example of deductive Bible study, which I appreciate.
I agree that the way Paul used "law" here was as a reference to Torah as a whole, in other words, what we call the first five books of the Bible. I do not see any reason to believe that Paul used "law" sarcastically. In fact, my favorite Bible version, The Scriptures version, uses "Torah" here with a capital "T" to indicate the "Torah of Elohim."
And I think it's also important to reiterate that what Paul said was in the Torah was the command for women to subject themselves, not a command to be silent.
It's my understanding that Paul's "Torah" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 would have included Genesis 3:16. And this verse does teach that wives are to be subject to their husbands. However, if there is another "law" in the Torah that Paul could have referred to, I am open to that idea.
100% agreed. Many translations capitalize Torah or Law here, and I don't see any reason to interpret it differently.
My main objection to Gen 3:16 is the rulership language, which I don't see as a command but rather a consequence.
Although one or two of them require a bit of interpretive license, I think these illustrate the proper posture better and without the oft misapplied rulership language:
Numbers 12:1-15 (Miriam's rebellion and the Lord affirming Moses' authority)
Genesis 2:18-24 (man created first and woman as the helper), and
Numbers 30:3-15 (household vows and the husband's right to affirm or annul the wife's vows).
Yes, those passages complement what Paul taught nicely.
Thank you for sharing and for engaging in this discussion. Regardless of where each of us land, I enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to debate and fellowship with another passionate student of Elohim's Word.