1 Corinthians 11:9: Woman Made for Man, NOT Man for Woman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MysticMissMisty

Guest
Salvete, omnes!

I have asked the following question of other sources, but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer, so I’m looking to this form for some insight.

Here goes…

In 1 Corinthians 11:9, Paul informs us that “the woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman”. What, exactly, does he mean by this? Weren’t women and men designed to derive mutual satisfaction from one another, both in giving and receiving love, support, etc.? Wasn’t the woman created autonomously to enjoy the good things of this world as much as a man? Does Paul, rather, tell us that a woman was created only to serve a man and that a woman should not have any autonomy/will of her own beyond that of a man? Does this mean that, while a man should expect to derive various forms of pleasure from his relationships with women, women should not expect or even desire that same pleasure from a man unless it is his (not necessarily her) decision to give it? For example, let us say that a man is far away and his wife misses him. She wishes that he would call her some evening. Should she ask him to do so, or should she simply continue to allow the man to do what he is doing, whether or not the man realizes she misses him, since the woman’s derivation of pleasure from her husband should either be non-existent or subordinated compared to his own derivation of pleasure from her? If the derivation of benefits from each other is the right of both spouses, what do we do with the above statement under consideration? How could it mean anything other than that woman’s will should be either non-existent compared to the man’s toward her or that it should be subordinated to that of the man?

Gratias vobis.
 
It’s only referring to the order of creation.
Nothing more.
 
Paul is just stating what Genesis tells us. First God created man. Man was alone. Woman was created from man (not vice versa). She was created to be a companion and helpmate.
Gen. 2:18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’.
No currently existing living creature was good enough to be “fit for him” (Gen. 2:20)
So God created from the man’s very “stuff”/body, a being equal in value, of the same nature - woman.
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Sexual relations appear in the creation story only in the context of a blessing from God for the purpose of bringing forth children.
Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it;
 
Last edited:
I have heard he was responding to a heresy that involved women and yadda yadda
 
This teaching does not have anything to do with pleasures, but headship. The man was made first and in the image of God, the woman taken from man, has man as a head and then God as head. Eve disrupting the order of headship tried to become the head of Adam by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil first. The curse on women was made because of this lack of respect for order.

But as for pleasure, Christ gave up His body for the Church, and so a Man should put the well being of women before himself. So no, it is not right to read the passage and think the man’s pleasure is most important, just the opposite. But the women are to be obedient to the men, if they are doing things correctly; if not they must be obedient to God who the men are supposed to imitate.
 
No, I was not only speaking of sexual pleasure. I was speaking of pleasure and pleasures in the broadest sense.

It would seem that, yes, Paul considers the husband the head of the wife, but, in that case, it would seem that the wife must submit herself always to the pleasures of the husband and that the wife’s pleasures are, at the very least, of less account, if not of no account at all. She should not expect to receive pleasure from her husband (as a right of the relationship) unless the husband gives them to her, since she is the one made for her husband’s pleasure and her husband is not primarily made for hers (to serve her pleasure).
 
Last edited:
Genesis 2:18 “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’”

All translations use a term like: suitable helper, help meet, helpmate, etc. These words in English make it seem like God created woman to be a subordinate assistant to man. However the Hebrew terms used here and in Genesis 2:20 (ezer kenegdo) have a very different connotation.

Ezer is accurately translated as help, but this particular term always means a strong help or rescue. This word is used in various forms 19 other times in the Old Testament. Seventeen of these times it is used to refer to God helping His people - for example: the well known passage in Psalm 121 “I lift up my eyes to the mountains—where does my help come from? 2 My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.” The other 2 times a form of ezer is used it is referring to the help of military troops. This term is never used to refer to a weaker or secondary assistant. The term kenegdo comes from a Hebrew word that means - in front of, opposite, against, or in sight of. So ezer kenegdo is “suitable helper,” but this type of suitable helper/ezer kenegdo/woman that God created for man was not subordinate, but one who was equal to (or superior to even?😉) man in ability and power. This is how God designed the world.

“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31)

Then we look ahead to Genesis 3. The serpent convinces the woman and man to eat the fruit. And then everything changed. The world that was “good” was now fallen and broken. The world was no longer as God had intended it.

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

I don’t completely understand all of Paul’s points in that passage in 1 Corinthians. But Paul was writing to women and men living in a fallen world with the consequences of the sin from Genesis 3. He was not writing to women and men who were living in the world according to God’s original design.
 
Last edited:
And again, this was written about two thousand years ago when societal roles were strictly defined. I am sure some of that “prejudice” seeped into Paul’s writing. Again, remember those early writers believed that Jesus was coming back, IN THEIR LIFETIME. That thought would color their words.
And a second thought. That is why Jesus established a church on Peter to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Thoughts of the early writers would need amplification and understanding as to how they related to the times in which those words were read.
 
Thanks for all the replies thus far. Please, keep them coming!

I have heard some Catholic teachers state that such passages as this one actually signify the spiritual relations between a husband and wife, i.e., that the man is to be the “spiritual head” of the household. Not sure how common and/or accepted this understanding is, but I have indeed heard it on EWTN, which tends to be held overall as speaking quite authoritatively.

If this understanding is correct, than the symbolism of Christ and the Church expressed by an earlier poster might actually have some merit. If the woman represents the Church and the man Christ, and if the man is to represent a kind of “priest” of the home, than such phrases stating that we should obey our husbands “as the Lord” might make a whole lot more sense (?).

Furthermore, in another Pauline passage, Paul states that, in married life, it is the duty of the wife to “please” her husband but also the duty of the husband to “please” his wife, which, for those called to a higher vocation might distract from that higher vocation. This passage would seem to suggest that Paul did, in fact, allow the woman equal right to pleasure from her husband as the husband had of his wife, especially if we take “please” in more than a narrow sexual sense.

Wondering if there are other biblical passages that suggest that the woman has just as much right to take pleasure (of various kinds) from the man as he does from her?

Thoughts?
 
Oops, sorry. Forgot to add some thoughts on the specific lines in question on this thread:

Perhaps,…perhaps, the “man made for woman” not “woman for man” has some connection to this spiritual understanding of marriage?

Maybe the woman was “created for the man” in this context not just to be his suitable helper, but to be helped by him to live a good spiritual life (he is elsewhere told to “wash her” in the word, etc.). Again, perhaps we here have the “priest of the home” notion, perhaps?

Then, again, maybe I’m bending this problematic phrase too far…

Again, all ideas/thoughts/comments are still very much appreciated, as the phrase still remains a bit problematic for me, even on the above schema.
 
MMM 😃
Don’t know if these were referenced by other posters, but search the NT writings and you will find this:
“Wives be subordinate/submissive to your husbands… Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church” … and
“Husbands love your wife like your own flesh … for no man hates his own flesh”
They are not verbatim quotes but words of instruction and encouragement from St. Paul and from Christ (I think)
That first statement, “Wives be submissive to your husbands…” which you have heard in some form already;
hear is some of the history behind it. In the early Church in the 1st century, many men were married to women they did not choose. Arranged marriages. Many of these men were disaffected. Paul was exhorting men to love their wives even in this situation as many men looked elsewhere for companionship (interpret that as you wish) Many women were heads of family churches (early churches in no way resembled today’s Catholic churches) Men were often relegated to an inferior status. And remember, women had no rights before the law at that time. They could not vote, could not be a witness at a “trial”. They were considered chattel. Paul’s words, harsh and unfeeling as they seem now, had a much different meaning back then.
And sorry, this is a topic that would take much more time and explanation than can be accomplished here, but I hope this sheds a little light.
 
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 11:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 But I would have you know,
that the head of every man - is Christ;
and the head of the woman - is the man;
and the head of Christ is God.
 
Do you remember why God called Eve forth from Adam?

“It is not good that man should be alone.”

She was created with him, but until she was given form from his side, he could not embrace her.

Eve was created for Adam…in order to save him from his sterile and lonely existence. He returns the favor by saving her (as Christ saves the Church).
 
I hear this argument many times: that Paul was somehow sexist because of the societal context back then. Paul was not sexist. How do I know? Because he’s a saint and out of all the men to ever walk this Earth from the beginning of time to the end of it, God chose this specific man to be the apostle and to write these parts of the Bible. You can’t say you submit completely to the Bible’s authority (like Catholics do) and yet believe that societal influence had enough effect on the “unchanging word of God” to be discredited in modern times. Truth doesn’t have an expiration date! Now we must understand that we are very lucky with this faith of ours because, unlike many other belief systems, Catholicism believes that men and women are equal. Equal but not Identical. Period. Men and women are equal in God’s sight but yet they are different, unique, and complimentary. We must embrace this truth of our faith. And, contrary to popular belief, patriarchy isn’t a bad thing. What people nowadays associate with patriarchy is an oppressive system which favours all men and puts women and children at the bottom and out of society/whatever it is. Patriarch actually just means father and patriarchy in the family is just a system where the man is the head of the house. That is how God intended it to be! It doesn’t mean that they are better or somehow holier or worthier or greater in anyway 🙂 So the Catholic Church is a Patriarchy even though these men are not necessarily holier than all women.
 
MysticMissMisty said:
I have asked the following question of other sources, but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer, so I’m looking to this form for some insight.

Here goes…

In 1 Corinthians 11:9, Paul informs us that “the woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman”. What, exactly, does he mean by this?
Gratias vobis
Click to expand...
OK my FRIEND, here we go in the space allotted.

The Book of Genesis teaches us:

Gen 1:26-27 "And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them"

Gen 2:15-17 " And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it. And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. [HIM!]

Gen 3: 1-6 “[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.”

God choose to make Adman responsible for Eve’s education and was her PROTECTOR. He failed Eve & GOD.

Both Adam and Eve has a PERFECT existence in Paradise; lacking NOTHING EXCEPT for actually “Being God”; which LIKE SATAN they desire {PRIDE!} So Adam sinned THROUGH Even, NOT because of Eve.

In every organization SOMEONE has to be in-charge ultimately . So to in the family the HUSBAND is to be the final say. YES there is to be discussion and IF POSSIBLE morally; compromise. But God will hold the man as being more culpable than the woman.

The whole discussion of “pleasure” is a con: Marriage exist for two reasons: Procreation and what I have come to term as “marriage cement” the MUTUAL PLEASURES of a married union.

As one who last July celebrated 50 years of marriage {by far MOST of them GREAT}, OF COURSE there is communication; give and take, cooperation and compromise; no marriage is going to last without these elements.

Many of your points are foolishness not based upon a REAL marriage. I mean NO disrespect to you; simply pointing out how unrealistic many of your “points” are in REAL-Life.

Patrick
 
I think the foundational issue we need to talk about is the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Until we understand those concepts, we won’t know how intensely we are supposed to defend Paul’s literal words.

For I already see a few problems with previous posts:
  • (1) An assumption that humans were created in the literal way detailed by Genesis. However, the Catholic Church’s official documents sway towards an acceptance of the scientific data: That the human body evolved over time, and that Genesis is not describing a literal scientific account of creation.
  • In other words, the human male was not created first (in the Genesis sense) if we accept the scientific data.
  • (2) An assumption that we have to understand Paul’s words as 100% word-for-word reflections of God’s truth, without considering the context, cultural situations, and so on.
The Catholic Church teaches that we must ascribe to the Holy Spirit that which is being asserted by the human author. So the question ought to be: What is Paul asserting as true in these passages? Granted, it’s still a complicated issue. Paul of course is influenced by the scientific understandings of HIS day, probably assuming that Genesis tells a biological account of what happened — why would he have a reason to think otherwise, afterall? I think we have to remember that the sacred authors were conditioned to their own knowledge and cultures.

So again, what is the Holy Spirit saying in this? What is Paul asserting as true? That we must believe Adam was literally created before Eve?

I haven’t studied this issue much. I think I will later today. But my initial reactions would be to say that Paul is simply using a common cultural/religious (even “scientific”) understanding of his day to explain the deeper truths of the complementarity and difference of Male and Female. It’s quite obvious that the complementarity of the two sexes will be DEPENDENT and REFLECTED in the various cultural situations of the day.

After all, hardly any knowledgeable Catholic thinks that Paul’s words on women head coverings literally apply in every age. Or even his comments on women being silent in church: NO Catholic church takes that as literally true; women pray, read, sing, lead all the time in Catholic contexts – even in liturgy.
 
Last edited:
Put another way, we can try to defend Paul in every way we can. And we can try to understand what it means for the Scriptures to be inspired.

But for those who are trying to also be faithful to the scientific data, as well as the trend by the OFFICIAL documents of the Catholic Church, as well as the trend by its official leaders (Francis, Benedict, JPII), then we have to admit that Paul was simply wrong if he is saying that Adam was historically, biologically, physically created before Eve.

(Of course, the human body of Adam – the first body/soul human male – may have been “created” first in the sense of God first ensouling Adam, or in the sense of Adam being conceived in his biological mother’s womb prior to Eve, the first body/soul woman. But Adam was not “first” in the sense of God specially creating Adam’s body, and then literally forming Eve out of his side.)
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Paul was simply wrong if he is saying that Adam was historically, biologically, physically created before Eve.
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow. As you said in the post before, you haven’t studied this issue much, so please think about that before you post such blasphemous things. The Orthodox Church and the RCC before Vatican 2 all believed that the Genesis account was literal and that God created Adam and taking a rib from Adam created Eve. That you think that St. Paul and Moses are liars, is your personal choice, but please be aware that most RC today still believe this, and I would dare say all real Orthodox Christians believe this. If you break apart this reality, then the original sin becomes a lie, then the need for salvation a lie, then the Incarnation a lie, then it is all a sham. You need to study as you said, and I would recommend the Fathers of the Church, whose Church you seem to claim but contradict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top