Exploring the biblical theology of Christian egalitarianism

Close this search box.


Tradução em português aqui.

It’s troubling when people misuse scripture to subordinate and repress women, and, conversely, to elevate men. The misunderstanding and misuse of 1 Corinthians 11:9 in this regard especially concerns me.

“… neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Cor. 11:9).

One-sided Service?

Some Christians believe that this verse teaches that women were made solely to serve men, and that men do not have a reciprocal responsibility or obligation to help women.

They hold to this belief even though Jesus taught about sacrificial service and demonstrated this to his followers (cf. Mark 10:45).

They hold to this belief even though Paul specifically told husbands they should act with loving care towards their wives (Eph. 5:25, 28–29 cf. Eph. 5:1–2).

The Context of Origin

The context of 1 Corinthians 11:9 is creation and origin. In particular, this verse alludes to the Genesis 2 creation account where we read that the woman in Eden was made from a part that was taken out of the first (hu)man’s body (Gen. 2:21–22).

Echoing this creation story, verse 9 is prefaced with,

“For man did not come from woman, but woman from man . . .” (1 Cor. 11:8).

The woman was made because the man couldn’t manage alone. It must have been a big job caring for the garden in Eden. The woman was made from a chunk or side taken out of the human’s body, so that they could then work together, side by side, and care for the garden which was a sacred space.[1]

Aloneness vs Companionship and Mutuality

Genesis 2 does tell us that the first woman was created for the sake[2] of the first man—to rescue him from being alone (Gen. 2:18). And this is what Paul refers to 1 Corinthians 11:9. He goes on, however, to provide more comprehensive statements about the relationship between men and women, in particular, about those who are “in the Lord.”[3]

“Nevertheless (or, except that), in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God” (1 Cor. 11:11–12, italics added).

Paul points out that, even though the first woman came from the first man (cf. Gen. 2:21–23), every other man has been born of a woman (cf. Gen 4:1).[4] Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 11:11–12 negate the notion that a gender hierarchy or male priority must be read into the created order. In no way does he acknowledge that there is any significance in being made first for those who are “in the Lord” (cf. Mark 10:31).

The first woman in Eden was made to solve the problem of the first (hu)man’s aloneness, since then, however, the ideal is that men and women are mutually dependent on each other.

“In the Lord”

1 Corinthians 11:8–9 must not be read as an isolated text. It must be read and understood within its context, which includes the verses that follow it, and it must be interpreted with an appreciation of what it means to be “in the Lord.”

In Galatians, Paul wrote that “in the Lord,” or, more precisely, “in Christ,” there is neither male and female (Gal. 3:28).[5] When we are in Christ, we have a new identity; gender distinctions remain but they lose their social significance.

In Second Corinthians, Paul wrote that we are not to regard each other primarily “according to the flesh” because we are now “in Christ” and part of the New Creation (2 Cor. 5:16–17). Rather than regarding our brothers and sisters “according to the flesh,” we should regard them as “in the Lord” and we should “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21).

“One Another”

Service and submission is not the sole responsibility of women. All of us, women and men, are to serve one another (Gal. 5:13–14), submit to one another, and rescue one another from being alone. Mutuality, not hierarchy, is the New Creation paradigm. And followers of Jesus are New Creation people.

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God …” (2 Cor. 5:16–18a).


[1] I’m not game to word it quite like this, but respected scholar Kenneth Bailey did when commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:9: “It was not Eve who was lonely, unable to manage and needed help. Instead, it was Adam who could not manage alone …”
Kenneth Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 310.

[2] The Greek preposition dia (“for”) + ton andra (“the man”) in the accusative case gives the sense that the woman was created “for the sake of/ on account of/ because of the man.”

[3] The overall context of the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is about origins and appropriate behaviour in corporate worship. It is not about marriage. I have more on this passage, here.

[4] I suggest 1 Corinthians 11:3 also refers to origins or beginnings. I understand the second phrase of this verse as meaning, “the origin (‘head’) of Eve (‘the woman’) is Adam (‘the man’).” I have more on the meaning of “head” in 1 Corinthians 11:3, here.

[5] “Neither male and female” is an allusion to Genesis 1:27c.

© Margaret Mowczko 2015
All Rights Reserved

You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!

Image credit

Photo by fauxels via Pexels

Explore more

Do women have a special obligation to be helpers?
1 Corinthians 11:2–16 in a Nutshell
Judith Gundry on the Two Social Contexts of 1 Cor. 11:2–16
All my articles on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 are here.
Kenegdo: Is the woman in Genesis 2 subordinate, suitable, or similar to the man?
A Suitable Helper (Genesis 2:18–20)
Is a gender hierarchy implicit in the creation narrative of Genesis 2:4–25
Galatians 3:28: Our Identity in Christ and in the Church
Being “in” Christ
The Holy Spirit and Equality in the Book of Acts
More articles in the
In a Nutshell Series are here.

In a Nutshell Series

41 thoughts on “Woman Created for Man (1 Cor. 11:9), in a Nutshell

  1. The fact that God created the first man as needing the help of a woman should cause men to be humble and respect women more. It is just the nature of sin that tells people that if they need help they can demean the one who helps them. We so quickly forget that God is the greatest HELP for humans that there is.

    1. Adam being created first with his suitable helper following is no reason to require men to be humble and respect women more, though men of course should respect women and women men. Adam being created before Eve spiritually illustrates for us Christ’s headship over His spiritual wife, the church. First there was Christ and out of Him came the church, just as Eve came out of Adam.

      Here are scriptures which tell us Christ came first and out of Him came His Body, the church, who is spiritually called His wife.

      Col 1:15 [Christ] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
      Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
      Col 1:17 And HE IS BEFORE ALL THINGS, and by him all things consist.
      Col 1:18 And HE IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY, THE CHURCH: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; THAT IN ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE PREEMINENCE.

      Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

      Surely you would not suggest that Christ is in need of the help of the church and should be humble and respect the church more? Does the scripture not clearly say “He is the head of the body, the church”?

      Why are you reasoning about who is most important? As you yourself say here, “God is the greatest help for humans that there is”, or as Jesus said:

      Mar 10:44 And whoever of you desires to become first, he shall be servant of all.
      Mar 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

      1. No one disputes that Jesus Christ came before the church, and that he is the source or origin of the church.

        And no one disputes that the first human Adam was the source or origin of the first woman Eve.

        And yet Jesus and the church, even though they are not equal, work in a partnership. Husband and wife, who are equal, also should work together in an equal partnership.

        I think TL’s comment is perfectly fine and makes good sense.

        Ursula, you have no idea of the motives of the people who comment here. I do not allow judgemental comments and have removed your ungracious and judgemental remark.

        1. Ursula quoted scripture… and it’s some how ungracious?

          1. Jake, If you read my comment more carefully, you will see that I removed the ungracious parts of Ursula’s comment.

            I kept the quotations of scriptures and I kept her remarks comments that were not rude.

            I welcome the quotation of scripture, especially when given in context with sensible commentary.

  2. Thankfully we have the whole Bible! Women today, with all the resources at their disposal, have only themselves to blame if they do not challenge ALL teachings of the past about women that claim to be from the Bible!

    God is just…it is humans that are unjust…just like God says in Ezekiel 18:25 and 29. “Is not my way equal…is not YOUR WAY UNEQUAL?” Yes, when left to himself mankind insists on inequality for others, but this is not the way of God.

    So how do I interpret ‘woman WAS made for man’?

    1….In the beginning it WAS so and then God IMMEDIATELY reversed the process. Why did God give women the task of bearing children instead of men, especially after woman was made from Adam? A male birthing had already taken place once. Why change? This is a very important consideration and implies the active consideration of God and even perhaps His expectation of greater general strength of character from women…as many of us can attest…after all it was Adam who blamed God for his sin…not Eve. Just because Paul doesn’t bring this up doesn’t make it less so! Eve correctly put the blame on Satan…and most men will admit that their own moral compasses waver a lot, especially in their youth…

    2….woman was made to rescue man for she was made an EZER (Hebrew)…like God she was sent to save/help. As King David said in Psalm 144:12…”that our daughters may be as corner stones, polished after the similitude of a palace”. Here Pastor Barton Bouchier, born in the 18th century says “(God) meant the nations of the earth to know and understand how much of their happiness, their strength, and their security was dependent on the female children of a family.” (Treasury of David)

    Bouchier SAW that women DID IN FACT act as CONDUITS for the hand of God…OUR HELP…bringing stability to the world as helpers in a similar way to God being our help. Therefore the analogy of “cornerstone” is not far-fetched. Women was made “for” the good of man to bring peace, not for mats to be trod upon or for targets for out of control male emotionalism and impaired humour. Yet women have indeed taken the worst some evil men have to offer and remained like cornerstones of all the cultures of the world…strong, dependable and courageous, often unflinching in the face of great danger…fierce mothers, and perhaps in this sense especially they were made to protect against great odds. Much of humanity owes its survival to broken but forward looking women who would not be defeated.

    We need to recognize the multitude of nameless, spiritually great women of history, little, unknown women who live/d in the shadows, who silently took, and still take, the worst that male culture can throw at them and yet survive as Godly creatures with more determination to overcome all that is evil. Perhaps women were made so particularly strong in order to survive the onslaught, so man would finally come to the end of himself and recognize the depth of evil inherent in his heart when his belief in his own entitlement is taken to its greatest heights. If so, this is a lesson for us, as women, to take to heart, lest we think ourselves to be any better at handling power than men have been.

    1. Thank you Judy. I really enjoyed your thoughts and the warning.

  3. “Thankfully we have the whole Bible! Women today, with all the resources at their disposal, have only themselves to blame if they do not challenge ALL teachings of the past about women that claim to be from the Bible!”

    While I agree there are many resources available to women today that were not available in the past, there are literally multitudes of women across the world who are still in bondage to traditional complementarian teachings.

    There are millions of Christian women in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere who do not have adequate access to education or if they can read cannot afford these kinds of resources. They also do not always have access to the internet, or cannot afford to access it.

    While Christianity is dwindling in western nations, it is rising in Africa, China and other places. Unfortunately the version of Christianity that has too often been taught in these places is one that limits women.

    Let’s not blame women everywhere for not challenging traditional and limited teachings about themselves, wherever they live. There are all kinds of reasons why women can’t always access resources to help them with that, both in western nations and non-western nations.

    Let’s focus on trying to spread the message of biblical equality to them rather than blaming them for not knowing about it. In my view there has already been enough blame put on women – historically and currently.

    1. Cheryl, I completely agree that we cannot blame women. I’ve always observed that casting blame is counter productive, and I don’t want to add blame to my sisters, and brothers, who are in bondage

      Even western women, who have access to so many resources at their fingertips, are still likely to read patriarchy into New Testament Scriptures if patriarchy is all they see demonstrated and taught in their church community.

      1. Yes Marg, it’s so much more about demonstration and teaching than resources. Resources are helpful and we are increasingly blessed to have more and more scriptural resources becoming available to us, but living out biblical equality in our Christian communities is what’s going to ultimately turn the tide.

  4. As I just said, it is more than resources and information…

    There is a psychological hurdle for too many women who are trained from birth to fear the dominance of men and the problem is how to overcome this deeply ingrained fear that paralyzes so many women who remain in Complementarianism because they have nowhere else to go as long as they are, literally, married to the ideology.

    They are not to blame either, but what is the CURE? Divorce is not an option. What can they do besides feed the lie? Faith alone is really the answer for them, but how can ‘faith’ in God support abandoning such a marriage?

    Therefore, I believe it is SO important to catch YOUNG women before they find themselves held captive in such situations. Even such women can teach their daughters in the faith not to do as they have done. Perhaps that will be their legacy of hope.

  5. My thoughts, 1 Cor 11:2-16 is the teaching unit/pericope. As you know, it is a chiasm, but since some aspects are so unclear, I propose working from the center out, rather than top down.

    The center is 1 Cor 11:10 which is the main conclusion. As I see it, the puzzle challenge is that 1 Cor 11:10 gives freedom to a woman to decide whether to do the “head thing” where a man is not to do the “head thing” per 1 Cor 11:7a. In other words, there is a fundamental asymmetry between men and women for Paul in 1 Cor 11 in terms of their options in acting in faith.

    Here was my insight from last night. Put all the asymmetries in one column and all the symmetries in another. The idea is that the asymmetries are there in order to explain the asymmetry in the conclusion. One of those asymmetries are the verses 1 Cor 11:8-9, which includes 1 Cor 11:9 which is what your original post is about. So my thoughts are that this is part of Paul’s rationale for his asymmetric conclusion that a woman can do something that he does not want a man to do in 1st century Corinth.

    1. Thanks Don.

      I like your conclusion of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: that women have the freedom (or authority) to choose about their head, whereas a man may not cover his head. But I don’t think 1 Cor 11:9 is asymmetrical. I think it is balanced by verse 11: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.” Perhaps I’m not understanding what you mean by asymmetries.

    2. I see 1 Cor 11:11-12 as symmetrical and does pair up with 1 Cor 11:7-9 in the chiasm. I see 1 Cor 11:8-9 as parenthetical expressions which contain asymmetries explaining the asymmetry between 1 Cor 11:7 and 1 Cor 11:10.

      Another way of putting it is that I think Paul would prefer everyone to not do the “head thing”. However, there is a clash of meanings for the “head thing” for a woman that does not happen for a man. Since the clash of meanings depends on the circumstances, Paul punts the resolution to the individual woman to decide which action is preferred.

      1. Yeah, the change, or clash, of meanings of “head” may have been clever but it complicates the reading. I wonder if the Corinthians struggled as much as we do in understanding the passage. 😉

        1. I think there are many reasons to think those at Corinth could figure it out better than we can.

          1) They knew the contents of the letter and oral communication from Chloe to Paul that resulted in what we call 1 Cor.
          2) They would know his oral teaching.
          3) They would know 0 Cor, the letter before 1 Cor which is now lost but is referred to in 1 Cor.
          4) They were a mixed congregation of Jews and gentiles, many congregations are not.
          5) They lived in the 1st century at Corinth, we do not and have to bridge that gap as best we can.
          6) 1st Peter said that Paul wrote some things which are hard to understand, if that was true then, how much more today.
          7) The letter carrier typically would be charged with speaking the letter to the congregation and explaining it if there were any questions.

          1. Hi Don,

            My comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek, hence the winking emoticon (which may have been difficult to see)

            The advantage the Corinthians had was that, if they didn’t understand anything Paul wrote, they could ask him about it in a return letter. But all we can do is prayerfully scratch our heads and think hard, and try to work it out as best we can.

          2. Marg and Don,

            Despite not knowing Greek, it seems to me that since Paul wrote both the following ideas, that ONE thing Paul did not mean by head is authority…because, as I have said over and over on various sites:

            Jesus considered it not robbery to be equal with God (who is His Head) and therefore women should not consider it robbery to be equal with their husbands who are their head, not should their husbands think their wives are unequal to them…NO?

  6. Ty for this article! I disagree the male came first–we came together. Gen. 5:2 “Male and Female created He them; and blessed them and called Their name Adam.” Dr. Garr teaches that Eve did not come from a rib, the body was divided in half. My husband found the Hebrew word for chamber in scripture as well he believed Adam had a woom initially, and Dr. Garr believed they were totally one body too. Isn’t that awesome!

    1. Hi Christa,

      Yes, the Hebrew word tselah doesn’t usually mean rib but part or side, or even chamber. I write about the possibility of the first human in Genesis 2 being divided into a man (ish) and woman (ishshah) here: https://margmowczko.com/human-man-woman-genesis-2/

  7. First, Thank You for your wonderful work! It has truly changed my life. I grew up in a misogynistic comp church that tried its best to make me feel inferior and unwanted. But in my search for the truth, God led me to your blog and I’ve been passionate about hermeneutics ever since!

    As I’m new to Koine Greek, I wanted to ask you about 1 Cor 11:9’s use of the word διὰ. Why in 11:9 is it translated “for (the sake of)” when it can mean “through, of, out of”? Would the following translation be accurate?

    “Namely (? καὶ), man was not created through / of / out of woman, but woman through / of / out of man.”

    If you have the time to respond, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

    And thank you again! 🙂

    1. Hi Jenna,

      I have a footnote about dia in 1 Corinthians 11:9 in this article: https://margmowczko.com/the-chiasm-in-1-corinthians-11_2-16/

      1. Thank you for the link, that’s exactly what I was looking for 🙂

  8. Hello Marg, I have a question.

    What is the significance of Eve being created as ‘ezer’? Does it mean all women are ‘ezer’s, created with a ‘for-man nature’? Or is this distinction between man and ‘ezer’ eliminated because men and women are all mutually dependent now?

    Is it plausible that her ‘ezer’ nature is what makes polygyny okay? For example, a man can have many ‘ezer’ s since they are all suitable for him, but the same won’t work for women since man is not ‘ezer’. Perhaps this is a just a natural result of having two sexes.

    It seems humans, for millennia, have understood the ‘ezer’ nature of woman, with adultery defined as taking someone’s ‘ezer’. It’s Iike they all know women are made for men.

    Are they wrong?

    Thank you.

    1. Hi Natalya, The word ezer, which means a “vital help,” is a highly significant word, but it does not contain any “for man” sense. The “for/to man” idea comes from the word kenegdo which means “equal/similar to him.”

      The woman was made because the first human in Eden was alone, and this was not good. He needed help caring for the garden which many Old Testament scholars believe was a sacred space. He couldn’t do it on his own. The woman was made from a part taken out from his side, and we can then imagine that they worked together, side by side, caring for the garden. Sex and procreation were not part of the Eden experience.

      Today, very few people live isolated lives. Almost no one is completely alone like the first human in Eden. And we need to be careful about applying ezer kenegdo more broadly.

      Being an ezer is not a gender role. Anyone can be an ezer, and many men’s names in the Bible have “ezer” as a component. God is the best ezer.

      Genesis 2:24, which is quoted in the New Testament by Jesus and Paul, pretty much rules out that polygamy is God’s best intention for human relationships.

      I actually disagree with this statement: “humans, for millennia, have understood the ‘ezer’ nature of woman.” I think most people, by far, have greatly underestimated the value of women and completely misunderstood the word ezer when applied to the woman in Eden.

      Also, I have never heard adultery defined as taking someone’s ezer.

      I’ve written about ezer here: https://margmowczko.com/a-suitable-helper/
      And about kenegdo here: https://margmowczko.com/tag/kenegdo/
      This article covers much of what I’ve said in this comment, and more: https://margmowczko.com/ezer-gender-role/

      1. Sex and procreation not part of Eden? Then what did they do? did they unite as one flesh (Gen 2:24) after her creation? They must have organs before fall because that distinguishes the sexes.

        Eve must have had children also because she knew childbirth pain already, which increased after fall. My priest taught us adam and eve had a big consummation and Jews also believe it.

        1. Hi Natalya, The couple in Eden were man and woman. Nevertheless, there are none of the usual Hebrew words that refer to sexual relationships in Genesis 2 like we have in Genesis 4:1ff, for example. The only ongoing task in Eden was caring for the garden which some believe was a priestly kind of service.

          Nevertheless, the man and woman did form a close and exclusive bond. They were a couple. And this was later consummated.

          Have another look at Genesis 2. You can read it here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=CSB
          There’s no mention of Eve having sex or babies. Genesis 2:24 is speaking about marriage in general, not Adam and Eve’s relationship, as Adam did not leave his father and mother. And Genesis 2:25 may hint at their innocence. Also, Genesis 3:16 doesn’t say or imply that Eve had already experienced childbirth.

          Most people regard Cain as Adam and Eve’s first child, followed by Abel and then Seth. These children are mentioned in Genesis 4. According to Genesis 5, Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born (Gen. 5:3). Adam and Eve were not in a rush to have kids.

          I’m not aware of any Christian or Jewish tradition about the consummation of Adam and Eve’s relationship. (I had a quick search online and didn’t find anything.) The Bible is matter of fact about Adam and Eve having sex and babies in Genesis 4. You can read what it says here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204&version=CSB

          Fifty years ago, Derek Kidner said this about Adam and Eve and their relationship in Genesis 2:18-25:
          “The naming of the animals, a scene which portrays man as monarch of all he surveys, poignantly reveals him as a social being, made for fellowship, not power; he will not live until he loves, giving himself away (Gen. 2:24) to another on his level [cf. Eph. 5:1-2, 25, 28-29, 31]. So the woman is presented wholly as his partner and counterpart; nothing is yet said of her as childbearer. She is valued for herself alone.”
          Derek Kidner, Genesis (TOTC) (Nottingham: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 65.

          1. But they must have done *something*. How can a couple abstain for years when they’re naked? Isn’t love and sex part of companionship she gives adam?

            says rabbis believed they had sex.

            Mormons say adam and eve never have children if there was no fall. (Moses 5:11). It also says adam had children before Cain. Cain talk about other people who might kill him so others must have been born also.

          2. Thanks for the link, Natalya. It shows that some rabbis, at least, believed Adam and Eve has sex in Eden. But where did they get that idea from? From their imagination?

            I prefer to stick with what the Bible says. However, if and when I use my imagination, I make a distinction between my own thoughts or speculations and what the Bible says. I think we need to be clear with what the Bible says and be clear if and when we use our own imagination to fill in details.

            The Genesis 2-3 stories raise many questions with no answers, and we need to be careful when we try to fill in the blanks. We need to listen carefully to the story and ideas the narrator of Genesis 2-3 wanted his audience to hear.

            The Bible says nothing about the couple having sex or children in Eden. It also doesn’t say they were in Eden for years. There is no indication of time given in Genesis 2-3. According to the biblical text, Eve’s companionship in Genesis 2 does not appear to be sexual. As I said in a previous comment, Genesis 2:25 may indicate sexual innocence.

            Regarding other people and Cain:
            “The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-4 may not be the story about the very first, or only, humans God created, but the story of the couple who were the first people created in an ancestral line that would include Israel.
            To some, the idea may be new that God created human beings other than Adam and Eve, but the biblical text shows that their oldest son Cain was aware of humans other than those of his family. He was worried they would attack him when God drove him away from his farmland (Gen. 4:13–15). Furthermore, Cain went to live in a land called Nod, a land with a name and, therefore, presumably an inhabited land (Gen. 4:15). And he may have found his wife there (Gen. 4:16). Cain later built a city called Enoch. Who were the inhabitants of this city? Were they only Cain’s descendants?”
            This is from footnote 1 here: https://margmowczko.com/human-man-woman-genesis-2/

  9. It’s interesting that quite a number of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbinical clerics have believed that God did not create the woman from the man’s rib, but from his penis bone (baculum). If that’s true, then Ephesians 5:28 makes a lot of sense to men: “In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” That would give 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 a strong meaning to men for most all men ‘cherish’ their penis. We are in no way ever wanting to harm it or allow it to be harmed. We protect it at all costs. In fact, it’s the number one fear soldiers have when they are sent off to war. It’s not will I die, but Will I lose my penis. Will I be able to have sex with my wife. Will I be able to have my children with her. That’s how a man is to be for his wife, the weaker vessel, but oh so precious to him. And the wife who yields to her husband’s desire for her is well protected.

    1. I have heard the baculum idea, but I don’t think this very Jewish, and somewhat fringe, idea is behind Paul’s words to the Roman Corinthians or to the Ephesians.

      Regarding Ephesians 5:25ff: Paul wanted first-century husbands, who had a higher status and more honour, simply because they were male and had male bodies, to follow Jesus’s example by lowering themselves (giving themselves up for their wives), and also by elevating their wives (loving and nurturing their wives as their own male bodies).

      Paul wanted a levelling of status and honour between husband and wife. By reducing a distinction in status, a greater degree of head-body, one-flesh unity would be achieved. Unity is Paul’s aim.
      From here: https://margmowczko.com/pauls-main-point-in-eph-5_22-33/

      Ephesians 5 was written, at the very least, a decade after 1 Corinthians was written. And 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 deals with a specifically Corinthian problem.

      Paul was not asking the Corinthian men to cherish the women in 1 Cor. 11:8-9. And in the corresponding verses, he encourages mutuality and interdependence (1 Cor. 11:11-12).

      1. Before you assume that God created the woman from the man’s penis bone is not ‘very Jewish,’ you could consider these few online references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum
        + thousands of more online references to why men don’t have penis bones.
        Zevit, Zion. Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?, Biblical Archaeology Review 41:5, September/October 2015
        Congenital human baculum deficiency: the generative bone of Genesis 2:21-23
        Creating Woman
        Mary Joan Winn Leith, Biblical Archaeology Review 42:2, March/April 2016, p.93
        NCBI ROFL: What did God do with Adam’s penis bone?
        God made Eve from Adam’s PENIS and not his rib

        1. Trevor, you’ve misunderstood the statement where I used the words “very Jewish.” The intention of my statement was to indicate the limited relevance of the very Jewish “baculum idea + Adam and Eve” to a predominately Roman audience.

          The articles I clicked on do not mention 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 which is the focus of this webpage. The topic of my article is not about penis bones.

          If penis bones is important to you, please find someone else to talk to about it. I’m aware of the idea, as I stated in my first comment to you, but I don’t find it especially interesting. And I don’t appreciate having all those links you shared on my blog.

          Start your own blog, it’s easy, if you want to disseminate your ideas.

      2. Your statement “Paul was not asking the Corinthian men to cherish the women” is quite troubling. It’s as if you are not wanting men to cherish their wives. Do you not want your husband to cherish you? Wouldn’t you want God’s backing for your husband to value you because God created you as THE woman for him? Or does a man cherishing his wife is somehow a threat to equality, egalitarianism, and feminist ideology?
        Of course, it’s not my job to teach you these things. That’s your husband’s job. It is going to be a very sad time when the inevitable destruction of this nation comes upon us and so many women will be left defenseless because they ‘trained’ men by spending a century dishonoring them in order to assume women could be like men. It will be Isaiah 3 all over again and it will be too late for women. But the few who will be left will be the women of Isaiah 4 who finally understand the truth of why God created them female. They will be the women who will know their very lives depend on honoring the man.

        1. Trevor, you’re reading way too much in my statement. I used the word “cherish” because of your statement when you wrote, “That would give 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 a strong meaning to men for most all men ‘cherish’ their penis.”

          I do not think these two verses are about men cherishing their penises or about men cherishing women. I mentioned “women” because Paul mentions “women” in these verses.

          In my marriage, my husband and I cherish each other, and I’m sad not everyone has this in their relationships. Nothing in my previous comment warrants the speculation, “Do you not want your husband to cherish you?”

          You’ve troubled yourself over nothing.

          How about we all honour each other? Nowhere do I dishonour men (or women) or encourage this kind of behaviour. On the other hand, your comments reveal hasty misunderstandings and wrong assumptions about my beliefs and aims and even my nationality. Your comments are not as respectful as they could be.

          Trevor, believe what you want about 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and penis bones. I’ve listened to you, but I’m not interested in listening to more on this line of thought. I’m especially not interested in listening to your reactions which are based on simple misunderstandings.

          Goodbye, Trevor.

          1. Not budging and never will. Read Isaiah 3 & 4. Take it to heart.

          2. No one is asking you to budge, Trevor. (Budge from what exactly?) You’re free to believe what you want, and you’re free to keep cherishing your penis if that’s your thing. I just prefer not to hear about it on my blog.

            No sensible woman wants to be cherished in the same way a man supposedly cherishes his penis. And I don’t want to know how Ephesians 5:29-30 fits with your “penis” interpretation of Ephesians 5:28.

            Goodbye, Trevor.

            PS I’m familiar with Isaiah 3-4 and have written about it.

  10. Correction on your writings of man with (hu) in front of man like (hu)man is your doctrine. It’s just man and woman and no (hu) before the man. The man and the woman make the human.

    1. I’m sticking with “(hu)man,” Nathan, in the few places I’ve used it. It conveys what I want to say.

      I agree that the man and woman in Genesis 2 “make the human.” Though, I wouldn’t word it quite like that. So, how about you say things, the way you want to say them, in your space on the WWW, and I’ll say things, the way I want to say them, in my space?

      I’ve written more about the first human in Eden here: https://margmowczko.com/human-man-woman-genesis-2/

  11. Why is divorce not an option? Because it is poor teachings of the church, not the Bible, that say so.

    Because of poor teaching and socialization, many women don’t know their worth and position of equality.

    Here’s to places like this where truth is taught.

  12. […] In 1 Corinthians 11:9, Paul alluded to Genesis 2 and reminded the Corinthians that woman was made for man. He wrote this to make a certain point. However, Paul goes on to say that men and women who are “in the Lord” are mutually interdependent (1 Cor. 11:11–12). We need each other. (I have more on 1 Cor. 11:9 here.) […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Marg's Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Join Marg's Patreon

Would you like to support my ministry of encouraging mutuality and equality between men and women in the church and in marriage?