A Prophecy or Command?

[dreadnought]

Surprisingly, the commentaries I checked don't think 1 Cor 14:33 cites Gen 3:16.
One quotes FF Bruce: “This is unlikely, since in MT and LXX Gen 3:16 speaks of a woman’s instinctive inclination … (Heb. תשׁוקה [teshuqah]; Gk [LXX] ἀποστροφή) towards her husband, of which he takes advantage so as to dominate her. The reference is more probably to the creation narratives.…” Even that seems pretty weak. Another possibility is traditional Jewish interpretation of the Law. This makes more sense if 33b-35 are an interpolation, since Paul wouldn't be likely to quote this kind of interpretation as Law.

There's a lot of discussion today about 1 Cor 14:34-35, for obvious reasons. A number of recent writers think it's an interpolation. Here are the arguments (from Senft and Schrage, summarized by from Thiselton's commentary on 1 Cor. Thiselton obviously doesn't think much of them):

(1) The verses allegedly differ from the main theme or themes of 12:1–14:40; (2) they supposedly interrupt the flow of instructions about the prophets, as the Western copyists perceive (and a few MSS place them after 14:40, e.g., D, F, G); (3) the verses contradict 11:5; (4) to appeal to “the law” to endorse or to validate church discipline is “non-Pauline”; (5) “the expression ‘the church of the saints’ [ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων, translated above as the churches of God’s holy people] is foreign to Paul.”

I don't think this is a majority view, though it has a number of distinguished defenders, e.g. Gordon Fee.

Another view, which is pretty common, is that the objection is to women talking in church, i.e. interrupting the service. There's an implication that they are talking to their husbands, who might (in accordance with Jewish custom) be sitting in a separate section of the meeting. That's the position I think is most likely. I don't believe Paul is opposed to women talking in an authorized fashion, or 1 Cor 11:5 would make no sense.

But Paul also believes women should be submissive to their husbands, without stating men should be submissive to their wives.

 

[hedrick]

But Paul also believes women should be submissive to their husbands, without stating men should be submissive to their wives.

You were asking about 1 Cor 14. I believe the passages you're referring to now are something else (and most likely they're from books whose authorship is disputed).

The problem with using 1 Cor 14 in the broader discussion of women's roles is that it just doesn't fit. If 1 Cor 14 said "women can't be church leaders" you could maybe understand. But it isn't about leadership at all. It says women shouldn't speak, and the context (hold their questions until they get home rather than asking their husbands in church) isn't the kind of speech a leader would use. Furthermore, 1 Cor 11:5 explicitly says women can speak, because it discusses what they should wear when speaking. If 1 Cor 14 said women shouldn't be leaders, there would be no contradiction of 1 Cor 11:5, but it says they shouldn't speak. Either it's talking about disruptive speech only (which the wording suggests), Paul is contradicting himself, or it's a non-Pauline interpolation.

I'm been reading Fee's argument that it's an interpolation. Fee is one of the best evangelical textual critics of his generation. He may well be right.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?

Sorry. I just realized that I got distracted (by my family) while I was attempting to answer your OP, and I only addressed the "desire for your husband" part of your quote.

As for the first part dealing with 'childbirth pain, it appears some here have already dealt with that, so I don't have anything to add really.

 

[The Times]

God changed reality of before and after the fall. The reality for the animals who had no part in Adam and Eva's choice was changed.

A programmer conditional statement of IF....THEN.....OR ELSE seems to have run a different functional reality subroutine.

Is this Judgement?

The subroutine existed before Adam and Eva made that choice. This fail safe subroutine of the Creation was an IF....THEN.....OR ELSE....conditional statement of the main subroutine of Genesis that diverted reality to another subroutine reality.

It can only be interpreted as Eva self condemning herself by being made in bondage to her husband. Adam condemned himself by having to struggle to survive by finding food, amongst other things.

Is it Judgement from God or self condemnation by those parties who rebelled against God?

I would say self condemnation.

This became the CURSE of the Fall, which condemned both man and beast.

Romans 5:18
Yes, Adam's one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ's one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.

Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."

The CURSE of SELF CONDEMNATION resulting from Adam and Eva's choice was removed by one prophetic act, the fail safe Cross of Calvary that restored the Garden.

Though we shall all die, but we shall live when the new earth and the new heaven are ushered in at Christ's brilliant coming.

 

[Yarddog]

After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?

Not sure if it was either. The Garden story is full of allegorical symbolism. I'm sure it reveals something about Jews but I don't know what, yet.

 

[A71]

After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?

Paul stated he was basing his statement about men ruling over women on the law (1 Cor 14:33-36). What law was he referring to? Was he referring to the scripture I quoted in my original post?

The Law is the Law of Nature.
The original statement is a command I guess.

 

[timewerx]

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?

It's not a command but a consequence of Eve's sin.

Same thing for the consequences of Adam's sin (toil the land / hard work / heavy burden).

It cannot be a command, else it will contradict what Christ said - "follow me for my burden is light and yoke easy....."


.

 

[Eloy Craft]

It's a Judgement with a penalty that fits the sin. Adam received the commandment from God. Eve received the commandment from Adam. He is prophet, she receives the revelation. When she listened to the serpent and Adam listened to her, the order God created was reversed.

There are two forces required for sexual reproduction, The generative force and the passive force. Male and female in respective order. This order was also upset by sin. What Eve said when Cain was born shows this.

Gen. 4
“I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.”

God's penalty was effective as shown by what she say's when Seth is born.

Gen 4

“God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.”

And the following is said about Seth in Genesis chapter 5

Gen 5
3 When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

It's the order of creation that the husband is head of the family giving his life to his wife, and she receives his life, just as Christ gives His for us and we receive His life.

 

[JIMINZ]

But I am looking at the issue of whether or not the Lord is commanding that men should rule over women, or whether he is prophesying that men will rule over women. There's a big difference.

.
1Co 11:7-12
7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12) For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

 

[Small Fish]

After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?

I think it will fall more in the command bracket. I do however think there might be more to it than just a command. Like a law.
The way I see it is like when God said "let every fruit bring forth of it's kind." That is a law that God set in place. Every apple seed will bring forth apple trees. An grape seed can never bring forth a orange tree.
But as always there is man. He knows better and will always try and change God's Laws and Word. He always try and find a better way. It's just his nature. He hybrid's seed's to bring something bigger or better only to find that it is not all what it's cooked up to be. Causing more issues than what it was set out to do.
I think the same would apply with the OP's question. Women having children in pain was more than a commandment or prophecy too. It was and is a new law since the fall of humanity.

 

[Ken Rank]

Paul stated he was basing his statement about men ruling over women on the law (1 Cor 14:33-36). What law was he referring to? Was he referring to the scripture I quoted in my original post?

First, and real quick... the word "law" has a wide range of meanings. It can mean Jewish law, which is not to be confused with God's law. Then we have God's law and also the law of Moses... those these two being the same, the latter an idiomatic phrase for God's law. We also have the first five books which is where God's law is found, and that is why the first five books are called "law" even if not all of those books are dealing with law.

So, I think Paul was referring to Genesis 3:15, and also that Adam was made first, and that the woman was made for him. And thus in Scripture we see that a father has authority over his daughter until she takes a husband at which point the husband becomes the authority or head of the wife. Paul's words are perfectly in line with the words of your original post. The man will have dominion over the woman, and hence Paul's, "man is the head of woman" comment.

 

[A71]

The spiritual order is underpinned by a natural order, created by God according to design, rules and laws.

1 Corinthians 15:46 (NIV)
46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

 

[royal priest]

Ephesians 5 gives us the model and purpose of marriage. "Wives, submit to your husband...husband's, love your wife as Christ loved the church...This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about the church"
The sinful nature wants to pervert that God-ordained model.

 

[timewerx]

The spiritual order is underpinned by a natural order, created by God according to design, rules and laws.

1 Corinthians 15:46 (NIV)
46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

What natural order? The natural order before man sinned or after?

The natural order before man sinned did not taste death.

The natural order in God's Kingdom will not taste death either. It's nothing we've ever seen and completely different from the natural order of this fallen world.

 

[timewerx]

The sinful nature wants to pervert that God-ordained model.

Actual results point to the opposite.

During periods in history where women are treated as possessions instead of another human being, are also the most lawless periods in Earth's history.

Countries who restrict the liberties of women are also the worst countries to live in the world and one of the biggest perpetrators of human rights abuses.

Contrasting countries who actually respect and protect their women and grant and uphold equal liberties have the least crime rates, least number of poor, and highest citizen satisfaction rates in the world!

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

more like a prophecy. these were "fact of life" curses.

the LORD cursed man's quality of life.

 

[RaymondG]

After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?

These are spiritual truths which, when interpreted spiritually, can lead us back to life. The wife use to bear fruit immediately.....now is takes time and much pain......and only with the aide of the husband...who must now in sorrow, eat of the cursed ground.... To go back to the previous state, we must leave mother and father and cleave to our wives.........becoming one flesh..... no more ruler and ruled....but one flesh...........

 

[dysert]

I'm probably getting in too late to say "for starters...", but I will nevertheless point out that what most of us think about the word "desire" in Gen. 3:16 is not what the author intended. As a result of the curse, the desire of the woman will be to usurp the man's authority. It's not a desire *for* him, but a desire to *control* him.

Here are some sermon notes on this very point...

Now let's look at the specific of the language here that expresses the conflict. "Your desire shall be for your husband." Now let's talk about the word "desire." What does it mean? It's an interesting word, it comes from an Arabic root and I have continued to survey this passage because it's been a passage of some controversy. But it is of Arabic root meaning to seek control. Literally it could read, "You shall seek control over your husband...you will desire to exert your will," that is a sign of the curse, "you will desire to take charge, to be in control, to master." And that desire shows up in various women in various ways. In some of them it's a quiet, silent desire that smolders, with others it is a shouting desire that isn't much of a secret to anybody. And the more godless women are, very often the more hostile they are toward men. Sometimes that hostility takes the attitude of coldness, indifference, apathy. Because she can't achieve what she wants, she eventually becomes totally indifferent and apathetic toward the man.

 

[oldrunner]

Luke 24:44 shows that the OT was considered the Law and the Prophets. 1st Peter 3:5-6, gives the example of Sarah in the OT.

I believe it is a judgement (first part), second part a reality or prophecy that will happen. The man is clearly the head of the woman because of creation order presented in Scripture-and other Scriptures. Women tend to rebel against this chain of command, thus the rise of feminism which "demands" women's rights. This is a big problem in most Christian marriages too, in my experience. Two bosses never work together. Just like two chefs in the kitchen.

A woman is only doing lip service to God if she doesn't respect her husband and allows him to be the boss, as is pointed out in 1st Peter and Eph. 5. Like wise, men shouldn't be a jerk to their wives; not listening to their concerns, but treat them as fellow Christian sister, a weaker vessel, and joint heirs of the grace of life, in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 5:22-33)

In 1st Cor. 14, the not speaking in the Church is the tongues, which is most of the context-orderly worship in the Church.

 

[FatalHeart]

In a nutshell, the hebrew language construction is nearly identical to that which God told Cain to do after he murdered Able in Genesis 4:7. So, the desire is the object which is acting upon the subject, which in the case in parallel fashion is Eve's tendency to want to usurp Adam's position and Cain's latent sin that wants to turn him into a complete reprobate. Their respective sins are characterized as seeking dominance, BUT God tells Eve she will be overruled, and Cain is told to learn to rule his sin.

Does this help a little? So, God is telling Eve (and women generally) that man/the husband will 'overrule' their desires to usurp their husband's position.

The good news is that this 'judgment' is essentially removed in Christ for those women who believe.

I do love how you took the way a scripture was written and used it to completely define what a totally different scripture meant.

Though dismissed by culture and church histories, through other scriptures it is clear of the desire for God to have women in the submissive role. However, men have the sinful tendency to trade this responsibility for sex or procreation or peace in the family and women have a sinful tendency to choose only men they can control, thus creating more and more submissive male types and furthering the sin of women. The original intention was to save Eve from herself because she was the one deceived and Adam wasn't. Yet now it is labeled sexist and many other scriptures are used to encourage women to sin in their controlling natures. You have twisted these things for social acceptance and you will reap what you sow.