|
With
respect to human beings, there are only two lines of authority established in
the Creation account. They are both
included in the following passage from Genesis 1: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He
him, male and female created He them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, BE FRUITFUL, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and SUBDUE IT: and HAVE DOMINION
OVER the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:27-28). Human beings were given authority by
their Creator to be fruitful, that is bear children, and fill the earth, and to
have dominion over the things of the earth.
What is missing in this passage?
Why, there are absolutely no lines of authority granted unto either the
man or the woman to rule one over the other!
Why? Because in God’s economy of
things, such measures of control which later came upon man due to his
sinfulness, were utterly unnecessary, and, in fact, would have worked against
His plans completely. God’s
way was, from the beginning, that of oneness, accord, agreement, unity,
cooperation, sharing, mutual submission one to another, and serving. Adam and Eve’s eating of the forbidden tree
changed everything, including Yahweh’s approach to mankind. Had the first humans chosen to trust the
Almighty and obey His voice, they would have entered into a relationship with
Him that would have never required any sort of domination by one party over the
other. The questions of Who’s the boss? or Who’s in charge? would have been irrelevant and meaningless. God
started with one, from which He made
another one, and then merged the two back into a far greater one!
Even though man was created first, and woman then formed from man, an
appropriate reciprocity also transpired.
Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at “Thus, the mutuality between the man and the woman is complete–to the
extent that the man becomes three times servant to the woman. First, he is put to sleep in order to give of
himself (literally!) For the woman to receive her being. Second, he leaves his parents for her
sake. Third, he brings his life to her. This goes to show again that servanthood and
mutual submission constitute the lifestyle, the modus vivendi of oneness relationships” (Community 101, p. 24). When Adam and Eve sinned in the
Garden, it was not some oversight or slight error on their part. It involved a monumental choice–the tree of life, which grants salvation
freely through grace, and positions a human being in a relationship with God
and his fellow man that is mutual, reciprocal, service-oriented, and that
results in the most fruitful of lives, both in the physical, as well as in the
Spirit; or the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, which is the pathway, not of oneness and accord and mutual
submission under the grace of God, but rather a focus on the individual self, producing discord, control,
imposed limitations, and an attempt to earn one’s salvation. The differences between the two trees or two
paths could not possibly be greater or more significant! Since man chose the forbidden way, he has
been forced to labor under curses, one of which has certainly been the
domination of men over women in the worst possible sense of such a concept, and
the subsequent exploitation of women that naturally has followed. In
the beginning, therefore, there was no hierarchy established among God’s human
creation. There was the Almighty
Himself, and there were the man and woman, both servants of Yahweh, and both
equal servants of one another. Oneness
and mutual submission was the way of choice from the commencement of the plan,
and, frankly speaking, it still remains the ideal. Yahshua emphasized this truth quite emphatically during His ministry upon the
earth. Remember that He had come to
usher in the way once again to the originally rejected tree of life–the way God always wanted things to be–indeed, they
way they were in the very beginning. On
one particular occasion, the disciples were engaged in an argument over, of all
things, who was the greatest among them.
In other words, they still were possessed of the old mindset that
thought in terms of who’s over whom,
a notion which the Messiah rejected out of hand, saying: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise LORDSHIP over them; and they that exercise AUTHORITY upon
them are called benefactors. But this SHALL
NOT BE SO WITH YOU; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the
younger; and he that is chief, as he that does serve. For whether is greater, he that sits at meat,
or he that serves? Is it not he that
sits at meat? But I am among you as HE
THAT SERVES” (Lk. 22:25-27). And at another time, He contrasted
His own disciples with those of the Pharisees, saying: “The Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat...but all their works they do for to
be seen of men...And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and chief seats in the
synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi,
Rabbi. But be you not called Rabbi: for
One is your Master, even Christ; and ALL OF YOU ARE BRETHREN” (Mt. 23:1,
5-8). The apostles and disciples were
looking for the Messiah to establish lines of authority, so they could say, First there is Christ, then me, then you and
you and you, etc. Yahshua put a stop
to such erroneous thinking immediately! Paul,
in his letter to the Ephesians, comments on this same theme of oneness, unity, and mutual submission by
saying: “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy
of the vocation wherewith you are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with
longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the UNITY
of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There is ONE body, and there is ONE Spirit, even as you
are called in one hope of your calling; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE
baptism, ONE God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all,
and in you all...Till we ALL come into the UNITY of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of
the stature of the fulness of Christ...speaking the truth in love, that we may
grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the
whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which EVERY JOINT
supplies, according to the effectual working in the measure of EVERY PART,
makes increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4:1-6,
13, 15-16). This
is merely one of many such passages in the New Testament which speak of God’s
ideal of unity, of oneness, of togetherness, all equally important parts of the
Body all equally operating under the headship of the Messiah. In the same letter, Paul again presses this
point, saying: “Wherefore He says, Awake you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and
Christ shall give you light. See then
that you walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time,
because the days are evil...SUBMITTING yourselves ONE TO ANOTHER
in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:14-16, 21). The apostle Peter reiterates the same
divine principle in his first epistle, making the following statement: “Yea, ALL of you BE SUBJECT ONE TO ANOTHER, and be clothed
with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble” (I
Pet. 5:5). Ideally
all along, and under the New Covenant in particular, the restoration of
heartfelt servanthood and mutual submission has been accomplished
in and through Yahshua the Messiah.
Those of us who have been mercifully granted the Holy Spirit have within
us the power to walk the pathway refused by Adam and Eve. No longer ought we to view and gauge things
through the distorted lens of imposed authority,
but rather through the clear window of reciprocal service one toward
another. God has specifically outfitted
each of His people with unique spiritual inclinations and abilities, no one
individual possessing them all, but all separated and dispersed throughout the
various members of the Body. As we move
into the New Testament coverage of our investigation, we will deal more and
more with the distribution of what the Bible refers to as gifts of the Spirit, and how we are to function in relationship one
to another today. HAS
GOD EVER EMPOWERED WOMEN? Suffice
it to say that with mother Eve, women got off to no better a start in the
beginning than did their male counterparts.
In fact, the brief account of the pre-Flood world lists only a couple of
women by name, and with the exception of Eve herself, those mentioned do not
even appear in the line of Seth, but rather in the evil lineage of Cain. In fact, it is not until after the Noahian
Flood, when we come to the time of Abraham, that we meet a woman of substance
about which we are given enough Biblical information to appreciate. This, of course, was the patriarch’s devoted
wife, Sarah, one of the revered names in all of Israelite history. When
we are introduced to Abraham, he is already married to Sarah, so we have scant
information on her background. Sarah was
obviously a strong, righteous woman in her own right, one through whom the Almighty
saw fit to bring into this world Isaac, the son
of promise. This was no accidental
choice. Hagar, Sarah’s handmaiden,
conceived and bore Abraham his first son, Ishmael, but God rejected them both,
and cast them out of the family, for He had determined that it would be Sarah
who would bring forth the one who would carry on the righteous chosen line that
would ultimately culminate in the birth of the Messiah. In this regard, Sarah is an ancient type of
another great woman of the Scriptures, Mary the mother of Yahshua, although she
is seldom characterized in this fashion. In
this matter of Hagar and Ishmael, please recall that it was Sarah, not Abraham,
who saw the necessity of forcing them both out of the camp. We read in Genesis 21: “And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she born unto
Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said
unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of a bondwoman
shall NOT BE HEIR with my son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s
sight because of his son (Ishmael). And
God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the lad,
and because of the bondwoman; in all that Sarah has said unto you, HEARKEN
UNTO HER VOICE; for in Isaac shall your seed be called” (Gen. 21:9-12). Sarah
instinctively knew what Abraham
apparently was willing to overlook, namely, that the son of no bondwoman would
ever be heir with her son Isaac. Note
carefully that, although Sarah was undoubtedly courteous and proper in all her
personal interactions, she was about as bold and forthright as one could
possibly be when it came to this crucial issue.
She was the human being responsible for the New Testament record of this
event, for we read in Paul’s letter to the Galatians the beautiful analogy of
Sarah and Hagar as follows: “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bondmaid,
the other by a freewoman. But he was of
the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are
the two covenants, the one from the children of the bondwoman, but of the free” (Gal. 4:22-26, 30-31). Take
careful note of the significance of Sarah’s actions and words. What she understood about the plans of God
was profound, and what she did and said with respect to Hagar and Ishmael
constituted a landmark episode in the history of the human race! Sarah told Abraham to “cast out the bondwoman and her son,” and God proceeded to confirm
her instructions, for Hagar was, in the divine scheme of things, typical of the
Old Covenant to be made at Mount Sinai between Yahweh and Israel, and Ishmael,
her son, was symbolic of those Israelites who were under that first covenant,
and who operated without the Spirit of God. In
reality, Sarah and Hagar are representative of the two trees in the Garden of Eden, Sarah being indicative of the tree of life, the Messiah and his
sacrifice, the grace and mercy of God, whereas Hagar portrayed the forbidden tree - the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, the way of earning one’s salvation through works of the
law. Abraham
had not fully trusted God at one point during the long wait between the giving
of the promise and the actual birth of the son of promise. He had had a child with Hagar the Egyptian
handmaiden. To Abraham, Ishmael was his
firstborn, and he loved his son, and the Scriptures state that he was grieved
when Sarah made her demand that both the mother and her son be cast out. We will see this flaw in Abraham appear also
in his son Isaac later in our study. In
both cases, the fathers involved loved their firstborn sons so much that they
were somewhat blinded as to God’s actual wishes and intentions. And it was their respective wives who sensed
the will of God and did something about it! Sarah
was, in fact, the great prototypical woman of God. The righteous women of all history do not
look to Eve as their spiritual forerunner, but rather to Sarah, the faithful
wife of Abraham. She kept the faith
along with her husband during the long nearly 25 year wait until the birth of
Isaac occurred. And take note that the
miracle involved was primarily with respect to Sarah rather than Abraham, for
the patriarch went on to have a number of other children by another wife after
the death of Sarah. It probably could be
correctly stated that Sarah was the first female recipient of a personal divine
miracle. So, as Abraham is called the father of the faithful, perhaps it would
not at all be inappropriate to think of Sarah as the mother of the faithful. Along
with her husband, Sarah endured the hardships associated with the nomadic life,
and did so without any complaint whatsoever.
Like him, she shared the lot of a stranger
and pilgrim upon the earth, looking
for that city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Heb.
11:10, 13). She also helped to shoulder
the responsibilities involved with maintaining the extended household which
Abraham accumulated through the years (remember that he had 318 trained
servants, highly skilled and armed men of war, all born in his own house - Gen.
14:14). And
let us not forget that Sarah is mentioned prominently among the great heroes
and heroines of the faith in classic eleventh chapter of Hebrews, where we
read: “Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed,
and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged Him
faithful who had promised...These all died in faith, not having received the
promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and
embraced them...they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore
God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He has prepared for them a city”
(Heb. 11:11, 13, 16). Sarah was the first of three
outstanding female servants of God, who stood faithfully with their husbands in
the calling they had received. The
second of those women was, of course, Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, the son of
promise. The story of how they met is
quite familiar to most Bible students, but a few points deserve
our consideration in this study. Abraham
was very concerned about whom Isaac would marry. He was acutely aware of the divine promises
that had been made to him. He knew how
important it was that the absolutely perfect individual become the wife of his
son. He, therefore, sent his most
trusted servant with adamant instructions regarding the choice of Isaac’s
future wife. The story, recorded in
Genesis 24, conveys unmistakably that the eventual union of Isaac and Rebekah
was the result of a direct miracle from God.
And indeed, she proved to be precisely the kind of woman that was needed
under some very difficult and highly significant circumstances. Not
only did Rebekah join Isaac in the nomadic life of the patriarch Abraham, she,
like her husband and like Sarah before her, was a faithful believer in and
follower of Yahweh. When it was discovered
that Rebekah was barren, God intervened and gave her twin sons, Esau and
Jacob. The story, though familiar, is
one whose importance simply cannot be overstated. Remember that the two brothers struggled
while still in the womb of their mother, Esau being born first. |
|
When
the boys had grown into young men, Jacob earnestly desired, some might even say
coveted, his older brother’s birthright.
Among other blessings, the birthright in this case carried with it the
promise given to Abraham of One who would descend from his lineage through whom
the entire world would be blessed, or, in other words, the Messiah. In this regard, the birthright was far more
valuable and infinitely more important than the blessing of the firstborn,
which was Esau’s also. Catching
Esau in a field upon his return from hunting, Jacob was busy preparing food, a
sort of red pottage or stew, which Esau just happened to love. Being famished, he was desperate for some
sustenance, and when he begged for food, Jacob, knowing how faint his brother
was at this moment, took advantage of this vulnerability, and demanded that
Esau sell him his birthright for a bowl of the tempting red stew, saying: “Feed me, I pray you, with that same red pottage; for I am faint:
therefore his name was called Edom (red)...Behold, I am at the point to die;
and what profit shall this birthright do to me?
And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold
his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob
gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up,
and went his way: thus Esau hated his birthright” (Gen. 25:30, 32-34). For all his flaws, Esau, however,
remained his father’s favorite son. He
was a man of the field, a cunning hunter, and Isaac loved the special meals
that Esau was able to fix from the various animals he slew. Jacob,
on the other hand, was more highly preferred by his mother Rebekah. She knew that Jacob, not Esau, was the proper
son through whom the Abrahamic line should flow. When Isaac was old and near death, he called
Esau and requested that he prepare one of the venison dishes that the old man
loved so much. Unbeknown to either of
them, Rebekah overheard the words of her husband, especially when he said to
Esau: “Make me savor meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat;
that my soul may BLESS YOU before I die” (Gen. 27:4). Rebekah immediately realized exactly
the thing to which Isaac was referring–the blessing
of the firstborn. This was different
from the birthright, which Jacob had
already secured from his brother, but Rebekah wanted Jacob to have it. Even though she was a woman and a wife, note
carefully in the following passage how decisively and courageously she acted on
Jacob’s behalf: “And Rebekah heard when Isaac spoke to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for
venison, and to bring it. And Rebekah
spoke unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold I heard your father speak unto Esau
your brother, saying, Bring me venison, and make me savory meat, that I may
eat, and bless you before the Lord before my death. Now therefore, my son, obey my voice,
according to that which I command you.
Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the
goats; and I will make them savory meat for your father, such as he loves: and
you shall bring it to your father, that he may eat, and that he may bless you
before his death” (Gen. 27:5-10). It is undoubtedly impossible for we
believers today to fully appreciate what Rebekah did in this crucial
instance. The chance she took was
absolutely remarkable. Jacob himself
told her: “Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man: my
father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I
shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing. And his mother said unto him, UPON ME BE
YOUR CURSE, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them” (Gen.
27:11-12). Breaking
with all known convention, and displaying an almost unprecedented courage and
determination, Rebekah sacrificed herself for the sake of Jacob and the
blessing of the firstborn. Not only did
she agree to take upon herself any curse that might transpire as result of the
conspiracy, but she went even farther.
When Jacob protested, declaring that surely his father would recognize
it was him, his mother, virtually without pausing to think, did the
following. Please take note. “And Rebekah took goodly raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with
her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son: And she put the
skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck:
and she gave the savory meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the
hand of her son Jacob” (Gen. 27:15-17). Quite
obviously, Rebekah was no shrinking violet.
There are very few men who would have taken the chance she did under the
same circumstances. Rebekah was a
strong, resolute woman, one whom God could use in His plan, and indeed one whom
He did well use, for Jacob, as you know, went on to pull off this deceptive act
on Isaac, and ended up with both the birthright
and the blessing of the firstborn. Without question, Jacob and his descendants,
meaning all A PROPHETESS IN Almost
anyone familiar with the Bible at all knows that it is full of prophets and
prophecies. When one contemplates a
Biblical prophet, what usually comes to mind?
There could be many attributes, but first and foremost would be that the
prophet was a man, not a woman. As we
read through the Old Testament, indeed we see that Enoch was a prophet. Jude confirms this fact in his short, but
powerful letter in the New Testament.
Later, we find the rise of Noah, whom the New Testament describes as a preacher of righteousness, and thus
undoubtedly a prophet of God. And after the Flood, Moses refers to himself
as a prophet by saying: “The Lord your God will raise up unto you a Prophet from the midst of
you, of your brethren, LIKE UNTO ME; unto him you shall hearken” (Deut.
18:15). Of course, we could easily go on and
on mentioning one prophet after another as God sought to deal with His people
Israel, famous men such as Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and lesser known men
like Micaiah, Ahijah, and Obadiah. In
the case of Balaam, even a pagan prophet of Baal was used. In fact, if one isn’t careful, it might
appear that only men were given the gift of prophecy. That is, in fact, what many male believers
and teachers have assumed throughout the centuries of time. The Scriptures, however, confirm the fact
that women also were given the gift of prophecy, and that they did indeed use
that gift to prophesy. Remember what
Paul says to the Romans in this regard: “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to everyone that is among
you, not to think of himself more highly that he ought to think; but to think
soberly, according as God has dealt to EVERYONE the measure of
faith...Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given us, whether
prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith” (Rom. 12:3, 6). And,
in a similar fashion, he writes to the Corinthians, saying: “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations,
but the same Lord. And there are
diversities of operations, but it is the same God which works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given
to EVERYONE to the profit of ALL.
For to one is given BY THE SPIRIT the word of wisdom, to another
the word of knowledge by the same Spirit...to another the working of miracles,
to another prophecy...But all these work that one and the selfsame Spirit,
dividing to EVERYONE severally as HE WILL” (I Cor. 12:4-8,
10-11). What
should we conclude from these two passages concerning gifts of the Spirit,
including prophecy? What is the point of
Paul’s discourse? Clearly, it is to show
us that it is the Almighty Himself, not any human being, who decides precisely
what person receives what gift, and the Scriptures irrefutably demonstrate that
there is no single gift that is the sole domain of either a man or a
woman. Neither male nor female has the
exclusive right to any specific gift of the Spirit. That decision is in the hands of God alone. When
we think about the story of the Exodus, we naturally recall outstanding
individuals such as Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb, or perhaps the Pharaoh and
his magicians, or maybe even rebels such as Korah and Dathan, both of whom died
at the hand of the Lord. Well, someone
else needs to be added to that list. I
speak of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron. We
remember, of course, that Miriam played a key role in the survival of Moses
shortly after his birth. After Pharaoh’s
daughter discovered the baby, it was Miriam, his sister, who immediately
encountered the Egyptian princess, and, no doubt inspired by God, offered to
find a nurse of the Hebrews to take care of the infant, and none other than
Moses’ own mother. In this regard,
Miriam made a bold move on behalf of her little brother, approaching the
Pharaoh’s daughter as she did. I would
submit to you that Miriam was not the silent
type, but rather was up front, outspoken, and quite intuitive. She seems to have been the type of person who
could get things done–a woman of courage and determination, very similar in
this respect to both Sarah and Rebekah before her. Although
most of the Exodus story and “For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his
horsemen into the sea, and the Lord brought again the waters of the sea upon
them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea. And Miriam...the sister of Aaron, took a
timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and
with dances. And Miriam answered them,
Sing you unto the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his
rider has He thrown into the sea” (Ex. 15:19-21). There
can be no question that Miriam had the highest status among the Israelite
women. They all looked to her for
direction and example, and, for the most part, she carried out her
responsibilities very well. In the
previous passage of Scripture, you may have noticed that a phrase was
omitted. It was done so on purpose,
because I wanted to come back and comment on another aspect of Miriam’s role
among the Israelites who came up out of Egyptian bondage. Exodus 15:20 reads in full as follows: “And Miriam THE PROPHETESS, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel
in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with
dances.” Yes,
that’s correct–Miriam, or as many men might put it, a mere woman, was indeed a PROPHETESS,
one who conveyed the word of the Eternal under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In
fact, among all the known Israelites of that generation, there is no record in
the Bible of anyone else, save Moses, functioning in this fashion. Is it possible that Miriam was one of only
two people in all of The
point, of course, is that Yahweh is utterly sovereign. He does what He does, and although He may
explain His actions to human beings, He may just as well not do so, and He
certainly has no obligation in this regard.
He is the One who decides who prophesies and who doesn’t. Prophets and prophetesses are not elected by the
congregation, nor are they appointed to such an office by a board of elders, or
any other mere human administrative action.
Any gift of the Spirit, as we have already established, not only comes
from God, but is also specifically chosen by God for the particular individual
who is to receive it. No man, whether
apostle, evangelist, pastor, teacher, or deacon, has any right whatsoever to
deny that a woman can be and will be empowered by the Almighty! I can guarantee that if any of us today had
lived during found ourselves on the receiving end
of God’s wrath! DEBORAH ARISES IN One
of the most moving and inspiring examples of courage, strength, wisdom, and
righteousness, in all the Biblical record is found in a woman named
Deborah. After the death of In
one respect, therefore, these judges who arose in Israel during this very
difficult period of time were, in a manner of speaking, ancient types of the
ultimate Deliverer or Savior that would find its fulfillment
in the man Yahshua the Messiah. And this
would include, of all people, a woman, namely Deborah. During
the reign of “Nevertheless the Lord raised up judges, which delivered them out of the
hand of those that spoiled them.” This began a pattern of behavior
among the Israelites. When they turned
away from God, He withdrew His divine protection from them, and they suffered
at the hands of the various tribes that inhabited Othniel,
the brother of Joshua’s righteous companion Caleb, was the first of the judges
of “And the children of Now
the stage was set for Deborah to arise in |
|
“And Deborah, a PROPHETESS, the WIFE of Lapidoth, she JUDGED
Please
note the underscored words in this passage.
First of all, Deborah was a prophetess. She is the second woman so named in the
Scriptures as functioning in this gift of the Spirit. Being a prophetess means, of course, that she
prophesied, meaning that she spoke
the words of God under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These could be words of warning, words of
instruction, words of encouragement, or words of prediction, God being the
determining factor in precisely what message He intended delivered to the
people. That
a woman should operate in such a spiritual function cuts across the grain of
many people’s false teachings and assumptions.
That God should choose to use a woman in what is generally considered to
be a man’s arena of operation is a hard pill for some to swallow. Let there be no doubt in your mind that
Deborah was a woman who kept silence! In
fact, her calling was to open her mouth and speak the words of the
Almighty! And I can guarantee you there
wasn’t a man in all of Note
also that Deborah was not a single woman.
No, she was married. She had a
husband, a man named Lapidoth. Now this
is most intriguing. Why do you suppose
that God, whom many believe simply prefers men over women, or at the least,
chooses to use males rather than females, would give the gift of prophecy to
Deborah, and, as far as we are told, not to her husband? Was he an infidel, a drunkard, a bum? If so, why would someone of Deborah’s stature
have married the man in the first place?
No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Lapidoth was anything
but a decent man and good husband to Deborah.
He just wasn’t a prophet! Being
a prophetess gave Deborah a special distinction throughout Examples
of Deborah’s prophesying are found in Judges 4:6, 9, and 14. Note the first of these which was directed
toward a man named Barak, the military leader of “And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of
Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him, Has not the Lord God of We might be tempted to ask the
question, why was a woman prophesying and
judging Barak,
listed in Hebrews 11 as one of the heroes of faith, is there for the very
reason that he believed in and trusted that the word he received through
Deborah was indeed legitimately from Yahweh, and, in the long run, he acted on
it. When he was first summoned, however,
he exhibited hesitance, not due to his lack of faith in the authenticity of
Deborah’s instruction, but more out of the need he felt for specific guidance
in such an apparently risky campaign, and perhaps a little out of just plain
fear as well. He responded by saying to
Deborah: “If you (Deborah) will go with me, then I will go: but if you will not
go with me, then I will not go” (Judg. 4:8). This sounds as though Barak was
afraid, and no doubt there was some fear involved, as it naturally would be with
most any human being facing the difficulty with which Deborah’s
response was most interesting. It is in
the form of a prophecy. She tells Barak: “I will surely go with you: notwithstanding the journey that you take
shall not be for your honor; for the Lord shall seel Sisera (the enemy leader)
into the hand of a WOMAN” (Judg. 4:9). This
situation cannot help but attract our attention and raise certain
questions. First of all, The
details of the great battle that took place, and how the Almighty defeated the
armies of Sisera, are contained in both Judges 4 and 5, two separate accounts,
the first in the form of prose, and the other a poem, known as the Song of Deborah, which is regarded as
the earliest form of Hebrew poetry of which we have record. It is majestic in tone and content, and
indeed one immediately gets the intense feelings involved in this spectacular,
divinely orchestrated turn of event.
Here are the opening lines: “Praise you the Lord for the avenging of In
her song, Deborah pays special honor to the woman who slew Sisera. Her name was Jael, the wife of Heber the
Kenite. Interestingly, just like
Deborah, Jael had a husband, and as in the case of Deborah, God chose to use
the female of the household to accomplish His purposes. Deborah
immortalized the daring action of Jael by saying: “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed
shall she be above women in the tent. He
(Sisera) asked water, and she gave him mild; she brought forth butter in a
lordly dish. She put her hand to the
nail (tent spike), and her right hand to the workman’s hammer; and with the
hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and
stricken through his temples. At her
feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down; at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he
bowed, there he fell down dead” (Judg. 5:24-27). This episode became one of the most
famous and celebrated in all of dare dictate to Him who or what those
choices should be! THE UNHERALDED PROPHETESS Miriam
and Deborah are admittedly two of the more well-known female Biblical
characters. Both of them were gifted in
the area of prophecy, and Deborah was also give the top administrative or
government position in After
the reign of the righteous Hezekiah of Judah, his son Manasseh began a long and
evil rule, undoing just about every good thing that Hezekiah had
established. Manasseh caused the Jews to
sin more egregiously than even the heathen nations around them. When the king died, his son Amon succeeded to
the throne, and we are told that he did evil in the sight of the Lord,
following in the footsteps of his notorious father. His reign was mercifully short, however, when
his own servants conspired against him, and after only two years in office,
Amon was murdered in his own house, and his son Josiah was made king in It
would be difficult for us to imagine just how much degeneration transpired
during the combined reigns of Manasseh and Amon. Hezekiah’s many reforms were abandoned, pagan
worship re-established, including even the sacrifice of children to the gods,
and the temple itself was desecrated and in a state of utter disrepair. By the time that Josiah ascended the throne
at the tender age of 8, the Josiah,
however, was different. It is truly
amazing how one of the best rulers ever, Hezekiah, could produce the most evil
king, Manasseh, whereas just a generation later, one of the worst of the Jewish
monarchs, Amon, could be the father of Josiah, a young man who would turn out
to be, second only to David, the most righteous king of Judah! Surely the Almighty had a direct hand in such
things. Josiah,
we are told, “did that which was right
in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the ways of David his father, and declined
neither to the right hand, nor to the left” (II Chron. 34:2). The new king began to seek Yahweh at an early
age, and in the 12th year of his reign, he started to purge Then
a crucial event occurred. Six years
later, in the 18th year of his reign, he began the repair of the When
Josiah heard the sacred words, his heart was smitten, he tore his robe, and
wept, for he well knew how evil the people had been during the reigns of his
father and grandfather. He fully
understood that During
the reign of Josiah, the one who is remembered most as a prophet in “And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the
singing women spoke of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them
an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations” (II
Chron. 35:25). When
the Scriptures state that these things are written in the lamentations, it is referring to the Biblical book by that
name. It is the short writing that
follows the prophecy of Jeremiah. It is
a part of the third section of the Hebrew Scriptures usually called simply the Psalms, but these books are also known
as the royal letters, since each of
them is associated in some way with a king or queen. The book of Lamentations was written by
Jeremiah upon the death of Josiah and the destruction that soon followed. In
addition to Jeremiah prophesying during the reign of king Josiah, there was
also another prophet in “The word of the Lord which came unto Zephaniah the son of Cushi, the
son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, in the days of JOSIAH
the son of Amon, king of Judah” (Zeph. 1:1). Two
of the Biblical writing prophets were, therefore, functioning in Judah during
the reign of Josiah–both Jeremiah and Zephaniah. The point in all of this information is that
when king Josiah desired the words of Yahweh, he did not send his men to
inquire of the senior prophet Jeremiah, nor did they go to the young Zephaniah. The following passage from II Kings 22 should
prove quite telling and compelling: “And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of
Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shapan the scribe, and Asahiah a
servant of the king’s, saying, Go you, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the
people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for
great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us...So Hilkiah the
priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto HULDAH
THE PROPHETESS, the WIFE of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of
Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college),
and they communed with her” (II Kgs. 22:12-14). For
those in the Body who still cling to the erroneous notion that women are simply
to be silent ornaments among the people of God, how, pray tell, would you even
begin to explain the above quotation?
Granted, we know very little about Huldah, but what we are given is
plenty! She was a prophetess, which means that she not only spoke under inspiration
the words of Yahweh, she was also known throughout the land as functioning in
this capacity. |
|
Five
of the most important and powerful men in the kingdom, including the high
priest himself, went, not to a male prophet, but rather to Huldah the
prophetess, a woman, to receive a word from the Almighty. Note also that Huldah was married. Even her husband’s name is listed in the
account. Should not the men have at
least consulted with him first? Wouldn’t
that fit in far more comfortably with the conventional notion that many have
today with regard to women’s restricted roles in the churches? Hopefully,
the examples of Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah will cast a different light upon
this controversial subject for many believers who have tended to hold on to
ancient human interpretations of the Scriptures. Considering the information we have covered
thus far in our study, what conclusions can we honestly draw concerning prophetesses in the Old Testament
period? First of all, were there others? The answer is affirmative, if for no other
reason that what we read in the book of Isaiah.
In
one particular instance fairly early in Isaiah’s career, God told him to do
something rather unusual, though not totally uncommon for certain prophets, and
that was to take a pen and write the name of his future son on a large scroll
as a prophetic sign. As we pick up the
story in Isaiah 8:2, note what is said: “And I (Isaiah) took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the
priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
And I went unto the PROPHETESS; and she conceived, and bare a
son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his
name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before
the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of
Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of
Assyria” (Isa. 8:2-4). In this instance, it appears that the
prophetess mentioned, though unnamed, was actually Isaiah’s wife. We know nothing else about her, except what
we read in this short excerpt from chapter 8.
We do know enough, however, to establish that she was indeed a prophetess, the same Hebrew word being
used to designate her as was the case with Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah. In
addition, it is interesting to note that Jewish rabbinical tradition recognizes
seven prophetesses who preached and prognosticated unto Israel, namely, Sarah,
Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. It, therefore, goes without saying, that God
unquestionably has used women in the roles both of prophets, as well as
judicial/administrative leaders, that they were known and recognized by their
fellow countrymen as such, and were held in the highest of esteem by kings and
priests alike. No prejudicial thinking
or erroneous assumptions regarding the role of these or any other women whom
God has chosen can take away from or undo the work of service which they have
performed through the centuries under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Nor should such an attitude prevail in
today’s Church with respect to how the Almighty chooses to use female believers
in accomplishing His purposes upon the earth.
Anyone interested in seeing Body healed, and the Church brought
together, gifted, empowered, and bearing much good fruit, ought to check their
hearts with regard to the subject of our study.
The holding back of women in the Body of believers over centuries of
time has produced a multiplicity of problems that need to be forthrightly
addressed and resolved. THE WOMAN WHO CHANGED HISTORY! Believe
it or not, there is a woman from the Bible who was literally instrumental in
changing the course of the history of God’s people. She came from humble Jewish origins. Indeed, when we first encounter her, she is
in captivity in the land of Persia, along with many of her fellow countrymen,
including her cousin, Mordecai. Esther’s
parents had died while she was still young, and Mordecai, her much older
cousin, raised her as his own daughter.
Mordecai was a uniquely savvy individual, and when it was reported that
king Ahasuerus had deposed Vashti as queen, and was seeking her replacement,
Mordecai immediately sensed the significance of the situation, and began
preparing his young niece Esther to be taken before the king. It wasn’t long before she had captured the
king’s heart and been selected to his queen. During the first portion of the book of
Esther, Mordecai is the central character, and his many skills are amply
demonstrated, even to the saving of the king’s life on one occasion. When the chief prince Haman the Agagite began
to formulate a plot to destroy the Jewish captives, Mordecai seized the
opportunity to take advantage of Esther’s newly acquired position in the
kingdom. In
chapter 4, he gets word to her, and from that point onward, Esther takes charge
of the situation, demonstrating her own courage and ability to the full. Now remember that Esther is young, unskilled
in the ways of the world, and, above all, a woman! According to the way many believers view the
role of women in the assemblies, Esther must prove to be quite an embarrassment
to them. Here
is a perfect situation where God, of course, had other options at his disposal,
but chose to work through a woman to literally save His own people from
destruction. This was a woman who, as it
were, went from the proverbial rags to riches, from a young naive female Jewish
captive to queen of the Persian Empire.
Esther indeed became a woman to be reckoned with. She became a person of influence, inside
knowledge, and power, and she used every source available to her to carry out
the plan put in her heart by the Almighty.
What she decided was immediately accepted by Mordecai and the
people. Her word was obeyed to the
letter. We
all know the end of the story. Haman and
his evil agenda were exposed to the king, and Ahasuerus simply turned the
tables on this despicable Agagite (descended from Agag of the line of Esau or
Edom–for the full significance of what really transpired during this key point
in time, please request our series, Esau Have I Hated!), by hanging
Haman on the very gallows he had built to achieve Mordecai’s death. The Jews went on to slay the sons of Haman
and defeat their enemies in Persia, all under the aegis of the king himself. In
the end, Esther ordained the feast of Purim as a celebration of the Jewish
victory over Haman, and of thanksgiving to Yahweh for His mercy and
blessing. Purim became a fixed part of
the Jewish Festival Scroll, and the
book of Esther is read year on this special occasion. It is still kept by faithful Jews and others
to this day. Why
didn’t God use a man instead of a woman to accomplish His purposes? We all know for a fact that He could have
done so. Rather He purposely chose
Esther, not when she was exalted and powerful, but when she was young and
unknown in the entire kingdom. Since the
Eternal states in His word that He never changes, could we not all agree that,
if He used someone like Esther for such an important and dangerous assignment,
He could surely use women in any number of other ways His purposes to achieve,
including even in the churches today? I
believe that the answer is indisputably YES,
and that all of God’s people ought to accept this fact, and allow Him the right
to do as He wills, instead of designing human conventions that seek to limit
His power and how He decides to use it.
If we continue to resist in this matter, it will not bode well for
us. God is going to be God, and He will
do what He will do! It is inevitable,
and I, for one, want to be on the right side of this issue, namely the side of
Yahweh Himself. As
a fitting conclusion to this episode in our discussion, it good to note that
the Jews consider Esther to have been one of the seven great female prophets or
prophetesses through whom God spoke
to Israel in ancient times. Although
there were almost certainly more than seven, it is good to know that the Jewish
understanding on this subject is clear, both in terms of Esther herself, and
the divine use of woman in general. Esther
was used by Yahweh to change the course of history with respect to the Jewish
people. The subsequent returns from
exile led by Nehemiah and later Ezra would not have been possible had it not
been for the decisive and fearless planning and action of Esther and
Mordecai. These are truly two of the
great heroes of faith in all of history, and one of them is a woman! MORE OF GOD’S LEADING LADIES Although
we need to spend an ample amount of time in the New Testament, there are still
other outstanding examples of feminine service among God’s people. Time and space does not permit to delve into
each and every possibility, but certainly we could not leave out the story of
Ruth and Naomi, and the effect it had on the future of the Promised Seed Line. The
Book of Ruth, though bearing her name, was probably not written by the
character Ruth, but it most assuredly was written about this remarkable woman
and her determined and courageous mother-in-law, Naomi. This particular story is relatively short,
but packed full of types and symbols of the Messiah and His spiritual
Bride. In this sense, Ruth is a type of
the Bride, and Boaz, the near kinsman of Naomi, typifies Yahshua the
Messiah. The story is set around the
time of the early spring barley harvest, and the book is part of the Jewish Festival Scroll, being read at the
appropriate time of Pentecost. Since
this story is familiar, I will not re-tell it here in this study, but it is
good to ponder how two strong and courageous women were used so prominently by
the Almighty to establish an important link in the royal lineage from which the
Messiah would eventually descend. And
Ruth wasn’t even an Israelite, but rather a Moabitess, a Gentile, someone
unconnected to the great promises given to Abraham. Both
Ruth and Naomi had lost their husbands, and Naomi decided to return to her home
in Bethlehem Ephratah. This was the very
specific place from which the prophecies of Micah would later predict the
Messiah would arise. Ruth refused to
stay behind in Moab, and so clung to her mother-in-law, accepting Yahweh as the
true God, and His Torah as the law which would govern her life. It becomes clear early on that Naomi had a
spirit about her that was quite rare and most remarkable. She was far-sighted and tenacious, and had a
quiet force about her that was difficult to stem. When she got something in her mind, she found
a way to get it accomplished, which is precisely what she did in the case Ruth. Naomi
became Ruth’s counselor, coaching her on how she should behave, dress, and
present herself. When she learned that
Ruth had been invited to glean in the fields of Boaz, she immediately sensed
the significance of this fact, for Boaz was a rich and powerful man who just
happened to be close kin to Naomi. Ruth,
of course, was a young widow, and since she had bound herself to Naomi, she was
accepted by the Jews as one of their own.
Widows were almost always a seriously disadvantaged class, including
Judea. Time and time again, we read in
the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures God’s commands to take care of the
widows. Boaz was always careful to obey
this statute, leaving a reasonable portion of the harvest for all of the
gleaners. Of course, once he learned of
the plight of Naomi and Ruth, his near kin, he provided even extra for them. Among
the Hebrew culture, it was considered a particularly terrible tragedy for a man
to die without producing a son to carry on the family line. In the case of Ruth, of course, her husband,
as related earlier had indeed passed away.
There can be no question at all that Boaz found Ruth most attractive,
and went out of his way to be kind to her and Naomi. It so happened that Israel had been given a
law called the Levirate Marriage,
which allowed a brother or a cousin or
nearest kinsman to inherit the deceased’s property only by marrying his widow
and offering her a chance to have children.
The kinsman, however, had to have the means to support a wife, as well
as the desire to dwell with her. Naomi,
of course, was quite familiar with the Jewish customs, and therefore she
carefully advised Ruth of what she must do with respect to Boaz. According to the law, the widow in question
had to claim her right to the Levirate
Marriage. The male kinsman was not
obligated to marry the widow of his deceased relative, and had the right to
decline the proposal. If the closest
kinsman refused, then the next closest could avail himself of the opportunity. In
chapter 3 of the book of Ruth, we see Naomi instructing her daughter-in-law on
the technicalities of the Levirate
Marriage. If you have wondered about
the seemingly strange goings-on between Ruth and Boaz in this part of the
story, the fact is that the procedure followed by Ruth was simply the standard
way of a widow claiming her right to a Levirate
Marriage. Ruth went to the
threshing-room floor where Boaz was sleeping, turned back the blanket at his
feet, and lay down. When Boaz awoke, he
immediately sensed what was happening and agreed to act on Ruth’s behalf. Of course, in the case of Boaz, he already
was in love with Ruth, and this was a golden opportunity for him as well. To
conclude the story, we read in Ruth 4 the following words of Boaz: “Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be
my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name
of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren...And all the people that
were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The Lord make the woman that is come into your
house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and
do you worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem...So Boaz took Ruth,
and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her
conception, and she bare a son...and they called his name Obed: he is the
father of Jesse, the father of David” (Ruth 4:10-13, 17). The
marriage of Boaz and Ruth is a beautiful type of the union between the Messiah
and His Bride, and was absolutely critical with regard to the lineage, not only
of David, but of Yahshua the Messiah.
Ruth is one of only four women that are listed in the genealogy of
Christ in the New Testament. For a poor
Moabite peasant girl, whose husband had died and left her a widow, Ruth became
one of the most outstanding figures in all of Biblical history. Ruth
and her tenacious mother-in-law Naomi worked together as an inseparable and
unbeatable team. Although always
appropriately deferential in their behavior, they were also bold, determined,
and wise, qualities that the Almighty deeply appreciates in women, especially
those whom He intends to use for His divine purposes. Space
does not permit a thorough discussion of every woman who figures in the
Biblical record. In addition to Ruth and
Naomi, about which much more could have been said, we have other key Godly
women in the Hebrew Scriptures who serve as excellent examples of women
functioning in various roles in the service of the Lord. Take,
for instance, Abigail, the wife of a wretched man named Nabal. During the long, difficult period when David
was fleeing for his life, either on the run or hiding out in caves to avoid
king Saul’s wrath, he and his men encountered the herdsmen of Nabal, a wealthy,
but evil man of Carmel. David and his
soldiers converse with the shepherds and treat them well, but things began to
change for the worse when David sent a contingent of messengers to Nabal
himself requesting sustenance for he and his men. Nabal, described in the Bible, as a churlish
man, was particularly nettlesome on this occasion, and flatly refused to even
recognize David or his request. The
future king immediately ordered 400 of his soldiers to arm themselves and
follow him to Nabal’s house, but a servant learned of the plans and told
Nabal’s wife, Abigail, about the impending danger to her husband, and the
reason for it. Now, at
this juncture, one might assume that Abigail, who was certainly not in love
with Nabal and who taken much abuse from this man, would have simply realized
her place and held her peace. Most women
of that era would surely have followed such a course, and indeed many today,
were they living in that historical period, would be in agreement–but not
Abigail! She sensed the danger involved,
and immediately ordered her servants to amass a huge larder as we read in I
Samuel 25: “Then Abigail made
haste, and took two hundred loaves, and two bottles of wine, and five sheep
ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and a hundred clusters of
raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs...and she said unto her servants, Go on
before me; behold, I come after you. But
she told not her husband Nabal” (I Sam. 25:18-19). When
she reached David and his army, she bowed at his feet, and proceeded to
intervene on behalf of her sinful husband.
Her plea, recorded in verses 24-31, is passionate and powerful, but her
words constitute much more than that.
Remember that the Jews later came to consider Abigail as one of the
seven great prophetesses of Israel, and true to form, her speech to David
indeed turned out to be a prophecy–a genuine prophecy that came to pass. Needless to say, David was highly impressed,
saying: “Blessed be the Lord
God of Israel who sent you this day to meet me: and blessed be you advice, and
blessed be you, which has kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from
avenging myself with my own hand...Go up in peace to your house; see, I have
hearkened to your voice, and have accepted your person” (I Sam. 25:32-33, 35). The rest of the story is well-known among most Bible students. Within a few days, Nabal is struck dead by
the hand of Yahweh, and when David learns of this event, he immediately sends
for Abigail, and she becomes his wife, and bares him children. |
|
David
undoubtedly appreciated what he saw and heard with regard to Abigail. Though she was a woman, David listened and
hearkened to her words. He could see
that she was wise, not to mention bold.
For a woman to do what Abigail did would be tantamount to putting her
own life on the line. She risked
everything to communicate something exceedingly important to David, who clearly
recognized that this was directly from the hand of God Himself! Abigail
was a righteous and courageous woman, but she DID NOT REMAIN SILENT!!
Rather she voiced herself to David in a humble, but firm fashion, and she
got what she desired! Would that there
were more woman with the strength of character displayed by Abigail! To become the wife of the future king of
Israel was not what she was seeking. She
received that honor from the Almighty as a blessing. And faithful, righteous women today who
comprehend how Yahweh has gifted them and use what they have been given, can
also expect God to respond in the same positive manner as He did toward
Abigail. Other
significant women during the Old Testament period all made their own
contribution to the work of God in their time.
Individuals such as Rahab, who is listed in the famous faith chapter of
Hebrews 11, and who is one of only four women listed in the genealogy of the
Messiah; and Hannah, the mother of Samuel, and another of the prophetesses of
Israel; and even Bathsheba, though perhaps most well known for participating in
the sin of David, nevertheless figured prominently in the latter years of
David’s reign, and was especially bold before the king to insure that her son
Solomon inherited the throne of Israel upon the death of David. Although
our coverage of the Old Testament period has been necessarily brief, we can
still be absolutely certain that the Scriptures clearly show that God does not
consider women as second-class citizens or mere slaves to men. And while it is true that the role of women
in general has been relegated to the bearing of children and the service of
men, the reason for this is not that God desires such a set of circumstances,
but rather that He permits them based upon the choice made in the Garden of
Eden by Adam and Eve. They chose to go
the way of the forbidden tree, of
earning salvation through dint of their own efforts, rather than by trusting
God and His grace. He, therefore, left
man to operate under a curse–one that for most people still has not been lifted
to this day. Of
course, for those who are truly in Christ,
such a curse has indeed been removed, and the chance to understand and practice
the genuinely proper roles of men and women has been granted. This is all part of the restoration of the
rejected tree of life. As we now enter into the New Testament to
complete our study, keep in mind that what we are attempting to do is perceive
this issue from the perspective of Yahweh, not through any kind of human lens. THE ROLES WOMEN PLAY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT As
the New Testament opens, a gap of nearly 400 years exists between the last
canonical Hebrew writings and the birth of the Messiah and onset of His
ministry. The setting, of course, is
first-century Palestine, including Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. By
the time the New Testament begins, the role of women in Jewish life found
itself relegated to a lower status than had historically been the case. The Hellenization of the Jews was, to a great
extent, responsible for this negative change.
Rabbinic customs and conventions had sprung up bountifully over the past
several hundred years, affecting almost every facet of Jewish life. Women found themselves forced into a second and sometimes even a
third-class existence.
MARY’S EXEMPLARY ROLE Mary
and, to a lesser extent, Elisabeth are the first two women that appear in the
New Testament record. What is
interesting here is that Yahweh chose to have His Son born in a more or less
conventional fashion, indeed strictly as a human being. This, of course, required the choosing of a
human father and mother, and of the two, the mother being by far the most
important selection. With regard to Mary
and Joseph, it is not difficult to conclude that Mary plays a much more
significant role in the life of Yahshua than does Joseph. First,
Zacharias, the wife of Elisabeth and a Levite serving in the Temple, received
an angelic visitation during which he is told about a son that God will grant
to he and his wife, even though they are old in years. This, of course, refers to John the Baptist, the
forerunner of the Messiah. Then,
Mary also has an angel appear to her, revealing the coming birth of the One who
would become the Savior of the world. At
first, Mary was taken aback, especially since she and Joseph were only
betrothed, meaning that they had not yet consummated their marriage. When the angel explained the nature of this
event and how she would conceive through the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary
immediately yielded herself, saying: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word”
(Lk. 1:38). Although
it is unfortunate that Mary has been so esteemed that she has become an object
of worship for millions upon millions of people throughout the world, it goes
without saying that she was a very, very special individual. She was not, of course, perfect, but she did
exhibit traits of character that were
outstanding. Humility and its subsequent
partner, submission or yieldedness, were both prominent characteristics of
Mary. There are few, if any, aspects of
the human disposition that God appreciates more than He does genuine
humility. Nothing will open the door
between a person and the Almighty more surely and more quickly than true
humility. This quality Mary possessed in
spades! Can
you imagine just what caliber of person it would take to be chosen to bear the
Son of God, to be able to believe that this could be, and to exhibit authentic
humility throughout the entire event?
Here are the words of the angel who visited Mary: “Hail, you that are highly favored, the Lord is with you: blessed are
you among women...Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God” (Lk. 1:28,
30). Since these words came from the angel
Gabriel, we can rest assured that they were not lightly spoken. When he says that Mary is blessed, he means that the Eternal
Himself has spoken well of her, and
that He has invoked a benediction upon
her. Mary’s song of praise, beginning in Luke 1:46, demonstrates more amply
than anyone else’s words what kind of person she really was at heart. Here is what she said: “And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, and my spirit does
rejoice in God my Savior. For He has
regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all
generations shall call me blessed (should read: shall bless me). For He that
is mighty has done to me great things; and holy is His name. And His mercy is on them that fear Him from
generation to generation. He has showed
strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their
hearts. He has put down the mighty from
their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He has sent away
empty. He has helped His servant Israel,
in remembrance of His mercy; as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his
seed forever” (Lk. 1:46-56). Mary continued to be the central
character in the Messiah’s young life.
This statement in no way is intended to denigrate or belittle
Joseph. It is that we know so little
about this man, and so much more is revealed of Mary. Undoubtedly Joseph was a most righteous man,
or he would have never even attracted a woman such as Mary. When
the birth of Yahshua occurred, shepherds in the fields came to see what had
happened, and then began to spread the news abroad. I consider it quite interesting and equally
as telling that Mary reacted decidedly differently than most of the other
people around her. Note the following
from Luke 2: “And when they (the shepherds) had seen it, they made known abroad the
saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those
things which were told them by the shepherds.
But MARY KEPT all these things, and PONDERED THEM in her
heart” (Lk. 2:17-19). After the requisite forty days had
elapsed, Mary and Joseph took their son up to the Temple that they might offer
the prescribed sacrifice according to the Torah. While there, they encountered an old man,
very devout, named Simeon, who was under the influence of the Holy Spirit. When he saw the child, he immediately took
him in his arms and blessed him and uttered a prophecy concerning him. Note carefully, however, to whom he directed
his comments: “And Simeon blessed them, and said unto MARY HIS MOTHER, Behold,
this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a
sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through your own
soul also) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Lk. 2:34-35). It
is most interesting that the last we read about Joseph himself is when Christ
was twelve years of age and speaking with the rabbis during the Passover
season, as recorded in Luke 2:41-52.
There has been much speculation through the years that Joseph most
likely died sometime shortly after this particular occasion. Mary, however, lived on and continued to be
very close to her firstborn son, was intimately involved in His ministry, and
was standing faithfully by Him as He hung from the tree on Golgotha. After the resurrection, she is seen with the
apostles and other disciples in the upper room (Acts 1:14), was one of the 120
who gathered together at Pentecost in 30 A.D., and who spoke in tongues and
witnessed to the crowds in Jerusalem (Acts 2).
Tradition has it that she continued to play a significant role in the
early spreading of the gospel, giving and serving as she had all of her
exemplary life. A WOMAN SPEAKS OUT! Going
back to when Mary and Joseph were in the Temple, after they had encountered
Simeon, there was another individual who was on the scene. Her name was Anna. We are given just enough information to know
that she was a very special servant of the Almighty. Here is what Luke records of her: “And there was one Anna, a PROPHETESS, the daughter of Phanuel,
of the tribe of Asher...she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, who
departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night
and day. And she coming in that instant
gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spoke of Him to all them that looked
for redemption in Jerusalem” (Lk. 2:36-38). Should we by now be surprised to
discover that certain women were known in Israel as prophetesses? Hardly, since
we have already covered a number of Old Testament examples, we see, as the New
Testament begins, that God is still empowering women of His choice with the
spirit or gift of prophecy. I
have come across many individuals over the years who have claimed to be a
prophet. My best sense is that
absolutely none of them actually were. I
am always wary of the person who tells me that he is a prophet. In the Bible, a prophet or prophetess were KNOWN as such by the
people. They could testify on his or her
behalf if any question of credibility were to arise. In Anna’s case, you will see clearly that
Luke himself was well aware that she was a prophetess. He knew where she spent her time and how she
spent her time. She wasn’t running
around the countryside claiming to be somebody! And
note carefully what Anna did after her encounter with Mary, Joseph & the
baby Yahshua. It is said that “she spoke of Him to all them that looked
for redemption in Jerusalem!” Now I
ask you, is that proper behavior for a woman?
Would such a thing be tolerated in the churches of God today? Why it sounds as though Anna actually started
preaching the gospel to any and all that would hear her! It may well be that she indeed was the first
person to do so in the New Testament era!
Whatever the case may be, one thing is an absolute certainty–ANNA DID NOT KEEP SILENCE!! And neither should any other saint, man or
woman, in whom the Almighty has placed the spirit or gift of prophecy. To prophesy
can mean to predict, but it also can
be defined to speak under inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. I would submit to
you that Anna did both, and that the people of Jerusalem and probably elsewhere
knew precisely who she was and what she was. THE ACID TEST–CHRIST’S ATTITUDE TOWARD WOMEN Although
most people might tend to think first of the apostle Paul when discussing the
issue of women’s role, we really need to
first take a look at the gospel accounts, for here we will see clearly how the
Messiah Himself viewed women, and whether or not His perspective clashed with
that of the Jews of His day. We will
also learn how He treated women, and in turn what kind of relationship women
had in His life and ministry. If our
personal opinion on the subject at hand doesn’t jibe with our Savior’s
position, then something obviously is wrong with our thinking, and is in need
of being changed. You must be your own
judge in this matter. In
first-century Judaism, women were relegated to a place somewhere between
second-class citizens and outright non-persons!
Equality or equal rights for women had become a virtually foreign
concept among the Jews. This fact is
exceedingly important with respect to this discussion, because it will greatly
enhance our understanding of the Messiah’s dealings with women. Therefore, we will commence this section of
our study by comparing Yahshua’s approach to and treatment of women with that
of the existing rabbinic practices of the first century. Incredibly,
the Jewish religious authorities taught that a man should not salute a woman,
not even his own wife, in a public place.
In the Talmud, we read the
statement of Rabbi Eliezer that “It is better that the words of the Law
should be burned, than that they should be given to a woman.” The same rabbi, writing in the Mishnah, adds the following directive: “If a man gives his daughter a knowledge of
the Law, it is as though he taught her lechery.” And Rabbi Judah’s famous prayer contained
the following words: “Blessed be You for
not having made me a Gentile, a woman, or an ignoramus (Tosephta Berakoth, 7, 18). These and numerous other passages
that could easily be cited paint a very clear picture of the diminution of
women and their roles among first century Jews.
We know that the Messiah was a full-fledged Jewish male, that He was
completely Torah-observant, and that, when even rabbinic teaching did not conflict
with the Scriptures, He submitted Himself to its obedience. Well, what about the official Jewish
religious stand on women? Did the rabbis
really base their contentions on the Torah, or were they part of the added
traditions, of which there were an innumerable multitude? The answer becomes quite plain when we
consider just how our Savior dealt with women in His own ministry. |
|
First
of all, as a general overview statement of this issue, we will come to see that
the Messiah had specific major differences with the scribes and Pharisees with
regard to a woman’s place. For instance,
few, if any, women were permitted to receive rabbinic instruction and become
disciples. This was reserved strictly
for men. Yahshua’s approach was
completely different, in that He taught men and women alike, with absolutely no
distinction whatsoever made between the two genders. We even see Mary, on one occasion, literally
sitting at His feet as He teaches, and when rebuked by her greatly encumbered
sister Martha for not helping with the housework, the Messiah is plain-spoken
in His response, saying: “Martha, Martha, you are careful and troubled about many things: but one
thing is needful: and Mary has chosen that good part, which shall not be take
away from her” (Lk. 10:41-42). Unlike the rabbinical parables, which
pointedly avoided even mentioning a woman, the Savior often told stories
relating to the life of women. In the
same vein, it was common for the rabbis and teachers of the Law to verbally
abuse women in public, and hold them up as bad examples. The Messiah scrupulously shunned such a
wretched practice, actually commending certain women on occasions. In
addition, Yahshua broke with the Pharisees and Sadducees of His day with regard
to women by allowing them to travel in His entourage wherever He went
throughout Judea, Samaria, or the Galilee.
The rabbis and other devout Jews frowned upon men and women traveling
together in such a manner. The
Messiah not only spoke freely, pleasantly, and positively to women, He also
healed them, which automatically brought Him into contact with those who were
sick and, in a few instances, those who were dead, and certainly some of these
were women. Such conduct flew in the
face of rabbinic dogma, which prohibited a man to touch a woman in public. He was also kindly dispositioned toward
children, consenting for the women to bring them near him and treating them
with respect. Again, the rabbinic
attitude toward women with children ran from indifferent to intolerant. Another
interesting point is that Yahshua allowed women to serve Him. At first thought, this might not appear to be
that contentious an issue, and under many circumstances it would not be, such
as in a family household situation. The
catch, however, is that the rabbis themselves strongly disapproved of women
serving them personally, even at the table, so they would have held the Messiah
in contempt for such permissiveness. Then
there is the occasion when the Savior was traveling through Samaria, and met a
woman drawing water at a well. The story
is quite familiar, but you should be interested to know that a rabbi would
never have done such things as have an extended encounter with a woman, or
speak at length to a woman in public, or allow her to give him a drink of
water, and above all considerations, for any such things to be done in the
presence of a Samaritan would have been utterly anathema! Even the women in question herself
told Yahshua: “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, who am a woman of
Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings
with the Samaritans” (Jn. 4:9). In fact, the hatred of Jews for
Samaritans was so bitter that the rabbis taught that a Samaritan woman was
considered a perpetual menstruant,
perhaps as vile a term as one could imagine applying to another human being! Even Christ’s own disciples were taken aback
by His openness and willingness to engage this woman in conversation, for we
read in John 4:27: “And upon this came His disciples, and marveled that He talked with this
woman: yet no man said, What are you seeking, or Why are you talking with her?” Of course, He not only talked to her,
He talked to her of the deepest type of spiritual knowledge, He identified
Himself to her as the Messiah, and He permitted her to go throughout the town
spreading the good news of what had happened to her. She, in other words, became a preacher of the gospel! In
another instance, Yahshua was being questioned by the Pharisees, by far the
dominant Jewish religious party of that day.
The issue being discussed was that of divorce. The Pharisees first asked Yahshua: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? This they said to tempt Him” (Mk. 10:2). The way the Pharisees phrased this
question was typical, because the religious Jews of the first-century only
permitted men to divorce their wives, not the other way around. In fact, it had gotten to the point where a
Jewish man could put away his wife for almost any cause, some of them outright
ludicrous, and certainly not what Yahweh had in mind. So the Messiah strongly corrected this
erroneous thinking, telling them that it was because of the hardness of their
hearts that Moses gave them this right, but that from the beginning it was not
intended to be. Later,
when He and His disciples were alone, they asked about the same matter. Please note carefully the Savior’s full reply
to them: “Whosoever shall put away his wife (except for fornication), and marry another, commits adultery against her. And if a WOMAN SHALL PUT AWAY HER HUSBAND,
and be married to another, she commits adultery” (Mk. 10:11-12). Not only did Yahshua correct the
Pharisees with regard to their attitude toward divorce in general, according to
the rest of His response, He definitely opposed the male only aspect of divorce as well, teaching that it is a two-way
street, an action that can be initiated by either party involved, but only for
the right and sound Scriptural reasons. Although
men were certainly prominent in the Messiah’s ministry, it goes virtually
without saying that many women were as well.
It seems that they were present in many, if not a majority of the
instances of which we have record in the New Testament. It may well be that certain women were
actually the closest personal friends that Yahshua had during His stay on
earth. This would especially be true of
the family that included Mary, Martha, and their brother Lazarus. A
final comparison between the Messiah and the prevailing rabbinical teaching
with respect to women has to do with being a witness. The rabbis generally would not take the word
of a woman and thus did not allow them to be considered as witnesses to events
or documents or in a court of law. And
surely, in this regard, we do not need much of a reminder that when our Savior was in
Gethsemane on the night of His arrest, at the most critical point in His entire
life, the male apostles, whom He
brought along to be witnesses of this event, all fell asleep while He suffered
alone the most traumatic of human experiences.
His plaintive question to them was: “Could
you not watch with me even one hour?” And yet on the other hand, as the
Messiah was hanging on the tree, His lifeblood pouring out on the ground, who
stood round the cross as His final comforters and witnesses of His death for
all mankind? “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s
sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene” (Jn. 19:25). Indeed, all the male disciples save
John had gone into hiding, afraid for their lives. As it was written, “Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered” (Zech. 13:7).
In
addition, it is very interesting and telling that the first person to whom the
Savior appeared after His resurrection was a woman–Mary Magdalene. When she fell at His feet and clung to Him,
He instructed her to go and tell the others (mostly men) of what she had
seen. Thus Mary became the first
official witness of Christ’s resurrection, perhaps the single most important
event in all of history!! The fact of the matter is that the
Messiah was NOT like the
Jewish religious, political, and cultural leaders of His day. Yes, He was a true Jew, but He was the Son of
God first and foremost, and He did that which was right, fair, and good. Yahshua came to set the captives free, and in
first-century Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, women were, to a great extent,
imprisoned by men whose thinking had been shaped for thousands of years by the
fateful choice made in the Garden of Eden!
The Savior’s appearance on the world scene meant that the tree of life, rejected by Adam and Eve,
was being restored. An
excellent example of Christ’s life-changing effect with respect to women can be
found in a passage from His Sermon on the
Mount, recorded in Matthew 5. Here
He makes a statement that, upon consideration, was really quite
liberating. Beginning in verse 27, we
read: “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not
commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looks upon a woman to lust
after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt.
5:27-28). Do you see the point He is
making? He is telling the men in His
audience that, even though they may know the commandment that prohibits
outright adultery, they still are guilty of lusting after a woman in their hearts. In other words, Yahshua is saying that men
have no right to treat women as mere sexual objects, and that they are just as
guilty in the spirit of things as if they had committed the physical act of
adultery. Before the Savior arrived,
women generally received their identity through their subordination to
men. Such inequality, however, was to
have no part in the ministry of Christ, nor in the Church that He would
establish. In Christ, a person’s
identity or significance is not based upon one’s gender, but on the willingness
to respond to God as Yahshua responds. In
Mark 14, we read of another incident that portrays the striking difference
between Yahshua’s attitude toward women and that of His fellow countrymen. He is dining at the home of Simon the leper,
a resident of Bethany, and while He is eating, an unnamed women approaches Him,
opens an alabaster box full of costly ointment, and proceeds to pour it on His
head in a form of anointing. The
disciples and others gathered there become indignant over such an act being
performed, and especially done by a woman.
The Messiah, however, takes up for her and praises her for what she has
done. To
fully appreciate what transpired in this case, we have to understand how
utterly unconventional this episode was in first-century Jewish society. In fact, it just wasn’t done! No self-respecting woman would dare to do
such a thing in public, and if indeed it did occur, the woman involved would not
only have been reprimanded, but driven from the house and probably beaten! For Yahshua to have accepted this act from a
woman speaks volumes with regard to His attitude toward the opposite sex. It
is interesting that none of the men who were present seemed to grasp at all
what was taking place. All they could do
was react negatively–the way they had been rigorously trained to do all of
their lives. But the woman–she
understood. Note the beautiful words of
Christ at the conclusion of this story: “Let her alone; why do you trouble her?
She has wrought a good work on Me...She has done what she could: she is
come beforehand to anoint My body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this
gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she has
done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her” (Mk. 14:6-9). Perhaps the most impressive situation
regarding Yahshua and the status of women is found in the 13th
chapter of Luke. Understanding the
prevailing customs of the time, this is a poignant, powerful, and compelling
story. Beginning in verse 10, we read
the following: “And He was TEACHING in one of the synagogues ON THE SABBATH. And, behold, there was a woman which had a
spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no
wise lift herself up. And when Jesus saw
her, He CALLED HER UNTO HIM, and SAID UNTO HER, Woman, you are
loosed from your infirmity. And He LAID
HIS HANDS ON HER; and immediately she was made straight, and glorified
God. And the ruler of the congregation
answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath
day...The Lord answered him, and said, You hypocrite, do not each of you on the
Sabbath loose His ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to
watering? And ought not this woman,
being a DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM, whom Satan has bound lo these eighteen
years be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? And when He had said these things, all His
adversaries were ashamed; and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious
things that were done by Him” (Lk. 13:10-17). There are precisely five ways in
which the Messiah broke with Jewish convention with respect to women in this
short episode. I have underscored each
of them in the above passage. First of
all, He interrupted the teaching session on the Sabbath because of a
woman. This period of time was
considered sacrosanct to the pious Jews, and for it to be intruded upon due to
a woman was an egregious violation. Secondly,
He transgressed the culture by recognizing this woman and calling her
forth. You see, she would have been in
the back of the synagogue as usual, for that is the area to which the women
were relegated, and they were expected to stay put! Next, He spoke to this woman. As stated in an earlier portion of this
study, no self-respecting Jewish man would speak to a woman in public, but the
Savior apparently didn’t think very much of this ridiculous regulation! Then,
of all things, He laid His hands on her before all the men who were sitting up
front so that they could see precisely what He was doing. A strict Jew of the first century would not
even look at a woman in public, much less touch her. Such an act would be anathema! Finally, Yahshua affirmed the woman’s worth
in society. He said in essence, “You men never fail to water your animals
on the Sabbath; and here is one worth far more than any animal, and you don’t
think she should be set free of this infirmity on this day?” Then He confirmed everything by calling her a
DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM, a very
specific statement with a most significant meaning--indicating that she and all
women of all time have the same opportunity for acceptance by Yahweh and
eternal salvation through the Messiah, as any man who ever lived! This
was our Savior in living action–standing up for what was right, and
withstanding what was wrong. And I
submit to you that it is precisely the way we ought to comport ourselves today!
Considering the facts that we have covered thus far, it is absolutely safe to
conclude that the Messiah unquestionably saw all human beings, male and female,
as equals. Since He taught men and women
together, and since He allowed both men and women to accompany Him on His
journeys, and since He permitted both men and women to participate in all the
various aspects of His life, we can rest assured that He was preparing both men
and women to become fruitful disciples of His, and to work together in
spreading the gospel throughout the world.
In
no instance throughout the gospel accounts does the Savior put restrictions
upon women. He approached all people
openly and treated them all fairly. He
taught men and women, and did so, not in the Jewish manner, where they were
segregated, but always together. Women
were often in His company, not only His close female friends and companions,
but also even women of ill repute. When
the religious authorities hauled a woman before him who had been caught in the
act of adultery, claiming that she should be stoned, not only did Yahshua act
to spare her life, He also forgave her sins. Some
will always raise the argument that the original twelve apostles were men. This, of course, is obviously correct, but
should not be explained on the basis that, in Christ’s eyes, women were
inferior and unable to serve. Doesn’t it
make far more sense that, given the often difficult circumstances of the kind
of life the Twelve would be called upon to live, that, all other things being
equal, men would be the likely choice for this kind of labor? The answer is almost too obvious to
consider further. |
|
When
the seventy were sent out, we are not told whether there were women involved in
this endeavor or not. But we certainly
do know for a fact that women comprised a percentage of the 120 disciples that
actually formed the foundation of the early New Testament church, for we read
in Acts 1:14: “These (the Twelve) all continued with one accord in prayer and
supplication, with the WOMEN, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His
brethren.” This,
of course, also means that these very same women and perhaps even others, along
with the men, were present on the Day of Pentecost, 30 A.D., when the Holy
Spirit was poured out on the 120 disciples in Jerusalem, which leads us
directly into the next part of our study.
THE PENTECOST EXPERIENCE - NOT
FOR MEN ONLY! All
Bible students immediately recognize the second chapter of Acts as containing
the famous incident that occurred on Pentecost day in 30 A.D. The Messiah had instructed the disciples to
wait in Jerusalem until they were empowered by the promised Holy Spirit. The story is very familiar. “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one
accord in one place. And suddenly there
came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting. And there
appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of
them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance...Now when this was noised
abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every
man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold,
are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own
tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:1-8). The introduction to this chapter is
very important, because those who were filled that day with the Spirit, and who
spoke in other languages the wonderful works of God, included both men and WOMEN! They were standing side-by-side preaching the
gospel of the kingdom of God in foreign languages under the divine power of the
Spirit. Naturally, all of the Jews
gathered for the holyday in Jerusalem were astonished. They began to question one another as to what
this amazing spectacle might be. The
apostle Peter, however, no longer the fearful man who denied His Master three
times, rose up and said: “You men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known
unto you, and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken, as you suppose,
seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to
pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh:
and your sons and your DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, and your young men
shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on My servants and
on My HANDMAIDENS I will pour out in those days of My Spirit, and they
shall PROPHESY” (Acts 2:14-18). We cannot afford to gloss over these
words. We must allow ourselves to receive
the full impact of what Peter is saying in this passage. A great wind rushes in, and cloven tongues of
fire rest over the heads of the 120 male and female disciples gathered in
Jerusalem. They begin to speak the truth
of God in other languages, and not just any tongues, but precisely those of the
various nationalities that had come to Jerusalem for Pentecost. The people are amazed, and Peter tells them
exactly what they are witnessing–that this incredible sight and sound display
is the beginning of the fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in the book of Joel,
in which the Holy Spirit will be poured out upon both men and women, and they
shall prophesy, see visions, and dream dreams. Do
we believe that this event transpired as recorded in Acts 2? If so, then pray tell why weren’t these WOMEN KEEPING SILENCE???? Why weren’t they being reprimanded,
embarrassed, put down, and run out of the place? Look at the circumstances–it was a Sabbath
day, indeed a high Sabbath, an annual holyday, one of the three great
pilgrimage festivals of the year. This
was as sacred and important a moment as any first-century Jew could have
experienced, and yet Yahweh chose to pour out His Spirit upon both men and
women, and have them NOT BE QUIET,
BUT SPEAK!! Such a thing would
have been forbidden to women by the male-dominated religious leaders, but God
approved of it! And who are we to
follow–God or man? Of
course, I can hear someone saying, Well, that was a one-time event, and nothing
that we might do should be based on it.
Oh really? Well, I beg to
differ. Peter went back into the Hebrew
Scriptures and cited a prophetic passage from the book of Joel. That prophecy is designated for the last days. If Peter was intending to say that this
prophecy had its beginning on that auspicious day of Pentecost, then when
should we expect its fulfillment?
According to Joel, it will transpire “before the great and terrible day of the Lord come” (Joel 2:31). What if Peter was actually telling
the people that the so-called last days
were beginning at that very time, and that they would continue until the time
of Christ’s Second Coming? That, in
fact, is what it would appear he is contending.
If this is so, then the fact that both men and women were directly
involved in what took place takes on powerful significance for we believers
today, and certainly ought to greatly affect how we view the role of women in
the assemblies. The
Scriptures tell us that 3,000 souls were baptized that day of Pentecost, as a
result of the powerfully inspired preaching of Peter, and the prophesying of
the disciples. This was the beginning of
a great spiritual movement, the greatest in the history of this world. Think about this fact for a moment–The
greatest spiritual movement in history, and the Almighty chose men and WOMEN to first be trained by the
Messiah, and then work side-by-side with each other, filled with the very same
Spirit, and doing the very same thing–SPEAKING
THE TRUTH OF GOD AND LEADING OTHERS TO SALVATION!! This is how the so-called New
Testament Church got its start, and what a start it was!! Yahshua paved the way in showing both men and
women who He was, who they were, and what He had in store for them to say and
do. He treated both men and women
equally, and took special pains to break down the male-dominated societal
restrictions imposed upon women. In
reality, HE SET WOMEN FREE! He said, in essence, “Woman, thou art loosed!” Therefore,
I would say to all of us, THOSE WHOM
GOD HAS SET FREE, MAN MUST BE CERTAIN NEVER TO IMPRISON!! To do so is tantamount to doing the devil’s
work! The
primitive Church operated in a different manner than most churches today. Nowadays, the religions that claim to come
from the Bible have formed great corporate institutions, and things function
according to humanly devised rules, regulations, and restrictions. In the beginning, the true Assembly of saints
operated by the indwelling presence and power of the Holy Spirit!! The classifying of believers into ranks and
categories, the notion that one is greater than and above another, the idea
that there is a clergy caste and a laity, were never a part of what Yahshua the
Messiah taught and the work He began upon this earth! Those things have all been added by men as
the pristine religion of the original saints was corrupted into big business
and mass control. The
Eternal proclaims in the Scriptures, “I
am YHWH, I CHANGE NOT.” From
the beginning it is written that He made them male and female. Indeed, when Adam and Eve chose to reject the
way of salvation in favor of working out their own fate, God did place mankind
under a curse, but that is not the way it all began, and it is not the way He
intends that it will end. We need to
stop considering the sin in the Garden to have been some sort of fall from grace, as it were, leaving God
with having to come up with Plan B!! He knew what He wanted before He ever set His
hand to create anything in the universe, and He will not be denied His purposes
and plans. With
the coming of Messiah, the gate back into the Garden and to the tree of life has been opened. Yahweh is going to achieve precisely what He
had in mind from the start. Yahshua
paved the way to the tree of life for
all human beings, each according to their own calling and the element of divine
timing. While He walked the earth, He
set the pace for you and me. We should
look at His life, consider His words, think about His actions, because we need
to be comporting ourselves precisely as He did. With
respect to the role of women, there are two choices, either remain in bondage,
or accept the liberty which Christ has provided. His view of women and His treatment of women
was absolutely perfect. Nothing that human
beings might devise at some later time in history had the right to alter what
He put in place. With
respect to the Church which He founded, it was based on Him, therefore, it
looked like Him, and sounded like Him, and acted like Him. That is precisely why we see the Pentecost
event being shared by male and female disciples together. Do we suppose that when the Spirit was poured
out on that great occasion, and one of the women began prophesying, that Peter
commanded her to KEEP SILENCE???? Yes,
it is true that God doesn’t change. He
is, after all, perfect, and when one is in such a state, change is the last
thing needed or desired. We humans,
however, we change, usually from bad to worse, but indeed we change. We not only change within, we also change
things that are without. What the
Almighty and His Son put in place at the time of Pentecost, in time became
inadequate for certain men whose whole purpose for existence was to gain power,
control, recognition, and, above all other things, money! As we move on through the New Testament era,
we will begin to observe some of those changes, as well as the apostolic
resistence to such perversion of the faith. Now
we must confront the one individual credited by most people with changing the
Christian perspective on women, and that person was the apostle Paul. Was the great apostle to the Gentiles really
a male chauvinist? Did he place a
restriction on women that the Savior did not?
Was He unfair to women, subjugating them to a lower echelon? All of these questions and many others we
shall attempt to answer in the remaining portion of this discussion. I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN! It
is, of course, not possible to cover the subject of women’s roles in the
assemblies without dealing head-on with the teaching of the apostle Paul. His writings form the basis for the attitude
many professing Christians have in this regard.
As to whether or not the correct understanding of what He wrote is
present is another matter entirely. Paul
came on the scene fairly early after the ascension of the Messiah and the
events of Pentecost, within at least several short years or so. He was not one of the original apostles, nor
was he an eyewitness to the Messiah.
Rather Paul or Saul, as he was first known, was a strict Pharisaical
Jew, possibly even a member of the Sanhedrin, but if not, then close to those
who were, and one who indeed did their bidding, especially when it came to
dealing with this new sect of the Jews claiming that one Yahshua was the
promised Messiah Himself. Saul reacted
to this fledgling movement just like most of the religious Jews of his day–he
adamantly opposed it, and actively pursued its members, stalking them down,
hauling them off to court and prison, even participating in their murder. A
seemingly most unlikely prospect to become God’s chosen apostle to the
Gentiles, Saul was miraculously struck blind on the Damascus Road, and
experienced his life-changing encounter with the risen Messiah. Almost immediately after his baptism and the
regaining of his sight, he commenced to preach the gospel in the local
synagogues in and around the area of Damascus.
In the beginning of his ministry, it appears that his zeal got him into
trouble almost everywhere he preached.
Whether in Damascus or Jerusalem, Paul seemed to always cause a
controversy. In fact, upon his escape
and removal from Jerusalem, it is recorded in Acts 9 that: “Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and
Samaria, and were edified: and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the
comfort of the Holy Spirit, were multiplied” (Acts 9:31). Although having been introduced to
the Jerusalem apostles and brethren, Paul labored in relative obscurity for a
number of years in the areas of Cilicia and Syria. We do find that Paul and his companion
Barnabas were sent by the assembly in Antioch to Jerusalem around 44 A.D., for
the purpose of taking relief supplies to the brethren in Judea. This was around the time the apostle James
was murdered by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 11:25-12:2). After the pair had completed their mission,
they returned to Antioch, taking with them John Mark. At
this point in time, Paul had not yet begun what would become his famous
missionary journeys. Sometime around 46
A.D., however, he and Barnabus were commissioned by the Holy Spirit to begin
preaching the gospel in Asia Minor, and in Acts 13:4, we see them sailing away
from Antioch, along with Mark. They
enjoyed difficult, but resounding success, establishing churches in several
cities of southern Galatia. Upon their
return to Antioch, however, a furor arose among some of the Jews over the issue
of Gentile circumcision and the law of Moses being requirements for
salvation. Paul and Barnabus, therefore,
went to Jerusalem to meet with the entire church there and resolve the
conflict. Then they returned to Antioch
and began making plans for a second missionary journey. A strong difference of opinion between the
two men caused them to separate, and Paul selected a young man named Timothy to
accompany him on the journey. It
was around the year 50 A.D. that Paul and his company crossed over into
Macedonia and came to the city of Philippi, and it is in this capital city that
the book of Acts first mentions a woman by name that is connected to the
ministry of Paul. And that woman was
Lydia. Apparently
having no Jewish synagogue available in Philippi, Paul and his entourage
gathered by the edge of a river on the Sabbath day. The Greek in this case is slightly different
for the word rendered Sabbath. This variant appears three times in the New
Testament, once during the ministry of the Messiah in Luke 4:16, and earlier in
Paul’s first missionary journey as recorded in Acts 13:14. In each of these cases, the actual rendering
should be day of sabbaths or day of weeks, an apparent indicator that
these three occasions were not weekly Sabbaths, but rather the annual holyday
of Pentecost. Anciently, this festival
was known as the Feast of Weeks, due
to the seven week count involved in calculating the specific day on the
calendar. It
was in this peaceful river setting that Paul was introduced to Lydia, for we
read in Acts 16: “And on the Sabbath (day of weeks)
we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and
we set down, and spoke unto the women who resorted there. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of
purple, of the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God, heard us: whose heart the
Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her husband,
she besought us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come
into my house, and abide there. And she
constrained us” (Acts 16:13-15). This short passage may not be as
filled with details concerning Lydia as we might wish, but still there is
telling information here. Note carefully
that, although married, we know nothing about her husband, not even his name,
and this in light of the fact that he too believed and was baptized along with
his wife. This, of course, casts no
aspersions upon this man, but does accentuate the fact that Lydia was without
doubt an outstanding woman. She is the
one who urged Paul and his company to stay at her house. Later
in the story, near the end of chapter 16, after Paul and Silas had been beaten
and imprisoned by the local officials, and then miraculously released, we read: “And they came and besought them (Paul, et. al), and brought them out,
and desired them to depart out of the city.
And they went out of the prison, and entered into the HOUSE OF LYDIA:
and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed” (Acts.
16:39-40). |
|
The likelihood is great that Lydia’s
home became the setting for the first local assembly in Philippi. And, although unspoken, there is good reason
to believe that it may well have been Lydia who oversaw the fellowship there,
especially in the formative stages. In
fact, the very earliest Philippian converts would appear to have been
predominantly women, Lydia’s husband being the only males to which any
reference is even made. The
point here is not necessarily to claim some high office for Lydia, but rather
that, from early on, women played a vital role in the ministry of the apostle
Paul and the life of the Gentile assemblies that were established during the
first century. Indeed, years later when
Paul wrote his epistle to the Philippians, it is interesting and perhaps quite
telling that the only individuals he mentioned by name were two women, Euodias
and Syntyche, and one man named Clement (Phil. 4:2-3). And note carefully what the apostle says with
regard to these three characters: “And I entreat you also, true yokefellow, help those WOMEN who LABORED
WITH ME in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other of my fellow
laborers, whose names are in the book of life” (Phil 4:3). You will see that Paul makes no
distinction among Clement, Euodias, and Syntyche. All of them are considered as those who labored together with Paul in preaching
the gospel. The Greek word rendered labored in verse 3 means to wrestle in company with. The wording in the passage clearly indicates
that all of these believer, male and female alike, were engaged side-by-side in
preaching, teaching, counseling, and watching over the ministerial work that
was being accomplished in that part of the world. So, even though Paul was raised as a strict
Pharisaical Jew, undoubtedly imbued with the typical prejudices against women,
it is obvious that he had overcome these tendencies, choosing to follow the
example of the Messiah, becoming fully acceptive of women and the abilities,
loyalty, hard work, determination, and courage that they displayed and who
willingly contributed to the aid of his work among the Gentiles. Paul
also followed Yahshua in his method of preaching in that he openly taught men
and women together and equally. In fact,
a careful reading of the book of Acts and the letters of Paul reveal that women
played a virtually equal part with men in the ministry that he conducted. They are mentioned often by name, several of
which we will discuss in this study, and they are praised by Paul for their
faithfulness and their labor in the gospel. From
Philippi, Paul and company came to Thessalonika and then Berea, where it is
specifically stated that: “Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women who were
Greeks, and of men, not a few” (Acts 17:12). The group was forced to stay on the
move, due to the constant persecution they received as they journey from city
to city. After escaping by sea from
Berea, Paul is guided to Athens, the famous Greek metropolis. His impassioned speech on Mars Hill raised
all sorts of questions among the superstitious Athenians. It might be safe to say that very little
initial success was achieved in this thoroughly pagan city. In fact, only two people are mentioned by
name as truly believing Paul’s message, namely Dionysius the Areopagite, and a
woman name Damaris. From
Athens, Paul next traveled to Corinth in southern Greece. This city would become one of the great
centers of early belief and acceptance of Yahshua as Messiah, and the Corinthian
Church, having two lengthy letters addressed to it as part of the New Testament
record, is undoubtedly the most well known of the fledgling congregations of
the first century. It was here that Paul
met two particular people, a man and his wife, who would become some of his
most intimate and productive fellow-laborers in the gospel. Those two individuals were Priscilla and
Aquila. Aquila
was a tentmaker, which just happened to be the apostle Paul’s line of work, so
they became close friends, Paul actually staying with Aquila and his wife
Priscilla for a period of time. This
couple had recently come from Italy, due to the persecution of Jews by the
emperor Claudius Caesar. Unbeknown
to Paul when he first entered Corinth, he would spend the next year and a half
in this city, for there were many whom God was calling from that area. Eventually, his Jewish opponents made trouble
for him, and he sailed from there to Ephesus, accompanied by his two newly found
friends. Priscilla Aquila remained in
Ephesus, as Paul was bound for Jerusalem.
He would rejoin them at a later time. Ephesus
was a lively cosmopolitan city of the ancient Roman world. Here the worship of the cult of Diana was at
its height. The famous Temple of Diana
was constructed in Ephesus, and became known as one of the seven wonders of the
ancient world. Ephesus was a major port
on the Aegean Sea, and became the chief
city of all Asia Minor. People
from all over the world passed through Ephesus, and so it was no great surprise
that a man named Apollos arrived there, a man highly learned in the Scriptures,
a very charismatic individual, and an orator of great renown. He wasn’t in town long before he started
preaching fervently in the synagogues, attracting large crowds of interested
persons. Naturally
Priscilla and Aquila soon became aware of this remarkable man. When they learned, however, that his
preaching, though most eloquent, was based solely on the things pertaining to
the baptism of John, note what transpired: “And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and
Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of
God more perfectly. And when he was
disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive
him...For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the
Scriptures that Yahshua was the Messiah” (Acts 18:26-28). This
short passage in Acts 18 is very telling, especially with respect to the
subject of women in the churches. Here
is the apostle Paul. He meets a man and
wife, whom he soon discovers work together, sort of as a traveling evangelistic
team. First they were in Rome, then in
other parts of Italy, then in Corinth.
Now they are in Ephesus, and we will soon find out that their travels in
helping to preach the gospel continued as well. Some
people seem to feel that Paul tends to put a greater emphasis on Priscilla than
he does on Aquila. This is deduced from
the fact that her name is listed first more often than her husband’s. And, quite frankly, this is most often the
meaning of such an order of names in the Bible.
In this case, however, there is really no need for us to know which of the
two individuals was considered the more prominent. The point is that both the man and the woman
were equally engaged in serving the early churches. They dedicated their lives to this task. And this was not a situation where Aquila did
all the preaching and teaching, while Priscilla served them tea and
biscuits! She was as much a teacher of
the truth as was her husband! And, in
the case of Apollos, it is expressly stated that both of them took part in
expounding the Scriptures to this great man of God. Anyone
who believes that a woman is forbidden by the Almighty to teach had better take
the issue up with Him personally, because in the case of Priscilla, she was
gifted as a teacher and she actively taught as one. It is quite obvious that Paul thought highly
of both her and her husband, for he says in Romans 16: “Greet Priscilla and Aquila my HELPERS in Christ Jesus: who for
my life laid down THEIR OWN NECKS: unto whom not only I give thanks, but
also ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE GENTILES.
Likewise greet the church that is IN THEIR HOUSE” (Rom. 16:3-5). The Greek word for helpers in verse 3 is sunergos, and it means co-laborer, companion in labor, laborer
together with. It does not mean peon, babysitter, table server, or maid!!
When Paul says that Priscilla and Aquila risked their own necks to save
his life, this has to be a reference to major involvement in the difficult work
in which the apostle himself was engaged.
These two believers were willing to host an assembly in their home in
Rome, and yet travel across the sea to foreign lands hundreds and hundreds of
miles away, preaching and teaching the gospel message to the Gentiles. Paul
considered them fellow laborers, doing the same kind of work. In fact, there is even a sense of equality
suggested in the language Paul uses with respect to these two servants, as well
as certain others. The apostle saw these
brethren as a team of workers, each of them, men and women alike, ready,
willing, and able to give up all for the Messiah, even to putting their own
lives on the line! Clearly, Paul had no
problem with women serving to the maximum in getting the initial groundwork of
the kingdom successfully laid. Although
most of the New Testament evidence for women’s roles in the assemblies is found
in Paul’s writings, we do have the letter of II John that presents us with an
interesting possibility with regard to our study. Here is how the epistle begins: “The elder unto the ELECT LADY and her children, whom I love in
the truth, and not only I, but also all they that have known the truth” (II Jn.
1). Who exactly is this elect lady to whom the apostle John
writes? Certainly it would be simple
enough to conjecture that John is merely addressing an assembly of believers,
referring to them collectively as the elect
lady and her children. This could
possibly have been done to conceal the reality of the recipients were the
letter to fall into enemy hands. There
are, however, reasonable arguments against such a conclusion. First
of all, since III John is expressly directed to an individual by name, why not
take the same special precautions presumed to be the case in the second
epistle? Furthermore, the certain
wording in this brief letter makes it awkward to think of John referring to a
church by the term lady. Notice the following passage: “I rejoiced greatly that I found of your CHILDREN walking in
truth, as we have received a commandment from the father. And now I beseech you, lady, not as though I
wrote a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we
should love one another” (I Jn. 4-5). Here
the apostle first refers to the children
of the lady, then begins to give
specific instructions to the lady. Since the children
obviously comprise the local assembly, how
can the lady be the church? Believers
are not considered children of the church,
but rather the children of their teacher or leader, just the way John himself was with respect to the
Messiah. Indeed, Paul uses this same
sort of description when he says: “My little CHILDREN, of whom I travail in birth again until
Christ be formed in you” (Gal. 4:19). “O you Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is
enlarged...Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my CHILDREN)
be you also enlarged” (II Cor. 6:11, 13). Even
John himself follows this same practice in his third epistle, stating: “I have no greater joy than to hear that MY CHILDREN walk in the
truth” (III Jn. 4). The
statement, therefore, in II John 1 sounds much more like the apostle is
addressing a person when he says lady,
and the collective church members when he uses the word children.
To delve just a little more deeply into this passage, it is very interesting that
John actually addresses his second epistle in the Greek to the eklektee kuria. The first word means chosen of God, but it is the second term that is most
compelling. Kuria is the feminine form of the word kurios, and means supreme in
authority, controller. In the
masculine form, it is rendered lord,
in the feminine, lady. It would therefore appear that this is indeed
an individual person, that she is female in gender, and that she holds a
position of leadership in one of the early congregations in Asia Minor to whom
John wrote and traveled during his ministry.
As
a final example before moving on to an exposition of Romans 16, we have the
statement by Paul at the close of I Corinthians. Here we read the following from chapter 16: “I beseech you, brethren, (you know the house of STEPHANAS, that
it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the
ministry of the saints,) that you submit yourselves unto such, and to every one
that helps with us and labors. I am glad
of the coming of Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus: for that which was
lacking on your part they have supplied.
For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge you
them that are such” (I Cor. 16:15-18). There is no question that the names Fortunatus and Achaicus are male and, of course, applied to men of that time. Stephanas is another matter
indeed. Based upon the most careful
research, it would appear that this was indeed a feminine name, not masculine
as might be easily assumed. It is quite
possible that the two men mentioned by Paul were her sons. The point, of course, is that here we have
another example of a leading female in the early Church. She and her family and perhaps others who
joined with them had, as Paul put it, addicted
themselves to the ministry of the saints.
In this passage, it is apparent that the Corinthian brethren had not
been showing respect toward Stephanas and her household. Why, we are not specifically told. Could it be simply because there were some
who could not abide a woman serving in a leadership function in the Church? Whatever the reason, Paul corrects the
brethren, even going so far as to inform them that Stephanas had brought
provisions for him that the Corinthians had failed to provide, thus adding a
bit of insult to injury, but mainly to get across his point. ROMANS 16 - WHY SO MANY WOMEN? The
16th chapter of Romans is somewhat unusual in that it contains
greetings from Paul to nearly 30 individuals by name, giving us additional
insight into some of the people that were deeply involved in the first-century
assemblies and the work of the apostle Paul.
Right from the beginning of this chapter we read first about a woman–a
woman name Phebe from the church at Cenchrea.
Paul writes: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, who is a SERVANT of the
church which is at Cenchrea: that you receive her in the Lord, as become
saints; and that you ASSIST HER in whatsoever BUSINESS she has
need of you: for she has been a SUCCORER of many, and of myself also”
(Rom. 16:1-2). These are some awfully fine words
that Paul is penning as he begins the final portion of his letter to the
Romans. Interestingly, of all those to
whom he sends personal greetings, the first one is a woman. And quite obviously not just any woman! Phebe
is clearly someone that Paul knows well, highly admires, and even more highly
approves. When he says that he “commends” Phebe, he is paying her a
significant tribute, since in the Greek the word has the meaning of standing with or beside. In other words, he is telling the church at
Rome that Phebe is not just a female believer he happened to have met. He is saying to the brethren that Phebe is
someone special, someone who stands with him
in the work of the gospel. |
|
He
doesn’t stop there, but continues to describe her function, calling her a “servant of the church.” We could simply read over this word or
the whole verse, but it will pay us dividends in understanding if we take a
moment to realize that the Greek word employed in this case is diakonos. You might be interested to know that this
particular term is found 31 times in the New Testament, and is translated servant only 8 times. It is far more often rendered as the English
word minister, and is used a few
times for the term deacon. Now
I am aware that the term minister has
a special meaning to most believers. On
the other hand, the word servant has
much less stature, and yet here we see that the same Greek word can be
understood by either term. In fact, Paul
uses this same word in Colossians 1, where he says: “If you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved
away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached
to every creature which is under heaven; where I Paul am made a MINISTER
(Gk. diakonos). Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you...in
my flesh for His (Christ’s) body’s sake, which is the church: where I am made a
MINISTER (Gk. diakonos),
according to the dispensation of God” (Col. 1:23-25). Paul could easily have chosen another
word to describe Phebe if that had been his intention, but instead he called
her by the identical term which he used to refer to himself. Now I ask you, had you rather be a minister like Paul, or a servant like Phebe? There is no doubt that in the past, many,
particularly men, would say without hesitation that they preferred the term minister. This, of course, is a by-product of our past
religious associations where ministers were considered a special elite class
separate from the so-called laity. Very few people in times past truly connected
a minister with a servant.
A minister would almost always have been considered occupying a higher
position in the church than a servant, and yet we see that Paul uses the very
same term to describe both Phebe and himself. Going
back to the question just posed, let’s pretend that you chose minister over servant. If so, then that
raises yet another question. Would you
rather be a minister like Paul, or a servant like the Messiah referred to in
Matthew 23, when He said: “But be you not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Messiah; and
all you are brethren...neither be you called masters: for one is your Master,
even Christ. But he that is GREATEST
among you shall be your SERVANT (Gk. diakonos)”
(Matt. 23:8-11). I think that you can see where I’m
coming from. There is, of course, no
difference. In fact, the term diakonos, even though it may be translated
minister or servant, almost always means, when used in the New Testament, a
Christian teacher or pastor. Can
we therefore deduce that Phebe may well have been involved in more than just
waiting on tables in her service or ministry? Most assuredly we can! Phebe was not a housekeeper for the
church. She was involved at a much higher, more
responsible level. In fact, the Romans
16 passage where she is mentioned by Paul makes it perfectly clear that she was
on some kind of mission on behalf of the church, for the apostle himself
instructs the Roman brethren to welcome her and give her all the assistance
that she requires. He
then states that she has been, as the King James Version puts it, a succorer of many, including Paul. What exactly does this statement mean? The Greek word utilized in this instance is prostatis, and significantly, it is only
used once in the entire New Testament.
It means a patroness or protectress. It is derived from the term which means to stand before, i.e. (in rank) to preside,
maintain, be over, and rule. Now I
do not wish to take any part of the Bible out of context, or give a word or
passage a meaning that it simply doesn’t have, but such is simply not the case
with respect to this term. It
would therefore seem quite likely that Phebe, a woman, was indeed a key leader
of the assembly at Cenchrea, and furthermore that she on occasion traveled
great distances to take care of business having to do with the churches under
Paul’s care. It is thought that Phebe
probably took the epistle to the Romans to the brethren in that part of the
world. Paul instructs the Romans then to
help her in other church business that is on her agenda. This indicates that Phebe was a person of
high respect and responsibility among the early believers. With
respect to the list of names in Romans 16, it is interesting to note that a
number of them are women. In a typical
man’s world, it would seem quite unlikely that a very high ranking church
official would, in writing a letter to one of the assemblies under his
supervision, mention almost as many women as men by name, saluting and praising
them all. And yet this is precisely what
the apostle Paul did. Why? The answer is simple, if it can be
accepted. The fact is that women formed a
major force in Paul’s widely scattered ministry. They traveled with him, were sent on missions
by him, hosted churches in their homes (Acts 12:12 - Mary the mother of John Mark; Acts 16:40 - Lydia; I Cor. 1:11 - Chloe;
Acts 16:9 - Priscilla; Col. 4:15 - Nymphas; II Jn. 1;1 - the elect lady), served as teachers, and
labored side-by-side with the apostle in the preaching of the gospel and all
that such an endeavor would require. It
would be safe to say that Paul was very comfortable with women serving in the
churches, and did not consider them to be second-class citizens as did most men
of that era. In
addition to these individuals already mentioned, notice what is said in Romans 16:7: “Salute Andronicus and JUNIA, my kinsmen, and my fellow
prisoners, who ARE OF NOTE AMONG THE APOSTLES, who also were in Christ
before me.” The proper name Junia is feminine, and can only be therefore referring to a
woman. Some have tried, howbeit
unsuccessfully, to argue that this must be a man’s name, and yet no trace
whatsoever can be found in any of the ancient texts where this name applied to
anyone except a woman–never a man. What
then is the significance involved? Paul
tells us that both Andronicus and Junia were “of note among the apostles.”
What can this statement mean? S.
F. Hunter, writing in The International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: “This may mean that they were well known to the apostolic circle or
distinguished as apostles. The LATTER
is probably correct” (ISBE, Vol. II,
p. 1166). One at least must entertain the
possibility that in the early first century Church there may well have been
female apostles. This, of course, does
not mean that they were considered apostles in the same sense as the original
Twelve. In fact, no one else could be
equally compared to them in this regard.
It most likely does not mean that they were considered apostles in the
same way Paul or James were viewed either.
In the first-century, the term apostle
could be applied to one who was sent on a mission, although it is true that the
term is used far more to describe a delegate
or ambassador of the gospel, a commissioner of Christ. Nevertheless, the use of the word brought
with it a very special designation within the early Church, and in the case of
Junia, it was applied to a woman. We
really ought to get accustomed to the fact that the chances are great there were a number of female apostles
during the early Church era, taking care of various responsibilities, depending
upon their particular calling, gift, ability, means, and opportunity. DID WOMEN PROPHESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? As
you know, we have already encountered a number of female prophets or
prophetesses during the Old Testament historical period. Undoubtedly there were more than those
mentioned by name. But what about the
New Testament era. After all, didn’t the
notion of prophecy wane with the coming of the Messiah? Isn’t that what most professing Christians
tend to believe? First
of all, we have already met at least two prophetesses early on in the New
Testament record. First, there was Mary
the mother of Yahshua herself, and then there was Anna, the elder woman who
spent her time in the Temple worshiping the Almighty, and, from time to time,
speaking the inspired word of the Lord to His people in Jerusalem. So the idea that there could be woman
prophets after the time of Christ is already firmly established. Just
as there were prophetesses in the New Testament times, so were there male
prophets. One we know by name is Agabus,
whom we meet in Acts 21. He predicted a
widespread famine, as well as Paul’s impending imprisonment in Jerusalem. In addition, we know there were certain
prophets at Antioch when Paul and Barnabus were separated by the Holy Spirit
for their missionary journey (Acts 13:1).
It is also stated that Judas and Silas were prophets in Acts 15. Undoubtedly there were others whose names are
lost to history. On
Paul’s voyage to Jerusalem at the conclusion of his third missionary journey,
we read the following passage containing a verse of immense importance with regard to our current study. In Acts 21, we read: “And when we had finished our course from Tyre, we come to Ptolemais,
and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. And the next day we that were of Paul’s
company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of
Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had FOUR DAUGHTERS WHICH
DID PROPHESY” (Acts 21:7-9). Imagine that! Philip, who was already well known as one of
the seven deacons ordained in Acts 6, and who went on to baptize the Ethiopian
eunuch, and take the gospel to Samaria, where the well known encounter with the
infamous Simon the Sorcerer transpired, had not one, not two, but four
daughters, all of whom PROPHESIED!! Now surely there must be a mistake in the
text. Surely it must have meant to say
that Philip had four sons who
prophesied! But, alas, for all of those
dominant males in the Body, the text as read is correct. Here
are four women who not only prophesied, but were known as prophetesses, meaning
they were recognized with this gift of the Spirit. In fact, the four daughters of Philip became
quite well known throughout that region, and are even mentioned in certain
non-Biblical literature, namely in the writings of Papias, a follower and
companion of the apostle John. The more
we learn, the more we see that God used women as prophetesses during the early
New Testament times even as He did in the earlier eras of Miriam, Deborah, and
Huldah. ARE THERE SEPARATE GIFTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN? The
Bible speaks about certain gifts or manifestations of the Spirit. We read about them extensively in Romans 12
and I Corinthians 12-14. Paul teaches in
Romans 12: “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the
same office (function): so we (believers), being many, are one body in Christ,
and EVERY ONE members one of another.
Having gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us,
whether prophecy...or ministry...or teaching” (Rom. 12:4-8). When the apostle states that our
physical bodies are made up of many members, he obviously means to include
every single part, not just a few. In
like manner, when he subsequently says that we believers are also many, yet all
of one Body, he also means every single member of the Body of Christ, men and
women. No one would seriously debate
otherwise. That
being the case, therefore, it is abundantly clear that ALL members of the Body or the Church, if you prefer, have
been given a gift or gifts of the Spirit.
No one has been overlooked or left empty. ALL
are gifted in one way or another, and the specific gift or gifts any one of us
possesses is determined, not by men, but by the Almighty Himself. In addition, there is absolutely nothing in
this passage that separates the various gifts along the lines of gender. No particular gift is tailor-made for a man,
and another specially for a woman. Who
receives what is decided by God in heaven, not by religious
leaders here on earth! We
observe this fact even more clearly when we read I Corinthians 12, where Paul
states: “Now there are diversities of gifts (divine endowments), but the same
Spirit. And there are differences of
administrations (acts of service), but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations
(activities affecting others), but it is the same God who works ALL IN ALL. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given
to everyone to profit withal. For to one
is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by
the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of
healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another
prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of
tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these work that one
and the self-same Spirit, dividing to EVERY ONE individually as He will”
(I Cor. 12:4-11). Verse 7 in the above passage is
better rendered in almost any other translation you might choose. The New
Living Translation puts it this way: “A spiritual gift is given to EACH OF US as a means of helping
the entire church.” Of course, the idea Paul is getting
across here is that every single true believer who has the Holy Spirit will,
according to the wisdom and choice of Yahweh, manifest a special quality and
ability of that Spirit in which they will excel. There is absolutely no instruction here or
any other place in the entire Scriptures that specifies men have different
gifts than women. It is simply a given
that the gifts are distributed throughout the Body of Messiah without regard to
gender or any other human distinction.
To believe or assume otherwise is simply to operate outside the Bible
and outside the power of the Holy Spirit! Although
there are very, very few Biblical guidelines to precisely how each gift is to
be utilized, there are some. For
instance, Paul writes in Romans 12 the following: “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us,
whether prophecy let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or
ministry let us wait on our ministering: or he that teaches on teaching: or he
that exhorts on exhortation: he that gives let him do it with simplicity; he
that rules, with diligence; he that shows mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom.
12:6-8). With regard to the gifts of prophecy,
tongues, and interpretation of tongues, there is some additional teaching
provided in a couple of passages among Paul’s writings. In I Corinthians 14, for instance, he
stresses the importance of prophesying in the church by saying: |
|
“Follow after love, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that you may PROPHESY...He
that prophesies speaks unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort...I
would that you ALL spoke with tongues, but rather that you (ALL) PROPHESY...If
therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with
tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they
not say that you are mad? But if ALL
PROPHESY, and there come in one that believes not, or one unlearned, he is
convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart
made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report
that God is in you of a truth” (I Cor. 14:1, 3, 5, 23-25). Paul makes it quite plain in this
epistle that not every single believer will have the same gift. He even asks the rhetorical questions: “Are all apostles? Are all
prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” (I Cor. 12:29-30). The obvious answer to each of these
questions is no, of course not. We clearly understand that not every member
of every assembly will be a prophet or a worker of miracles. It is interesting, however, that Paul states
his personal wish that all members might have the gift of tongues, but even
more so, the gift of prophecy, even though he knows for a fact that all do not
possess these particular manifestations of the Spirit. Again, in all of this teaching, there is not
even a hint of anything being based on one’s gender. Men and women alike are being addressed, and
are being included in Paul’s comments. Since
prophecy is indeed held in such high esteem by Paul, it would stand to reason
that there might be a bit more information in his letters on this subject, and
that is indeed what we find in the 11th chapter of I
Corinthians. Note the following
instruction: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and
keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you...Every man praying or
prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every WOMAN that PRAYS OR
PROPHESIES with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (I Cor. 11:2, 4-5). Although the subject here is centered
on head coverings, we still are clearly informed by Paul that both men and
women would be praying and PROPHESYING. He even has specific and different rules, one
of which applies to a man praying or prophesying, and one regarding a woman
praying or prophesying. And no one need
spend any time wondering if Paul is referring to a situation in a formal
assembly or merely a private conversation with the Almighty! Clearly such instructions concerning the
issue of prophesying could only apply
to group circumstances. Under normal
conditions, no one just prophesies to himself or to the bare wall of a private
prayer closet! Of course, this is in
reference to a public usage of the gift of prophecy. That is precisely why the gifts of the Spirit
are indeed given–that they might enhance and profit the entire assembly, as we
have previously established from the Scriptures. It is more than safe to conclude, therefore,
that the apostle Paul allowed and expected men and women to pray openly, and he
permitted and encouraged men and women to prophesy, all, of course, according
to the measure of faith and grace given to each one in such a matter, and
always in a decent and orderly manner. THE ISSUE OF SUBMISSION There
could be no completely thorough discussion of this whole subject without some
comment on the Biblical teaching with regard to submission. All of us, as believers, ought to know that
we are to submit to the Almighty, and to the Messiah as our Lord and
Master. If this is a problem with
anyone, it is a serious one indeed, and needs to be taken up with God
one-on-one. But are there other forms of
submission of which we need to be aware?
The answer, of course, is absolutely yes! Aside
from submitting to the divine Father and Son, the next most important type of
submission is clearly stated by Paul in Ephesians 5:20-21 as follows: “Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ; SUBMITTING YOURSELVES ONE TO ANOTHER in the
fear of God.” MUTUAL
SUBMISSION is
the command and expectation that God has for His children. It is true in marriage, and it is true as
brethren within the Church. Peter
confirms this fact by saying: “Yea, ALL OF YOU BE SUBJECT ONE TO ANOTHER, and be clothed with
humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble” (I Pet.
5:5). Many believers have been totally
misled as to what Paul really is saying in Ephesians 5 with regard to the
relationship between a husband and wife.
This passage is often used to establish male domination of the Church, a
concept that is totally foreign to the Scriptures. Paul writes: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives submit yourselves unto your own
husbands, as unto the Lord. For the
husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and He
is the savior of the body....Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
loved the Church, and gave Himself for it...so ought men to love their wives as
their own bodies” (Eph. 5:21-23, 25, 28). The first and foremost point to
remember on this subject is that God did not create two human entities, one
superior, one inferior. Secondly, this
passage, nor any other Biblical statement on the subject, teaches that women
are to be subordinate to men. Most
people casually and wrongly assume that subordination or subservience and
submission are the same, when, in fact, they are not. The
Scriptures indeed teach submission on several levels, but never subordination
one toward another. Since there is no
intrinsic superiority in either the male or female, submission is therefore a
voluntary putting of oneself under another.
So let’s apply the principle to Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5. The
single most important aspect of the discussion is found in the very initial
statement which says: “Submitting
yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21). This is how it begins, and it is frankly
rare to find people who will actually do what this verse commands. Do we not understand that a people, whether a
married couple, a small assembly, or the entire Body of Messiah, who
voluntarily submit themselves one to another, should have no difficulty whatsoever
in comprehending and applying the remaining instructions of Paul in Ephesians
5? The main problem in this regard is
that MUTUAL SUBMISSION is
really not in place in most people’s lives.
Mutual submission is a mind-set, an attitude of heart, of true humility
on a personal level, of true love on a wider level, and of obedience to the
Almighty on the highest level. Mutual
submission puts everything else in a different perspective. It affects how one thinks and acts with
respect to other aspects of truth. So,
Paul begins his discourse on the roles of husband and wife in Ephesians 5 with
the requisite teaching that both the man and the woman should be mutually
submissive one to another. In saying
this, he has established the foundation upon which he builds the remainder of
his discussion. Then
he proceeds to expound on how the husband and the wife fit into the mutual
submission format. First, wives are to
respect their husbands, and submit themselves to them as unto the Lord. When one subjects himself unto the Lord, does
that strip away his brain, does he suddenly lose his ability to think, reason,
study, understand, and wisely apply knowledge?
Does submission unto the Lord mean that one can no longer make informed
decisions, or significantly contribute to anything of true importance, or
merely become a shrinking violent? Of
course not! Submission unto the Lord is
a beautiful concept denoting love, honor, respect, and devotion, all qualities
that every wife should have for her husband.
There is nothing in this command that should cause us to think that a
superior/inferior relationship is being discussed or should ever exist among
believers. Paul’s
advice for men in Ephesians is a bit longer, but just as meaningful and really
has just as much to do with submission as the instructions for the wives. It is just that the wording is different, and
unless we are careful the passage will lead us to assume that male superiority
is what is being espoused. Remember
that the overall subject is mutual
submission. For the husband, Paul
recommends the following: “Husbands, love your wives, EVEN AS Christ loved the Church, and
gave Himself for it. That he might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That He might present it to Himself a
glorious church...So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies...For no
man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the
Lord the church” (Eph. 5:25-29). Believe it or not, these verses
actually teach a kind of submission on the part of husbands toward their
wives. How? Because Paul is very careful to put this
passage in the context of the Messiah’s love and willing sacrifice for the
saints. Note that he states that Christ “gave Himself for it.” Can we even begin to imagine the
magnitude of what this means?
Interestingly, a single verse comes to mind in this regard. It is taken from the episode when Yahshua was
in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, just before He was to “give Himself” for the world. In Matthew 26, we read: “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death...And He went a
little farther, and fell on His face, and prayed, O My Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will, but as You
will...He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O My Father, if
this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, Your will be done”
(Matt. 26:38-39, 42). I would suggest to you, whether man
or woman, that this was perhaps the single greatest act of submission on the
part of any human being in all of history!
And this is the precise model that Paul is using to show husbands how
they are to relate to their wives.
Although not generally explained this way, I believe that Paul’s
teaching in this case, whether for the wife or the husband, is still a part of
the overall principle of mutual
submission, which is the Biblical instruction for every single one of us in
the faith, whether married, engaged, single, divorced, widowed, celibate, male
or female. The problem is that we have
been programmed to immediately associate submission with weakness, with
lowliness of position, as a sign of less authority, less ability, and less
worth. On the other hand, we have also
been misled into quickly assuming that being the head automatically means being in
charge, having great authority, being
above all others, greater than, more capable than, more worthy than all
others involved, whatever the situation may be. Obviously
there are roles to be played out in a marriage relationship, and no one should
wish to alter or abolish those. But God
simply has not created men superior and women inferior, nor does He expect that
service one to another in marriage, or service to the brethren, or service to
unbelievers, or indeed, service to Him in any way, be based on the issue of
gender! The principle of mutual
submission rules out someone being greater than, more powerful than, or ruling
over someone else. The Almighty does not
expect that a husband should lord it over his wife. Such conduct would be anathema to Him, and
should be for every one of us. He does
not view a husband as a ruler and a wife as a serf! It is we humans who have had our minds
twisted by male-dominated churches that think in such terms. In fact, for many it is almost impossible to
think in any other way. Now
we must investigate another passage of Scripture that so many have stumbled
over. It is found in I Corinthians 11:3
and reads as follows: “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.” As is the case in a number of
particular verses, this one can so easily be misunderstood, the reader merely
assuming he or she knows what Paul is really saying here. The operative word in the passage is, of
course, head. The vast majority of believers would, upon
hearing that word, almost invariably think in terms of rulership, and even that concept would be strictly from a human
point of view, much of which would be erroneous in its own right! The
fact is the use of the word head in
this passage concerns not who’s in charge
or who makes the rules, but rather in terms of the head as giver of life! Woman was taken from man, and thus from the
beginning, he was her head, just as
in the incarnation, the Father gave life to the Messiah (Lk. 1:35). What we all ought to do is start getting used
to the concept of head in this regard
as being a servant-provider, which
also just happens to fit in perfectly with the immediate context itself, which
deals with the significance of origination (I Cor. 11:7-12). And it is in this passage that the apostle
Paul makes one of his most definitive statements with regard to how we are supposed to view the issue of male and female. In I Corinthians 11, Paul writes: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man...Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman,
neither is the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is
the man also by the woman, but all things are of God” (I Cor. 11:8-9, 11-12). I doubt that the principle could
possibly be put any better than Paul’s statement to the Corinthians. The meaning of the head as servant-provider
is also precisely in step with the passage in Ephesians 5 that we discussed
earlier. There, the Church is described
as being subject to Yahshua in the reciprocity of servanthood, because the
Messiah, as head, is also servant to
the Church as its Savior, and as the source of its welfare. Being the Savior is not primarily concerned
with rulership and occupying a position over others, but rather with
self-sacrifice and the ultimate in servanthood. In
like manner, the wife is servant to her husband as she submits to him, because
the husband is servant to her in radical headship, as he gives himself up for
her as Christ did for the Church. This
reduces the imposition of hierarchical relations between husbands and wives to
irrelevance, and completely fulfils the great overriding principle of mutual
submission. It is the only way that a
marriage will be fully successful, and the only way that a local assembly or
the entire Body, for that matter, can work harmoniously and fruitfully in
service to Yahweh. THE DIFFICULT WORDS OF PAUL We
have now reached a point in our study when we must deal with two specific
passages of Scripture that give people more trouble on the subject of our
discussion than all others combined.
They are I Corinthians14:34-35, and I Timothy 2:9-15. I have left them till last, because I felt it
was necessary to establish from the entire Scriptures, both Old and New
Testaments, the fact that God created them male and female, not male in charge
of, the boss of, or the one superior to, the female! |
|
We
have covered the fact that God unquestionably does use women in fulfilling His
purposes upon the earth. That use has
run the gamut from playing a supporting role of service to hosting a local
assembly to being a teacher, an evangelist, a prophetess, an apostle, and even
a judge and ruler of Israel, and, possibly above all, to being to mother of
Yahshua the Messiah. In
addition, we have come to see that certain passages, especially in the New
Testament, have simply been either erroneously translated or interpreted through
the years, that false assumptions have been made, that indeed totally wrong
teaching has been dumped upon whole church organizations with regard to the
role of women. We
have seen the numerous women who were involved in the Savior’s ministry, and, above
all other considerations, we have reviewed His perfect attitude toward women,
even breaking with the Jewish traditions and conventions of the day in favor of
women. We are very aware that women
comprised part of the 120 disciples, who spoke in tongues and prophesied on the
day of Pentecost in 30 A.D. We observed
literally multitudes of women intimately involved at virtually every level in
the ministry of the apostle Paul. And we
have come to share his position on the gifts of the Spirit, that they are
available to all members of the Body, that they are given by the Almighty as He
desires, and that none of them are forbidden to women. We
have more than enough evidence from the Bible to know and understand fully the
role of women in the assemblies. So, why
can’t I simply write a short conclusion and close this study? Because of two short passages of Scripture
that trouble many people. They find it
so difficult to see through the words that cause them such doubt and pain. It is as though the few verses involved tear
down the foundation, the walls, the
ceilings, and the roof–the entire building that the Bible has constructed on
this issue! We
must constantly keep in mind that the writings of the Bible, most especially
those of the New Testament, were written under difficult circumstances. This was particularly so with the letters of
the apostle Paul. The nature of his
ministry, unlike most of the other first-century servants, caused him to
travel, meet, speak to, and write to a wide variety of peoples, situations,
false teachings, etc. Therefore, it is
mandatory that we always make ourselves aware of the background of Paul’s
epistles, the people to whom he is writing, and, quite often, the specific
problem he is addressing. Paul is not
always forthcoming in his writings, meaning that he writes in a manner that
most effectively deals with the situation at hand. Sometimes that reveals itself in very guarded
language, sometimes symbolic words, sometimes subtle statements, and, in many
instances, rather difficult phraseology and challenging concepts. In other words, Paul has to be read very
carefully, or he will be misunderstood or misinterpreted, something that has
occurred time and time again through the centuries. With
these facts in mind, we will commence our investigation into the first of the
two passages in question - I Corinthians 14:34-35. I CORINTHIANS 14:34-35–WHAT DID PAUL REALLY MEAN? When
most people read these two verses, they are thrown for a loop. The words sound harsh and hard to take. In fact, they sound strange, improper, even
insulting. The
assembly at Corinth was a lively group of believers. Clearly they were a very gifted congregation,
for virtually all of the spiritual endowments appear to have been present among
the members. Obviously, the background
of the vast majority of the people was Greek paganism. Resisting the temptation to backslide into
their pagan ways was always a difficult challenge. In addition, the Corinthian church was
plagued with a number of other spiritual problems, many of which Paul addresses
in his two letters to that group.
Indeed, the critical passage with which we will be dealing appears in
the midst of a long section of the epistle that is dealing with one of those
major spiritual problems extant in the Corinthian church. Beginning
in chapter 12, Paul speaks to the brethren about spiritual gifts, explaining to
them that all of God’s true people are gifted, and that all of the gifts are
important in the functioning of the local assembly, as well as the entire Body
of Christ. The Corinthians had become
imbued with pride over their giftedness.
Some were boasting about their particular endowment. Others were guilty of ranking the gifts, one
being greater than another, and thus the persons having the highest rated gift
were being held in higher esteem, or at least saw themselves as predominant,
thus precipitating discrimination and animosity among the group. Because
the Corinthians were so carnally minded in many ways, Paul also perceives that
they were not showing love one to another.
The entire 13 chapter of I Corinthians is, therefore, devoted to this
specific subject, Paul touting love above any of the gifts of the Spirit. And
finally, in chapter 14, the apostle confronts local problems when the assembly
meets together. There was disorder in
their gatherings. Some were interrupting
others when they were speaking. Certain
ones possessing the gift of tongues or languages were misusing their gift by
exercising it when no interpreter was present, thus creating confusion. Indeed, the prophets came in for their share
of criticism as well. The point of the
entire chapter is that all things should be done decently and in order. Otherwise, the brethren were outright
dishonoring God, and slighting each other, curtailing the opportunity that the
Sabbath day offered for quality worship, sharing the truth, spiritual growth,
and loving fellowship. After
a lengthy space devoted to the problems mentioned above, Paul surmises the following: “How is it then, brethren? When
you come together, EVERY ONE OF YOU has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a
tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying” (I Cor.
14:26). This one little verse gives us quite
a glimpse into the corporate life of one of the early local assemblies. Note carefully that Paul does not in any way
condemn or seek to stifle the fact that all of the brethren, men and women,
were obviously gifted and were equally as obviously using their gifts. They all were intently involved, each one
bringing something to the table, as it were.
What Paul is interested in is making certain that all were being
edified, which is the purpose of the gifts of the Spirit in the first place. He
then briefly writes about how those who speak in tongues and those who prophesy
should comport themselves, so that each one has a fair opportunity to address
the group, and creates an atmosphere conducive for all to profit thereby,
stating: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the
churches of the saints” (I Cor. 14:33). Now, somewhat out of the blue, as it
were, Paul suddenly makes a statement with regard to a subject that he hasn’t even touched
on in the entire letter, saying: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says
the law. And if they will learn
anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to
speak in the church” (I Cor. 14:33-34). It is from these two verses that an
entire re-interpretation of the Scriptures with regard to the status of women
in the Church eventually transpired. The
change came, not in the first century, but in the second, third, and fourth, as
the Roman church gained the ascendency in the professing Christian world of the
time. We,
however, are compelled not to develop doctrine based on a single, rather
uncertain, perhaps even difficult, passage of Scripture. Whatever Paul is meaning to convey in these
two verses to the Corinthian assembly must be viewed and interpreted in the
light of all the evidence we have thus far uncovered in our study. He cannot suddenly contradict what God has
established for thousands of years among His human children. We must also take into consideration the
overall subject of this part of his epistle as well, for what he says with
regard to women must fit in with the context.
Unless we are careful in applying such study principles thoroughly, we
will tend to fall into the same trap millions upon millions of professing
Christians have experienced over the years. To
fully expound this passage of Scripture, which seems to have given so many
people trouble over the years, I will discuss three specific approaches to the
questions raised by I Corinthians 14:34-35.
It is my hope that within this information, we can draw the most logical
and correct conclusion. 1. The passage was never in the
original text, but was added later. There
is debate over this topic among Biblical scholars, some claiming that the
passage was added later, perhaps in the second or third century, and perhaps
done so for the very purpose of controlling women in the churches. According
to the famous German commentator, Hans Conzelmann: “This self-contained section (I Cor. 14:33b-36) upsets the context: it
interrupts the theme of prophesy and spoils the flow of thought. In content, it is in contradiction to I Cor.
11:2ff, where the active participation of women in the church is
presupposed. This contradiction remains
even when chapters 11 and 14 are assigned to different letters. Moreover, there are peculiarities of
linguistic usage, and of thought. And
finally, v. 37 does not link up with v. 36, but with v. 33a. The second is accordingly to be regarded as
an interpolation. Verse 36, which is
hardly very clear, is meant to underline the ecumenical validity of the interpolation. In this regulation we have a reflection of
the bourgeois consolidation of the church, roughly on the level of the Pastoral
Epistles: it binds itself to the general custom. Those who defend the text as original are
compelled to resort to constructions for help” (I Corinthians: a Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
trans. James W. Leitch, p. 246). Conzelmann is not to be taken lightly
in this matter. Not only is his position
quite defensible, he has other scholarly support for this thesis. For instance, we read the following excerpt
from The New Jerome Bible Commentary: “I Corinthians 14:34-35. These
verses are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued..., but a post-Pauline
interpolation...Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Gen. 3:16
un-Pauline, but the verses contradict I Cor. 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogynism of I
Tim. 2:11-14, and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. Place these verses after v.
40" (ed. Raymond Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, pp. 811-812). The points mentioned in both of these
sources are quite valid and worthy of consideration. The most obvious problem is that the passage
does not appear to fit with the flow of the chapter. It is almost shocking to suddenly come upon
it in while reading I Corinthians 14.
The fact that an apparent contradiction exists between what is said in
the verses in question and Paul’s clear statements in chapter 11 should be
obvious to any careful reader of the Scriptures. In one place, the apostle gives instructions
for women and men in both prayer and prophesying, and then turns around three
chapters later and gives virtually the opposite teaching with regard to women
speaking. This is hardly possible, and
indeed cannot be tolerated by those who believe in the inerrant nature of the
Scriptures. To
succinctly summarize this seeming contradiction, note the following passages of
Scripture read in the order below: “Every WOMAN that PRAYS or PROPHESIES with her head
uncovered dishonors her head” (I Cor. 11:5). “He that PROPHESIES speaks unto men to edification, and
exhortation, and comfort. I would that you
ALL spoke with tongues, but rather that you [ALL] PROPHESIED...If
therefore the whole church be come together in one place, and...ALL PROPHESY,
and there come in one that believes not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of ALL,
he is judged of ALL” (I Cor. 14:3, 5, 23-24). The Oxford Bible Commentary also
recognizes a problem with these verses as well, stating: “Either Paul is truly inconsistent here, reacting against the treat of unruly women by forbidding their verbal
participation, despite what he had earlier allowed (I Cor. 11:2-16), where
women were understood as publicly praying and proclaiming. Or this passage is an interpolation into the
letter by a later editor...This latter option is favored by many commentators,
and it is given slight textual support by the fact that some manuscripts places
verses 34-35 at the end of the chapter, rather than in their present location;
that might indicate that they were once a marginal gloss which was inserted by
scribes at varying points in the original text” (ed. John Barton and John
Muddiman, p. 1130). And finally, I will cite a quotation
from Dr. John B. Hays, the writer of what is generally considered to be the
most complete discussion and resolution of these verses: “All things considered, this passage is best explained as a gloss
introduced into the text by the second or third generation Pauline
interpreters...The similarity of I Corinthians 14:34-35 to I Timothy 2:11-12 is
striking: Both command women to learn
in silence and submission. Such directives
assume a later historical situation in which there was a conscious effort to
restrict the roles played by women in the first-generation Pauline
churches...With respect to the issue of women’s public leadership, there are
good theological reasons to insist that we should be guided by Paul’s vision of
Christian worship in which the gifts of the Spirit are given to all members of
the church, men and women alike, for the building up of the community. The few (2) New Testament texts that seek to
silence women should not be allowed to override this vision. As our congregations wrestle with the ongoing
task of discerning God’s will for our life together–as task to which I
Corinthians repeatedly calls us–we must be faithfully attentive to Paul’s wider
vision of men and women as full partners in the work of the ministry” (First Corinthians: Interpretation: A Bible
Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, pp. 248-249). Is
this rather strange passage in I Corinthians 14:34-35 a later addition to the
text? This position certainly has its
scholarly defenders and proponents. If
not, then there can be no doubt whatsoever that it constitutes an egregious
contradiction in Paul’s teaching. There
is, however, no existing proof of an absolute, undeniable nature with regard to
this theory, and so I will leave it as is for your personal study and
consideration, and move to the second approach to these key verses. 2. The passage did not originate
with Paul. He is only quoting either a
Corinthian slogan or a Jewish saying, with the intent of correcting those
promulgating such teaching in Corinth. There
exists in the Biblical scholarly world another thesis regarding I Corinthians
14:34-35, and it is that the passage represents a rabbinic saying that Paul is
repeating for the purpose of rebuking.
According to this theory, Paul rebukes the oral saying beginning with
verse 36. This theory has much support
behind it, and much going for it with respect to how it deals with the subject
at hand. In
I Corinthians 14:34, the passage makes reference to the law, but what law? The standard answer to such a question is to
cite Genesis 3:16, which says: |
|
“Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your
conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be
to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The first issue to be faced is can
this verse be correctly interpreted as being a law that must be enforced? It is almost incomprehensible that Paul is
actually referencing Genesis 3:16 as the law upon which he bases this
instruction. First of all, it is not
stated in the form of a law, nor is there any evidence from Scripture that men
ever enforced such a law against women.
Indeed, when the Sinaitic Covenant was made, no mention whatsoever was
included with regard to men ruling over women.
This sort of behavior has always been spawned by certain men at certain
times in history in order to maintain a dominant patriarchal order to things. In
addition, it was uncustomary for Paul to not cite the Torah passage to which he
referred. In the entire letter of I
Corinthians, each time the apostle either quotes from or specially uses the
term law (meaning written Scripture),
he does so in a manner that raises no question with respect to what he is
saying. Note the following excepts: “Say I these things as a man? Or
says not the law the same also? For IT
IS WRITTEN in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox
that treads out the corn” (I Cor. 9:8-9). “In the law IT IS WRITTEN, With men of other tongues and other
lips will I speak unto this people” (I Cor. 14:21). “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself
and to Apollos for your sakes; that you might learn in us not to think of men
above that WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one
against another” (I Cor. 4:6). “FOR IT IS WRITTEN, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (I Cor. 1:19). “But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom,
and righteousness...That, according as IT IS WRITTEN, He that glories,
let him glory in the Lord” (I Cor. 1:30-31). “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For IT IS WRITTEN, He takes the wise
in their craftiness” (I Cor. 3:19). “Neither be you idolaters, as were some of them; as IT IS WRITTEN,
The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play” (I Cor. 10:7). “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body...And so IT
IS WRITTEN, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was
made a quickening spirit” (I Cor. 15:45). As you can easily see, Paul is
extremely careful to make his references to the law as clear as possible, and
yet in I Corinthians 14:34, he simply states “as also says the law.” He
doesn’t even use the familiar “it is
written,” much less actually quote the Old Testament passage in
question. There is simply no sound,
logical reason for Paul to suddenly change his entire style of writing in this
one verse. It can only be accounted for
if the passage itself was later inserted, or if he is actually quoting
something that he himself did not write, something like an existing rabbinic
law, an idea that takes on much additional merit the more one investigates this
possibility. First-century
Judaism incorporated many laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with the
Scriptures, even as does modern-day Judaism as well. One of the most offensive aspects of the
culture was the low esteem in which women were held, and the demeaning,
restrictive manner by which they were controlled. All that is needed to establish the veracity
of these points is to read just a few of the rabbinic and other Jewish
statements regarding women. Based
on a detailed examination of Greek manuscripts, Dr. John Gustavson states the
following: “Paul never wrote these words as a ‘commandment of the Lord,’ but was
simply quoting what the Judaizers in the Corinthian church were saying...There
is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to
literally keep silent in the church, nor is there a single word in the whole
‘law of Moses’ dealing with the subject” (Women
in Christ: A Study in New Testament Principles, Part 2) Dr. Gustavson is in agreement with a
number of the foremost Biblical scholars in recognizing the unlikelihood of
Paul’s having written verses 34-35, among them Dr. Gordon Fee, Professor
Emeritus of New Testament Studies, Regent College, Vancouver, B. C. Canada, one
of the world’s most capable and conservative Scriptural authorities. Dr. Fee contends that Paul is not writing a
declarative statement in these verses, but is rather quoting an outside source
denoting the practice or at least the teaching in the Corinthian church with
regard to restricting women. He strongly
leans toward Paul’s citing a rabbinic regulation, which he then intends to
challenge and correct. The
notion that Paul could be referring to a Jewish law of the time gains much
support when The Talmud and other
Hebrew writings are consulted. For
instance, The Talmud plainly states: “It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men.” Note carefully how closely the
wording of this Jewish ordinance is to what is written in I Corinthians
14:34-35. Adam
Clarke, one of the earliest post-reformist Biblical scholars, and compiler of
the exhaustive commentary bearing his name, concludes that the passage in
question: “Was a Jewish ordinance...because women were not permitted to teach in
the assemblies or even to ask questions...The rabbis taught that a woman should
know nothing but the use of her distaff” (Adam
Clarke’s Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 458). Clarke
goes on to quote the following rabbinic teaching on this subject as follows: “Let the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to
women.” The 18th century Hebraist
scholar, Campegius Vitringa, testifies that it was “forbidden by Jewish tradition for women to speak in the synagogue.” We must remember also that Corinth
was in Greece, and the Greek philosophers took a very dim view of women,
permeating the cities of Athens and Corinth.
Plato ascribed inferior status to women, stating: “It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given
souls” (Greek Philosophy on the
Inferiority of Women). Plato’s most gifted protege,
Aristotle, the famed teacher of Alexander the Great, believed that women were
defective by nature, going so far as to call “a woman is, as it were, an infertile male,” and that males command
superior intelligence. In
addition, under Roman law of the first century, heavily influenced as it was by
Hellenism, the father had complete household authority. A husband could punish his wife in any way
including killing her, and he could make love to other women with impunity (The Rights of Women According to Roman Law). So,
as you can plainly see, the major cultural forces in Corinth, Greek, Roman, and
Jewish, all held the same low opinion of women, and had laws, written and oral,
condemning them, insulting them, and indeed restricting them. Is it any wonder that such a problem
described in I Corinthians 14:34-35 existed in the Corinthian church? They already had three strikes against them
before the apostle Paul ever even entered the city!! This
particular approach to the proper understanding of the passage has Paul, in
verses 34-35, quoting most likely from a letter sent to him previously, or
perhaps from overhearing certain information, with regard to a problem existing
in the Corinthian church concerning whether or not women should be permitted to
speak in public meetings. Following this
line of thinking, therefore, Paul would not have been the original author of
the two verses in question, nor do we have any knowledge of who it might have
been. In order to get the flow of
thought, here are verses 34-35, along with verse 36, which is considered to be
Paul’s rebuttal to the previous two verses: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak: but they are
commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the
church. WHAT? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?” (I Cor. 14:34-36). As you can easily discern, verse 36
does not seem to fit if indeed Paul is the original author of verses 34-35,
since he would be reacting strongly and negatively to his own statement and the
restrictive regulation which it contains.
If, on the other hand, Paul were simply quoting or paraphrasing
something he had learned that was being pushed on the congregation by either
Jewish or Greek or even Roman tradition or local law, then verse 36 makes far
more sense as a rebuke. In this sense,
Paul would be telling the Corinthians, in essence, that they were completely
wrong in imposing such limitations on women. A
footnote of the Spirit-Filled Bible
says of this passage: “One other view sees vs. 35-35 as Paul quoting from the Judaizers’
letter to him in beginning a new paragraph.
Proponents of this view then see v. 36 as his rhetorical answer,
essentially saying, What? Men only?
Nonsense! (P. 1742). Remember that chapters 12-14 form a
separate section of the first letter to the Corinthians. Most of chapter 14 is taken up with issues
that have been causing confusion, strife, and disorderliness during Sabbath
gatherings. If one takes the view that
verses 34-36 actually comprise Paul’s response to the fact that the Corinthian
women were being discriminated against, with a Jewish or Greek law being used
as an excuse for such conduct, then the passage in question, rather than being
a problem with women speaking is really a problem with certain of the men who
were unlawfully placing strictures on the female members of the assembly! 3. Paul is the author of verses
34-35, but they must not be viewed as prohibiting women from speaking in public
services. There are other reasonable
explanations. This third approach assumes that the
two verses are indeed of Pauline authorship, but that the apostle in no way had
in mind the complete restriction of women in this manner, but rather was
dealing with a much more localized problem, and even within the Corinthian
fellowship, his words would be applicable only to those who were specifically
guilty of the indiscretion with which Paul charges them. Clearly,
no matter how this passage is explained, we can safely state that it does not
apply to the entire congregation. In
fact, it does not apply to all of the women in the assembly, since the apostle
is quite plain in stating that the individuals to whom he is referring are
married women. We cannot even establish
with absolute certainty that even all wives were
included in the reprimand. If
it were to be argued that verses 34-35 should be taken at face value, based
upon the King James Version of the Bible, it would literally mean that all
women believers could not utter a sound while meeting with fellow saints. It would mean they could not sing, exhort,
prophesy, pray audibly, greet people, discuss subject matter, correct their
children, encourage one another, or even say Amen at the close of a prayer!!
Just the thought of such a thing is almost too bizarre to even
consider. It would be hard to believe
indeed that anyone with God’s Spirit would interpret this passage in such a
manner. And, if that be the case, then
there necessarily must be a restriction on the scope of silence about which
Paul speaks. Just
how restricted are Paul’s words intended to be understood and applied? Remember that the overall context of chapter
14 concerns doing all things pertaining to the assembling of the believers in a
way that is orderly, courteous, harmonious, and edifying. Therefore, whatever the particular Corinthian
wives were guilty of doing, it would probably have been contributing in some
way to confusion and disorder in the meeting.
This contention only stands to reason. If
we take a look at certain specific key words in the passage, we will see
immediately, as stated earlier, that the English term women in verse 34 should be understood as wives, since they are told if they have questions to inquire of
their husbands at home (v. 35). Thus,
all other women, whether single, divorced, or widowed, would not be included in
Paul’s corrective statements, so that based on the precise wording as it is
generally read, it would be okay for these other categories of females to
speak. Secondly,
we should discuss the word silence in
verse 34. The better translation of this
term from the Greek is to hold one’s
peace. Now, most people understand
that being asked to hold their peace
would generally mean to be quiet for the moment at hand. They would not expect such a request to mean
that they could not utter a sound. To hold one’s peace would be applicable if,
for instance, someone else were speaking.
In other words, don’t interrupt.
Rather, hold your peace until
the speaker has finished. And this can
be so easily discerned right in the same 14th chapter when we read
the following with regard to Paul’s instructions for the prophets and for those
who spoke in tongues. Note the
following: “If anyone speak in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three,
and that by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep SILENCE in the
church...Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. If anything be revealed to another that sits
by, let the first HOLD HIS PEACE.
For you may ALL PROPHESY ONE BY ONE, that ALL may learn,
and ALL be comforted” (I Cor. 14:27-31). |
|
Is
there any reason to suspect that all the brethren who spoke in tongues and who
prophesied were men only? Absolutely
not! In all likelihood, women were also
involved in the exercise of both gifts.
It should be quite clear that the use of the word silence in this portion of Scripture, namely verses 28, 30, and 34,
carries basically the same meaning and application. For the prophet who must hold his peace when something is revealed to another, his being silent does not indicate that he can
never utter a sound while he is a church meeting. A speaker of tongues remaining silent in the
assembly for lack of an interpreter, would never mean that he was to be quiet
in every service. The instructions were
given for specific situations, and nothing more. It can be rightly assumed that the speaker in
tongues, the prophet, or a woman were not permanently muzzled from ever
speaking in the assembly. Under varying
circumstances, however, certain prohibitions could come into play to insure that
all things were done “decently and in
order.”
This
leads us directly to the words to speak
(v. 34). This is a very general term in
the Greek, and could just as easily have been translated talk
or tell, as is it is in a number of
instances in the New Testament. The idea
behind Paul’s prohibition against wives talking obviously has nothing to do
with women as full-fledged members of and participants in the Body and all of
its activities. Rather it is that, in
this particular instance, some of the wives were interrupting the proceedings
with their chatter. Why? Simply because it was contributing to the
disorderly state of the services, even as the first part of I Corinthians 14
shows that the men also were guilty of the doing. Paul was insisting that all of this kind of
activity must cease in order for the meetings to be profitable to everyone, and
for God to be pleased and honored. We
now need to consider exactly what these certain unnamed Corinthian wives were
doing that was disruptive, and determine why this problem arose in the first
place. It was typical in both Greek and
Jewish culture for the advanced students to ask meaningful questions of public
speakers. The problem, however, is that
most women of the first-century were simply uneducated. This was a product of the male dominated
societies of the time. Jewish women, of
course, were not permitted to speak at all, no matter how well versed in the
Scriptures they might have been. Most of
them, however, having been denied the opportunity to learn the Torah and
discuss the pertinent issues thereof, were simply ignorant, and therefore had
little constructive to offer anyway.
Such were the despicable conditions in that civilization. Unfortunately, Greek culture was hardly any
more advanced with respect to women’s equality.
The bottom line is that most husbands of ancient time completely doubted
their wives’ intellectual ability. This
well could have been the situation in Corinth, where a certain number of these
uneducated wives, perhaps even a relatively small group, were being disruptive
in posing inappropriate questions, and possibly doing so at inappropriate times
as well. If so, then Paul is simply
providing both the wives and their husbands with a solution to the
problem. The wives should stop asking
their questions during the meetings, and simply ask their husbands when they
were home. This way, the wives could
learn and catch up to the rest of the congregation in knowledge and understanding,
their husbands would become directly involved in helping them, which would
certainly be the Godly way, and the services would return to normalcy,
eliminating the unnecessary confusion and disorder. Since
we are not given the specific details concerning the actual nature of the
problem in question, we are compelled to search out the facts, obtain as much
of the truth as we can, and draw as informed, reasonable, and logical a
conclusion as possible, always keeping within the confines of the Scriptures,
and the pertinent things that we do know about God’s perspective on women and
their roles. This we have attempted to
do in this study. With
that in mind, there are other strong possibilities with respect to solving the
I Corinthians 14:34-35 situation. In
addition, to the likelihood that some of the women in that assembly were in
need of learning and growing spiritually due to the gender-based cultural
repression of the times, we might also consider another set of circumstances
that could prove pertinent to our discussion. Corinth
was a key city in the ancient Greek world, and although she supported Sparta in
the war against Athens, and fell into disarray as a result, she was completely
rebuilt by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C., and resumed her high status as a center of
trade and commerce, and especially of pagan religion. Temples
were constructed to Asclepius, the god of healing, to Apollo, and a magnificent
structure to Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, was located atop the
Acro-corinth, a mountain to the south of the city. Over a thousand female prostitutes served in
this latter temple, and strongly contributed to Corinth’s vile reputation for
immorality. As early as the time of
Aristophanes, the coined word to Corinthianize
was used in the common language as meaning to practice immorality. A Corinthian girl was simply another name
for a prostitute. Such evil in Corinth
accounts for Paul’s railing accusations and corrections in this first letter to
that church. It
is altogether possible that the wives involved in the I Corinthians 14
reprimand had at one time been a part of the local pagan religious scene. Perhaps they were actually unconverted at
this time, or quite new to the faith.
These possible factors coupled with general lack of education for women,
could quite feasibly account for their disruptive actions during the
assemblies. Paul could well have
instructed these particular women to save their questions until they were home
and could ask their husbands. Naturally,
this would presuppose that in these cases, the husbands were capable of
answering their wives. Just
remember that it is evident that Paul is not writing the Corinthians in this
letter in order to establish doctrine, but rather to correct many of the
problems present in that assembly of believers.
Were the reprimand of certain wives in verses 34-35 to be taken as a new
rule being instituted by Paul, it would be totally out of context with the
entire letter. From
virtually the beginning of this epistle, we are introduced to the many
difficulties faced by the Corinthians.
In the first chapter, Paul writes: “Now I beseech you, brethren...that you all speak the same thing, and
that there be no divisions among you...For it has been declared unto me of you,
my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are
contentions among you. Now this I say,
that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;
and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (I
Cor. 1:10-13). In chapter 3, he comes back to this
same problem, stating: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as
unto carnal, even as babes in Christ. I
have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto you were not able to bear
it, neither yet now are you able. For
you are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and
divisions, are you not carnal and walk as men?” (I Cor. 3:1-3). Chapter
four discusses the fact that some of the Corinthian believers were puffed up,
inflated in their egos, thinking of themselves more highly than they
ought. Paul threatens to pay them a
visit soon and confront those who are in this spiritual condition. Next
we come to a most serious situation in the Corinthian church. In chapter 5, Paul reveals that he has
uncovered something which the congregation there assumed was hidden, namely
that one of the members was actually sleeping with his own mother, and that the
others knew it, tolerated it, kept in quiet, and considered themselves as quite
broad-minded in doing so. Chapter 6
follows with more of Paul’s admonitions and corrections, this time having to do
with legal matters between believers, and in chapter 7, he is forced to deal with
issues respecting marriage that were being disobeyed. Chapter
8 has the apostle confronting the fact that some of the brethren were wounding
the weak consciences of other members, because they had greater knowledge than
the newer inductees. Paul then defends
his apostleship in chapter 9, as he often had to do in other areas as well, and
in chapter 10, he goes back into the history of ancient Israel to warn the
Corinthians that they were danger of committing the same kind of sins of which
the Israelites were guilty. In
chapter 11, Paul deals with the fact that some of the women were praying or
prophesying in the assemblies sans a head covering. The point to remember is that in Corinth of
the first century, if a woman removed her veil or scarf and allowed her hair to
fall down, she was considered a prostitute, since this was the local practice
among the pagans in that area. Paul is
forced to set the brethren straight on this issue. In addition, beginning in verse 15 of this
same chapter, he discusses with them the fact that they were partaking of the
Lord’s Supper in a wrong manner. Some
were barging through to get in the front of the food line, so that by the time
the latter portion of the group was ready to partake, nothing was left. Others were actually getting drunk, and the
entire scene overall was one of total disrespect for God and for one another. Then,
of course, we come into chapters 12-14, our own area of discussion in this
study. Obviously, this passage is
replete with problems occurring in the Corinthian assembly. Their attitude toward the spiritual gifts was
carnal, some assuming that one gift was more important than another, thus
making the human possessor of that gift greater than others. Chapter 12 sets the record straight on spiritual
gifts, which are compared to parts of a human body. All parts are good, all parts are necessary,
and all parts should be working together, none of which things were transpiring
in Corinth at this time. Chapter 13 is
the famous love chapter, yet another major element often missing among the
Corinthian believers, and finally chapter 14, the portion of this epistle that
comprises our primary focus. In
this chapter, Paul is most concerned about both the wrong attitude of many of
the brethren, but especially with respect to disorder and confusion that was
being created in their Sabbath meetings.
He discusses the issue of speaking in tongues, a gift of the Spirit that
was being totally misused in the congregation.
Some were just wailing out in ecstacy, having no one around who could
interpret and thus make sense out of what was being said. Additionally, there must have some problem
with those who had the gift of prophecy as well, since Paul is forced to set
down a rule of conduct for both the speakers in tongues, as well as the
prophets, limiting the number of speakers, insisting on silence and respect
from the others in the audience. Finally,
Paul, at the end of this whole series of corrections, mentions in two verses
about a situation of which he is aware concerning certain of the women who were
also contributing to the overall confusion.
The seriousness of this problem can be gauged by the fact that it is the
last point Paul brings up against the Corinthians, as well as the brevity with
which he comments on the infraction, concluding the entire subject with the
following words: “Wherefore, brethren, desire to prophesy, and forbid not to speak in
tongues. Let all things be done decently
and in order” (I Cor. 14:39-40). I have taken the time and space to
give this brief overview of I Corinthians so what we can get the big picture of
what was actually going on at this time in the Corinthian church. Paul knew that this was a spiritually gifted
group of believers, perhaps more so than most, but they were facing significant
difficulties in the use of their gifts, in their attitude toward one another,
and in their own high appraisal of themselves.
The apostle Paul covers numerous issues in this first epistle, surely
the least of which was contained in I Corinthians 14:34-35 concerning some of
the unruly wives. Given the extenuating
circumstances of the time, and the unique problems faced by the Corinthian
brethren, it should be crystal clear that Paul is not by any means legislating
against all women believers everywhere and of all time, demanding that they
never make a sound while attending a church meeting. Rather he is giving guidelines to men and
women alike as to how ALL the
members may participate according to their gifts, and do so in a considerate,
appropriate, loving manner, so that all might profit. To
further elaborate on the Corinthian situation, we know that it was the Jewish
manner to separate the men and women into different sections of the
synagogues. Paul was well aware of this
practice, and may have adapted it for the church in Corinth. There is evidence to show that many of the
early house churches were often still ordered to one degree or another
according to the synagogue layout. If
this was so in Corinth, it would certainly lend credence to the explanation
that certain women could well have been disruptive during the services,
especially if they did not hear clearly what was said, or were attempting to
ask their husband something, or simply because their was a separation, having
to raise their voices to even be heard.
Any number of problems could easily arise due to a configuration such as
might have been the case in the Corinthian assembly. Viewed
in such a light, Paul’s statement saying, “let
the women (wives) be silent,” is really nothing more than a rebuke to
certain women for the part they were playing in contributing to the overall
problem of confusion, thoughtlessness, and hostility. In the more common language of today, Paul
would simply be saying, “And tell those
unruly wives to stop interrupting the proceedings with their chattering as
well.” In the two previous interpretations
of the passage in question, the reference in verse 34 to the law was explained as being perhaps
either a Jewish law, or possibly a Greek custom, both of which were certainly
in place at that time. With respect to
the current or third approach, how are we to view Paul’s statement, “as also says the law?” To
find a reasonable answer to this question, let’s take a look at verse 34 once
again: “Let your women (wives) keep silence (hold their peace) in the churches:
for it is not permitted unto to speak (chatter, interrupt the speaker); but they are commanded to
be under obedience, as also says the law.” Note that the words they are commanded are in italics in the
King James Version, indicating that they have been added by the translators
ostensibly to help make sense out of the passage. Paul states that these wives in question who
were disrupting the services should stop such activity, that they are to be
under obedience, as the law so states.
The word obedience comes from
the Greek term hupotasso, and it
means to be subdued, to submit oneself
unto, be subject to. Now consider
the following potential explanation. Paul
does not state in either verse 34 or 35 precisely to what these particular
unruly wives were to be in obedience.
Many people might casually suppose that the statement is a reference to
their husbands, but there is nothing said about them dishonoring or disobeying
their mates. We also might typically
assume that because of the reference to the law,
these women must therefore be in disobedience to the Law of God, even though
the entire Hebrew Scriptures contain no trace of a commandment prohibiting
women from speaking in any specific situation.
Once realizing this fact, we usually then fall back on the only possible
vestige of an Old Testament statement that we feel might work, and that is
always Genesis 3:16, which, once again, says: “Unto the woman (Eve) He said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and
your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire
shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Even without determining whether or
not this verse is correctly translated in the KJV, can this statement be said
to constitute a law, a requirement, something to be enforced? If so, who has the responsibility for
enforcement? What guidelines are given
in the Scriptures? Where would one draw
the line? How would it be determined
that a husband is not ruling over his wife to the proper degree? Who would make such a decision? Should there be a special board appointed to
investigate each report of deficient rulership of a husband over his wife? What is the punishment for a husband who
doesn’t rule over his wife enough to satisfy Genesis 3:16? No such answers appear in the rest of the
book of Genesis; they did not become a part of the Law given at Mt. Sinai, and
thus were not a part of the Old Covenant.
In fact, they are not provided in the entire Old Testament, nor anything
like them! You may search the Scriptures
from Genesis to Malachi, and you will find not a trace of any law that
stipulates that women are prohibited from prophesying, or from asking questions
in the congregational gatherings, and certainly not to conduct themselves in
total silence! The
Law did not demand the silence of women in the assemblies, nor the subjection
of women generally to men. In fact,
under the law women were permitted to prophesy (Miriam, Anna, Noadiah, Isaiah’s wife, etc.), to counsel, direct, and instruct husbands (Abigail, Esther, Sarah, the wife of Manoah
and mother of Samson), to wage war and judge (Deborah), direct kings and high priests (Huldah, Bathsheba), and in the New Testament, to prophesy, teach,
and exercise any of the other gifts of the Spirit, as each one was so
endowed. And all of this and more was
done with the approval and direct involvement of the Almighty! |
|
Furthermore,
Genesis 3:16 is spoken by Yahweh in the form of a curse upon Eve, not a
law. There is nothing inherent in the
statement that would demand that this be done.
It is rather a prediction of what men would do to women because of the
wrong choice made in the Garden of Eden, of the forbidden tree or pathway or
way of life or, better yet, way to salvation.
How applicable should we expect such a curse to be upon spirit-begotten
believers in Yahshua, those who have chosen the tree of life? Is it
reasonable that the apostle Paul would have resorted to this passage in Genesis
3 as the basis for his reprimand in I Corinthians 14:34-35? Think about it. On
the other hand, what if the law to
which Paul refers is not a law contained in the Hebrew Scriptures at all, but
rather a local or even church ordinance.
The Greek word for law is nomos, a quite general term that can
also be rendered as regulation or principle. This word is not required to mean a divine
commandment, and since Paul makes no appeal to the precise law of which he
speaks, nor does he quote the law, nor does he make mention of which prophet
wrote it, nor does he indicate its location in the Torah, we are left to choose
from other possibilities such as those given above. In
the overall sense of things, the short passage of I Corinthians 14:34-35, if
indeed it was ever even in the original text, or if it actually was a local
Jewish or Greek prohibition, or if it is simply referring to a Corinthian
church ordinance, should not prove all that difficult to sort out. The reprimand to the particular wives comes
at the end of a chapter dedicated to establishing regulations in the Corinthian
church that would allow all of the brethren, men and women alike, to profit
from their fellowship together through improved harmony, peace, order, lack of
confusion, much less noise, and better attitudes. The passage dealing with wives was directed
specifically at those in Corinth, but the principles put forth by Paul in the
entirety of chapter 14 should be applicable to all local assemblies who are
experiencing the kinds of problems extant in Corinth at that time. The
foregoing is true, of course, only if the statement on wives being silent is of
authentic Pauline origin, and not rather of Jewish, Greek, or simply Corinthian
law, tradition, or regulation, or an interpolation inserted into the text by a
later scribe. In numerous ancient
manuscripts, verses 34-35 are placed at the end of the chapter, indicating that
the text may well have been tampered with over time. If the former be the case, as we have
previously discussed, then verse 36, beginning with the word “What?” stands as a rebuke to such a
notion being instituted in the Corinthian congregation. Although
additional space could be taken in discussing the I Corinthians 14 passage, and
the reader is heartily encouraged to do his or her own further research into
the matter, it is now time for us to move on to the other New Testament
scripture that is misunderstood and subsequently misused to silence women and
support male domination in the Church.
The definitive passage is found in I Timothy 2:11-15. The correct explanation is one of the most
interesting and absorbing subjects in which one could ever hope to engage. Paraphrasing a common saying, What you see is not necessarily what you
get! I TIMOTHY 2:11-15--MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE! On
the surface, the passage we are about to investigate might appear perfectly
clear and understandable, but I can assure you that it is not. We begin our reading in I Timothy 2:9, which
will then lead into the key verses themselves starting with verse 11: “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with
shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or
costly array. But (which become women
professing godliness) with good works.
Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all SUBJECTION. But I suffer NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, nor
to USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman
being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in
faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (I Tim. 2:9-15). Without further open-minded study,
the easy and typical conclusion is that women are not to speak, not to teach,
and not to usurp authority over a man.
After all, isn’t that precisely what is stated? Isn’t Paul’s language here perfectly clear
and obvious? Well, the answer is, once
again, what you see is not necessarily
what you get! Let us first discuss briefly the
background of Paul’s initial letter to Timothy.
It was written later in the apostle’s life, not so long prior to his
martyrdom in Rome during the great persecution against followers of the Messiah
launched by Nero Caesar. The exact date
of the epistle is unknown, but it would be at some point between Paul’s first
and second Roman imprisonments, making the general time period around 64-65
A.D. Timothy
was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, but clearly it was his
mother who most directly affected his life.
Paul expressed the fact that Timothy’s mother, whose name was Eunice,
was a believer (Acts 16:1), and spoke highly of both her and her mother Lois in
II Timothy 1:5. Timothy
was converted during Paul’s first missionary journey to Lystra, one of the
cities of southern Galatia. He joined
Paul and Silas on the second evangelistic campaign, and from that point on
became the most trusted of all Paul’s companions. He was treated, in effect, as Paul’s son, and
was sent on numerous journeys to various Asia Minor and European church areas. When this first epistle was written, he was
in the city of Ephesus, serving as the bishop of that church. It
is paramount that we understand a little about Ephesus at this time in
history. The city was perfectly situated
to become the chief commercial center of western Asia Minor. In addition to its strategic seaport location
on the Aegean Sea, one of the major attractions of Ephesus was the world-famous
Temple of Diana (Artemis), which was considered absolutely sacrosanct
throughout the greater Mediterranean world.
In fact, the Temple of Diana has historically been one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Soon, the temple became the primary banking
institution of Asia Minor. This fact
shouldn’t come as to much of a shock, since banks have their origins in the
great pagan temples of the ancient world.
Later in history, the infamous Knights Templar became the most powerful
bankers of Europe, while they ostensibly were supposed to be protecting the
highways into Jerusalem and the Temple Mount!
The population of Ephesus during the early Christian period was in excess of a quarter of
a million people. Though
Ephesus was a part of the Roman Empire, it was essentially Greek in
culture. The Hellenization of Asia Minor
during and after the days of Alexander the Great was extensive. The goddess Artemis or Diana, though adopted
into both the Greek and Roman pantheons, was essentially of Asian
derivation. The worship of Diana in
Ephesus was the single most important activity in the entire city. Diana
was the goddess of fertility, and was believed to protect women during
childbirth. She traces her origins back
to the ancient Amazons, who supposedly built Ephesus anciently. The type of frenzied worship of this deity,
such as we see demonstrated in Acts 19 was typical of the Asian form. Note the following except: “And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried
out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
And the whole city was filled with confusion...Some therefore cried one
thing, and some another...And they drew Alexander out of the multitude...But
when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two
hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians” (Acts 19:28-29, 32-34). Diana, as protector of women during
childbirth, naturally had a great following.
Men were attracted to her worship as well, since deviant sexual
practices played a central part in the temple activities. They believed that sexual intercourse in the
course of the worship ceremony linked them with the gods. There were numerous young female priestesses
providing this service. They were known
as bees. The
ancient Amazons considered themselves to be superior to men, and thus the cult
that developed around their goddess Artemis (Diana) was taught the myths of the
Amazons, indeed that they were the literal descendants of the fabulous female
warrior race. The followers of Diana
prided themselves on their genealogies and focused a great deal on their
ancestors. Perhaps
the most significant aspect of Ephesian religion was the amalgamation of Asian,
Greek, and Roman thought. This
eventually developed into a form of Gnosticism (some refer to this particular
stage as proto-Gnosticism) that became solidly established and was centered in
the city of Ephesus. The pagan notions
and practices of the Ephesians could not help but strongly and adversely affect
the fledgling New Testament Church, and it is in Paul’s first letter to Timothy
that we see how widespread it had become among the brethren. A
casual reading of this epistle might not bring out the subtle words and methods
Paul utilizes in writing to Timothy.
There are major problems in Ephesus, but the apostle approaches them
somewhat obliquely in this first letter.
It is a literary device that he has used before, in the letter to the
Colossians, for instance. Therefore a
careful analysis is required to ferret out the full understanding of what is
transpiring in Timothy’s church area. Paul
opens up this letter with a clue for those of us who seek to discover the
subject of his writing. Beginning in
verse 3, we read: “As I besought you to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into
Macedonia, that you might charge SOME that they TEACH NO OTHER
DOCTRINE, neither give heed to FABLES, and endless GENEALOGIES,
which minister questions, rather than Godly edifying which is in faith: so do” (I Tim. 1:3-4). Right
away, we know something serious is wrong in Ephesus. Note the key words in the passage. There are some in the assembly there who are
teaching false doctrine, combined with fables or myths and debates and
discussions over genealogies. This
teaching was also combined with elements of the Law and of Judaism, for Paul
continues to say: “Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a
good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved have
turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law;
understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (I Tim. 1:5-7). In the first seven verses of this
epistle, Paul has established the general nature of the problem in
Ephesus. Additional elements of the
false teaching will be unveiled as we continue through the letter. Indeed, two of the culprits are actually named
by Paul at then end of chapter 1, for we read: “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away
concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom
I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (I Tim.
1:19-20). Some have concluded that the name Hymenaeus in Latin means Wedding Song, and that this particular
individual may indeed have been female.
If so, then we detect early on that some women were involved in the
Ephesian heresy, a fact that will come into play much more forcefully a little
later in this article. As
we move into chapter 2, we must be careful to pick up on critical points
relevant to the key passage that is under discussion in this section of our
study. In verse 4, he describes the
Almighty as the One “who will have all
men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” Were there some in Ephesus who were
teaching that only some could be saved and come into the truth? It would certainly appear so. Then
Paul makes the following statement: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Jesus Christ; who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time”
(I Tim. 2:5-6). Do you suppose that Timothy didn’t
know these most basic of Christian tenets?
After all, he had been with Paul for many years by now, and was his most
trusted protege. These words were not
written to remind Timothy of such facts, but to point out that part of the
problem in Ephesus involved a possible debate over multiple gods, along with
doubts that Yahshua was the only mediator between Yahweh and man. The false teachers at Ephesus were,
therefore, espousing either numerous mediators, or that there was one mediator,
but not Yahshua Himself. Beginning
in verse 8 of chapter 2, Paul reacts to some of the ramifications of this false
system of teaching and worship, addressing first the men and then the women in
the Ephesian church. He writes: “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands,
without wrath and doubting” (I Tim. 2:8). A climate of wrath and hostility had
been created by the invasion of these false teachers in Ephesus. Undoubtedly Paul had in mind the time when he
was in Ephesus during his third missionary journey, the occasion when he
encountered one Demetrius the silversmith, as recorded in Acts 19. As you will recall, this altercation
precipitated the huge riot among the worshipers of Diana that we read about
earlier in our study. Such was the
frenzied atmosphere among the religious people of Ephesus. Paul
next begins his admonition to the guilty women involved. He writes: “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel,
with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or
costly array. But (which becomes women
professing godliness) with good works” (I Tim. 2:9-10). These words do not constitute mere
advice from the apostle Paul. He is
responding directly to the fact that a number of the women in the Ephesian
church had started dressing like the pagans who worshiped the mother-cult of
Diana (Artemis). They may well have
already been in this cult long before ever attending a Christian
gathering. This was a reprimand, along
with a strict rule of modesty that he intended Timothy to enforce. Note, by the way, that Paul in a sense takes
a sideswipe at these “women professing godliness.” Obviously, the apostle’s feelings are
clearly showing, for he does not by any means regard these as truly Godly
women. All
of this information that Paul is discussing with Timothy fits perfectly with
the then current Gnostic philosophy that was extant in the city of
Ephesus. It went right along with the
worship of Diana, that cult being particularly dominated by women. As stated earlier, many of the female
worshipers of Diana considered themselves superior to men. In fact, the entire Gnostic religion centered
in Ephesus at this point in time had strange teachings with regard to men and
women, and those specific tenets are at the very heart of the key verses of
Scripture that Paul writes to Timothy regarding women that has become so
controversial over the centuries. We
are indeed fortunate that Richard Kroeger and his wife, Dr. Catherine Kroeger
have written the most authoritative book on the subject of I Timothy 2:9-15
available today. It is entitled, I Suffer Not a Woman, and I highly
recommend it to anyone wishing to delve into this subject more deeply. Some of the information that I will present
in this portion of our study comes from the Kroegers’ research. |
|
It
cannot be overstated that Ephesus was the center of the mother-goddess worship
in all of Asia Minor. The Kroegers have
documented the fact that some of the Gnostic teachers in the area of Ephesus
indeed loosely synthesized their own beliefs with the Scriptures. It was undoubtedly some of these particular
people who were causing the greatest problem for the church at Ephesus. As
we proceed to discuss some of these Gnostic teachings, we will be carefully
comparing them to the language of Paul in I Timothy 2:11-15. Please take special note of the information
that is unveiled in this passage of Scripture that, on the surface, would
simply not be apparent at all. I believe
that you will agree with me that it is convincing, and that we will be able to
draw hard and fast conclusions with regard to what Paul has to say about women
in the Church. As
stated earlier, Paul begins by addressing first the men, then the women in his
instructions to Timothy. Paul is keenly
aware that false teachers have invaded the Ephesian church, just as he had
previously predicted when he met with the elders by the shore. On that auspicious occasion, he said: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the
which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which
He has purchased with His own blood. For
I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you,
not sparing the flock. Also of your own
selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after
them. Therefore watch, and remember,
that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day
with tears” (Acts 20:28-31). What were some of the perverse things that the false teachers
were promulgating? They dealt in myths
(I Tim. 1:4), that is in the pagan deities, which gave rise to what Paul terms endless genealogies. Such things were very important to the
worshipers of Diana, who believed that they had ancient descent from the gods. From the same verse 4, we also can gather
that there was much strife generated by the false teachers in Ephesus. Paul said that their erroneous teaching led
to needless questions (v. 4), vain jangling (v. 6), forbidding to marry (4:1),
promotion of vegetarianism and other types of food restrictions (4:3-5), the
telling of old wives’ tales (4:7),
doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife,
railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds (6:4-5),
and the corrupt teaching that material gain is proof of godliness (6:5). Paul concludes the letter by admonishing
Timothy: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some
professing have erred concerning the faith” (I Tim. 6:20-21). Paul refers to all of these
departures from the truth as giving heed
to seducing spirits and the doctrines of demons (4:1). Just to read over these various problems
enumerated in this first letter to Timothy, we can easily get a sense of the
situation faced by the brethren in Ephesus of the mid-late first century. And remember, the false teachers were
cleverly amalgamating their pagan lore and practices with the Hebrew Scriptures,
creating a sort of syncretism , a deadly fusion of truth and error. In other words, after Paul’s departure from
Ephesus, unscrupulous people joined with the true believers there, ingratiating
themselves with the brethren, becoming ostensible members of the assembly. Eventually teachers arose from this mixed
group, and began to pervert the foundation of what Paul had earlier laid, up to
and including the issue of personal salvation itself hinging on the adoption of
the erroneous myths, traditions, and tales brought in by these worshipers of
the mother-goddess Diana. Apparently
a number of those guilty of false teaching were women who had been
indoctrinated into the prevailing Gnostic/Diana-worship religion. Aside from the various problems we have picked
up on throughout the letter of I Timothy, there were other, even more specific
errors being taught, and they have everything to do with the critical passage
we are investigating. After
Paul has given his correction to this group of women who were immodestly
dressed in verse 10, he elaborates on his reprimand by saying: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection” (I Tim. 2:11). Should we consider this admonition as
pertaining to all women in every church down to the present time, or more
specifically to certain women who were acting and teaching in a wrong manner in
the Ephesian congregations? Given what
we already know about God’s perspective on women, about the Messiah’s treatment
of women, and about Paul’s welcomed use of women in his ministry, the
correction given in I Timothy 2:11-15 cannot be viewed as applying to all women
believers. In fact, it almost certainly
did not even pertain to all of the females in the Ephesian assembly either. The
guilty parties involved were clearly making a lot of noise. This wasn’t some minor occasional
disturbance–thus Paul’s initial point is for silence on the part of these particular women. Now the fact that he
insists on the women learning in silence
is not a slam on all women, because anyone who is intent on learning should do
so in silence, not making excessive noise, interrupting speakers, asking
unnecessary or inappropriate questions, or introducing material that is totally
off the subject at hand. This would
apply to men as well as women, even as we have demonstrated in Paul’s
instructions to the Corinthians in an earlier portion of our study. So this request is not something that need
overly concern us. There
is a catch, however, in the translators rendering of the Greek word hesuchia as silence in verse 11. This
term is the feminine form of the word translated peaceable in verse 2 of the same chapter. Almost invariably, the male and female forms
of Greek words have the same meaning, and yet this is not the case in II
Timothy 2. What’s the problem? An established grammatical rule has been
broken in the King James Version. When
the first usage of the same word is translated one way, it should be rendered
the same when it is used in the same context the second time. What we should discern from this is that Paul
is not intending to force all the Ephesian women into utter silence, but rather that a peaceable situation needs to be
established in order that the most conducive atmosphere for learning will
prevail. Clearly, as we have already
seen, the entire letter of I Timothy reveals circumstances in the Ephesian
assemblies as being one of strife, argument, disputing, anger, not to mention
the promulgation of false teaching. The
fact that Paul includes the word subjection
or submission in verse 11 is an
indication that, as in the I Corinthians 14 situation, at least some, and
perhaps all, of the women involved were married, since the Scriptures teach
that a wife is to submit to her
husband, not that all women must submit
to all men. Of course, the usage of the
word submission does not have to
indicate a marital state at all, if indeed Paul had in mind the overall
principle of mutual submission one to
another, or simply submission to God
and the truth of the Word. Verse
12 is the portion of this passage that troubles most people. Let us read it once more armed with the
knowledge we have now accumulated: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,
but to be in silence.” What is Paul’s objective here? It is most assuredly not to suddenly inform
Timothy or anyone else reading this letter that Paul now no longer allows women
to teach. Remember the situation extant
in Ephesus at this time. The command
against women not teaching has got to be directly connected with helping to
solve the problem plaguing the church.
Paul is seeking a peaceful solution.
He is urging Timothy to put certain regulations into effect in Ephesus
that will help quell the wrangling among the brethren, and the teaching of
false doctrine, especially that connected with the worship of the mother-cult
of Diana. Now
we need to take a look at several key words in verse 12, the correct
understanding of which will open up the real meaning of this passage. These words in the Greek are epitrepo, didaskein, oude, and authentein. Epitrepo, rendered as suffer not in verse 12, does not require
a lot of explanation, however, when we find the word used, for instance in the
Septuagint, it speaks to a specific and limited situation rather than a
universal application. This can be seen
in such passages as Gen. 39:6; Esther 9:14; Job 32:14, etc., as well as in the
wisdom and apocalyptic literature of the Intertestamental period. Kroeger
& Kroeger’s research, which, of course, delves more deeply into the issue
than this article, makes the following statement with respect to the limited
nature of epitrepo: “This accords with the thesis that the apostle is here addressing a
particular circumstance rather than laying down a widespread interdiction against
the leadership activities of women. His
use of the present tense may also indicate that his decree had to do with a
situation contemporaneous with the writing of the epistle” (I Suffer Not a Woman, p. 83).
Obviously
some of the women were indeed at the heart of the problem facing the Ephesian
congregation, and Paul is addressing that problem. When he tells Timothy that the women involved
should not be permitted to teach, he does so because of the extenuating
conditions existing in the Ephesian church at that time. His instruction is, in other words,
conditional. If there were no problem
with the women involved, or if a solution were reached, then obviously the reason
for the ban on teaching would not apply. The
second point to consider is the little word that joins the two clauses in verse
12. That term in Greek is oude, and is translated into English as
the conjunction nor. Paul’s usage of this word in his epistles is
almost always to bring together two closely related ideas. The significance of oude in verse 12 is that it links the two expressions, didaskein (teach) and authentein (to usurp authority over). Linking the two phrases in this manner
conveys the meaning of Paul’s decree. In other words, the oude indicates that the
precise nature of the teaching (didaskein)
that is forbidden will be revealed and defined by the second clause of verse
12, which contains the rather unusual Greek term authentein, the meaning of which we must now determine. This word is used only once in the
entire New Testament, and that is right here in I Timothy 2:12. Over the years, there has been hot debate
with regard to the meaning and usage of this particular word. Most of the authoritative sources today,
however, have come into agreement that the KJV is incorrectly translated. Since
authentein appears only one time in
the Bible, we are forced to go elsewhere to determine the correct definition
and appropriate application of this word.
Most English translations of the New Testament simply render this term
as to bear power over. Ordinarily, however, the Greek word for this
phrase is either kurieuein or exousiazein. When either of these are employed, there is
little doubt as to the correct understanding.
Authentein, however, is quite
different, and has several other meanings that must be very seriously
considered. The
primary meaning of authentein is to begin something, to be primarily
responsible for a condition or action (especially conception/birth and
murder/death). It can also mean to claim ownership, sovereignty, authorship,
or dominion. We must determine which of
the definitions are to be applied to the usage of this word in I Timothy 2:12. It
is not accidental that the Gnostic teaching prevalent in Ephesus at the time
Paul’s wrote Timothy often incorporated the use of the term authentein. Interestingly also, women usually officiated
at the initiation rites of males into the mysteries. Elements of both sex and death were portrayed
by employing the term authentein. Given these extenuating circumstances, it is
quite possible that an amalgamation of such Gnostic practices with
Christian/Biblical teaching (Paul wrote and spoke a lot about the mystery of what God is doing) was
present in the Ephesian church. This
might well have involved the integrating of certain pagan myths or stories, or
at least aspects of them, into the teaching.
This could well account for Paul’s mention of fables (1:4), profane and old
wives’ tales (4:7), and vain
babblings and opposition of science falsely so called (6:20). Similar references are made in both Paul’s
second letter to Timothy, as well as the epistle to Titus. It
is also of importance to note that the Ephesians considered the ancient
women-warriors, the Amazons, to have been the founders of their city, with many
of the citizens claiming descent from them.
In the Amazonian world, women were the rulers. Men who were taken captive were often forced
into slavery or otherwise humiliated, such as being assigned traditionally
female tasks. To a great extent,
numerous Ephesian women of the first century A. D., as well as many others
throughout Asia Minor, still retained these ancient tendencies. History shows us that female leadership was
quite widespread in that part of the world at that time. Of course, in pagan religious affairs,
Ephesian women were well known to be influential forces. In
Greek literature, we find the use of the word authentein, and its various derivatives, as meaning the creator of
a thing. Early Christian writings of the
2nd and 3rd centuries state that God was the authentes of heaven and earth. Other substitute words would be originator, author (Messiah, for
instance, is said to the Author (beginner) and Finisher of our faith). This is the definition of choice for authentein in verse 12. The
reason for this choice has to do with the heretical Gnostic teaching that had
crept into the Ephesian church. This
form of Gnosticism was female-dominated, and considered the female to be more
important and more highly honored than the male. They looked to Diana (Artemis) and through
her to mother Eve. The cult believed
that Eve existed before Adam, and that all life came from her, including Adam. Thus Eve was viewed as the great earth-mother
- the authentein (creator, author,
originator) of mankind. Amazingly,
the Gnostic heresy in Ephesus, as carefully documented by Kroeger & Kroeger
in their previously cited book, I Suffer
Not a Woman, also taught that it was Adam, not Eve, who was deceived, but
rather that she brought liberation to Adam from the oppressive god of the Old
Testament by offering him the forbidden fruit.
Certain
women in Ephesus were obviously involved in spreading a form of this pagan
Gnostic teaching. Paul just as obviously
despised what was happening in that assembly, and is extremely firm with
Timothy in his instructions on handling the matter. When he uses the phrase, “old wives’ tales” in I Timothy 4:7, this is not merely a reference
to some ancient untrue belief or saying, as we might think today. In fact, this was actually a term in
contemporary use in Paul’s time, and it referred to older women who were the
storytellers in the pagan earth-mother cults.
These women were the major promulgators of the fertility doctrines and
other forms of mythology. Now some of
them had infiltrated the local congregation.
We
are now homing in on our target in the matter of I Timothy 2:12. Putting together what has been covered thus
far, along with other information simply unable to be included due to space, it
is reasonable and indeed most likely that verse 12 should be read and
understood in a completely different manner than has been normally accepted or
assumed. First, I will repeat the verse
as it reads in the King James Version: “But I suffer not (Gk. epitrepo)
a woman to teach (Gk. didaskein), nor
(Gk. oude) to usurp authority (Gk. authentein) over the man, but to be in
silence (peaceable, quiet).” |
|
And now the way this verse should
read, according to the best research that is available today. Please note the key Greek words and how their
meaning differs in the correct version below: “I do not allow (Gk. epitrepo)
a woman to teach (Gk. didaskein) nor
(Gk. oude) proclaim herself the
originator (Gk. authentein) of man,
but to be quiet and peaceable.” In other words, the subject that Paul
is not allowing the women to teach is that the female is the originator or
creator of the male, and thus would have precedence over him. You may need to let verse 12 presented in this
form to sink in, because this is not at all what most Christians have been taught.
This version, however, jibes perfectly with the false Gnostic teaching
that was being promoted in Ephesus at this point in history, and all credible
modern research attests to the reasons why this rendition is indeed the most
accurate rendering of Paul’s intent. That
this is the correct conclusion to draw is further amplified by reading and
properly understanding the remaining portion of the passage. It is just extraordinary how the following
verses respond perfectly to the erroneous doctrines being espoused by these
women teachers in Ephesus. Verse 13
states: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” This statement clearly defends the
truth of the Scriptures against the false Gnostic teaching that Eve was the
originator of all life, including Adam and thus all males. Now, verse 14: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression.” Next Paul counters the heretical
notion that it was Adam who was deceived, and Eve who actually had the
knowledge which she used to set Adam free from the true creator God. Finally,
there is the very strange language of verse 15. Attempts have been made to
explain this verse, but they all have, over the years, been
unsatisfactory. Paul ends this portion
of his epistle by saying: “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in (through) childbearing, if they
continue in faith, and charity, and holiness with sobriety.” How are we to understand this
seemingly enigmatic statement? In the
very same light as we have done in the preceding verses of the passage–the
Gnostic teaching that prevailed in Ephesus. The fact is that many, if not most,
Gnostics believed that, while sexual intercourse was deemed appropriate, if the
act resulted in childbirth, it was evil.
In fact, many women who were part of the Gnostic/Diana-worship cult
believed they would lose their salvation if they had children. The Gnostic literature of the time clearly
conveys this idea. For instance, The Gospel According to the Egyptians has
Jesus (Yahshua) announcing, “I came to
destroy the works of the female,” to which Salome responds, “How long will death prevail?” Jesus answers her, saying, “As long as you women bear children.” Salome comments, “Then I have done well in bearing no children.” We
observe the same negative view of child-bearing in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. The Christian writer Epiphanius confirms the
same Gnostic teaching in his composition Panarion,
and Hippolytus verifies the same thing in his Refutation Against All Heresies. This
teaching, in one form or another, had also undoubtedly crept into the Ephesian
assembly, and Paul addresses it last, assuring the female believers that they
should have no fear of losing their salvation because of childbirth. Rather he instructs them to pursue the truly
important issues of their calling–faith, love, and holiness with sobriety or
propriety. Although
used for centuries, beginning with the Roman Catholic Church, but also
introduced into the Protestant institutions as well, as a club to keep their
female members under male control, we can now rightly conclude that the I
Timothy 2:11-15 passage is not at all dealing with the role of women in the
Church, but is rather a strong and convincing refutation of a very specific
heresy being taught by certain women in the Ephesian assembly. FINAL ANALYSIS This
particular study paper is much longer than we normally prepare and send out,
but the subject in this case simply demanded that a reasonably full exploration
and explanation be forthcoming.
Obviously there are issues with regard to the overall topic which we did
not investigate at all, and there may indeed be more questions raised by this
study than answered. If so, it is not a
bad thing. Hopefully the information
presented here will stimulate some to research further. Indeed, if questions remain, more study is
clearly needed. This
article has taken the position that men and women are equal in the sight of the
Almighty, that He loves both with the same intensity, and that full
participation in the life of the Body of Messiah is open to all members, not
just men! We decry the attempts which
male church leaders have made over many, many years to control the female
believers among them. Such a practice is
evil and sinful, and ought to be repented of by those guilty of doing so in
this day and time. There
is a crying need for intelligent, knowledgeable, wise, logical, reasonable
Spirit-led believers to come together on the issue of the role of women in the
Church and be in one accord on the matter.
If you disagree with the position taken in this report, that is your
prerogative, but I would hope each and every dissenter will stand in opposition
based on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! Emotionalism, illogical thinking, prejudices,
and sloppy scholarship will never allow any of us to perceive the real meaning
of Scripture. It
is my fervent hope that all believers, male and female, will be acceptive of
one another, will practice the Biblical principle of mutual submission, of
learning from each other, and of permitting every member of the Body to use
their Spiritual gifts as God Himself has determined they should function. This is the only way the Church of
God today can be healed of its sickness, be drawn together around the Messiah,
and be fully and fruitfully used by the Almighty in His service. Let us each pledge right now to be a positive
force in this regard, and to labor ceaselessly toward such a lofty and significant
goal. Of
course, just as in a human body, there are many parts, each one distinct, and
fulfilling specific roles. It is the
same in the Body of Messiah. All of us
are not gifted precisely alike, but all of us are gifted and are
important. Instead of discriminating on
the basis of gender, why don’t we simply live by those beautiful words written
by the apostle Paul who said: “You are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Messiah
Yahshua). For as many of you as have
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither MALE NOR FEMALE: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then are you
Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26-29)
Cornerstone Publications P.O. Box 625 Mineral Springs, AR 71851 E-mail: info@cornerstonepublication.com www.cornerstonepublication.com |