Over the years since the New Testament was completed, few other issues have been as hotly debated as that of a woman's place in the Church of God. So polarizing has this subject become that congregations have virtually come to blows over the controversy, and much argument, strife, and division has been the result.
It is generally assumed that the Bible is primarily a male-oriented book. After all, God is presented with masculine features. One never encounters such descriptive words as her, she, or mother with respect to the Almighty. It is always He or Him or His, and He is invariably called Father. There are no exceptions! Even His children are more often than not referred to as sons only rather than the collective sons and daughters.
When Yahweh was ready to create human kind, what did He do but make the man first. Eve, the first woman was taken from the previously created Adam, and there is even a statement in the early portion of Genesis that states:
Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and you desire shall be to your husband, and HE SHALL REIGN OVER YOU (Gen. 3:16)
As we proceed through the Scriptures we find far more prominent men arising than do we women. There were Cain and Abel, then Seth, Enoch, Jarad, Methuselah, and Lamech. When God destroyed the world with a great Flood, the name of Noah becomes famous. Even his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth are fairly well-known, but the woman Noah married – she is referred to merely as his wife.
Virtually all the various genealogies in the Scriptures are male derived in their origins. The families and tribes of the nations were invariably named after the patriarch, not the matriarch. Later, Moses is nursed by his mother, but she soon disappears behind the dim veil of history, as he becomes the son of Pharaoh's daughter. Hardly anyone can even remember the name of Moses' mother.
It soon becomes obvious that the authorship of every book of the Bible, whether Old Testament or New, is attributed to a man, never a woman. Even the few books that bear a woman's name (Ruth, Esther) are usually considered to have been written by someone else, and almost certainly not a woman!
As we encounter prophets, priests, and kings, one after another after another, with but a very few exceptions, we find that all of them are men. By the first century, Judea was, of course, totally controlled by men. John the Baptist, who heralded the oncoming of the Messiah, was a man. And, perhaps above all considerations, it so happens that God did not send His only begotten daughter to save the world, but rather His Son! Yahshua chose 12 apostles, but then none of them were women, and when the gospel was to be taken to the Gentiles, who did God send but yet another man, the apostle Paul.
It ought not therefore come as a great shock to anyone that women reading the Bible just might get the feeling that they were, to use the hackneyed phrase, second-class citizens! This sense, however, comes as a result of not really digging deeply enough into the Word to find out exactly how the Eternal feels about the issue. Believe it or not, the Bible actually has quite a bit to say about women, their roles, and their significance in the plan of God.
The assumed story of what happened in the Garden of Eden has put women in a bad light since that ancient time until this day. I say the assumed story, because assumption plays a big part in how most people view what transpired with Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit. Let's understand a few pertinent points in this regard.
Adam was created first, and was instructed by the Almighty before Eve ever came into existence. It was, therefore, Adam who bore the main responsibility for informing Eve about God's expectations and prohibitions. How thorough a job he did is certainly a questionable issue, especially in light of how the Bible describes the difference between these two individuals. Notice how the apostle Paul puts it in one of the seminal passages we will be discussing in this study, I Timothy 2, where he states:
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (I Tim. 2:13-14)
Now in this situation you must ask yourself just exactly who had the greater problem – Adam who knew better and was not deceived, yet still partook of the forbidden fruit, or Eve, who, according to Scripture, was indeed deceived when she succumbed to the temptation of the serpent? Clearly, Adam bore the heavier responsibility in this particular matter, and this is why we read in I Corinthians 15 the following statement, again by Paul:
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in ADAM ALL DIE, so in Christ shall all be made alive (I Cor. 15:21-22)
Paul confirms Adam's part in the Garden in his letter to the Romans, where he says in chapter 5:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...For if by ONE MAN'S OFFENSE death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Rom. 5:12, 17-19)
Even though it was Eve who first encountered the serpent in Eden, we must not forget that her husband was right there with her. He wasn't off somewhere pruning grape vines! He was present throughout the confrontation, said absolutely nothing, though he knew better and was not deceived by Satan, and yet still went ahead and disobeyed the Almighty. No wonder it is not said in the Bible that sin entered into the world by one woman, but rather by the offence of one man, namely the man ADAM!
Many people tend to go back to the Garden scene, and put the heaviest blame for what transpired upon Eve. Then they use this faulty reasoning as their basis upon which to build a case against women, indeed a position that, though much studied and long held by numerous prominent Bible scholars, we shall come to see has many weaknesses and may well be untenable for the true believer today. But this will be something that you, the individual reader, will be compelled to prove for yourself. Hopefully this article will be helpful in achieving that objective.
While it is certainly correct that Yahweh created Adam first, it is a great mistake to assume that male superiority was God's intention in doing so. This notion, however, has been utterly ingrained into the minds of so many people through the centuries of time, that in many respects it is simply taken for granted. This has been especially true in the case of religion, and the Christian religion in particular.
When God created Adam, He was not yet finished with His work. Indeed, we read in Genesis 2:
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him (Gen. 2:18)
The King James language in this verse can be a bit confusing. After all, what actually is a help meet? What it is not is some kind of assistant or servant, someone to cook Adam's food and pick up after him, even though this has essentially been the role of most women ever since this episode transpired!! What is meant in verse 18 is that God knew that it was not good for Adam that He should be alone. Adam had a need, indeed a major need, and it was fulfilled by the Eternal in the creation of woman. When the Scripture speaks of a help meet for him,
the intent is convey that what Adam needed was a counterpart, an opposite partner, which just happens to be precisely what the Hebrew word in this case means.
Furthermore, this word ezer rendered help meet in the Genesis passage is derived from the term that means to surround, to protect, to rescue. It is typically used of God Himself, who often is called our Helper. In other words, God's provision of a woman for the man was not to give Adam someone who would simply make life more convenient for him, but rather a rescuer of the man from aloneness, from meaninglessness, from incompleteness. And let it be noted that Yahweh formed all of the animals out of the ground, and Adam himself from the dust, but not so the woman. Her creation was the most unique of all, for she was taken from Adam! We read in Genesis 2:20:
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
The animals, created from the same ground as Adam, were not adequate for his solitary condition. They were insufficient as rescuers, counterparts, protectors, and appropriate fulfillers of Adam's great need as a human being. And, so God performed a special miracle in creating the woman. She was not like the other beings made from the earth.
To accomplish His purpose, the Almighty put Adam into a deep sleep, pierced his side, and brought forth his bride, his wife, that entity who was perfectly made to join him in oneness. In performing this act, God played out the future death of His Son (Adam's deep sleep), His being wounded for our transgressions (Adam's pierced side), and the forming of the Lamb's Bride (the woman Eve), taken from the Messiah Himself (Adam, in type), and then being made one (Therefore shall a man...cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh). Thus the Scriptures affirm the full participation of both man and woman in the image of God. And, on the human level, they were utterly indispensable to one another.
Were Adam and Eve, therefore, created equal? The language of the Genesis creation account leaves no room for doubt. The man was incomplete without the woman, and the woman likewise apart from the man. In other words, they both needed each other, and yes, they were equal in the eyes of God, even though Satan, virtually from the beginning, twisted and perverted things to the extent that woman soon became little more than chattel – the property of man!
But didn't God Himself say to the woman:
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 (Gen. 3:16)
Yes, there is no question that this statement was made in reference to Eve, but the definitive question is whether or not this condition is actually what God desired for His human creation? The answer would appear obvious, and that answer is no! In other words, Eve or woman was not originally created to be dominated and lorded over by Adam or man. The divine pronouncement in Genesis 3:16 was the result of sin. Adam and Eve both opted to choose a way to salvation other than God's. Yahweh, therefore, immediately began operating with human kind based upon this wrong choice, and with few exceptions, this was the basis for His dealings with mankind until the arrival of the Messiah and the restoration of the rejected tree of life. It is doubtful that any truly converted, righteous husband, having chosen the tree of life, could ever or would ever legitimately insist on ruling over his wife based upon the curse which God placed on the sinful Adam and Eve.
Through the pen of the apostle Paul, the New Testament perfectly frames the equal relationship between the man and the woman, for we read in I Corinthians 11:
Neither is the man without the woman, neither 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. 11:11-12)
In the beginning, God did not create human beings so that one individual should rule over another, nor that any group of people would have authority over others. Ideally, ONENESS was and is the desire of the Almighty for His people. The fact that Adam was created first gave him no claim of rulership over Eve, and nothing of the kind is even intimated in the Creation account. In fact, just the opposite is revealed to have been true.
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 Wheaten College, puts it well when he states:
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, the 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.
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 Mount Sinai, which engenders to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all...What says the Scripture? CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not 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 the 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 Israel, owe much to the character, strength, foresight, and courage of one woman – Rebekah of Nahor!
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 Israel's wilderness trek revolves more around Moses and Aaron, Miriam still can be seen as a crucial player in a wide-ranging cast of characters. When Israel had successfully crossed the Red Sea in their escape out of Egypt, first Moses composed and sang his famous song, but not as many remember that Miriam also had a song, for we read in Exodus 15 the following:
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 #8211 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 Israel with the gift of prophecy? There was, of course, the single occasion recorded in Numbers 11 concerning the seventy elders of Israel, along with two other men, Eldad and Medad, all upon whom the Holy Spirit fell, and it is stated that they prophesied in the camp, but these isolated events hardly qualify as examples of full-fledged prophets.
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 Israel's wilderness trek, and had protested to Moses against Miriam being a prophetess, we would have found ourselves on the receiving end of God's wrath!
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 Joshua, Israel was ruled by a series of judges, most, if not all, of them specially called and raised up by Yahweh as deliverers of Israel. In fact, the word translated as deliverer is the Hebrew term yasha, and it is customarily rendered as savior. In fact, the name for the Messiah, though commonly called Jesus in English, is, of course, Hebrew, and is actually a combination of the word yasha and the tetragrammaton or YHWH.
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 Joshua, Israel remained faithful to the Eternal, and they in turn saw His great works and received His blessings. When Joshua died at the age of 110, the elders of that generation continued his righteous rule and the people were obedient. After their deaths, however, the people began to forsake the Lord, and serve Baal and Ashtaroth. God then delivered them into the hands of their enemies. We read in Judges 2:16:
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 Canaan. Then a judge would be raised up who would rally the people, and for a while they would return unto Yahweh. Then upon the demise of the judge, they would backslide into sin and wretchedness. This sort of thing went on for generation after generation.
Othniel, the brother of Joshua's righteous companion Caleb, was the first of the judges of Israel, followed by Ehud and Shamgar. After their passing, however, we read:
And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord...And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, who dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles. And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel (Judg. 4:1-3)
Now the stage was set for Deborah to arise in Israel. The people were at the most critical point in their history since crossing the Jordan. There are some very interesting and telling points with regard to Deborah, important information that is easily and quite often overlooked by readers of the Bible. Here is how the Scriptures introduce her:
And Deborah, a PROPHETESS, the WIFE of Lapidoth, she JUDGED Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment (Judg. 4:4-5)
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 not 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 Israel who told Deborah to shut up and keep quiet!!
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, who 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 Israel, just as being a prophet would for a man. But in the case of Deborah, there was more, for we are told that Deborah also was a JUDGE of Israel as well! This was unprecedented for that time, that a person should function both on the prophetic level and the administrative level simultaneously. In fact, in all of Israel's history, only two people have ever been both prophet and judge – Samuel and, yes, you guessed it, Deborah!
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 Israel's army.
And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him, Has not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali, and of the children of Zebulun? And I will draw unto you to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into your hand (Judg. 4:6-7)
We might be tempted to ask the question, why was a woman prophesying and judging Israel, when a man like Barak was obviously available? Did God make a mistake in this instance? There are some who actually believe the notion that there simply weren't any qualified men in Israel at this time, so God was left with no choice but to work through a woman to lead His people. If this wasn't such a poor contention, it would be quite laughable. Suffice it to say, God chose Deborah to operate as she did because she is precisely who He wanted to fulfil these roles at this time in history. Case closed! There are no other ideas worthy of consideration. Any other suggestion is only an attempt, veiled or otherwise, to excuse God's use of a woman in what is perceived and/or assumed to be the exclusive right of men.
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 Israel had to contend. But Barak was more likely exercising good judgment on his part in his insistence that Deborah accompany him on this mission. For one thing, it was Deborah who had the word from Yahweh as to how the armies should proceed. Barak felt that, under the circumstances of being greatly outnumbered by the enemy, as well as not having the full support of all the tribes, he needed to have the judge and prophetess of Israel by his side.
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 sell 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, Israel is being led by a woman, who also happens to be a prophetess, which really made her both the administrative, as well as the spiritual, leader in all of Israel. Now, when the nation is faced with one of its most formidable military challenges, Deborah prophecies to Barak that this coming victory, to be achieved by divine intervention, will not be to the honor of the captain of the army, but rather that Yahweh will arrange things so that Sisera, the feared Canaanite general, shall be delivered into the hand of yet another woman! Should this strange turn of events that would eventually transpire be viewed as something of a rebuke against Barak and what might be perceived as his unmanly reaction to Deborah's challenge? There may indeed be a certain amount of truth to such a contention.
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 Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves. Hear, O you kings; give ear, O you princes; I, even I, will sing unto the Lord; I will sing praise to the Lord God of Israel. Lord, when you went out of Seir, when You marched out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped...the mountains melted from before the Lord, even that Sinai from before the Lord God of Israel. In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were unoccupied, and the travelers walked through byways. The inhabitants of the villages ceased in Israel, until that I DEBORAH AROSE, that I arose a MOTHER IN ISRAEL...The kings came and fought, then fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo...They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera (Judg. 5:2-7, 19-20)
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 Israel's history. It is mentioned in both I Samuel and the Psalms as one of the greatest examples of Yahweh's intervention to fight for His people. And to think that the two real heroes of this mighty encounter were both women is quite revealing, and indicative of the absolute fact that the Almighty acts in His perfect, sovereign way to work out His will upon the earth. He is not limited to the use of men only, and will choose whom He will choose, and no one dare dictate to Him who or what those choices should be!
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 given the top administrative or government position in Israel. If we had no other examples but these two women, we would have ample Scriptural evidence that God both gifts and uses women as He sees fit, and at times in the very same manner as He does with men. There are, however, other examples, lesser known perhaps, but still most important to our discussion and to the understanding of exactly how the Almighty thinks and operates in the area we are studying.
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 Jerusalem.
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 land of Judah was in a desperately immoral condition. It was not a time in which many would have chosen to be king.
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 Jerusalem and Judah of all the groves and high places of pagan worship. He even extended this cleansing to include the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, and Naphtali.
Then a crucial event occurred. Six years later, in the 18th year of his reign, he began the repair of the Temple. When his representatives presented the high priest Hilkiah with the necessary funds for the work, Hilkiah informed Shaphan the scribe that he had made an incredible discovery – amidst the rubble of the Temple, he had found a copy of the law, most likely the Torah scroll, which had been lost during the reign of Manasseh. Shaphan immediately took it to the king and read it to him.
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 Judah was under a curse, and had incurred the wrath of the Almighty. Josiah immediately sensed that he needed direction from God as to what to do and how to proceed. For that he would turn, not to Hilkiah the high priest, nor to Shaphan the scribe, nor to Ahikam, Achbor, Asahiah, or any of the other men of position in the realm, but rather to the prophet of God, the spiritual leader of the nation, and, from God's perspective, the occupier of the most important office in the land.
During the reign of Josiah, the one who is remembered most as a prophet in Judah was Jeremiah, famous for being one of the writing prophets whose words are preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures. He was close to Josiah, and it is written that, upon the king's untimely death:
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 Judah at this time. Notice the proof in the first chapter of Zephaniah:
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.
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 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 every 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!
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.
[Comment by Mister E.: Ruth more than likely actually was an Israelite. For a detailed discussion on this subject, click here.]
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 women 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.
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.
Still, in spite of the changing nature of women's roles at that time, the New Testament presents enough of a picture of how Godly women functioned to allow solid conclusions to be drawn about how the Almighty views this issue. And one of the very first characters we encounter provides us with strong evidence that God's role for women of faith indeed had not changed.
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 him 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.
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 certaint – 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 as 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.
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 woman 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.
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.
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 male 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 believers, 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 journeyed 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 and 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.
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 – 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.
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.
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, who 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 threat 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 place 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 excerpts:
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 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 say that 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. 34-35 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.
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!
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 excerpt:
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 the 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 women 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, and 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 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.
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)