I'm going to post here a thread coming from the old forum (only my posts) as I find it useful and I really haven't finished the last part and at some point I want to go back to it. Eden
The apostle Paul wrote: “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.â€â€”1 Timothy 2:12 also “As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak (...)" - 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 A strict (narrow) interpretation of these scriptures would lead someone to conclude that any woman in the congregation would be excluded to say anything, even as much as reading a bible text from the audience during a christian meeting. That has not been the interpretation of the Governing Body, and today our sisters can freely comment on the meetings, take part in the Theocratic Ministry School and the Service Meeting. They can also take on some duties that normally are solely carried by baptized men, if none such is present. This is because the "speak" word is normally understood as "teach". That being the case, what prevents our more capable sisters from performing some parts in the meetings that don't involve teaching nor any authority over baptized men ? I'm thinking about: a) Reading the Watchtower study article from the platform; b) Presenting the Student n.1 (Bible Reading) on the theocratic ministry School; c) Presenting the local announcements (usually the first 5-minute part of our Service Meeting); d) Reading the designated Bible Study Meeting material ? Without breaking the "no-teaching-allowed-for-women-within-the-Kingdom-Hall" rule, wouldn't this be beneficial for our sisters and also thecongregation as a whole ? Because obviously, in the first century, some women would be prophets within the congregation. Wouldn't this require that they would at least address their brothers and sisters publicly in some form ? Eden
Allow me to explain why I feel there's enough Bible grounds for women to have a more active role within the congregation. It's a long argument, so I'll divide it in parts. PART 1 - Jehovah has two sets of rules to which we must comply: Principles and Laws. "Principles" are relatively few, more general in nature, not necessarily explicit in written form, but at the same time more fundamental and permanent types of rules; From them, the Laws emanate."Laws" are more circumstantial, more specific and detailed and may change over time and they are always explicit. Some of Jehovah's principles are present from the early days of mankind, despite the changing codes of law that Jehovah has provided over time. It seems undisputed that from the beginning, that Jehovah designated the female human being to be in relative subjection to their male counterpart. At least those bound to a male counterpart by means of marriage or parenthood (that is, wife towards her husband, and daughter towards her father). It's not clear whether that automatic subjection was also valid for a woman towards a man whom she would not be bound by ties of marriage or parenthood, and not in a position of authority. (Take, for example, a male neighbor). But, while unclear, there seems to be no indication that the contrary was true, so let's just assume that was the case. This was true at Eden, under the patriarchs, under Moses' Law and for Christianity too. it has never changed. So we can say that the headship of the male human over the female human is a matter of principle for Jehovah. Does this apply to all areas of life ? This is where it starts to get complicated. It seems clear that at least when it comes to matters of FAMILY and WORSHIP, the principle is: a woman is to be in subjection to the man. But does this apply also when it comes to areas like WORK, LEISURE, LAW AND JUSTICE, SOCIAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RELATIONS IN BROAD SENSE ? This is where it appears to be a matter or law, rather than of principle. Why ? Because in different occasions, in different times, with different people, Jehovah has dealt differently with women. This will follow on the next part. Eden
I’m finally getting back to further discuss the role of women in the congregation. Thank you for your patience. I made a point in saying that the role of the woman in what concerns to worship and family matters is of relative subjection to the man, and that seems to be a matter of principle to Jehovah, thus more fundamental and lasting than a matter of legislation. However, it is beneficial to see this in context. In this part, I will look into the role of women in the ancient world. Part 2 – The role of women in the ancient world and in the first century. No doubt because of her instrumental role in the origin of sin, Jehovah said to Eve: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.†(Genesis 3:16). Also, to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. (Genesis 3:17). So, on one hand, Jehovah ruled Eve as having a heavy measure of guilt in the sin of the first couple, on the other hand, he held Adam accountable for “listening to his wife’s voiceâ€. It looks as if the sentence “he will dominate you†was a form of punishment. Was this applied only to Eve, or to all of her female descendents ? Just like the “pain of your pregnancy†became part of every motherhood experience after Eve, so it seems that the domination of women by her husband became also the norm for all of Eve’s female offprings for generations to come. No less important, Adam was keen in promptly throwing the blame to his wife, and even indirectly, to Jehovah himself, for what happened.“The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree and so I ate.†(Genesis 3:12) Is it a surprise that Adam, when passing on the story to his children, would underline and even exagerate the role of Eve in the whole thing, even as much blaming her entirely for his sin and the entire mankind’s falling from grace? And that, with each passing generation, men would increasingly misprise women, except for their role in breeding children? “He will dominate you†was, therefore, as much as a punishment as it was a prophetic statement by Jehovah. He could foresee that the consequence of the human imperfection in the long run for the human female would be of being relegated to a lesser role in the human affairs, to the point of being opressed by her male counterpart. In ancient times, with few exceptions, a woman was regarded as not much more worthy than a slave. In the patriarch’s days, when the angels visited Lot in Sodom, and that mob of drunken “unworthy men†demanded that the two visitors were handed over to them so they could have intercourse with them, the owner of the house came out and made the following offer: “Finally Lot went out to them to the entrance, but he shut the door behind him. 7 Then he said: “Please, my brothers, do not act badly. 8 Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please, let me bring them out to YOU. Then do to them as is good in YOUR eyes. (Genesis 19:6-8) It may be argued that Lot expected that his offer would shock and sicken the men of Sodom and make them back up; I personally think not. This had much more to do with the notion that the guest person of a house was sacred. But what remains is that Lot offered his own virgin daughters to be gang-raped by that drunken mob rather than to have his visitors molested. This is very revealing of how much worth was given to women. Another case is that of the sexual crime in Gibeah. That levite whose previously unfaithful concubine (but later on pardoned) was on route with him back to his house in Ephraim mountains, decided to stay overnight in the city of Gibeah, where he was kindly hosted by an old man. Just as in Sodom, a crowd of “good-for-nothing†men gathered and shoved at his door, demanding the man to come out so they would have intercourse with him. And what did the old man do? “At that the owner of the house went on out to them and said to them: “No, my brothers, do not do anything wrong, please, since this man has come into my house. Do not commit this disgraceful folly. 24 Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out, please, and YOU rape them and do to them what is good in YOUReyes. But to this man YOU must not do this disgraceful, foolish thing.†(Judges 19:23, 24). A very similar situation to that of Lot’s in Sodom. The old man offered his own virgin daughter, and the visitor’s concubine to be gang-raped. Apparently the sacredness of the guest applied only to the man, not the woman. This incident resulted in the concubine to be handed over to that mob, and she was gang-raped all night and finally died. Doesn’t matter if the concubine was guilty of fornication and deserved to die anyways; Hadn’t her master forgave her? The point here is the value of the women. The concubine was offered along with the old man’s own virgin daughter. A notable exception to this, was when the daughter of Jacob, Dinah, was raped by Sechem. This resulted in a bloody revenge by her brothers, who justified it by saying: ““Ought anyone to treat our sister like a prostitute?†(Genesis 34:31). But this is rather an exception in the ancient world. In the classic Greek period, women were deemed as some sort of baggage that the man necessarily had to carry. Plato, the philosopher of the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century BCE, in his The Republic, described the “disorganized state†as a place "where slaves are disobedient to their masters, and wives are on equality with their husbands." He further wrote that he himself was thankful that he was not born a barbarian, a slave, or a woman. So, for the most influential Greek thinker, a woman was no better than a barbarian or a slave. Plato took after his own mentor, Socrates, who asked: "Is there any human being with whom you speak less than your wife?" Demosthenes, a famous orator contemporary to Plato, said: "We have concubines and courtesans for our pleasure; wives to bear us children and to care for our households." Plutarch, in his work Advice to Bride and Groom wrote: “Not only the arm, but the voice of a modest woman ought to be kept from the public, and she should feel shame at being heard…she should speak to or through her husbandâ€. So the woman’s worthyness only came through her husband. As an individual, there woman had little value in the ancient world, except in her role as a mother. Usually, a woman whose husband divorced her, would commonly be condemned to a life of lewd and prostitution afterwords. That’s why Jesus mentioned this: “However, I say to YOU that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery (…)†(Mathews 5:32) This is also why it was so dramatic for a woman to be childless in the ancient world. Her worthiness came from that sole role. She was usually regarded as having little to no self worthiness as an individual, unless through her husband or by means of being a mother. We can trace back to the point where Adam and Eve sinned this progressive degradation of the role of the woman. Given this historical context, I will elaborate on the next part how Jehovah and Jesus would regard women. Eden Last edited by Eden; 07-23-2012 at 12:04 PM.
This is part 3 of my view of the woman’s role in the congregation. As seen before, the relative subjection of women towards men in the family or worshipping seems to be a matter of fundamental principle to Jehovah, rather than just a matter of legislation – more on that later; And that women in the ancient world enjoyed a very low status, akin to a slave, like a “necessary evil†that a man had to carry, in order to have offsprings. We will look now at how Jehovah and Christ view women. Part 3 – How Jehovah and Christ themselves view women. I – From creation until the exodus. In Genesis 2:18 (NWT) we read: “And Jehovah God went on to say: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.â€â€ Other translations: The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.†(NIV) Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.†(NLT) Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.†(ESV) This is the original qualifying statement that Jehovah God makes on women. All Bible translations translate that role as “helperâ€, and the appendant quality being a “complementâ€, “fitâ€, “suitableâ€, “just rightâ€. But what exactly does “helper†means? The hebrew term used there is “ezer kenegdoâ€. About this expression, a jewish scholar and Rabi, David Freedman, wrote: “ (…) the word “ezerâ€, often translated “helper,†actually means “power†(or “strengthâ€), as demonstrated by its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, he takes kenegdo, an expression rendered “suitable for him†(NIV), as meaning one “equal to him,†a rendering based on later Mishnaic Hebrew. Thus, when God says he will make a “helper suitable for him (i.e., the man),†he likely means that woman is a power equal to a man; she is his match; she corresponds to him in every way. Indeed, “woman was not intended to be merely man’s helper. She was to be instead his partner.†Man and woman are symbolically matched to one another in a mutually dependent relationship — hence the expression “one flesh†. This is a very interesting statement indeed. While it’s obvious that, when God chose to create a material being “in his imageâ€, he chose to build a man in the first place, and only when the man needed a companion, then Jehovah created the female human, the woman. Also the woman was made from the man, and not otherwise. This is why the apostle Paul observed: “and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the manâ€. (1 Cor. 11:9). However, we should note that the Bible says: “And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created themâ€. (Genesis 1:27) Interestingly, in this text, there is a difference between “man†and “maleâ€. He created “man†(human being) in his image, both the “male†AND the “female†gender. Both of them are equally made “in the image of Godâ€. Would God create a woman as an inherently inferior being to a man? How would that be possible, since both male and female are created “in his imageâ€? If the female was inferior to the man, how could they be “one flesh†? It seems reasonable to conclude that, when Jehovah created the woman, she was in no way inferior to the man; She had different features that would make her a suitable companion, a perfect match for the man, but by no means any inferior to him. She was a partner rather than a subject. The only thing that set the female apart from the male was that Jehovah created the female from the male, whereas the male was directly created from the ground up. Jehovah was keen to put that on record too: “(…) This one will be called Woman, Because from man this one was taken.†(Genesis 2:23b) The animals in the Garden of Eden were created as male and female from the ground up. The man wasn’t. Why not? We can speculate that God intended to create the man in his image, pretty much like a material version of the angels; And angels are usually referred to in the male gender, although they have no sex. Maybe Jehovah initially intended that this was the condition of man. But perhaps when Adam noticed that every animal had a “match†of the opposite sex, Adam started to feel lonely. That’s perhaps when Jehovah concluded: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself (…)†And thus He thought of a female counterpart to Adam. The fact that the female human was created to supplement a need of the man (male human), is what gives the male a slight edge over the woman from the very beginning. However, there is no indication up to this point that it should become a relationship of subjugation; Rather, the only indication is that it would become a relationship of love. Not only for Adam and Eve, but also for their offspring too, because it was said: “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.†(Genesis 2:24) Since Adam had no earthly mother and father, this was God’s intention for all of their children after themselves. It is reasonable to conclude that the woman (wife) would be in a relative subjection to her man (husband); But there is no indication until this point that any woman should be in relative subjection to any man, except those bound by marriage. All of this changed after Adam and Eve sinned. As stated before, when Jehovah said: “and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.†(Genesis 3:16), this was less a punishment than it was a prophetic statement. If it was a punishment, this was not meant for all women in all situations; Notice that this was said in the context of the relationship husband / wife. Therefore, the subjugation of the woman before the man was to occur only in the context of the marital arrangement. Perhaps Jehovah was less than pleased that Eve used her freedom in a wrong way, and took the decision to eat the forbidden fruit without consulting her husband first; And therefore, as a punishment, she would suffer opression from her husband. But in any case, this can only be applied to the marital relationship and not in other areas of life. It is an unacceptable extrapolation to see this as God’s will that women should be subjugated by men in every situation in life. Jehovah saw it coming for the female human: Her body was suited to breed and nourish children, her hormonal system was therefore different from the male, and he would naturally have more physical strenght that she would; Her emotional system was also different than that of the male. And the male would use these features to his own advantage. Jehovah saw this beforehand and told Eve that one of the consequences of sin for her, and for married women, was that the husband would ‘dominate them’. So, the dominance of the husband over his wife only came after sin was introduced. It wasn’t part of God’s original purposes for the human family. In the early days of mankind, the family unit was pretty much like the congregation today. The oldest man in the family was the patriarch, and would lead the family in the worship of Jehovah. Such were the cases of Noah and Abraham. Both were married men. In both cases, Jehovah revealed himself to the man, not his wife. This would make him God’s chosen channel for that family. Therefore, the leadership in terms or worship in the family belonged to the husband and father. Does this mean that Jehovah had no direct dealings with women? Not at all. In the Scriptures we see Jehovah addressing (directly or using angels in his behalf) to Eve (Genesis 3:13), Sarah (Genesis 18:15), Manoah’s Wife (Judges 13:2-14), Deborah (Judges 4:6,7), Mary (Luke 1:26-38). He has certainly dealt directly with women when he saw fit to do so. But on the vast majority of the Bible’s accounts of God’s contacts with humans, he has chosen males to do so. This hints strongly that Jehovah, from the beginning has looked as the male human as the principal “head†of the couple. Under Mose’s Law, Jehovah made specific legal provisions for women, which would protect them in ways that were not available for other contemporary people. Here are a few examples: In Leviticus 19:29, we read: [B]“‘Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.†It is obvious that this law was enacted to stop a common practise in the Middle East: When threatened by poverty or debts, some parents wouldn’t hesitate to sell their daughter(s) to prostitution. Jehovah’s law vehemently prohibited this practice. In Leviticus 19:3 we read: [B]“‘Y[B]OU[B] should fear each one his mother and his father, and my sabbaths [B]YOU[B] should keep. I am Jehovah[B]YOUR[B] God.†The mother was to be respected by her children, including her male children. Interestingly, the mother is mentioned here even before the father. While in other societies around Israel, the woman could not benefit from the judicial system nor her testinomy as a witness could be valid in court, that was not the case in ancient Israel, where women could benefit from the protection of the judicial system and her witnessing being accepted in a trial case (2 Samuel 14:1; 2 Kings 8:1-16; 1 Kings 8:16-28). Even an addition for protection of women’s rights to an inheritance was made directly by Jehovah to Moses Law, after a special plea made by the daughters of Zelophead, to which God gave his accordance. (Numbers 27:1-11) There are certain aspects of the Old Covenant Law that may seem, by today’s standards, very demeaning for women. Take a few examples: The vow of a woman, wife or daughter, could be revoked by her husband or father. (Numbers 30:1-15); However the vows of a widow or divorced woman could not be revoked. The “law of jealousy of the husband†described in Numbers 5:11-31 can be described as terribly humilliating ordeal for a woman, specially if falsely accused by a jealous husband. There was no consequence for the husband who would make a false accusation to his wife. The law about the uncleanness of the woman who delivered a child (Leviticus 12:1-8) stated that the time of uncleanness of the woman who bore a female would last double than if she had bore a male child. However demeaning for the woman these rules seem to be, we must never forget the cultural context where they were produced. The situation of the woman in ancient Israel under the Old Covenant Law was much, much, better and more dignifying than in all other cultures around Israel. The mere concept that a woman could have a personal relationship with her God was unheard of, for religion was a matter of men, and women should focus on caring for the household and the children. One could rightfully ask: Why would the law include such demeaning items for women? Why wouldn’t Jehovah used the Old Covenant Law to right the wrongs made to women back in the day, and instead, seemed to perpetuate that demeaning attitude towards women? If indeed God made the female and the male both in his image, why would Moses law treat them differently ? As emotional as this debate could become, it is easier to give a balanced answer if we compare this with another delicate subject: Slavery. Yes, the Old Covenant Law speaks about slavery. It even regulates many aspects of the relationship between master and slave(s). Does this mean that Jehovah endorses slavery? No. Jehovah has no intention to “improve†Satan’s world, to make it a better place. He will, in his designated time, replace this worldly system of things altogether, for a perfect administration where there will be no place for any evil. So he doesn’t seek to “change the world†by decrees or revolutions. Such was the case in ancient Israel. Slavery was a practice as old as the world. Jehovah introduced some legislation to regulate that practice, largely for the protection of the slave. As civilization progressed, Jehovah’s laws also evolved. But the principle – that all humans are made in the image of God – hasn’t changed. For sure God doesn’t like the enslavement of a human being by another. He has tolerated it and offered some remedies, but no one should expect a perfect solution while we live under Satan’s evil rule. Similar thing happened with the position of women under Mose’s Law. Was it ideal? No. In many aspects, the law attended to some cultural aspects that were prevalent in the societies of that time, and, while tolerating certain practices that nowadays we consider demeaning for women, it regulated them and offered a much improved protection to women than if they were non-Israelites. Again, as civilization progressed, Jehovah’s laws also evolved. But the main principle – male and female are equally created “in God’s image†– still remains. to be continued.... Eden[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]
Part 3 – How Jehovah and Christ themselves view women. II – From the exodus until Jesus Jehovah’s law is usually a few steps ahead of human understanding. In many cases we aren’t able to discern God’s wisdom to the fullest, until time makes it obvious that God’s way of doing things was the best, after all, despite our initial reluctance in embracing his way of doing things. The Old Covenant Law was much ahead of its time. It has set the Hebrew people as one of the most advanced ones in terms of “civilizationâ€. When we look at it from our present, modern-day lenses, it seems in many ways inadequate, anachronistic and disconnected from reality. But when it was originally given to the Hebrews fresh out of Egypt, it was new, invigorating, and very advanced – for the time they were living in. Imagine for a moment that Jehovah would have given them a Law that, among other things, would abolish slavery, poligamy, concubinage, would have women and men on the very same level before the law and before God, would require faith rather than works, would abolish politics, etc … it would have probably be a civilization shock so big, that it would risk never being put in practice. Would be far too advanced for its time. Mankind wouldn’t be ready for that. Hence, the words of Jesus come to mind: “I have many things yet to say to YOU, but YOUare not able to bear them at present.†(John 16:12) Indeed, that tribal nation-to-be wasn’t ready for something more “civilizationally advanced†in terms of system of laws. They couldn’t conceive such society. However, that Old Covenant Law became the nations tutor, as Paul described it: “ (…) we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith.†(Galatians 3:23,24) By the time Jesus came to earth, Jehovah knew that mankind was ripe and ready to advance for the “next level†of God’s Law – Christianity. In the meantime, how has Jehovah dealt with women? In Moses Law, we read the following: “ (…) you should without fail set over yourself a king whom Jehovah your God will choose. From among your brothers you should set a king over yourself.†(Deuteronomy 17:14, 15) This very text determined that the future monarchy of Israel would be exercised by men, therefore, any woman who might become the ruling monarch couldn’t do so without breaking the law. There was one such case – Athaliah. She was daughter of King Ahab of Israel, Queen consort of King Jehoram of Judah, and mother of King Ahaziah of Judah. She ruled as “queen mother†until Ahaziah was ready to take on the crown, but when Ahaziah was assassinated, Athaliah tried to have all of Ahaziah’s successors executed. She effectively ruled illegally over Judah for a period of six years, until a rebellion led by priest Jehoiada deposed her and had her executed. Obviously she was an usurper and had no permission from Jehovah to occupy such seat of authority. Other “queens†mentioned in the Bible are either foreign monarchs - the Queen of Shebah (1 Kings 10:1); Candace, Queen of Ethiopia (Acts 8:27) – or queen consorts, married with the monarch, having royal dignity, but not sharing in the monarch’s duties, and often referred to by the honorary title of “lady†– Jezabel, wife of King Ahab (2 Kings 10:13); Esther, wife of King Assuerus of Persia (Esther 5:2); Maacah (1 Kings 15:13). It appears that the “lady†(queen consort, or queen mother) had some sort of office in the court of Judah, from wich they could be officially removed. It is unknown what their real duties were, however they could be highly influential, as can be seen from Jezabel’s role in the death of Naboth. (1 Kings 21:7-10) As for priesthood, since the days of the tenth plague over the Egypt, Jehovah had sanctified every first-born male of Israel, and set them apart for himself. (Numbers 3:13); Theoretically, any Israelite first-born male should take on special service duties to Jehovah, including the priesthood. However, Jehovah chose the males of the tribe of Levi for this special duty, in which they would act as substitutes for all first-born males from the other tribes. Among the Levites, Jehovah has specifically separated the male descendants of Aaron for the priesthood of Israel (Numbers 3:6-10). Continuing with the tradition from the patriarch’s days, where the head of the family acted as priest for his family, the priesthood in Israel was exclusively male.Without exception, there is no mention in the Bible of a woman ever having served as a priest in israel, in any capacity or rank. However, the Hebrew Scriptures do mention notable women that had influential roles: Among them, Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Abigail, Beathsheba, the “Shu´nam·mite Womanâ€, Huldah. Sarah was the beautiful, often coveted, wife of Abraham. She is often referred to as a role model for christian wives, as stated by the apostle Peter: “ (…) For so, too, formerly the holy women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, as Sarah used to obey Abraham, calling him “lord.†And YOU have become her children, provided YOU keep on doing good (…)†(1 Peter 3:5,6) She is also referred to by the apostle Paul as an example of faith (Hebrews 11:11). Note also on the text above how Peter refers to faithful women of ancient times – including Sarah - as being “holyâ€. It’s interesting to see the incident where Sarah offers her slave and handsmaid Hagar to Abraham, so that she could give him a descendant, since Sarah had been barren for so long and she was getting older, and this seemed like a logical way for Sarah to seek the fulfillment of Jehovah’s promise to her husband. (Genesis 16:1-3) Jehovah had not indicated which woman would bear Abraham’s son, and since poligamy was a common practice in those days, Sarah sought to fulfill Jehovah’s promise in her own way. But that wasn’t Jehovah’s way, as the ensuing problems with Hagar and her son Ishmael came to prove. Nevertheless, Jehovah miraculously fulfilled his promise through the 90-yeal old Sarah, who gave birth to the “seed of Abrahamâ€, Isaac. When Sarah noticed that Ishmael was mocking Isaac, Sarah, who had for long a tense relationship with Hagar, became so upset that she began to urge Abraham to send Hagar and her son away. This might have seemed like a petty domestic dispute, and Abraham was very much against the idea, but Jehovah saw it otherwise, so he told Abraham: “Do not let anything that Sarah keeps saying to you be displeasing to you about the boy and about your slave girl. Listen to her voice, because it is by means of Isaac that what will be called your seed will be. (Genesis 21:12) This statement is important. “Listen to her voiceâ€, Jehovah said. Compare it with what Jehovah said to Adam: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. (…)†(Genesis 3:17) It is obvious that “listening to the wife†should not be a problem to a God-fearing husband. To listen is more than to simply hear. It means to pay attention, even to take wise advice from his beloved partner. What made the difference between Adam and Abraham was the quality of what the wife said, and not the fact that it was a woman to say it. Besides, notice that the advise that Sarah gave to her husband initially was “very displeasing†to Abraham. Obviously they did not agree on the subject. But Sarah insisted. Her insight was better than her husband’s on that specific issue, and Jehovah backed up her view and told Abraham to “listen to her†(take her advice). Since Sarah is considered a role-model for christian women, what do we learn? When the apostle Peter wrote about Sarah, he gave her as an example of what should distinguish a christian wife: “(…) let it be the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, which is of great value in the eyes of God. For so, too, formerly the holy women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting themselves to their own husbands (…)â€(1 Peter 3:4, 5) Christian husbands should take note: A wife that disagrees with her husband, or advises him even against his inclination – this is not necessarily a sign of insubordination or lack of submission. This is a lesson that Jehovah wanted to be left on record, and He wishes that christian husbands learn, so that they don’t feel threatened or challenged in their authority nor offended if their faithful and loyal wives have a disagreement with them and aren’t afraid to respectully verbalize it. The example of Abigail also teaches us a lesson in how the submission of a God-fearing wife to her husband is only relative. We all remember the milestone words of the apostle Peter to the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.â€(Acts 5:29) Abigail was married with Nabal, a wealthy descendant of Caleb, owner of vast herds. Nabal is decribed with much contempt in the Bible, as a greedy, arrogant, foolish, harsh and cruel man. He was a “good-for-nothing†man, despite being considered by David as a nobleman of high stature. (1 Samuel 25:2-25) Nabal had once enjoyed the services of David and his men in the protection of his herds of more than 4.000 sheep and goats, with no misappropriation of a single one of them. Naturally this was highly beneficial for Nabal, who obviously had great wealth from the wool trade. But when David made a request for provisions to Nabal, he not only refused, but also insulted David and his men. David felt insulted and marched with 400 of his men to serve punishment to Nabal. In the meantime, one of the sheppards approached Abigail, and told her of what had happened, along with a very positive account of David’s services to Nabal in the past. Abigail, realizing the unfairness and foolishness of her husband’s decision, but also the dangerous potential of the situation for everyone in her household, took matters into her own hands: Without telling her husband, she gathered a generous amount of supplies, and set off with her servants to meet David. She was brave and humble before David and with her discernment and wisdom, She not only saved her household from destruction, but at the same time stopped David from committing a serious sin. We can ask ourselves if Abigail acted against her husband’s will because she simply felt she was smarter or wiser than him. Her words to David show that there was more involved than that. She said: “ (…) Jehovah will without fail make for my lord a lasting house, because the wars of Jehovah are what my lord is fighting; and as for badness, it will not be found in you throughout your days. When man rises up to pursue you and look for your soul, the soul of my lord will certainly prove to be wrapped up in the bag of life with Jehovah your God; but, as for the soul of your enemies, he will sling it forth as from inside the hollow of the sling. And it must occur that, because Jehovah will do to my lord the good toward you according to all that he has spoken, he certainly will commission you as leader over Israel (…)†(1 Samuel 25:28-30) In a way the Bible doesn’t say, Abigail had learned that David had been annoited by Samuel as Jehovah’s chosen future king of Israel. What she was doing was not only against her husband’s will, but was also a capital crime, for she was helping someone that had been sentenced to death by the apostate King Saul and was considered a fugitive. Anyone who helped David could endanger his own life. Still, for Abigail, this was more than just an act of compassion. She was taking a stand for Jehovah’s sovereignity. She was determined to show her support for what was righteous in Jehovah’s view. Her rightful submission towards her husband had been overruled by her greater submission towards Jehovah and his pure worship. And Jehovah rewarded Abigail for her courageous, wise action, and had it on record in the Bible. Notice that Abigail didn’t view this as a passport for a divorce from her wicked husband. The Bible account goes to say that when Nabal was sober again, she loyally shared with him what she had done. But it was too late for Nabal – Jehovah punished him severely for his evil conduct. This has a lesson for us: The submission of a wife towards her husband is only relative. Just as with the submission to the “superior authoritiesâ€, the rightful submission does not apply when that authority clashes with Jehovah’s commandments. Such is the case with the christian wife. When her husband becomes unfaithful to Jehovah, her primary loyalty is towards Jehovah, not her husband. To give a current illustration: If the wife of an Elder in the congregation (comparable to a nobleman like Nabal) finds out he is sexually abusing their children; With whom is her loyalty? Will she cover it up to shelter the family from shame and perhaps in hope that her husband will change his ways? Or will she stand forth and take action to protect her children and Jehovah’s congregation? What loyalty is greater for her? Any woman in a similar situation should look to the example of Abigail and learn from it. Miriam, older sister of Moses, is also an interesting case. She is called “Miriam, the prophetess†(Exodus 15:20) Although there is no indication in the Scriptures that she officially held any office among the israelites, she obviously was a notable woman among the nation. There is this amazing statement in Micah 6:4: For I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and from the house of slaves I redeemed you; and I proceeded to send before you Moses, Aaron and Mir´i·am.†It is rather amazing that Jehovah puts Miriam on par with Moses (Who had the leadership) and Aaron (Who had the priesthood). We don’t know much of her role as a prophetess, but it must have been very proeminent. To the point that she felt she was in a position to take the lead in harshly criticise Moses for his marriage with a non-israelite woman. In fact this was an excuse to attack Moses’ spiritual authority. “Is it just by Moses alone that Jehovah has spoken? Is it not by us also that he has spoken?†(Numbers 12:2) Miriam tried to make Moses seem like a proud, ditactorial man. Should it matter to Miriam that Jehovah had invested Moses with the authority and accountability to lead the people? Apparently because, as a prophet, she had received inspired messages from God in the past, Miriam (and Aaron) felt she should have a higher role in the process of decision-making. Was this a fair ambition? Well, the Bible tells that “Jehovah was listeningâ€. And he took action, immediately. He called the three to the tabernacle and rebuked Miriam and Aaron by saying that his relationship with Moses was of far more closeness than what any prophet would ever have with Him (this seemed like an indirect remark to Miriam, who was a prophetess herself). And he concluded: “Why, then, did YOU not fear to speak against my servant, against Moses?â€(Numbers 12:4-8) Then God turned his back and left, punishing Miriam with lepper, for wich she was made impure for a week, vexed because all Israel was aware of what had happened. (Numbers 12:14,15) There are a couple of lessons we can learn from Miriam: First, Jehovah can entrust women with high privileges within his organization. No one can force God’s hand to be an equalitarian, but he certainly can do it if He sees fit. But when it comes to leadership roles, he normally entrusts men. The other lesson is: No matter how great your privileges are within Jehovah’s organization, that is never an excuse for anyone to question God’s own arrangement and choice of people when those questions arise not from the genuine interest in the advance of God’s work, but rather from one’s own self interest. Specially serious is when there are false accusations and outright lies involved. If a change is in order, Jehovah will make that change – in his own time. This doesn’t mean that Moses was beyond criticism. Moses was not to be blindly obeyed and praised, and never confronted or asked difficult questions. In fact, Jethro, his father-in-law, did confront Moses and ask him some tough questions about the methods of judicial administration in place, and in doing so, he was being used by God. (Exodus 18:12-24) Another very interesting example comes from Deborah. She is a unique example of how Jehovah empowered a woman to the leadership role in Israel: The role of prophetess and judge. The office of “judge†seem to go back to the days when Moses appointed assistant judges to help him resolve disputes among the Hebrews. (Exodus 18) Moses appointed a successor leader, Joshua; However, there is no mention of Joshua appointing a leader after him. Therefore, the “judges†became the highest authority in office in Israel between Joshua and the monarchy. Usually one among these judges would be the most proeminent, or have the holy spirit specially active in him, and therefore looked upon as the “leader†or “savior†of the nation. Their practise was to seek God’s guideance through prayer and meditation before delivering a ruling. Therefore many judges were regarded as speaking “the word of Jehovahâ€. Not much is revealed about Deborah in terms of personal details. She was married to a man named Lappidoth. (Judges 4:4,5) No mention of children or other relatives. But it is interesting that the highest ranked woman judge of Israel was to be mentioned alongside with her rather obscure husband, even him being mentioned by name. Ask yourself: Would Deborah be in subjection to her husband at home? After all, she was the highest authority in Israel. But would she still be in subjection to her husband as the head of her household? Since it was Deborah’s obligation to enforce the Old Covenant Law, we can be sure that she was in subjection to her husband. I believe that this is the reason why her obscure husband gets to be mentioned by name in the Bible. In between the lines, there’s a lesson here to be learned: Jehovah empowered Deborah to give orders even to the reluctant general Barak (Judges 4:6-8), and yet God expected her to be in submission to her husband within the household. And, while there’s no mention of the high priest in service at this point in Israel, we can be sure that she would also be in subjection to the priests, descendants of Aaron in charge of the priesthood in Israel, when it came to matters of worship. What an excellent example of humbleness from this remarkable woman! Also something to consider when women of high skills and high education achieve high professional roles, often earning more income than their husbands. The example of Deborah should help these valuable women to remain humble, loyal and submissive to their husbands, even if they have reached spiritual or theocratic privileges or secular career positions that their husbands have not. For example, consider a woman who has got superior education, that serves as a regular pioneer in a congregation and has a well paid job, while her husband struggles to be a regular publisher and has a poorly paid job, because he struggled to get to the end at high school. By imitating the qualities of Deborah, she would still be in subjection to her husband when it comes to the household and worship matters. Another lesson to be pondered is: Yes, while rather the exception, Jehovah CAN entrust the leadership to a woman. This shows that for Jehovah, the male leadership rule isn’t strictly a matter or principle, but rather a matter of the law. Jehovah can, at his discretion, make exceptions to the rule. And he will certainly ake changes in the future – more on that later. However, we must not try to force God’s hand into a certain direction. To be continued …. Eden Last edited by Eden; 07-24-2012 at 05:49 PM.
I forgot to mention on the previous part the cases of Bathsheba and the “Shu'nammite Womanâ€, and Hulda. Bathsheba became, not without much controversy, one of the wives of King David, and perhaps the most influential among them. She gave birth to Solomon (surnamed “Jedidiah†by Nathan, meaning “beloved of Jehovahâ€), the future King of Israel, which would make her not only queen consort but also queen mother. Her role in securing the kingdom for her son, with the blessing of Jehovah is not to be underestimated (1 Kings 1:11-31) Therefore we see that the woman certainly may serve as a powerful good influence in the decision-making process within the household, including crucial decisions that impact the future course of the family members. We don’t know the name of the “Shu'nammite Womanâ€; The Bible introduces her in connection with the prophet Elisah: “And it came about one day that E·li´sha went passing along to Shu´nem, where there was a prominent woman, and she began to constrain him to eat breadâ€. (2 Kings 4:8) She even had the idea and consulted with her husband in order to provide God’s prophet with a more or less permanent lodging facility for him to use whenever he wanted. It’s remarkable in itself that she is described as a “prominent womanâ€. The Hebrew word translated as “prominent†in the NWT can also be translated as “great†(KJV), with the nuance that her greatness was not coming only from her wealth, but also from her character. It’s obvious that the wealth she enjoyed came through her husband’s economic activity and / or inherited land assets. They enjoyed a good life, had servants, a prosperous business, and both were God-fearing people. She had a great degree of autonomy to make decisions within the household. However, she had the bitter stigma of being a childless woman. This didn’t stop her from being a zealous, dynamic supporter of the pure worship of Jehovah. She took the initiative to use her wealth and influence to support Elisah’s work, and in return she was several times very blessed by Jehovah – by miraculously becoming a mother (2 Kings 4:17), then by having her son resurrected (2 Kings 4:32-37), and later in life, already a widow, she was protected from hunger (2 Kings 8:1, 2) and had her land assets refunded to her by a special judicial ruling (2 Kings 8:3-6). Another lesson that Jehovah blessed a woman who, while respecting the headship of her household, enjoyed ample autonomy and used it to a good purpose. Huldah was a prophetess contemporary of King Josiah, and the prophets Jeremiah and Tzefaniah. Jewish tradition has it that Hulda was a relative of Jeremiah and had a school for women in Jerusalem. Her husband, Shallum, had a prominent position in the court of Judah, as keeper of the King’s wardrobe, and was one of the young king’s instructors. (2 Kings 22:14) When King Josiah undertook the work of restoring Jehovah’s temple in Jerusalem, a copy of the Law that had been hidden for ages in secrecy was found; The words of Deuteronomy were read to the King and he became afflicted with the admonition of the consequences for the people and the land should they neglect Jehovah’s law. Josiah was anxious to know what were Jehovah’s intentions. Naturally, he sought the prophets; But the great prophet Jeremiah was absent, in a mission in Assyria. King Josiah didn’t hesitate to turn to prophetess Hulda. And sure enough, Jehovah bestowed this woman to deliver a powerful message to Josiah concerning the future doom of Jerusalem, although not during in his lifetime. (2 Kings 22:3-20) Huldah was a true prophet of Jehovah, as seen by the fact that her prophecy came to a complete fulfillment; Although she didn’t live to see the fulfillment of her own prophecy, she played a very important role in the spiritual reviving of Judah during the reign of Josiah. The lesson we learn from this is – again – that Jehovah can bestow great spiritual privileges on women; Huldah was used by Jehovah to exhort the very leaders of Judah (King Josiah and High-Priest Hilkiah) to take action for the spiritual revival of the nation. Being a woman was irrelevant for the task at hand. On part 3.3 I will discuss how Jesus viewed women. On part 4 I will discuss what Paul wrote about women in the congregation. Eden Last edited by Eden; 07-25-2012 at 09:31 AM.
Part 3 – How Jehovah and Christ themselves view women. III – Jesus and women A discussed before, women in the greco-roman times were regarded as being a “necessary baggage†that the man had to carry around if he wanted to have legitimate offsprings. In ancient Greece, rape was a common way to show a man’s “right of domination†over a woman. The father of a woman had to pay for a man to marry her daughter, and at that point, the woman became the property of her husband. Female infanticide was common. Women couldn’t walk on the streets alone without an escort. They would be locked up at home while their husband was away. Women weren’t educated or taught to read or write. They weren’t allowed to participate in the social entertainment of their husbands. Within the household, wives had to compete with prostitutes and servants for the sexual attention of their husbands. Male homosexuality, especially with young boys, was considered a superior form of love. The Roman Empire didn’t improve much on this picture; They absorbed most of the Greek culture, but, being a warfare-focused civilization, the Romans paid little attention to their women. It was rather the exception when a woman could enjoy some socioeconomic independence, like Lydia of Thyathira (Acts 16:14, 15) In the time Jesus came to earth, the Jews had assimilated much of the greek-roman culture as well. Nonetheless, thanks to the positive effect of Moses’ Law, Israelite women enjoyed a much improved social status than most women in the first century. Despite that, women in Palestine at the time of Jesus didn’t enjoy much estheem within a male-dominated society. Much of the jewish traditions not written in the Torah added further burdens on the women, rather than liberating them. “Various rabbis at various times describe women as lazy, jealous, vain and gluttonous, prone to gossip and particularly prone to the occult and witchcraft. Men are repeatedly advised against associating with women, although this is usually because of man's lust rather than because of any shortcoming in womenâ€. (quote from jewfaq.org) This was the situation of women when Jesus began his ministry. His mother, Mary, had been exceptionally privileged to have miraculously bred the Son of God by means of the Holy Spirit. Even Gabriel addressed Mary with the words: “Good day, highly favored one, Jehovah is with you.†(Luke 1:28) Yes, Jehovah could have figured a different way to send his Son to earth to become a human, be He has chosen a woman as a vessel for His purpose. What a privilege! From the very first words addressed to Mary, Jehovah reveals an esteem for women that would have surprised the Pharisees of that age. It’s an interesting observation that Jesus’ teachings are for the most part universal; They apply to both men and women, and rarely are gender-specific. When Jesus speaks of “man†he usually refers to “mankind†rather than the male gender. That’s why he is the “son of Man†– when obviously he never had a human male parent, only a human mother. But he is a “son of mankindâ€, a human in its complete form. Jesus never said a direct word about the role of women in the congregation. When he went to the Synagogue, there was no separation of sexes, and women were counted among the ten minimum people to form the quorum necessary for the religious service to happen. Obviously they were mostly passive listeners to the reading of the Scriptures and the sermons, but they were required to participate in prayer. There isn’t enough evidence that they ever participated actively in the government of the Synagogue. Jesus made no attack to these traditions; He didn’t seem to bother to disrupt the services on the Synagogue in order to establish a more active role for women; However we don’t find him defending the Jewish tradition either. Jesus wasn’t about to reform Judaism; He was about to replace it. So, whatever conventions there were regarding women before, they were about to be abrogated and become obsolete together with the entire code of Moses’ Law. Jesus was watching when sin entered mankind back in the Garden of Eden through the first couple. He knew what was his Heavenly Father’s purpose for mankind and how Jehovah viewed His latest creation, the female human. Jesus saw the consequences of sin for women. Jesus knew that the degradation and secondarization of the female gender were a trait of Satan’s world. So, how did Jesus dealt with women? First of all, his earthly mother. How did Jesus treated his own mother? In Luke 2:51 we read about the young Jesus: “And he went down with them and came to Naz´a·reth, and he continued subject to themâ€. He was subject to “them†– both Joseph and Mary. And “continued†to be, right up to his early adulthood. So, in his role as a son, Jesus was very respectful of his mother. In fact he was merely abiding by the Fifth Commandment: “Honor your father and your mother in order that your days may prove long upon the ground that Jehovah your God is giving you.†(Exodus 20:12) When Jesus entered adulthood and especially after leaving his household to start his ministry, he was no longer in subjection to his mother. He had to focus on his ministry. That’s why during the wedding feast in Cana, when Mary approached him with a problem that came up with the lack of wine, Jesus told her: “What have I to do with you, woman? My hour has not yet come.†(John 2:4) Was Jesus being disrespectful to his mother? Consider other alternative translations of the same text: English Standard Version – “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.†New Living Translation – “How does that concern you and me? My time has not yet come.†New International Version - “Woman, why do you involve me?†My hour has not yet come.†The particulars of the languages of the Middle East show that Jesus wasn’t being disrespectful to his mother; Mary approached Jesus as if to ask him to do something about the problem of the lack of wine. And Jesus’ reply indicated that he felt it wasn’t his problem to deal with it – in fact it was the groom and bride’s responsibility to seek that there was enough food and beverage for all their guests. By adressing his mother as “womanâ€, however, Jesus was using a polite term, but also indicating a change in the nature of the relationship between him and Mary. He was no longer primarily her son, but he had embarked in his ministry – he was now the “Son of Manâ€. The fact that Jesus still cared for his earthly mother was that, upon the event of his death, Jesus entrusted his widdowed mother to the personal care of the “beloved disciple†– John. Why John and not one of his half-brothers? It appears that Jesus was looking after Mary’s spiritual well-being as much as her material well-being, since his half-brothers until that time, didn’t become his disciples. Besides, of all the faithful apostles, John seems to be the only one that didn’t have a family under his care already (i.e. not married). Jesus has chosen twelve men to be his apostles. No woman was among this hard core of followers who received special training and attention from Jesus. But Jesus had several women around him. How do we know? In Luke 8:1-3, we read: “Shortly afterwards he went journeying from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and certain women that had been cured of wicked spirits and sicknesses, Mary the so-called Mag´da·lene, from whom seven demons had come out, and Jo·an´na the wife of Chu´za, Herod’s man in charge, and Su·san´na and many other women, who were ministering to them from their belongingsâ€. These “many other women†might have included the wives of some of the apostles. (Matthews 19:6; 1 Corinthians 9:5) These women followed Jesus through and through his ministry until the very end. We find some of them mentioned again in Mark 15:40-41: There were also women viewing from a distance, among them Mary Mag´da·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Jo´ses, and Sa·lo´me,41[B] who used to accompany him and minister to him when he was in Gal´i·lee, and many other women who had come up together with him to Jerusalem.†(see also Matthew 27:55, 56 ; Luke 23:55,56; Luke 24:10,11) It’s interesting that Luke mentions that these women [I]“were ministering to them from their belongingsâ€. They weren’t mere “hangers-onâ€; they were active contributors to the ministry of proclaiming the “good news of the kingdomâ€. I’m pretty sure these women felt a great connection with Jesus, possibly out of personal gratitude towards him, and looked at their supporting role to the crowd that followed Jesus as a form of partaking in his own ministry. Noteworthy is also that the Son of God purposed these women to meet his needs and those of his disciples – needs that he could miraculously have provided for. Yet, this was part of his own humblement as human, while at the same time, Jesus extended women (and men) the opportunity and privilege to be partakers in his ministry. This also set the precedent for the apostles and other missionaries: They would have their needs met not miraculously, but by God through other people, namely those who benefit from the preaching work. By taking women in his selected group of collaborators, Jesus also affirmed the importance of women in the proclamation of the Gospel. What were these women getting from this association with Jesus? First and foremost, they were escorting the very Son of God, the Messiah and benefiting from his teaching first-hand, as well as being eye-witnesses to the fulfillment of many Messianic prophecies. Women like Mary Magdalene could offer a first hand witnessing of the healing power that Jesus had in their lives. No doubt that had a positive impact on those who paid attention to Jesus’ preaching. They were having an active role in his ministry. Jesus said: [B]“He that receives [B]YOU[B] receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth. He that receives a prophet because he is a prophet will get a prophet’s reward, and he that receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will get a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, I tell [B]YOU[B] truly, [U]he will by no means lose his reward.[/U]†(Matthew 10:40-42) Thus, to support and sustain a prophet in his work, is also to share in his work and in his reward. For modern day feminists, it may seem that once again, women had been relegated to a mere supporting role in the ministry of Jesus, whereas men had all the proeminence. However this is to forget something Jesus himself taught: [B]“[B]The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much†(Luke 16:10) For the women who followed Jesus, it wasn’t important if they had a leadership role or a supporting role. Their faithfulness in relatively minor things showed where their hearts were. [B]“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also†(Matthew 6:21). These faithful and discrete women treasured their role in Jesus’ ministery, and gave evidence that they were fit for greater privileges in the future. To be continued ... Eden[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/I][/B]
Part 3 – How Jehovah and Christ themselves view women. III – Jesus and women (continued …) Before I carry on, I have to clarify something about the social status of the woman in the Roman Empire. While the Romans absorbed much of the Greek culture, there is no doubt that the woman under the Roman law was more emancipated than the woman in classic Greece. However, there were variations within the different provinces of the roman empire, the situation in Rome being often more liberal towards women than in some of the more hellenic and peripheral provinces where cultural and religious heritage often were more important than the Roman law itself on the daily life. In Israel contemporary to Jesus and dominated by the Pharisees, the religious authorities viewed the more emancipated role of the woman in Rome as yet another reason to hate the occupying Roman. Although women were allowed at the synagogues, they were forbidden to read the Torah in loud voice, or even as much as study it. Actually, the voice of the woman was not to be heard in public – at all. They were to join the pray in the synagogue but in silence. Eliezer, a first-century Rabbi, wrote: "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman. (…) Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her lasciviousness." One of the Mishena’s tractates, the highly regarded Pirke Abot, contains this saying credited to Rabbi Jose ben Johanan: “ (…) talk not much with women. They said this of a man’s own wife; how much more of his neighbor’s wife! Hence the Sages have said: he that talks much with women brings evil upon himself, neglects the study of the Torah, and at last will inherit Gehenna." Is it any surprise then, that when the disciples came back from buying supplies, and found Jesus talking with the Samaritan Woman, “they began to wonder because he was speaking with a woman. Of course, no one said: “What are you looking for?†or, “Why do you talk with her?†(John 4: 27) Yes, that was the common reaction of the average Jewish man. It seems like a stupid question to ask nowadays, but it was the norm then. One interesting, but revealing detail about this woman: She comes to draw water from the well at noon, under the scorching sun. Most women would come around dusk, a cooler time of the day. They would come as a bunch, as an opportunity to take off their veils, chat and laugh, enjoy companionship, and take a break from the male-dominated society they live in. But not the Samaritan Woman. No doubt she has gotten such a reputation for her past marriages; She got permanently shunned by other women, quite possibly scorned as a “man-eaterâ€. To the point she has been unhappy in her past marriages that she has capitulated to the doubtful condition of living together with a man without being married. Such was the woman that Jesus found about the well; whom he has chosen to speak about the “living waterâ€, and identified openly to her as the Messiah. Indeed Jesus, who knew every single detail about her life, had no reluctance to extend to her the refreshing “good newsâ€, regardless of her sinuous life. Unlike the self-righteous religious leaders of Israel, Jehovah has always paid attention to the women among his people. For example, in Malachi 2:13-16 we read that Jehovah rebuked his people because of the arbitrary divorce practices by jewish men, that resulted in “covering with tears the altar of Jehovah, with weeping and sighing†by the wives wrongly abandoned by their treacherous husbands. Yes, Jehovah was paying attention. And, just as his heavenly Father, Jesus showed much care and fondness for women. When Jesus resurrected the son of the widow of Naim, and also when he cured the woman with the bloody flux, he realized the tragic circumstances of those women, and he extended them extraordinary compassion. Most Israelites would simply shrugh and perhaps extend charity or some comforting words, at best. Jesus knew he was given enough power and authority to relief these women, and by all means he did it. He did it, not just because he felt it was an opportunity to bear witness of the power that his Father had invested in him; He did it because he personally felt the pain of these women, the tragedy of their lives, and genuinely wanted to help them. (Luke 7:11-17; Matthew 9:20-22) Jesus also valued women for their spiritual worth. While the rabbinic traditions taught that women were both intellectually and spiritually inferiors, and therefore, teaching them was a waste and even an apostasy, Jesus included them whenever he was teaching others. Not only the “many women†that ministried to Jesus benefited from listening to his teachings, but also he had women among his best friends. Martha, Mary and Lazarus were among Jesus’ best friends. They would usually entertain him at their home. While Martha was busy with the duties of a host, preparing an elaborate meal - the traditional role of the woman – her sister Mary did something that was considered outrageous by the religious leaders: She sat down by Jesus and learned from his teachings – something normally only a man would do. Both Martha and Jesus were in defiance of the cultural norm, but specially Jesus, by teaching spiritual truths to a woman. This was a blunt violation of the rabbinic law. But not only Jesus tolerated her presence, he encouraged it and praised her for her spiritual attitude, over her sister’s traditionalist attitude. And when Lazarus died, Jesus did something else that was remarkable. In public, he comforted Martha with the truth of the Gospel, but even further, he went on to say: “I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; and everyone that is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. Do you believe this?†(John 11:25, 26) Not only Jesus was teaching a woman in public, he also made her a question and asked for a verbal response to him, a man! This was a very unusual behavior for a man, in his day. Indeed, Jesus was breaking away with the anti-female culture of his day, but more broadly, he was setting the standard for his disciples after him. And this would require a great change of hearts for them! The proof that his disciples needed to change attitude towards women came shortly after Jesus resurrected. The first people to witness his empty grave were women; The first people that angels announced the resurrection to were women; The first people that Jesus appeared to after his resurrection were women; And it were the women whom Jesus instructed to tell the other disciples that Jesus was alive. What was the disciple’s reaction? Not surprisingly, for a culture where the woman’s testimony was worthless (because the woman was worthless), the disciples didn’t believe the word of the women. (Luke 24:1-12) They should have been quicker to realize that their Master had just raised the value of women to standards they had never seen before. Fortunately for them, soon the Holy Spirit would come as a helper and would make them adjust their mind frame to a more christian-like way. To be continued … Eden Last edited by Eden; 07-26-2012 at 05:53 PM.
Part 3 – How Jehovah and Christ themselves view women. III – Jesus and women (continued …) Upon his resurrection, Jesus could have made himself known in a variety of spectacular ways. He could have gone to the temple and show himself to everyone; He could have confronted the High Priest or the Synedrium; He could have come to Pilates; He could have summoned the apostles. Instead, the very first person he reveals himself to is a teary woman, Mary Magdalene. And then he entrusts her with the ministry of delivering the good news of his triumph over death to all his other disciples – including the highly privileged apostles. Jesus also showed appreciation for the service of women on behalf of true worship. Can we see Jesus at the temple, momentarily relieved for being out of the spotlight, just sitting and observing the rows of people that await in line near the treasury to deposit their offerings? Many men bring generous offerings in noble metal coins, which they loudly drop into the coffers, so that everyone can hear and take notice. However, among the masses, Jesus takes interest in a discrete woman. She’s not prominent; She is just a “poor widow†standing in line, the humblest person in the social scale, along with the orphan and the transient. It is a very dependent condition, one of barely surviving. Jesus can see that she holds in her hand everything she could gather, the minimum allowed for an offering in the temple: two small copper coins. Now, Jesus waves to his disciples and draws their attention to this woman. Her offer is so small that no one takes notice… except for the very Son of God and his disciples, and Jesus made sure that thousands of years later that “insignificant†offering went on record for our benefit. (Mark 12:41-44) Those two coins meant very little to the temple, but they meant a lot to Jehovah. Jesus was on his way to offer the costliest sacrifice ever given, and yet he pays attention and honors this woman’s sacrificial act of service. Shortly after, while in Bethany, Jesus also honored the offering of his dear friend Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, who poured very expensive perfume in his head from an alabaster jar. (Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8) These two women, the poor widow in the temple, and Mary in Bethany, were in opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of their material possibilities; Yet, they were both honored and praised by Jesus for their offerings. Without a question, the sacred service rendered by women is of great value to Jehovah God, regardless of its quantity or rank, as long as it represents everything one can give out of a generous heart. Perhaps the most moving of all accounts of how Jesus viewed women was the one about the “woman who was known in the city to be a sinnerâ€. (Luke 7:37) Jesus had been invited to the house of Simon, the Pharisee, for a meal. No doubt that Simon was zealous to see Jesus, and he could do so in the comfort of his own house, around a nice meal; But here comes another person also zealous to see Jesus: A woman known in the city as “sinfulâ€. It’s not so easy for her to get close to Jesus. She cannot invite him to her place. She’s a despised woman trying to reach out for a very notable teacher. You can imagine by now how difficult this would be. She learned that he would come to Simon’s house and she arrives there early. She comes prepared with a container of perfume, and probably had asked for permission to be there, waiting among his servants for her opportunity to anoint the feet of Jesus, a humble task usually delegated to the lowest ranked servant. She waits near the door for the guest to arrive. Normal hospitality etiquette would be that the host would greet Jesus with a kiss on the face, have his feet washed, and his head anointed with perfume. But Simon didn’t extend any such courtesy to Jesus. Maybe the woman planned to anoint his feet after they had been washed. Imagine her shock when she realized the kind of ungracious manners that Simon treated Jesus with. Maybe that shock, the outrage, together with the weight of her guilty feelings, and the emotion to finally be close to her savior, made this woman begin to cry. As tears fell on his feet, the water carried the dust of the road. She had no basin, no water and no towel. So she used to most glorious part of her body (1 Corinthians 11:15) to clean and dry the least noble part of his body – his feet. With her tears and her hair she did what Simon had not done: She washed the feet of Jesus; She did not dare to kiss his face, but she kept kissing his feet; And she anointed his feet with perfume. She didn’t do it in a rush, as to hurry up an unpleasant task. She took her time, no doubt under much scorn and disdain from the self-righteous pharisees and other guests to that meal. Can we imagine at what cost that woman approached Jesus? Not just the material cost of the perfume. It’s surprising that Simon the Pharisee would even allow that woman near his house. The pharisees took pride in their separation from “sinners†and “the people of the dirt†(am.harets). How this woman of sinful repute even gained access to Jesus inside the house of the pharisee is puzzling and we are left to wonder about that. But can we imagine the determination of this woman in gaining access to Jesus? Can we even begin to imagine the scorn, the taunt, the ridicule that this woman subjected herself to? Can we see the outraged look in Simon’s eyes, as if to say: “What on earth are YOU doing here??†And what was that good for? She couldn’t even address as much as one single word to him. And yet to her it was worthwhile. Jesus then went on to rebuke Simon by showing him that the woman had outdone him in showing love and devotion. Jesus went on to teach Simon and his guests a lesson: “By virtue of this, I tell you, her sins, many though they are, are forgiven, because she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.†He then turned to the woman and said: “Your sins are forgiven (…) Your faith has saved you; go your way in peace.†(Luke 7:47) Many look at this episode as a great lesson in compassion and forgiveness. It is. But our focus is on how this relates to women. We learn here that the basis for salvation is faith, rather than mere works. Yes, works are a necessary display of faith, and they can be diverse. But works can also be performed without its roots on faith. On the other hand, faith always finds its expression in works, rather than in mere words. The woman needed not speak one single word and yet Jesus praised her for her faith. She expressed her faith through her deeds. A woman’s worth in the Christian congregation isn’t measured by her participation in delivering public talks from the platform or lack thereof; Isn’t measured by leading the worship or pray in the congregation or lack thereof; Isn’t measured by her involvement in the governing of the congregation or the organization or lack thereof. Actually, that is also true for the man. Those are not the measurements of one’s faith or worth in the eyes of Jehovah that lead to salvation. More on that later. Jesus was the perfect reflection of his heavenly Father while he lived on earth. We can confidently say that Jehovah would have done the same things that Jesus did, should it had been Him personally to come down. Jesus “is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being (…)†(Hebrews 1:3) Much more could be said about Jesus’ dealings with women, but the examples given offer a very thorough picture of his mind frame and the standard he set for his disciples and the Christian congregation. Many describe the way Jesus treated women as revolutionary, as if Jesus had introduced an abrupt change in the social order. I disagree. I think Jesus treated women the way Jehovah always intended women to be treated: With love, respect, dignity, as they were made “in the image of Godâ€, just as their male counterpart was and without need for patronizing. In fact, it’s the case that the way sinner humanity has treated women throughout the ages has been degenerated. God’s ways never really changed. As we read in Ezekiel 18:25: “‘And YOU people will certainly say: “The way of Jehovah is not adjusted right.†Hear, please, O house of Israel. Is not my own way adjusted right? Are not the ways of YOU people not adjusted right?". Why is it, then, that many think that the role of the women in the Christian congregation is a minor one? I will discuss that in part 4 – “What Paul wrote – the role of women in the christian congregation of the first centuryâ€. To be continued.... Eden Last edited by Eden; 07-27-2012 at 11:53 AM.
Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century “In them, [ Paul’s letters ] however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures†(2 Peter 3:15, 16) I’m sure I’m not alone in considering some of the apostle Paul’s writings to be sometimes outright complicated, unnecessarily complicated. That doesn’t mean that they’re beyond reading. They’re just denser than your average weekly newspaper and demand of each of us a greater effort for understanding. Maybe that’s a good thing, as to exercise our mental faculties. The reasons why I made such a lengthy account of how women were seen in ancient history, in ancient Israel under Moses’ Law, and how the Scriptures help us see the way Jehovah and Jesus see women, are two: First, to encourage women, mainly my dear sisters who are faithful co-workers with me in the sacred service to Jehovah – so that they are reassured of the tenderness that our Creator has for them, that in no way is any lesser than their male counterparts, and how they are loved, cherished and valued by Jehovah and his Son. In a way, also to help someone from the outside of the congregation with strong feminist feelings to understand that, in many ways, the true worship of Jehovah has been the best thing that could have happened to women as history progressed. Secondly, because I needed to give the necessary background and context for a clearer understanding of the words written by the apostle Paul about the role of women in the congregation. I will focus on this part on the writings of the apostle Paul, because he was the only one who wrote directly about the role of women in the congregation. No other apostle wrote about this specific issue; Peter wrote about women within their marriage, but he left out the congregation. (1 Peter 3:1-5) Even Christ himself never spoke a word directly about the role of women in the congregation. This fact aloneshould make us think. There are many theologists out there who believe that Paul’s writings offer an “alternative take†on Christianity. That what he wrote is not more than a personal view, an interpretation of the teachings of Christ. The first time I heard about this was when I was discussing religion with one of my clients (an agnostic Jew, btw), who referred to the “church of Peter†and the “church of Paulâ€. I asked that he explained what he meant by that, and he told me that it was “obvious†(his words) that Paul was establishing a different kind of Christianity than that of the apostles in Jerusalem (the “church of Peterâ€). This was a surprise for me. I had no concept of this view, so I further investigated it, and in fact there is a widespread idea among many scholars that indeed the writings of Paul went way beyond the teachings of Jesus and the doctrinal laws given by Peter, James, John, and the other apostles and disciples from the original congregation in Jerusalem. Therefore, in this line of reasoning, the opinions of Paul about the role of women in the congregation can be simply discarded as no more than personal opinions. This is why many protestant Christian denominations have started to ordain women as priests, and there’s also a strong movement within the Catholic Church in support of this idea. So I feel it’s necessary to examin the authority of Paul first. Paul himself wrote: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good workâ€. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). At the time Paul wrote his letters to the congregations, I’m not sure if he himself was persuaded that his own writings would become part of the “Holy Scripturesâ€. Maybe yes, maybe not. I have reasons to believe that he wasn’t. First, because the context in 2 Timothy 3:15 is clear in that Paul was referring to the “holy writings†that Timothy had known since his “infancyâ€. These could only have been the Hebrew Scriptures, and perhaps the gospel of Matthew can be included in this time frame too, since it was finished around 41 CE. Furthermore, in more than one occasion Paul admitted that he was issuing his personal opinion: “But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord (…)†; “I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who had mercy shown him by the Lord to be faithful. Therefore I think this to be well in view of (…)†; “I desire (…)†“I do not permit (…)†(1 Corinthians 7:12 ; 7:25, 26; 1 Timothy 2:8, 12) Besides, what is the meaning of “all scriptures are inspired of Godâ€? Does this mean that every single word in the Bible was whispered by Jehovah by means of the Holy Spirit to each one of the writers? Or simply the ideas were conveyed and the writers allowed to use their own words? Or both? This is one of those things that could spark an endless debate, and I certainly don’t want to see this thread hijacked by this particular. Let’s just accept for now that everything that is in the Bible is there because Jehovah either wanted it or at least allowed it, for the benefit of his servants. Quoted from it1 pp.1202-1207: “not everything stated by other persons and thereafter included in the Bible was inspired of God, but the selection of the material to be part of the Holy Scriptures and the accurate recording of it were under the direction of holy spiritâ€. Also: “By “inspiration†is meant, not a mere heightening of the intellect and emotions to a higher degree of accomplishment or sensitivity (as is often said of secular artists or poets), but the production of writings that are inerrant and thathave the same authority as if written by God himselfâ€. In any case, even the apostle Peter endorsed Paul’s letters as being of godly wisdom and origin, for he wrote: “ (…) just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters (…)â€and included them along with "the rest of the Scriptures".– 2 Peter 3:15a So, let’s assume that the writings of the apostle Paul are part of the “Holy Scriptures†because Jehovah wanted it to be so. Was Paul accredited to issue his own opinions and would they be looked upon as “inspiredâ€? The answer has to be “yesâ€. Despite Paul wasn’t one of the 12 apostles, he had credentials no inferior to the other apostles (Galatians 2:6-9); He was empowered also to perform cures, expel demons, and even a resurrection. In contemporary terms he would be: One of the anointed; A missionary; A Circuit and District Overseer ; An Elder; A Special Envoy from the Governing Body. A prophet Are these credentials enough? You be the judge. To me they are. Could it be that the background of Paul as a male, a Jew, and an ex-pharisee have influenced his insight on a few subjects, such as the role of women in the congregation? No doubt, yes. However, Jehovah still decided that his writings had enough direction from the Holy Spirit, and a great apostolic authority and were of great benefit for his people, present and future, hence they were included in the Bible as “inspiredâ€. As a side note, it’s interesting that the bulk of the holy Christian writings other than the four Gospels were written by someone who wasn’t a member of the Governing Body in Jerusalem. Food for thought …. later. Let us, then, look up closely at what Paul wrote. To be continued …Last edited by Eden; 07-28-2012 at 08:01 PM.
Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century (… continued) The scriptures that I quoted on my first post are the ones where Paul limited the role of women in the congregation: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 : “Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mindâ€. 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 : “For God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peace. As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregationâ€. Let’s examine the first statement: “Let the woman learn in silenceâ€. This is then related with “full submissivenessâ€. On a superficial level it does sound a bit demeaning for the woman, doesn’t it? As if to say: ‘Ok, I will tolerate that you learn, as long as you keep your mouth shut and don’t stir waves’. But think about it: As per the evidence shown before, culture said the woman was not even to learn anything, in silence or not. According to the rabbinic tradition, teaching the Torah to women was a waste and an apostasy. For pagans, the only role for a woman in a temple was that of a prostitute. The common perception was that a woman should concern with nothing more than the household and her children. Nothing else. To say that a woman could - should - actually learn something was a tremendous counter-current statement for the first century. To even conceive that a woman should take part in a religious activity and have a personal relationship with God was already such a revolution. No wonder that Paul would moderate that with the ensuing “in silence, in full submissivenessâ€. Paul once mentioned that he had been educated at the feet of the great Rabbi Gamaliel. (Acts 22:3). But when Jesus was at the house of Lazarus, he taught Mary at his feet just as a Rabbi would have instructed a promising male student. (Luke 10:39) Indeed Jesus considered women equally capable of learning just as any man, and made no distinction. So did Paul. But considering the conventions of his time and the prevailing cultural values, Paul felt it was necessary to remind Christian women that during the meetings within the congregation they should remain in silence, as a sign of submission. Paul wrote that “if [married women] want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home.†Again, this was pretty revolutionary. Why? Because now the Christian husband was under the divine obligation to teach his wife – who is now also his sister in the faith - in the ways of Christ. This was unheard of! A husband teaching religion to his wife? That simply wasn’t the norm until then. Imagine – Jew husbands, who used to be taught at the synagogues how perverse women were, how they should keep the conversation with them to a minimum level – now they had to teach them at home? That was something new. What about “let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregationâ€? In this case, Paul seemed to be addressing a specific issue in the congregation of Corinth. Possibly some sisters were challenging what was being taught by the Elders in the congregation during the course of the meetings. Perhaps they were challenging what their own husbands were teaching in the congregation. Or maybe their enthusiasm for her newly found faith resulted in the habit of interrupting the instruction from the man in charge of teaching the congregation in order to ask questions. Whatever the case might have been, that would certainly cause a lot of confusion and disturbance. This would be the reason why Paul, in context, remarked: “God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peaceâ€. Therefore, Paul took a firm stance for peace and order within the congregation. Also, the expression “As in all congregations of the holy onesâ€, meant that the married women in the congregation of Corinth should learn from the good example of other [married] women in other congregations. Is this admonishment to be taken to the letter, universally, for every single woman, in every situation? Consider this: If that were the case, then the widows, divorced and single women would be at a loss, because they wouldn’t have husbands that they could question at home. Indeed, this seemed to be an issue specific to the congregation in Corinth. Therefore, the words “it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation†shouldn’t be interpreted in a very narrow, strict sense as to apply to every situation, because Paul was addressing a specific situation of that congregation. By digging under the surface, we conclude that it’s certainly not a disgrace for a woman’s voice to be heard in the congregation; It becomes so when she does it in a way that challenges the headship arrangement of Jehovah. Paul clearly understands that “exercising authority†over a man in a congregation is against the headship arrangement of Jehovah. And teaching is a form of authority, for the teacher has authority over that who learns. (Mark 1:22) Therefore, Paul concludes that women shouldn’t teach in the congregation – at least not when a man is present. This also means that women shouldn’t aspire to become teachers or leaders within the congregation. But as we shall see later, it doesn’t stop women from being teachers in broad sense. Now comes the most controversial part of Paul’s argumentation. Why are women restricted from teaching in the congregation or to exercise authority over a man? Paul says: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mindâ€. Paul’s argument can be broken down to the following parts: Women shouldn’t teach or exercise authority over the man because originally they were formed from the male, and not from the ground up. Paul reminds his brothers and sisters that the first woman was originally created for the man, and not otherwise. Theorder of creation is seen as a relevant item to establish the headship arrangement and consequently, the role of the man and of the woman in the family and within the congregation. Eve was “thoroughly deceivedâ€, while Adam wasn’t. This seems to point out that Eve was completely gullible towards the words of the serpent; She really believed that she could magically become “like God†by consuming the forbidden fruit. Therefore, she was easily vulnerable to a false teaching. Adam, on the other hand, wasn’t so gullible. He didn’t believe that by eating from the forbidden fruit he could become like God. So, Eve “came to be in transgression†for her ingenuity; Adam’s transgression wasn’t for ingenuity – he chose to share with his wife in her sin deliberately, perhaps because he feared that Jehovah wouldn’t give him another female companion. His sin therefore had different motivations. Paul seems to conclude that women are more vulnerable to being deceived by Satan through false teachings or false revelations, than men. Therefore, they shouldn’t teach in the congregation, in the presence of men, and especially in the presence of their husbands. This is like a sad memorial of the heritage of sin: Just as Adam – and thus all men after him - was sentenced to work and toil hard on an unkind soil and deal with the frustration of often not seeing his hard work rewarded, Eve was sentenced to be “dominated†by her male counterpart. Paul seems to draw the conclusion that women, therefore, should not exercise the authority of teaching nor leading the congregation – at least not when a male is present. Nevertheless, women can still have an honorable role in teaching – by teaching their children in the ways of Jehovah. That will keep them “safeâ€. In what way? This doesn’t relate to “salvationâ€, as if motherhood was a ticket to salvation; No, instead, by keeping busy with profitable activities like upbringing their children and looking after their household they wouldn’t gravitate towards negative activities, such as being “unoccupied, gadding about to the houses; yes, not only unoccupied, but also gossipers and meddlers in other people’s affairs, talking of things they ought not.†(1 Timothy 5:13, 14) Shortly before discussing the role of women in the congregation, Paul made the following statement: “But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.†(1 Corinthians 11:3) By saying this, Paul compared the woman’s subjection to her head, to the man’s subjection to Christ. When their Master was on earth, how was the relationship of the disciples with his “headâ€, Jesus? Do we ever see the disciples teaching anything to Christ? Do we see the disciples giving orders or instructions to Jesus? None such. Quite the opposite – it was Jesus who taught, gave instructions to his disciples and took the leadership among them. Does that mean that the disciples were a silent, mindless flock? No! They asked questions to him, they spoke freely with him, they collaborated with his arrangements, they sat with him and learned from him, they worked side by side with him in the promotion of the “good news of the kingdom†and had great joy in the company of their Master. Paul meant this illustration to be a lesson not only for women and men bound together by ties of marriage, but also for women in the congregation of the first century: They should see their role within the congregation as the relationship that the disciples had with Jesus. We have examined so far what Paul wrote in terms of restrictions for the role of women in the congregation: It comes down to ONE restriction: Women should not exercise authority over a man. Since teaching is a form of authority, therefore women shouldn’t teach nor lead within the congregation when a man is present. But Paul wrote more about women, and it’s rather surprising what women COULD do. To be continued … Eden Last edited by Eden; 07-29-2012 at 02:29 PM.
Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century (… continued) Many secular scholars, feminists and some modern-day churches accuse Paul of being a misogynous Christian with a strong anti-female attitude. That couldn’t be more far from the truth. We must remember the prevailing culture of the first century and how it viewed women’s roles in society, in religion and in the family. It wasn’t pretty for women back then. In a society that viewed the power of external feminine beauty and feminine influence as an evil, Paul’s encouragement for women to look at their inner self as the source of their value before God was innovative and counter-current. We take certain things for granted these days, but it wasn’t the case in the first century. Christianity offered women what no other religion in the first century offered: Respect, consideration, fellowship, parity before God in individual worthiness and in salvation: â€YOU husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel (“they are more delicate than you†– GNT), the feminine one, since YOU are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for YOUR prayers not to be hindered.†(1 Peter 3:7) In fact, from a salvation perspective, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus†(Galatians 3:28) Just as nationality or social status wasn’t relevant for salvation, so wasn’t gender. However, the spirituality of men and women doesn’t lend itself into androgyny*. The operation of the Holy Spirit on men and women doesn’t eliminate the traits of men and women nor their God-given roles while on earth. This kind of “androgynous spirituality†was part of the teachings of the Gnostics, and it’s highly likely that their teachings were influencing the congregations of Corinth and Ephesus (where Timothy was serving), causing Paul to stress out the different roles of men and women in the congregation and in the marital bond according to Jehovah’s arrangement. It is clear that feminism and misogyny have no place within true Christianity, then or now. We should be careful not to dismiss a clear Bible teaching just because it doesn’t suit our preferences. [ * From Wikipedia: Androgyny is a term derived from the Greek words ανήρ, stem ανδρ- (anér, andr-, meaning man) and γυνή (gyné, meaning woman), referring to the combination of masculine and feminine characteristics. ] This study has persuaded me that when Paul wrote about the limitations of a woman’s ministry in the congregation, it all comes down to ONE restriction with TWO implications: Women are not to exercise authority over a man, and therefore, they should not teach nor govern the congregation when a male member of the congregation is present. However, there’s a lot more to Paul’s writings about women than just the limiting side. I find very interesting to look at the other things that Paul wrote, as they are also part of “all Scriptures†that are inspired. We should first note that the two times that Paul writes to limit the women’s role in the congregation, he was addressing specific problems of specific congregations, where false teachings were causing divisions within the congregations: “Just as I encouraged you to stay in Ephesus when I was about to go my way into Macedonia, so I do now, that you might command certain ones not to teach different doctrine†(1 Timothy 1:3); and “Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.†(1 Corinthians 1:10) Hence the very strong tone in which Paul spoke about it. As mentioned before, it is likely that the teachings of the Gnostics were gaining popularity within the congregations in Corinth and Ephesus. These might have rose from a certain doctrine that postulated that there wasn’t a future physical resurrection: “Now if Christ is being preached that he has been raised up from the dead, how is it some among YOU say there is no resurrection of the dead?†(1 Corinthians 15:12); Instead they taught that there was a present “spiritual resurrectionâ€, and that this “spiritual resurrection†would occurred when someone was anointed with the Holy Spirit, “These very [men] have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some†(2 Timothy 2:18). This was probably coming from a distorted and abusive interpretation of some of Paul’s own writings: “But God (…) made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses—by undeserved kindness YOU have been saved— and he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesusâ€; Also: “for YOU were buried with him in [his] baptism, and by relationship with him YOU were also raised up together through [YOUR] faith in the operation of God, who raised him up from the deadâ€; and also: “If, however, YOUwere raised up with the Christ, go on seeking the things above, where the Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Keep YOURminds fixed on the things above, not on the things upon the earth. For YOU died, and YOUR life has been hidden with the Christ in union with God. When the Christ, our life, is made manifest, then YOU also will be made manifest with him in glory.†(Ephesians 2:4-6; Colossians 2:12; 3:1-4) Therefore, it seems that many Christians in Corinth and Ephesus were adhering to a false belief that they were already in the full form of the Kingdom, that they have been spiritually taken out of the world, resurrected from a spiritually dead prior condition, and that certain aspects of the creation, such as food, sex and male/female distinctions were no longer relevant to them. For these, the current gender of their body wasn’t relevant any longer – for they had been already been “resurrectedâ€. “Nevertheless, someone will say: “How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?†(1 Corinthians 15:35) As a consequence, there was an observable tendency for the removal of distinctions between male and female roles in these congregations, causing Paul to write strongly against this tendency, as it was rooted in a false teaching. Paul labeled these false teachings as “misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons†(1 Timothy 4:1), and some women in these congregations, by following these teachings, already “have been turned aside to follow Satan†(1 Timothy 5:15) Yes, these false teachings were causing disturbance within these congregations, divisions, sects even: “each one of YOU says: “I belong to Paul,†“But I to Apollos,†“But I to Cephas,†“But I to Christ.†(1 Corinthians 1:12) No doubt, many women were being deceived and becoming partisans by these false teachings in the same manner that Eve had been deceived by the serpent on Eden. Thus Paul used such strong words. Since those words were written to address a specific problem in specific congregations, is this to say that such words have no bearing to other congregations, past or present? To be continued … EdenLast edited by Eden; 07-31-2012 at 01:41 PM.
Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century (… continued) While we examine if the admonishments of Paul to the congregations of Corinth and Ephesus regarding the role of women in the congregation are meant for universal compliance, we should try to understand and clarify some concepts, and how they are used in the Greek Scriptures. This will prove to be very helpful. What is “to teachâ€? The Greek verb translated “to teach†is didaskalia. It literally means “to cause to learn†and transmits the notions of “to instruct, to impart knowledgeâ€. (From Strong’s Concordance) The use of didasko and its cognates in the New Tetstament (NT) nearly always refers to the teaching of the Scriptures. According to the Merriam-Webster Diccionary, to teach is “To cause to know something; To cause to know how; To accustom to some action or attitude; To cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action; To guide the studies of; To impart the knowledge of; To instruct by precept, example, or experience; To make known and accepted; To conduct instruction regularly inâ€. In Hebrews 5:12, Paul wrote to his brethren, men and women, in the congregation of Jerusalem: “For, indeed, although YOU ought to be teachers in view of the time (…)â€. The purpose of a Christian to learn the truth is not only to benefit himself/herself but to also teach others so that they can benefit themselves later: “Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching (…) by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to youâ€. (1 Timothy 4:16) Thus learning lends itself to teaching, later. Even Jesus himself commanded to all his followers, man and women alike: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations (…) teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOUâ€. (Matthew 28:19, 20) The word didaskalia can be used in a generic sense, encompassing all activities related to edification: “(…) Keep on teaching (didaskalia) and admonishing (neutheteó) one another with psalms, praises to God, spiritual songs with graciousness, singing in YOUR hearts to Jehovahâ€. (Colossians 3:16) Therefore, in a broad sense, even singing praises to Jehovah may be classified as teaching – just because it may ‘cause someone to learn’. Clearly, in a broad sense, every Christian, man or woman, is expected to be a teacher. However, there’s a side to “teaching†that is restricted to certain individuals in the congregation. This is clear when we read: “Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they?(…)â€; “And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachersâ€; "Not many of YOU should become teachers, my brothers (…)â€(1 Corinthians 12:29; Ephesians 4:11; James 3:1). While there’s no evidence that “teaching†was an activity restricted to the Elders and those with overseeing duties, it certainly was a significant part of their responsabilities: “The overseer should therefore be (…) qualified to teachâ€,as well as “(…) holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his [art of] teaching, that he may be able both to exhort by the teaching that is healthful (1 Timothy 3:2 ; Titus 1:9) Robert L. Waggoner (1999, 2003), while explaining the differences between preaching and teaching, wrote: “(…) the message taught was the message explained, clarified, and applied, with exhortation to live by it. Whereas the message preached (announced) was primarily for the purpose of conversion, the message taught (explained, clarified, applied, with exhortation) was primarily for the purpose of building faith, Christian conviction and character.†So, “teachingâ€, in the more strict sense, involves explaining, applying, the Scriptures to those already in the faith and exhorting them to live by it. The question is: Are women allowed to do so? Surprisingly, my answer is yes. I believe this has Bible grounds. Please read Acts 18:26: “(…) When Pris·cil´la and Aq´ui·la heard him [Apollos], they took him into their company and expounded (exethento) the way of God more correctly to himâ€. We see here that Priscilla, a woman, together with her husband, both close friends to Paul, explained the Scriptures to Apollos, who was already a Christian, even if one with incomplete knowledge about the events around the Pentecosts of 33 CE. This no doubt included reading the Scriptures to him, explain and interpret them to him (a man, btw), and exhort him to accept the more accurate knowledge of Christianity. Point here is that he was already in the faith and had already converted. The word used to describe what Priscilla did is exethento, which has the basic meaning “to explain, to expose, to cast outâ€. Other uses of this word are: “(…) they came in greater numbers to him in his lodging place. And he [Paul] explained (exethento) the matter to them by bearing thorough witness concerning the kingdom of God and by using persuasion (…)†(Acts 18:23) “At this Peter commenced and went on to explain (exethento) the particulars to them, saying:†(Acts 11:4) So, it seems clear to me that women can in fact “teachâ€, not only in the broad sense of “causing someone to learnâ€, but they can also thoroughly explain the Scriptures and exhort others already in the faith to live by them. What was the point of Paul’s words: “I do not permit women to teachâ€, then? The key here seems to be not in performing the activity in itself, but rather where it is carried out: In the congregational gatherings. Some claim that the limiting words of Paul apply only to married women when their husbands are present in the congregation. This is not consistent with the Greek grammar in use (normally if “man†and “woman†are meant to be understood as husband and wife, the possessive form is used: “her manâ€, “his woman†– which is not the case), and in any case, the relationship between a housband and a wife is paradigmatic of the relationship between men and women in general within the congregation, that is, one of subjection. So, in both cases where Paul limits the activity of teaching to only a few, and excludes women from it, must be understood as to occurr within the congregation only. This limitation doesn’t apply outside of the Christian congregation. Women can, in public or in private, preach and teach the Scriptures, regardless if it is for men, women or children. Paul only limited women from theaching in the congregation, for the reasons already detailed. What is “learn in silenceâ€? The emphasis here is clearly not in the fact of learning, but in the manner of learning. Does it mean that the woman should remain mute while learning? The word Paul used here is “hesuchiaâ€, that can mean absolute silence but it can also mean “quietness, peacefulnessâ€. Now, in other passage, Paul uses a derivative of the same adjective: “(…) in order that we may go on leading a calm and quiet (hesuchion) life (…)â€. (1 Timothy 2:2) A “quiet†life doesn’t imply to remain in perpetual silence, does it? So it seems perfectly plausible that Paul meant that women should learn in a quiet, peaceful manner, without causing disturbance, rather than learn in absolute silence, or passively. The problem in Corinth and Ephesus seemed to be that some women weren’t learning quietly. Perhaps they had acquired a taste for disputational debate and criticism that was a trait of the “false teachersâ€: “If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring (…) abusive speeches, (…) violent disputes about trifles (…)†(1 Timothy 6:3-5); Even further, it’s likely that these women were speaking out against the male leadership of the congregation and maybe even disputing the male leadership of their families. They apparently were trying to persuade others in the congregation about how to correctly interpret doctrine, even trampling the Elders during the congregational gatherings. By doing so, they were no longer “learning in quietness†but they were “teaching in the congregationâ€. And Paul wrote strongly against that. What is “to exercise authorityâ€? In parallel passages in Mark 10:42, 43 and Matthew 20:25, 26 Jesus said: “YOU know that those who appear to be ruling the nations lord it over them and their great ones wield authority over them. This is not the way among YOU (…)†Other translations translate this as: “the great ones exercise authority over them†(INT) “and their great men exercise authority over them†(NAS). The Greek term used here to describe the kind of authority a monarch has over his subjects is katexousiazó. Since Jesus said that “this is not the way among youâ€, what was Paul saying when he mentioned the expression “nor to exercise authority over a man†(1 Timothy 2:12, NWT)? The Biblos Interlinear Bible renders the text like this: “(…) however / a woman / not / I do allow / nor / to use authority over / manâ€. The expression in the Greek text is not katexousiazó, but instead, Paul used the term authentein. In what way authentin differs from katexousiazó? Authentein: one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, an absolute master; to govern one, exercise dominion over one. (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) (figuratively) dominate -- usurp authority over. (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance) Katexousiazo: to hold in subjection, to be master of, exercise lordship over: (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) While katexousiazó and authentein can be loosely translated as “have authority over†or “exercise authority overâ€, it is also clear that the word used by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12 indicates someone that usurps authority by taking the power into his own hands. The first term allows only the legitimate authority, and the latter allows both the legitimate as well as illegitimate authority. Interestingly, KJV translates authenteinhere as “nor to usurp authority over the manâ€. Although more interpretative than literal, I do believe that KJV captures better the spirit of Paul’s message. Therefore, again, Paul seems to be addressing the specific problem of the two congregations of Ephesus and Corinth: Some women were arrogating themselves authority over the Elders and overseers by teaching false teachings in the congregation of a different doctrine that was taught by Jesus and his apostles and in contraposition to the duly theocratic appointed male overseers. This doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t have any authority in the congregation; Rather, that they shouldn’t have any authority that would overlap or superimpose over that of an appointed male in that congregation. This is a relevant difference. (to be continued …) Eden Last edited by Eden; 08-02-2012 at 11:39 AM.
Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century (… continued) Since what Paul wrote about the role of women in the congregation seemed to address specific situations that occurred in the congregations of Corinth and Ephesus, we can ask ourselves: Are these instructions universal, that is, to be applied to all Christian congregations, everywhere? Are these instructions temporary, only to be applied until that specific problem was sorted out, or only in the first century, or are they in force today? When we read the Scriptures we must be extremely careful when we try to determine whether any given command or teaching is to be applied beyond the situation for what it was first given. What criteria should be used? Does it suffice to say that geographic or cultural factors limit the application of a teching we find in the Bible? If those factors alone were to be used, then almost all of the Bible could be dismissed. Other factors must be taken into account, such as the context and the concordance with other passages in the Bible, what we usually callinternal harmony. Do we obey to the letter? Do we obey in principle? Are we exempt from obedience? These are serious questions and we must not rush nor bend the conclusions just because they suit our personal preferences. For example, do we still apply literally Titus 2:9, 10: “Let slaves be in subjection to their owners in all things, and please them well, not talking back, not committing theft, but exhibiting good fidelity to the full (…)â€? How can we obey to the letter when slavery has been banned? Clearly here we must obey in principle. We can rightfully apply this principle to the employees in their workplace. Or what can we say about 1 Thessalonians 5:26: “Greet all the brothers with a holy kissâ€? (See also Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14 ) Is this a command, or a recommendation or a suggestion? After all, it is repeated 5 times in the NT! Do we follow this to the letter? Do we kiss each and every one on our meetings? If so, how do we kiss? And when we kiss, that kiss becomes a holy ritual? It2, p.177 says: “(…) the “holy kiss†or “kiss of love†evidently reflected the wholesome love and unity prevailing in the Christian congregation.†However, clearly it is a habit of ancient times that lost its original significance, and therefore we are exempt from adherence. We do, however, follow the underlying principle of displaying brotherly love to our co-worshipers. (John 13:35) Clearly, there are some cases where it can be successfully argued that adherence to a command or teaching is either obsolete or merely in principle, rather than to the letter. Do we still “cast lotsâ€? Do we still practice the “laying on of hands†to appoint someone? (Acts 1:21-26; 1 Timothy 4:14) But, is that the case with what Paul wrote about the role of women in the congregation? Could it be argued that, because Paul was addressing a specific problem of the congregations of Corinth and Ephesus, this limited those instructions to those congregations only? In this regard, the context and the internal harmony are very clear. Paul starts his admonishment in 1 Corinthians 14:33: “As in all congregations of the saints (…)â€. Paul has given these or similar instructions in other congregations that he helped forming or visited as missionary and traveling overseer. These instructions were being observed in all other congregations. Therefore, the Corinthians and the Ephesians should not think they were singular in these instructions; Just like in “all congregationsâ€, they should obey to them. Also, we should note that a letter written to a specific congregation would normally be read in other congregation for the spiritual instruction of the brethren there, and vice-versa. Note Colossians 4:16: “And when this letter has been read among YOU, arrange that it also be read in the congregation of the Laodiceans and that YOU also read the one from Laodiceaâ€. We can safely say - also supported in sources outside the Scriptures - that Paul’s instructions were universally followed in the congregations of the first century, with perhaps some exceptions where apostasy had gained momentum, such as Thyatira: “I do hold [this] against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves†(Revelation 2:20) Again, Jesus himself, even many years after Paul's passing away, condemned a woman who arrogated to herself the role of “teacher†in the congregation, one whose false teachings were misleading others in the congregation to engage in immorality and idolatry. This is a definitive argument that Paul’s orders were inspired by God and meant to be universally obeyed in every congregation in his time. But what about after Paul’s time? Was there an “expiration date†for Paul’s orders regarding the role of women in the congregation ? First of all, we don’t find in the context of Paul’s words any time limit for his orders to be enforced in the congregations. We don’t find time expressions such as “this time (…)â€; “ At present (…) “ (Matthew 3:15; 1 Corinthians 13:12) Secondly, Paul roots his commands at the very origins of mankind, therefore, making it matters of fundamental principle, rather than matters of simple law. Unlike Moses’ Law, that was rendered obsolete by Christ’s Law, nothing yet has rendered Christ’s Law obsolete. (Hebrews 8:10, 13) The activities mentioned by Paul, “teaching†and “exercising authority†are transcultural and timeless, and they are a permanent part of the ministry within the congregation. It’s not as if “teaching†or exercising authority have become obsolete or outdated in the general culture or within the congregation. Also, Paul’s letters are still accepted universally accepted by Christians as an essential part of the inspired Christian Scriptures. Actually Paul warned that even if an angel came and declared something different what was established then as the “good newsâ€, Christians shouldn’t listen to it. (Galations 1:9) In view of the above, I have to conclude that Paul’s instructions to the congregations in Ephesus and Corinth are valid for all Christians in all places and in all times. BUT … there are some surprising pearls to be found among the things Paul wrote. And that’s where we’ll be looking at next. Eden Last edited by Eden; 08-03-2012 at 11:41 PM.
Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century (… continued) We have focused so far on what women couldn’t do in the Christian congregation of the first century – teaching or governing. But what could women actually do? Well – more than we probably thought. Henry Chadwick (The Early Church, 1957, p. 56) wrote: “Christianity seems to have been especially successful among women. It was often through the wives that it penetrated the upper classes of society in the first instance.†Women offered an enormous impetus to the preaching work and the ensuing spread of Christianity. The special ability that women had fornetworking (much more needed in the first century than nowadays, when such networking was useful to endure in a men-ruled society), made a huge impact in the advance of the evangelizing. Clement of Alexandria commented: "The Apostles, giving themselves without respite to the work of evangelism... took with them women, not as wives but as sisters, to share in their ministry to women living at home: by their agency the teaching of the Lord reached the women's quarters without raising suspicionâ€. Clearly, women were instrumental in the spreading of the “good news of the Kingdom†and their peculiar way of networking with other women no doubt was the starting cause of many congregations, such as Philippi in Macedonia (Acts 16:11-15) It’s not unlikely that in many cases, there would be Christian gatherings where no baptized men would be present. We should remind ourselves that women were restricted from teaching or leading within the congregation when baptized males are present. Obviously the fellowship within the congregation was determined by the ordenance through baptism. Women were to be in subjection to their husbands (believers or non-believers) and baptized male members of the congregation. But If a non-believer, non-baptized or non-husband male was present, the woman wasn’t in subjection to that person. Let’s take two examples: The teenager son of a sister was present in a meeting. He’s not baptized yet. No baptized males are present. Could the woman lead and teach? The answer has to be: yes. Another example: In a meeting where mostly women are present, the non-believer husband of one of the women is present. Could a woman lead and teach? Yes; However, if that woman was also the wife of the non-believer, she would have to cover her head, for, while she was not in theocratic subjection to her non-believing husband, she is in subjection to him as his “headâ€. Some women could also conclude that their subjection to her “head†would prevent her from teaching or taking the lead when her non-believer husband is present, and another woman could take that role. Both cases would be admissible. Obviously we are talking about exceptional situations, but nevertheless, exceptions that were acceptable in view of what Paul wrote. So, in which situations were women allowed to teach? Women could teach others outside the congregation. Women could teach other women; Women could teach children; Lets take a look at these roles: Women could teach others outside of the congregation - We have every reason to believe that Christianity in the first century attracted women in larger numbers than men. After all, it proposed a very liberating status for women (in contrast to what was common practice in their contemporary first century societies and in other religions), allowing and encouraging them to study the Scriptures, and being independent from their husbands regarding the development of a personal relationship with God, even enabling them to formally become teachers to other people outside of the congregation. Christianity offered women more marital security. Abortion was outlawed from the congregation; Women were to be respected as individuals by their husbands and their brethren in the congregation. They could work shoulder to shoulder in the evangelizing work alongside with the most respected male leaders of the congregation.(Philippians 4:2) Christianity was breaking away with the low expectations of female roles. Is it any wonder that women felt so attracted to the message of Christ? Since women weren’t in any way subjected to men outside the congregation or outside matrimony, it meant also that they could teach anyone outside the congregation; Men, women and children alike. In fact, many women brought Christianity into their households first, and then they helped their husbands to convert to Christianity as well, teaching them in the privacy of their homes (1 Peter 3:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 7:16a) Priscilla also taught Apollos in private. (Acts 18:25, 26) In any case, women can also teach without words, by their example (1 Peter 3:1, 2). Women could teach other women – Elizabeth taught Mary (Luke 1:39-45); Older women are commended to teach younger women (Titus 2:4, 5) Women could teach children – As clearly seen in the passage where Paul aknowledges the good role that Eunice and her mother Lois had in raising Timothy as a Christian. (1 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:14, 15) We also read in the Bible that both the father and the mother have a role in the education of their children (including male children): “Listen, my son, to the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the law of your motherâ€. (Proverbs 1:8) So far we’ve seen that Women should not govern the congregation; Women should not teach within the congregation, unless in exceptional circumstances when a baptized male isn’t present. Women can teach other women, children, and even men, as long as it’s outside of the congregation. Women can evangelize in equal circumstances with men. But, “teachingâ€, “exercise authorityâ€, and “evangelizing†are only three of the functions that could be performed by a Christian in the first century. Were there others? (To be continued…) Eden Last edited by Eden; 08-04-2012 at 11:15 AM.
Originally Posted by Jinnvisible 20 “‘Nevertheless, I do hold [this] against you, that you tolerate that woman Jez´e·bel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her fornication. 22 Look! I am about to throw her into a sickbed, and those committing adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. 23 And her children I will kill with deadly plague, so that all the congregations will know that I am he who searches the kidneys and hearts, and I will give to YOU individually according to YOUR deeds. Jinnvisible, One more thing about my personal interpretation that "Jezebel" was in fact a singular individual of the female genre: Revelation mentions both "those committing adultery with her" AND also "her children". If "Jezebel" was a collective party, then how would we make the distinction between those committing spiritual adultery with her, as well as the fruits of that spiritual adultery, her "children" ? Wouldn't they ALL be partisans of that same party anyway ? Why make the distinction? It makes more sense to me that "Jezebel" was a woman who claimed to have special gifts of prophecy, and had gained some considerable following within the congregation, and used her vast influence to commit fornication with other members of the congregation, including married men, and no doubt justifying it with some false teaching which involved also idolatry. No doubt as a fruit of those shameless relations, she had children; They also became supporters of her mother's teachings, for Jesus says they will be "killed with a deadly plague" - not because of her mother's sins, but for their own ones, since Jesus says that he gives "individually according to your deeds". This explanation makes more sense and has lesser interpretation issues than to consider "Jezebel" a sect within the congregation. Eden Last edited by Eden; 08-04-2012 at 05:30 PM.
Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century (… continued) Within the Christian congregation of the first century, we can observe three offices and various different “spiritual giftsâ€, or abilities. Offices in the congregation: The offices were: Apostles (Greek: Apostolos); Elders (Greek: Presbyteros) or Overseers (Greek: Episkopoi); Ministerial Servants (Greek: Diakonoi); The apostles occupied a proeminent and unique position within God’s people in the first century (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11); They were appointed directly by Jesus, enjoyed a very close fellowship with him, and he enabled them with special miraculous powers that they continued to exercise even after his departure, and could enable others to perform such powerfurl works. When the apostles and those directly enabled by them died, such miraculous powers ceased within the congregation. In the second century, it was aknowledged that those miraculous powers were already a thing of the past, from the apostolic age. (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, 1980, Vol. 1, p. 79.) Most of the apostles formed the core of the governing body in Jerusalem. However, once the apostles died, they weren’t replaced, so this special office within the congregation ceased to exist. All of the apostles were men. Another office mentioned in the Scriptures is that of Overseer. “If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, (Episkopos) he is desirous of a fine work. (1 Timothy 3:1) The Greek term basically means “to watch carefullyâ€, “to inspectâ€. There’s another common term used in the Greek Scriptures: “Older Men†(Presbyteros), or Elders. However, they aren’t different offices; When Paul called the “older men†of Ephesus’ congregation to meet him in Miletus, he exhorted them: “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers [e·pi′sko·poi], to shepherd the congregation of God.†(Acts 20:17, 28). Therefore, episkopoiand [I]presbyteros may be used interchangeably because they refer to the very same office; [I]Presbyterus focuses on the matureness necessary and [I]episkopoi focuses on the duties of the office. From[I] it2, pp 564, 565: [B]“(…) [B]the overseer was one who gave attention to certain matters or persons, visiting, inspecting, and appointing. Protective supervision is a basic idea inherent in the Greek term.†Again, in the Greek Scriptures, whenever the appointment of [I]Episkopos or [I]Presbyteros is addressed, they are always men. (1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:5) Each congregation had its body of “older menâ€. The other office, described in 1 Timothy 3:8-12, is that of “ministerâ€, or “servantâ€, described by the Greek word [I]“diakonosâ€. Since every Christian is also a “minister†and a “servantâ€, the way it is described in 1 Timothy 3 takes on a special sense when used in relationship with the structure of the congregation. Paul wrote [B]“[B]to all the holy ones in union with Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, [I]along with [U]overseers[/U]and [U]ministerial servants[/U][/I]â€. (Philippeans 1:1) It’s clear that there were two offices in the congregation: Overseer (or Elder) and “Minister†(Or “Ministerial Servantâ€, as it is used among the Jehovah’s Witnesses, although the use of both terms seems to be a redundancy). They were distinct of the other individual members of the congregation. The role of the [I]“Diakonos†is one of assistance to the [I]“Episkoposâ€. Teaching and shepherding aren’t listed as responsabilities of the “diakonoi†nor special abilities for teaching or shepherding are pre-requisites. [B]“Their basic responsibility is that of caring for matters of a nonpastoral nature so that the overseers might concentrate their time and attention on their teaching and shepherding activityâ€. (it2 406-410; Acts 6:1-6) I will go into detail later about the issue if only men, or also women, could take on the office of [I]“diakonos†in the congregation. Several “spiritual giftsâ€, or special abilities, are referred to in the Greek Scriptures, on par with teaching or leadership. Let’s take a look at them: [B]“Spiritual giftsâ€, special abilities, duties, tasks in the congregation: In passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:1-6; 12:28-31; 13:8; 14:26-33; Acts 13:1; Ephesians 4:11; we can find the following “spiritual giftsâ€, special abilities, duties and tasks to be performed within the congregation: Prophecise; Speaking in Tongues; Ministry; Teaching; Exhortation; Distributing; Presiding; Showing Mercy; Performing powerful works (“miracles†Rib8); Healing; Helpful services; Ability to direct; Translator; Evangelizer; Sheppherd; Psalms (Prayer / Singing praises); Revelation (Special Knowledge from Jehovah). Obviously, “ability to direct†and “presiding†are concomitant on the same gift; “Speaking in Tongues†and “Translator†are also part of the same gift; “Ministry†can also encompass “Distributingâ€, “Helpful Servicesâ€, “Showing Mercyâ€; “Powerful works†(miracles) obviously include “Healingâ€; “Teaching†and “sheppherding†go together and include “exhortationâ€. We can, therefore, sum these abilities as: Presiding, Speaking in Tongues, Ministry, Powerful Works, prophecising, Teaching / Sheppherding, Prophecise, Evangelize, Revelation, Prayer and Singing Praises. Since our present focus of study is the role of women in the congregation, which ones of these abilities we see women taking on in the Greek Scriptures? When the Holy Spirit fell upon those 120 men and women gathered during the Pentecost of 33 CE, the apostle Peter considered Joel 2:28 and applied it to that occasion: “[B]this is what was said through the prophet Joel, ‘“And in the last days,†God says, “I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and [B]YOUR[B] sons [I][U]and [/U][/I][B][I][U]YOUR[/U][/I][B][I][U] daughters will prophesy[/U][/I][B] and [B]YOUR[B] young men will see visions and [B]YOUR[B]old men will dream dreams; and even upon my men slaves and [I][U]upon my women slaves I will pour out some of my spirit[/U][/I] in those days, and [I][U]they will prophesy[/U][/I]†(Acts 2:16-18) Therefore, women would be enabled by the Holy Spirit to “prophesyâ€. The three daughters of Philip, the Evangelizer, were enabled with the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). Women are also mentioned by Paul as “praying or prophesying†within the congregation. (1 Corinthians 11:5). But what exactly was “to prophesyâ€? From it2 694-698: [B]“The Greek [I]pro·phe[/I][B][I]′[/I][B][I]tes[/I][B] literally means “a speaker out [Gr., [I]pro,[/I] “before†or “in front of,†and [I]phe·mi[/I][B][I]′[/I][B][I],[/I][B] “sayâ€]†and thus describes a proclaimer, one who makes known messages attributed to a divine source. (Compare Titus 1:12.) Though this includes the thought of a predictor of the future, the [I]fundamental[/I] meaning of the word is not that of prediction.†In Pentecost, the Holy Spirit enabled women to prophesy by declaring[B]“the magnificent things of God,†and by inspired revelation of knowledge about God’s Son and what this meant for their listeners. Also, Paul stated that [B]“he that prophesies upbuilds and encourages and consoles men by his speech,†and he held prophesying forth as a proper and particularly desirable goal for all Christians. (Acts 2:11; 1 Corinthians 14:3) Christian prophesying dealt mostly with things of the present, although from a source beyond the ordinary, being inspired by God. Predictions seemed to have been a gift of only a few prophets in Christian times. As an example, despite the above mentioned three daughters of Philip were prophets in Ceasarea, it was another prophet, Agabus, who came from Judea and predicted to Paul his future imprisonment. Some examples of specially qualified prophets are Paul, Agabus, Silas and Judas. Some even traveled and delivered discourses and appear to be had in great esteem as spokesmen. Although women could be bestowed with the gift of prophecy, we don’t see any with particular prominence in the first century. (Acts 21:9-11; See also Acts 11:27, 28) Prophesying was considered to be of greater value to the upbuilding of the congregation than other gifts such as speaking in tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:1-6) Although since the time of the Judges and until Pentecost 33 CE there used to be an “office†as prophet, that would include an official appointment, after John The Baptist, that “office†as such seemed to be no longer in existence within the Christian congregation. (To be continued…) Eden[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/I][/B][/I][/I][/B][/B][/I][/I][/I][/B][/B][/I][/I][/I][/I]
Part 4 – What Paul wrote - The role of women in the Christian congregation of the first century (… continued) Clearly, given the events of Pentecost 33 CE, some women were given the ability to speak in tongues by the Holy Spirit. It’s also possible that other women could also have the gift to translate for the congregation. However, as stated before, this was mostly a signal for the unbelievers, and it was considered of lesser value for the congregation than the gift of prophesying. As for the ability as evangelizers (Greek: eu·ag·ge·li·stes), women were obviously very active in successfully preaching the “good newsâ€, even working side by side with the apostles and being publicly commended by them in their letters as valuable co-workers. Every Christian is expected to be an evangelizer in the sense of making a “public declaration for salvation†(Romans 10:10), but obviously in the first century, the Holy Spirit enabled some people to be exceptional in their evangelizing work, notably among them, those who served as missionaries. However, no Christian would have an accomplished ministry without being an evangelizer. (2 Timothy 4:5) We also see that women could be involved in prayer – as well as prophesying – in congregational gatherings, as long as they had their head covered. (1 Corinthians 11:5) Prayer often went with singing, and singing praises to Jehovah seemed to be a regular feature of the Christian gatherings. Jesus and the apostles sang praises after the last meal before they left to the Mount of the Olives (Mark 14:26) Paul wrote: “ What is to be done, then? I will pray with the [gift of the] spirit, but I will also pray with [my] mind. I will sing praise with the [gift of the] spirit, but I will also sing praise with [my] mind.†(1 Corinthians 14:15) It’s not unreasonable to conclude that women would also be involved in singing praises in the Christian meetings. In ancient Israel, both Miriam and Deborah engaged in lead singing after great deliverances of Jehovah in favor of his people, even composing those songs. As for ministry, the Scriptures speak of the women that accompanied Jesus, “who were ministering to them from their belongingsâ€; (Mark 8:3) Dorcas of Joppe did much for other women in the congregation, even abounding in “good deeds and gifts of mercyâ€, and that was certainly a “helpful serviceâ€. (Acts 9:36, 39) Those, men and women, who spread the good news “publicly and from house to house†were rightfully “ministersâ€. (Acts 20:20) Phoebe is mentioned by Paul as “our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in Cenchreaeâ€. (Romans 16:1) And we can certainly imagine the many ways that women could prove to be helpful to their brothers and sisters in the congregations. Certainly these women’s ministry to their brethren, no matter how humble, wouldn’t go unnoticed to Jehovah, for “God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name, in that you have ministered to the holy ones and continue ministering.†(Hebrews 6:10) On my previous post I forgot to mention 1 Corinthians 12:7-11. In this passage, Paul also mentions “speech of knowledgeâ€, “speech of wisdomâ€, “faith†and “discernment of inspired utterances†as “manifestations of the spiritâ€, or special operations of the spirit, in addition to the above. It’s reasonable to assume that women, recipients of the Holy Spirit as their male co-worshipers, could manifest all of the above too. We do not find any trace, however, of women being involved in teaching within the congregation (at least not with theocratic authority), shepherding the flock, presiding, performing powerful works. In any case, none of the above abilities or “special gifts†had a corresponding specific office in the congregation. Having one of these special abilities wasn’t in itself evidence of divine authorization or endorsement, nor lacking these special abilities was evidence of absence of Jehovah’s blessing. Nonetheless, many who were invested as officers in the congregations, overseers or ministerial servants, were enabled to perform one or more of such special abilities or “special giftsâ€. However, Paul wrote prophetically: “But whether there are [gifts of] prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done away with. (literally: “it will be made innefectiveâ€, Rbi8) (1 Corinthians 13:8) On W08 12/01, pp 22-23 we read : “Such powerful works, or gifts of the spirit, passed away with the death of Jesus and the apostles and any to whom they passed on the gifts. The apostle Paul wrote: “Whether there are gifts of prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are [miraculously spoken] tongues, they will cease; whether there is [divinely revealed] knowledge, it will be done away with.†(...) Why? Having accomplished their purpose—identifying Jesus as the promised Messiah and the Christian congregation as favored by God—such powerful works, including healing, are no longer needed; they are “done away with.†Also:“(…) these miraculous gifts marked the infancy of the Christian congregation and were foretold to cease. In fact, even Jesus indicated that his followers would be identified, not by their performance of powerful works, but by their love for one another.†(It1 936-939; John 13:36; 1 Corinthians 13:2) In view of the explanation above, it has been the doctrine among the Jehovah’s Witnesses that such special “spiritual gifts†are no longer in operation among God’s chosen people. In fact, quite the opposite, when a religious group nowadays claims to speak in tongues or perform miraculous healings, we normally associate those “powerful works†with the deceiving operation of Satan (Matthews 24:23-25; 2 Thessalonians 2:9,10) However, we must not be overly simplistic about this; Can we say that “speech of wisdom†(the ability to apply knowledge in a successful way) is not in practice among us? Can we say that “speech of knowledge†(the ability to speak the truth based on the correct discernment of the Scriptures) is not in practice among us? Can we say that “faith†(the quality that enables some to overcome mountain-like obstacles in their lives) is not in practice among us? Hasn’t the leadership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses many times proven to have “discernment of inspired utterancesâ€, in interpreting prophecies*, or discerning if some modern-day “inspired utterances†originate from God or not? (* I’m not discussing here if the Governing Body has made mistakes in some interpretations of prophecies – please leave that discussion for other threads, as there are plenty in this forum); And if “prophesying†is primarily understood as ‘making known God’s messages and explaining to listeners their meaning’, and also ‘upbuilding, encouraging and console†others in the congregation, is that ability really “done away withâ€? Aren’t there among us people with exceptional abilities to direct and preside? Aren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses known for their prompt response to natural disasters – isn’t that a “helpful service†and “showing mercyâ€? Clearly, some of the things listed above, are “done away with†only in their miraculous, supernatural nature. Clearly if a brother or a sister has learned to speak four or five idioms and uses that ability to translate a speech or the Watchtower literature, we don’t presume that is “speaking in tonguesâ€, do we? If a Jehovah Witness is a practicing medical doctor and helps someone to overcome an illness, do we presume he was specially enabled by the Holy Spirit to perform “curesâ€? In fact, in present day, much of the original deeds that were present in the congregation of the first century are still present; The difference is that they no longer have a miraculous, spectacular nature, nor are they what proves that we are God’s people. Nor does the Holy Spirit enables someone perform certain special task without normal preparation, training or studies. That’s the difference. It seems that I have started to discuss a different topic above, but this will prove beneficial when I’ll discuss the role of women in the congregation today. However, I would like to get to the core of my study: Are women allowed to take an office within the congregation? (to be continued…) Eden Last edited by Eden; 08-06-2012 at 09:49 AM.
For instance i can fulfill the full meeting attendance requirement and the ministry requirement out of purely selfish motives. I accept the oncoming Judgement is due and i make my meetings and ministry quota purely out of a self survivalist consideration. I have no particular wish to share time with anyone outside of the meeting schedule or ministry requirement even if I concede to do that. However the more I can offer within the organizational structure the better my chances of survival. So i reach out for a fine work in order to increase my survival chances. .............. This is a very bleak, yet somewhat realistic and present scenario. In these circumstances the 'value' of women may seem reduced because the value of believers spending time with each other outside of formal arrangement is reduced. The value of worship becomes more about what your office, rank or position is. Official duty. As such the 'value of women' seems reduced as the focus on the male oriented apparatus of worship is overemphasized. Jinnvisible, Again, you have made very valid points there. I intend to discuss some of them when I address the role of women in the congregation today. I have a personal feeling that, while the WTS is very insistent on telling each Jehovah's Witnesses that we should avoid pursuing a secular career, at the same time, we are pushed to pursuit a "theocratic career". This has a negative side effect: That many see this "theocratic career" as means to - let's put it this way - have vertical social mobility within the WTS. Men, via the offices in the congregation, traveling overseers, Bethel, etc ....and women via pioneering, traveling service, Bethel ... Is this healthy? I think not. It lends itself to snobbish and pretense and, ultimately to the cult of personality. It's a sad fact that among the JW's, too many "are admiring personalities, for the sake of [their own] benefit". (Jude 16) I've known a few ... But I digress ... Eden Last edited by Eden; 08-06-2012 at 10:25 AM.