Women in Worship

On the subject of women in worship in the first century, as with most historical subjects, much of what comes to us is by way of biased interpretation, not as one might wish –substantive facts. I read the article, “Women in Ancient Christianity: The New Discoveries”. This is not what I would consider a good article by which to gauge women’s involvement in “services”, because the author’s choice of supportive evidence largely comes from suspect material. There is other evidence more convincing coming from the disciplines of epigraphical and literary studies.

Regarding women involved in group activities; one of the more controversial characters is Junia, was she an apostle?

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.[1]

In the NT ἐπίσημος occurs once each in bonam and in malam pattern. In R. 16:7 Paul calls Junius and Andronicus ̓πίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. Apart from the problems posed by the two names and the use of the word ἀποστόλος the expression might mean either that the two are "significant in the circle of apostles" or "highly regarded" among them.

In Mt. 27:16 Barabbas is called a δέσμιον ἐπίσημον. Here the adjective is fairly certainly to be understood in in malam partem and translated "notorious." This is suggested especially by the par. Mk. 15:7, according to which Barabbas was μετὰ τῶν συστασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν. This understanding of the term, which points to kinship of usage between Matthew and Josephus, is at any rate to be preferred to the attempt to understand       ἐπίσημος here as a tt. for the leader of a band of Zealots, - IV, 261, 35 ff.[2]

A striking witness within the Greek tradition of interpretation to the fact that Junia was identified in the early Church as a woman is the work of John Chrysostom. He comments on Rom 16:7 with the words: "It is certainly a great thing to be an apostle: but to be outstanding among the apostles—think what praise that is! She was outstanding in her works, in her good deeds: oh, and how great is the philosophy of this woman, that she was regarded as worthy to be counted among the apostles!"

• In the Liturgikon, the missal of the Byzantine Church. Junia is honored to this day in the Menologion as an apostle, together with fifty-six male apostles and the two “like to the apostles,” Mary Magdalene and Thecla. For the Latin-speaking regions we should mention especially the commentaries on Romans by Ambrosiaster (4th C.) and Rufinus of Aquileia (ca. 345-410). who as a matter of course read the feminine names Junia or Julia and accounted this woman among the apostles.

With the rediscovery of the New Testament apostle Junia the centuries old opinion (still emphatically maintained by the Roman Catholic Church) that in the apostolic period there were only male apostles has been finally disproved)

Until 1865, when J. B. Lightfoot began the historical-critical examination of the concept of "apostles:" it was taken for granted that the New Testament presents a unified concept of the apostolate: Jesus, during his earthly work, commissioned his twelve disciples as apostles (Luke 6:13). After the defection of Judas, then, the remaining eleven chose Matthias as the twelfth (Acts 1:1526). Paul was the only other person called, outside Damascus, by the Risen Lord to be an apostle for the Gentiles- But historical-critical research has shown that this conception essentially reflects Luke's idea of apostles, which is not representative for all of early Christian literature. Research in the history of traditions has shown that early Christianity had different understandings of the notion of apostolate. We may distinguish, in essence, between a broader and a narrower conception of the apostle.

Jürgen Roloff has pointed to two "indispensable methodological insights" that have emerged from the previous discussion of the apostolate: first, we can no longer posit without further consideration a unified early Christian idea of the apostolate: second, the Pauline understanding of what it means to be an apostle must constitute the "decisive fixed point" of every investigation of this theme. The genuine Pauline letters offer not only the oldest witness to the early Christian understanding of the apostles but also Paul's own personal understanding, proposed in dependence on and in contradiction to other interpretations of apostleship, and thus representing a "key to understanding the apostolate before and contemporary with Paul.[3]

Reading the English text I felt I could make the argument that Rom 16:7 did not necessarily suggest that Junia was an apostle. However, that was before I read the description of the Greek in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. The arguments made for Junia’s “apostleship” becomes more emphatic when taking into account a general meaning of the word apostle. Many newer versions of the New Testament use Junia instead of Junias. The rigid requirements for the replacement of Judas found in Acts 1, does not apply to every use of the word apostle.

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.[4]

The twelve were unique, their ministry as firsthand witnesses of Jesus’ life death and resurrection demanded that Judas’ replacement in the twelve had to have been with Jesus for the time specified. The twelve as a group were distinctive, all met the criteria laid out by Peter. Luke in his writing of Acts had a different understanding of what constituted an apostle; seen in his writing by, “When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it …”[5] Barnabas was not one of the twelve, neither was Paul who in his own words stated, “And last of all he (Jesus) was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.  For I am the least of the apostles…”[6] “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God…”[7] Paul did not meet the criteria of Acts 1 and used the term apostle in the more general sense to what Peter set as requirements for the replacement of Judas. Concerning James, Paul wrote, “…I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother.”[8] Although Paul call s James an apostle it is very unlikely that James met the conditions listed by Peter “(For not even his brothers believed in him.)[9] The twelve had a specific role in disseminating the gospel. “…the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables ….But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."[10] The term apostle cannot be interpreted at all times by the credentials listed in Acts 1. The word ἀπόστολος was a common term and was not subject to the limited interpretation based on Acts 1. The distinctiveness of the twelve governed the selection of a replacement for Judas, not the meaning of the term apostle.

For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'Let another take his position of overseer.'[11]

You are those who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[12]

The twelve were significant for more than their temporal commission. Peter suggested that there was purpose in “the twelve” by referring to the Psalms. It likely has to do with the function given them beyond this world. The group designated “The twelve” was significant, and while they were called apostles that term meant “one sent forth”. Junia or Julia was not one of the twelve, but she would have fit into the general term apostle. “When we come to the Didache, which probably lies beyond the boundary-line of New Testament history, we find the name “apostles” applied to a whole class of nameless missionaries…”[13] A cursory reading of Romans chapter sixteen will show that women played a vital role in early Christian activities, both in supporting teachers and teaching. “I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. … The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”[14]

Karen King in “Women in Ancient Christianity: The New Discoveries” draws heavily on the Nag Hammadi Library which includes a large number of Gnostic writings - texts such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Truth and many more. I do not believe that Gnostic writings accurately represent the common people of the first century. And, most definitely do not reflect a Christian view point. Christianity was born surrounded by Judaism, steeped in Judaism, and out of Judaism. Gnosticism was a perversion not to be connected with the truth of scripture. I do not believe that Gnosticism has anything to contribute to Christianity, and using the Nag Hammadi Library to support women’s role in Christianity contributes little to King’s position.

The extra-biblical sources of Epigraphical and Literary Studies provide corroboration of women in roles normally considered those performed by men.

In the early Christian churches, women were relegated to duties in lower positions than men. There is evidence which suggests that women in certain communities were permitted to serve as presbyters and some even served at the rank of bishop. While women were not able to offer service as teachers of the faith, they were valued as assistants to their husbands and their fathers. Many served as virgins, instructors, apostles, prophets, deaconesses or as widows. However during the second century, the roles of women came increasingly under the spotlight and their roles began to diminish. This was primarily due to the machinations of dominant theologians who disseminated the idea that since the female species was sinful and inferior to that of men, it should be subordinated to them. Tertullian was one such theologian who uttered vitriolic attacks against females. It was his misogynistic orotundity that „upset the applecart‟ concerning the role of women. He stigmatized women as the quintessence of evil and blamed them for the fall of the angels (Bitel, 2002). Tertullian was not without his detractors which included Clement of Alexandria who endorsed marriage for the clergy while also promoting the vigorous involvement of women in the early church (Wemple, 1981).[15]

Besides Romans 16:1, women are credited as being diakonoi in epigraphical evidence. A few examples will suffice for my purposes. The first evidence for this occurrence originates during the reign of Trajan (98-117 C.E.), as recounted by Pliny. Pliny documents that “in Bithynia under Trajan there were female deacons.”[4] In Epistuale 10.96.8, Pliny has two “maidservants” or “slaves” (ancillae) tortured “who were being called ministers” (quae ministrae dicebantur). The word minister (ministra) is synonymous with the Latin word diāconus, for a diāconus can be defined as a “minister of the church, a deacon.” Another piece of epigraphical evidence comes from Jerusalem (Mount of Olives); it dates from the latter half of the fourth century. What is fascinating about this writing, found on a stele, are the following words: Sophia, hē diakonos, hē deutera Phoibē In this inscription, clearly a woman (evident by the feminine definite article) is being coined with the masculine term diakonos. If the Didascalia of the Apostles is utilized as the earliest known date for women deaconesses, one could logically conclude that deaconesses came into existence in written accounts from the “first half of the third century.” What is more noteworthy is that women are still being designated as deacons (using masculine terms) even over approximately 150 years later.[16]

Central to this book are the epigraphical witnesses, because to this point they have been only marginally incorporated in research on women officeholders in the Church and they are urgently in need of investigation.' In order to ensure an epigraphically correct interpretation the majority of the inscriptions discussed will be given an extensive epigraphical documentation, with the result that this study has, in part, the character of an edition of inscriptions. They will be organized geographically and chronologically, and besides the epigraphical documentation they will be commented on in the context of the existing literary sources. This placement in the literary context is subordinate to the presentation and interpretation of the inscriptions because there have already been a number of studies of the literary sources for women as officeholders in the Church.[17]

It seems evident that that Paul’s instruction regarding women being silent in the assembly was based on cultural norms.

…the idea that ten males are required for this quorum is not found in ancient sources until at least 500 c.e. Before then, women could be counted as part of the “ten.” Even as late as the twelfth century c.e., authorities such as the Jewish scholar Rabbenu Tam acknowledged that women could be counted as part of the congregational quorum.

…In the Jerusalem Talmud the question is raised: “In a town in which all the residents are priests, when they spread their hands [in the synagogue] and give the priestly blessing, who responds ‘Amen’?” (The priests themselves are not permitted to give the response to their own blessing.) The answer is: “The women and children.”⁷ Although not the point of the discussion, this rabbinic ruling indicates that women were in attendance at the synagogue.

…The “Eighteen Benedictions” was the central prayer of the synagogue liturgy. Every Jew was obligated to pray this prayer daily. Rabban Gamaliel said: “One must say the ‘Eighteen’ every day.”¹⁰ There was no difference between men and women regarding this commandment. The Mishnah specifically states: “Women . . . are not exempt from saying the Prayer [i.e., the Eighteen Benedictions].”

…In Jesus’ time, women participated fully in the religious life of the community. This included participation in synagogue services and in the regular study sessions that were conducted in the synagogue’s bet midrash (house of study). There was no separation of the sexes in synagogues, and women could be counted as part of the required congregational quorum of ten adults. There was, however, one inequality. For social reasons, women were not allowed to read the Scriptures publicly.[18]

A number of sources from the first to seventh centuries c.e., and from Palestine as well as the Diaspora, indicate that women were regularly present in the synagogue during worship. Jesus encountered a woman while teaching in a Galilean synagogue, and Paul often met women when visiting Diaspora synagogues: ‘‘from there to Philippi, the first of the cities of the Macedonian province, and it is an independent city, and we dwelt in the city for a number of days. And on the Sabbath we went out of the city to the banks of the river, where there was a place of prayer [proseuche], as was their custom, and we sat there and we spoke to the women who were gathered there.’’ In Thessalonica and nearby Berea, the presence of women in synagogues is noted as well. Philo speaks of Therapeutae women and men who attended a ‘‘sacred place’’ (ἱερόν) on the Sabbath—in all probability a reference to their synagogue.11 The fact that pagan women in Damascus were especially attracted to Judaism, as noted by their husbands, seems to be an almost certain indication that they attended the synagogue regularly; otherwise, it would be hard to imagine how this attraction would have been effected, expressed, and maintained.

  Given the fact that women attended the synagogue regularly, the question arises as to where they sat. A generation or two ago, this would not have been an issue, as it was universally assumed that the tradition reaching the modern era via the Middle Ages, i.e., that there was a separate section for women in all synagogues, reflected accepted Jewish practice from time immemorial. That this, too, had been the case for antiquity is presumably borne out in Josephus’ War, which speaks of a strict division between the sexes in the Jerusalem Temple, noting that a special place for women to worship was walled off and had its own entrances.

   This consensus was shaken in 1964, when S. Safrai argued that men and women did not sit apart in the ancient synagogue, basing his claim on two factors. The first was the steady accumulation of archaeological evidence from both Palestine and the Diaspora dating from the first seven centuries of the Common Era. From the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire and throughout Roman-Byzantine Palestine, no traces were found of a separate area that might be labeled a women’s section; nor have any inscriptions noting such accommodations for women come to light. This absence is significant in light of the fact that many synagogue inscriptions do, in fact, name various parts of the synagogue. True enough, some excavation reports continue to identify one room or another as a place reserved for women, but these identifications are products of the excavators’ preconceptions and rest on no solid evidence whatsoever.[19]

If I had been asked about the first century synagogue a week ago I would have given information which in light of this evidence would have been wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that there were different practices between common house assemblies and general assemblies of the early Christian period. House gatherings would not have fallen under the same scrutiny as public assemblies. The larger public assemblies would have required more organization than house assemblies. The use of the word “church” has prejudiced our understanding of gatherings in early Christianity. Paul addressed his letter to the Romans to, “To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints…”[20] The ἐκκλησία is addressed as the body of believers within Rome and other cities, suggesting that all believers in a city were considered members of the body of Christ. Believers may have met in homes scattered around the city, or may have come together as a collective body. Following is a list of uses of the word ἐκκλησία…

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the ἐκκλησία at Cenchreae^[21]

Greet Prisca and Aquila …. Greet also the ἐκκλησία in their house[22]

To the ἐκκλησία of God that is in Corinth[23]

For this reason I sent you Timothy, … to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every ἐκκλησία.[24]

Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the ἐκκλησία of God,[25]

If, therefore, the whole ἐκκλησία comes together…[26]

For I am the least of the apostles, … because I persecuted the ἐκκλησία of God.[27]

Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters in Laodicea, and to Nympha and the ἐκκλησία in her house.[28]

to Apphia our sister, to Archippus … and to the ἐκκλησία in your house[29]

James, … To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion… Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the ἐκκλησία[30]

Your sister ἐκκλησία in Babylon,[31]

To the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Ephesus[32]

And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Smyrna[33]

And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Pergamum[34]

And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Thyatira[35]

And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Sardis[36]

And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Philadelphia[37]

And to the angel of the ἐκκλησία in Laodicea[38]

I left you behind in Crete … appoint elders in every town[39]

And after they had appointed elders … in each ἐκκλησία[40]

Eκκλησία has to be translated according to its meaning in the LXX. No one in ancient times would have attributed the term ἐκκλησία to an institution, everyone knew what the word stood for. In the Old Testament setting it was the kingdom of God.

I do not believe Christianity was ever intended to be institutionalized. The body of Christ was the inclusion of all believers, world-wide. From ancient times believers lived doing the best they could to reflect God’s love through Christ. Along with the acceptance of a single bishop presiding over groups, form overtook function and gatherings became ritualistic. No longer does Jesus walk dusty streets communicating with ordinary people, he is boxed in exclusive churches each with its own standards and doctrines. Isaiah’s prophecy concerning first century Judaism also fits the condition of “Christianity” today.

Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.' You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.[41]

The rules and regulations of organized churches are distinctively unique. If the attitude toward different churches was acceptance instead of rejection, there could be harmony. The problem was, and is, that each sect wants to be right and dominate the field of Christianity. Every church claims to be the right one, if not the only one. Unfortunately, since it’s impossible for all to be right, the chances are pretty high, that all are wrong.

In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.[42]

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;[43]

The mystery of the gospel was uniting Jews and Gentiles in Christ. The institutionalization of Christianity shattered the unity for which Christ died. Different forms and sundry doctrines are evidence of human tampering. Paul admonished believers to accept one another in Christ, even when there were differences of belief and practice.

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. …. If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?[44]

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.[45]

Churches are the reason there is division within the body of Christ. Churches have fought for dominance starting with the Roman Church under Constantine. Even today churches are big business and very competitive. The scripture teaches acceptance and harmony, but churches seek power. Most members do not care about the doctrinal intricacies which divide churches, their need is finding assurance and acceptance. Whether a man or woman gives the lesson is of less concern than the message. Paul’s admonition regarding judging what other people do should be taken into consideration today. Division is justified if it’s based on matters of faith, not just opinion, but that is nonsense. What could have been more a matter of faith for Jewish Christians than, Sabbath observation, and festivals? Division cannot be justified on any grounds.

The scripture represents the story of God; from creation to redemption. It seems like everyone thinks she or he can improve on what God has done.

And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.[46]

Evidently the scriptures have to be interpreted correctly, not conveniently. Paul spoke of unity in Jesus:

…for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.[47]

In Paul’s world the couplets he mentioned were diametrically opposed; Jew and Greek were separated by an enormous religious chasm. Slaves and free were stark political opposites. Male and female were culturally alienated. The phrase “you are all children of God,” emphasized that, all were the same, not, some were different. Culture and custom dictated physical boundaries not to be crossed. In recent decades much has been written critical of historians who had imposed contemporary interpretation on ancient events. In many cases modern conditions have been used in biblical interpretation. To avoid misinterpretation the cultural and sociological climate in which the scripture was written must be taken into account. The mystery of reconciliation in Christ brought opposites into harmony. The reconciliation of Jew and Greek, and, slave and free, is acceptable, but when it comes to women in Christianity, ancient cultural standards continue to enforce hierarchical distinction. Paul addressed the customs of Jewish Christians since they dominated much of what took place in the majority of assemblies. Christian Jews in the diaspora were not permitted to neglect the law. It was largely Jewish customs which were inadvertently being violated by new Christians, especially Gentile Christians. Within the same general discussion on decorum’ Paul wrote, “For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil.”[48] Paul reflected a Jewish point of view that was later contained in the Talmud.

In talmudic times, too, married women were enjoined to cover their hair in communal spaces (e.g., Ned. 30b; Num. R. 9:16). In a society so highly conscious of sexuality and its dangers, veiling was considered an absolute necessity to maintain modesty and chastity. If a woman walked bareheaded in the street, her husband could divorce her without repaying her dowry (Ket. 7:6).[49]

Currently we have no customs that are similar to this, nor do we live in a time when Jewish Christians are subject to the Law.

In the Corinthian letter Paul based his instruction to women on the Law. In Timothy Paul looked back to Eden for support of his instructions. “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve”[50] Paul may also have had in mind the sentiments expressed by Josephus,

The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed; for the authority has been given by God to the man.[51]

Paul’s reference to child bearing “…she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty,”[52] may well have been encouragement rather than pejorative. Although due to custom, women were required to be submissive and silent, in reality they held a special relationship with God in perpetuating the human race. What other features of modern worship are based on the Old Law? Early Christianity was steeped in Jewish culture, at the time Paul wrote his letters the “scriptures” were the Hebrew Scriptures; apart from a smattering of contemporary writings Christianity used the Hebrew Scriptures for teaching and learning. Maybe it’s time to rethink the role of women and men in God’s kingdom, from a purely Christian aspect, uncluttered by rules and customs of Judaism.

---

[1] Rom 16:7 

[2] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

[3] Women Officeholders in Early Christianity, Ute E. Eisen

[4] Act 1:21, 22

[5] Act 14:14 

[6] 1Co 15:, 9

[7] Rom 1:1 

[8] Gal 1:19

[9] Joh 7:5 

[10] Act 6:2, 4

[11] Act 1:20

[12] Luke 22:28-30

[13] ISBE

[14] Rom 16:17, 20 

[15] Assessing Tertullian on the Status of Women in the Third Century Church, Prof. Angelo Nicolaides

[16] https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=830

[17] Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies, by Ute E. Eisen p. 21

[18] The Place of Women in First-century Synagogues, http://www.cbeinternational.org

[19] WOMEN IN THE SYNAGOGUE, http://isites.harvard.edu

[20] Rom 1:7 

[21] Rom 16:1 

[22] Rom 16:3, 5

[23] 1Co 1:2 

[24] 1Co 4:17

[25] 1Co 10:32 

[26] 1Co 14:23 

[27] 1Co 15:9 

[28] Col 4:15 

[29] Phm 1:2 

[30] Jas 1:1, 5:14

[31] 1Pe 5:13 

[32] Rev 2:1

[33] Rev 2:8

[34] Rev 2:12

[35] Rev 2:18

[36] Rev 3:1

[37] Rev 3:7

[38] Rev 3:14

[39] Tit 1:5 

[40] Act 14:23 

[41] Mar 7:6-8

[42] Eph 3:5, 6

[43] Eph 2:19-21

[44] Col 2:16, 17; 2:20-22

[45] Rom 14:4-16

[46] Joh 5:37-40

[47] Gal 3:26-29

[48] 1Co 11:6 

[49] www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

[50] 1Ti 2:11-13

[51] Against Apion II, 24

[52] 1Ti 2:15  

Customs and Consideration

From the material I’ve been reading it seems that just about any theory on the role of women in assembly can be supported. Much of the material presented by men is protective of traditional restrictions on women in religion. Some information I found by women view the situation from the female point of view. A mixture of evidence is offered on the historical background.

Israel

Rabbinic literature was filled with contempt for women. The rabbis taught that women were not to be saluted, or spoken to in the street, and they were not to be instructed in the law or receive an inheritance. A woman walked six paces behind her husband and if she uncovered her hair in a public place she was considered a harlot. … In ancient Israel the Jewish culture was one of the most male dominant cultures in the whole world. In ancient Judaism the woman only had rights in the home and even that was very limited. The man had authority over his wife and daughters establishing their activities and their relationships. Women were passed from the control of her father to the control of her husband with little or no say in the matter. They were sold for a dowry settlement usually when they came of age. The Mishnah taught that a woman was like a gentile slave who could be obtained by intercourse, money or writ. (m. Qidd 1:1)^[1]

If rabbinic literature fails to speak directly of women's actual experience, it does offer glimpses, often tantalizing, sometimes frustrating, of how things may have been for the Jewish women of late antiquity who, voluntarily or otherwise, subjected themselves to rabbinic regulation. Chances are that most Jewish women's daily lives during the centuries of Mishnah and Talmud differed little from those of most women in surrounding patriarchal cultures. It seems certain that Jewish women in Talmudic society, legally confined to a world of domesticity and of private commercial transactions, were largely excluded from the stimulating world of ideas available (at least in principle) to the male inheritors and transmitters of the Jewish intellectual past.^[2]

The Roman world

The pater familias, also written as paterfamilias (plural patres familias), was the head of a Roman family. The pater familias was the oldest living male in a household. He had complete control of all family members. The term is Latin for "father of the family" or the "owner of the family estate". The form is archaic in Latin, preserving the old genitive ending in -ās (see Latin declension), whereas in classical Latin the normal genitive ending was -ae. The pater familias was always a Roman citizen. …. Roman law and tradition (mos maiorum) established the power of the pater familias within the community of his own extended familia. He held legal privilege over the property of the familia, and varying levels of authority over his dependents: these included his wife and children, certain other relatives through blood or adoption, clients, freedmen and slaves. The same mos maiorum moderated his authority and determined his responsibilities to his own familia and to the broader community. He had a duty to father and raise healthy children as future citizens of Rome, to maintain the moral propriety and well-being of his household, to honour his clan and ancestral gods and to dutifully participate—and if possible, serve—in Rome's political, religious and social life. In effect, the pater familias was expected to be a good citizen. In theory at least, he held powers of life and death over every member of his extended familia through ancient right but in practice, the extreme form of this right was seldom exercised. It was eventually limited by law. …. The Roman household was conceived of as an economic and juridical unit or estate: familia originally meant the group of the famuli (the servi or serfs and the slaves of a rural estate) living under the same roof. That meaning later expanded to indicate the familia as the basic Roman social unit, which might include the domus (house or home) but was legally distinct from it: a familia might own one or several homes. All members and properties of a familia were subject to the authority of a pater familias: his legal, social and religious position defined familia as a microcosm of the Roman state. In Roman law, the potestas of the pater familias was official but distinct from that of magistrates.^[3]

                  

According to Roman law women were under the complete control of the pater familias, the male head of the extended family unit. This power extended to life and death. A death penalty could be imposed upon a woman for adultery or drinking alcohol. The pater familias arranged marriages and appointed guardians for the women of his family. A woman could not legally transact business, make a contract or a will, or manumit a slave without the approval of her guardian. However, a woman might request a new guardian or a reversal of a decision by a guardian by submitting her case to a magistrate. By the time of Augustus a free woman was exempt from the control of a guardian after she had borne three children; a freed woman after the birth of four.(65) The law of guardians was not rigidly enforced and women frequently did transact business independently of them.^[4]

In Ephesus in the first century Flavia Ammon functioned as "high priestess of the temple of Asia . . . president, twice stephanephorus . . . president of the games.” In another city in the first century Lalla, wife of Ditomus, served as "priestess of the Emperor's cult." In another place, Tata was offered "first-rank honors" as "priestess of the imperial cult a second time" and as "priestess of Hera for life, mother of the city," who "offered sacrifice throughout the year." In Athens in the second century, a woman whose name had to remain secret was by the Athenians made "sacred priestess of Demeter" and as such initiated no less a person than Emperor Hadrian into the mysteries of her goddess!^[5] 

Jewish, Roman and Greek societies were male dominated. Jewish male domination bordered on misogyny. There are situations in which women held considerable power. From scripture we read, “But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city...”^[6] “Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.”^[7] “A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God…”^[8] In post-exilic Judaism women did not have a role in temple worship, however In the Greco-Roman world there were times that women were priests.

Paul expected Gentile women to conform to Jewish culture in assembly. We see the need for Gentile sensitivity first in the letter sent from Jerusalem, “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.”^[9] As well as prohibitions by law, those practices were particularly abhorrent to Jews. Paul spent a year and a half teaching in Corinth, he knew the city, the society, and many of the Christians. Paul’s teaching was not in a vacuum. Paul’s instructions to believers in Corinth were given within the socio-religious context of that time.

From antiquity, the Orthodox Church, and the Roman Church allowed only men into the hierarchy of their institutions. Christian groups in the west adopted the tradition of restricting women from roles in leadership from the Catholic Church. There are very few Christian groups that have undertaken a thorough exegesis of scripture prior to arriving at their beliefs,   “…many exegetes … come to conclusions that perfectly conform to their preexisting creedal convictions…”^[10]  I believe that it is vitally important to consider the socio-religious conditions facing recipients of letters. The book, “Evangelical Feminism & Biblical truth” written by Wayne Grudem, consists of a long list of positions held egalitarians which the author sets out to refute. Grudem denounces “egalitarians” for rejecting God’s word, because, the positions they stand by, differ to his. The book was published in 2004, but reflects the style and rancor of the fifties.

Paul’s writing adjusted for clarity;

Let all things be done for building up …. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in assembly and speak to themselves and to God. …. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace-as in all the churches of the saints. (Inset) Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized.  So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; …. but all things should be done decently and in order.

Inset…

(Women should be silent in the assemblies. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.)^[11]

I came across this passage from a book by Lucy Peppatt;

…we have a number of choices when faced with Paul's passages on women. Furthermore, the choices that we have already made regarding the Bible, Paul, and how the biblical voices speak to men and women will color the way we read. There is no escaping this. It may be that you, the reader of Paul, are already convinced that he (a) is committed to patriarchy, (b) is a hopeless and offensive misogynist, (c) holds different views in tension, (d) is confused and oscillates in his thinking, or (e) ruled on certain practices regarding women that were only appropriate to his day and therefore not binding upon us today. This book explores a sixth perspective. that Paul understood that women enjoy a new status in Christ that liberates them, both in terms of their identity in relation to Christ and also in relation to men, and that an appreciation of this new identity led to him implementing practices in the church that allowed women to participate equally in all forms of ministry and service. Not only this, but that Paul believed these views should be reflected within the entire body of Christ.^[12]

I lean toward, “(e) ruled on certain practices regarding women that were only appropriate to his day and therefore not binding upon us today.” That is my inclination, but I am not entirely ruling out the author’s sixth perspective. We need more background information to understand the meaning of the letter. The contextual setting of Paul’s prohibitions goes back to the letter’s introductory remarks. Interestingly it was a women, Chloe, who told Paul of troubles facing the Corinthian group. The discussion of a women’s role in assembly cannot be dislocated from the theme of Paul’s letter. A women’s role was not a standalone issue, it was one of a number of issues addressed by Paul. The theme was introduced at the start of the letter, “that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”^[13] This theme of unity in Christ permeates the entire letter.

Paul’s comment on women is set within two parenthetical statements; “Let all things be done for building up…” and, “all things should be done decently and in order.” Instruction regarding women is one of a number of items concerning decorum in assembly. As I look at the final section on behaviour and attitude in assembly I believe the discussion on women was one component of three in a paragraph. “(Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.)” The problem of women speaking in assembly may have been one of the issues relayed to Paul in Chloe’s communication. Since we don’t know the all of the circumstances, or even all of what Chloe told Paul, it is impossible to fully comprehend his instructions. Women speaking in assembly was a concern, as much as talking in tongues and prophesying. It was problematic in the same way as showing off one’s spiritual superiority by talking in tongues, or pandemonium caused by multiple prophets talking at the same time.

Paul refers to the law twice within this particular pericope; “In the law it is written,”^[14] “women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.”^[15] Most commentators suggest the connection with the law is God’s promise to Eve, “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”^[16] I believe it’s quite a stretch to connect Genesis with Paul’s instruction regarding women. I see a much closer tie between what Paul is saying and the extant rabbinical law, which was based on Moses’ laws, at the time of his writing.

The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed; for the authority has been given by God to the man.^[17]

Paul called upon the law to authorize his instruction to Christians in Corinth. The composition of converts in Corinth would have been Jews and Greeks many of whom had been associated with the synagogue.

Since the law was the authoritative source for Paul’s injunction, it seems to me that with the passing of the law the authority for the injunction passed as well. The edict from Jerusalem limited the law’s impact on Gentiles, but at the same time maintained its authority over Jewish Christians.

…we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.^[18]

Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.^[19]

While some aspects of Peppatt’s sixth dimension could be in play, it unlikely that Paul would have introduced a new concept into the existing cultural climate. Paul’s concern in writing to Corinth was, unity among believers, and that would not be served by going against convention. As long as the temple remained, Judaism was a factor to be worked around in presenting Jesus as Saviour. Paul followed the advice of James and the elders in Jerusalem to demonstrate that he was following the law. The destruction of the temple put an end to sacrifices and the Jewish age. The destruction of the temple and events closely following, proved to be the emancipation of Christianity –the dawning of a new era.

In connection with Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians I believe it’s prudent to review similar instruction he gave to Timothy.

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.^[20]

Some influences on this passage as well as that found in 1Corithians 14 come from Jewish antiquity.

Jewish women were not only to be seen as little as possible; they were also to be heard and spoken to as little as possible. A general prohibition against superfluous talk with any women was stated clearly a hundred years before the Common Era, and was repeated, specified, and extended subsequently. The Mishnah recorded that, “Jose b. Johanan (150 B.C. E.) said ... talk not much with womankind.” Following tannaitic rabbis developed the text rather dramatically: “This they said of a man’s own wife: how much more of his fellow’s wife! Hence the Sages have said: He that talks much with womankind brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will inherit Gehenna.” The opposition between women and the study of Torah existed not only in the sense that women did not study Torah, as discussed above,67 but also in the sense that women distracted men from the study of Torah ….

  It can be concluded that in ancient Palestinian Judaism men were normally not to speak with women, especially in public (not even one’s own wife or relatives, let alone other women); in private, conversation with one’s wife or female relatives was to be kept to a minimum concerning necessary items, although to “procure the wife’s (sexual) favor” this prohibition was relaxed. In this regard women seem to have been seen solely as serving and sexual beings.^[21]

In the Hebrew Bible, the imperative placed on ancient Israelite women to bear children, along with the challenges this imperative imposes, are illustrated most vividly in six different stories about barren women. The first was noted above: the story of Sarah, the wife of Abraham (Gen. 16:1–6, 18:1–15, 21:1–7). The others are the stories of Rebecca, wife of Isaac (Gen. 25:19–25); Rachel, wife of Jacob (Gen. 30:1–8, 22–24); the unnamed wife of Manoah (Judg. 13:1–24); Hannah, wife of Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:1–28); and the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:8–17). Within these stories, the theme of the barren woman’s desperation repeatedly manifests itself…^[22]

The influence of Jewish tradition and culture becomes evident looking behind the scene of Paul’s writing to Timothy. It is impossible to interpret the objection to women teaching without looking at the backdrop of socio-religious influence. As in Corinth, the congregations in Ephesus were made up of Jews and Gentiles. Writing to believers in Ephesus Paul said,

“For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,”^[23]

That peace would not come without patience and understanding. Gentiles were not governed by the law as were Jews. The only way for peace within an ethnically divided group was for Gentiles to avoid practices that for centuries had been objectionable to Jews. The ancient roles of men and women in Israel were prominent in Paul’s injunction. “…in every place the men should pray …. women should dress themselves modestly…” Men were given a spiritual responsibility, and women were told how to dress. We don’t know if Paul’s background and Pharisaic training influenced his writing. But, it was the correct advice for the time in which it was given.

No discussion of women’s roles would be complete without considering Jesus’ attitude toward them. Jesus treated women respectfully and with care. There were a number of women that accompanied Jesus and his disciples through his ministry. Women supported Jesus and his disciples. Women were present while Jesus was teaching; women in rabbinical law were not to be taught the Torah. A woman anointed him, a woman’s faith impressed him, a woman was first to witness his resurrection; in rabbinical law a women could not testify.

Had the apostles ignored the customs of the day, the backlash would have been tremendous. The gospel message would have been confused with social change and its primary focus obscured. Paul spoke of his approach;

For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.^[24]

In the period between Jesus’ coming into the world and the destruction of the temple, Jewish law was a dominant influence on godly behaviour. Gentile believers were required to be patient with Jewish Christians because of their responsibilities under the law. Christianity does not have a social cause, it reflects the love of Jesus. Spiritual freedom is not governed by past customs, even while it seeks expression through the lives of believers. Current social mores as long as they do not conflict with the way of Christ should not be ignored; we must have the same attitude as Paul and try to “become all things to all people.”

---

[1] http://www.bible-history.com

[2] The Image and Status of Women in Classical Rabbinic Judaism, Judith Romney Wegner, p. 88

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

[4] The Status of Women in Greek, Roman and Jewish Society, by Elisabeth M Tetlow

[5] WOMEN IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD, by C. Mervyn Maxwell p.8

[6] Act 13:50 

[7] Act 17:12 

[8] Act 16:14 

[9] Act 15:29 

[10] Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously, p110

[11] 1Co 14:26-40

[12] Women and Worship at Corinth, Lucy Peppatt, p.19

[13] 1Cor 1:10

[14] 1Co 14:21 

[15] 1Co 14:34 

[16] Gen 3:16

[17] Josephus, Against Apion, Book II, 201

[18] Act 15:19-21

[19] Act 21:24, 25

[20] 1Ti 2:8-15

[21] Women in Judaism, by Leonard Swidler

[22] http://religion.oxfordre.com

[23] Eph 2:14, 15

[24] 1Co 9:19-22