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.”
[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
[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
[16]
Gen 3:16
[17]
Josephus, Against Apion, Book II, 201
[21]
Women in Judaism, by Leonard Swidler
[22]
http://religion.oxfordre.com
No comments:
Post a Comment