Daily Radio Program
by Ronald L. Dart
Jesus and Women
| "Born to Win" Daily Radio Program by Ronald L. Dart |
|
|---|---|
|
Click here to listen to: |
RealAudio
|
Ronald L. Dart: As Leonard Swidler aptly points out, "The first thing to be noticed about Jesus and women is that in all of the four gospels, nowhere does Jesus treat women as inferior" (Biblical Affirmations of Woman, page 163). From our comfortable 20th century vantage point, it may seem unremarkable that Jesus should at no time in His ministry express negative attitudes toward women. It is, however, quite remarkable viewed in the light of first century attitudes toward women. Rabbi Eliezer of that century is quoted as saying, "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman!" The historian Josephus states, "The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man." Jewish men of the day, following the Greek tradition, prayed daily in thanks to God that He had not made them woman. Jewish men would not be seen talking to a woman in public - not even their wives! Under no circumstances should a woman touch a man in public.
Into this world comes a man with a totally different attitude toward women.
Perhaps the most important thing in Jesus' gospel is that He preached a personal salvation - and this personalism extended to women. This was revealed, almost inadvertently, in a chance encounter with the Sadducees, who believed there is no resurrection from the dead. The object of the encounter was to trap Him with one of their favorite questions.
They were fond of asking the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection, a question deriving from the Mosaic law which provided that if a man's brother died with his wife having had no children, then his brother should take his wife and raise up seed to his brother. The law in question comes from Deuteronomy 25:5.
The Sadducees then posed this question based upon the law:
There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife [Luke 20:27-33].
Their question is almost as revealing as Christ's answer. Clearly they understood woman as belonging to man even in the Kingdom of God!
Jesus' answer is of vital importance:
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection [Luke 20:34-36].
According to Jesus, women are equally the children of God with men in the resurrection. Men and women are equal as objects of salvation.
The Sadducees' question about who the woman would belong to was rejected as containing a false assumption. Jesus did not see a woman's existence as totally defined by her relationships to a man - in other words as someone's daughter, wife, mother, widow or harlot. Jesus saw women first of all as individuals with personal access to God and His Kingdom.
The Dignity of Woman
In the gospel account, we frequently find Jesus using women in His stories and parables, but there is a remarkable omission from these stories. In His parables, Jesus never casts negative images of women. He speaks of unjust judges, harsh and cruel masters, wicked and slothful servants, but every image of women is positive. In one of His parables - the parable of the unjust judge - He casts a poor widow against an unjust male judge and commends the widow as an example of persistence in prayer.
It is no accident that Jesus is careful to maintain the dignity of women. He lived in an age when few would. He did not share the attitudes of His predecessors or His contemporaries and it was important that He made a statement about His attitude toward women.
No wonder He had such a strong and loyal following among women! It might be worthy noting the remarks of a modern Jewish scholar who comments on Jesus' teachings on divorce!
In these verses the originality of Jesus is made manifest. So far, in the sermon on the mount, we have found nothing that goes beyond Rabbinic religion and Rabbinic morality, or which greatly differs from them. Here we do. The attitude of Jesus toward women is very striking. He breaks through oriental limitations in more directions than one. For (1) He associates with, and is much looked after by, women in a manner that was unusual; (2) He is more strict about divorce; (3) He is also more merciful and compassionate. He is a great champion of womanhood, and in this combination of freedom and pity, as well as in His strict attitude to divorce, He makes a new departure of enormous significance and importance. If He had done no more than this, He might be justly regarded as one of the greatest teachers of the world [Claude G. Montfiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teaching, pages 217 f.; London, 1930].
The Sinful Woman
On the occasions where Jesus did come into contact with a woman who was a sinner, His attitude was one of total forgiveness. There are two exceptional incidents in Jesus' ministry, and they provide perhaps the greatest encouragement Christ gave to penitent sinners.
A profoundly moving incident took place at the home of a Pharisee who had invited Jesus to dinner. When Jesus was reclining at the table in the Pharisee's home, a woman of the city with a bad reputation - she was "a sinner" - knelt behind Him weeping and began to wash His feet with tears, to wipe them with the hairs of her head, and to kiss His feet and anoint them with ointment. The incident is all the more remarkable when we understand that in that society a man did not publicly speak to his own wife, let alone to a strange woman and especially to a known "sinner." It was unheard of for a Jew - especially a Rabbi - to be seen speaking with such a woman, but Jesus not only spoke with her but let her touch Him and kiss Him. It was a scandalous thing for a woman to let her hair down in public - so scandalous, in fact, that it was grounds for divorce. This woman uncovered her hair, loosed it, and wiped Jesus' feet with it. Jesus was deeply moved. The Pharisee was thoroughly offended.
Jesus contrasted the woman's attitude with that of the Pharisee and continued: "Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little" (Luke 7:47).
More than one Christian has knelt before his God in tears of gratitude to realize that, no matter how wretched we become, utter and complete forgiveness is possible from Christ. We know thanks to a "fallen woman" who broken-heartedly washed Jesus' feet with tears of sorrow.
It is strange, isn't it, that even when Jesus encounters a woman who is a sinner He manages to use her as an example of love.
On another occasion Jesus was presented with a woman who was a sinner in a totally different context. This time Jesus was sitting in the Temple early in the morning and the Pharisees brought to Him a woman who had been taken in the act of adultery. Their purpose was to put Him on the horns of a dilemma. He was, of course, a respected teacher of the law, but on the other hand they were living in a Roman society. If He said that the woman should not be stoned, then He was rejecting the law of Moses. If He said they should go ahead and stone the woman, he was in conflict with Roman law.
But it may be that a much deeper factor was involved here. By this time in His ministry, Jesus was already known as a champion of women. His behavior was in much too great a contrast to the society around Him. They were also presenting Him with the dilemma of retaining His reputation as a rabbi and teacher of the law or retaining His reputation as a champion of women. They felt He could not do both.
The Scribes and the Pharisees preferred to deal with such situations impersonally, and concerned themselves solely with the legalities involved in dealing with the situation in the abstract. Jesus side-stepped all the legalisms and abstractions, and dealt directly with the persons involved. He said: "He [the person] that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her [the person accused]" (John 8:7).
No one in the crowd, then, could deal with this as a pure abstraction. They had to look at themselves as persons, and perhaps for the first time in their lives look at a woman as a person.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst [John 8:9].
The visual image is powerful. We see Jesus, seated and writing on the ground [perhaps play-acting the role of a judge (as they had asked him to do), writing down the judicial sentence against all of them]. We see a woman standing a few paces in front of Him, silent, alone.
When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more [verses 10, 11].
In these instances, Jesus chose to illustrate an uncondemning attitude to the most desperate of sinners in His society. For it was bad enough to be a woman in Jewish society of the first century. It was much worse to be a woman condemned.
There are more examples that could be drawn, but these will suffice to show that Jesus was indeed a champion of women. Among those He came to set free - the blind, the halt, the oppressed - how could He neglect one of the most oppressed classes of his day - the woman?
The Missing Apostle
As His ministry progressed, Jesus made many disciples, men and women. The time came when it was necessary for Him to choose 12 of these disciples for a special responsibility. They were to be named apostles - there were to be 12 of them as apostles (official witnesses) of His resurrection.
Before making this decision, Jesus went out into a mountain to pray and continued all night in prayer to God. The next day He called His disciples together and of them He chose 12 whom He named apostles. He chose Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon Zelotes, Judas and Judas Iscariot (Luke 6:12-16).
Is there anything unusual about this list? Viewed in the light of first century social customs, it is certainly unremarkable. But viewed in the light of Jesus' record and His credentials as a champion of women, it is remarkable indeed. He appointed no woman to this responsibility.
This decision was no oversight. Jesus had spent the entire night in prayer before the decision was made. It was a prayerful, reasoned decision. Nor was it an accommodation to a prejudiced society. That would have been totally out of character for this unconventional man.
Later, when the replacement for Judas was selected, two men, Joseph and Matthias, were put forward for selection. It was apparently not within the plan of Jesus Christ that a woman be named among the 12 apostles.
Still later, when the next step in the development of the ministry takes place, we have a situation where a woman might well have been named.
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration [Acts 6:1].
(The word "ministration" is the Greek diakonia, the word from which we get the word "deacon." in its various forms, it is most often translated "minister," "ministry," or "to minister.")
The twelve apostles called an assembly of the disciples and reasoned that it was not sensible for them to leave the preaching of the Word of God in order to take care of the ministry of the more physical needs of the church. This appears to be the beginning of the pastoral ministry.
They then called upon the brethren to select "seven men" whom they might appoint over this matter. So they chose Steven, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas - all men.
Why? We might be tempted to argue that the apostles were engaging in male chauvinism when they selected these seven ministers, but we can't argue that about Jesus' selection of the original twelve.
What then? Were women not to be involved in the work of the church? Hardly. The book of Acts and the epistles are replete with illustrations of women very active in the work of the church.
In the 16th chapter of Romans, Paul mentions a number of women who were active in the work, naming Phebe as a deaconess. "I commend unto you Phebe, our sister, which is a deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Romans 16:1). The word translated servant in the King James Version is the Greek word for deacon - translated minister in most applications in the New Testament. Doubtless Phebe was a servant of the church at Cenchrea, and the indication is that she was an official servant, not just one who helped out. This is particularly evident in verse 2 where Paul admonishes the Romans to receive her "in the Lord" and to give her whatever assistance she needs, saying, "For she hath been a succourer [Greek: prostatis] of many, and of myself also" (Romans 16:2).
It is curious that most translations sidestep the meaning of the Greek word prostatis. The Revised Standard Version translates it "helper" and the New English Bible, normally very, accurate, makes a complete departure, translating it as "good friend." The word is used only once in the New Testament, but its meaning is well known from classical Greek. It means, properly, a woman set over others. A prostatis is a female guardian, or protector. It is derived from the Greek verb which means "to be over, to superintend, or preside over." It includes the meaning of "to care for, or give attention to," in the sense of one who is responsible. Clearly Phebe was a highly responsible woman in the church.
[ABCOG: Early "church father" Origen wrote: "This text teaches with the authority of the Apostle that ... there are, as we have said already said, women deacons in the Church, and that women, who have given assistance to so many people and who by thier good works deserve to be praised by the Apostel, ought to be accepted in the diaconate."]
Immediately following, Paul sends greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, his "co-workers" in Christ Jesus. The word "helpers" in the King James Version is incorrect because the Greek word includes a prefix which shows that they are helpers together with Paul - co-workers. It is very evident that Priscilla was active as well as her husband. In fact, we find them mentioned in the book of Acts carrying out a singularly important role in educating a powerful preacher - Apollos. It was not just Aquila who expounded the way of God more perfectly to Apollos, but Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:26). It was Priscilla and Aquila who together risked their lives for the sake of Paul (Romans 16:4).
Paul was at great pains to salute and honor those women in Rome who had labored "in the Lord." Two of these are Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:12). He also salutes another woman, Persis, who "much labored" (worked especially hard) in the Lord (verse 12). Mary also is commended for her hard work for Paul and the others (Romans 16:6).
In writing to the Philippians, Paul mentions two other women, Euodias and Syntyche, who worked with him, and exhorts the Philippians to "help those women which labored with me in the gospel" (Philippians 4:2, 3).
The Personal Ministry
When we consider Jesus' attitude toward women set in such powerful contrast to the prevailing attitudes of His day, and when we see the deep involvement of women in the work of the early church, we are still left with the important question of why Jesus did not include a woman among the original 12 apostles and why no woman was named in the ordinations of Acts 6.
There seems to be a distinction in the New Testament between levels of the ministry. On the one hand, we have the public ministry of the apostles and men like Stephen, Philip and Apollos. On the other hand there seems to be a personal ministry of men like Aquila, women like Euodias, Syntyche, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis. While it seems to be pleasing to God for women to be involved in a personal ministry, it was apparently not Jesus' intent that women become involved in a public ministry. We will find this borne out by Paul's teachings in his later epistles.
I Corinthians 14
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church [I Corinthians 14:34, 35].
[ABCOG: Laurence Iannaccone (1982) suggests that Paul is here quoting his opponents in Corinth, which he then immediately refutes, by saying "forbid not ...]
Adam Clark correctly points out in his commentary on this book that the early church had up until this time followed the tradition of the Jewish synagogue service. It was a Jewish ordinance that women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies or even to ask questions. Does this passage of Scripture, then, mean that it's not permitted for a woman to receive a message or inspiration from God and then convey that message to others?
Adam Clark points out that Paul is not being at all inconsistent:
It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue, this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian church; he orders them to keep silence; and if they wish to learn anything, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men, in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, etc. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in Chapter 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, etc., in the Christian church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, etc., of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God [Adam Clark, Clark's Commentary, Volume 6, I Corinthians 14:34].
As we have before observed, the church had up until this time continued to observe the Jewish tradition of the synagogue. This chapter represents one of the first instructions to the New Testament church modifying that tradition. Apparently the Corinthians church degenerated into a certain amount of confusion to which the synagogue had generally not been subjected. It arose because of the gifts of prophecy and the gifts of tongues that existed in the church. Since God was not the author of confusion (verse 33), Paul felt that a certain amount of order had to be introduced into the services. Consequently, he makes a modest change in the traditions of the church.
But why is it that Christian churches today do not follow the pattern of services revealed in I Corinthians 14? The answer is relatively simple. These instructions represent a modification of church tradition - something that Paul had the full authority to do. The combined ministry of the 20th century church has the same authority - they may modify tradition as necessary to meet changing times and circumstances. There is ample evidence in the New Testament that church tradition, while binding upon a Christian (Matthew 16:19) could be changed in ways that the law of God could not. I Corinthians 11:17-34 is a case in point. It is obvious that the traditional Passover service had included a meal prior to this epistle. Paul changes all that, and the change endures to this day.
We in the 20th century church draw inferences from apostolic tradition and do our best to adhere to it. We do not, however, feel bound to it in all of its parts. For example, we do not strictly adhere to the structure of the ministry described in I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 [ABCOG:???]; we follow an entirely different order of service in church; we allow women to sing in church; and we are generally not hesitant to allow women to ask questions in a Bible study.
Most Christian churches, however, still observe the distinction between the public and personal ministry, and, while encouraging women to become involved in a personal ministry, many still do not place women in the public ministry.
Carefully restudying Paul's remarks in I Corinthians 14, we can easily come to the conclusion that Paul was not attempting to "put down" the "weaker" sex. That would be a blatant contradiction of what he wrote in Galatians 3:28. Rather he is indicating that it is "indecorous" - it is beneath the woman - for her to engage in a verbal rough and tumble in church. It is a matter of retaining our respect for women rather than getting involved in an argument with them. Hopefully someone soon concluded that it was also indecorous for men to engage in such conduct.
Although Paul is not putting women down in this text, he nevertheless seems to support the suggestion that women should not be involved in a public ministry. But why? The answer is not easily seen, but perhaps we can lay some groundwork which will help us understand.
[ABCOG: problem of unavailability of men??]
The Christian Family
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing [Ephesians 5:22-24].
What a shattering admonition! Preached in stentorian tones, and with the emphasis placed just so, this scripture could be made to sound like Paul has reverted completely to the Jewish and Greek customs and has gone back from the attitude and teachings of Christ. This interpretation stands as a monument to the human proclivity for seeing what we want to see or expect to see. Like any other scripture, this passage must be viewed in its context.
This passage and the verses following are given in illustration of the admonition of verse 21:
Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
For those of us who are used to traditional patterns of dominance-submission, one of the most difficult concepts to fathom is the New Testament concept of mutual submission. Paul is speaking primarily concerning Christ and the church in this passage (verse 32), but his illustration involves marriage and the family. Having exhorted us to submit ourselves to one another in the fear of God, he explains what kind of submission he's talking about. First, wives are admonished to submit themselves to their own husbands. Then the husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church. The wife is exhorted to submit herself to the leadership of her husband, and the husband is exhorted to submit himself to the needs and desires of his wife and family.
This is not describing the sort of family where the woman has to flee the home with her children and go to a crisis center where she can be protected from her brutal husband. This is describing an ideal Christian family.
There is an important qualification in Paul's designation of the husband as the head of the family: "For the husband is the head of the woman, even as Christ is the head of the church."
Just what sort of relationship is this?
On the night of the Last Supper, when Jesus knew that He was to die the next day, and knowing that the Father had given everything into His hands and that He was come from God and going to God:
He riseth from supper, and laid aside His garments; and took a towel, and girded Himself After that He poured water into a bason and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded [John 13:1-5].
At least some of the disciples were utterly shocked by what Jesus was doing. They thought of Him in terms of being their Lord and Master, not their servant. Peter even attempted to protest, but Jesus explained:
Know ye what I have done to you? You call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If you know these things, happy are you if you do them [John 13:12-17].
If we are to conclude that the woman is to submit herself to her husband as unto the Lord, then we must also conclude that the husband must be prepared to "wash his wife's feet." After all, the servant is not greater than his Lord.
Unfortunately, we, like the disciples, may have a distorted idea of what Christian leadership is supposed to be. The mother of two of Jesus' disciples came to Him asking that her two sons might sit, one on His right hand and the other on His left, in the Kingdom of God. She was asking for what she perceived to be the most powerful positions at that time. Jesus called everyone together in order to immediately straighten out their attitude in this matter. He explained:
Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many [Matthew 20:25-28].
So when Jesus spoke of man being the head of the wife, He was not speaking in the Gentile terms of "dominance-submission," but in His own terms of leadership through service.
Returning to Ephesians 5, we do not find the apostle Paul advocating a male-dominated marriage of the Gentile sort. Rather he is describing the ideal Christian marriage with both husband and wife fulfilling their roles. No man can demand that his wife be "subject to him in everything" unless he is prepared to submit his own desires and needs to the welfare of his family.
Remember this is a description of a relationship and the description includes: "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it."
No matter how willing or desirous one party in a marriage may be, it would be utterly impossible for one side of this equation to exist alone. It is impossible for a wife to perfectly submit herself to a husband "as unto the Lord" when her husband is not loving her as Christ loved the church. A married couple may strive for and eventually grow into a semblance of this relationship, but neither has the right to demand it over the other when they have not even begun to fulfill their own responsibility.
Paul goes on to exhort, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man yet ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church ... This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she respect her husband" (verses 28-33).
The whole passage is a description of a beautiful relationship - an ideal relationship which few couples have ever attained. But in a glimpse of what we wish our marriages to be, we can see the relationship that Christ wishes between Himself and the church.
In any kind of human group relationships, in marriage or out of marriage, patterns of leadership will develop. It is, of course, obvious that Paul supports the concept of male leadership in marriage, but it is a leadership among equals with differing responsibilities.
There is no conflict with this teaching in the book of Genesis. The pattern is set forth there as well. Indeed, the pattern of male leadership is set forth in the design of a man and woman. What Paul is doing is emphasizing the need for mutual submission in marriage and in the church.
Even in the context of society, Paul's admonition for husbands to "love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it," must have been astonishing to his readers. Husbands were exhorted to "love their wives as their own bodies" (verse 28). The leadership in the family of a man who submits himself to loving his wife and his children as Christ loved the church, who loves his family like his own body, should pose no problem of mutual submission on the part of his wife.
I Peter 3:7
Peter approaches the subject from a slightly different perspective. He is concerned about the woman who has an unconverted husband:
Likewise ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they may also without the word be won by the conduct of the wives [I Peter 3:11.
Even though the husband is unconverted, the pattern of leadership in the home need not be disrupted.
Peter goes on to present the same argument Paul did regarding outward adornment: "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel" (I Peter 3:3). Bear in mind that Peter is not advocating straight hair and nudity. Like Paul, he is contrasting the adornment of the heart - the development of character - with the undue attention some give to outward adorning. He goes on to say, "But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price" (verse 4).
All this probably sounds great to a man who is inclined to lord it over his family, but the exhortation does not stop there. Peter continues to espouse the same principle of mutual submission that Paul advanced:
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered [verse 7].
What does Peter mean when he says that the woman is the "weaker vessel"? There is no indication in either the Bible or our own experience to lead us to believe that the woman is weaker in moral character. And it would be folly to conclude that the woman is weaker in regard to physical or mental courage. How, then?
The context would lead us to believe that he is talking about physical weakness - for we know that men are, by and larger, stronger than women.
Peter's choice of words should make it clear what he is talking about. The word "honor" is derived from a Greek word which means respect, value, consideration. We do not respect people for being morally weak. Peter is telling us that a man should use his head - he should dwell with his wife according to knowledge - and should be considerate of any weaknesses his wife might experience. He should respect her, and he should help her.
Peter is simply acknowledging something that we all know. Women are not as large, as strong, or as fast as men. Consequently, we are to respect our wives and take care of them. It's done in simple ways. We don't leave our wives to grapple with a heavy door of a car and a baby at the same time. We open it for her. If it is going to be awkward for her to seat herself at a table, we hold her chair for her. For generations, men have risen when a woman entered a room - a gesture of respect to "the weaker sex."
But Peter gives not one but two reasons why we should respect our wives. The Greek says that a man should give honor unto the female, (1) as unto the weaker vessel and (2) as being joint heirs of the grace of life.
What does Peter mean by the expression "heirs together" or "joint hers"? The word in the Greek means simply "a fellow heir, a joint heir, one who obtains something assigned to himself with others." In what sense is woman a joint heir with man?
Some have suggested this is meant in the sense of dependency. In other words, the wife's inheritance of the grace of life was in some way dependent upon the actions of her husband, her submission to him, etc. Some have even gone so far as to say that a man might not make it into the Kingdom of God if his wife doesn't (and vice versa). Others have thought that perhaps their wives could act as their "assistants" for all eternity - thereby keeping their wives "under" them throughout the ages.
Interestingly enough, we have already seen Jesus' answer about this question. We aren't left in any doubt at all. When the Sadducees asked Him about the woman who had been married to seven successive brothers, they wanted to know whose wife she would be in the resurrection. Jesus made it clear that they are all - men and women - the children of God.
It would appear, then, that what Peter is saying is that men and women are "joint heirs" not in a sense of dependency, but in the sense of being heirs of the same thing. It would more accurately be translated into English "and as being heirs equally of the grace of life."
This meaning is borne out when we look at other places in the New Testament where the same expression is used. In the New Testament it is used only in Romans 8:17, Ephesians 3:6, Hebrews 11:9 and I Peter 3:7. Of special interest is Ephesians 3:6, where a subtle play on words in Greek is lost in the English translation. In this chapter Paul speaks of the mystery of Christ which is, paraphrased, "that the Gentiles should be joint heirs and a joint body and joint partakers of his promise in Christ through the gospel." The point in this verse is not that the Gentiles' salvation is somehow dependent upon that of Israel (joint heirs), but that they are heirs equally with Israel - that they in no way have an inferior inheritance.
Now let's reconsider I Peter 3:7, rearranging the words slightly from the Englishman's Greek New Testament: "Husbands likewise dwell with the female according to knowledge rendering them respect as with a weaker vessel and as heirs equally of the grace of life, so that your prayers not be cut off"
What Peter is saying in the simplest possible terms is that the failure to respect our females as weaker vessels and as heirs equally of the Kingdom of God can interfere with our own relationship with God!
Why?
Because Jesus Christ intended that the marriage relationship represent His own relationship with the church. Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Christ does not "put down" the church or treat the church as an inferior entity. A "Christian" man who mistreats his wife, "puts her down," treats her as an heir of an inferior salvation, is making a mockery of Christ's relationship with the church. Why should God hear his prayers?
The Head of the Family
In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul states, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
There can be no doubt that Paul teaches male leadership in marriage, but it should be noticed that the man is also under the leadership of Christ. And we have elsewhere pointed out what kind of leadership that is.
There follows in this chapter one of the more curious passages in Paul's writings. There is very little agreement among biblical commentators as to exactly what Paul means by this lengthy discussion of hair and head coverings.
Of particular interest is the passage beginning in verse 14: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering." It's not immediately clear what Paul means by "nature itself." Indeed, if we look at the physical creation, we might conclude exactly the opposite! The lion, for example, has a huge mane of hair, while the lioness does not. The lesson from the animal kingdom is ambivalent.
What, then, could Paul mean by the expression "nature itself"? He must be referring to the fact that in human societies in general women wear their hair long and men wear their hair short. If so, then he is referring to the nature of things sociologically rather than biologically. Notice the appeal to the judgment of the readers in verse 13: "Judge in yourselves: Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Apparently Paul was talking about human attitudes. He is saying that human beings consider it a shame for a man to have long hair and a glory for a woman to have long hair. For indeed it can be no shame before God for a man to have long hair, because of the way God accepted the Nazarite (Numbers 6). For the Nazarite, long hair was a sign of subjection and humility, but it was no disgrace.
Some commentators suggest that Paul was dealing with the confusion of the sexes in outward appearances. Some say that he is breaking with Jewish tradition which called for a man to cover his head when praying. Others point out the Greek custom of the worshipers of Aphrodisia, who shaved their heads annually in mourning for the death of Adonis.
And no one seems to agree on what Paul meant when he said, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels" (verse 10).
Since Paul makes no appeal to the law in this passage, we can only conclude that he is dealing with tradition and custom. The 20th century church may certainly draw inferences regarding a differentiation of sexual roles, but any attempt to turn this into a church doctrine is doomed to failure from the start. Paul had to know when he said, "If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her," that someone would ask the question, "How long is long?" Paul's comments here are not intended to establish a doctrine for the church to enforce, but to urge that proper appearance be maintained in the worship of God in their culture in their time.
Mutual Responsibility
Neither Peter nor Paul is advocating a Gentile-fashion, male-dominated marriage. They are advocating mutual submission with the man of the house in the position of leadership, respecting his wife as she respects him.
But why should the man be in a position of leadership rather than the woman? The answer no doubt is not simple, but it is easy to see how a struggle for leadership would be damaging to the family. Rather than allow such a thing to take place, God simply ordained that the stronger of two otherwise equal persons should lead. He then tells us that the relationship is to be a relationship of mutual submission with each bearing an enormous responsibility for the other.
Nature itself tells us that leadership patterns will emerge any time human beings are thrown together. Whether there be two people, three people or more, it is always the same. If there is any degree of social interaction, one personality will tend to dominate. Since the design of human beings ordained that man should be stronger, the pattern of male leadership existed from the start. When sin entered the picture, it became a pattern of male domination. The strong bear rule, and when there is no moderating influence the results can be terrifying.
With Jesus Christ, sin leaves the picture and a whole new pattern of leadership emerges in the Christian family.
Woman and the Church
A better understanding of God's pattern of leadership for the family may help us better understand His pattern for the church. Paul makes it clear that the relationship between a man and his wife is intended to serve as an analogy of Christ's relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:32).
Furthermore, Jesus came to reveal the Most High God to us as our Father, once again using the family relationship to teach us more about God (Matthew 6:9).
It's not difficult to see how a power struggle or a reversal of roles in the family could leave children not only confused about the family, but confused about God as well. For Paul sees man in the family as the image of God (I Corinthians 11:7).
When we then consider the influence of the preacher in the church and on the family, and we remember what a powerful role model he can become, perhaps we can begin to see why Jesus and Paul placed man in this role while granting an effective personal ministry to women like Phebe, Priscilla, Euodias and Syntyche.
But are women somehow diminished because they are not called to preach? It is an important question, and, believe it or not, a serious question to some men as well. Because of the respect in which the preaching ministry is regarded, even some men have lacked self-respect because they have not been able to attain to the ministry.
But Paul makes it very clear that not everyone in the church is given all of the gifts of the Spirit. He points out that "there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit" (I Corinthians 12:4).
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits; to another diverse kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ [I Corinthians 12:8-12].
Simply because a man or woman is not called to preach does not mean they are somehow less in God's eyes. There are many other gifts that are vital to the church - faith, healing, prophecy, discernment and especially the greatest gift of all, love. Paul points out that not everyone can be an apostle. All are not prophets. Not everyone can be a teacher, speak in tongues, or have the gift of healings (verses 29, 30). He then proceeds with the beautiful 13th chapter to tell us about the greatest gift of all - the gift of love - the one gift available to all.
To whatever extent we believe that a member of Christ's church is diminished because he or she is not a preacher or a minister, we reveal the extent of our own ignorance of the true purpose and calling of the ministry.
But why, women ask, have we so often been squelched, blocked, or put down when we have tried to be of service in the church?
One of the great tragedies of the 2,000 year history of the church is that churchmen have not always been driven by the noblest of motives. The power and prestige of the ministry can become idols to be jealously guarded. To such a person, anyone, man or woman, who gets too good, too fast, becomes a threat, and that threat must be dealt with.
The attitude of John the Baptist stands in stark contrast. When John's disciples expressed concern about Jesus' success, he replied:
A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: But the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease [John 3:25-30].
Some women have made the mistake of assuming that they were being put down simply because they were women. In fact, they may have been put down because they posed a threat (real or imagined) and the excuse for putting them down was that they were women. When the threat is a man, he must be dealt with in other ways. Motives must be impugned, character questioned, human foibles carefully scrutinized. In a way, it's a blessing to be a woman in such circumstances. No careful examination is required - she can be dismissed by petty egotists simply because she is a woman.
It takes no great insight to realize that the underlying motive behind all this is simple fear. Some men have feared the loss of power and prestige. Others have inveighed against women wearing makeup, short skirts and tight sweaters, not so much out of a sense of morality as out of a fear of the darker side of their own desires.
But fear is not of God: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, of love, and of a sound mind" (II Timothy 1:7).
Why should the church fear the involvement of dedicated women? Surely we all realize that there is more work to be done than all of us together can ever accomplish? Why, then, intimidate and discourage half the church?
Dedicated Christian women who have a desire to serve their God can become a powerful force for good in any church. No church can be blessed that puts down, humiliates and denigrates women. Women are made in the image of God, specially gifted to reveal the compassion and mercy of God, and specially gifted to serve people in a very personal way. To the Christian woman come special gifts of the Spirit of God. It is enough for her to identify those gifts and use them in serving God. May God give grace to Christian men to rejoice in the service and gifts of Christian women and honor these women as heirs equally of the grace of life.
Go to Part 1: Creation and women
Dedicated to the memory of Loma D. Armstrong
1891 - 1967
By Ronald L. Dart, 1982
Responses are welcomed to: www.cemnetwork.com
Go to Literature Index Page
This URL is www.abcog.org/woman2.htm