Who REALLY Said It?

Are some words considered 'idle' because of who says them? If it is a woman repeating the words of Jesus, or the prophets, as is referenced in Luke 24:25, does it make it untrue because a woman is speaking it?

The women who had followed Jesus tirelessly, after they had prepared the spices to anoint his body, went to the tomb. They found it empty, with two angels standing nearby, who reminded them of Jesus' words, which they remembered. But, when they repeated these happenings to the disciples, 'their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.' 'Idle tales' in the lexicon means 'folly' or 'nonsense.' Were the disciples still so much without understanding that they discounted the women, even though they spoke of actions that Jesus had foretold about himself?

The obvious conclusion, as given in the account surrounding the resurrection, was that the women understood what Jesus, and his mission, was REALLY about. The men were nowhere to be found. Even some later went back to what they had once done because of their lack of understanding.

Was their disbelief because of the words spoken, or because of who said it? It is an interesting concept, as women today are still not taken as seriously called into ministry by some denominations, even though they serve side by side with them in the journey, just as the women who followed Jesus did. Did the disciples feel that, with Jesus gone, that they did not have to have to same respect for them as he did? Did they revert back to their tradition and customs that women were not equal to them now that their revolutionary leader was out of the picture? Yet Jesus himself, as well as the angel of the Lord, told the women to 'go tell the disciples." (Matthew 28:1-10)

But, Peter reacted differently. He ran to the tomb to see for himself. After seeing the linen clothes, he went away wondering what had happened. Could it be, that since Peter was married that he was more respectful of women than his unmarried counterparts?

Paul, in Galatians 3:28-29, explains it in explicit terms: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, 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.

God wants those that are obedient to Him; our external gender does not dictate who we are in Him.

Baa Baa Black Sheep

Looking back over my life, I always knew I was the black sheep of the family. The one just a little different; the one who didn't quite follow the rules; the one not afraid to march to the beat of  a different drum. In the context of my family, it's only in the last few years that I've realized just how non-traditional I have been. Especially in the area of 'religion'. As a young Christian in my teens, I tried to conform to the way I saw others in the family living, and saw the hypocritical life they lived in front of me. When I questioned what I saw, the black sheep became an outcast.

When most people read stories in scripture, they apply it to the time and culture in which they live. In so doing, very valid points come across with subtlety, if at all, and we miss what some points are are really about. I think every person that claims to 'know the Bible' ought to also study the culture of biblical times. Wouldn't scripture serve us better if we knew what things were like in the time it was written?

Take the woman at the well. There are several 'hints' in the scripture as to the cultural differences between Jesus and the woman. But, without reading additional literature about why there were differences, the story loses part of it's great message. Let's look at the story in John 4.

v4: But it was necessary for him to come and pass through Samaria.

Samaritans were the outcast Jews~those of mixed blood. Jews normally avoided going through Samaria when travelling between Judea and Galilee, even though it was the shortest route.

v6: And Jaqob's spring of water was there, and Yeshua, weary from walking, sat down by himself at the spring at the sixth hour.

Jesus sat on Jacob's well, figuratively associating himself with 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob', while the water inside it represented him. Also, that it was noon meant it was the hottest part of the day.

v7: And a woman from Samaria came to draw water and Yeshua said to her, “Give me water to drink.”

The woman came to the well when she knew no one else would be there. Respectable women would have come in the evening when it was considerably cooler. As we read on in the story, we realize why as her past is revealed.

v9: And the Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, would ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” For the Jews do not associate with the Samaritans.

She had two major things going against her: she was a Samaritan, and she was a woman. She did not comprehend Jesus' respect toward her.

v11: This woman said to him, “My Lord, you have no bucket and the well is deep. From where do you have living waters?”

She was  amazed at Jesus' offer to give her living water, even if she didn't yet know He was speaking of himself. Notice that in his respect toward her, she addressed him with a title of respect more so than in her previous statement.

v12: "Are you greater than our forefather Jaqob, he who gave us this well, and he drank from it, also his children and his flock? "

When the Samaritans and Jews were getting along as neighboring villages, the Samaritans would claim their heritage from Jacob. When they were not, they would discount that heritage. In a subtle way, however, she questioned Jesus' authority in offering her water.

v15: This woman said to him, “My lord, give me from these waters that I shall not thirst again, and so I am not coming to draw from here.”

Still respectful, she wants the water, and even more so, wants it so she does not have to come out into the public place to get it.

v17: She said to him, “I have no husband.” Yeshua said to her, “You have said correctly, “I have no husband."

A simple statement. In today's times, it is nothing out of the ordinary. But for her, it meant having no male to represent her socially. We begin to see why she came to the well at noon.

vv19-20: The woman said to him, “My lord, I perceive that you are a Prophet. Our forefathers worshiped in this mountain, and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where it is necessary to worship.”

There is a hint of her culture~obviously her forefathers worshiped idols. She 'switches sides' to claim her non-Jewish heritage in recounting the practice of worship in her people.

v25: The woman said to him, “I know that The Messiah is coming, and when he comes, he will teach us all things.”

She has heard the prophecy, so the idea of a Savior is not new to her. In his next words, he tells her that he is indeed the Christ.

v27: And while he was speaking, his disciples came and they were amazed that he was speaking with the woman, but no man said, “What are you seeking?, or, “Why are you speaking with her?”

Here is the culture all wrapped up in a few words. The disciples were shocked that he would be talking with a Samaritan, especially a woman from Samaria.

vv28-30: And the woman left her cruse and went to the city and said to the men: “Come see a man who told me everything that I have done. Is he The Messiah?” And the men departed from the city and they came to him.

Things changed as soon as she was told that he was the Messiah. She had no shame in returning to the city, to the men, telling them who she had just met. No doubt these were men who availed themselves of her services at night and acted as though she didn't exist during the day. She was so out-of-character compared to before that they had to go see what she was talking about.

v35: Do you not say, 'After four months the harvest comes?' Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and behold the fields that are white and are ready to harvest even now."

In reference to the crowd he knew was coming from the town, Jesus explains to the disciples that the harvest is wherever the fruit is ripe. The fruit does not come to them, but it is they who must go to the fruit to harvest it.

vv39-40: Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's saying which she testified: “He told me everything that I have done.” And when those Samaritans came to him, they requested of him that he would stay with them, and he was with them for two days.

This woman was the first evangelist, playing the key role in spreading the gospel to a large number of people that probably would not have listened to Jesus had he just walked into town and started preaching. He used a woman that the people were least likely to listen to. Some denominations might downplay her role, putting it into today's terminology, saying she 'witnessed' to them, or 'shared her testimony'. So many denominations fail to recognize women as Jesus did~people worthy to be called into his ministry, regardless of their past.

This woman had been a black sheep, the outcast of the city, the shamed of her village. One meeting with Jesus changed all that. Not only was she changed, but the people she associated with on a daily basis did also. Once Jesus continued on his way, I hardly think that life for any of them went back to the way it was before she walked to the well with her water pot. She would now be shown respect from the very people that had once used her. She went from being an outcast to a friend to the people.

Sometimes, being the black sheep in a world full of traditional ones has it's advantages. Like in the picture above, it may be the very fact that we stand out against the rest that Jesus chooses us.

all scripture quoted from the Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)

Two Halves Make a Whole

The wisdom of my grandmother has triumphed again. She said to me, in a conversation about husband/wife relationships, that a man that loved his mother loved the Lord. At the time, it had no real impact on me but now, some 16+ years later, it is clearer than ever before.

In 2010, when my husband, James, and I were in Mississippi, we met a lovely woman whose soul I instantly knitted with. (It was a Jonathan and David moment.) She was the wife of the pastor at the church we were visiting. And, she was being abused. I immediately recognised the signs~watching his every move, not giving eye contact to others, watching her language around him, making sure nothing was done or said that he could use against her later.

Upon introduction, I told her that I knew that there was abuse in her life. When she asked me how I knew, I told her that I recognised myself in her~that two years prior, before I met my current husband, I had been just like her. She started to cry. I continued to tell her that God did not create her to live in fear, and by the time we left four days later, she was looking people in the eye instead of keeping her head down. I am thankful that God gave me the words from my own experience to give her the courage to take the step to be freed from the 'infirmity' that bound her. 

There is an account in Luke (13:10-17) where Jesus heals a woman on the Sabbath. The woman's illness is described as 'a spirit of infirmity, was bowed together' and could not lift herself  up. She had been in that condition for eighteen years. This was a woman who did not seek Jesus out~He called her to Him. He released her from the physical bonds laid on her by Satan, because she was a 'daughter of Abraham.'

Her ailment was physical, but how many women have been under other types of male-dominated bondage? Take my friend in Mississippi. She was in bondage to her pastor-husband for more than eighteen years. And, just like the religious leaders in Jesus' time, he thought he had the right to treat her however he wanted because he was her husband. The ruler of the synagogue was indignant with Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, saying that if the woman wanted to be healed, she should come on a 'workday.'(v.14) For the religious leaders in the Luke account, and the pastor-husband of my friend, it was about 'rule and authority.' They wanted someone weaker so they could 'lord' over them. But, a woman lifted up in Jesus, and by Jesus, is a daughter of Abraham~free of man's bondage. The hypocrites, as Jesus called them, have no submission in themselves toward God. If they had, they would know that Jesus is the authority under which we ALL submit.

The analogy of family and church is described in Ephesians 5 and 6. Wives, in 5:22, are told to submit 'unto their own husbands, as unto the Lord.' Does that mean women should think of their husbands as 'God'? Absolutely not! It means that if they have  Godly husbands~ones who have an humble, obedient relationship with the Lord~they should trust the leadership in their marital relationship. In v.25, husbands are told to 'love your wives, even as Christ loved the church (His bride) and gave His life for it.' A Godly man would not hurt himself (v.28) and therefore, would not hurt his wife. If a man harms his wife, he is harming himself. (v.29)

But what if the woman's husband is not in submission to God, and tries to lead his wife astray. Is she supposed to to follow him just because he is her husband? No! 1 Corinthians 11:3 spells it out plainly: the head of the man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. If the men in leadership are not following Christ, then the women are not obligated to follow. Each individual Christian woman is married to Christ first and foremost. That is a relationship that must remain intact, for each of us are responsible for our own salvation and our Christian walk.

There was a time when Sarah told Abraham to 'cast out the bondwoman.' (Gen. 21:8-12) but he was reluctant because it meant casting away his son. But, God told him to 'hearken to her voice, for in Isaac shall your seed be called.' Sarah was all about promoting the kingdom of God, but if it had been left up to Abraham~the husband~it would not have happened. So, it's the obedience to God that counts, not the gender through which the obedience comes.

So God created man in His own image...male and female created He them. (Gen. 1:27) Both in Genesis (2:24) and in Ephesians (5:31) it is written that the 'two shall become one.' In order for this to be mathematically correct~for 2 to become 1~ then each half has to be equal to one another. It does not work any other way. The men that want to show off their power and authority over women would have the equation read something like 7/8, for the men, and 1/8, for the women. But, in order for 1 to be divided by 2, the answer can only be 1/2. This is a basic mathematical statement that is not only true in the physical world, but also in the spiritual world.

Two halves make a whole.

(1/2 +1/2=1)

Ezer Warrior

A few days ago I finished a book by Carolyn Custis James "When Life and Beliefs Collide." The book is so well written and researched that I think that there was something for me to glean on every page. As I was scanning the internet for pictures to post on my online ministry, this picture jumped out at me. I can't help but think that this is an image similar to what Mrs. James was talking about.

This is the strong helper-warrior that God created woman to be. The verse that is attached immediately reminded me of childbirth in that a woman must be strong and willing to bear the pain~the 'wise' part. Then able to be tender and loving to the baby~the 'harmless' part. There are religions and denominations that think bearing children is all a woman is called to do. Alas, I am here to tell them that that is only the beginning. If God made the woman to bear the physical pain, then surely He made us to bear the spiritual pain as well. In order to do that, we have to be strong~able to carry the burden, and be the helper~able to keep on keeping on~while the burden is being carried.

I am reminded of stories of slave women in the south who had their babies in the cotton fields, then carried on working once they were delivered. The analogy of the Christian life is told in the process of birthing a baby. A woman must be able to give totally of herself, and she must be able to lose a part of herself, and she must be able to carry on once the process is done.

She must be an ezer indeed.

Sit Down and Shut Up

                                         

I remember when I was about eight years old, wanting to see God. As I stood outside one warm summer day,  looking up into the sky, the white, puffy clouds seemed to hover together until a long promenade appeared. At the farthest end was a throne-type chair, and sitting in it was a giant of a man with long, flowing hair, and a long, flowing beard. In moments, the clouds moved on into shapeless masses, but the image has stuck with me.

All my life, I have wanted to tell people about the Lord. I've felt a calling from deep inside since my youth. But, the denomination that I was raised in discounts women to be hardly anything more than warm bodies in the house of God. Any time the subject of a woman in any 'authoratative' role came up, Apostle Paul was quoted~women are to keep silent in the church, etc.,~ and nothing more would come of it.

Recently, the Lord has opened my eyes to Paul~he didn't discount women as many denominations would have us believe. In fact, he embraced women in the spreading of the Gospel, just as Jesus did. So, for any women out there who feel the Lord is calling you out, but denomination and religion are telling you 'no' based on Paul and his writings, let's take a closer look at their 'evidence' against us.

Who exactly was Paul talking to, when he addressed the people of Corinth? I grew up in a denomination that believes that Paul was speaking to every woman on the face of the earth, then and now. But, yet, he did not say anything like this to the women at Philippi. Nor is it any indication to how Jesus treated, or spoke to, women either. It warrants a closer look at the customs, traditions and social environment that Paul was up against in bringing the Gospel into a pagan society that had no built-in history of Jesus (as the Jews had) nor the concept of worshiping one God.

[Greeks considered madness an important aspect of worship. Women in particular responded to Bacchus (also known as Dionysus), the god of madness; ’him of the orgiastic cry, exciter of women, Dionysus, glorified with mad honors’. (Plutarch, Moralia 671c).

There was in Corinth, then, a significant monument memorializing the savagery of female Bacchus worshippers. 

 There was also a tradition that women during the course of the worship tore apart young animals and ate them raw, warm and bleeding, thereby receiving within themselves the life of the god. 

Among Dionysiac worshippers, writes Livy in his History of Rome, ’the majority are women’ (XXXIX.xv): While women were famed for their wildness in the Bacchic cult and in certain other mystery cults, other aspects of their worship were more traditional. Of special importance to the study of the situation Paul addresses is the concept of clamor, noisy outbursts of religious pandemonium...

It is in this context of self-control that women are asked to subdue themselves within the bounds of propriety (1Cor 14:35). Although the translations are rarely the same, the same Greek verb is used in both verses 32 and 35. Hupotasso, meaning to arrange or place under, is in the middle voice, indicating that the person does this to him or herself. The concept of self-control is brought out in most translations of verse 32. It is for prophets to control prophetic inspiration, for the God who inspires them is not a God of disorder but of peace.

It cannot mean that women are not to speak at all, for they have been given permission to pray and prophesy in 11:5 - provided they observe due decorum. Nor can the directive be a prohibition against speaking in tongues (14:39). Some other type of disruption must thus be under discussion...We have already mentioned heathen rituals in which frenzied shouting was expected from women and considered a necessary ingredient of the worship...

New patterns of Christian worship appear to have been more difficult for women to adopt than men, as they had not known the dignified rite of Apollo or Zeus. For the most part, their religious expression had been accompanied by extravagances of every sort.

It was important that the service of worship become meaningful. Women were encouraged to question their husbands at home, since the women had usually been denied an opportunity for education while the men participated vigorously in all manner of theological and philosophical debates. The questions should be asked at home so that the conversation would not disrupt the service. Neither was a woman to gossip or chatter with the other women during the service - surely a great temptation, for Greek women were closely confined to their homes.]

(See full article: http://www.intelligentchristian.org/Pandemonium_and_Silence.html )

Well, doesn't this make 1 Corinthians make sense, especially the 11th chapter. Now, let's compare some Philippian history of women to the Corinthian history of women. I have underlined points of interest.

[Turning first to the lives of women in ancient Philippi, recent studies of thearchaeological and textual evidence have demonstrated the relevance of feministanalysis of the ancient world. Abrahamsen have begun to place women at the center of their scholarly inquiry in an effort to achieve a fuller picture of Philippi. Their efforts reflect the development of feminist modes of inquiry not only within biblical studies, but also within the fields of classical literature and history. 

Perhaps the most important figure for women’s worship practices in Philippi was the goddess Diana. While no sanctuary or temple of Diana can befound at Philippi, there is an altar at the acropolis, most likely an artifact of anopen-air sanctuary for the goddess. Abrahamsen has argued that the location of the acropolis carvings of female figures near depictions of Diana demonstrates the influence of priestesses in the Diana cult at Philippi. Diana was reflected in the activitiesof her devotees in midwifery, puberty rites, healing processes, and funerary preparations. Diana was reflected in the activities of her devotees in midwifery, puberty rites, healing processes, and funerary preparations. This link between Diana and crucial moments in women’s lives is in keeping with Diana’s affiliation with both childbirth and the netherworld. These typical activities and the prevalence of female figures at the acropolisstress how the Diana cult at Philippi was primarily made, paid for and organized by women. Since the adherents were mostly women, the leadership and administrative roles were most likely also filled by women.

From this rather cursory sketch of women’s participation in Philippi’s cults, following primarily the studies of Abrahamsen and Portefaix, it becomes clear that women were engaged in a range of activities. Significantly, for the examination of the letter to the Philippians, it seems that women held leadership positions in these cults before, during and after the time of Paul. Since it was expected that women would have participated and led within the cultic life of Philippi, it seems that these activities would also encourage Philippian women to play yet another role, that of model. Thus, in the education and upbringing of Philippian women (and often also young males), they would have encountered a range of female models: goddesses, priestesses, ancestors, fellow devotees, and family members. It seems, then, that women in Philippi would have been accustomed to the idea of  imitating other women in everyday as well as cultic settings.

Turning to this study’s particular analysis of the letter to the Philippians, then, we will assume that women were present in the community to which Paul wrote at Philippi and that some women played prominent roles within the community. By beginning with such an assumption, instead of the traditional scholarly expectation of women’s absence or insignificance, much work that precedes this study has shown the relevance of feminist approaches to not only Pauline letters, in general, but also to the specific case of Philippians.]

(see full article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71167964/11/A-WOMEN%E2%80%99S-PARTICIPATION-IN-CULTS-AT-PHILIPPI)

It would seem that even though both Philippian and Corinthian women practiced pagan rituals, the Philippians were organized in their worship and instruction, as opposed to the Corinthians that worshiped in a frenzied state and it seemed no teaching took place at all. So, as the women leaders accepted Christ and turned their back on their pagan gods, the Philippian women were the perfect candidates for leading, teaching, and preaching in the church. The Corinthian women, however, tried to bring their pagan rituals into the church, and that is what Paul was speaking about in his letters to the Corinthians.

Makes you look at Paul, and 1 and 2 Corinthians in a whole new way, doesn't it?