Women of the Bible - The Bibliography

At times I have cited a few sources in these posts on Women of the Bible, and at time I should have but didn't. Here is a list of some of the more useful material:

1. Finally Feminist, John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 2005
2. Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume I, Edited By Carroll D. Osburn, PH. D., 1993
3. Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume II, Edited By Carroll D. Osburn, PH. D., 1995
4. Men and Women in the Church, Sarah Sumner, PH. D., 2003
5. Bobby Valentine’s class on Huldah from the 2003 ACU Lectureships (audio)
6. Bobby’s Blog: Huldah Who? The Forgotten Ministry of a Lady Prophet, June 27, 2006
7. “The Ethical Use of I Timothy 2”, Bobby Valentine
8. I permit not a woman...To Remain Shackled, Robert H. Rowland, 1991
   
9. Mike Cope’s Sermon “Women, Gifts and the Body of Christ”
10. “Women’s Service in the Church”, a sermon by N. T. Wright (transcript), 2004
11. Howard Bryan, The Role of Women Class Notes
12. Women of the Bible, Sue Poorman Richards and Lawrence O. Richards, 2003
13. The Christian Courier
14. The Logos Resource Pages
15. Brooks Ave Church of Christ
16. Minutes with Messiah

I think it is important to consider the best material from both sides of this debate. Unfortunately, I have not done enough of that myself. Sometimes I find it very difficult to listen to perspectives that are so contrary to my core values. I'm sure people on both sides of this fence feel this way at times, which is why we must approach this material with patience and love. It is not a salvation issue. It is a respect issue, a consistency issue, and a reaching-the-lost issue.

-Keith

Women of the Bible – The Matriarchs

Background
ECHAD MI YODEA – a Hebrew song sung during Passover contains this verse:

Who knows four?
I know four.
Four are the Matriarchs;
Three are the patriarchs;
Two are the tablets of the covenant;
One is our God, in heaven and on earth.

In Genesis 12-50 we read about the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (shown with wife Rachel in picture). Their wives are secondary not only in their culture, but also in the story found in Genesis. From 2,100 to 1,800 BC women are viewed as property: first of the fathers, then of the husbands. There were laws that protected women at the time (i.e. The Laws of Eshnunna, The Code of Hammurabi), but even then these laws had a patriarchal perspective. For example, rape was a crime against the father, not the woman, as it deprived him of his “bride price.” Marriage was legal document transferring ownership of the woman from the father to the husband. While these laws seem very sexist to us, many of them were intended to protect women.

Dinah
Nevertheless, women were taken for granted. In Genesis 34, we see that Dinah, the sister of the 12 sons of Jacob, is raped and taken to the home of a young man from a leading family. He then asks Jacob to marry her. Dinah’s brothers were angry because “Shechem had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter.” They viewed the crime in terms of how it reflected on their father and their family. Yet there is an interest in their sister as well, since only Dinah’s two full brothers take action against this young man and his family. Her brothers deceive the young man and his family saying they will approve the marriage if the family is circumcised. They agree and circumcise themselves. Dinah’s two brothers then enter their city, kill all the recovering men, and take their sister home. We are never told anything about how Dinah feels about what happened. Had she finally fallen in love with the young man only to have her brothers come and kill him? How was she treated when she returned home? The focus of the story just is not on her.

Tamar
Similarly, Tamar in Genesis 38 is treated with a noted lack of concern. She marries Judah’s son Er, but he is wicked so God kills him. Judah has his next son, Onan, sleep with her to produce a child for his dead brother. He intentionally sabotages the act (Genesis 38.9) so that she will not become pregnant and bear a child whom would get a share of the inheritance. Because of this, God kills him too. The next son, Shelah, is too young to marry, so Judah sends Tamar back to her father to wait for Shelah to grow up. However, when he does grow up, Judah does not give him Tamar. Therefore, Tamar dresses as a prostitute, sleeps with Judah, and steals his staff and seal. When Judah finds out Tamar is pregnant he condemns her to die. She produces his staff and seal and the gig is up.

Tamar is mistreated even by the standards of her society. Neither Onan nor Judah fulfills their obligations to her. She improvises to get the child she is entitled to and Judah is shamed for his actions. Note that while she dressed as a prostitute, she was entitled by the law to have a brother or male relative of her late husband produce a child with her. Judah, on the other hand, sleeps with a woman he think is a prostitute. In addition, she is a shrine prostitute of a pagan God! While he condemns Tamar to death for her alleged prostitution, he receives no such penalty. At the end, God rewards Tamar with twins, while Onan is dead and Judah is disgraced. Society saw her as a second-class citizen, and Judah and Onan took advantage of her low station. God, however, looked after Tamar and punished those who took advantage of her.

The Matriarchs
We find our matriarchs living in this social context. Yet we see something special about the relationship each has with her husband. Let us consider the interpersonal relationships of the Matriarchs and their husbands.

Sarah
Sarah is the wife of Abraham. In Genesis 16, after 10 years in the land, she tells Abraham to take her servant Hagar as produce a child with her. Abraham “listens” to her. The child would be considered the child of Sarah and Abraham. What is interesting is that Sarah takes the initiative and tells Abraham what to do, and he listens to her. Next, Hagar becomes pregnant and despises Sarah. Sarah blames Abraham and tells him to fix it. This time, though, he says it is her problem. Sarah abuses Hagar and she flees, but an Angel tells Hagar to return. She does and bears her son, Ishmael. Finally, Sarah bears Isaac (Gen. 21). She gets angry when Ishmael picks on Isaac and demands Abraham send Ishmael away. Abraham cared for his son Ishmael though and was very concerned. In addition, the customs demanded Ishmael be received as a son. God intervenes and tells Abraham to send Ishmael and Hagar away and that he would watch over Ishmael.
Whatever the culture restrictions on women, Sarah was free to urge, to complain, to initiate, and to insist that her husband take a certain course of action. Their personalities and interpersonal relationship was much more important than the customs of the day.

Rebekah
Rebekah was a relative of Abraham and God identified her to Abraham as the woman for his son Isaac (Gen 24). The servant negotiated with her brothers (her father was dead) on her coming back with him and becoming Isaac’s wife. Laban and Bethuel (her brothers) agreed to the marriage (24.50-51), but when the servant pressed them to let him leave with her immediately, they said:
Then they said, "Let's call the girl and ask her about it." So they called Rebekah and asked her, "Will you go with this man?" "I will go," she said. (verses 57-58)
Rebekah’s brothers respected her decision. If she had said no, we have every indication that her brothers would have honored her decision.

Rachel and Leah
Rachel and Leah married Jacob (the son of Isaac and Rebekah). They were the daughters of Laban, Rebekah’s brother, who tricked Jacob into marrying Leah first, even though he loved Rachel. They stay in their relatives land and spend 20 years working for Laban. When hostility arose between Laban’s sons and Jacob, God tells him to it is time to leave and return to the land he promised Abraham. What happens next is amazing, considering the culture. We would expect Jacob to gather his family and leave, but instead he calls a family meeting! He asks his two wives (even Leah) what they think.
Then Rachel and Leah replied, "Do we still have any share in the inheritance of our father's estate? Does he not regard us as foreigners? Not only has he sold us, but he has used up what was paid for us. Surely all the wealth that God took away from our father belongs to us and our children. So do whatever God has told you."
Then Jacob put his children and his wives on camels, and he drove all his livestock ahead of him, along with all the goods he had accumulated in Paddan Aram, to go to his father Isaac in the land of Canaan. (Genesis 31.14-18)
Jacob valued the input from his wives and they gave him a thoughtful and accurate response. Only after this exchange does Jacob do what God commanded him and leave for the Promised Land. Jacob, Leah and Rachel displayed mutual respect and cooperation, demonstrating more egalitarianism in their relationship than we might have expected.

Conclusion
Despite the restrictions of the day, women were respected and valued by God and the matriarchs were respected and valued by their husbands. The personal relationships involved in these stories transcend the cultural expectations of women and their place in the family.

Mighty Women

Starting in March I will teach a class called "Mighty Women" at church using the material I've been blogging here. The following is my synopsis of the class:

At a VBS last year my kids sang a song where the boys would sing, “I want to be like Daniel…for Daniel was a mighty man.” And the girls would sing, “I want to be like Ruth…for Ruth was oh so good and kind.” It made me wonder, “Are boys NOT supposed to be good and kind? Are girls NOT supposed to be mighty?” What about our little girls who want to be more like Deborah than Ruth?

This class will examine the leadership of mighty women throughout the Bible. We will focus on the biblical and historical context of these leading ladies as we develop a broad, biblical view of female leadership.

Here is a tentative outline:

1. Introduction
2. Eve
3. The Matriarchs & Miriam
4. Deborah
5. Huldah
6. Esther
7. Mary, Mary and Mary (Nazareth, Bethany, Magdalene)
8. Priscilla
9. Lydia (Euodias & Syntyche and Nympha)
10. Phoebe and Junia
11. Luke & Women
12. Jesus & Women
13. Paul & Women

This is part one of a two-part class. In part one we will attempt to establish a broad view by investigating the lives of specific women throughout the Bible followed by looking at how Luke, Jesus and Paul viewed women relative to their contemporaries. We will not study 1 Tim 2, 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14 or Gal 5. Those texts and others will be included in the second class as I don't think they can be understood properly without first getting the big picture.

-Keith

Women of the Bible – Junia

If you read the NIV your might be wonder who Junia is because this name does not appear in your Bible. Instead, the NIV translation of Romans 16.7 reads:

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Yet the NRSV renders this passage:

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

Junias is considered by most to be a masculine name while Junia is feminine. Two questions are begging to be asked at this point.

1. Which name is correct and why is there a discrepancy?
2. Why does it matter either way?

Let’s answer the second question first; it is much simpler. Eldon Jay Epp in “Junia: The First Woman Apostle” answers this question well:

So was this Junias a man who was a prominent apostle, or Junia, a woman? If a woman, Junia’s apostleship opens the door to the highest office in the early church and thus to women’s church leadership of any kind in any age.

Do I have your attention now? A lot is riding on one single name!

And indeed it is. In our discussion on Phoebe I mentioned that whether Phoebe was a deacon or not wasn’t super important in the discussion. Not so here. Consider the position of apostles in 1 Corinthians 12:28:

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Also consider apostles mentioned in Ephesians 2:19-21 or in Acts 15 and other places where the apostles and elders met to decide on major church theology. If Junia is an apostle she is a major source of authority and leadership in the apostolic, first-century church.

One “end-around” argument is that Junia is not “prominent among” the apostles but “prominent in the eyes of” the apostles. The Greek grammar allows for either translation so context must determine the correct translation. First of all, scholarship is on the side of the “prominent among” translation. Most translations and commentaries translate the phrase this way. Furthermore, since when does Paul commend someone by referencing how other people felt about the person? He knew these two well and spent time in prison with them. His own recommendation, like all the others recommendations he gives in this chapter, is quite enough.

So we are back then, to question #1: Which name is correct and why is there a discrepancy? Dianne D. McDonnell in “Junia, A Woman Apostle” says:

Without exception the church fathers in late antiquity identified Andronicus' partner in Romans 16:7 as a woman as did minuscule 33 in the 9th century which records Iounia (Greek for Junia) with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Romans 17:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine name Iounias (Junias) with an s. This later name Junias did not exist in antiquity; its explanation as a Greek abbreviation of the Latin name 'Junianus' is unlikely.

So the NIV rendering of “Junias” was a name that did not even exist in the first century. Wow. I think we could stop at this point and ask for a decision from the jury, but there is more. The female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among ancient Roman inscriptions. All the earliest manuscripts (with accents) have Junia. Junias is not even a properly formed Latin name, but would be an irregular form if it did exist. The first know masculine translation of this name did not occur until the 13^th century (Aegidus of Rome, 1245-1316). John Chrysostrom (337-497) said, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).” Jerome (340-419), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108) and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) all wrote that Junia was a woman. The evidence is overwhelming.

Junia, a woman, was a prominent apostle. She and Andronicus (her husband or brother maybe?) were Christians longer than Paul was. They served jail time with Paul and were related to him (though this could be as distant as being from the same Tribe: Benjamin). Like Phoebe, we don’t have many details of what exactly Junia did, but Paul considers her an apostle. There is no higher authority other than Jesus in the first-century church.

Women of the Bible – Phoebe

Phoebe was a first-century Christian in Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth. We read about her only in Romans 16.1-2, where Paul gives her a comparatively lengthy introduction and accommodation. He goes on to greet 27 people in the chapter, 10 of which are women. Many of the terms he uses to describe the women are significant. He describes men and women as fellow-worker, apostle, first-fruit, fellow-countrymen, fellow-prisoner and beloved, but only women are called deacon, patron, hard-worker, sister and mother. Comparatively, only men are called genuine and chosen. Contrary to some perspectives, Paul highly values the women leaders in the early church.

But Paul’s comments about Phoebe are different from the rest of the chapter. First off, he is not greeting her, but recommending her. Some hypothesize that the reason for Phoebe’s special recommendation is that she was the deliverer of this letter to the Romans. This is supported by the fact that Paul says she is coming to Rome and he wants them to greet her well. While it seems likely that this is the case, we do not know for sure.

What we do know for sure is that Paul uses two words to describe Phoebe that are not used of any other men or women on this list. The first word is διάκονος (deacon) and Phoebe is the only deacon we know by name in the New Testament. This word is generally the center of the discuss about Phoebe. Was she a “deacon” or a “servant”? The second, and probably more informative, word is προστάτις (patron; masc. προστάτης) and its use here to describe Phoebe is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament. If you look for the word “patron” in your English translation though, you will not find it. Previously, most translators have considered that the typical role of a patron in the first century was outside the scope of women due to their social position. (An exception is the NRSV, which translates this word “benefactor.”) Recent scholarship demonstrates that women could and did fill this role in first century Greek and Roman societies.

Phoebe the Deacon

Some consider that Phoebe was a servant, but did not hold the office of deacon. They cite the following passage to demonstrate the “servant” translation: 1 Cor. 3.5, 2 Cor. 3.6; 6.4; 11.15 & 23, Gal. 2.17. It seems more likely that the word should be translated “deacon” (but not “office of deacon”) as it is in 1 Tim. 3.8-13. In addition, the phrase “of the church in Cenchrea” reads more like a title more than a generic description. James Walters (Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol 1: 181) argues that the form of διάκονος also indicates “a recognized ministry or position of responsibility, if not an office.” Another point in favor of this more technical translation is that early church tradition demonstrates that there were, in fact, female deacons.

While many debaters go round-and-round on how to translate the word διάκονος it is not an argument that would yield much fruit even if it were settled once and for all. Why? Because we have no idea what a deacon, whether male or female, actually did in the first century. There is no biblical explanation of the duties and responsibilities of deacons and early Christian writings do not help much either. We do have some second and third century writings referring to women deacons, but they are not very informative. Some referred to female deacons baptizing the women, which makes very good sense because some groups baptized people in the nude. But our verses in Romans 16 say that Phoebe was a “deacon/servant of the church in Cenchrea” not that she was the servant only of the women in the church there. In addition, she served Paul, who was, in fact, not a woman. Finally, translating the word “deaconess” is also incorrect. Phoebe is called διάκονος (masc.) just as those in 1 Tim 3 are called διάκονος.

When we start focusing on the office/non-office issue we loose sight of the Pauline teaching of personal responsibility and action-based giftedness. Paul repeatedly demands Christians to use whatever gifts they have in the service of the Lord. The issue is how to translate διάκονος to give us today the same idea that first century Christians had when they read this part of Paul’s letter. To translate this word “deacon” would lead to English readers seeing Phoebe as “clergy”, holding an official position or office in the church. To translate this word “servant” would be to lessen the role Phoebe actually played. Phoebe was a responsible and effective leader in the church in Cenchrea, but she likely did not hold an office. Whatever it was that deacons in the first century did, that is what Phoebe did at Cenchrea.

Phoebe the Patron

What seems to be left out of many discussions about Phoebe is that she was a patron. This seems to be a more important discussion, because we actually know what a patron is and what patrons did in the first century. Furthermore, we know that there were many female patrons at this time. So what does it mean to be a patron? Richard Saller (Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge: 1982:1) describes patronage as:

First, it involves the reciprocal exchange of goods and services. Secondly, to distinguish it from a commercial transaction in the marketplace, the relationship must be a personal one of some duration. Thirdly, it must be asymmetrical, in the sense that the two parties are of unequal status and offer different kinds of goods and services in the exchange – a quality which sets patronage off from friendship between equals.

A good example of this is found in Luke 7.2-5 where the centurion sent the Jewish Elders to Jesus on his behalf. The centurion had no authority to send Jewish elders to Jesus, but he and the Elders had a patron-client relationship. (He provided a synagogue for them. They petitioned Jesus for him.)

There are many Graeco-Roman inscriptions referring to women as patrons and even more inscriptions recounting the activities of patronage performed by women. This is especially common in Greek cities. Consider the inscriptions about Junia Theodora. This is not the Junia of Romans 16.7, but rather an influential patron in the city of Corinth. She was a benefactor (patron) of the Lycians there. Inscriptions about here were found on a stele by a French archaeological team in 1954. The script dates to the 1^st Century AD and one of the decrees on the stele dates to AD 43 or AD 57. All five inscriptions on the stele honor Junia. Here is the first:

In the fourth year, under the priest Dionysphanes, …the council and people of Telemessos decreed…since Iunia Theodora, a Roman, a benefactress of the greatest loyalty to the Lycian federation and our city has accomplished numerous benefits for the federation and our city … welcomes in her own house Lycian travelers and our citizens…supplying them with everything; displaying her patronage (prostasian) of those who are present…her own love of fame and assiduousness: it is decreed that our city in its turn testify to her according to her deserts; by good fortune it pleases the demos of Telmessos to give honour and praise for all the above reasons to the above-mentioned Iunia Theodora and to invite her, living with the same intentions, to always be the author of some benefit towards us, well knowing that in return our city recognizes and will acknowledge the evidence of her goodwill.
(The inscription is published in Pallas, Bulletin de correspondence hellenique (1959):496-508.)

Another inscription from the same stele shows her in the more wide-spread role of international diplomat:

[She] hasn’t ceased to show her zeal and generosity towards the nation and is full of goodwill to all travelers whether private individuals or ambassadors sent by the nation or by various cities; and has procured the gratitude of all of us by assuring the friendship of the authorities which she seeks to win by every means.

Junia Theodora was a success citizen of Corinth and acted independently of any male leadership. No where is there any indication that Junia Theodora acted as a patron under the authority of a male (father or husband). While Junia Theodora did not hold an “office,” she doubtlessly wielded power and authority and did so in a socially and politically acceptable way.

While we don’t get such a detailed description of Phoebe’s patronage, we can assume it to be very similar to Junia’s. They lived in the same place at the same time! Again, Cenchrea is the eastern port of Corinth. It is very likely that Phoebe and Junia knew each other, or at least knew of each other.

We must also consider that patron could have an even wider meaning. Patron could also mean “rules over” or “governs” or, in more general terms, the “leader” of a group. Could Paul have intended by his use of προστάτις that she was the “leader” or “governor” of the church at Cenchrea? It is possible.

Conclusion

Paul wanted to send a strong message to the Roman church about the quality of Phoebe. He did this by recommending her with two words that first century Christians equated with leadership, respect and trust. These two short verses leave us with many questions, but we see clearly that Phoebe was an important leader to Paul and to the church in Cenchrea. She would likely become so in Rome as well in the very near future.