Revolution Era

This article has been forged from my heart and soul more than anything else. It troubles me to see that today, still, we have such short sightedness and base thinking within the community of Believers when it comes to how women are portrayed, looked upon, and categorized. The purpose of this article is to confront the most common lines of thinking Christians (specifically men) have regarding women. And once confronted, I will destroy it piece by piece. Enough is enough already. Let’s get going.

One last thing. I will be “piggy-backing” off of some of N. T. Wright’s articles that complement what I am writing here. His insight into the Greek New Testament is almost unmatched, in my opinion, and he offers tremendous perspectives regarding women as he examines certain Scriptures. Consequently, I have chosen to cite him heavily below.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

In the Beginning

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth… And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good.” (Gen 1:26-28, 31a)

God created ADAM אָדָם (man/mankind/mortals). And to ADAM אָדָם (man/mankind/mortals), God gave authority over the earth. This authority was given to His prize creation, even when he gave ADAM אָדָם (man/mankind/mortals) genders – male and female. And giving authority to males and females, a product of creation He categorized as ADAM אָדָם (man/mankind/mortals), was “very good” in the eyes of God. This was God’s original intent, and this was His desire for males and females.

“And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” (Gen 2:18)

Please note that the word ADAM אָדָם is a male noun (not indicating gender, but how a word is parsed. Those who speak any Latin-based language can appreciate this), and the emphasis here is not being placed on a male needing a female. Rather, ADAM (mankind) should live in community, just as the Godhead (Father, Son, Spirit) live in community. Love can only be expressed and recieved in community.

The term “comparable helper” כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו עֵזֶר here is yet another stain on the lack-luster translational efforts put forth by modern publishers of mainstream Bible translations. Allow me to cite Robert Alter, one of the world’s foremost Biblical Hebrew scholars:

“‘Help’ is too weak because it suggests a merely auxiliary function, whereas עֵזֶר elsewhere connotes active intervention on behalf of someone, especially in military contexts, as often in Psalms.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses, p. 23)

Also worth noting is the fact that out of the 21 times עֵזֶר (“helper”) is used in the Old Testament, 18 of those times it is in reference to God. More aptly translated, כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו עֵזֶר 

should be rendered, “warring aid”. Now pause and think about this, because your Sunday-school paradigm about women being a ‘help-maid’ can no longer be the same.

Now, what about Genesis 3, you may ask? “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Indeed, over all of mankind were curses released (Gen 3:16-19). So let me ask you, are you living under the curse of Genesis 3, or under the Blood-Covenant of Jesus Christ? It’s one or the other, according to the New Testament.

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.” Rom 5:12-15

The “many” referred to here must include women, or else they are completely removed from the Blood of Jesus.

“For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.” 1 Cor 15:21-23

“For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.  For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom 8:19-21

Creation itself will be liberated from the decay that it has been subjected to since Genesis 3 until now. If creation, therefore, will be returned to its original state, how much more every ADAM that is in Christ – both male and female?

“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” Rom 8:29-30

Males and females are being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, in equal measure, with equal invitation. Both are called, justified, and glorified.

Even in the Old Covenant, where God’s true desire for Mankind – both male and female was shrouded and veiled, King Solomon by divine inspiration caught a glimpse of God’s heart regarding women. In the famous 31^st chapter of Proverbs, speaking of what a virtuous woman looks like, he writes:

       “¹³ She seeks wool and flax,
      And willingly works with her hands.
       ¹⁴ She is like the merchant ships,
      She brings her food from afar.
       ¹⁵ She also rises while it is yet night,
      And provides food for her household,
      And a portion for her maidservants.
       ¹⁶ She considers a field and buys it;
      From her profits she plants a vineyard.
       ¹⁷ She girds herself with strength,
      And strengthens her arms.
       ¹⁸ She perceives that her merchandise is good,
      And her lamp does not go out by night.
       ¹⁹ She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
      And her hand holds the spindle.
       ²⁰ She extends her hand to the poor,
      Yes, she reaches out her hands to the needy.
       ²¹ She is not afraid of snow for her household,
      For all her household is clothed with scarlet.”

Almost every paradigm that societies have held (and still hold, in certain cultures) regarding women is broken here.

1.      The woman is seen as a breadwinner here.

2.      The woman is seen as one making major financial decisions.

3.      War terminology often used to describe a warrior is used in relation to the woman (v17).

4.      She is depicted as being able to make wise business decisions.

5.      The woman’s “extending her hand to the poor” reveals that she is out of the house, and active in her community.

But the real eye-opening, Male-Chauvinism shattering truths are found in the New Testament Scriptures – both in the Gospels and in the Epistles. Let us therefore turn our attention there.

The Gospels and Acts

I will begin this section by quoting N. T. Wright in his paper, “Women’s Service in the Church: A Biblical Basis”. I highly recommend you read the entire article, which can be found here: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

“Among the many things that need to be said about the gospels is that we gain nothing by ignoring the fact that Jesus chose twelve male apostles. There were no doubt all kinds of reasons for this within both the symbolic world in which he was operating and the practical and cultural world within which they would have to live and work. But every time this point is made – and in my experience it is made quite frequently – we have to comment on how interesting it is that there comes a time in the story when the disciples all forsake Jesus and run away; and at that point, long before the rehabilitation of Peter and the others, it is the women who come first to the tomb, who are the first to see the risen Jesus, and are the first to be entrusted with the news that he has been raised from the dead. This is of incalculable significance. Mary Magdalene and the others are the apostles to the apostles. We should not be surprised that Paul calls a woman named Junia an apostle in Romans 16.7. If an apostle is a witness to the resurrection, there were women who deserved that title before any of the men.”

This is a profound introductory statement, and one that you can take to the bank. But now we will see some key insights as we continue to read:

“I think in particular of the woman who anointed Jesus; as some have pointed out, this was a priestly action which Jesus accepted as such. And I think, too, of the remarkable story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10. Most of us grew up with the line that Martha was the active type and Mary the passive or contemplative type, and that Jesus is simply affirming the importance of both and even the priority of devotion to him. That devotion is undoubtedly part of the importance of the story, but far more obvious to any first-century reader, and to many readers in Turkey, the Middle East and many other parts of the world to this day would be the fact that Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet within the male part of the house rather than being kept in the back rooms with the other women. This, I am pretty sure, is what really bothered Martha; no doubt she was cross at being left to do all the work, but the real problem behind that was that Mary had cut clean across one of the most basic social conventions. It is as though, in today’s world, you were to invite me to stay in your house and, when it came to bedtime, I were to put up a camp bed in your bedroom. We have our own clear but unstated rules about whose space is which; so did they. And Mary has just flouted them. And Jesus declares that she is right to do so. She is ‘sitting at his feet’; a phrase which doesn’t mean what it would mean today, the adoring student gazing up in admiration and love at the wonderful teacher. As is clear from the use of the phrase elsewhere in the NT (for instance, Paul with Gamaliel), to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning; and in that very practical world you wouldn’t do this just for the sake of informing your own mind and heart, but in order to be a teacher, a rabbi, yourself.”

It is unmistakable that Jesus Christ was clashing against the social conventions of his day. Other notable instances include his encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-26), and with the adulterous woman (John 8:1-30). On both occasions, Jesus outright violated both the Law of Moses and the cultural norm of his day. We cannot appreciate the gravity and severity of his actions in the eyes of a Jewish male onlooker. But a point was being made. Jesus even allowed women to be a source of financial provision for his ministry (Luke 8:1-3).

Now, every Christian male chauvinist’s “Ace” in the hole is the Apostle Paul. Unfortunately, once proper exegesis of these miss-translated, miss-interpreted, and misused passages is exercised, we will soon see that the “Ace” is nothing more than a bluff.

Rather than have you take my word for it, I will allow Professor Wright to do the writing for me. I hope you like steak, ‘cause we’re about to have us a slaughter of Sacred Cows.

1 Corinthians 14

“I want instead to home in at once on one of the two passages which has caused so much difficulty, the verses at the end of 1 Corinthians 14 in which Paul insists that women must keep silent in church.”

“I have always been attracted, ever since I heard it, to the explanation offered once more by Ken Bailey. In the Middle East, he says, it was taken for granted that men and women would sit apart in church, as still happens today in some circles. Equally important, the service would be held (in Lebanon, say, or Syria, or Egypt), in formal or classical Arabic, which the men would all know but which many of the women would not, since the women would only speak a local dialect or patois… the result would be that during the sermon in particular, the women, not understanding what was going on, would begin to get bored and talk among themselves. As Bailey describes the scene in such a church, the level of talking from the women’s side would steadily rise in volume, until the minister would have to say loudly, ‘Will the women please be quiet!’, whereupon the talking would die down, but only for a few minutes. Then, at some point, the minister would again have to ask the women to be quiet; and he would often add that if they wanted to know what was being said, they should ask their husbands to explain it to them when they got home.”

“What the passage cannot possibly mean is that women had no part in leading public worship, speaking out loud of course as they did so. This is the positive point that is proved at once by the other relevant Corinthian passage, 1 Corinthians 11.2–11, since there Paul is giving instructions for how women are to be dressed while engaging in such activities, instructions which obviously wouldn’t be necessary if they had been silent in church all the time.”

“Paul wasn’t, of course, addressing the social issues we know in our world. Visit a different culture, even today, and you will discover many subtle assumptions, pressures and constraints in society, some of which appear in the way people dress and wear their hair. In western culture, a man wouldn’t go to a dinner party wearing a bathing suit, nor would a woman attend a beach picnic wearing a wedding dress. Most western churches have stopped putting pressure on women to wear hats in church (western-style hats, in any case, were not what Paul was writing about here), but nobody thinks it odd that we are still strict about men not wearing hats in church.”

“In Paul’s day (as, in many ways, in ours), gender was marked by hair and clothing styles. We can tell from statues, vase paintings and other artwork of the period how this worked out in practice. There was social pressure to maintain appropriate distinctions. But did not Paul himself teach that there was ‘no male and female, because you are all one in the Messiah?’ (Galatians 3.28)? Perhaps, indeed, that was one of the ‘traditions’ that he had taught the Corinthian church, who needed to know that Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female were all equally welcome, equally valued, in the renewed people of God. Perhaps that had actually created the situation he is addressing here; perhaps some of the Corinthian women had been taking him literally, so that when they prayed or prophesied aloud in church meetings (which Paul assumes they will do regularly; this tells us, as we’ve seen, something about how to understand 14.34–35) they had decided to remove their normal headcovering, perhaps also unbraiding their hair, to show that in the Messiah they were free from the normal social conventions by which men and women were distinguished.”

“Another dimension to the problem may well be that in the Corinth of his day the only women who appeared in public without some kind of headcovering were prostitutes. This isn’t suggested directly here, but it may have been in the back of his mind. If the watching world discovered that the Christians were having meetings where women ‘let their hair down’ in this fashion, it could have the same effect on their reputation as it would in the modern west if someone looked into a church and found the women all wearing bikinis.”

“[In verse 3] what does Paul mean by ‘head’? He uses it here sometimes in a metaphorical sense, as in verse 3, and sometimes literally, as when he’s talking about what to do with actual human heads (verses 4–7 and 10). But the word he uses can mean various different things; and a good case can be made out for saying that in verse 3 he is referring not to ‘headship’ in the sense of sovereignty, but to ‘headship’ in the sense of ‘source’, like the ‘source’ or ‘head’ of a river. In fact, in some of the key passages where he explains what he’s saying (verses 8, 9 and 12a) he is referring explicitly to the creation story in Genesis 2, where woman was made from the side of man. I suspect, in fact, that this is quite a different use of the idea of ‘headship’ from that in Ephesians 5, where it relates of course to husband and wife and where a different point is being made. That doesn’t mean Paul couldn’t have written them both, only that he was freer than we sometimes imagine to modify his own metaphors according to various contexts.”

“The underlying point then seems to be that in worship it is important for both men and women to be their truly created selves, to honour God by being what they are and not blurring the lines by pretending to be something else. One of the unspoken clues to this passage may be Paul’s assumption that in worship the creation is being restored, or perhaps that in worship we are anticipating its eventual restoration (15.27–28). God made humans male and female, and gave them ‘authority’ over the world, as Ben-Sirach 17.3 puts it, summarizing Genesis 1.26–28 and echoing Psalm 8.4–8 (Ben-Sirach was written around 200 BC). And if humans are to reclaim this authority over the world, this will come about as they worship the true God, as they pray and prophesy in his name, and are renewed in his image, in being what they were made to be, in celebrating the genders God has given them.”

If this is Paul’s meaning, the critical move he makes is to argue that a man dishonours his head by covering it in worship and that a woman dishonours hers by not covering it. He argues this mainly from the basis that creation itself tends to give men shorter hair and women longer (verses 5–6, 13–15); the fact that some cultures, and some people, offer apparent exceptions would probably not have worried him. His main point is that in worship men should follow the dress and hair codes which proclaim them to be male, and women the codes which proclaim them to be female.”

“Why then does he say that a woman ‘must have authority on her head because of the angels’ (verse 10)? This is one of the most puzzling verses in a puzzling passage, but there is help of sorts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is it assumed that when God’s people meet for worship, the angels are there too (as many liturgies, and theologians, still affirm).”

“For the [Dead Sea] Scrolls, this means that the angels, being holy, must not be offended by any appearance of unholiness among the congregation. Paul shares the assumption, that the angels are worshipping along with the humans, but may be making a different point.”

“When humans are renewed in the Messiah and raised from the dead, they will be set in authority over the angels (6.3). In worship, the church anticipates how things are going to be in that new day. When a woman is praying or prophesying (perhaps in the language of angels, as in 13.1), she needs to be truly what she is, since it is to male and female alike, in their mutual interdependence as God’s image-bearing creatures, that the world, including the angels, is to be subject. God’s creation needs humans to be fully, gloriously and truly human, which means fully and truly male and female. This, and of course much else besides, is to be glimpsed in worship.”

“We face different issues, but making sure that our worship is ordered appropriately, to honour God’s creation and anticipate its fulfilment in the new creation, is still a priority. There is no ‘perhaps’ about that. When we apply this to the question of women’s ministry, it seems to me that we should certainly stress equality in the role of women but should be very careful about implying identity. This passage tells, for me at least, quite strongly on the side of those who see the ministry of women as significantly different to the ministry of men and therefore insists that we need both to be themselves, rather than for one to try to become a clone of the other.”

Galatians 3:26-29

“Galatians 3 is not about ministry. Nor is it the only word Paul says about being male and female… The point Paul is making overall in this passage is that God has one family, not two, and that this family consists of all those who believe in Jesus; that this is the family God promised to Abraham, and that nothing in the Torah can stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through the faithfulness of the Messiah. This is not at all about how we relate to one another within this single family; it is about the fact, as we often say, that the ground is even at the foot of the cross.”

“What he says is that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no ‘male and female’. I think the reason he says ‘no male and female’ rather than ‘neither male nor female’ is that he is actually quoting Genesis 1, and that we should understand the phrase ‘male and female’ in scare-quotes.”

“What Paul seems to be doing in this passage, then, is ruling out any attempt to back up the continuing male privilege in the structuring and demarcating of Abraham’s family by an appeal to Genesis 1, as though someone were to say, ‘But of course the male line is what matters, and of course male circumcision is what counts, because God made male and female.’ No, says Paul, none of that counts when it comes to membership in the renewed people of Abraham.”

1 Timothy 2

“When people say that the Bible enshrines patriarchal ideas and attitudes, this passage, particularly verse 12, is often held up as the prime example. Women mustn’t be teachers, the verse seems to say; they mustn’t hold any authority over men; they must keep silent. That, at least, is how many translations put it. This, as I say, is the main passage that people quote when they want to suggest that the New Testament forbids the ordination of women.”

“The key to the present passage, then, is to recognize that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so (verse 11). They are to be ‘in full submission’; this is often taken to mean ‘to the men’, or ‘to their husbands’, but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man’ – the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’ Why might Paul need to say this?”

“There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the main religion – the biggest Temple, the most famous shrine – was a female-only cult. The Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) was a massive structure which dominated the area; and, as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place.”

“Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organizing male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, with one feature of that being that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line? That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. The word I’ve translated ‘try to dictate to them’ is unusual, but seems to have the overtones of ‘being bossy’ or ‘seizing control’. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis-cult, but so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership God is giving them.”

“What’s the point of the other bits of the passage, then? The first verse (8) is clear: the men must give themselves to devout prayer, and must not follow the normal stereotypes of ‘male’ behaviour: no anger or arguing. Then verses 9 and 10 follow, making the same point about the women. They must be set free from their stereotype, that of fussing all the time about hair-dos, jewellry, and fancy clothes – but they must be set free, not in order that they can be dowdy, unobtrusive little mice, but so that they can make a creative contribution to the wider society. The phrase ‘good works’ in verse 10 sounds pretty bland to us, but it’s one of the regular ways people used to refer to the social obligation to spend time and money on people less fortunate than oneself, to be a benefactor of the town through helping public works, the arts, and so on.”

“Why then does Paul finish off with the explanation about Adam and Eve? Remember that his basic point is to insist that women, too, must be allowed to learn and study as Christians, and not be kept in unlettered, uneducated boredom and drudgery. Well, the story of Adam and Eve makes the point well: look what happened when Eve was deceived. Women need to learn just as much as men do. Adam, after all, sinned quite deliberately; he knew what he was doing, and that it was wrong, and went ahead deliberately. The Old Testament is very stern about that kind of action.”

“And what about the bit about childbirth? Paul doesn’t see it as a punishment. Rather, he offers an assurance that, though childbirth is indeed difficult, painful and dangerous, often the most testing moment in a woman’s life, this is not a curse which must be taken as a sign of God’s displeasure. God’s salvation is promised to all, women and men, who follow Jesus in faith, love, holiness and prudence. And that salvation is promised to those who contribute to God’s creation through childbearing, just as it is to everyone else. Becoming a mother is hard enough, God knows, without pretending it’s somehow an evil thing. Let’s not leave any more unexploded bombs and mines around for people to blow their minds with. Let’s read this text as I believe it was intended, as a way of building up God’s church, men and women, women and men alike. And, just as Paul was concerned to apply this in one particular situation, so we must think and pray carefully about where our own cultures, prejudices and angers are taking us, and make sure we conform, not to any of the different stereotypes the world offers, but to the healing, liberating, humanizing message of the gospel of Jesus.”

“How then would I translate the passage to bring all this out? As follows:

‘So this is what I want: the men should pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, with no anger or disputing.  9 In the same way the women, too, should clothe themselves in an appropriate manner, modestly and sensibly. They should not go in for elaborate hair-styles, or gold, or pearls, or expensive clothes;  10 instead, as is appropriate for women who profess to be godly, they should adorn themselves with good works.  11 They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God.  12 I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed.  13 Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve;  14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass.  15 She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence.’”

N. T. Wright has provided us with a great deal of clarity. I am grateful for his contribution here. Now, there is one more passage that we need to address. Dr. Wright did not make mention of it, so I will provide you with my personal observations regarding Ephesians 5:22-28.

Ephesians 5:22-28

The emphasis on this passage is on men loving their wives AS CHRIST loves the church, NOT on women submitting. Read what I said once more. The burden of this passage weighs much heavier on men then it does women. Now men, let me highlight some key points here:

a) Are you honestly loving your wife IN THE WAY Jesus demonstrates love to us? If not, then what right do you have to demand submission from your wife?

b) Have you created an environment that promotes freedom, growth, love, joy, and peace in your relationship, IN THE WAY Jesus Christ has done so in the relationship we have with Him? If not, then what right do you have to demand submission?

c) Are you so concerned with the spec in your wife’s eye (submission), and yet fail to notice the log in yours (loving her IN THE MANNER and EXAMPLE set by Christ)?

d) Do you present your wife as holy and blameless to Christ, or do your actions, attitudes, and words leave her defiled?

In the same way that we delight in following Christ as leader, and submitting to him as our King and Lord, women should feel the same way as they follow your lead in the relationship. But what we FAIL TO REALIZE is that Christ doesn’t lord it over us, nor does He permit us to (Mat 20:25-26).

Have you become the least in your marriage? Have you taken the role of servant? When Jesus washed the disciples feet, He said, “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (John 13:14-15). Do you honestly believe that this command was exclusive to the 12?

This is the love men are to have towards their wives. Jesus focus was never on having his followers submit to Him, and he constantly demonstrated becoming the least and serving, right up to the cross. This is love. God is love, not a male chauvinist.

“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Mat 20:25-28

Have you, husbands, literally and practically taken this to heart and into constant action in your marriage? Do you demand to be recognized as the “head”, the “leader”, the “decision-maker”, the “one in charge”, or the one who must be submitted to? Do you honestly think that you emulate Christ with that mindset?

Closing Remarks

My personal observations over the years have led me to realize that much of the social conventions we have in the world both in and outside of the Church regarding women is due to tradition. Traditions form social norms and protocol. Regardless is the tradition stems from religion or not, this reality stands true.

It is interesting to see then that Jesus Christ consistently and systematically defied and broke almost every tradition and social convention in his society when he walked the earth. Now, let’s clarify something:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Col 1:15

“’If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.’

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?  Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.  Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.” John 14:7-11

Jesus wasn’t just making a point. Jesus was revealing the heart and desire of our Father. The Old Testament was NOT the full revelation of God – Jesus Christ was. Therefore, it is imperative that we embrace the fact the God does not value social conventions and/or traditions if they violate his work of grace, redemption, and restoration of creation.

“Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’

He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? … Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” Mat 15:1-6

So what’s my point here? What traditions and social norms are you upholding that violate the love of God and the finished, redemptive work of Jesus Christ?

-          The woman is the homemaker, the cook, the cleaner, etc.

-          The man works, the woman stays home and raises the children.

-          The man has the last say, and is the deal-breaker.

-          Women are the “weaker” sex, and should be treated as thus.

-          Men are natural leaders, woman are not.

-          In God’s order, men are first, women are second.

These are some common ones, but I’m sure the list can easily be doubled many times over. Now let me ask you, men, based on what we’ve read so far, do you see any of the above statements/mindsets holding any water? “Yes”, you say? Really?

Tell me: Where does Jesus tell us that women are to cook and clean? That only men should work? Or that women can’t be leaders, business owners, or mentors? Where does he tell us that woman are 2^nd in rank? Where does Jesus even hint at promoting male chauvinistic thinking?

For the sake of your traditions and social conventions are you nullifying the finished work of Christ and the law of his love (Gal 6:2)? Jesus Christ was and is number 1, Chief King, strongest, fiercest, deadliest, wisest, and the most powerful being in all existence, and yet he never “touted” his own horn, never demanded to be respected, or told others that they were the lesser being, and number 2 in his presence. In fact, he did quite the opposite:

“No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.” John 15:15

And,

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them.” John 17:20-22

Christ made us all one with Him, and even His glory he bestows on us. We are seated in heavenly places (Eph 2:6), and we can approach his throne with boldness (Heb. 4:16). I do not see any hint of any sort of chauvinism in our Lord, nor any desire on his part to ‘put us in our place”.

It’s time to do what Jesus modeled 2000 odd years ago. It’s time to break the traditions and social conventions of our day that hinder people from embracing, experiencing, and walking in the glorious freedom and redemptive work that Christ has made available to ADAM – both male and female.