Saved Through Childbearing? (1 Timothy 2:15a)

Why did Paul issue the proscription in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 forbidding women to teach or exercise authority over men? Was he a misogynist? Did he think women are inferior to men or incapable of effective teaching? Did the particular cultural environment or unique situation in Ephesus dictate it?¹ As we keep reading, the apostle himself explains. 

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:13-15, ESV).

 

Creation Order

 

The God-breathed explanation (“For”) is that “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” The stated reason is not a local and temporary social convention but is rooted in the unchangeable order of creation. Woman was created to complement man, not the reverse order (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8-9). Throughout scripture the significance of “firstborn” (preeminence, authority, responsibility) is repeatedly highlighted.²

 

Consequence of Sin

 

A secondary reason follows, “and Adam was not deceived [hapatáō], but the woman was deceived [exapatáō], and became a transgressor,” or “fell into transgression” (NASB, NKJV). While it was not necessary for another explanation to have been given, “Paul lets two witnesses speak”³ (note 5:19). 

 

The verb hapatáō, used passively here of Adam, means to “be deceived, cheated, misled,” whereas exapatáō, used passively of Eve, is an intensified form meaning to “be thoroughly deceived.”⁴ The first woman stands in a position of “having been” (gégonen, perfect tense of gínomai) “thoroughly deceived” into willful disobedience. Nevertheless, in spite of the transgression, good news is signaled by the contrasting dé (“Yet”) that follows.

 

Salvation Assured 

 

The pronominal reference to “she” (v. 15)⁵ has “the woman” (v. 14) as its nearest antecedent, contextually identified as “Eve” (v. 13), “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). The observation that “she will be saved through childbearing” has generated much confusion and disagreement among interpreters. Unfortunately, the definite article has been left out of the translation, which should read, “she shall be saved through the childbearing” (ERV, emp. added KLM).⁶

 

Having alluded to Genesis 3:1-6 (Eve’s deception and transgression), Paul continues with the promises made to the serpent and to Eve that ensued. To the serpent (the devil) Yahweh said, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed [‘offspring’] and her Seed [‘offspring’]; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel” (Gen. 3:15, NKJV).⁷ To the woman (Eve) Yahweh said, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception [‘childbearing,’ ESV];⁸ In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for [‘to’ or ‘towards’] your husband, And he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16, NKJV).

 

The atypical reference to the woman’s seed or offspring, which is ordinarily accredited to the man (cf. Gen. 4:25-26; 5:3-32; 9:8-9; 12:7; etc.), appears to be a prophetic allusion to the Messiah, who was “born of woman” (Gal. 4:4) without a human father (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25).⁹ Paul’s future tense verb sōthsetai (“she will be saved”), from sōzo,¹⁰ could have reference to being “preserved” (NASB) or “delivered” (NET),¹¹ but this verbal is consistently applied in 1 Timothy to spiritual salvation (1:15; 2:4; 4:16), thus reemphasizing what has already been affirmed in 1:15-17 and 2:3-6. 

 

Setting aside various untenable interpretations, “the childbearing” could be a general allusion to the unique and exclusive destiny and function of the woman. This is not to say every woman must bear a child in order to be saved. Rather, the woman has a special place in God’s design, different from the man, inclusive of childbearing, and she is afforded salvation within the distinctive role more broadly described by Paul in vv. 9-12 (cp. Gen. 3:16).¹² While the exact nature of the falsehoods plaguing the Ephesus church at the time is less than explicit, forbidding marriage was an issue (4:3a), and some of the women were being led astray (5:11-15), perhaps disparaging their conventional domestic duties. “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood.”¹³

 

In the wider context, there appears to be a deeper theological implication (cp. Gen. 3:15). Despite having been thoroughly deceived into transgression, Eve will be saved the same way Paul (1:12-16) and all other human beings (2:3-6) will be saved, “through the childbearing.” Woman was the channel Satan exploited in his attempt to destroy God’s human creation, while God utilized the same means to save humanity. Satan used woman to gain control through sin; God used woman, as the medium of the incarnation, to gain victory through Jesus (Luke 1:26-38; 11:27; Gal. 4:4).

 

Salvation Qualified

 

The abrupt transition to the third person plural redirects the focus from the first woman (vv. 13b-15a) back to the nearest conceptual antecedent, “the women” (vv. 9-10): “if they continue...” The conjunction eán (“if”) means the divine plan to save Eve and all others is conditioned upon remaining (abiding, continuing) “in [en] faith and love and holiness, with [metá] self-control.” 

 

Paul seems to have a particular interest in connecting “faith and love,” as here, elsewhere in the letter (1:5, 14; 4:12; 6:11), and throughout his other writings.¹⁴ The concept of “faith” is heavily emphasized in 1 Timothy (1:2, 4, 5, 14, 19; 2:7, 15; 3:9, 13; 4:1, 6, 12; 5:8, 12; 6:10, 11, 12, 21). Also highlighted in the letter is “love” (1:5, 14; 2:15; 4:12; 6:11), the noun agápē appearing in Paul’s writings (75 times) more than any other NT author. 

Another requisite is “holiness” (or “sanctification,” ASV), the only occurrence of the noun hagiasmós in this letter, employed elsewhere in Paul (Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Cor. 1:30; 1 Thess. 4:3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. 2:13) and in the NT (Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:2) but not in secular writings. It refers to the process of making or becoming holy, i.e., “wholly set apart for God and separated by life and conduct from the unbelieving world …”¹⁵

 

Finally, reiterating the accompanying adornment of v. 9, “with self-control” [sōphrosúnē], variously rendered “self-restraint” (NASB), “sobriety” (ASV), “propriety” (NIV), “good sense” (CSB). Accordingly, the Christian woman ought to be sensitive to “the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Pet. 3:3-5). She “cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit” (1 Cor. 7:34). 

 

Conclusion

 

The Bible has consistently clashed with the secular world’s entrenched standards, both past and present. The cultural pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, whereas the biblical model of male-female complementarity goes all the way back to creation and remains unchanged. According to God’s design men and women are different, though neither gender is superior to the other (Gal. 3:26-29). Both are equally valued and mutually dependent (1 Cor. 11:11; 12:18-25), and the Creator has assigned each a specific role (1 Cor. 11:3; 14:33-35). To exhibit the mind of Christ and to follow his example of humility and meekness is to utilize one’s particular situation, within prescribed scriptural boundaries, to the glory of God. 

 

--Kevin L. Moore

 

Endnotes:

     ¹ Glenn Rogers alleges that the reason is “not because there was anything inherently wrong with women teaching men, but because of the unique situation (which we do not fully understand) here in Ephesus” (The Bible Culturally Speaking [By the Author: Mission and Ministry Resources, 2004]: 210). Others are more confident in their explanation, affirming that the unique situation in Ephesus involved cult prostitution (cf. Sharon H. Gritz, Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Light of the Religious and Cultural Milieu of the First Century [Lanham; NY; London: University Press of America, 1991]: 39-40), but there is no historical justification for this baseless assertion (see esp. S. M. Baugh, “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 [1999]: 443-60).

     ² Gen. 4:4; 27:1-4, 19, 29; 29:26; 43:33; 48:18; 49:3; Ex. 4:22; 13:2; 22:29; Num. 3:13; 8:17; Deut. 15:19; 21:17; 2 Chron. 21:3; Psa. 89:27; et al.

     ³ R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles … to Timothy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001): 567. Note also Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28.

     ⁴ The same intensified form is used in 2 Cor. 11:3 when recalling the same incident, “But I fear lest somehow, as the serpent thoroughly deceived [exapatáō] Eve in his craftiness, your minds might be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity in Christ” (author’s own translation). Reference to “the serpent” is a metaphorical allusion to Satan (2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; cf. Rev. 12:9; 20:2), and the episode recounted is the deception of Eve by the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-15).

     ⁵ Some English versions unnecessarily change and thus distort the reference to “women” (CEV, NASB, NIV, NLT). The pronominal “she” is inherent in the future passive indicative verb sōthsetai, which is singular (“she shall be saved”) not plural.

     ⁶ Not “through the bearing of children” (NASB), “through having children” (GNT), or “by having children” (CEV).

     ⁷ The serpent’s “seed” or “offspring” would be all who reject God’s will and thus become the devil’s progeny (John 8:44; Eph. 2:2-3; 1 John 3:10; cf. Matt. 12:30). Christ (the woman’s “seed” or “offspring”) was bruised (NRSV, “strike”) when he became the offering for sin (Isa. 53:5, 10). A wound to the heel is painful and debilitating but is not permanently fatal. Christ’s momentary suffering, inflicted by the serpent, was the means through which Christ struck the serpent’s head, destroying the devil’s power of sin and death (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8). A wound to the head (especially to a serpent’s head) is terminal. See also Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:1-17; 20:2, 10; cf. Psa. 68:21; 91:13.

     ⁸ The Hebrew noun herayon refers to “conception” or “pregnancy” but is always connected in scripture to “childbirth” (Gen. 3:16; Ruth 4:13; Hos. 9:11).

     ⁹ The messianic “seed” promise began in Gen. 3:15, was carried throughout the OT (Gen. 22:18; 28:14; etc.), and was fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 3:16).

     ¹⁰ The verbal sōzo occurs 108 times in the NT, with various nuances including “save,” “deliver,” “rescue,” “preserve,” “heal.”

     ¹¹ This is the sense of the word in 2 Tim. 4:18 (cf. also Acts 27:20, 31), but not Paul’s typical usage (note 2 Tim. 2:9).

     ¹² Ann L. Bowman comments, “women will enter into eschatological salvation, with its accompanying rewards, through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood and in godly living generally” (“Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” BSac 149.594 [April-June 1992]: 208).

     ¹³ Douglas J. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” Trinity Journal 1 (1980): 71. See also Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Ascertaining Women’s God-ordained Roles,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 107-44.

     ¹⁴ 1 Cor. 13:2, 13; 2 Cor. 8:7; Gal. 5:6; Eph. 1:15; 3:17; 6:23; Col. 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:6; 5:8; 2 Thess. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:22; 3:10; Tit. 2:2; 3:15; Philem. 5. Note also the negative linkage in 1 Tim. 6:10.

     ¹⁵ Raymond C. Kelcy, The Letters of Paul to the Thessalonians (Abilene: ACU Press, 1984): 83.

 

Related Posts: The Bible's Radical View on Women 

 

Image credit: https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-news/ottawa-research-looking-at-affect-of-covid-19-on-pregnant-moms-and-their-babies-2519388

The Bible’s Radical View on Women

From her earliest days a girl in contemporary western society is bombarded with images, characterizations, advice, and expectations about how she’s supposed to look, think, and act. Of course we should all be aiming for mutual respect, fairness, and recognition of intrinsic value. But the ideology of gender equality, while reacting to woeful abuses, can veer to an unhealthy extreme. Fundamental differences between the sexes are now being blurred or denied. Masculinity is demonized, as militant feminism dictates popular opinion. 

In such an atmosphere the biblical model of gender roles is dismissed outright or modified to conform to modern sensibilities. Conservative Christian ideals are attacked and ridiculed as archaic and misogynistic. But may I suggest a more reasonable approach? What if we read the Bible in context? What if we consider the intended message of scripture? How would biblical directives have been received and understood by those to whom they were originally addressed? By removing our tainted 21st-century westernized spectacles and viewing scripture as the good news it was meant to be, we will have a much clearer perspective. 

The Context of the Bible 

The Bible emerged in an ancient Mediterranean environment. While its message is timeless, each inspired author through whom the divine will has been conveyed (and targeted audience) lived in a particular historical-sociocultural-real-life setting. To better appreciate the true state of affairs, we need to examine these teachings in view of the general plight of women in antiquity. 

The Greek Context

Among the Greeks, females were considered by nature inferior to males and hardly afforded any rights (see Aristotle, Politics 1.1259b). Since at least the early Classical period (5th century BC), boys attended school but girls did not. The “education” of females was pretty much limited to the home, where only domestic duties were learned.¹ Violence was endemic in Greek society, so men were valued as fighters. Women were valued for reproduction and as a means of demonstrating male control through physical abuse.²

The Roman Context

Since the early Roman Republic, a female was under the authority and control of her father or husband and deemed incapable of acting for herself. An educated woman was the exception rather than the rule.³ The choice of whether or not to have children was not hers to make, and the husband decided whether to keep or discard a newborn. Many baby girls were exposed to the elements simply because they couldn’t carry on the family name.⁴ A culture of violence against women was not uncommon in Rome, especially among those outside the socially elite.⁵

The Jewish Context

A very different scenario emerges in ancient Judaism, although we need to distinguish between what was taught in their sacred writings and what was sometimes practiced.⁶ Jewish law elevated women to a unique status. Any injustice, contempt, or maltreatment was contrary to and in violation of the divine will. Israelite women were not second-class citizens to be suppressed and victimized. Wives, mothers, and widows were to be honored, protected, and treated with dignity and respect (Ex. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16; 10:18; 27:16; Psa. 146:9; Prov. 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31; et al.). 

Sons and daughters alike were educated in their respective households (Deut. 6:6-7; 11:19). During and after the Babylonian exile, synagogues functioned as schools, where both boys and girls attended from age 5 or 6; girls continued until marriage at a relatively young age.⁷ Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a good example of an educated Jewish young lady. In her song recorded in Luke 1:46-55, she quotes and alludes to copious passages from all three sections of the Hebrew Bible. Thanks to the biblical knowledge and faith of a Jewish mother and grandmother, Timothy learned the holy scriptures from childhood (1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 1:5). 

The Christian Context

Although the pivotal value of honor vs. shame was firmly embedded in the male-dominated Greco-Roman world,⁸ the NT consistently challenges society’s status quo and reconfigures the boundaries of honor and shame. All who might be dishonored because of ethnicity, social standing, or gender can now be unashamed in Christ, where no one is considered inferior to anyone else (1 Cor. 12:12-27; Gal. 3:26-29; Col. 3:9-11). In this regard NT writers are seen as deviants and radicals, swimming against the current of popular culture. 

The “Controversial” Passages

Bible students and most Bible critics are familiar with the apostle Paul’s directives to the mid-1st-century church at Corinth: “the women are to keep silence in the assemblies, for it is not allowed for them to publicly speak but to be in submission … but if they desire to learn anything …” (1 Cor. 14:34-35a).⁹ A similar prohibition is included in Paul’s letter to the young evangelist in mid-1st-century Ephesus: “Let a woman learn in quietness, in all submissiveness. But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Historically these passages have been interpreted in at least four different ways. (1) Paul is a confirmed chauvinistic woman-hater (John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism 100-101). (2) A pseudepigrapher is responsible for these non-Pauline texts (James Veitch, Faith for a New Age 165-66). (3) The directives are culturally limited and no longer relevant to modern times (Glenn Rogers, The Bible Culturally Speaking 196-214). (4) Distinct gender roles are divinely enjoined with ongoing applicability (F. LaGard Smith, Male Spiritual Leadership 252-64). 

A Contextual Approach

What would instructions like this have communicated to a Christian woman in mid-1st-century Corinth or Ephesus? Seeing that she would have heard the document read aloud in the corporate assembly, this in itself is quite remarkable. In the pagan world women were isolated from most public gatherings.¹⁰ In the fellowship of Jesus Christ they are welcomed into the church where social, ethnic, and gender differences remain, yet barriers are removed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2-11; 12:12-13; 14:23a; 15:1-2; 1 Tim. 5:1-2).

Modern readers, perhaps with embarrassment or consternation, tend to hone in on words like “silence,” “submission,” and “do not permit.” But in the 1st-century Greco-Roman environment of the early church, the same words would have seemed rather innocuous in relation to the radical appeal, “if they desire to learn anything …. let a woman learn …”¹¹ Talk about revolutionary! In their culture a woman wasn’t supposed to learn. Her intellectual capacity was questioned, educational prospects were rare, and she certainly wasn’t encouraged to pursue knowledge.¹² Contrary to the societal arena into which it entered, Christianity afforded women opportunities to learn and to be accepted (Acts 1:14; 2:41; 5:14; 8:12; 16:13-18; 17:4, 11-12, 34).

The Biblical Perspective

The Bible has consistently clashed with the secular world’s entrenched standards – past and present. The cultural pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, whereas the biblical model of male-female complementarity goes all the way back to creation and remains unchanged (Gen. 1:27; 2:18-23; 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:13).

According to God’s design, men and women are not the same. There are about 100 gender differences in the human brain,¹³ not to mention anatomical, emotional, and a host of other distinctions any married couple can verify. Neither gender is superior to the other (Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:7). Both are equally valued and mutually dependent (1 Cor. 11:11; 12:18-25). And the Creator has assigned each a specific role (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33). 

The “silence” enjoined on women in the church assembly is no more demeaning than the silence enjoined on male tongue-speakers and prophets in the same assembly (1 Cor. 14:27-35). The “submission” of women is no more oppressive or devaluing than Christ’s submission to the Father (Phil. 2:5-8; 1 Cor. 15:28), the church’s submission to Christ (Eph. 5:23-24), the submission of church members to local leaders (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-5), or our mutual submission to one another (Gal. 5:13; Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:3). 

The oft-cited examples of women serving the Lord (e.g. Luke 2:36-38; John 4:28-29; 20:1-2; Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; Rom. 16:1-3; Phil. 4:2-3) are a far anachronistic cry from the modern concept of female authority figures. Christian activity is by no means limited to public leadership, and women are among the finest examples of faith, generosity, and service recorded in scripture.¹⁴ Men are not exempt from fulfilling their God-given role or from treating women with anything less than dignity, respect, and gratitude.

Conclusion

Suffice it to say that the true intent of any biblical text is rarely if ever discovered by agenda-driven hermeneutics. To claim the Bible is misogynistic and degrading toward women is to demonstrate ignorance of what it actually says in the context in which it is said. If scriptural teachings result in a woman experiencing shame, low self-esteem, or prideful envy, the Bible is not to blame. It is the ravenous influence of our sinful world that produces such a distorted perception. A godly woman with the Christ-like spirit of humility does not decry her gender assignment at birth or bemoan the special role God himself has allocated. Rather, she embraces her honored status and meekly devotes her unique qualities to HIS glory. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Aleksander Wolicki, “The Education of Women in Ancient Greece,” in A Companion to Ancient Education, ed. W. Martin Bloomer (W. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015): 305-320.

     ² Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, “Domestic Abuse and Violence Against Women in Ancient Greece,” in Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour in Honour of Nick Fisher, ed. S. Lambert (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2011): 231-66.

     ³ William Smith, William Wayte, and G. E. Marindin, eds. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1890); E. A. Hemelrijk, “The Education of Women in Ancient Rome,” in A Companion to Ancient Education, ed. W. Martin Bloomer (W. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015): 292-304.

     ⁴ Jo-Ann Shelton, As the Romans Did (New York: Oxford, 1988): 27-28.

     ⁵ Serena S. Witzke, “Violence Against Women in Ancient Rome: Ideology versus Reality,” in Topographies of Ancient Greek and Roman Violence, eds. Garrett G. Fagan and Werner Riess (University of Michigan Press, 2015): 248-74.

     ⁶ When divorce became prevalent among the Israelites (Deut. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), it was permitted only because of “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8), serving to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery (Deut. 24:1-4; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). In the Jewish Talmud, a written record of oral tradition, men offered the daily prayer: “Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave” (Menachot 43b-44a). But this is not biblical.

     ⁷ Note the Mishnah: Judah ben Tema, Avot 5.21.

     ⁸ Literature on this is plethoric. See, e.g., B. J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology 3rd ed. (Louiville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001): xii, 27-57; B. J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. J. H. Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991): 25-66; H. Moxnes, “The Quest for Honor and the Unity of the Community,” in Paul in His Hellenistic Context, ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995): 203-230; W. Mischke, “Honor-Status Reversal,” Orality Journal 4:1 (2015): 11-36.

     ⁹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. For a more thorough discussion of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, see Let the Women Keep Silent. For a more thorough discussion of 1 Tim. 2:11-12, see Jesus Couldn't Be a Priest.

     ¹⁰ A. Wolicki, op. cit. 310.

     ¹¹ Thanks to Derek McNamara for this insight at Freed-Hardeman University’s Scholars Day, 26 Oct. 2018. Craig L. Blomberg calls our attention to “what would have stood out to the initial readers as unique and therefore distinctively Christian. One thinks, for example, of the conventional commands to slaves, children, and women to submit to those in authority over them as compared with the highly countercultural calls to masters, fathers, and husbands to love and serve those under them and to use their authority in a sacrificial, self-giving way” (Handbook of NT Exegesis 104).

     ¹² See also Gary K. Clabaugh, “A History of Male Attitudes toward Educating Women,” Educational Horizons (Spring 2010): 166-69, <Link>; Mark Cartwright, “Women in Ancient Greece,” Ancient History Encyclopedia (27 July 2016), <Link>; Craig Keener, “Women’s Education and Public Speech in Antiquity,” JETS 50/4 (Dec. 2007): 747-50 <Link>. Keener observes, “men normally being more educated than women should be clear to anyone who reads through ancient literature and not just collections of exceptions” (748 n. 4).

     ¹³ Gregory L. Jantz, “Brain Differences Between Genders,” in Psychology Today (27 Feb. 2014), <Link>. See also Leonard Sax, "A New Study," in Psychology Today (27 March 2019), <Link>.

     ¹⁴ In the NT alone, see, e.g., Matt. 9:20-22; 15:22-28; 27:55-56; 28:1-10; Mark 12:41-44; 14:8-9; Luke 1:28-30; John 4:28-30, 39-42; Acts 1:14; 2:17-18; 5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2, 36; 17:4, 12, 34; 17:11-12; 16:13-18, 40; 21:9; 22:4; Rom. 16:1-4, 6, 12; 1 Cor. 7:34; 11:5; Phil. 4:2-3; 1 Tim. 5:5, 10; 2 Tim. 1:5; Tit. 2:3; Heb. 11:11, 23, 31; 1 Pet. 3:3-5; 2 John 1. 

Related posts: A Woman's Service in the Church, Noah and Her Sisters, Sarah Andrews, Phoebe: Servant of the Church, Prisca & Aquilla, Andronicus & Junia(s) 

Related articles: Hans Fiene’s Toxic Masculinity; Wes McAdams’ People Demeaning Women; Helen Hennig's A high school student speaks out on feminism; Kyle Butt's Biblical View of Women; Tyler Boyd's Do Paul's Instructions Apply?; Patrick Swayne's Submission is a Two-Way Street 

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1276&bih=688&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=y650XJfDJvzI0PEP29Ot0A0&q=shocked+face&oq=shocked&gs_l=img.1.2.0i131i67j0j0i67j0l7.165515.167719..170573...0.0..0.157.1075.0j7......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.d5Y6pTlncXU#imgrc=P47JdULKcjHHAM:

Single Women on the Mission Field

     Single women fill an important role in missionary work and therefore deserve special consideration. What can a single woman do on the mission field? Many Christians, including single women themselves, may be skeptical about their role and usefulness in missions. Putting aside the usual stereotypes and preconceived misconceptions, let’s consider what the Bible says.

     Many women followed and ministered to Jesus (Matthew 27:55-56) and are among the finest examples of faith, generosity and service recorded in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 9:20-22; 15:22-28; Mark 12:41-44; 14:8-9). The greatest event in history was first witnessed and announced by godly women (Matthew 28:1-10). The first “missionary” to Samaria, besides Jesus himself, was female (John 4:28-30, 39-42). Women formed part of the nucleus when the Lord’s church began (Acts 1:14; 2:41), and the number of receptive women who obeyed the gospel was an important factor in the rapid growth of early Christianity (Acts 5:14; 8:12; 17:4, 12, 34). Among those in Berea who “searched the scriptures daily” and responded to the truth were noble-minded women (Acts 17:11-12). The church at Philippi initially consisted of devout women and met in a woman’s home (Acts 16:13-18, 40). Because of their uncompromising faith these dedicated, first-century Christian women even suffered brutal persecution (Acts 8:3; 9:2; 22:4).

     Tabitha “was full of good works and charitable deeds” (Acts 9:36). Phoebe was “a servant of the church in Cenchrea,” whom Paul said “has been a helper of many and of myself also” (Romans 16:1-2). Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis “labored much in the Lord” (Romans 16:6, 12). Euodia and Syntyche labored with Paul in the gospel (Philippians 4:2-3). There were widows who were “well reported for good works,” who “brought up children … lodged strangers … washed the saints’ feet … relieved the afflicted … diligently followed every good work” (1 Timothy 5:10). Any careful observer of church work and church history must concede that godly women have always been the backbone of the Lord’s church.

     Since Christian woman are to be “teachers of good things” (Titus 2:3), we find that a number of them in the New Testament were endowed with the miraculous gift of prophecy (Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5). It stands to reason that if God had given this gift and the responsibilities of teaching and service to women, he would have expected them to be utilized. At the same time, however, there are certain restrictions placed on Christian women. They are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12), neither are they allowed to speak as to lead the public assembly (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

     Some have mistakenly concluded that the role of male leadership indicates that women are in some way inferior to men. However, even though male headship implies female subordination (1 Corinthians 11:3), submission and inferiority are not equivalents. While all Christians have been directed to love, serve, and submit to one another (Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 5:5), each has been allocated different functions to perform. For example, elders are to “rule over” the flock and function as “overseers” (Hebrews 13:7-24; 1 Peter 5:2), and the other members are called upon to “obey” and “submit” to them (Hebrews 13:17). As far as the relationship to one another in Christ is concerned, there is equality and mutual submission among all believers. At the same time, there are different God-ordained roles, involving leadership and unilateral submission, to be respected and fulfilled.

     Whatever a Christian woman does in the Lord’s service, she ought to be sensitive to “the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:3-5). She should be one who “trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day” (1 Timothy 5:5). A faithful Christian woman “cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit” (1 Corinthians 7:34).

     What can a single woman do on the mission field? There are any number of ministries in which she can be involved, including evangelism, prayer, teaching children’s and ladies’ Bible classes, correspondence work, youth activities, encouraging weak Christians and other singles, secretarial and administrative work, counseling, developing teaching materials, language acquisition, translating, writing, babysitting, easing the work load of other missionaries, providing transport, teaching special skills, and the list could go on. But instead of making a longer list, the best answer to this question, given by one female missionary, is the following: “Whatever I can that needs to be done” (Grace Johnson Farrar, “Opportunities for Women on the Mission Field,” Christian Bible Teacher [March 1988]: 103).

     A single woman, serving the Lord in an environment foreign to her own, must be acutely aware of special problems she may encounter. For any woman in any culture, personal safety can be compromised if good judgment is not exercised. If at all possible single women should travel and work in pairs or in groups or with coworkers, but rarely alone. In many cultures women are expected to be married and have children, so the single female missionary may face a certain amount of suspicion, prejudice, and castigation. It is very important that cultural norms be learned and respected (e.g. women not exposing their hair in some Middle Eastern countries). Nevertheless, these challenges pale in significance to the good she can accomplish and the special needs she can fill.

     Any single woman who exhibits a sincere desire to do whatever she can for the Lord with whatever abilities, opportunities and resources she may have, deserves all the respect, encouragement, support and appreciation she is due. Thank God for the single missionary woman!

–Kevin L. Moore

*Adapted from the author’s book The Single Missionary (2002) 47-51; reworked and adapted further for a previous post on “A Woman’s Service in the Church,” <Link>.

Related Posts: The Single Christian

Related articles: Hugo McCord's The Love of God Constraineth Us; Bruce Daugherty's Sarah Andrews; Emily Stockton's If Mr. Right Never Comes Along

Image credit: http://www.smallbusinessbranding.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/sunset.jpg

Noah and Her Sisters

     Noah was the great-great-great-great granddaughter of the patriarch Joseph. Her sisters were Mahlah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They were the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, the son of Joseph (Num. 26:28-33).

Background

     After four decades of living as nomads in the Sinai wilderness, it was time for the people of Israel to settle in the land of Canaan.¹ The fertile region was to be divided among all Israelite tribes except the Levites, who would be supported by the tithing system as they rendered spiritual service to the nation.²

     The land was partitioned according to tribes and families, and the head of each family was to pass his inheritance on to his sons. But Zelophehad, the great-great-great grandson of Joseph, died in the wilderness and had no sons (1 Chron. 7:15). Although he did have five daughters, there was no provision in the law for a man’s daughters inheriting an estate.

An Exceptional Case

     Realizing their father’s legacy was in jeopardy, Zelophehad’s daughters took action. Despite the firmly established patriarchal society in which they lived, the five sisters stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the tribal leaders, and the entire community. They made the following appeal: “Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers” (Num. 27:4 NKJV).

     Such an unprecedented request caught Moses off guard. He didn’t know what to do. So he brought their case before the LORD, and this is what the LORD decreed: “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them” (Num. 27:7). Moreover, additional provisions were made for others who might otherwise get overlooked in inheritance claims (vv. 9-11).

The Promise Fulfilled

     After Moses’ death, as the Israelites began inhabiting the Promised Land, the daughters of Zelophehad reminded Eleazar and Joshua that God had commanded Moses to give them an inheritance (Josh. 17:4a). “Therefore, according to the commandment of the Lord, he gave them an inheritance among their father’s brothers” (v. 4b). Accordingly, the territory of the tribe of Manasseh was significantly increased (vv. 5-6). Noah and her sisters, to ensure the property remained in the family, then married sons of their father’s brothers (Num. 36:10-12).

A Historical Moment

     Contrary to modern-day misconceptions, women in ancient Israel were not second-class citizens to be suppressed and mistreated with God’s approval. To better appreciate the true state of affairs, one needs only to understand the plight of women in the ancient world in general, where male domination was the norm.

     Among contemporary Greeks, females had few rights in comparison to their male counterparts. Since they were considered by nature inferior to men,³ women were not allowed to inherit or own property. In the early Roman Republic, females were under the authority and control of their fathers and husbands. Because they were deemed incapable of acting for themselves, ladies were legally obliged to have a male tutela (“tutor”) to ensure property was kept in the male-dominated family.⁴ Among the ancient Egyptians, where equity between the sexes was afforded some consideration, men still held the positions of authority and controlled their respective households and land ownership.⁵

     Even though it was very much a man’s world, Jewish law elevated women to a unique status. Wives, mothers, and widows were to be protected, supported, and treated with dignity and respect (Ex. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16; 10:18; 18-21; 27:16; Psa. 146:9; Prov. 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31; et al.). Any injustice, contempt, or maltreatment of women among the Jews was contrary to and in violation of the divine will.⁶

Lessons to Learn

     Of the approximately two million Jews who entered the Promised Land (Num. 26:2, 51, 62), how is it that only one family had no sons? If we concede the providence and foreknowledge of God, this certainly made the allotment of property much less complicated according to customary birthright conventions. But what about the daughters of Zelophehad?

·      God expects his people to step out in faith and take action (Jas. 2:17). He doesn’t work through apathy, passivity, or laziness. Noah and her sisters took initiative in the pursuit of fairness.

·      God expects his people to trust him enough to confront fear (Psa. 27:1). Noah and her sisters, in a male-dominated culture, had the courage to take a stand for what is right.

·      God expects his people to put the interests of others before themselves (1 Cor. 10:24). Noah and her sisters were not selfishly demanding their perceived rights but seeking to preserve the legacy of their father and provide a future for their families.

·      God will always do what’s right (Deut. 32:4). Noah and her sisters were a test case, and the Lord turned a potential injustice into a blessing, not only for these five ladies but for many others who might otherwise be neglected.

·      While God has designated different roles for men and women, neither is superior to the other; both are equally valued in his sight (Gen. 1:27). Noah and her sisters provide a clear demonstration of this fundamental truth.

     Hopefully we can appreciate that the celebrated ark-builder was not the only hero of faith named “Noah” in the biblical record. Noah, the daughter of Zelophehad, along with her four sisters, impacted the world in which they lived and future generations as well. They remain worthy of our gratitude and recognition.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The ancient land of Canaan roughly corresponds to present-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel.

     ² Num. 18:20-31; Josh. 13:7–19:48.

     ³ Aristotle, Politics 1.1259b; cf. also Cicero, Pro Murena 12.27; Epictetus, Discourses 2.4.

     ⁴ William Smith, William Wayte, and G. E. Marindin, eds. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1890) <Link>. Under the Empire, it was not legal for women to buy or sell property until the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54), although they still could not vote or hold office (see A. Bell, Jr. Exploring the NT World 195-96).

     ⁵ Bob Brier and Hoyt Hobbs, Ancient Egypt: Everyday Life in the Land of the Nile (New York: Sterling, 2013): 89 <Link>; Robert C. Ellickson and Charles DiA. Thorland, “Ancient Land Law: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel,” Faculty Scholarship Series 71:321 (1995): 354-56. <Link>

     ⁶ The Talmud prescribed that a Jewish man offer the daily prayer: “Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave” (Menachot 43b-44a). When divorce became prevalent among the Israelites (Deut. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), it was permitted only because of “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8), serving to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery (Deut. 24:1-4; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22).

Related Posts: Lineage of Jesus, Woman's Service in the Church, The Bible's Radical View on Women 

Image credit: http://ldsmag.com/were-ancient-israelite-women-named-sariah/