The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 4.3

Let’s look at the heads of the children of Ephraim: “double ash-heap: I shall be doubly fruitful,” that stood up against those returning from the war.

Azariah: “Jehovah has helped;” son of Jehohanan: “Jehovah has graced.”

Berachiah or Berechiah: “Jehovah blesses;” son of Meshillemoth: “recompense.”

Hezekiah or Jehizkiah: “Jehovah has made strong;” son of Shallum: “retribution.”

Amasa: “burden;” son of Hadlai: “rest of God”

 2Ch 28:13  And said unto them, Ye shall not bring in the captives hither: for whereas we have offended against the LORD [already], ye intend to add [more] to our sins and to our trespass: for our trespass is great, and [there is] fierce wrath against Israel.

 2Ch 28:14  So the armed men left the captives and the spoil before the princes and all the congregation.

 2Ch 28:15  And the men which were expressed by name rose up, and took the captives, and with the spoil clothed all that were naked among them, and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them upon asses, and brought them to Jericho, the city of palm trees, to their brethren: then they returned to Samaria.

The men which were expressed by name: Azariah: “Jehovah has helped,” Berachiah or Berechiah: “Jehovah blesses,” Hezekiah or Jehizkiah: “Jehovah has made strong,” Amasa: “burden,” took those captives and performed on them exactly what their father’s blessed them to do:

(son of Jehohanan) “Jehovah has graced.”

(son of Meshillemoth) “recompense.”

(son of Shallum) “retribution.”

(son of Hadlai) “rest of God.”

They gave them grace, recompense, retribution, and rest. They even anointed them before returning them to Jericho, and when they finished this work, they returned to Samaria, the “watch mountain.”

So after all of this occurs, Ahaz in all of his self-centered wisdom, goes and solicits the king of Assyria for help.

2Ch 28:16 At that time did king Ahaz send unto the kings of Assyria to help him.

And here’s the reason he did this:

2Ch 28:17 For again the Edomites had come and smitten Judah, and carried away captives.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 4.2

Ok…I have to explain what I see happening here. First of all, this guy Ahaz was an idiot. He goes and serves Baal and burns incense to him in the “valley of Himnon,” which is the valley of lamentation or sorrow.

This valley separates Mount Zion to the north, which is the mount or symbol of promotion; from the hill of evil counsel’ and the sloping rocky plateau of the ‘plain of Rephaim’ to the south, which means giants.

(Psa 75:6 For promotion ^{07311 02022} [cometh] neither from the east ⁰⁴¹⁶¹, nor from the west ⁰⁴⁶²⁸, nor from the south ⁰⁴⁰⁵⁷. It is Strong’s 02022 reference that shows Mount Zion correlating with promotion.)

So he goes and serves Baal and ends up in a place of “sorrow,” looking up to the north at missed “promotion,” and facing “giants” on the south.

This caused God to send the “exalted” people against them because a door had been “opened,” and one of the “protected by Jehovah” was sent to slay those who had forsaken God.  This event was “memorable,” because of the “double ash-heap” Ahaz’ betrayal created; which took away “the work of Jehovah,” his “help against the enemy,” and everything that “God has possessed or God has created” for the people, and sent them into captivity.

 2Ch 28:8  And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria.

2Ch 28:9  But a prophet of the LORD was there, whose name [was] Oded: and he went out before the host that came to Samaria, and said unto them, Behold, because the LORD God of your fathers was wroth with Judah, he hath delivered them into your hand, and ye have slain them in a rage [that] reacheth up unto heaven.

Oded = “restorer”

1) father of Azariah the prophet in the reign of king Asa of Judah

2) a prophet of Jehovah in Samaria at the time of Pekah’s invasion of Judah

Now God sends in a restorer, because the children of Israel got a little too happy in attacking Judah; and got carried away in their assault, when they weren’t all that clean and above board themselves. It’s just amazing how nasty we can sometimes be to our own siblings.

 2Ch 28:10  And now ye purpose to keep under the children of Judah and Jerusalem for bondmen and bondwomen unto you: [but are there] not with you, even with you, sins against the LORD your God?

 2Ch 28:11  Now hear me therefore, and deliver the captives again, which ye have taken captive of your brethren: for the fierce wrath of the LORD [is] upon you.

 2Ch 28:12  Then certain of the heads of the children of Ephraim, Azariah the son of Johanan, Berechiah the son of Meshillemoth, and Jehizkiah the son of Shallum, and Amasa the son of Hadlai, stood up against them that came from the war,

Ephraim = “double ash-heap: I shall be doubly fruitful”

Azariah = “Jehovah has helped”

18) son of Johanan, one of the captains of Ephraim in the reign of king Ahaz of Judah

Jehohanan = “Jehovah has graced”

7) an Ephraimite

Berachiah or Berechiah = “Jehovah blesses”

6) an Ephraimite chief in the time of Ahaz

Meshillemoth = “recompense”

1) an Ephraimite, one of the chiefs of the tribe in the reign of king Pekah of Israel

Hezekiah or Jehizkiah = “Jehovah has made strong”

3) an Ephraimite in the time of Ahaz

Shallum = “retribution”

7) an Ephraimite, father of Jehizkiah

Amasa = “burden”

2) son of Hadlai and a prince of Ephraim in the reign of king Ahaz

Hadlai = “rest of God”

1) an Ephraimite

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 4.1

Now let’s check out the third king listed here:

Isa 1:1 

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Ahaz:

possessor. (1.) A grandson of Jonathan (1Ch 8:35; 9:42).

(2.) The son and successor of Jotham, king of Judah (16; Isa. 7-9; 2 Chr. 28).

2Ch 28:1  Ahaz [was] twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not [that which was] right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father:

2Ch 28:2  For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim.

Baal = “lord”

1) supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians or Canaanites

 2Ch 28:3  Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.

Hinnom = “lamentation”

1) a valley (deep and narrow ravine) with steep, rocky sides located southwest of Jerusalem, separating Mount Zion to the north from the hill of evil counsel’ and the sloping rocky plateau of the ‘plain of Rephaim’ to the south

 2Ch 28:4  He sacrificed also and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.

 2Ch 28:5  Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought [them] to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter.

Aram or Arameans = “exalted”

1) Aram or Syria the nation

2) the Syrian or Aramean people

Damascus = “silent is the sackcloth weaver”

1) an ancient trading city, capital of Syria, located in the plain east of Hermon, 130 (205 km) miles northeast of Jerusalem

 2Ch 28:6  For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, [which were] all valiant men; because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.

Pekah = “opened”

1)    son of Remaliah, originally a captain of king Pekahiah of Israel, murdered Pekahiah, usurped the throne and became the 18th king of the northern kingdom of Israel

Remaliah = “protected by Jehovah”

1) father of king Pekah of the northern kingdom of Israel

 2Ch 28:7  And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king’s son, and Azrikam the governor of the house, and Elkanah [that was] next to the king.

Zichri = “memorable”

1) the father of Eliezer, the chief of the Reubenites in the reign of David

2) the father of Amasiah, a descendant of Judah

3) a son of Izhar and grandson of Kohath

4) a descendant of Eliezer the son of Moses

5) a son of Asaph, elsewhere called ‘Zabdi’ and ‘Zaccur’

6) a priest of the family of Abijah, in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua

7) a descendant of Benjamin of the sons of Shimhi

8) a descendant of Benjamin of the sons of Shashak

9) a descendant of Benjamin of the sons of Jeroham

10) father of Joel and descendant of Benjamin

11) a father of Elishaphat, one of the conspirators with Jehoiada

12) a Ephraimite hero in the invading army of Pekah the son of Remaliah

(This name seems to live up to its meaning. Look how many times this person or persons of this name are mentioned.)

Ephraim = “double ash-heap: I shall be doubly fruitful”

1) second son of Joseph, blessed by him and given preference over first son, Manasseh

2) the tribe, Ephraim

3) the mountain country of Ephraim

4) sometimes used name for the northern kingdom (Hosea or Isaiah)

5) a city near Baal-hazor

6) a chief gate of Jerusalem

Maaseiah = “work of Jehovah”

1) a descendant of Jeshua who had taken a foreign wife in the time of Ezra

2) a priest of the sons of Harim who had taken a foreign wife in the time of Ezra

3) a priest of the sons of Pashur who had taken a foreign wife in the time of Ezra

4) a descendant of Pahath-moab who had taken a foreign wife in the time of Ezra

5) father of Azariah

6) one who stood on the right hand of Ezra when he read the law to the people

7) a Levite who assisted when Ezra read the law to the people

8) one of the heads of the people whose descendants signed the covenant with Nehemiah

9) a Benjamite ancestor of Sallu

10) a priest who took part in the musical service at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem under Ezra

Azrikam = “help against the enemy”

1) son of Neariah and descendant of Zerubbabel of the royal line of Judah

2) a Benjamite, eldest son of Azel and descendant of Saul

3) a Levite, ancestor of Shemaiah in the time of Nehemiah

4) governor of the palace of king Ahaz of Judah and victim of murder by Zichri

Elkanah = “God has possessed” or “God has created”

1) Samuel’s father

2) a ruler in Jerusalem in the time of king Ahaz

3) one of David’s mighty warriors

4) son of Korah

5) several Levites

On an unrelated note: Check out Myki’s post. Peace.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 9

Please be sure you have read the preface to this section in the previous post, so that you have understanding about the source of this information.

In the mid-second century the Acts of Paul the apostle, gives a sermon composed of thirteen beatitudes that emphasize cumatively that the only blessed ones are “the pure in heart, who have kept the flesh pure, who have renounced the world, who have wives as if they had them not, who have kept their baptism secure, who have departed from the form of this world.” The climactic beatitude says, “Blessed are the bodies of the Virgins.”

The immediate pagan accusation against Paul is, quite correctly, that “he deprives young men of wives and maidens of husbands, saying: ‘Otherwise there is no resurrection for you, except you remain chaste and do not defile the flesh but keep it pure.’” That is certainly clear; bodily resurrection is for celibates only (and preferably, for virgins). But once again, within patriarchy, that ideal creates different problems for the male Paul and the female Thecla.

Thecla’s would be husband, Thamyris, persuades the governor to scourge and expel Paul, but to condemn Thecla to being burned alive. She is saved in the arena by a rainstorm and catches up to Paul on the road.

“And Thecla said to Paul, ‘I will cut my hair short and follow you wherever you go.’ But he said, ‘The season is unfavorable, and you are comely. May no other temptation come upon you, worse than the first, and you endure not and play the coward.’” (25)

No comment is necessary on that interchange, but it gets worse. To Alexander, another would-be husband, Paul denies Thecla in words remnant of Peter’s betrayal of Jesus. Paul says, ‘I do not know the woman of whom you speak, nor is she mine. (26)

Thecla rejects Alexander and shames him for his forceful public advances by ripping his cloak and knocking the crown from his head. She is condemned to the beasts in the arena. But here, miracles far greater than a rainstorm intervene.

First of all, the ensuing division is not between Christians and pagans, but between women and men, or better, between females and males. Here are the steps.

“The women were panic-stricken, and cried out before the judgment seat; ‘An evil judgment! A godless judgment!’” (27)

Next, Thecla, who had been abandoned by her birth mother, Theoclaia, receives an adoptive mother, Tryphaena, who is powerful enough to protect her purity in prison. (27, 31)

Then, when they bind Thecla to a fierce lioness, “the lioness licked her feet.” And once again, “the women and their children cried out from above, saying, ‘O God, an impious judgment is come to pass in this city!’”(28)

That continues with “a shouting of the people and the women who sat together, some saying, ‘Bring in the sacrilegious one!’ but others, ‘May the city perish for this lawlessness! Slay us all, proconsul. A bitter sight, an evil judgment.’” (32)

The climax of this theme is this extraordinary description in which the conflict is female against male not only among humans, but even among animals:

Lions and bears were set upon her, and a fierce lioness ran to her and lay down at her feet. And the crowd of women raised a great shout. And a bear ran upon her, but the lioness ran and met it, and tore the bear asunder. And again a lion trained against men, which belonged to Alexander, ran upon her; and the lioness grappled with the lion, and perished with it. And the women mourned the more, since the lioness which helped her was dead. (33)

Second, Thecla sees in the arena a pit of water and, having been earlier refused baptism by the apostle Paul, she proceeds to baptize herself. Lightning protects her from the animals in the water. When other animals are sent in against Thecla, “the women cried aloud” and threw so much of their perfume into the arena that the animals “were overpowered as if by sleep.” (34)

Third, after Tryphaena faints, the governor releases Thecla, “the women cried out with a loud voice, and as with one mouth gave praise to God,” and Tryphaena’s “maidservants also believed.” (38-39)

Finally, Thecla dresses herself in a male cloak and goes to meet Paul, who, this time and rather belatedly, tells her, “Go and teach the word of God.” (41)

Scholars have suggested that stories like those about Thecla were created by women for women and circulated orally among them before being written down and collected in the Acts of Paul.

That is certainly possible, but early Christian feminism was because of that division not just between women and men, but between females and males. Other scholars have proposed that letters such as those to Timothy and Titus were written specifically against those Thecla-type stories. That is also quite possible, but again, can hardly be proved or disproved.

We have yet to see much more about historical Paul throughout the rest of this book. But we have already seen that two absolutely divergent traditions claimed the name of that apostle after his death.

One moved him into an ultraconservative position of male-over-female superiority, the other into an ultra radical one of necessary male and female celibacy.

The ultraconservative option is not just patriarchal misogyny. It demands male leadership to be sure, but one that is noncelibate and nonascetic. Its leaders must be male, married, and fertile-in short, socially conventional. Just like any decent Roman paterfamilias.

The ultra radical option has both female and male leadership, but Thecla outdoes Paul in every way possible. The leadership there is female, unmarried, celibate, and virginal. And each claims to be Pauline and the only true Christianity.

If, however, Roman authority thought that the ultra radical option was Christianity itself, it would probably have declared it an illicit religion. The ultraconservative option was one major step on the road from Christ to Constantine.

It is sad, however, that the Christian tradition did not adopt a firm both/and rather, than a strict either/or; that is, Christian life and leadership could be equally female or male, married or celibate, conventional or ascetic. That, certainly and regardless of his personal preferences for himself, was the authentic Pauline position for Christian converts and assemblies.

I’ve no doubt that some of you will be “sad” to note that we are finally at the end of the “Female Controversy” of this section of the study! Ha! I know…I know…I thought it was endless too, but I’m only showing you what God showed me. It’s not like I’m harping on this. So the next section will be finishing up the background information on the rest of the kings, and then maybe, we can actually get to verse 2! Peace and blessings.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 8

Since both sections were short ones, I decided to post them together for a little more coherency.

Unequal in Apostolate

We saw from 1 Tim 2:8-15 in a post Pauline letter and 1 Cor 14:33b-36 as a post Pauline insertion, that female leadership was crudely denigrated in order to establish exclusive male control of Christian assemblies.

It is no surprise, therefore, to find male status as an absolute condition for Christian leaders. But that is only one of three conditions mentioned. Leaders had to be male, that is non-female; married, that is noncelibate; and fertile, that is nonascetic.

What is the point of those latter two conditions? In 1 Tim 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9 the requirements for an elder or bishop and for a deacon, the two male leadership roles discussed are what any Greco-Roman moralist would expect for public office of any type. But two items stand out as somewhat unusual or surprising – marriage is presumed and so is fertility.

1Ti 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:12  Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Tts 1:6  If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

In that triple requirement of male, married, children, the first element is standard patriarchy, but why are those other two emphasized? Two hints are given elsewhere. One is from 1 Tim 4:3-5 which warms solemnly against those who “forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

Another is from 1 Tim 5:23, where psuedo-Paul tells Timothy, “No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” That ultra-conservative and psuedo-Pauline position on women is due, in other words, not just to general patriarchy, although it is definitely grounded in it, but also to something else as well. We can see that something most clearly in the extracanonical Acts of the apostles and most especially in the Acts of Thecla within the present Acts of Paul.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 7

Unequal in the Assembly

Paul’s authentic letters were written to communities and not to individuals, with the exception of Philemon. The letters to Timothy and Titus are three inauthentic post-Pauline letters to individuals, to Timothy, imagined as left by Paul in charge of Crete. There is, by the way, not the slightest hint in his authentic seven letters that Paul ever left anyone in charge of the communities he founded – that is why he always writes to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, Romans, but never to a presiding elder or overseer as representative of the community.

The subject of female leadership within the Christian assembly arises in the post-Pauline 1 Timothy, but also as an intersection within the Pauline 1 Corinthians.

1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

 1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

 1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

 1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

 1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

In this text female leadership is absolutely forbidden by this psuedo-Pauline author. Women are not allowed to teach or instruct men. Women are to remain silent.

Clearly of course, psuedo-Paul would not bother to forbid what never happened. That prohibition therefore, tells us that women were praying and teaching within the community’s catechetical practise and lithurgical worship. But this text dismisses women from those functions and relegates them to home, silence, and childbearing. Augustus, you will recall, would have been particularly pleased with those injunctions.

1Cr 14:33b but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

 1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

 1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

The problem here is not with an inauthentic Pauline letter like 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus, but with an insertion from that later tradition into an original earlier authentic letter of Paul. In the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible this unit appears in parentheses. Those parentheses emphasize manuscript problems in the earliest textual transmission.

First the passage is not at its present location but at the end of the chapter in some manuscripts. Second, those verses are given as a separate paragraph in all Greek manuscripts. Third, that section was deemed problematic very early, and this is the most important argument for its later insertion into Paul’s original text.

Bear in mind, the above is a continuation from the  same book I’ve been posting from in the previous posts on this. Please don’t respond under the delusion that I am claiming that anything in the bible is inauthentic. I’m merely exposing you to what this biblical scholar had to say about this, and you can draw your own conclusions.

On another note, the continuation of “The Big Camping Adventure ” is forthcoming, but I need time to upload all of those pics and make some slide shows. Have a blessed weekend.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 6

From “In Search of Paul,” by Gary Wills:

It always puzzled people that Paul could send greetings to so many people with whom he had ties in a city he had not seen yet himself – all named in the conclusion to his letter.

These are not casual acquaintances. This is a crack team, in the best possible muster of Paul’s operatives who are free and able to join him when he gets to Rome. This assembly is not a chance gathering. Paul’s plan is to take the gospel to Spain.

Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:

 Rom 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

 Rom 15:22 For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.

 Rom 15:23  But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you;

 Rom 15:24 Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your [company].

He circulated copies of his letter in Rome and Jerusalem to gain support for this worldwide outreach and Phoebe, Prisca and her husband along with the assembled team, were instrumental in this campaign – which was tragically cut short by the dark outcome of his eastward trip.

From this point on, the information is coming strictly from the book “In Search of Paul.”

Unequal in the Family

After those three authentic Pauline texts establishing female and male equality within Christianity in family, assembly, and apostolate, we turn to three inauthentic post-Pauline ones moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Greco-Roman moral though developed codes for the ethical running of households, which were then as now, the heart of society’s health. Those household codes concerned the proper moral relationship between all members of the extended family, husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters.

We look now at two post-Pauline examples of such moral instructions, first in Colossians 3:18-4:1 and then in Eph 5:22-6:9, the latter development of the former commandments.

 Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

 Col 3:19 Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.

 Col 3:20 Children, obey [your] parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Col 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children [to anger], lest they be discouraged.

 Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things [your] masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

 Col 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do [it] heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;

 Col 3:24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

 Col 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

 Col 4:1 Masters, give unto [your] servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Eph 5:22  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

 Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

 Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 Eph 5:33  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

  Eph 6:1  Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

 Eph 6:2  Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)

 Eph 6:3  That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

 Eph 6:4  And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

 Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

 Eph 6:6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

 Eph 6:7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

 Eph 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free.

 Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Notice that there is a hierarchy both vertically ( spouses, parents, owners) and horizontally (husband/wife, parent/child, owner/slave) in these lists. Despite the clear lack of equality between wives and husbands, it seems easier to be a wife “subject” to a husband like church to Christ than a husband “loving” a wife like Christ to church. Self-sacrifice, be it noted, is demanded of husband, not the wife. It is surely terribly and sadly ironic that Christian tradition demanded subjection from wives and then, rather than demanding self-sacrifice from husbands, transferred that to wives as well. Then they speak about the children and parents – the slaves and owners.

What is most striking about those texts, however, is that if you bracket their explicit Christian motivation, they emphasize general family values that would be quite acceptable across contemporary Roman social theory and practice. Augustus, were he still alive, would have been extremely pleased.

It seems most likely, therefore, that their purpose was to insist that Christian families were not at all socially subversive, but were as good as if not better than, the best of those around them. For our present argument, these texts represent a first step in collating Christian and Roman household ethics.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 5

Again, I continue in the information I found in the previously mentioned book, “In Search of Paul.”

Equal and More in the Apostolate.

Paul’s letter to the Romans concludes in 16:1-15 with mention of 29 named individuals.

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

 Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

 Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

 Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

 Rom 16:5 Likewise [greet] the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

 Rom 16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.

 Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

 Rom 16:8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.

 Rom 16:9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.

 Rom 16:10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus’ [household].

 Rom 16:11  Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the [household] of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.

 Rom 16:12  Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.

 Rom 16:13  Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

 Rom 16:14  Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.

 Rom 16:15  Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

Of those persons, two are pagan house-holders, some of whose present or freed slaves are Christians and greeted as “those in the Lord who belong to the family” of Aristobulus and Narcissus (16:10-11).

That leaves twenty seven named Christians. In what follows, watch the statistics, the details, and the names, especially which names are female and which are male.

First and above all, it is a woman who carries Paul’s letter from Corinth’s eastern port to the Christian groups in Rome – Phoebe (16:1-2).

According to Gary Wills in “What Paul Meant,” Cenchraeae is the port of Corinth, so Phoebe had stood with Paul in his very troubled dealings with the busy port city, where she was clearly efficient (as diakonos) and able to champion Paul and “many” (as prostates) indicates that she would not be leaving that sphere unless she could perform important services in Rome. Was she going there on some errand of her own and Paul just used this chance occurrence to send his letter along with her? It doesn’t fit in with the convergence of so many other important associates of Paul’s in Rome.

(Back to the book “In Search of Paul) Recall by the way that Jael, the leading and only female God-fearer in the Aprodisias inscription in Chpt 1, was also called a protector, patron, or benefactor (prostates). (The Aprodisias inscription refers to archeological inscriptions that were found. Paul Trebilco concluded in his book “Jewish Communities in Asia Minor,” that Jael was “a prominent leader of the Jewish community and represented their interests to the wider society or the president or leader who directed community affairs.”) A Pauline letter carrier would also have to circulate, read, and explain it among the Christian communities at Rome.

Second, two presumably married couples are singled out for rather extraordinary praise. Priscilla is mentioned first.

Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Third, in the total of twenty-seven individual Christians in the above list, ten are women (Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, and an unnamed mother, Julia, and an unnamed sister) and the other seventeen are men (Aquila, Epaenetus, Andronicus, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Herodion, Rufus, Asyneritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hemas, Philologus, Nereus, and Olympas).

Fourth, it may be unfair to assess which gender gets the highest praise among those accolades or epithets, but one point should be noted. Paul’s Greek root special apostolic activity is Kopiano, meaning “worked hard.” He uses it for himself twice, Gal 4:11 and 1 Cor 15:10, but four times in Romans and exclusively for women, for Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis.

Fifth, in one way or another, everyone Paul knows personally gets some sort of comment. Herodion, for example is “my kinsman” (re: fellow Jew). But it is interesting to compare in terms of gender the first 17 individuals known to Paul by personal contact with the last ten known only by hearsay report. Of the ten people indirectly known to Paul, only two are women and eight are men, but of the 17 directly known, 9 are men and 8 are women. In other words, those known to Paul by direct contact are about evenly divided between men and women.

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & the Female Controversy 4

Again, I continue in the information I found in the previously mentioned book, “In Search of Paul.”

The basic Pauline principle of equality among Christians applies not just to slavery, but to patriarchy as well. In Paul’s theology, Christian gender inequality can no more exist than can Christian class inequality. Females and males are therefore equal in family, assembly, and apostolate within Christianity.

Equal in the Family

Paul received a set of questions from a divided assembly he founded in Corinth. They were inquiring whether complete sexual separation and total ascetic abstention were mandatory for Christians, and whether such celibate abstention was the normal form of Christian life. Was it not better, they asked, for a man not even to touch a woman?

In 1 Cor 7, Paul insists that marriage and intercourse are permissible, but still ascetic abstention is preferable.

1Cr 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

1Cr 7:17 …as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk.

Paul distinguishes permissible marriage (you could) from preferable celibacy (you should), but accepts the latter himself rather than holding both options as equally good, equally holy, equally possible Christian states of life. We emphasize that Paul’s preference is about celibacy over marriage and not about inequality over equality for both women and men within either status. There is a consistent equality of female with male or male with female throughout Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 7.

It is so explicitly done, so clearly exaggerated, that it is obviously intentional. Whatever he says of one spouse, he then says of the other: the wife does this, the husband does the same; the husband does that, the wife does the same. Watch the persistence of this mutuality as equality over four subtopics: On intercourse (7:3-5), on divorce (7:10-16), on virginity (7:25-28), and on worries and anxieties (7:33-34).

There is, however, one section in 1 Cor that seems to silence women within the Christian assembly, which would certainly exalt men over women with regard to ecclesiastical status. That, of course, would be a strange dichotomy, given what Paul says in Gal 3:28, that there is neither male nor female in Christ.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

How therefore are we to understand 1 Cor 11:3-16?

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

 1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.

 1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

 1Cr 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

 1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

 1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

 1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

 1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

 1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

 1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

 1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

 1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

 1Cr 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

If you focus only on the women, it is plausible to argue that Paul is subordinating them to men (based on scriptural text, social dress and church custom). On the other, if you focus only on the men and realize that Roman males normally covered their heads for worship, as with the statue of Augustus as a priest at sacrifice, it is plausible to argue that Paul is opposing pagan religious practice.

If however, you notice how the text oscillates between women and men, men and women, you would have to take both sexes into any correct explanation.

Paul takes it for granted that both women and men pray and prophesy in liturgical assembly. That is not the problem of the text. Its a problem of the proper head covering for each of them in that situation. But why was that so important an issue?

At Corinth, presumably as a defiant challenge to inequality and a dramatic statement of equality, men and women had reversed modes of head covering in prayer, so that men worshipped with covered heads and women with uncovered heads.

In other words, Paul was confronted with a negotiation not just of gender hierarchy, but of gender difference, and he stutters almost incoherently in trying to argue against it. Of course, women and men were equal “in the Lord” and “from God,” but there should be no denial of ordinary dress codes or standard head coverings.

The difference between women and men, however, that was customarily and socially signified, must be maintained, even while hierarchy or subordination was negated.

The passage in 1 Cor 11:3-16 is the best Paul can do on that subject. But the text is emphatically not about hierarchical inequality, but about differential equality. Paul presumes equality between women and men in the assembly, but absolutely demands that they follow the socially accepted dress codes of their time and place.

Difference, yes. Hierarchy, no. That interpretation of a very difficult passage is strongly confirmed by the next section for if women are silenced in the assembly, how can they be prominent in the apostolate?

The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.1 Part 3.4

Paul & The Female Controversy 3

The previous info gave us some background, but the next two books I examined ran a basic parallel in information, so I am going to combine the information of both books here, within several posts, only specifying areas or comments that were distinctly not contained in one of the books, and combining the ideas I found in both that were the same.

The first book was “What Paul Meant,” written in 2006 by Gary Wills. He pointed out that Paul believed in women’s basic equality via the following.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is no more man and woman since they were divided here.

Gen 1:27  So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

They are reborn; brother and sister are now (ktisis) “a new order of being.”

2Cr 5:17  Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Paul worked with, paid tribute to and received protection from his Sisters in Messiah.

In the functions of the Spirit – Paul stresses equal dignity, and talks about Junia and her husband Andronicus.

Rom 16:6  Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.

Rom 16:7  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

He included her among the apostles, and in some translations, referred to her as his fellow emissary; as well as one who joined the brotherhood before he did.

Junia’s name was changed to Iounia – in the accusative case – male – Iounian. Junias was only a hypothetical name which never occurs in all the ancient literature and inscriptions – whereas Iounia is a common name.

In the book, “In Search of Paul,” written in 2004, the eminent historical Jesus scholar, John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, an expert in biblical archeology – team up to examine what archeology and textual scholarship can tell us about the apostle and his role in Christianity. They reveal that Paul, like Jesus, focused on championing the Kingdom of God – a realm of justice and equality – against the dominant worldly powers of the Roman Empire.

In this book, Junia is mentioned as “a case that would be funny to ridiculous if it were not sad to tragic. For the first twelve hundred years of Christianity, commentators had no trouble identifying her name as female, presumably the wife of Andronicus (Rom 16:7), like Prisca is of Aquila (16:3-4).

In Greek, by the way, her name appears in the accusative case as Junian. Then the name started to be identified as male – Junian was alleged to be the accusative case of the male name Junia(nu)s. Unfortunately however,

there are over 250 known cases of a female Junia in antiquity and not a single one ever discovered for the male abbreviation of Junianus to Junias.

The problem of course was Paul’s supreme accolade for both members of that married couple and specifically for the female Junia. It was even suggested, as a backup position, that if Junia were female, Paul’s compliment should read “prominent to the apostles” rather than “prominent among the apostles.” Clearly then, the only reason for suggesting a masculine meaning is to avoid a major female apostle.”