Vedic Society (C.1750-600 BC)

The Vedic Age begins with the supposed arrival of the Aryans and the composition of the Rig Veda. Again, there are differences of opinion regarding whether the Aryans really arrived or they were the original inhabitants of the land. For instance, in his History of India, Mountstuart Elphistone wrote, “There is no reason whatever for thinking that the Hindus ever inhabited any country but their present one; and as little for denying that they may have done so before the earliest trace of their records or traditions.”[1] Elphinstone argued this from the absence of any Vedic allusion “to a prior residence, or to a knowledge of more than the name of any country out of India.” However, his arguments do not convince most historians. Keay notes:

..it is certainly curious that the Vedas say nothing of life in central Asia, nor of an epic journey thence through the mountains… The usual explanation is that, by the time the Vedas were composed, this migration was so remote that all memory of it had faded…[2]

Allowing “first for a major time-lapse (say two hundred years) between the Late Harappan phase and the Aryan arrival in India, and then for a plausible memory gap (say another two hundred years) between arrival and the composition of the earliest Vedas,”[3] Keay suggests the period between 1500 BC and 1300 BC as the time of the Aryan arrival. He is among the group of scholars that favor a more gradual migration theory to the previous Aryan-invasions theory. He thinks the multiple waves of migration theory best fits the fact of the Aryanisation of the entire sub-continent. However, as we have seen earlier, there are other theories to account for the fact of Aryanisation (or Sanskritisation). For instance, there is the Brahminic mission theory as well as the Asura composition of the Rig Veda theory. But, whatever, we are only left more with theories and not established facts with regard to the origin issues. Nevertheless, we have at least one advantage: the Rig Veda, considered to be the only existent earliest record of people in the Indian sub-continent.

Caste System
Scholarly consensus agrees on the point that the Aryan religion as practiced in the Rig Veda was simpler and devoid of the caste-system. In his History of India (1867), James Talboys Wheeler separated the Vedic age from the Brahminic age (also now called the Age of the Epics or the Puranic Age) and points out the following chief differences between the two:

In the Vedic period the Brahmins were scarcely known as a separate community; the caste system had not been introduced, and gods were worshipped who were subsequently superseded by deities of other names and other forms. In the Brahminic period the Brahmins had formed themselves into an exclusive ecclesiastical hierarchy, endowed with vast spiritual powers, to which even the haughtiest Rajas were compelled to bow. The caste system had been introduced in all its fulness, whilst the old Vedic gods were fast passing away from the memory of man, and giving place to the three leading Brahminical deities–Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Again, the Vedic period is characterized by a patriarchal simplicity, which is wanting in the Brahminic age, when the luxury and splendour of the Hindu Rajas had reached a climax side by side with the increased power and influence exercised by the Brahminical hierarchy.[4]

However, the 90th hymn “Purusha” of the 10th Book in the Rig Veda does mention castes in the following words:

When they divided Puruṣa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?
The Brahmin was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.[5]

But, many scholars consider the above text to have been interpolated by later protagonists of the Varna (caste) system. However, Dalit leader and architect of the Indian Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar, thought it untrue to a study of the Vedas to consider that the caste-system was absent from the Vedic age. However, he did try to point out that the fourth caste, Shudra (considered to be the lowest) was not original to the Vedic age, though texts such as the Purusha Sukta quoted above could have been tampered with by Brahmin priests of the latter period.

There are some scholars who maintain that the Varna system did not exist in the age of the Rig Veda. This statement is based on the view that the Purusha Sukta is an interpolation which has taken place long after the Rig Veda was closed. Even accepting that the Purusha Sukta is a later interpolation, it is not possible to accept the statement that the Varna system did not exist in the time of the Rig Veda. Such a system is in open conflict with the text of the Rig Veda. For, the Rig Veda, apart from the Purusha Sukta, does mention Brahmina, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas not once but many times. The Brahmins are mentioned as a separate Varna fifteen times, Kshatriyas nine times. What is important is that the Rig Veda does not mention Shudra as a separate Varna. If Shudras were a separate Varna there is no reason why the Rig Veda should not have mentioned them. The true conclusion to be drawn from the Rig Veda is not that the Varna system did not exist, but that there were only three Varnas and that Shudras were not regarded as a fourth and a separate Varna.[6]

Ambedkar believed that the caste-
supportive texts of Vedas were
later interpolations

Ambedkar theorized that the Shudras originally belonged to the Kshatriya class and quotes Shanti Parva of Mahabharata 60.38-40 as a primary piece of evidence, where it says: “It has been heard by us that in days of old a Sudra of the name of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in one of his sacrifices) consisting of a hundred thousand Purnapatras, according to the ordinance called Aindragni.” This mentioning of Paijavana in the text, however, was in order to give evidence from history of a Shudra who observed this rule that offering of sacrifices was mandatory for Shudras as well as it is for the upper castes. According to this rule, since the Shudra is not allowed to utter the mantras, he was to offer sacrifices called the Purnapatras without observing the vows laid down by the Vedas.[7] However, the very fact that these rules come later on and are requiring a citation of an example from the past seems to indicate that the Varna system as it came to be stipulated in this section of the Mahabharata was not prevalent during the Vedic age. In fact, according to K. M. Ganguli, translator of the Mahabharata in English (thus far the only complete translation):

The Santi Parva is a huge interpolation in the Mahabharata, in the genre known as 'wisdom literature.' The narrative progression is placed on hold almost from the first page. Instead we get a long and winding recapitulation of Brahmanic lore, including weighty treatises on topics such as kingcraft, metaphysics, cosmology, geography, and mythology. There are discussions of the Sankya and Yoga philosophical schools, and mentions of Buddhism. It is apparent that the Santi Parva was added to the Mahabharata at a later time than the main body of the epic.[8]

Widow Remarriage
Rig Veda 10.18 and Atharva Veda 18.3 have references to the widow during the time of funeral. There have been interpretations that saw these hymns as ratifying the custom of Sati (in which a widow was cremated alive with her dead husband). However, the interpretations are controversial owing to the obscurity of the text. Some have looked at these verses as a call to the widow to rise up from mourning and return to the world of life or resume her place in the world where battles are still to be fought.[9] In fact, it is suggested that it is the brother of the widow’s husband who raises his sister-in-law up with the words, “Rise up, woman, into the world of the living.”[10] The brothers and relatives seem to be pleading the widow to release her husband’s body for cremation. It is also suggested that the hymn also pronounces on the widow a blessing at her second marriage with the words in RV.10.18.9: “Go up O woman to the world of living; You stand by this one who is deceased; Come! to him who grasps your hand, Your second spouse (didhisu), You have now entered into the relationship Of wife and husband.”[11] The controversial nature of this passage will be evident from comparing it to Griffith’s translation of the same as “From his dead hand I take the bow be carried, that it may be our power and might and glory. There art thou, there; and here with noble heroes may we o’ercome all hosts that fight against us.”[12] Nevertheless, there is modern consensus on the interpretation that the Vedic texts only describe a form of mimetic death of the widow with her husband. She was wedded to him for life; but, on his death, she became dead to him and he to her, whereby she was expected to return to the world of the living, where she was free from her former husband, now to remarry another. This interpretation seems more in keeping with the ancient law-systems of the then world. For instance, the Code of Hammurabi (ca.2250 B.C.), states:

If a widow with small children has come to a decision to enter the house of a second man, she shall not enter without legal authority.
Before she enters the house of another man the judges will make decisions about the affairs in her first husband's house and entrust her first husband's household to that woman and her second husband, and they shall make them deposit a written statement.
They shall take care of the house and bring up the children.
They shall not sell the furniture for silver.
Anyone who buys the belongings of a widow's sons shall forfeit his silver.
The property shall return to its owner. (L177)[13]

For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to [her] husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. (Romans 7:2-3, The Bible, NKJV).

NOTES
[1] Mountstuart Elphinstone, The History of India: The Hindu and Mohametan Periods, 5th edn. (London: John Murray, 1866), p.54
[2] John Keay, India: A History, p.27
[3] Ibid, p.27
[4] James Talboys Wheeler, The History of India from the Earliest Ages, Vol I: The Vedic Period and the Mahabharata (London: N. Trubner & Co, 1867), p.6
[5] Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], at sacred-texts.com
[6] B. R. Ambedkar, Who Were the Shudras? Vol.I (Thackers, 1970)
[7] Kisari Mohan Ganguli (tr), The Mahabharata (1883-1896), sacred-texts.com, pp.131-132
[8] Ibid. pp.131-132
[9] Carl Olson, The Many Colors of Hinduism (Rutgers University Press,2007), p.265
[10] Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians (Leiden: BRILL, 2007), p.188
[11] Arun R. Kumbhare, Women in India: Their Status Since the Vedic Times (Bloomington: iUniverse, 2009), pp.14,15
[12] Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], at sacred-texts.com
[13] Hammurabi’s Laws, tr. by M. E. J. Richardson (London: T&T Clark, 2000), p.99

Women as Bishops: What Would the Bible Say?

On Monday, July 14, the Church of England voted to allow women to be ordained as bishops. Reuters in London reported:

Two years ago, a similar proposal failed narrowly due to opposition from traditionalist lay members, to the dismay of modernisers, the Church hierarchy and politicians.

But after a five-hour debate on Monday, the General Synod, the governing body of the Church of England, voted overwhelmingly in favour of an amended plan at its meeting in the northern English city of York.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, commented: "Today is the completion of what was begun over 20 years ago with the ordination of women as priests. I am delighted with today's result."

There are others, of course, who consider this move as not being theologically correct. Bishop John Goddard of Burnley is reported to have said that he could not vote in favor of the legislation “out of obedience to God.” “Out of theological conviction, I must vote no,” he said, according to The Press Association. (Stephen Castle, The New York Times)

However, women clergy have been delighted. The Dean of Salisbury, June Osborne, told the BBC: "I don't think you can overstate the fact that the Church of England allowing women to take up the role of bishop is going to change the Church." She also anticipated that "it's going to change our society as well because it's one more step in accepting that women are really and truly equal in spiritual authority, as well as in leadership in society." (BBC News)

What Would the Bible Say?

There are various forms of church government and organization in the world today, among which the episcopal system is one. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines "episcopacy" as follows:

EPISCOPACY, in some Christian churches, the office of a bishop and the concomitant system of church government based on the three orders, or offices, of the ministry: bishops, priests, and deacons. The origins of episcopacy are obscure, but by the 2nd century ad it was becoming established in the main centres of Christianity. It was closely tied to the idea of apostolic succession, the belief that bishops can trace their office in a direct, uninterrupted line back to the Apostles of Jesus.

The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Churches are some of those who follow the episcopal polity system.

Many modern day Methodist churches follow a modified version of episcopal polity known as Connexionalism which is more mission-oriented, with itinerant evangelists playing important roles in the life of the churches.

Most Reformed churches, however, follow the Presbyterian polity system in which local churches are supervised by a body of elders (presbyters) within the local church. Groups of these local churches are governed by a higher assembly of elders known as the presbytery or classis, which again are grouped into synods. The synods combine further into a general assembly. So, the structure of administration is bottom-up in contrast to the episcopal system.

Baptist Churches usually follow the congregationalist polity in which church governance is local. Each local church is self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating.

While it might not be very helpful, at this moment in the history of the church, to begin critiquing the various systems, it is certainly helpful to remember that biblically the Head of the church is not any bishop or pastor but Christ alone (Eph.5:23). Also, the doctrine of apostolic succession is not biblical, as it is only Christ who calls the individual to the ministry of the Gospel. Jesus made it clear to His disciples that He wasn’t interested in a human organization (Mark 9:38-40). Paul didn't get his authority from the Twelve Apostles or from Peter but from Jesus Christ. However, he did mention that James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave him the right hand of fellowship (Gal.2:9,10). But, that didn't mean that their position in the church superseded his or anybody's. In the next verses it was Paul who had to theologically confront Peter with regard to a matter of eating with Gentiles. Fellowship is the key word in all this. Yet, again the New Testament doesn't speak of believers in a church electing their elders; it says that the apostles appointed them by laying on of hands. But, certainly, there is that episode in Acts 6, where the church is asked to select spirit-filled Christians to serve as deacons whom the apostles appointed for that office by the laying on of hands.

Regarding women, there are no scriptures to support their appointment to the office of a pastor/bishop. The qualifications listed in 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1 says that the man must be the husband of one wife, which presupposes that the scripture wasn't anticipating women into that role. Also, though the Bible doesn't discourage the appointment of women in leadership positions (Esther was respected for being a good leader), it does however specify that the woman cannot assume leadership in the church separate from the leadership of her husband. In an earlier article, it has been noted that "a woman can be a pastor in a church if her husband is a pastor. However, if her husband is not a pastor, then her appointment as a shepherd of the flock can assume her being in an authoritative position above her husband in the church, which would immediately convey role confusion with respect to the Genesis principle; therefore the injunction that a woman should not have authority over a man" is given by Paul in 1Tim.2:12. (See The Position of Women in the Bible). Even the man would be disqualified if he is not a good leader at home and if his marital and social life is disorderly. The appointment is never individualistic. The scripture specifies that the person who is aspiring for the office of the bishop/elder must be one "who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1Ti 3:4-5). The specification regarding the deacons amplifies: "their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.(1Ti 3:11). Thus, even the man's appointment cannot be independent of his wife. But, the argument from "List of Qualifications" has a problem. 1Timothy 3 doesn't seem to expect deaconnesses as well; however, Romans 16:1 talks of Phoebe as a deaconness in the church. We must resolve to the Genesis argument (see again The Position of Women in the Bible) for a root analysis of the issue.

In 1Timothy 2:12, however, Paul instructs Timothy that a woman is not permitted to teach or to have authority over a man. The context here points to a family couple (“a woman” and “a man”) and the rationale is given from the Genesis story of the first Man and his Wife. In a husband-wife relationship, a woman is not permitted to have authority over or try to dominate her husband. Peter amplifies it further when he instructs: “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, (1Pe 3:1). However, this doesn’t mean that a woman cannot teach at all. Writing to Timothy again, he reminds him of the faith of Timothy’s mother and his grandmother, and of how from his childhood he was instructed in the Scriptures – certainly, by his mother and grandmother because Timothy’s father was not a Jew (2Tim.1:5; 3:15; Acts 16:1). (The Position of Women in the Bible)

Certainly, to be a deacon and to be a bishop/pastor is not the same thing. In only the latter's case the words "rule" (to set in order) and to "take care of the church of God" apply. There is only one case of a woman assuming leadership in the church in the New Testament. But, the case there is negative:

I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. (Rev 2:20)

This doesn't mean that women cannot be in ministry. The New Testament does list women like Dorcas (helper of the poor, Acts 9:36), Priscilla (along with her husband she was fellow-worker with Paul, Rom.16:3), Phoebe (Deaconness, Rom.16:1), and the elect lady of 2 John who served the Lord. Paul mentions women who labored with him in the Gospel (Phil.4:3). Church history overflows with women missionaries who pioneered and led ministries in various mission fields. However, we do not find in the New Testament any reason to support the idea that a woman can be the shepherd of a church, independently of her husband (if he is not called into ministry). This applies for any polity whatsoever, episcopal, presbyterian, or congregationalist.

Again, this doesn't mean that a woman cannot be a teacher. Every person in the body of Christ is expected to eventually become a teacher of God's truths (Heb.5:12). Mature Christian women are called to provide leadership for the younger ones (Tit.2:3-5). They do not need any human "ordination" to do that. Women can also be teachers of God's word in person and through their writings. That doesn't assume that they are assuming authority over their husbands; but, that they are simply being right stewards of God's word. They are expected to be "teachers of good things" (Tit.2:3). "Good" and "Truth" don't have gender prejudice. Proverbs 31 is a classic example of the teaching of a mother to her son, king Lemuel. The literary form indicates that it was a teaching she gave him when he had grown up enough to understand the meaning of sex and marriage. We have Christian women in the Body of Christ who have been a great inspiration and source of scriptural understanding to both men and women alike. But, then the New Testament doesn't mention laying on of hands for the ministry of teaching. Eldership in a church by laying on of hands is a different matter. It becomes a matter of church government and administration.

---

LATER ENTRIES

The Case of Deborah the Prophetess

In the Old Testament, the prophets played an important role as seers in the community. They provided spiritual leadership to the nation and had the power to anoint kings and other prophets, but not the priests. Deborah was a prophetess who played an important role during the age of the Judges (Judges 4). However, in the New Testament such a prophetic role doesn't exist. The only role that a "prophetess" called Jezebel assumed is depicted in a negative form in the book of Revelation. In the New Testament, the prophet might see and speak of things to come; however, he had no authority over any Christian's or Church's decision. That is one reason why Paul listened to the prophets' prophesy but didn't listen to their advice. (Acts 21:4; 20:22,23; 21:11,12). A woman can prophesy in public in the New Testament (1Cor.11:5; Acts 21:9). If there is no man to assume the role of leadership, the woman must fulfill her role of evangelizing, helping, teaching, and proclaiming God's word. The New Testament rule doesn't apply for non-ecclesiastical government. A woman can be a judge and governor in the secular arena if she has the wisdom for the work. However, she cannot be a judge and ruler in the church, because the church is not a loose society but one body and one family. The rule of a family extends to the church. The order of the family is described in 1 Corinthians 11:3:

...the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

But What About Those Women Who Have Already Been Ordained and Accepted?

Human ordination cannot bypass the divine order. The calling of God on a woman cannot be altered by any human. Any alteration can certainly be corrected and the woman find her proper ministerial place in the body of Christ. The New Testament specifies that women can prophesy, evangelize, and teach, as seen is sections above.

Further Reading

Articles on the Internet	Articles on Christian Xpress
Women Pastors: What Does the Bible Teach by Richard R. Melick, Jr., Ph.D. Church of God Debates Role of Women Dr. J. Rodman Williams: Church and Ministry - Response to questions about women being pastors or apostles Andrew Wommack on 1Timothy 2:11 (Women being silent in the churches)	Church Local Church Headship Authority of an Apostle Women as Ministers

The Position of Women in the Bible

Nothing is more harmful than the doubt that the Bible is governed by prejudice. The reason should be clear: doubts about the Bible being prejudiced are bred in a mind that has begun to question the infallibility of Scriptures; but, truth and prejudice cannot stand together.

Now, there are some who would say that it is impossible to be unbiased at all; everybody brings some kind of pre-judgment (pre-judice), pre-understanding to a text or event. What we already have believed in determines how we interpret anything else. Thus, women in some cultures would find biblical texts regarding head-covering as axiomatic, while women in other cultures might find them very oppressive. The very fact that there are a number of interpretations (some in defense of affirming that the rule is mandatory; others in defense affirming that the rule is mandatory only in few cultures; some others doubting that the commandment is prejudiced) tells us that pre-understanding has a great bearing upon one’s interpretation of a text. However, with regard to those who seriously take Scripture for what it is, the hermeneutical circle (the circle of interpretation) cannot be ignored: one’s prejudgment brought to the text can be radically altered through engagement with the text; in other words, a person’s biases can be severely challenged and changed as he continues to explore God’s word, giving rise to a new understanding that is once again brought into fresh engagement with the text once again.

Accusations about the Bible being prejudiced against women is often brought forth by some feminists who doubt that the Bible can be fair with women especially when its overarching culture is patriarchal (as they believe it to be). For such, anything patriarchal is prone to be biased against women. But, that is a prejudiced belief itself. Further, it can be unhealthy to label something (a generation, a culture) as patriarchal and use that caricature to condemn it. On the other hand, some might say “No, the Bible is not biased, but interpretations of it are.” This could be possible, where scripture twisting occurs to manipulate interpretation in order to use scriptural authority to validate a man-made rule. However, what the Bible says in this regard might be very different from what people usually think it says. Is the Bible biased against women? The question has many issues at bottom; however, in this article, we’ll examine only a few Biblical passages that have been more often challenged than others.

The Image of God in Woman
We start at the first record of woman in the Bible. In Genesis 1:27, she is not referred to as “woman” yet, but only as “female”. The passage says: “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen 1:27) With regard to the image of God, neither the male nor the female are inferior or superior to each other. Note the singular and the plural in the passage: “in the image of God He created HIM; male and female He created THEM” (emphatics mine). Man, here in this passage, is not merely Adam; man here is humanity (both male and female).

Headship and Authority
In chapter 2 of Genesis, we find for the first time the expression “woman”; and, in a way it is “patriarchal” because it was not God who called the female as woman, it was the man who called her so (2:23). The expression “woman” in verse 22 is based on the name that the man gave her. But, what did God call her? We don’t find Him call her by any name except that He said that He wanted to make for the man “a helper comparable to him”. Adam’s naming the woman as Woman (as “one taken out of Man”) was only an act that acknowledged that God had given him a “helper comparable to him”, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. However, the Genesis narrative in chapter 2 is rudimentary, relating only to the first man and his wife. But, womanhood is not just about “wifehood”; a woman is also sister, a mother, a daughter – and those relationships are diametrically different from the one spoken of in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24). The passage has been talking about the man and his wife, predominantly. But, the basic premise is clear: humans have been created as male and female in the image and likeness of God.

In 1Corinthians Paul looks back at Genesis for answers to some contemporary problems. He notes:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” (1Co 11:7-9)

This doesn’t mean that the woman is not created in the image of God; we have already looked at that earlier. Paul only wants to point out the order of succession here: the man was made first, then the woman for the man.

Prior to this, Paul had stated, “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1Co 11:3)

Certainly, this doesn’t mean that every male on earth is the head of every female on earth nor that every female on earth has to submit to every male on earth. Very clearly, the head of a woman is only her husband. As a daughter, she submits to her father even as a son is commanded to obey his father and his mother; however, with regard to headship, the Bible states it clearly that the woman (i.e. the wife) was created for the man. But, in other relationships, the Genesis rule doesn’t apply. And so, Paul continues,

“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.” (1Co 11:11-12)

Certainly, from passages where it says that the son should obey the voice of his mother, we don’t extrapolate that the Bible is matriarchal and oppressive against men. It is ridiculous to point out that in the order of authority the authority of a son is above his mother (or a female tutor at school) just because of his gender. The Bible makes it very clear that a son has to honor his mother and must not forsake her law (Prov.1:8). However, when the children are grown up, they are free from any tutorship that toddlers must have (Gal.4:1-2,5; 1Kgs.15:13). Mary could not have authority over her son after He was grown up (Matt.12:47-50). However, children are commanded to render to their parents what is due to them (1Tim.5:4,8).

The Biblical principle places the man as the caretaker and protector of his wife, as being the stronger one in relation to his wife who is “the weaker vessel” (1Peter 3:7). No husband ought to treat his wife dishonorably; if he does that it will invite wrath from God (1Peter 3:7). Also, the Bible makes it clear that God is against unethical divorces (Mal.2:16; Matt.19:3-9) and the Law of Moses made it sure that a woman was always treated with honor (Deut.21:10-17; 22:13-19) and that the man brought happiness to his wife (Deut.24:5). There were also laws for the protection of slaves, widows, and pregnant women.

Regarding Public Silence
In 1Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul instructs:

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1Co 14:34-35)

By “church” here is meant a gathering of Christians at a place. One important rule of biblical interpretation is the consistency principle: we must assume that the author is being consistent throughout his writing unless the inconsistency is blatant. The purpose of this rule is to prevent skepticism from making premature surface interpretations without having looked deeply into the context of a text and the variable meanings of the terms used in it.

It is very clear from this very epistle that Paul doesn’t imply that women have to be absolutely silent in the churches. A woman could certainly pray and prophesy in the public (1Cor.11:5), which meant a lot; because prayer involved a priestly representative role and prophesying involved authoritative communication of divine oracles – “There is neither…male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28). Paul is certainly looking at order. He had been speaking of how prophets have to prophesy in an orderly manner, while the others judged. Obviously, then, Paul is not saying here that only men should prophesy and women must not prophesy but be silent. That being ruled out, the possibility remains that he is forbidding disorderly chattering in the church while a service is going on.

In 1Timothy 2:12, however, Paul instructs Timothy that a woman is not permitted to teach or to have authority over a man. The context here points to a family couple (“a woman” and “a man”) and the rationale is given from the Genesis story of the first Man and his Wife. In a husband-wife relationship, a woman is not permitted to have authority over or try to dominate her husband. Peter amplifies it further when he instructs: “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, (1Pe 3:1). However, this doesn’t mean that a woman cannot teach at all. Writing to Timothy again, he reminds him of the faith of Timothy’s mother and his grandmother, and of how from his childhood he was instructed in the Scriptures – certainly, by his mother and grandmother because Timothy’s father was not a Jew (2Tim.1:5; 3:15; Acts 16:1).

This also implies that a woman can be a pastor in a church if her husband is a pastor. However, if her husband is not a pastor, then her appointment as a shepherd of the flock can assume her being in an authoritative position above her husband in the church, which would immediately convey role confusion with respect to the Genesis principle; therefore the injunction that a woman should not have authority over a man.

In cases that a couple stands as a model and example for other families (especially with regard to their public life), even secular authority recognizes the importance of the Genesis model (Esther 1:16-18). The Christian view of this model is given in Ephesians 5: 22-33. However, in cases that the authoritative position doesn’t have a family-extrapolation (e.g. modern business and politics – in which family life is individualist and private) a woman can be in authoritative position above men.

Headship

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1Co 11:3 NKJ)

The headship that Paul speaks about in 1Corinthians 11 concerns headship within a family. In a family, the head of a woman is her husband. Christ is the head of both the husband and the wife directly; however, the wife is also under the authority of her husband who is under the authority of Christ. This means that the wife has both the authority of Christ and her husband (who is under the authority of Christ) over her. But, the husband is not under the authority of the wife.

This also means that only the husband is the head of his wife. All men are not the head of all women. A man is the head of only his own wife; not somebody else’ wife. A woman doesn’t need to submit to someone who is not her husband. She is not under the authority of anyone else except her husband, as far as headship is concerned. For instance, the son of a woman is not the head of his mother just because he is male; but, she has authority over her son.

The headship of Christ applies to the Church as a singular body. In this case, there is no difference between male and female. Male members in a church have no advantage over women. The Spirit is not given through gender discrimination; but is poured out upon all singularly and equally. God does not give His Spirit by measure (Jn.3:34).

The headship of man also means that the wife should not try to assume authority over her husband as if trying to disciple him.

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1Ti 2:12 NKJ)

She is to learn from her own husband in silent submission (1Tim.2:11; 1Cor.14:25).

1Corinthians 14:34 doesn’t imply that any woman is submissive to the males in the church. She only submits to the authority of her husband, and to the God-ordained authority in the church that every man and woman in the local church is equally called to obey. A woman who is in need of learning must ask her own husband at home. She is not permitted to speak (unintelligibly and opinionatedly (lalea –unintelligible talk) in the church. However, she can prophesy and pray (1Cor.11:5,13).

Women as Ministers

I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also. (Rom 16:1-2)

Paul referred to Phoebe as a servant (diakonos), a deacon and minister of the church in Cenchrea. The term diakonos in the New Testament is used for people in governmental authority (Rom 13:4), for the apostolic ministry of Paul (Eph 3:7, Col 1:23), for a servant-attitude service of a disciple (Matt 23:11), for deacons (1Tim 3:8), and for servants (Jn 2:5).

The context of Romans 16:1-2 indicates that Phoebe was a deaconess or a minister of the church in Cenchrea. She was to be received in a manner worthy of the saints, with respect. The next verse mentions Priscilla and
Aquila who are called fellow workers in Christ Jesus (v 3).

Women have an important role to play in the ministry of God's kingdom. As Phoebe and Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, were a great help to Paul and many others, similarly women can be a great help and play significant roles in the work of God. Along with her husband, a woman can be a great leader in the family of God because she is able to lead the women better. She can also be a great help in the ministry of hospitality and ministry among children. Many women have been great elders in the Church, guiding, helping, and encouraging young men and women in the faith of the Lord.

TIME Cover Depicts the Disturbing Plight of Afghan Women - TIME

Aisha had her nose and ears cut off by Taliban sentence for running away from abusive in-laws

TIME Cover Depicts the Disturbing Plight of Afghan Women - TIME.

If forgiveness is not a divine virtue, then humanity is lost forever. Doesn't "to have a heart" refer to possessing virtues such as mercy, pity, sympathy, and compassion? Where ruthless and heartless legalism governs the lives of people, fear and terror are widespread and freedom disappears. But, where Justice is coupled with Mercy, there Truth becomes personal, Religion becomes personal, the world becomes personal; devoid of which, the world is the monster, Religion is the monster.

A Mother's Heart for Her Son - Proverbs 31

Chapter 31 of Proverbs is one of the only collections of motherly instructions recorded in history. Tradition regards King Lemuel (meaning "belonging to God)  as being King Solomon, in which case the mother would certainly be Bathsheba. However, some even think Lemuel might have been a King of a neighbouring kingdom called Massa. Whatever be the issues related to the background, the wisdom of this chapter is priceless, a final strike that puts the nail of Proverbs into its proper place for a man born to be a leader. Following is a gist of this treasure of wisdom from a mother's heart to her son:

Pro 31:2 What, my son?
        And what, son of my womb?
        And what, son of my vows? 


1. A MOTHER'S VISION
Lemuel's mother has a dream and a vision for her son. That is one reason why verse 1 records "the prophecy that his mother taught him". It is a prophetic instruction. It is possible that this prophetic instruction was given long before Lemuel actually became a king; in which case, her referring to Lemuel as a king may also be regarded as prophetic.

A godly mother dreams a godly and great future for her kids. She raises them in the fear of the Lord and brings them up as future and next generation leaders.

Pro 31:3 Do not give your strength to women, 
        Nor your ways to that which destroys kings. 
Pro 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, 
        It is not for kings to drink wine, 
        Nor for princes intoxicating drink...

2. THE DISCIPLINE OF THE MIND

A wise son keeps off from attractions, affections, interests, causes, and things that are destructive to the mind. 
Verses 4-9 lists why one must keep off from ungodly sexual behavior, drugs, and affairs of indulgence.
a. Wine and any thing of indulgence takes over the memory, so that one forgets the Law of God. 
Remember Gehazi who fell to greed and forgot that his master, Elisha, was a prophet who could tell what the king spoke in his chambers. The moment of indulgence is at the expense of the memory of the eternal.
b. Carnality perverts and distorts justice.
An indulgent person is not able to make a difference between good and evil. It is like a man who just ate a very sweet thing and so is unable to find a cup of tea sweet anymore.


3. THE MARKS OF A VIRTUOUS WIFE (verses 10-31)
a. A Man's Greatest Wealth is His Virtuous Wife. She is far precious than rubies (v10)
b. The heart of her husband safely trusts her. She only brings good in his life (v11, 12).
c. She is diligent in work not just of house keeping, but has the wisdom to make provision for the family (vv.13-22). Diligence, Discretion, Dauntlessness (Fearlessness), Generosity.... She doesn't waste her time over unproductive matters
d. Her husband has a strong reputation and has influence in society (v23)
e. She is known for her words of wisdom, for right and valuable instruction (Never is any kind of gossip or talebearing seen in her; she has no time for pleasure chats). Also, her words are kind and words that bring healing to lives (v26)
f. She cares for her family and works diligently. Idleness is a term that doesn't appear in her dictionary of life. She works day and night and turns every moment into something that blesses her family (v27)
g. Her children call her blessed and her husband praises her. They are her testimonials (v28)
h. She excels above all (v29)
i. She fears the Lord and is known for this (v30)