mol GN ae ah} Te GPR rR eal AES a Tuotten @ le ml fe FF Cite ELF op Ae f SAO LY i FG, Se ie fi sa ie vue vie ve Ayes ip Bien Wat PAS ve rs Zieh CMe Cot tee aS a evs Ba ZifeNs Se wala Aut Bi se ’ ie Parkgete tp: ye * fala ay yet OPS yes mat MH paaee rath eens ta ter AG tes ate a a “hey he ee {ule 1" Rep a Nai *, phan hes yond eatin te SUH Ah NY Wa ms iWin: es ‘ea, e. bade cha eta reek cls j fies M ph neesee tier aaah Hie up is hee ae hr 24) ny ale ninety a 4 ese Aprenan art Gs «Tear r ? , ae 5 : AG HTS in ta fa eid ttet fe aye bet atad We} Bec. oi pclla peas Agere tid’ ; f qi yids? 4 safe} st aie Hh é ‘ ‘ x to an : 5 way it fat , at Vse deg Act. ‘ site Me ORM! KOO ai\ewenving t Se Aa? - Bes. 45 S yt Vetus 2 ptr at eetads, “ ' : i he Zee ONION att Ree , 4 bs Mi es D 2nd. Wewteet Mail alee E HAS U ty He tade fie % My Soe Sg Sot hg Hae Ha dy OE Se ORM he fas pite “iS APG Foy am Se A meV ALAS Wale : beret wu ¥ , ne ao ¢ x 6 ‘tpg 5 nee Nat mien xcs Poa Uribe ance toby Aa Sg hgh A Payton? ; | 2 a . é ship ent” Site eae he 18 e hey M4 day . bad J Str ek Cena i Bey INS farre- s we . Nera Sy aM ya : fer eb atau e Wide rOs sete aac Bae vA ttigediy tik te Ng Vang Ves =, ia y ‘ e s - | t. i, - aa a 5-4 ag, a ae oe J », Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/biblestatusofwomOOstar ee i 7 FS Oe j if nud mM, A } Phils as $ j : N } 1% i me at r Ory a ' ' eh ep i "4 os 7% f i Fem pr i ; rh r ‘ iw ’ ik CO ee A nS ec aan roy oy, eV Ai 4 si, ie an us oo ee ; | hd ia % iy aos aa i Ae ¢ } ry — ‘ I a ‘ : e 14 . a _ = . 7 - ad ~ > ‘> > imws . 7 cy ma i? : Fs te an ae hj ~~ 4 5 Me 4 D fe Dy oie bd 7 av , ’ % ‘ ‘ AY ‘ a4.) eer) hy vs + ae % , 1. j ‘ ; ae Tr P= bo ha . * 4.37 Cae t Bree toe : 2 Soh ase ? : at ; ‘ : ‘ ? “oi. sah His ye ‘ o * 4 _— > es = oI Fong ~ ictal ¢ i =. —, a ~~ 37 v ae 4 ~ @ « ; . : a. er ? 4 ‘ i ol can we ig the ™ a : " J a i et ee ee ra) oe = : ee “ae _ ¢ - 4 oe | e tots 7 ee jt.4 op Ae ome Ey po NE = 4 7 A “4 pe es " 7 ] 7 i 5 ag ; « : e < | 2 . yera se, foe . oo a a hy i 4. 5% fe iM Mi si My i - f ’ : : s Z 2; ah, gt : a j id a ued ry ' oon’ 1, ‘ty 7 ‘ : ‘ dt liste s er : tA oe M, y = | , ; i ’ a9 AM ' d ‘ 4 | > en, 5 7 5) it shall be for meat.” The pronoun throughout is in the plural. Eve’s power was coordinate, and her sphere coextensive with that of her husband. We have heard much in the past about woman’s sphere, and it is a trite saying that “Woman’s sphere is home.” Woman’s God- given sphere is as wide as the earth’s circumference, as high as the firmament and as deep as the sea. Talk about a woman getting _ out of her sphere! She would have to get off the earth in order to do that. Every foot of this globe has been deeded to her as much as to man. Her title is in fee-simple from her Creator. Who is he that would dare build a fence about some dooryard and say to woman—“‘Here is your sphere’? “They talk about a woman’s sphere As though it had a limit; There’s not a place in earth or heaven, There’s not a task to mankind given, There’s not a blessing or a woe, There’s not a whispered yes or no, There’s not a life or birth, That has a feather’s weight of worth— Without a woman in it.” —Kate Field. God did not invest man with dominion until woman stood by ‘his side. Not until then did He pronounce His benediction and place the scepter in their hands. Thenceforth they were to be joint rulers over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, flieth through the air or swimmeth in the sea. Adam acknowledged this co-regency. After his transgression he said: “The woman Thou gavest to be with me”—not, “the woman Thou gavest to me.” 22 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Eve was not his property. “The woman Thou gavest to be with me”—his associate in government as well as his companion in the home. It is sometimes urged that priority of Adam’s creation would indicate superiority. Such argument is a boomerang. The order of creation was ascending, not descending. “ This is not only the teaching of Scripture, but it is also the testimony of science. The lower orders first. Each successive creative act brought forth higher. The fact that Eve was formed after Adam would argue, if anything, superiority. If priority of creation is a proof of superiority, the monkey has advantage over man, for the monkey was on the scene first. The advocates of the superiority of man had best be wary here. An array of arguments can be mustered on the other side from the Mosaic record. (a) The order of man’s creation militates against such claim. (b) The substance from which his body was formed—“The dust of the earth’—was inorganic. Woman, on the other hand, was built of organic substance. (c) To this may be added the fact that man physically is of coarser mold. The beard and hirsute cuticle ally him, in appearance at least, more closely to certain members of the animal kingdom. Mr. Darwin himself incautiously admits that “hairiness denotes a low stage of development.” The author attaches no importance to these inci- dentals, but mentions them to show that claimants for the supe- riority of man by no means occupy an unassailable position. At this point we call attention to the fact that the word “rib” is a faulty translation of the Hebrew yoy in Genesis i11:21-23. A better rendering would be “side.” The passage would then read: “Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. And He took one (sriydsn nm) from his side? and closed *, the flesh instead of her (RNR) - And Jehovah God built the side (yoyn) which He took from Adam for a woman, and caused her to come to Adam.” In verse 23, we read: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” The usual rendering of yoy is “side.” Take, for example, Jer. xx :10, “I have heard the defaming of many, terror on every side” “« HER PRIMAL ESTATE 23 (ydy) « II Sam. xvi:13. “Shimei went along on the hillside” (yx) - The rendering “rib” in these passages would obviously be incongruous. The Hebrew word poy occurs forty-two times in the Old Testament, and nowhere is it translated “rib” except in Genesis 11:21, 22, descriptive of the creation of Eve. In the Septuagint we find the word z)eved, which, in New Testament Greek, invariably signifies “side.” The fact that woman “was taken out of man’”—formed from his side—has led to the contention on the part of some that the sexes were created simultaneously. The author knows of but two passages in Scripture which controvert this belief—I Timothy ii:13, and Genesis ii:18,° In the former we have the apostolic declara- tion: “Adam was first formed (émAdo@y), then Eve.” The diffi- culty here may be surmounted by the fact that the New Testament word for “create” (xciw) is not used, but m\dcow, which signifies “to form,” “to mold.” In Genesis 11:18, we are confronted by a real obstacle. We there read: “And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make to him a help Wy) suitable for him.” Dr. William Rainey Harper transliterates the clause: “Not good (the) being-of (the) man to separation- his.”’—In our English idiom, “It is not good for man to be in his separation” (jn) . Instead of Adam being a bi-sexual individual, androgynous or hermaphrodite, he was, prior to the advent of Eve, in a divided state—in separation from his correspondent. To hold that the sexes were created simultaneously and conjoined in one individual sets at naught this declaration of Scripture. The separation was prior, and not synchronous with the advent of Eve. It may interest the reader to recall at this point that the savants of evolution postulate the simultaneous origin of the sexes. According to this theory, the hypothetical animal which functioned as the primeval progenitor of the human race was androgynous, or hermaphrodite. A separation of the sexes followed in due season. Genesis ii:18: “And Jehovah God said, It is not good that man should be in his separation, I will make to him a help (71y) suitable to (¥5) him,” or, “as over against him,” or as “answering to him.” The Douay version renders thus: “A help like unto himself.” 24 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Here again we have proof of the straits to which the contestants for man’s supremacy are driven. They seize on this word “help” ("Iy) as proof of the subordinate relation of woman. The facts are against them. The Hebrew word “}y occurs twenty-one times in the Old Testament, twenty times it is used of a superior, and in sixteen cases relates to Divine help, e.g., Exodus xviii:4, “God of my father was my help” ("1y)- Psalm xxvii:9, “Thou hast been my help” (1y)+ Psalm xciv:17, “Unless Jehovah had been my help” (iy) Psalm cxlvi:5, “Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help” (71y) et al. Another passage mustered to prove the primal supremacy of man is Genesis ii:19, 20: “And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens: and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field: but for man there was not found a help meet for him.” As the record shows, this naming of the animals occurred before the creation of woman. In this, expositors, especially of the older school, discover certitude of man’s supremacy. The seriousness with which they advance this claim is provocative of mirth. They attach no importance whatever to the fact that Eve named her’ offspring (Gen. iv:25). That, to their minds, was incon- sequential compared to the naming of the lower animals. In the early history of the race it was the mother, rather than the father, who named the children. Out of forty-four cases mentioned in the Old Testament, in twenty-six instances the naming is ascribed to women, fourteen to men, and four times to God. But suppose we concede, for the time being, that the distinction accorded Adam in the naming of the brute creation was certification of man’s supremacy over woman; have expositors gained anything? Is this journey for their honor? Far from it. They are brought face to face with the humiliating fact that Jehovah God declared man unequal to his responsibility: “And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make to him (35) a help suitable for him” (Gen. ii:18). There we have the Divine ap- ~ HER PRIMAL ESTATE 25 praisement of man’s single-handed government. The incontro- vertible proof of man’s supremacy—the naming of the animals— is sandwiched between the two announcements of his insufficiency. Much has been made of the fact that the tempter approached Eve rather than Adam. Ellicott says: “According to rabbinical writers, Eve was addressed because it was very doubtful whether man would have yielded.” Eve, the “weaker vessel,’ accomplishes the downfall of the stronger. The Serpent could not subvert Adam; Eve apparently had little difficulty in this regard, thereby proving herself stronger than the Arch-Tempter. Milton, in “Paradise Lost,” attributes Adam’s lapse to conjugal love. Devotion to Eve impelled him to share her downfall. A poet’s fancy! Adam’s charge against his wife immediately after the transgression was by no means symptomatic of undue affection on his part: “The woman Thou gavest to be with me, she gave to me and I did eat.” There is a fact which to the author’s mind proves beyond ques- tion the equality of the sexes at creation—and here is an argument that should appeal to the student of eugenics. If Eve were inferior to Adam, or vice versa, then God, at the beginning, provided for the deterioration of the race. Let us illustrate: A stronger being weds a weaker. Now in obedience to the law of heredity, the offspring of such pair will be inferior to the superior parent. The stock has been weakened by misalliance. The offspring, in turn, mates with his inferior and there is further impairment. Each succeeding generation sinks lower in the scale of being. The habitual inferiority of one sex, will, in time, insure race extinction. This law operates with certainty in the animal kingdom, and we have no warrant for postulating otherwise in the realm of human- kind. To insist on either male or female inferiority at creation, is to charge the Almighty with design against His creatures; with foreordaining human retrogression. At creation the human pair stood on a parity, correspondent beings, reciprocal in their relation to each other, ‘““And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Before the advent of woman there was incompleteness. Ani- mate nature was inadequate to man’s needs. His yearnings were / ead 26 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN unsatisfied. For man there was not found a help answering to him. “And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make to him a help corresponding to him,” and He “brought her to the man.” In that sacred hour and hallowed spot the first human utterance recorded on the pages of Sacred Writ was spoken: “And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman.” < II GENESIS III:16: WAS IT PROPHECY? P AHROUGH the centuries that have elapsed since our first parents were expelled from Eden, no passage of Scripture has claimed larger place in the thought of mankind than Genesis 11:16. “Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth ~* children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Here we have the sexes, not in normal, but in abnormal relation. Catastrophe has overtaken the race: the harmony of creation has been destroyed; everything is unbalanced; there is subversion; there is chaos. In the crash, woman finds herself unseated from her throne—not by Divine edict, but by her own wrongdoing. Now are we to go to this wreck and ruin to study the normal relation of the sexes? The author thinks not. There is no longer harmonious adjustment: everything is out of joint. If this be the mind of God, why did He promise a Saviour—a Restorer—a Repairer of the breach? Genesis 111:16 must be regarded as a prophecy, or as a penalty. The author accepts the first view. Standing in Eden, Jehovah God bade our first parents to look adown the ages, and behold the awful outcome of their sin. Dr. H. A. Thompson, commenting on this passage, says: “This was not a new enactment, but a prophecy of the treatment that should come to her” (Eve). There is nothing in the Hebrew text requiring the intensive rendering “shall,” instead of “will.” The verb is a simple Qal imperfect. One of the outstanding criticisms of scholars, relative to the King James Version, is its too free use of “‘shall.” In the preface of the American Version, page vii, we find this entry: “The latter [‘‘shall”] is certainly used to excess in the Authorized Version, especially when connected with verbs denoting an action 27 28 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of the Divine Being.” Professor J. H. Moulton, in his grammar of New Testament Greek, says, “The use of ‘shall’ where prophecy is dealing with future time is particularly unfortunate.” Now let us read Genesis iii:16, substituting “will” for “shall”: “T will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou wilt bring forth children: and thy desire will be to thy hus- band, and he will rule over thee.” But this passage, as it appears in our current Versions of Scrip- ture, merits further criticism. Dr. Katharine Bushnell, who has given years to critical study and research of the Bible teachings concerning women, calls attention to another mistranslation. The last clause of Genesis iii:16, in modern Versions of Scripture, reads: “Thy desire (mp3wm) shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Dr. Bushnell renders as follows: “Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee.” She submits the following facts in support of such rendering: (1) This is the reading of the Septuagint. Of this Version Dean Stanley says, “If there ever was a translation which, by means of its importance, rose to a level with the original, it was this.’ The Septuagint was made for the great library at Alex- andria about 285 B.c. by Israelites preéminent for scholarship. Naturally their knowledge of Hebrew would surpass that of any modern student. It is a matter of weight that these translators ‘ rendered the Hebrew word mpiwm, of Genesis 11:16, d&rocteépw in the Septuagint. Now there can be no question as to the meaning of the Greek word @roctoeépu. It signifies, “to turn away.” (2) The Peshito, 200 a.p., renders mpiwm, Genesis iii :16, “wilt turn.” All the other ancient Versions—Samaritan, 200 A.p.; The Old Latin, 200 a.p.; Sahidic, 300 a.p.; Bohairic, 350 A.D.; Athio- pic, 500 A.D., render “turning.” (3) In the sixteenth century an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, published his translation of the Hebrew Bible. Influ- enced by the teachings of the Talmud—the bane of the Jewish race—he rendered Apiwm, “lust.” Aside from the two Vulgate Versions, every English translation since the time of Pagnino has followed his example, making AP w import “lust,” or sensual desire. The offensiveness of this rendering becomes apparent WAS IT PROPHECY? 29 when we apply it to Genesis iv:7, where God says to Cain: “Unto thee shall be his desire (Ap3wm) and thou shalt rule over him.” Here we have the same word as in Genesis iii:16, and aside from the change of person and gender, the same construction. In the word npiwn, itself, there is no suggestion of libidinousness. It is “* an attachment forced upon it by carnal minds. It seems to the author that Dr. Bushnell’s contention for the rendering, “thou art turning~away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee,” is well supported. We are now considering Genesis 111:16 as a prophecy. Has it had fulfillment? Did the entrance of sin bring about the dethrone- ment of woman? Has her sorrow and her conception been multi- plied? Did her turning away to her husband result in her subju- gation? Yes—a thousand times, Yes! The earth has been swept by her sighs and watered by her tears; the atmosphere has been burdened with her cries of anguish; her tears, if gathered together, would make a great salt sea; her sighs, if merged, would rock the globe with cyclonic power ; her pangs, if concentrated, would strike creation dumb with horror. Her body has been tortured by lust and cruelty, her spirit buffeted by wrong and oppression, and her heart the very seat of agony ever since sin entered the world. Adam’s second recorded utterance after the Fall was an accusa- tion against his wife: “The woman Thou gavest to be with me, she gave to me, and I did eat.” He turns against her with crimi- nations, and charges her with the guilt of both. The entrance of sin into the world generated fiendish passions in the soul; might supplanted right, and woman, being of more delicate mold, became the victim. The historian has never lived who could chronicle all her wrongs or tabulate half her woes. The trend of her pathway from Eden was precipitantly downward. She became a chattel,—an object of barter or sale, a toy or a slave, subject to every whim of her lord and master. Even her life was at his disposal. Man-made religions reckoned her a soulless crea- ture,—or, if she had a soul, her hope of future existence hinged on her alliance with some man; a cipher, of no consequence when she stood alone; counted only when ranged by the side of some masculine figure to enhance, not her own, but his value. 30 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Travel back in thought a single century, and see strong men dragging the shrieking Hindoo widow to the funeral pyre of her husband; see the son applying the torch to consume the form that in agony gave him birth. Visit the zenanas and gaze on multi- tudes of sad-faced women whose lungs are never fanned by fresh air; whose eyes are never gladdened by the sunshine, and whose feet never in a lifetime, tread the green earth. See thousands of child-wives, dragging their lust-crippled bodies after babes whose power of locomotion is greater than their own. Behold millions of child-widows, clad in a single coarse garment, sleeping on stone floors, starving on one sparse meal a day, subjected to untold abuse, undergoing such infliction because in their helpless childhood they were sold in marriage to decrepit men who died before them. Go to China where the lot of a wife was so unbearable that nine out of ten attempted suicide. Hear the sobs and cries of little daughters, undergoing the tortures of foot-binding; see thousands of girl babes cast at nightfall into trenches and gutters to be devoured by hogs and dogs, and where in the dawn of the morning, keepers of houses of prostitution searched for such as had escaped the rapacity of these scavengers, and carried them away to be reared as inmates of their dens of infamy. Go to Turkey, where woman was doomed to lifelong imprison- ment in the harem; where she was held to be a soulless creature, and where her span of life was measured by the will of her hus- band. A woman in Turkey, when asked what her life was, replied, “Our life is hell.” Go to Japan, where woman was taught that it was praiseworthy to barter virtue to maintain male relatives in idleness; where daughters were blinded to make them successful fortune-tellers ; where young girls were tricked in finery and exposed in iron cages, to be hired or purchased by lecherous passers-by. Go to the interior of the Island Empire, where women served instead of horses to draw lumber across the mountains. Even in America, the Indian squaw staggered under the weight of tent and furniture, while the stalwart brave stalked before, bearing tomahawk, bow, and scalping-knife. Wherever we turn our eyes there is an appalling record of woe. WAS IT PROPHECY? 31 Multiply all this by thousands of years, and then compute, if you can, the sum total of agony that has pressed down on woman’s heart since the gates of ‘Paradise Lost” closed behind her. If she had not been essential to the propagation of the race, it is a question if man’s malignity would not have accomplished her extinction. Karl Heinzen says: “If children could have been brought into the world by a mill, or some other kind of machine, the Spartans would have abolished women, and introduced in their place State child factories.” Woman was spared in order that she might mother men. As the astute Irishman remarked, “If there were no wimmen, the world would come to an ind in two or three jinerations.” It is true that we have journeyed away from much of the bar- barism of the past. The condition of woman, even in heathen lands, has been ameliorated. Pagan monarchs no longer pave the driveways to their palaces with the skulls of young virgins; wives are no longer buried alive, nor widows burned on the funeral pyre of their husbands; maidens are not today offered in sacrifice on heathen altars, but we are not as far on the road of progress as we should be, nor as we will be, when we come to a clearer under- standing of Sacred Writ and “think God’s thoughts after Him.” There are few countries, even at this late day, that do not, in some way, discriminate against woman. A few years since, Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, after a tour around the world, wrote: “In less civilized countries, women are forced to bear up under hard- ships that their husbands would not force a horse to undergo.” According to this writer, in Japan they carry huge trunks on their backs; in Russia they carry bags of coal on their heads; in China they support their husbands by transporting passengers to and from the docks; in the Far East they bend almost double cultivating rice in water up to their knees; in India they do the planting, while their husbands sit in the shade; in Java they peddle and support their husbands in idleness; in Holland the wife is harnessed with the dog to draw heavy loads; in Germany she is hitched with the cow to do the ploughing, or with a dog or donkey to pull the cart of produce to market. 32 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN So late as the nineteenth century, British newspapers commented on the sale of wives as of common occurrence. In 1803 a man sold his wife as a cow in the Sheffield market for a guinea; 1808, a man sold his wife in Knaresborough for a sixpence and a quid of tobacco; 1815, a man held a regular auction in the market-place at Pontefract, offering his wife at a minimum bidding of one shilling, and “knocked her down” for eleven shillings; 1820, a man named Browchet led his wife into the cattle-market at Canterbury. The salesman informed him he was dealing with cattle and not with women. Thereupon the man hired a pen for the usual fee of sixpence, and led his wife into it with a halter. Soon after he sold her to a young man for five shillings; 1858, a man by the name of Horton sold his wife in a beer-shop. He announced the sale beforehand by means of a bellman. Not only has human law, in a thousand ways, discriminated against woman, but custom lent its aid in her oppression. Whenever she ventured into activities outside the home, she was scourged by public opinion. Only menial employment was allowed her. She might toil with the needle, bend at the washtub or handle the scrub-brush—these were feminine engagements—but if she aspired to a clerkship, cast her eyes on a professor’s chair, edged her way toward the pulpit or dreamed of a doctor’s degree, hands were raised in holy horror, a thousand tongues berated her. She was getting out of her sphere; unsexing herself. She was ostra- cized, dubbed “strong-minded,” “short-haired,” etc. Chosen voca- tions were for the sterner sex. Sappho, “the world’s greatest poetess,” was made the butt of ridicule by the satirists of Athens. A renowned writer of modern times says: “Of all the poets who have appeared on the earth, Sappho was undoubtedly the greatest.” The noble and gifted Hypatia was assaulted by the mob, stripped naked in the streets of Alexandria by Cyril’s monks, and dragged to the church, where she was killed by the club of Peter the Reader, for the heinous offense of teaching mathematics and the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Others, like Aspasia, not assaulted physically, had their moral character assailed. But one does not have to travel back to antiquity to find biased WAS IT PROPHECY? 33 judgment on this question. Mary Summerville, astronomer, phys- icist and scientific writer, hid her books and papers when her neighbors called in order to escape their ridicule. Her pastor denounced her from the pulpit. _ Lucy Stone’s father sent his sons to college, but when his daugh- ter craved like opportunity, he exclaimed, “The girl must be crazy,” and denied her a penny. She gathered and sold berries to buy books and to pay her passage. She slept among the grain-sacks when crossing the lake because her means would not allow a berth in a stateroom. She matriculated at Oberlin—the only college in the country that opened its doors to women. When the time for her graduation arrived, the authorities informed her she could not read her thesis—some man must perform this service for her. She indignantly refused, and the thesis remained unread. On her return home she presented her diploma to her father ; he wrathfully hurled it across the room. When she appeared on the lecture platform, she was repeatedly mobbed. On one occasion a hose was turned against her; she drew her shawl more closely about her slender form and continued her address, notwithstanding the dis- comfort of the shower-bath. In Boston she was advertised to speak at an anti-slavery meeting. Announcement was sent to the various churches, One orthodox clergyman voiced his disapproval in these words: “A hen will attempt to crow like a cock in the town hall at four o’clock this afternoon. Those who enjoy that kind of music will attend the meeting.” When Elizabeth Blackwell—the first woman physician in the United States—entered a medical school, her garments were torn and her books defaced by the male students; women in the board- ing-house refused to speak to her, while others of her sex drew aside their garments as they passed her on the street. These are a few examples out of thousands. When woman sought an education, she found almost all the higher institutions of learning bolted against her. Even schools of lower grade discouraged female education. A school board in Massachusetts adopted a resolution declaring it a waste of public funds to teach girls “the back part of the arithmetic.” One school only admitted girls after the boys had finished the day’s lessons. 34 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN It is a matter of history what ridicule and opposition Mary Lyons encountered in her first effort for the education of her sex. Dr. Gregory’s “Legacy to My Daughters” was commended in all boarding-schools for girls. The following is his advice: “If you happen to have any learning, keep it a profound secret, especially from men, who look with jealous, malignant eye on a woman of great parts and a cultivated understanding.” Margaret Fuller shocked public taste in Boston by sitting down in a public library to read a book. As soon as a woman stepped outside her home to achieve along lines not entirely domestic, she met the scourge of public opinion. Not only did she encounter the difficulties that ordinarily lie in the pathway of success, but in addition she faced opposition and insult. Some heroic souls proved equal to the undertaking, but who can compute the thousands who shrunk back and submitted to injustice? Woman encountered ostracism when she sought to enter busi- ness. Emily Faithful opened a printing establishment in England and employed women. So violent was the opposition that only the patronage of Queen Victoria saved the enterprise from dis- aster. A man in Saco, Maine, employed a saleswoman. Men boycotted his store and women remonstrated with him for placing a member of their sex in a position of such publicity. When woman at last made her way into the various industries, she was discriminated against in the matter of wages. Employers scouted at “equal pay for equal work” when applied to women. The author can vouch for the following: “A certain professor was employed by the Board of the Pittsburgh High School to teach Latin at a salary of $1,300 per annum. He proved incompetent and was transferred to another department. A capable woman was chosen as his successor. She gave entire satisfaction, but when the question of remuneration came before the Board, it voted her a salary of $700. She remonstrated and reminded the members that her predecessor, although incompetent, had received $1,300. The only answer given was: “It is not customary to pay a woman as much as a man.” Having an aged father and mother WAS IT PROPHECY? 35 depending on her for support, she was forced to acquiesce in the Board’s decision. The report of the Commission of Education for 1912 shows the average salary of male teachers in the United States to be $73.86 per month; for female teachers, $54.98. There is no charge that the work of these women is not up to the standard. The discrimi- nation rests solely on a sex basis. The teaching profession is not singular in this matter. The rule holds throughout the realm of industry, except in isolated instances where the ballot in the hands of women has wrought change by act of legislation. For long centuries the production of a woman’s hand or brain, no matter what its merit, was at a discount. A woman’s name placed on a commodity cheapened it. If she invented anything or made a scientific discovery, the world too often placed the laurels on the brow of another. It is now quite certain that Aspasia wrote part, if not all, the famous oration Pericles pro- nounced over the fallen Athenians. Fannie Mendelssohn’s musical compositions were accredited to her brother. Catherine Herschell discovered eight comets, numerous clusters of stars and nebulz which were listed as Sir William’s. Catherine Green was the true inventor of the cotton gin. She conceived and communi- cated her ideas to Eli Whitney. When the latter reached the point where he was ready to abandon the enterprise, Mrs. Green came to his aid with the one essential that insured success. Ten days later the invention was given to the world in the name of Eli Whitney. The sewing-machine was unrealized until Mrs. Howe convinced her husband that the eye could be placed at the point of the needle. Marie Sklodowska Curie was the real discoverer of radium. Husband and wife pursued their studies together, but again and again the former was ready to abandon the research. Madam Curie persisted, and it was her eye that first detected the precious substance. The French Legion of Honor tendered Pierre Curie membership in recognition of the discovery, but closed its doors to his wife on the ground of sex. In the domain of literature, women of genius at times adopted masculine pseudonyms to escape the prejudice which would depre- ciate the market value of their productions. Marion Evans wrote 36 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN under the name of George Eliot; Charlotte Bronté disguised her- self as Currer Bell; Mary Abigail Dodge chose the nom-de-plume, Gail Hamilton; Alice Mary Durand that of Henry Greville; Madame Dudevant subscribed herself George Sand; Marie Agoult as Daniel Stern. These women were not masculine; they were discerning. ‘They read the sentiment of the age and understood full well that their productions would find more ready acceptance if given to the world under the authorship of man. Every fair-minded reader must acknowledge that, aside from the matriarchal period and under the First Jewish Commonwealth, woman has not received just recognition. The world has had the habit of overlooking her sacrifices and achievements; it has denied her a “square deal.’’ This is exemplified in the history of our own country. For more than a century we have chanted the praises of the Pilgrim Fathers, and it is well; but were there not fore- mothers as well as forefathers? All hail to the Pilgrim women, Who sailed o’er the briny sea; Who cabined in lonely forests, To mother a nation free; Who nestled their slumbering infants With the wolf-cry in their ear; Nor quailed at the savage war-whoop; Who faced the famine drear. The women who handled the distaff, Or planted the new-made field; Who aided in rearing the block-house, Or musket or sword could. wield. The women who kept lone vigil, When husbands and sons were slain, Who dauntless faced each danger, And shared each toil and pain. Who planted and garnered the harvest, While men were off to the war, Who tended and nursed the wounded, And fought the foe at the door. Are their struggles not worth remembering, These women so brave, so true? O Heroic Pilgrim mothers, We offer a meed to you. Notwithstanding the obstacles placed in the pathway of woman down through the centuries, notwithstanding the atmosphere of prejudice that enveloped her, the talent within her again and again WAS IT PROPHECY? 37 asserted itself with distinction. Profane history records the name of Semiramis, illustrious warrior and builder ; Sappho, “the world’s greatest poetess,’ who invented a new measure in lyric poetry; Artemesia, Queen of Halicarnassus, who commanded her own fleet in battle, and whose skill and courage brought her renown; Aspasia, a woman of such splendid genius that Pericles was proud to call her friend, and Socrates to profess himself her disciple; Telesilla, the poetess, who saved Argos by her courage; Hipparchia, whose thirst for knowledge was so great that she consented to marry a deformed cynic in order to make attainment in philosophy and other branches of learning; Phantasia, who wrote a poem on the Trojan war of such merit that Homer himself was willing to utilize it; Cornelia, who gave public lectures on philosophy in Rome, and of whom Cicero said: “Cornelia, had she not been a woman, would have deserved first place among philosophers.” These women lived and achieved before the dawn of the Chris- tian era. While we have illustrious examples in both sacred and profane history of women who rose superior to their environments, they were but lights against a woefully black background. The mass of women were kept in subjugation, Every door of egress was barred. There was but one policy toward them, and that was repression. ‘Their sorrows and their conceptions were multiplied. Their turning was unto their husbands, who ruled over them— more often than otherwise, with rigor. History proves beyond question, that Genesis iii:16 has had certain and awful fulfillment. III GENESIS III:16: WAS IT PENALTY? HERE are many who reject in toto the line of reasoning presented in the preceding chapter; who hold that Genesis iii:16 was not a prophecy, but a penalty imposed upon woman because of her part in the transgression. The author dis- sents from such view because it involves us in serious theological difficulty ; it brings us into conflict with well-established principles of moral law. Penalty presupposes guilt; it postulates wrongdoing on the part of the one who suffers the infliction. To charge that the Almighty imposed a penalty on womankind, in general, because of the indi- vidual act of the foremother of the race is to asperse the Divine character. To penalize a sex for the wrongdoing of a single fore- bear does not accord with the principles of justice. The conse- quences of sin are far-reaching, and extend from generation to generation, but the guilt of sin is not transmissible; it attaches only to the actual offender. Ancestors may by wrongdoing involve their descendants in disaster, but they cannot by any modus operand: attaint them with their guilt. What share had that Hindoo widow in Eve’s transgression? There may be a chain of cause and effect reaching direct from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil to that funeral pyre, but no law, human or divine, will allow that sinner in Eden to unload, even in part, her guilt on the hapless victim whose writhing form feeds the flame. The proponents of this dogma would have us believe that Jehovah God—one of whose attributes is Justice—marshaled an entire sex before His tribunal and sentenced it to subjugation; to multiplied sorrow and conception all in penalty for the wrong- doing of one who lived in the day-dawn of human existence, and in whose guilt the sex in general had no share. To impose penalty on offspring for the transgression of a fore- 38 WAS IT PENALTY? 39 parent was prohibited by Divine edict. “What mean ye, that ye use this proverb in the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right ... he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live” (Eze. xviii:2, 5,17). “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Eze. xvili:20). “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut. xxiv:16). Innocence is a sure defense in the court of Divine justice. “Didst thou eat?” is the unfailing question from “the Judge of all the earth.” Penalty is proportionate to guilt, and where no guilt attaches, acquittal is assured. God is not blindfolded; by Him, actions and motives are weighed, and the scales hold even in His hand. - It may be objected that such line of reasoning sets at naught _ the Scriptural teaching as to the vicarious sufferings of Christ. « Not so. There is no parallel. Christ’s death was expiatory, but His was a willing sacrifice. He “emptied Himself.” ‘“He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Phil. ii:7, 8). “Therefore doth the Father love Me, be- cause I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it again” (John x:17, 18). “Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God” (Eph. v:2). “He offered up Himself” (Heb. vii:27). “Who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. ii:20). “Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for our sins” (Gal. i:4). “Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself a ransom for all” (I Tim. ii:6). “Himself took our infirmities and bear our diseases” (Matt. viii:17). “Who gave Himself for us, 40 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN that He might redeem us from all iniquity” (Titus ii:14). To rob Christ’s sacrificial death of its voluntariness is to subvert the very foundations of Divine justice. Human, as well as Divine law, recognizes substitution, but it must ever be with the concurrence of the substitute. To inflict punishment on the innocent, apart from his consent, is nothing less than rank injustice. To elect to suffer for the wrongdoing of another is an exhibition of supreme devotion. The gift of self outweighs all others. One whom we love may infract human law and be haled before a court of justice; a penalty, involving years of pain and sacrifice, may be imposed; love may impel us to offer ourself as substitute, and there is no miscarriage of justice when such offer is accepted. Love counts it not a sacrifice, but a privi- lege to suffer for its object, and deems it hard to be denied. During the French Revolution, a father and son were thrown into a crowded prison. When the jailers entered and announced the names of those appointed unto death, the father answered for his son, and was led to execution. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend.” A missionary in China had in his employ a faithful native servant. One day this young man gave notice that his services must terminate. When pressed for the reason, he informed the missionary that a certain rich man had been condemned to death, and, as the law of the country allowed, had offered a large sum of money for a substitute. The young man’s parents were poor and he had resolved to die in the rich man’s stead, in order that his aged father and mother might have the comforts of life in their declining years. When the young patriot, Nathan Hale, was brought to execu- tion, his last words were, ‘“‘My only regret is that I have but one life to offer my country.” If human love can thus endure, how much more Divine? “He loved us, and gave Himself for us.” Louder than the shoutings of the rabble; louder than the sentence that falls from the Roman Governor’s lips; louder than the sneers and jeers of mocking priests and scribes and elders, who passed His cross with wagging heads, ring out the words of the Divine Christ, as He yields His life “an offering and a sacrifice to God”— WAS IT PENALTY? Al “No one taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” This is the answer to every charge of injustice urged against the vicari- ous atonement. But no such sentiment has animated the womanhood of the world in its relation to Eve’s transgression; never has the sex elected, in jointure or in severalty, to bear, or even share, the penalty imposed upon her; never has a daughter of the fore- mother offered herself in “willing sacrifice.’ Mingled with her birth-pangs and her heart-pangs has been a burning sense of injus- tice, and no robed priest, standing within the chancel, proclaiming the dogma of transmitted penalty, can make it otherwise. It may be urged that the words of Jehovah, as recorded, imply Divine agency in the infliction of punishment on the sufferer. The pronoun is in the first person singular: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception.” The chastisement is of Divine ordering, and man, in his sinful estate, is the foreordained exe- cutioner. Let all who will, take comfort in such thought. It cannot be denied that, in the past, mankind in general has felt itself empowered, from some source, to administer reproof and correc- tion to womankind, and no one who has studied history with impartial mind can charge that the administrators have erred on the side of leniency. Too often have the stripes exceeded the appointed number. The writer does not subscribe to the tenet that a just and righteous Being willed the subjugation and affliction of an entire sex in penalty for wrongdoing of a forebear, and com- mitted the execution of His will to a creature whose “every imagi- nation of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” We must find an explanation that does not derogate the Divine character. “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy concep- tion,’ is not the only passage in the Bible that perplexes. It belongs in a class with the following: “The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh” (Ex. ix:12). “The Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate” (Deut. ii:30). “I make peace, and create evil, J am Jehovah that doeth all these things” (Isa. xlv:7). “The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets” (I Kings xxii:23). “For this cause they 42 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN could not believe, for Isaiah said again: He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their hearts, and should turn and I should heal them” (John xii:40). “He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will, He hardeneth’ (Rom. ix:18). “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear” (Rom. xi:8). “God gave unto them a reprobate mind” (Rom. i:28). “They know not, neither do they consider; for He hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand” (Isa. xliv:18). We would not cut such passages from the Bible with a penknife, but we must find an explanation that will bring them into harmony with the Divine character; we must interpret “according to the analogy of faith.” Who of us believe that God entices to evil? That He instigates the violation of His law, and then punishes the offender? That He incites to wrongdoing, and then inflicts penalty on the wrongdoer? That He blinds the individual, then castigates for not seeing? That He deafens, then afflicts for not hearing? That He hardens the heart, then damns the impenitent? Who that reads the Christian’s Bible for a moment harbors such belief ? Over against these stern utterances must be placed such assur- ances as these: “God is love” (I John iv:8). “His mercy endureth for ever” (Ps. cxiii:1). “He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men” (Lam. iii:33). ‘He knoweth our frame, He remembereth that we are dust” (Ps. ciii:14). “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man; but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust when it hath conceived, beareth sin; and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death” (James 1:13-15). “Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts as the Egyp- tians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts?” (I Sam. vi:6). “But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart” (Ex. viii:15). God ordains laws, physical and moral, for the highest welfare of His creatures. Observance of these laws never works disaster. Man is a free moral agent; he elects to violate, and overwhelms WAS IT PENALTY? 43 himself with evil consequences. Who is the author of his woe? The Being Who institutes with benevolent intent, or the individual who in perverseness disregards His mandates? In one sense, God, in that He decrees the enactment; in another and stricter sense, man, in that he violates the provisions for his welfare. Not law, but repudiation of law, brings disaster. “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and righteous, and good.” Its purpose is to safeguard. Is a thing evil because God prohibits it “malum prohibitum”’? or does He prohibit it because it is evil “malum in se’? The author assents to the latter view. Divine interdictions are danger signals; they point out the spots where calamity awaits. It needed no arbitrary ruling on the part of the Almighty to plunge Adam and Eve—and through them the race—into a vortex of misfortune. They sinned, and “sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death.” Sin is never barren; as oft as the “season comes round,” sin brings forth monstrous children. It is of interest to know that Dr. Katharine Bushnell rejects the rendering: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow,” and substitutes the following: “A snare (or “lying-in-wait”) hath increased thy sorrow.” She comments thus: “The word here used in Genesis (FAD N) originally stood as DN, since, in either case, the final letter is merely a vowel-letter; and 378 is the more ancient and more common word for ‘lying-in-wait.’ As a participial noun it occurs fourteen times in ‘Joshua’ and ‘Judges’ alone. Finite forms of the verb ‘to lie-in-wait’ occur over twenty times in the Old Testament.” Dr. Bushnell reminds us that the vowel letters 8, A,» 1, were not a part of the original Hebrew, but were a later addition by the scribes to assist in pronunciation. Her rendering makes Satan, not Jehovah God, the author of woman’s woe. Dr. Bushnell further rejects the rendering “conception.” We quote her words: “The ‘sentence,’ ‘J will multiply . . . thy concep- tion, has wrought terrible havoc with the health and happiness of wives; because, so read, it has been understood to rob woman of the right to determine when she should become a mother, and to place that right outside her will and in abeyance to the will of her husband—at least, the law has been read thus, because of its con- 44 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN nection with what follows in this passage. This word is spelled, in Hebrew, HRN (]77) ,—but that is not the correct Hebrew way to spell ‘conception.’ The word occurs, and is correctly spelled, in Ruth 4:13 and Hosea 9:11, and nowhere else. The real word ‘conception,’ as it occurs in the above passages, is spelled HRJWN Gyan)-+ This word in ‘Genesis’ comes two letters short of spelling the word. All Hebrew scholars know this. For instance, Spurrell says: ‘It is an abnormal formation, which occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament.’ Our highest lexical authorities (Brown, Briggs and Driver) call it a ‘contraction, or erroneous.’ Indeed! and is one-half the human family to be placed at the mercy of the other half on such a flimsy claim as this! So could Rehoboam have sent a man to the gallows, instead of sending him to the jail, by such a method of manipulating the law. We stand for our rights, as women, on the assurance of our Lord, that no word in Divine law has lost any of its consonants; or angles of a consonant; and on our Lord’s promise we demand a very different rendering of the word. While it is possible that the w () of this word might be omitted in this particular formation, the J () is a consonant of the root, and cannot be lost or omitted, particularly at the end of a phrase where the voice pauses or rests for a while upon it; such is the Hebrew rule in an instance like this. The Septuagint gives * - i; the correct reading here, which is, ‘thy sighing’—the whole sen- »9f) tence meaning, then, ‘A snare hath increased thy sorrow and thy sighing ” (God's Word to Women, vol. i, lesson 15, sec. 120, I2T). A question may arise in some minds—What matters it whether Genesis i11:16 be a prophecy or a penalty, so long as results are practically the same? There is an intrinsic difference the thought- ful mind will not overlook. Prophecy foresees; penalty fore- ordains: prophecy says, “It will be”; penalty says, “It shall be.” There is also marked contrast in the psychological impress. Tell an individual that the injustice he suffers is the arbitrary ordering of a Supreme Will, and you stir within him a feeling of resent- ment; tell that same individual that these wrongs have befallen — because of disordered moral conditions, and he not only braces himself to endure, but sets to work to remedy. Tell womankind that the Almighty has allotted her the woes that have overtaken WAS IT PENALTY? 45 her; that He has meted out for her cruelty and injustice; that He has apportioned her pangs and heartaches—that all this is of Divine ordering because of the misdeed of her primal ancestor, and the soul within her rankles at such announcement. But tell her, on the other hand, that not God, but man, with sin-hardened heart, has willed her oppression; that when truth shall vanquish error, and right shall triumph over might, there will come a surcease of her sorrow—tell her this, and you inspire hope within her down- cast soul, and implant within her a strong purpose to surmount injustice, and to struggle for the overthrow of wrong. A question pertinent to the matter under discussion is suggested here. What was there in the behavior of Adam on the occasion of the Fall that merited sex exaltation? Was he less culpable than Eve? We have the Pauline assertion that he was not deceived (I Tim. ii:14). Eve, on the contrary, was beguiled. Is the high- handed transgressor to have precedence? Is the deliberate wrong- doer to be rewarded with supremacy? Also, the stress of tempta- tion must be taken into consideration in meting out justice. Eve yielded to the assault of a supernatural being; Adam, on the other hand, succumbed to the solicitation of a “weaker vessel.” Again, Adam’s demeanor when confronted by Jehovah, borders on de- fiance. We are startled at the daring of his answer: “The woman that Thou gavest to be with me, she gave to me, and I did eat.” He responds with a counter-charge, and poses as being himself agerieved. God and woman are joint-authors of his downfall. His arrogance is rewarded with sex supremacy. Before he sinned, he shared dominion with his wife; now he is empowered to subju- gate her, and to rule henceforth as sole sovereign “over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Surely the propagandists of such dogma face some knotty problems. A fact overlooked or ignored by many expounders of Sacred Writ is this: If the subordination of woman were a penalty im- posed because of her transgression, then it had no place in the Divine economy prior to the Fall. Penalty cannot antedate the infraction of the law. This, beyond peradventure, establishes the equality of the sexes at creation. The dogma of man’s ascendancy over woman “from the beginning,’ and the claim that Genesis 46 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN iii:16 is a penalty, are exclusive one of the other. Another diff- culty confronts us. If Eve’s posterity were penalized for her transgression, how came it that the male half was exempted? Were not her sons, in the same manner, and in the same measure, re- sponsible for the sin of the fore-mother? Why should they escape while the daughters were made to suffer? Nor is that all. Women, as well as men, were penalized for Adam’s infraction of Divine law. Romans v:12 we read: “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin.” In verse fourteen the Apostle names Adam as the one who introduced death into the world: “So death passed unto all men” (d&vOeunx0uc). The word here translated “men,” is not ¢vne, which would indicate the male sex, but év8ewxoc, which is generic, and includes both sexes. Ac- quaintance with theological literature has failed to reveal to the author a single redactor who so much as intimates that Adam was representative of the male sex alone in the matter of transgression. All with one accord impartially impute his sin to male and female. Now, why, we ask, must womankind stagger under this double allotment? Why must she suffer for Eve’s transgression, and also for Adam’s, while the male half of humankind escapes with a single portion? In truth neither Genesis 111:16 nor Genesis i11:17-IQ were penalties. They were forecastings of the conse- quences of sin. The penalty announced is recorded in Genesis 11:17, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Eve said to the tempter: “Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” The one penalty named in Romans v:12-21, is death. Also in I Corinthians xv:22. “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin... so death passed unto all men.” “By the trespass of the one, the many died.” “Death reigned through the one.” “In Adam all die.” The penalty announced was not the subordination of woman, nor man’s assignment to unproductive farming, but death. “The wages of sin is death,” and this passed alike to male and female. But let us, for the time being, waive all objections to the penalty theory, and meet its advocates on their own ground. Let us for WAS IT PENALTY? 47 argument’s sake concede that Divine fiat consigned Eve to subordi- nate relation; that Jehovah God willed the multiplication of her sorrow and conception, and that her desire should be to her hus- band, and that he should rule over her. Let us study Genesis 111:16, not as a prophecy, but as a penalty. Here we have what many are pleased to call “the curse,” put upon woman for her part in the transgression. We call attention to the fact that the word “curse” is not used in application to Adam or Eve. The Almighty uttered no malediction on the guilty pair. He cursed the serpent, and He cursed the ground for man’s sake, but He did not execrate Adam or Eve. Even the curse on the ground was revoked after the Deluge (Gen. viii:21). Penalty and curse are not synonymous terms. We have elsewhere in this chapter noted that penalty implies guilt, and must in equity be confined to the actual transgressor. If Genesis iii:16 is a penalty, it must in justice attach to Eve, and to her alone, without entail- ment on her offspring. The text is in harmony with this conten- tion. The address is direct, and to the second person singular: “T will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children and thy desire shall be to thy hus- band and he will rule over thee.’ Under ordinary circumstances “thy,” “thou,” and “thee” are not accounted generic; they apply to the individual addressed without further inclusion. One must read between the lines to extend the sentence to future generations. Every fair-minded person will concede that if Genesis iii:16 is a penalty, then Genesis iii:17-I19 must be a penalty also. “And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast harkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake: . . . thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat the herb of the field: in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” Here, as in the other case, the sentence is pronounced in the second person singular, without intimation of its inclusion of posterity. However, through the centuries theologians have main- tained the representative character of Adam and Eve—they stood 48 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN forthe race. It is foreign to our purpose to enter into discussion of this dogma; we prefer, for the time being, to yield the point, and to find our vantage-ground elsewhere. Now we have the guilty pair at the bar of Divine justice, and each, as representative of posterity, receives sentence. Adam, and through him, every male descendant, is condemned to lifelong sorrow and hard labor: Eve, and through her womankind in general, is placed in subordi- nate relation to her husband and doomed to multiplied sorrow, conception and childbearing. We follow the sexes down through the centuries, and what do we find? We find man doing his utmost to evade the penalty imposed upon him; he has invented all kinds of machinery to lighten his toil; his insistent demand has been for shorter hours of labor; he has sought for himself the easy places, and unless man-written history belies him, as often as other- wise he has impressed the “weaker sex” to do the sweating for him. Not only has woman been the childbearer, but in all ages and in many climes she has also been a burdenbearer. From the hour of his apostasy man felt it incumbent upon him to supervise woman; to see that she underwent in fullest measure the penalty imposed upon her. He rebuked every attempted evasion as rebellion against the Almighty. It is recorded that when anzs- thetics were first discovered and used in cases of severe suffering at maternity, some clergymen preached against it, declaring that “such relief from pain was contrary to Scripture, since pain at maternity was a part of the curse.” So intent has man been in this effort to supervise woman that he has at times overlooked or ignored the terms of his own sentence. The question naturally arises—Why did woman submit to such injustice? Was she by nature craven? There were two reasons. First, man’s superior physical strength enabled him to enforce his mandates. Second, woman’s strong religious instinct contributed to her subjugation. In all ages and among all peoples man has arrogated to himself the office of religious teacher. From this vantage-point he dinned into woman’s ear the lesson of suffering and obedience. This is true of heathen priest and Christian cleric. God had appointed her pangs and decreed her subjugation. Accepting this, she bowed her head and nerved herself for the WAS IT PENALTY? 49 ordeal. Without this appeal, or mandate, to her religious nature, man never could have effected the subjugation of woman. When- ever she divests herself of this belief, she will stand erect, look the world in the face, and assert her independence. The age of sub- serviency is well-nigh ended. The time has come when woman will think for herself ; when she will study in person the terms of the sentence imposed upon her. When she sets herself to this task, she will see wondrous things in Divine law; she will discover where man has erred and misinterpreted the teachings of Sacred Writ concerning her. Genesis iii1:16 is one of the great, outstanding passages of the Bible. Mankind has never overlooked it. It has held a large place in the world’s thought. It has received a thousand-fold more attention than Genesis iii:17-19. Eve’s penalty has over- shadowed Adam’s. It has been debated in the councils of the Church; it has been reviewed in courts, civil and ecclesiastical; it has shaped social customs; it has influenced jurisprudence; it has determined church polity; it has permeated human life in all its relations; it has engraven itself on the brain of manhood and pierced as a two-edged sword the heart of womanhood. We have studied this passage as a prophecy and noted its ful- fillment; we are now considering it as a penalty. We have made concessions to the advocates of this theory, in order to meet them on a common standing-ground: we forego the charge of inequity and accept, for the time being, the representative character of Adam and Eve, and now the passage is before us divested of all that can be urged against it as a penalty. “Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” How long, O Lord! How long? Until the seed shall come; “W hich is Christ.’ Hear the emancipation proclamation: “Woman being beguiled, hath fallen into transgression, but she shall be saved through the childbearing” (R. V. 1884). The weighty import of this passage is entirely concealed in the Authorized Version. King James translators ignored the article before texvoyovtas, thereby making the reading as follows: “She 50 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN shall be saved in childbearing.” American Revisers invited ridi- cule by rendering thus: “She shall be saved through her child- bearing.” Indeed! Her childbearing! What other kind is there? Are these translators trying to impress us with the fact that this is not a miraculous lying-in? That nothing new has happened under the sun? That woman is still the childbearer, and Jere- miah’s vision is still unrealized? ‘Wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? Alas! for the day is great, so that none is like it.” American Revisers have removed all cause for perturbation. “She shall be saved through her childbearing!’ It never entered into human mind that any mortal could survive his. It was probably due to the American Revisers that “her” is the marginal reading of the 1884 Version. Bible readers on both sides of the Atlantic are now spared misapprehension on this sub- ject. “She shall be saved through the childbearing”’—Xwbjcetar dé tyh¢ texvoyovlagc (I Tim. ii:15). This admits of but three in- terpretations: (1) Childbearing is meritorious, and a means of salvation. (2) The life of godly women will be preserved in parturition. (3) Womankind will be redeemed from thralldom through the birth of some particular child. As to the first—that childbearing, in and of itself, is a means to salvation, we might pass it by as unworthy serious consideration, were it not for the fact that there is, among the untaught and mis- taught, such confidence. Commenting on such misapprehension, Dr. Adam Clark says: “Some foolish women have supposed from this verse, that the very act of bringing forth children shall entitle them to salvation; and that all who die in childbed, infallibly go to glory. Nothing can be more unfounded than this: faith, love, holiness and sobriety, are as absolutely requisite for the salvation of every daughter of Eve, as they are for the salvation of every son of Adam. Pain and suffering neither purify, nor make atone- ment. On the mercy of God, in Christ, dispensing the remission of sins, and holiness, both men and women may confidently rely for salvation; but nothing else.” WAS IT PENALTY? 51 These “foolish women” who believe “that the very act of bring- ing forth children shall entitle them to salvation; and that all who died in childbed infallibly go to glory,” are as far astray as some intelligent men who during the World War held and taught that the soldier who fell in battle “infallibly’ went to heaven; about the only difference being that the “foolish women” inadvertently mis- appropriated Scripture in support of their view. The second interpretation of I Timothy ii:15 demands careful thought, from the fact that it has been so generally accepted. If this be the true explanation, it must be supported by observation and experience. Failure here drives us to one of two conclusions: either we are at fault in our exegesis, or this is not an inspired passage. Does history prove that godly women are exempted from the peril of death in the bringing forth of children? Far from it. As Rachel, the beloved wife of Jacob, yielded her life in travail and “hard labour,” so every age has furnished its quota of women who continued “in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety,” yet died in birth-pangs. Readers of this book can probably call to mind Christian women who have made the “supreme sacrifice.” The author has personal knowledge of a number. Many a new- born babe has never felt a mother’s kiss: as the earth-light fell on its eyes, the death-film gathered on the eyes of her who bore it; other arms received the little stranger because the mother hands were folded and her bosom too icy cold to nestle it. The estimated deaths, annually, from childbirth, in the United States, is fifteen thousand. Are we to assume there are no Christians among them? The old-time exegesis of I Timothy ii:15, is at variance with mortuary statistics, and is discarded by some scholarly exegetes. Bishop Ellicott translates I Timothy i1:15, thus: “She shall be saved by means of the childbearing” and comments as follows: “We have two explanations (1) by fulfilling her proper destiny and acquiescing in all the conditions of woman’s life. (2) By the rela- tion in which woman stood to the Messiah, in consequence of the primal prophecy that her seed (not man’s) ‘should bruise the serpent’s head.’ The peculiar function of her sex (from its relation to her Saviour) shall be the medium of her salvation.” After not- 52 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN ing an objection, he comments further: “When, however, we con- sider its extreme appropriateness, and the high probability that the apostle in speaking of woman’s transgression, would not fail to specify the sustaining prophecy which preceded her sentence; when we add to this the satisfactory meaning which 8a thus bears—the uncircumscribed reference of cw8qceta—the force of the article (passed over by most expositors)—and lastly, observe the coldness and jejuneness of (1), it seems difficult to avoid decid- ing in favor of (2). Dr. Hastings, in “The Greater Men and Women of the Bible,” page 37, says: “Yes, I will believe with the learned Revisers, and with some of our deepest interpreters, that Paul has the seed of the woman in the eyes of his mind, in this passage, and that he looks back with deep pity and love on his hapless mother Eve: and then after her, on all women and on all mothers, and sees them all saved with Eve and with Mary, by the Man that Mary got from the Lord, if they abide and continue in faith, in love, in holiness, and in sobermindedness.” Dr. MacKnight comments thus: “Though Eve was first in transgression, and brought death on herself, her husband, and all her posterity, the female sex shall be saved (equally with the male) through childbearing through bring- ing forth the Saviour, if they live in faith, and love, and chastity, with that sobriety which I have been commending. “The word swOqcetat ‘saved, in this verse refers to } yuvy ‘the woman, in the foregoing verse, which is certainly Eve. But the Apostle did not mean to say that she alone was to be saved through childbearing, but that all her posterity, whether male or female, are to be saved through the childbearing of a woman; as is evident from his adding ‘If they live in faith and love and holi- ness, with sobriety.’ For safety in childbearing does not depend on that condition at all; since many pious women die in child- bearing, while others of a contrary character are preserved. The salvation of the human race, through childbearing, was intimated in the sentence passed on the serpent; Genesis iii:15: J will put ennuty between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head. Accordingly, the Saviour be- ing conceived in the womb of His mother by the power of the WAS IT PENALTY? 53 Holy Ghost, He is truly the seed of the woman who was to bruise the head of the serpent; and a woman, by bringing Him forth, has been the occasion of our salvation.” Dr. Adam Clark coincides with this view: He says: “This is the most consistent sense, for in the way in which it is com- monly understood, it does not apply. There are innumerable in- stances of women dying in child-bed, who have lived in faith and charity and holiness, with sobriety; and equally numerous instances of worthless women, ‘slaves to different kinds of vices, who have not only been saved in childbearing, but have passed through their travail with comparatively little pain; hence that is not the sense in which we should understand the apostle. “If they continue (Kay wetvwoty) is rightly translated, If they live; for so it signifies in other passages, particularly Philippians i:25. The change in the number of the verb from the singular to the plural, which is introduced here, was designed by the Apostle to show that he does not speak of Eve, nor of any particular woman, but of the whole sex.” To cling to the old interpretation of I Timothy 11:15 is to hold to that which has proved itself fallacious; on the other hand, the great outstanding fact of human history is that Jesus Christ is the Emancipator of woman—the Babe of Bethlehem the Restorer, the Repairer of the breach. Every hour since His advent He has been wiping the tears from her eyes and lifting the burdens from her heart. He wrought no violent revolution, but He started an evolution that will never cease until woman is restored to her kingdom; until she stands again by the side of her husband, joint- ruler over “the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” He hath redeemed her from the penalty of the broken law. “She shall be saved through the child-bearing.” IV DURING THE ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES during the Antediluvian Age. We have but four brief references in the Old Testament to the mother of human- kind after the Fall. Her name was changed from Isha (AW) which means, “Female man,” to Havvah (m3m)_ signifying, “Life,” “Because she was the mother of all life.’ Our English rendering, “Eve,” comes from the Septuagint, “Eva.” Commenting on this change of name, Dr. H. A. Thompson, author of “Women of the Bible,” says: “It may have been be- cause she was to be the mother of a seed who should bruise the serpent’s head, and thus by being the progenitor of Christ, would be the mother of all who should have spiritual life through him.” President Edwards, writing on the subject, comments thus: P MHE Bible is almost silent concerning the status of woman “Tt is remarkable that Adam had before given his wife another name, ‘Isha,’ when she was first created and brought to him; but now, that on this occasion of the Fall and what God had said upon it, he changed her name and gives her a new name: ‘Havvah’ (life) , because she was to be the mother of every one that has life, which would be exceedingly strange and unaccountable if all that he meant was that she was to be the mother of mankind. It is most probable that Adam would give Eve her name from that which was her greatest honor, since it is evident that he had respect to her honor in giving her this name. The name itself, ‘life,’ is honorable, and that which he mentions concerning her being the mother of every living one, is doubtless something he had respect to as honorable to her. Since he changed her name from regard to her honor, it is most likely he would signify it in that way which was her peculiar honor ; but that was the most honorable of anything that ever happened or ever would happen concerning her—that God said she should be the mother of that seed that 54 ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES 55 should bruise the serpent’s head. This was the greatest honor that God had conferred on her.” The name “Havvah” was not bestowed until after the promise was made that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. Incidentally, it may be said that this promise, in itself, is a proof of the inspiration of the Mosaic record. “Her seed” was something uninspired man would never have allowed. Prior to the time of Francis I, of France, dissection of the human body was regarded as sacrilege. Not until this prejudice was overcome was it known that the ovum was the mother’s contribution to life. In 1827, “Von Baer discovered the ovule, the reproductive cell of the maternal organism, and demonstrated that its protoplasm con- tributed at least half to the embryo child.” Before this, it was held that the mother had no essential share in the formation of her offspring. The comparison being made that “man was the seed and woman the soil.” In Greece the doctrine promulgated was that the spirit of the child was derived from the father, “The function of the mother was only to clothe the spirit, or simply to act as ‘nurse’ to the heaven-born production of the father.” The oracle of Apollo declared that the father was “the real parent of the child.” In course of time it was held that the mother was not related to her children. In the “Eumenides,’ Orestes, when reproached with matricide, answers, “Do you call me related to my mother?” During the reign of Edward VI of England, the civil and ecclesiastical courts united in declaring that the Duchess of Suffolk was no kin to the son she had borne. Prior to the discovery of Von Baer, the well-nigh universal belief was that the father was the chief, if not sole agent, in reproduction. How could Moses, uninspired, gain possession of the biological secret that the mother organism furnished the ovule? Another glimpse we have of Eve after the Fall is on the occasion of the birth of her firstborn. We hear her exclamation, “I have gotten a man, the Jehovah,” or “I have gotten a man, with Jehovah” (; Minny wy wysp) The Authorized Version ren- ders, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” The Revised Version, “T have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” This passage 56 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN has occasioned controversy among exegetes, and there is divergence of opinion as to its import. The Hebrew nw is the matter under dispute. Is it prepositional or a sign of the accusative? If the former, the translation should be, “I have gotten a man with Jehovah; if the latter, “I have gotten a man, the Jehovah,” or “even Jehovah.” The “Hexapla” renders in the Greek, “I have gotten a man, even Jehovah.” This was favored by Luther, Miinster, Fagius, Schmidt, Pfeiffer, Baumgart and others of the older exegetes. The “Septuagint” reads, “I have gotten a man for the Lord.” The variations all hinge on the Hebrew particle M&, Naturally, those holding MX to be, in this case, a sign of the accusative, understand Eve’s exclamation to be an expression of her belief that the promised seed, which was to bruise the serpent’s head, had come—that Cain was that seed. Luther and many others of his age so contended. This was evidently the construction Origen put upon her words when he translanted in the “Hexapla,” “T have gotten a man, even Jehovah.” Skinner comments thus: “That Eve imagined she had given birth to the divine ‘seed’ promised in Genesis iii:15 may be disregarded as a piece of anti- quated dogmatic exegesis.’ Cook is more guarded, and says: “There is, however, little doubt that her words had some pregnant meaning, and that she looked on Cain as, at all events, one of that race which was destined to triumph over the seed of the serpent.” J. R. Dummelow, in his “Commentary,” calls attention to the fact that “the Hebrews attached great importance to names, which were mostly regarded as descriptive of some characteristic in the thing or person on whom they were bestowed.” That Eve named her firstborn, Cain—“gotten” or “acquired”—is not devoid of signifi- cance. The translators of the Revised Version have adopted the rendering: “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” This requires the insertion of words not in the original text. Skinner condemns such interpolation, and says: “To render Ms ‘with help of’ is against all analogy. It is admitted that Mw itself nowhere has this sense.”” One modern exegete would go so far as to change the word “gotten” and make the passage read, “I have created a man with the help of Jehovah.” The author cannot concur in such radical treatment of Scripture. The Bible is, or is not, the ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES 57 inspired word of God. If it be the former, we may forego human emendations; if the latter, it cannot speak to us with authority on any question. It may not be amiss here to note a few vagaries of commentators in connection with the question under discussion. One advances the thought that Adam was not the parent of Cain; his father was a demon; another that Cain and Abel were twins; and still a third that Cain, at birth, was a full-grown man. He bases his conclusion on the fact that Eve exclaimed, “I have gotten a man,” instead of saying, “I have gotten a child.” Under such circumstances, we can scarcely wonder at Eve’s ejaculation. Before making up our verdict on the import of Genesis iv:1, “I have gotten a man, the Jehovah,” or, “I have gotten a man with Jehovah,” we call atten- tion to the following facts, which are not unworthy consideration: (1) The frequent use in Genesis of MS as a sign of the accusative, and its exceptional employment as a preposition. (2) Its invari- able appearance as a sign of the accusative before the name of the begotten in the genealogical tables of Genesis. (3) The inaneness of the rendering, “With the help of.” Does it not impress the reader as being weak, vapid, unnatural and far inferior to Genesis iv:25? (4) The birth of Cain occurred after the expulsion from Eden. Doubtless ere this Eve had felt the sting of sin. What more natural than that she should long for the fulfillment of the promise that her seed should bruise the serpent’s head? Can we conceive it otherwise than that this hope and expectation should be ever uppermost in her mind? These facts are not in themselves determinative, but they are not to be ignored in our consideration of the question. Eve named her second son Abel, which signifies “vapor,” “van- ity,’ “nothingness.” The name itself is pregnant; it has a tongue and tells a tale; it reeks of weariness and disappointment. Some- time, somewhere, the iron had pierced that mother’s soul. This is not play of the imagination; it is a warrantable inference. She takes a pessimistic view of life— “All is vanity and vexation of spirit.” Foretold sorrows have oppressed her; if ever she cher- ished a hope that the promised seed had come, it had died out of her heart. Later, there settles on that downcast soul a shadow 58 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN never to be lifted. Cain slays his brother. The historian does not bare Eve’s grief to the vulgar eye. It must have been more poignant from the knowledge that her own hand had opened the flood-gates of misfortune. When her third son, Seth, was born, the memory of that deed of blood still harrowed her soul, and she exclaimed, “God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel: for Cain slew him.” With this plaint on her lips—‘“Cain slew him,” the historian draws the veil over her life and leaves her to the sorrows that still await her. Without question, Eve was the mother of a numerous progeny. In Genesis v:3, we read: “The days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and he begat sons and daughters.” Eve’s sorrows and conceptions were multiplied; in sorrow she brought forth children—and the world will never cease to pity and condemn its “Stabat Mater’—the fairest and the saddest of humankind. In Genesis iv :19-24, we have a flash-light picture of an antedi- luvian household. Lamech was a descendant of Cain and in- herited the bad blood of his ancestor. He, too, was a murderer and the first recorded polygamist. The names of his wives are given—Adah and Zillah. We know little of these women. They each bear two children; Adah two sons, and Zillah one son and a daughter. Their lot must have been far from happy, wedded to a hot-headed Cainite, a polygamist and a self-confessed mur- derer. In the sixth chapter of Genesis we are afforded fuller informa- tion as to the status of women in the antediluvian period: “And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.” ... “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were mighty men, which were of old, the men of renown. And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that . ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES = 59 he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen, vi:I, 2, 4-6). We will not follow commentators afield to discover the mean- ing of the term “sons of God.” It matters not; polygamy was rife and in every age and every clime where such custom prevails we find womankind downcast and downtrodden. Wedded to beings—fallen angels or fallen men—whose wickedness was great and whose “every imagination of the thoughts” of whose heart “was only evil continually,’ life for them could be only pro- longed, unmitigated, agony. In the seventh chapter of Genesis we see four women—the wives of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, entering the ark to escape the Flood. In I Peter, iii:20, we are told that “eight souls were’ saved.” Noah and his three sons were monogamists. With the entering into the ark, the curtains rung down on the antedi- luvian world. Noah has been called “the second father of the human family.” Chronologically, he stands at the head of the patriarchal group. The record concerning him after the Deluge, is brief. After the waters subsided, we see him standing at the altar offering burnt sacrifices in recognition of the deliverance of himself and family. God enters into covenant relation with him and his sons. The next scene is to his discredit. Awakening from a drunken bout, he bestows his blessing on his elder sons and pronounces maledic- tions on his youngest born and his posterity. The almost utter lack of reliable data in the Oriental mode of computing time, makes it impossible to determine the length of the period intervening between the Deluge and the call of Abra- ham. The number of centuries that elapsed is a mere matter of conjecture. Calmut, Usher, Hale and others, have worked out chronological tables but they are untrustworthy. The advance of civilization would indicate a long period of time, centuries—pos- sibly millenniums. It may be pointed out that the tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis furnish data for our calculation. This is true to a limited extent, but we face the fact that among the Hebrews it was a common practice to omit names from their genealogies. Compare, 60 | THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN for example, Ezra vii:1-5 with I Chronicles vi:4-15, and we find that in the table, in Ezra, eight generations are passed over without mention. Samuel Willard, A.M., LL.D., in his treatment of this subject in “The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia,” says: “The student of these patriarchal tables, after observing the carelessness of Hebrew genealogies with their frequent omissions, will find himself obliged to say of the genealogies prior to Abra- ham, that in them we have probably only the more important names of the lines of descent, the purpose of their transmission not being history in our modern sense, but to show a line of descent.” ... “Omissions in the genealogies of the Hebrew text are common enough to warn us that counting by generations as they are given, is unsafe.” The length of time assigned to the patriarchs in the tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis, without premising omissions, is not sufficient to allow for the growth of the great nations in ex- istence at the time of Abraham—nations such as Chaldea, Assyria and Egypt. As to the status of woman during the long interval of time be- tween the Flood and the call of Abraham the Bible is almost silent. We have, however, some intimations from its reference to customs coming down from preceding generations. It is possible —even probable, that during this period arose the matriarchal system of which there is now such overwhelming proof. On one point scholars are agreed and that is that the matriarchal form of government prevailed at an early age among many tribes and races, and that it preceded the patriarchal. It is foreign to our purpose to discuss the question at length as it takes us outside the range of this volume. We note it here because it has a bearing on some customs that crop out in Old Testament history. We will call attention to these in their proper order. Abraham is the recognized head of the “(Chosen People’; the founder of the Jewish commonwealth. In him, through the line of Sarah’s offspring, were all the nations of the earth to be blessed. He was the son of Terah, a Shemite. His father was an idolater. In Joshua xxiv :3, 14, we have this record: “And Joshua said unto ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES 61 all the people, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel. Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods.” . . . “Put away the gods your fathers served beyond the River.” Terah was not only an idolater, but the presumption is that he was also a polygamist. When Abimelech reproached Abraham with deception in passing Sarah off as his sister, Abra- ham replied: “She is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother” (Gen. xx:12). At that time marriage of near of kin was not prohibited by Divine law and Abraham had wedded his half-sister. Terah may have taken a second wife after the death of Abraham’s mother, but the pre- sumption is that he was a polygamist. A writer in the “Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia” advances the thought that Iscah (Sarah) was a daughter of Haran, Abraham’s brother, overlooking the fact that in the Hebrew text the name Sarah (iv) and Iscah (35°) are not identical. It is true that among the Hebrews the terms of relationship were used with latitude. For example, Abraham on one occasion called Lot his “brother’’; he was his nephew. But this fact does not set aside the statement: “She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother.” Every Bible reader is familiar with the story of Abram’s call and his separation from his kindred. The subject of this volume confines us for the most part to the subsequent history of his wife, Sarah. She was of the Circassian race, the women of which have always been famous for their beauty. One writer says: “There are no cheeks so soft and creamy, no eyes so deep and lustrous as theirs, no form so sylph-like and willowy. Of all the nations of the earth, none has ever equaled that from which Sarah sprang,’— but she was childless. This was a source of grief to both husband and wife. Abram’s lament was, “O Lord Jehovah, what will thou give me, seeing I go childless?” Sarah, like all Orientals, would regard barrenness a reproach. An intense yearning for offspring was not peculiar to the Israelitish race ; the Messianic hope was not its sole explanation. The paternal and maternal instinct was marked among the Orientals and was 62 THE BIBLE £TATUS OF WOMAN fostered by circumstances. Sons were especially desired for the following reasons: (1) to perpetuate the family name, (2) to retain the inheritance within the tribe or clan, (3) to be their parents’ stay in declining years, (4) to build and make the nation strong, (5) to maintain its fighting force. Among Jews, in later times, the man who did not marry and beget children was regarded as disloyal to his country. This sentiment among Orientals accounts, in some measure, for early marriages and polygamy. Abraham and Sarah were childless and this was their grief and reproach. JDespairing of herself having offspring, the barren spouse had recourse to a custom of the age. She proposed to her husband that he take her Egyptian handmaid, Hagar, as pilegesh—secondary wife. Abraham yielded to her entreaty and the usual results—family discord—followed. Authorities differ as to the rights and privileges of the sec- ondary wife. The “Jewish Encyclopedia” says: “A pilegesh or concubine enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged, if hands were laid on her. The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife. Jacob’s sons by Bilhah and Zilpah were equal with his sons by Leah and Rachel.” Other writers hold the reverse. In the “Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia” we have this statement: “In all Oriental States where concubinage is legalized, the principal wife has authority over the rest. The secondary one, if a slave, retains the former condition unchanged.” . . . “Hagar, though taken into the relation of concubine to Abraham, continued still, being a dotal maidservant, under the absolute power of her mistress.” Another writer in the same “Encyclopedia” says: “Peelehghesh—a half-wife—in a Scriptural sense, means the state of cohabiting lawfully with a wife of second rank, who enjoyed no other conjugal right but that of cohabitation, and whom the husband could repudiate and send away with a small present. In like manner, he could by means of presents, exclude his chil- ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES _— 63 dren by her from heritage.” . . . “The rights of a concubine who had been bought as a foreign slave, were unrecognized.” The latter view accords more fully with the apparent position of Hagar in the Abrahamic household. Throughout the narra- tive she is referred to in terms indicating servitude: “Hagar, Sarai’s handmaid”; “Behold thy maid is in thy hand”; “Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands’; “I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai’; “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’’ All these terms are applied to her after she became the secondary wife of Abraham. One of the forementioned writers calls her “A dotal maidservant,”’ Hast- ings ae “Hagar was the property of her mistress, not of her master.” If such be the case, it is conclusive proof that in the patriarchal age the wife could hold property independent of her husband. This was true, not only then, but also under the Mosaic dispensation. Both the dowry and the kethubah were the prop- erty of the wife—the husband could not appropriate, alienate, or in any way lay hands on it. If Hagar was Sarah’s “dotal maid- servant,” the right of her mistress was absolute and Abraham so recognized; he said, “Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her that which is good in thine eyes.” Matters reached a culmination three years after the birth of Isaac, on the occasion of his weaning. Ishmael was now seven- teen years of age. No doubt it was a bitter disappointment to the Egyptian mother and also to her son, that the great wealth of Abraham, once so confidently counted on as an inheritance, would now pass to another. At the feast Ishmael manifested his chagrin by some overt act of disrespect toward the heir. At once the wrath of Sarah took flame. She demanded the ex- pulsion of the bondwoman and her son from the household. There is nothing of entreaty in her words—there is peremptory man- date. “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.” “The thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight on account of his son.” Regardless of his feelings toward Hagar, he had an 64 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN affection for Ishmael. He was his firstborn. On a former occa- sion his prayer had been, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before Thee!’ But Sarah was inexorable. The bondwoman and her son must go. The translators of I Peter i1i1:6 represent Sarah as an obedient wife, subservient to the will of her lord, but the reader will notice that in the Old Testament narrative, on every occasion where there was a clash of wills, it was Abraham, and not the proud, imperious, Circassian beauty, who yielded. We will study I Peter iii:6 when we reach the New Testament. Abraham was in a strait—the thing was “very grievous in his sight”—but Sarah’s ultimatum was reénforced by the Divine com- mand, “In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice.” It is fortunate for womankind in general that the Divine mandate was not counterwise. If God had said to Sarah, “In all that Abraham saith unto thee, hearken unto his voice,’ the advocates of wife subjection would have seized upon it with avidity and held it up as a proof-text. They would have insisted that this thing happened unto her as “our example.” But it was the husband, and not the wife, who was commanded to yield; we must therefore regard it as an “exceptional case,” intended to serve some inscru- table purpose of the Almighty. The Hebrew word yyw here translated “hearken” is in the Old Testament eighty-nine times translated “obey.” Before taking leave of Sarah, we call attention to God’s promise concerning her in Genesis xvii:15-16, ‘““And God said unto Abra- ham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her, and she shall be a mother of nations: kings of peoples shall be of her.” The name “Sarah” signifies “princess.” Isaac was heir to the promise, not alone because he was Abraham’s seed—Ishmael, and Keturah’s six sons were also his seed—Isaac was the heir to the promise because he was the son of Abraham and Sarah. The Hebrew for “Israel” is Ss7iv—which signifies “prince (nw) of God (xy) .” The Hebrew for “Sarah” is my . Professor Robertson Smith maintains that Sarah’s name, after matriarchal custom, was transmitted to her offspring in the word ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES _— 65 “Israel,” the stem of Israel “iy being the same as the stem of Sarah, (wy. Sarah came from a land where matriarchy had a foothold. On the peremptory demand of Sarah, Hagar and her son were banished from the Abrahamic household. After painful wander- ings, the exiles fixed their abode in the wilderness of Paran, and Ishmael became an archer. He was seventeen years of age at the time of his expulsion. The record gives the impression that a considerable period elapsed before his mother, in conformity to the usage of the time, negotiated his marriage. She “took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.” Hagar’s settlement in Paran brought her into close touch with the matriarchal system. This form of government prevailed in Arabia until a later period. Professor W. R. Smith, in his treatise on “Kinship and Marriage” in “Early Arabia,’ says: “In many parts of Arabia kinship was once reckoned, not in the male, but in the female line.” Eliza Burt Gamble, whose “investigations have +B] covered all the accessible facts relative to extant tribes,” says: “Although in Arabia, in the time of the Prophet, descent was traced in the male line, the evidence is almost unlimited, going to show that it was not always so, but, on the contrary, that at an earlier age relationships were reckoned through women, the mothers being the recognized heads of families and tribal groups.” “We are given to understand that, originally, there was no rule of reckoning kinship in Arabia except by the female line, and that the change in descent from the female to the male line affected society to its very roots.” “There seems to be little, if any, doubt that a system of reckoning descent through women once prevailed throughout all the tribes and races of mankind. In Greece, as late as the beginning of the historic period, traces of this early custom are to be observed, and, indeed, at the present time, among many people, evidences of it are still extant. The fact that throughout an earlier age of human existence descent and all the rights of succession were traced through women is at the present time so well established as to require no detailed proofs to substantiate it’ (The Sexes in Science and History, pp. 130, 133). 66 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN J. F. McLennon, in “Studies in Ancient History,” p. 289, also refers to this custom. C. Staniland Wake, commenting on the matriarchate, says: “There is strong reason for believing that the practice of tracing kinship in the female line was very widely observed from a very early period.” Herbert Spencer offers this explanation: “As the connection between mother and child is more ‘obvious’ than that existing between the father and his offspring the custom arose of reckoning descent through females” (So- ciology, Vol. I, p. 665). Darwin also has something to say on the subject: “It seems almost incredible that the relationship of the child to its mother should ever be completely ignored, espe- cially as the women in most savage tribes nurse their infants for a long time, and as the lines of descent are traced through the mother alone, to the exclusion of the father” (“Descent of Man,” p. 588). Noting the prevalence of this system in Arabia, Hast- ings, in his “Dictionary,” says: “Most of the Jinns were women.” _ It may not be amiss to note in this connection a few of the dis- tinctive features of the matriarchal government. (1) The recog- nized head of the tribe or clan was a woman. (2) Descent was reckoned in the female line. (3) The husband severed connection with his own gen and became a member of his wife’s. (4) A woman was entirely free in the choice of a mate. (5) She re- tained after marriage absolute control of her own person. These are some of the marked features of the matriarchal form of gov- ernment. Hagar and Ishmael settled in Arabia where this system pre- vailed; we need not, therefore, be surprised to find in later Bible history mention of the Hagarites and Hagarenes (Ps. Ixxxiii:6; I Chron. v:10, 19, 20; xxvii:31). The Hagarites were a nomadic people dwelling in the eastern part of Palestine, over whom the tribe of Reuben achieved victory. The Hagarenes were “possibly the same as the Ayoatot who are mentioned in Strabo as dwelling in the northern part of Arabia.” Concerning this name the “Jewish Encyclopedia” says: “It occurs alongside of the names of other Arabians and even Ishmaelitish tribes.” . . . “Many Jewish writers assumed that the Hagarites were simply descendants of Hagar. It is, however, quite evidently ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES _ 67 the intention of the chronicler to represent the Hagarites as in- cluding several other Ishmaelite tribes, without perhaps regarding them as co-extensive with the Ishmaelites. That he associated their name with that of Hagar is highly probable.” “The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia” says of the Hagarenes or Hagarites: “So called from Hagar the mother of Ishmael.” We offer a few facts in support of this conclusion. (a) It is generally conceded that the Hagarites and Hagarenes were of the Ishmaelitic stock. (b) They inhabited the same sec- tion of country. They dwelt in Northern Arabia where Hagar and Ishmael fixed their abode and in an age when the tracing of kin- ship through the female line prevailed. (c) The Arabians, even to this late day, hold Hagar in highest esteem. Moslems claim that their holy city, Mecca, is built on the spot where she found the well, and exalt her Holy Fountain Zamzam near Kaaba. They further claim that she died and was buried at Mecca, and they revere her reputed tomb in the temple Caaba. Modern scholar- ship may reject their claims as extravagant, but they prove, beyond question, the high regard in which this ancestress was held. (d) Hagar was an Egyptian and in Egypt “inheritance and genealogy were reckoned by the mother, not the father. While a man’s possessions might descend to his sons, the line might also pass through the daughter to her sons” (Johnson’s Encyclopedia, article on “Egypt’’). No one questions the claim that Dan was the ancestor of the Danites ; Reuben of the Reubenites; Ephraim of the Ephraimites ; Edom of the Edomites; Moab of the Moabites; Ammon of the Ammonites; Midian of the Midianites, etc. Why should we deviate from the common rule when we come to the Hagarites and the Hagarenes? Professor W. R. Smith says: “That the existence of such a group proves kinship through women to have been once the rule, is as certain as that the existence of patronymic group is evidence of male kinship.” That the Hagarites were a strong and wealthy tribe is evident from the Bible account of the victory gained by the Reubenites (I Chron. v:18-22). The spoils taken from the nomads on the occasion of this battle were fifty thousand camels, two hundred 68 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN and fifty thousand sheep, two thousand asses and an hundred thousand captives. ‘And they took away their cattle’ and “there fell many slain.” The angel said to Hagar: “I will greatly multi- ply thy seed that it shall not be numbered for multitude’ (Gen. XVi:I0). If the reader will turn to I Chronicles 1:28, he will find this record: “The sons of Abraham: Isaac and Ishmael.” Why no mention of the patriarch’s six sons by Keturah? Was it inad- vertence ?—an oversight on the part of the scribe? By no means. These six sons’ descent was reckoned in the line of the mother. A reference to I Chronicles 1:32 supplies the omission. Abraham, before his death, gave gifts to these sons and sent them “eastward unto the east country.” They, like Hagar and Ishmael, settled in North Arabia, where descent was reckoned in the female line. The name “Keturahites” does not appear in the Bible, but we find it in profane writing. The genealogical tables of the Old Testament furnish other ex- amples where descent is given in the line of the mother, but the foregoing are sufficient for our purpose. They prove that a custom prevalent in adjacent countries and among kindred people was recognized, and to some extent adopted, by the Jewish nation. We now return to the Abrahamic household. Thirty-seven years have elapsed since the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael. Sarah is dead. Isaac is forty years old and unwedded. The aged patriarch is solicitous about the marriage of his son—the heir of all his substance. He summons his servant, “the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had.” After exacting from him a solemn promise not to take a wife for his son “of the daughters of the Canaanites,” he sends him to Mesopotamia—the land “‘be- yond the River’”—his former home—in search of a wife for Isaac from among his kindred. One can but wonder why a man forty years of age was not himself intrusted with this pleasant task, but such was not the custom. It evidences the extent of parental authority in the patriarchal age. We will not rehearse a story so familiar to the reader, but call attention to certain facts in the narrative—facts which bear traces of the matriarchal system. Genesis xxiv:28, “And the damsel ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES _ 69 ran, and told her mother’s house according to these words.” “Her mother’s house.” This is not a reference to property. We do not relate events to things inanimate. She recounted her ex- perience to members of her mother’s family—her mother’s house- hold. But why, “her mother’s household”? Why not her father’s household? Bethuel was living and an inmate of the home and subsequently shared in negotiations for the marriage (Gen. xxiv:50). In Genesis xxiv :24, Rebekah says: “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah.” Milcah was Bethuel’s mother. When the servant later gives account of the interview he changes her words and gives the father’s name. “The daughter of Bethuel, _ Nahor’s son” (Gen. xxiv:47). In Genesis xxiv:15 Bethuel is also called the “son of Milcah the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother.” Genesis xxiv:53., “And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah; he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things.” These gifts were not in the nature of purchase money. It was customary in early times to make rich presents to the damsel’s parents in order to win their favor: it was also customary for the parents to return these at the wedding and they became part of the bride’s dower. This act of generosity was optional with the parents. The gifts bestowed upon the bride, whether real or personal, were her exclusive property—the husband had no claim upon them. The dower was given to the bride, not with her. The property rights of a married woman in the patriarchal age, were far superior to those of a wife under the common and civil law of England and also of parts of the United States. Under the ancient régime the husband brought a dower to his bride instead of vice versa. Genesis xxiv:57, 58: “And they said, We will call the damsel and inquire at her mouth. And they called Rebekah and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.” Under matriarchy it rested with the woman to accept or reject her suitor. It was so in the case of Rebekah. There was another important matter to be adjusted. Matriarchy required a husband {2 sever connection with his own tribe or gen and to join that 70 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of the woman he married. He must “leave father and mother and cleave to his wife.” Under this system a daughter or sister was protected from abuse from her husband or his kin. He might not marry and take her away to a strange land and a strange people and there mistreat her. In her own gen or tribe her rela- tives guarded her rights. Both Abraham and his servant under- stood this requirement and reckoned with it. The servant said: “Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest? And Abraham said unto him, Beware that thou bring not my son thither again. The Lord, the God of heaven, that took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my nativity, and that spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land: he shall send his angel before thee. ... And if the woman be not willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath: only thou shalt not bring my son thither again.” When the matter was submitted to Rebekah, she said, “I will go.’ She went to Canaan and became the wife of Isaac, and subsequent events proved that she, like Sarah, was quite equal to the task of managing her husband. The only other patriarchal household affording light on the sub- ject under discussion is that of Jacob. The Mormon hierarchs take much satisfaction out of the fact that both Abraham and Jacob had a plurality of wives, ignoring the plain statement of Scripture that such relationship was not of their choosing. Abra- ham yielded to the entreaty of Sarah in accepting Hagar. Jacob was deceived into marrying Leah—Rachel was the sole object of his devotion. The sterility of the latter prompted her to bestow her dotal handmaid as pilegesh to her husband. When Leah for a season ceased to bear, she followed her sister’s example. The custom of the age counted the child of the handmaiden the offspring of her mistress. It was for this reason that the soas of Bilhah and Zilpah were accounted equal with the sons of Leah and Rachel. To give appearance of reality, the handmaid brouglit her child to birth on her mistress’ knees (Gen. xxx:3). When Bilhah’s child was born, Rachel exclaimed: “God hath judge! ANTEDILUVIAN AND PATRIARCHAL AGES 771 me and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: Therefore called she his name Dan.” In each case the mistress, not the mother, named the child. After a twenty years’ sojourn in Padan Aram, Jacob resolves on a return to Canaan. He sends for Leah and Rachel and enters into consultation. He lays the case before them. Their answer is significant. “Is there yet any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house? Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us and hath also quite devoured our money.” Not only had Laban taken undue advantage of Jacob, but had also given his daughters cause for complaint. Jacob came to him with only his staff in his hand. Becoming enamored of his beautiful cousin Rachel, and having no substance to offer as dower, he bargained in lieu thereof for seven years of service. When Leah was thrust upon him, he added another seven years in order to obtain the object of his affection. According to the custom of the age, the wages of these fourteen years of service should have been given to the brides as dower. The mercenary spirit of Laban prompted him otherwise. He treated his daughter’s marriage as a sale, and retained the money in his own possession. Hence their complaint, “Are we not accounted by him as foreigners? for he hath sold us and hath also quite devoured our money.” “Our money.’ They lay claim to it as their dower. If Laban’s pro- cedure had not been out of the ordinary, his daughters would not have made complaint. In closing our study of the status of woman in the patriarchal age we note this fact: in no recorded incident, in no passage of Scripture, is the subordination of woman taught or even implied during this period. Laban’s treatment of his daughters may not be cited, for he had the same authority over his sons. The parent’s power extended even to the taking of life. As to husband and wife, the only case where yielding is enjoined is where Abra- ham is commanded to hearken unto Sarah. The freedom and in- dependence of the married woman in the patriarchal period puts to shame much of modern jurisprudence. Her property rights were assured to a degree scarcely equaled by our most advanced legislation. y4, THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN There is no question that woman’s position in that age was due, in large measure, to the matriarchal system that preceded it. Customs which prevailed in that régime extended themselves into the patriarchal period and guaranteed her immunity from thralldom. Naturally the question arises—what wrought a change? Why, in subsequent centuries, was woman, outside the Jewish common- wealth, stripped of almost every prerogative? Eliza Burt Gam- ble, who has given the question intensive study and investigation, attributes the social revolution to wife-capture. Her arguments are plausible, and careful analysis seems to justify, at least in part, her conclusions. Marriage, for a man who complied with conventional require- ments, was, during both the matriarchal and the patriarchal ages, a serious undertaking. If, on the other hand, he procured a wife by capture, he escaped responsibilities. He provided no dowry, no ketubah and her consent was not needed; no male relatives stood on guard to protect her—they were either slain or defeated in battle; her captor was not required to leave his own tribe; genealogy was carried in the husband’s line; the wife had no control over her own person. In a word, she had no rights her captor was bound to respect. Her status was that of a sexual slave of her husband. As mankind was almost continually engaged in warfare, this mode of procuring wives became popular. Women were the spoils of battle. Sisera’s mother looked through the lattice and cried: “Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the steps of his chariots? Her wise ladies answered her, Yea, she returned answer to herself, Have they not found, have they not ‘divided the spoil ? A damsel, two damsels to every man?” (Jud. v :28-30.) Wife-capture lowered the status of woman, and in time accom- plished the degradation of the sex. There were other contributing influences, but wife-capture was one of the foremost. Vv WOMAN DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION I. HER DOMESTIC STATUS N the preceding chapter we noted customs; now, we treat of | mandates. Mosaic legislation was noteworthy in that it as- signed to woman honorable position in the home, church and state. Her domestic, ecclesiastical and civil rights were assured to a degree unusual outside the matriarchal age. No race of man- kind has ever guarded so carefully the welfare of its womanhood as did the Hebrews. An observant writer says that a people which embodied in its sacred literature such an ode as the thirty-first chapter of Proverbs could scarce do otherwise. Another writer says: “The last chapter of Proverbs could not have been written among a nation which despised its women.” Our study will reveal the fact that the Mosaic code was sin- gularly free from sex discrimination. In almost every instance where discrimination appeared, it was in lenient regard to woman. We will note such cases in their proper order. For convenience we study the status of woman during the Mosaic régime topically: I, IN THE HOME The Hebrew ideal—we will go further and say the Bible ideal —of woman in domestic relationship is found in the thirty-first chapter of Proverbs :—Study this portraiture and what do we see? (a) A woman of strength and regal bearing: , “She girdeth her loins with strength, And maketh strong her arms” (v. 17). “Her clothing is fine linen and purple” (v. 22). “Strength and dignity are her clothing” (v. 25). (b) A sagacious woman: “She openeth her mouth with wisdom” (v. 26). 73 4 (c) THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN A business woman: “She is like the merchant-ships: She bringeth her bread from afar” (v. 14). “She considereth a field and buyeth it. With the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard” (v. 16). “She perceiveth that her merchandise is profitable” (v. 18). “She maketh linen garments and selleth them, And delivereth girdles unto the merchant” (v. 24). (d) An industrious woman: (e) (f) (g) (h) (1) “She seeketh wool and flax, And worketh willingly with her hands” (v. 13). “And eateth not the bread of idleness” (v. 27). “Her lamp goeth not out by night” (v. 18). An amiable woman: “The law of kindness is on her tongue” (v. 26). A philanthropic woman: “She spreadeth out her hand to the poor: Yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy” (v. 20). A model housewife: “She riseth also while it is yet night. And giveth meat to her household, And their task to her maidens” (v. 15). “She is not afraid of the snow for her household ; For all her household are clothed with scarlet” (v. 21). “She looketh well to the ways of her household” (v. 27). An adored mother: “Her children rise up and call her blessed” (v. 28). A beloved companion: “The heart of her husband trusteth in her, And he shall have no lack of gain. She doeth him good and not evil All the days of her life” (vs. 11, 12). “Her husband, and he praiseth her, saying, Many daughters have done worthily, But thou excellest them all” (vs. 28, 29). DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 75 Here in God’s Word we have an inspired portrayal of a virtuous woman, a worthy woman, a woman worth while. Through long centuries of repression there has been held aloft this picture of the ideal wife and mother, but the perverted taste of mankind in general has rejected it. He has demanded a toy or a drudge—a plaything or a slave. The history of almost every nation repre- sents him as standing over woman, lash in hand, demanding that she fawn or cringe. Contrast with this Bible woman the stunted inmates of the harems and zenanas. God-made woman and the man-made woman stand antipodal. The thirty-first chapter of Proverbs formed no part of Mosaic legislation, but was an outgrowth of that system which assigned to woman honorable place in the life of the nation. The author of this inspired production was a woman—the mother of King Lemuel. Some unobservant writers have ascribed it to Lemuel himself. Such claim is refuted by reference to verse 2: “What my son? and what, O son of my womb?” Only an egregious blunderer would attribute such utterance to a masculine individual. Some expositors would explain “son of my womb” as signifying: “born of the same womb.” Such could not have been the meaning in this case where a parent is ad- dressing an offspring, nor could a son address such words to his mother. The author of this ode was a woman and a mother—the mother of King Lemuel—and the production of her heart and pen was deemed worthy a place in the inspired volume—a fitting conclusion of Proverbs—the Book of Wisdom. In the early history of the Jewish nation, woman in the home, whether mother, wife, sister or daughter, was an honored in- dividual : (1) THE MOTHER “Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee,” was engraved by the finger of God on the Table of Stone, and formed an ef- fectual barrier to her degradation. Under Mosaic legislation, father and mother stood side by side. In Old Testament literature, 76 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN wherever honor and obedience to parents are commanded the names of “father and mother” are conjoined: “Honor thy father and thy mother as Jehovah thy God com- manded thee” (Deut. v:16). “Ve shall fear every man his mother and his father’ (Lev. pb ite be “Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother” (Deut. xxvii:16). “He that spoileth his father, and chaseth away his mother, 1s a son that causeth shame” (Prov. xix:26). “Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in the blackness of darkness” (Prov. xx:20). “My son, hear the instruction of thy father and forsake not the law of thy mother” (Prov. 1:8). “My son, keep the commandment of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother” (Prov. vi:20). “The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out” (Prov. xxx:17). “He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death” (Ex. xxi:15). “He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put TOndeathi (ac Ox ter 7), References might be multiplied. Nowhere in God’s Word is the mother pushed to the background. The honor due her was the same as that due the father. A writer on the subject says: “The position of mother is higher under the Mosaic law than under any other system of antiquity. By the fifth commandment the mother is to be honored equally with the father, while in the Moral law (Lev. xix:3) the command to ‘fear’ the mother, that is to treat her with respect, is placed even before the duty of ‘fearing’ the father. Death threatened him who strikes or who curses his mother, as well as him who thus offends against his father. This sentiment was not shown by the Greeks toward even the best of mothers. In the first book of the ‘Odyssey’ Telemachus reproves Penelope, and imperiously sends her away to her own apartments to mind her own womanly business” (“Jew- ish Encyclopedia”). DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION V7 (2) THE SISTER While the Mosaic code did not in specific terms recognize a brother’s obligation to avenge an indignity offered his sister, the customs of the age and the “unwritten law” justified summary punishment of the offender. In the patriarchal period Jacob’s sons wreaked speedy vengeance on the Shechemites for the ravish- ment of their sister. Absalom slew his half-brother Ammon be- cause he raped his fair sister Tamar. The “unwritten law” made a brother the defender of his sister’s honor, and public sentiment applauded his devotion. (3) THE DAUGHTER The daughter in the Hebrew home was, in more respects than one, a favored individual. The Mosaic law afforded her special protection. Parental authority in that age was well-nigh supreme. A father could put his child to death at will. No nation, so far as the author knows, outside the Jewish commonwealth, disputed this prerogative. Even among the Hebrews in the patriarchal age, a father could offer a son or daughter in sacrifice, e.g., the case of Abraham and Isaac. A father could put to death a re- fractory son at his own discretion. The Sinaitic code laid restric- tions on parental authority. An incorrigible son must be brought before the elders (Deut. xxi:18-21), and extreme penalty could only be imposed when his mother concurred in the charges (Mil- man). The Levitical law, in an especial manner, safeguarded daughters. Parental authority was abridged to a greater degree than in the case of sons. A father could sell his son into slavery, but not his daughter. In great strait he could barter her with a view to mar- riage, but she must not toil “as menservants do” and if the mar- riage were not consummated, she must be redeemed or allowed to “so out for nothing, without money.” The law forbade her being held in bondage (Ex. xxi:7-11). The “Jewish Encyclo- pedia” says: “Although the story of Rebekah proves a deep-seated sentiment that a girl should not be coerced into marriage, the civil law gave 78 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN no force to this sentiment, but recognized (Ex. xxi:7) the power of the father to sell his daughter into bondage with the evident intention that she should become the wife of her master or of her master’s son.” But there were limitations to this power. We quote further: “The daughters must be under the age of puberty and the sale justified only by extreme poverty, as is attested by expressions found elsewhere in the Torah. . . . Tradition teaches, however, that a mature girl, z.e., one more than twelve and a half years, had the right to give herself in marriage, and the same privilege was allowed to ‘A widow from marriage’ even in case she was im- mature. On the other hand the father had a right to take a wife for his infant (minor) son without his son’s consent.” This bartering of daughters was only justifiable in cases of extreme poverty. In the time of Nehemiah, “there arose a great cry of the people and of their wives” because of the exactions of their nobles and rulers. They appealed to the Tirshatha for redress. In voicing their grievances they made this complaint: “Some of our daughters are brought into bondage; neither is it in our power to help it; for other men have our fields and vine- yards” (Neh. v:5), and Nehemiah was “very angry,” and sum- moned the rulers and nobles before him and rebuked them and exacted an oath that they would remedy these matters. A man might sell himself into bondage to a foreigner (Lev. XXv :47-49) and presumably his son (nowhere in the Mosaic code is there interdiction), but under no circumstance was he allowed to so dispose of his daughter. “To sell her unto a strange people he shall have no power” (Ex. xxi:8). Milman says: “A Jewish father might sell his children into slavery if in distress—that is, his sons—if a daughter, the law took her under its special protection. Under no circumstance could she be trafficked away into a foreign land.” The father was entitled to the work of his daughter’s hands and to what she found until she attained her majority, which was reached very early, and he had the same right over his minor son, DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 79 the term lasting six months longer. The rabbis reckoned the age of maturity for women to be about thirteen years, and for men fourteen ; although, in some cases it was extended, for the latter, to twenty; this, however, was exceptional. Although the betrothal of a son or daughter might be arranged while the parties were minors, in every instance the marriage must be postponed until puberty was attained, so that practically the daughter held in her own hand a veto power; for at puberty she could annul any contract of marriage made by her parents. Sons took precedence of daughters in the matter of inheritance (Num. xxvii:8). There were circumstances, however, that, in some measure at least, justified this discrimination. One of the provisions in the ketubah (marriage contract) was that daughters should be supported from the estate of their fathers until they reached maturity or until they became betrothed. A writer in the “Jewish Encyclopedia” says: “The institution of maintenance for minor daughters, and the rule that the father’s estate must provide a dowry for the younger daughters which should equal the portion received by their elder sisters (unless the father had become impoverished, when the minimum dowry should be fifty zuzim) shows that in the great majority of cases the daughters fared better than the sons.” When a Jewish maiden became affianced, her betrothed, in ad- dition to gifts bestowed on her and her kindred in order to win favor (Gen. xxiv:53), paid a “mohar” or dowry; this later be- came the individual property of the bride. On occasion of the wedding, the groom was required to sign, in the presence of two witnesses, a ketubah. This instrument gave to the bride a mar- riage portion from her husband and obligated him to furnish her adequate support during her lifetime. It was also customary for parents to bestow on their daughters a marriage settlement. In case of the father’s death, this must be provided out of his estate. At times this was considerable. Caleb gave his daughter Achsah valuable land dower (Josh. xv:16-19; Jud. i:12-15). When the daughter of Pharaoh became the wife of King Solomon, she re- ceived as wedding gift from her father the city of Gezer (I Kings 80 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN ix:16, 17). A daughter’s maintenance during minority was as- sured by her father; after marriage by her husband. At the wed- ding she received; on the other hand her brother, at his nuptials, must provide substantial gifts for his bride and her kindred, pay a mohar, sign a ketubah and guarantee ample support in the future. Discrimination in his favor was less real than appeared , on the surface. That parents sometimes exceeded legal requirements and made daughters heirs with sons is evident from Job xlii:15. “In all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job,” we read further: “and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.” The hero of this narrative was an Arabian pa- triarch, dwelling “in the land of Uz,’ where the matriarchal form of government prevailed. The author of the book, however, is sup- posed to have been an Israelite. There is strong internal evidence to this effect. Aside from this, it is almost unthinkable that the Hebrews would have admitted into their sacred canon a production the author of which was a Gentile. Job was a worshiper of Jehovah, the God of Israel, and his conduct throughout is men- tioned with approval. In Ezekiel xiv:14, he is classed with Noah and Daniel. This patriarch, preéminent for piety and held in highest esteem by Hebrew religionists, in the division of his wealth gave his daughters “inheritance among their brethren.” Primogeniture prevailed among the Israelites and was recognized in the Mosaic legislation. The eldest son inherited a double por- tion. This was termed “the birthright.” Custom, however, im- posed with it the duty to provide for the widowed mother and other dependents of the household. It rested also with the eldest son to maintain the honor and dignity of the family. A Jewish father could disallow his unmarried daughter’s vow of abstinence under certain circumstances (Num. xxx:3-5, 16). There can scarce be question but that before the giving of the Sinaitic code a father could abrogate his daughter’s vows at pleasure. The Mosaic law, however, abridged his authority: (1) She must be “in her youth’—that is, under twelve and a half years of age; (2) she must reside within his home; (3) he must annul at the time of hearing; if he postponed, and later interfered, a DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 81 he was held to be guilty, while she was relieved of all responsibility. Whether a father had the same power over his minor son is not indicated. A Jewish lad attained his majority at fourteen years— thereafter he was regarded as a man and as such would come under the requirement of Numbers xxx:2. The father’s power to interdict his daughter’s vows ceased when she reached the age of twelve and a half years. Some commentators hold that this provision of the Mosaic law was concessional rather than restrictive. It provided for con- tingencies and afforded an immature girl opportunity to avoid the fulfillment of an indiscreet vow. One Jewish writer says: “This power of loosing vows was a great step in the progress of woman’s freedom, marking an advance over both Babylonian and Roman law, under which a father could impose vows on his daughter even against her will.” Ravishment of a betrothed Jewish maiden insured a death penalty for her assailant (Deut. xxii:25-27). Seduction must be followed by marriage, provided the father of the maiden gave consent. The seducer must “pay a dowry for her to be his wife.” Under no circumstances could he afterward divorce her. “He may not put her away all his days.” If her father would not consent to the marriage, her seducer was never- theless required to pay “according to the dowry of virgins” (Ex. Xx11:16, 17; Deut. xxii:28, 29). This review of Mosaic law shows that careful provision was made for the comfort and welfare of daughters. (4) THE WIFE Its treatment of the wife is the surest criterion of a nation’s attitude toward woman. Even backward nations have, at times, singled out the mother and accorded her honor—and this while holding the wife in abject bondage, e.g., China and Syria. The wife, more than any other being, has been the victim of ‘man’s inhumanity” to woman; she is the last member of her sex he is willing to unfetter. It was the wife who was dragged to the funeral pyre in India; it was the wife who was buried alive in Fiji; it was the wife who was bound in the sack and sunk in the 82 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Bosphorus; it was the wife who was strangled or buried alive by the tribes of the ‘Dark Continent.” From the Stone Age to the present age she has been the chief sufferer from man’s mania to dominate woman. Usages, jurisprudence and religion were almost everywhere stamped with such determination. Law-books have been weighted with enactments calling for her subjugation; religion has spoken in almost every tongue and commanded that she obey her husband; custom has decreed that she take a back seat in the affairs of life. Mankind has ever been intolerant of self-assertion on the part of the wife. Hymeneal cere- monies, ancient and some modern, symbolize the wife’s obsequious relation to her husband. In one country the bride prostrated her- self before the groom while he placed his foot upon her neck, thereby declaring her entire subjection; in another, he removed her veil or mantle and laid it over his shoulder to indicate that from henceforth the government was to be upon his shoulders. “Until a late period in the history of Rome it was the custom, during the solemnities of marriage, to pass a lance over the head of the wife in token of the power which the husband was about to gain over her’ (Gamble, p. 181). In Christian lands the bride goes to the hymeneal altar leaning on the arm of her father, who “gives this woman away” as transferred property to the man she meekly vows to “serve, to honor and obey.” It is refreshing to turn from all this to Mosaic legislation and find it almost wholly free from such precepts. The author knows of but one passage in the range of Mosaic law that even hints at wife subordination, and this will be considered later. The Jewish wife, in the early history of this people, was the honored companion of her husband; she was favored above the wives of every other nation. Even modern legislation falls short when compared with Levitical requirements. There is repeated mention in Old Testament Scripture of the dowry. First, there was the mohar or dowry paid by the suitor to the parents of the maiden—this in addition to gifts bestowed on the damsel and her kindred. At times, in lieu of money, a term of service was contracted for, as in the case of Jacob (Gen. xxix :18, 27). Occasionally some deed of valor was required DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 83 (Jos. xv:16, 17; I Sam. xvii:25, xviii:17, 22-27). It early be- came the custom for the father to restore the mohar to the groom at the nuptials, and he in turn bestowed it on the bride as part of her marriage settlement. Second, the parents endowed their daughter on the occasion of her marriage; this became her individual property. In addition to this, as has been elsewhere noted, was the formal delivery of the ketubah—an important feature of a Jewish wedding. ‘This essential document was signed by the groom in the presence of two competent witnesses. We subjoin a translation as it appears in the Maim. Hil. Yibbum iv :33, also in the book Nachlath Shib’a: OL ey Re Sign (day of the week) the........ day of the month Ne te in the year........A. M., according to the Jewish reck- oning, here m.the city.of 22. '.\.,..... TAN artigo Cole PSOMOLR Ys sarees Said) to) the! virsini....): .). 5} GAUCTtEREOt mans, 26: « ; ‘Be thou my wife, in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel, and I will work for thee, and I will hold thee in honor and will support and maintain thee, in accordance with the customs of Jewish husbands, who work for their wives, hold them in honor and support and maintain them. I will furthermore set aside the sum of two hun- dred denarii to be thy dowry, according to the law, and besides provide for thy food, clothing and necessaries, and cohabit with thee according to the universal custom.’ ” IVEIRS ete aha , on her part, consented to become his wife. The marriage portion which she brought from her father’s house in silver, gold, valuables, clothes, etc., amounts to the value of He furthermore declared: “I take upon myself and my heirs the responsibility for the amount due according to this Kethuba, and of the marriage portion, and of the additional sum (by which I promised to increase it), so that all this shall be paid from the ‘best part of my property, real and personal, such as I now possess or may hereafter acquire. All my property, even the mantle on 84 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN my shoulders, shall be mortgaged for the security of the claims above stated, until paid, now and forever. MAMI CIS AVE Bu ste aielg te iene , the bridegroom, has taken upon himself the fullest responsibility for all the obligations of this Kethuba, as customary in regard to the daughters of Israel, and in accord- ance with the strict ordinances of our sages of blessed memory: so that this document is not to be regarded as an illusory obliga- tion or as a mere form of documents. “In order to render the above declarations and assurances per- fectly valid and binding, we have applied the legal formality of symbolic delivery. (Signature of the Groom.) (Signatures of the two witnesses.)” “Tn the time of the Mishnah it was customary for the husband to execute a deed (called Kethubah or written agreement) which had to be signed by two witnesses. In this marriage contract, which still constitutes one of the essential parts of a Jewish wed- ding, and is still read out at the synagogue ceremony, the bride- groom promises to honour and support his wife and to present her with a certain sum as a settlement, of not less than two hun- dred zuzim (one hundred in case of a widow) beside the bride’s dowry. This sum to be paid in case of the husband’s death or in case of divorce, which it thus serves to check” (Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, by G. H. Box, p. 284). “The Ketubah could be increased by the husband and mentioned either in the Ketubah itself or in special deed” (“Jewish Encyclo- pedia’”). “A woman could sell her right or give it away to a stranger, but she could not release her husband from his obligation, or even part of it” (“Jewish Encyclopedia”). As to the origin of the ketubah, authorities differ. Some rabbis consider it to be of Mosaic origin. There are other redactors who assign it to a later period. There are passages of Scripture that seem to indicate it, e.g., Ezekiel xvi:8: “Yea, I swear unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.” Ezekiel xvi:60: “Nevertheless, I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth.” Malachi 11:14, “Jehovah hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 85 though she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” In these passages there is undoubted reference to a marriage cove- nant. So far as is known, the ketubah was the only covenant in a Jewish wedding. The Oriental marriage feast usually lasted seven days (Gen, xxix :27). The evening of the appointed day— supposed to have been the fifth or sixth—the father or some near relative led the bride, heavily veiled, to the nuptial chamber, where she was received by the groom (Gen. xxix:23). The arrangement of the Canticles seem to indicate the observance of this ceremony. The marriage of Isaac and Rebekah, also Boaz and Ruth, was even less formal. In the latter cases the benediction was all that is recorded (Gen. xxiv:60; Ruth iv:11, 12). In Psalm xlv—a royal wedding song—we have also the benediction. Harwood, writing in the “Popular and Critical Bible Encyclo- pedia,’ says: “The blessing of an abundant offspring, invoked upon the bride by her relatives—(Gen. xxiv :60)—which most likely was the only marriage ceremony then and for ages after- ward” (Ruth iv:11, 12; Ps. xlv:16, 17). Rabbinical writers hold that, among the Jews, the wedding ceremony consisted of a kiss (Cant. 1:2). There is nowhere record of an exchange of vows by the bridal pair. Until the fourteenth century, the presence of a rabbi was not deemed essential. All things considered, there is at least presumption that the covenant referred to in Ezekiel xvi:8, 60, and Malachi ii:14, was the ketubah—the marriage contract. In Exodus xxi:10, we read: “Her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” A writer in the “Jewish Encyclopedia” says: “Incidentally, three obligations that the hus- band owes to his wife are mentioned in Exodus xxi:10 as being self-understood—the provision of food and of raiment and cohabi- tation.” A reference to page 83 of this volume will show that in addition to the financial obligations assumed by the groom, these are the requirements of the ketubah, It is quite evident that this document was based on Mosaic legislation, or that Mosaic law recognized these three provisions of the ketubah. If the 86 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN latter, this covenant antedates the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The wife was not dependent on her dowry and ketubah for support. These were her insurance in case of widowhood or divorce. Otherwise her husband must provide for her maintenance. In addition to the three duties of providing food, raiment and cohabitation (Ex. xxi:10), the rabbis added four others and also restricted the husband’s privileges to four: (1) “He must deliver a ketubah (marriage contract) providing for the settlement upon his wife in case of his death or of divorce; (2) he must provide medical attendance and care for her during sickness; (3) pay her ransom if she be taken captive; (4) provide suitable burial for her.” The following are the above requirements more in detail: “The husband must allow for the support of his wife as much as comports with his dignity and social standing. “A Jewish husband must give his wife a certain amount of money every week for spending money, even if he has to hire himself out as a day-laborer to do so. He must provide her board and cannot send her away against her will, even though he gave her sufficient money for all her requirements. She can, however, leave his home, either if he lives in a disreputable neighborhood or if he maltreats her; and in such cases he is obliged to support her wherever she takes up her abode. If the husband leaves her for some time, the court allows her support from his property, and even if she sells his property for her support without consulting the authorities, the sale is valid. If she borrows money for her actual support during his absence, the husband has to pay the debt on his return. The husband is obliged to provide a home, which must be suitably furnished in accordance with his position and with custom. “Beside furnishing her with proper garments, suited to the seasons of the year, and with new shoes for each holy day, he must also provide her with bedding and with kitchen utensils. She must also be supplied with ornaments and perfumes, if such be the custom. If he is unable to provide his wife with suitable out- fit, he is compelled to divorce her. The husband must defray all medical expenses in case of his wife’s illness. The husband is DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 87 obliged to ransom his wife—if necessary, expend all his belongings for her ransom. The priest whose wife has been taken captive, although he cannot afterward live with her, is still obliged to pay her ransom, to restore her to her father’s house and to pay her the amount of her Ketubah. If both are taken captive, the court may sell part of his property, even though he protests. If she dies before him, he must provide for her burial according to the customs of the land and according to his position. He must hire mourners, if such be the custom, erect a tombstone and make such other provisions as custom may demand. If he refuses to do so, or if he be absent, the court may sell part of his property to defray burial expenses.” The husband was “entitled to all his wife’s earnings in con- sideration of his duty to support her. Hence, if she wishes to support herself, she need not deliver her earnings to him. Yet he cannot compel her to live on her earnings.” “A husband must not strike his wife; if he does, he is liable for damages, pain and shame.” “A man should always be careful lest he vex his wife; for as her tears come easily, the vexation put upon her comes near [to God].” The duties of the wife were as follows: “She must do all the housework, such as baking, cooking and washing, as well as nurse her children. If she has twins, the husband has to provide a nurse for one, while she nurses the other. If she brought him a large dowry, she need not do any work in the house, except such as tends to the ease and comfort of her husband and as is of an affectionate nature, viz., prepare his bed, serve at the table, etc. At all times, however, she must do something, for ‘Idleness leads to immorality.’ ” “The wife, if she brings no dowry, is bound to do such house- hold work for the husband as grinding, baking, washing, cooking, and suckling her child, spreading the bed and working in wool (spinning, knitting and the like). If she brings one slave woman, or the means to buy one, she need not grind, bake or wash clothes ; if two, she need not cook, nor suckle her child; if three, she need not spread the bed nor work in wool; if four, she may ‘sit still in her chair,’ ” “A married woman was never bound to work in the field.” 88 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Even if a slave, “She shall not go out as menservants do” (Ex. CL one first Jewish commonwealth the wife was the honored companion of her husband. When the bride reached the threshold of her new home, the groom placed her hand on the upper part of the door, thereby making her the mistress of the household; he handed her his mantle, girdle and hat, signifying that she shared his property. The author of “The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce,” says: “Woman is part of man’s own being; hence not, as according to the degrading views of almost all nations of antiquity, his inferior and slave, but equal to him in dignity, and destined to be a helpmeet at his side.” Mosaic law and Hebrew custom not only made ample provision for the financial support of the wife during the lifetime of her husband and after his decease, also in case of divorce, but they safeguarded her health to a degree unequaled by modern juris- prudence. “The stern law of God stood sentinel over the health, purity and welfare of the wife.” The Jewish husband could not degrade his spouse into a sexual slave. For stated and protracted periods her couch was sacred from his approach. There was catamenial seclusion—seven days; there was forty days’ separation after the birth of a son, and eighty days after the birth of a daughter. It is possible there was also separation during gestation. It is said of Joseph, the husband of Mary, that he “knew her not till she had brought forth a son” (Matt. 1:25). The question naturally arises—why was the husband forbidden to approach his wife for a longer period after the birth of a daughter than after the birth of a son? What was the import of such interdiction? It is unsupposable that there was greater im- purity in the one case than in the other. C. Hamilton Smith, President of the Devon and Cornwall Natural History Society, traveling in the beaten paths of thought, offers the following explanation: “The duration of defilement caused by the birth of a female infant, being double that due to a male, extending respectively to eighty and forty days in all (Lev. DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 89 xii :2-5), perhaps represents the woman’s heavier share in the first sin and first curse.” An acquired habit of thought prompts this writer to send womankind through life staggering under the weight of Eve’s transgression. H. L. Hastings, in his volume entitled “The Wonderful Law,” offers a more erudite explanation. We quote his words: “There is, as it is well known, in consequence of the exposure of men to various dangers, a tendency to an excess of females in civilized communities. And such an excess forms a disturbing, if not a dangerous, element in society, destroying the natural balance of the sexes, and in some cases leading to serious evils; as may be seen in Great Britain, where a preponderance of 800,000 females leads to such horrible exhibitions of vice and sin as cannot openly be described. We know how female infants have been destroyed by their parents in non-Christian lands, and are all familiar with the bitterness of the lot of Oriental women... . “In a perfect condition of society, without deaths from vice or violence, there might be no inconvenient excess of the female sex under the ordinary birth-rate; and in a pure and well-ordered community, such excess, if it existed, might be attended by no special evil results. But fallen humanity is far from perfection, and the evils resulting from this state of things are neither few nor small. “The rule of force, which ever prevails outside the influence of the Scriptures, makes a woman’s lot one of subjection and degra- dation; and an excess of females in any locality, under these cir- cumstances, tends to cheapen and degrade them. But no such cheapening and wastefulness of God’s precious handiwork was possible under the provisions of the Mosaic law, for the natural tendency of the extension of this period of maternal seclusion after the birth of a female child would be to slightly reduce the birth of females; the births in families composed mostly of girls being less frequent and less numerous than in the case of the opposite sex. “It is stated that even to the present day, as might be expected from this law, the proportion of births of males to females is greater among the Jews than among their Gentile neighbors, the tables showing that among the Jews 112 boys are born to 100 girls, while among the Gentiles there are but 105 boys to 100 girls, 90 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN giving the Jews an excess of seven per cent over the Gentiles in the birth-rate of males.” There is weight in the foregoing argument. History proves that the unbalancing of the sexes, due to the dangers incidental to the vocational life of men, and above all to the depletions of war, paves the way to female infanticide, polygamy and the social evil. This is especially true where social customs and economic conditions force women into a dependent relation. The lax morals that characterize army life aggravate the evils. We have only to turn our eyes to Europe at the present time for proof of the foregoing statements. In councils of state are found advocates of polygamy, and at least one of the foremost nations in the World War openly offered encouragement to plural marriages. A further explanation of the lengthened maternal seclusion after the birth of a female child suggests itself to the author. It was held by some of the peoples of antiquity—there are also modern proponents of the belief—that sexual intercourse during the periods of gestation and lactation is injurious to both mother and off- spring; that the vital energies of the former require conservation to enable her to properly nourish her infant. It is a well-known fact that this law of abstinence prevails in the animal kingdom. The brute mother is privileged an exemption too often denied the human mother. Students of child culture affirm that the first three months of a babe’s life are super-important; that a setback during this period tells on the child’s development for a long time to come. That such belief lay back of the Levitical requirement is only postulation on the part of the author. No one will question the humaneness of the provision. That the period of maternal seclu- sion after the birth of a female infant was almost three lunar months—twice as long as in the case of a male—is only further evidence of the distinctive regard shown to daughters by the Hebrew lawgiver. Healthy girlhood meant healthy wifehood; healthy wifehood meant healthy motherhood; healthy motherhood insured healthy offspring; healthy offspring meant a vigorous DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 91 nation. The Hebrew commonwealth gave careful thought to its child-bearers—“its most sacred trust.” One or both of the last two explanations are sufficient answer to the question why the wife was forbidden for a longer period after the birth of a daughter than after the birth of a son. Reason there must have been, for God’s commands are always reasonable ; His mandates are manifested concern for human welfare. The Mosaic law permitted a husband to interdict his wife’s vows under prescribed circumstances (Num. xxx:6-8, 10-16). This was the only instance where Levitical law gave the slightest recog- nition of a husband’s assumed prerogative to supervise the conduct of his wife, and even here the restrictions imposed brought his authority within a very narrow compass. His interference was not in the least to her disadvantage. Mosaic law was at times concessional; it reckoned with deep- rooted prejudices; it took account of long-established usages. H. L. Hastings says: “The law was graded on the lines of possibility and practicability. The question was not what would be a perfect law for a perfect people, but what was the best law that could be imposed upon a nation of sinners fresh from the bondage of Egypt, in the desert of Sinai and in the land of Canaan.” Jesus indicated the concessional nature of this law when the Pharisees approached Him on the subject of divorce. He an- swered: “Moses, for your hardness of heart, suffered you to put away wives; but from the beginning it hath not been so” (Matt. xix :8). This yielding to popular demand He charges not to God, but to Moses: “Moses, for the hardness of your heart, suffered you to put away your wives.” Such relaxation was a contravention of the Divine will and purpose: “From the beginning it hath not been so.” “He which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh.” In the exceptional cases where Mosaic law granted indulgence to the perverted will of the people, it invariably sought to minimize attendant evils. It clipped the wings 92 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of wrongdoing; it hobbled prejudices; it pruned and girdled unde- sirable customs which could not be uprooted without unsettling the social fabric. Instead of “direct action,” it took a roundabout way to extirpate that which was detrimental. Hastings says: “It con- fined itself to regulating an old, established, and widely extended institution.” Mosaic law recognized blood revenge, but waved back the avenger, and pointed the manslayer to a city of refuge, and assured a well-kept pathway for his feet until he came before the judges. Mosaic law recognized slavery, but ameliorated the lot of the bondman and the bondwoman, and wrote in the nation’s calendar a semi-centennial jubilee, and proclaimed “liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.’ Mosaic law tolerated polygamy, but piled obstacles in the pathway of the polygamist. Mosaic law permitted wife-capture, but drafted a bill of par- ticulars and warned the captor not to trespass on the reserved rights of his captive. So in the case before us, Mosaic law allowed a husband to annul his wife’s vow, but it drove the stakes so close, and raised the barriers so high, he scarce had elbow-room in which to exercise his authority. A study of the text will show how narrow were the confines into which he was driven: First: He must disallow her vow “in the day that he heareth it.” If he delayed, his authority in the matter ended; if he held his peace at her “in the day that he heard,” her vow was established. Subsequent interference on the part of the husband relieved the wife of all responsibility, and made him chargeable for her non- fulfillment—“He shall bear her iniquity” (Num. xxx:15). In the second place, his power of annulment extended but to two kinds of vows: (a) “The rash utterance of her lips’ (Num. xxx :6, 8); (b) an “oath to afflict the soul” (Num. xxx:13). Certainly, interdiction under such circumstances could not be to her disadvantage. The Orientals held the vow to be most sacred—so sacred that the vower felt himself obligated to discharge it at any cost, ¢.g., Jephthah (Judges xi:35) and Herod (Matt. xiv:9). The Bible DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 93 itself stresses the solemnity and sacredness of the vow (Num. Xxx :2, 9; Deut. xxiii:21-25; Ecc. v:4-7). Now Mosaic law pro- vided a way in which a wife could escape the fulfillment of a rash vow or an oath that would bring her into distress—“afflict the soul.” Her husband was empowered to release her—her con- science would be satisfied and “the Lord shall forgive her.” This was a lenient provision—especially so in an age and among a people who held the vow to be irrevocable. We recall the bitter cry of Jephthah: “Alas, my daughter! Thou hast brought me very low . for I have opened my mouth unto Jehovah, and I cannot go back.” With a wife it was otherwise; a door was opened whereby she could escape. Hebrew maxims taught that a wife must not be distressed—this, not only out of tender regard for her happiness, but also out of concern for her health, and the effect upon her offspring. We note, incidentally, that the Hebrew verb (s3)), here trans- lated “disallow,” is, in Numbers xxxii:7, rendered “discourage.” If the translators had adopted this rendering in the passages under consideration, they would have read—if her husband discourage her in the day that he heareth it: then he shall make void her vow which is upon her, and the rash utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul: and Jehovah shall forgive her (Num. xxx :8). And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath, and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and discouraged her not; then all her vows shall stand (Num. xxx:I1). The fact that her husband Aiea geet and made known his disapproval at the time of hearing, released the wife from the fulfillment of “the rash utterance of her lips,’ and of an “oath to afflict the soul” —and this was the extent of a husband’s authority over his wife, as recorded in Mosaic law—let those who hold to opposite view, disprove the statement. That the foregoing pro- vision was advantageous to the wife must be apparent to every reader; at the same time it was an inoffensive concession to the spirit of the age. It was doubtless a curtailment of a former custom; an abridgment of an assumed prerogative—and withal an appeasement to husbands, jealous of their rights. 94 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN The Levitical code—as was well-nigh universal in that age— permitted wife-purchase and wife-capture. Under the first Hebrew commonwealth, both civil and canonical law recognized four forms of marriage, (a) Beena, (b) Ishi, (c) Baal, (d) Leverate. The Beena marriage was one where the husband severed relation with his own family or gen and united with that of his wife. Their offspring took the mother’s name and the genealogy was reckoned in her line. Such was the marriage of Barzillai’s daughters (Ezr. ii:61, Neh. vii:63), also of Zeruiah, the sister of King David (I Chron. 11:16, 17), and possibly of other women whose names appear in the genealogical tables of the Jews—this will be con- sidered later. The Beena marriage was a characteristic of the matriarchy. The second type of marriage was the Ishi—we use this term for want of a better. It was the prevalent form of marriage among the Hebrews. It was the customary union of a free man and a free woman. The wife received from her husband a dowry, ketubah, marriage portion and a pledge of support and mainte- nance, “in accordance with the customs of Jewish husbands, who work for their wives, hold them in honor and support and maintain them.” The third type of marriage recognized among the Hebrews was the Baal—the term signifying, “master,” “possessor,” “owner.” If a Hebrew father were reduced to poverty, he could sell his daughter to an Israelite with a view to marriage—never to a foreigner. If her purchaser “dealt deceitfully with her,” and did not consummate the marriage, either himself or for his son, he must allow her to be redeemed; he could not hold her in bondage nor sell her to another. Marriage under such circumstance would be of the Baal type—the marital union of a master with his bond- maiden. If the husband contracted a second marriage, he was forbidden to diminish the food, raiment or duty of marriage of the wife secured by purchase. If he disregarded these provisions of the law, he must allow her to go free—divorce her. He could not demand a return of her purchase-money, neither could he hold her in slavery nor sell her to another. He must divorce and manumit (Ex. xxi:11). Let the reader compare this merciful DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 95 provision of Mosaic law with that of other countries of antiquity. We have reference to the Ishi and Baal types of marriage in Hosea ii:16. “It shall be at that day, saith Jehovah, that thou shalt call me Ishi [my husband] ; and shalt call me no more Baali [my master].” Israel, under the first covenant held the position of a purchased wife. “I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage” (Mic. vi:4). “T have redeemed thee: I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine” (Isa. xliii:1). Under the second covenant she shall be the beloved wife, the honored companion. “Thou shalt call me Ishi [my husband]; and shalt call me no more Baali [my master].” Baal marriage was also resorted to in the case of wife-capture. Israel waged defensive warfare; rarely ever, aside from the con- quest of Palestine, offensive. As was inevitable after a victory, there were many prisoners of war. What could be done with them? One of two things: they could be slaughtered or enslaved. The latter was the more humane—especially as Levitical law was considerate in its treatment of slaves. To release these captives was to invite a renewal of the war. Mosaic law, unlike the prevalent custom of antiquity, did not leave the female captive to the mercy of her captor; it threw a protecting arm about her. If he had “a desire unto her,” he must make her his wife; nor was he permitted to exercise undue haste in the matter of marriage; he must allow her the usual period of mourning—“a full month.” If the marriage proved unsatisfactory, he must release her—grant her a divorce—and permit her to go whither she would—back to her kindred, or to dwell in the land. His power over her was at an end; he could not hold her in cap- tivity, nor barter her to another (Deut. xxi:10-14). A marriage of a captor to his captive was of the Baal type. Another form of marriage in vogue among the Hebrews was the Leverate—the union of a man with the childless widow of a deceased brother. The first-born of such marriage succeeded to the name and estate of the dead man. This custom was handed down from the patriarchal age (Gen. xxxviii:8). Its purpose was to preserve the family name and inheritance (Deut. xxv:6, 9). Levitical law recognized this form of marriage, but provided a 96 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN means of escape (Deut. xxv:7-10). Some Jewish writers hold that the brother was not obligated to wed his childless sister-in-law if he already had a wife. Presumably, the union need not be con- tinued after its purpose was accomplished and an heir born. Mosaic law tolerated polygamy, but piled obstacles in the way. A man must not contract a second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife, if by so doing he curtailed her maintenance. “Her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish” (Ex. xxi:10). This provision, in itself, was almost prohibitive for the average individual. Jewish law and custom imposed stern duties on a husband; he must provide liberal support for his wife; only a man of means could add to these responsibilities. Plural marriages were never popular among the Hebrews. Notwithstand- ing the prevalence of the custom in surrounding nations, public sentiment among the Jews was ever against the practice. Their sacred and profane literature abounds in jibes concerning it. The author of a work entitled, “Jewish Law on Marriage and Divorce,” maintains that it was rare except in cases where the first wife was childless. Under no circumstances could a man take in marriage a sister to his first wife during the lifetime of the latter (Lev. xvili:18). If a man had two wives, one beloved and the other hated, the children of the beloved must not supplant the children of the hated (Lev. xxi:15-17). Mosaic law expressly enjoined that kings should not multiply to themselves wives (Deut. xvii:17). David, Solomon and some of the later Hebrew kings disregarded this commandment. It remains for us in this connection to consider briefly the divorce laws of the first Jewish commonwealth. In two cases the marriage relation was indissoluble. If a man ravished a maiden or seduced her, he was compelled to make her his wife, if her father gave consent. In such case, he might not put her away all the days of his life (Ex. xxiii:16, 17; Deut. xxii:28). If a man accused his wife of ante-nuptial unchastity, and the charge was disproved, he was chastised, amerced, and deprived of the right of subsequent divorce. “He may not put her away all his days” (Deut. xxii:13-19). The general law on divorce was as follows: “When a man DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 97 taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife’ (Deut. XRT¥ 27512): In the time of Christ the schools of Shammai and Hillel waged controversy over the import of this statute. The author of “Jewish Law on Marriage and Divorce,” commenting on this difference of opinion, says: “The interpretation of the expression, ‘some un- cleanness’ (R. V. ‘some unseemly thing’) (935 n)7qy)—literally, ‘the nakedness or shame of a thing,’ used in the Mosaic law as a ground of divorce, is a point on which the schools of Shammai and Hillel, . . . widely differed. The former school took the expres- sion in an ethical sense, and consequently limited the husband’s right of divorce to the case of moral delinquency or unchaste demeanor in the woman, while the school of Hillel, understanding the expression to relate to anything offensive and displeasing, per- mitted divorce for any cause that might disturb domestic peace.” It was the adherents of these schools that brought the question to Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” We are familiar with His answer. He not only took issue with the school of Hillel, but pointed out the concessional nature of the Mosaic enactment. No matter how the schools of the second Jewish commonwealth might differ in their interpretation of the law, there can be no question that the more liberal view prevailed under the first com- monwealth; the words of Jesus so indicated, and because the pro- vision was inadequate and temporal—because it fell below the original standard, He abrogated it—He disannulled “a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness” (for the law made nothing perfect). (Heb. vii:18, 19.) Under the Mosaic code, if a man contracted a second marriage, thereby reducing “the food, raiment and duty of marriage” of his first wife, she could demand divorce on the ground of diminished maintenance (Ex. xxi:11). If a man wedded a captured woman and the union proved unsatisfactory, he must “let her go” (Deut. 98 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN xxi:14). In the case of moral delinquency on part of either hus- band or wife, Mosaic law imposed the death penalty (Lev. xx:10). While the words of Jesus indicate liberal interpretation of Deut- eronomy xxiv:I, 2, under the first Jewish commonwealth (un- doubtedly under the second), and divorces were granted on insuffi- cient ground, there was strong deterrent, so far as husbands were concerned. All that a wife brought with her at the time of mar- riage, she took with her when he sent her away—gifts from friends, dowry, and marriage settlement; her ketubah must be met in full. Under rabbinical ruling every obligation on the husband’s part must be discharged before he could write a bill of divorcement. Whether a Hebrew wife could divorce her husband or not has been debated. Certainly in the cases above noted she could demand a divorce and the object sought was attained. Whether the judges permitted her to write a bill of divorcement is another question. The law, and man’s interpretation of the law, must not be con- founded. The expression, “Let her go,’ would indicate that at times the wife took the initiative. When the Pharisees approached Jesus on the subject of divorce, He specified the wife as well as the husband. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,’ He said, “committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she com- mitteth adultery” (Mark x:11, 12). This answer leaves room for the inference that wives as well as husbands were blameworthy in this matter. As to the intent of the Mosaic law on this question, there is this to be said: Only in exceptional cases did it provide for a double standard; never where moral questions were at issue. Take, for example, the adulterer and the adulteress: both must suffer death, the fornicator and the fornicatrix faced the same punishment. Only in rare cases did the Sinaitic code allow for sex discrimina- tion, and, as our study has revealed, in each particular case there was wise underlying reason. This was remarkable; especially so when we take into consideration the age, and measure the deep- seated prejudice of almost all the surrounding nations. During the first and also the second Jewish commonwealth a woman could be an independent property-holder. Her dower, her DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 99 ketubah, and any other possessions acquired, whether real or per- sonal, were her own. Boaz said to his near kinsman: “What day thou buyest the field of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess” (Ruth iv:5). The Shunammite whose son Elisha restored to life is called in Scripture “a great woman.” This would imply that she was a person of wealth, or that she held high official position. The record would indicate the former. During a subse- quent famine she and her household removed to the land of the Philistines. After a seven years’ sojourn she returned, only to find that her possessions had been seized. She cried unto the king for redress, “so the king appointed to her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was hers, all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now.” The fact that she was called “a great woman” during the lifetime of her husband is proof that her weatlh was not acquired through widowhood (II Kings iv :8, viii:1-6). We have further proof in Proverbs xxxi:16, 18; also in the cases of Achsah (Jos. xv:19); Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts xii:12); and the women who ministered unto Jesus “of their substance” (Luke viii:3). Under the reverberations of Sinai, Hebrew womanhood was elevated to a status approaching that of Eden. Succeeding cap- tivities wrought change. Close contact with the laws and customs of other nations effected revolution in the popular mind; Mosaic law was plastered over with rabbinical precepts and woman sunk to the low level where Christianity found her. The second Jewish commonwealth was worm-eaten along these lines. In closing this study of the domestic status of woman under the Mosaic régime, we throw out challenge to any reader to produce any edict from the Levitical code, aside from Numbers xxx:6-8, 12-15, that even implied the subordination of the wife, and in this particular case the supervision allowed was restricted, and served for relief even more than for restraint. It may be urged that the term “Baal,” sometimes applied to a husband, is proof of his au- thority over his wife. As has been elsewhere pointed out, this ap- pellation owed its origin to the pre-nuptial relations of the contract- ing parties. 100 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN In conclusion of this chapter we quote the words of a Jewish writer: “Woman is part of man’s being; hence, not, as according to the degrading views of almost all nations of antiquity, his in- ferior and slave, but equal in dignity, and destined to be a help at his side” (“Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce’). VI DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION (ContTINUvED) II. IN CHURCH | RIOR to the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, 1491 P B.c., there is no mention of the church or established order of Divine service. The word “priest” occurs in Scripture during this period but six times, and in each instance refers to individuals outside the pale of Judaism (Gen. xiv:18, xli:45, 50, xlvi:20; Ex. ii:16, iii:1). The word in the plural is found three times in Genesis xlvii in reference to the Egyptian priests. The only inference that can be drawn from this silence of Sacred Writ is that public worship among the Hebrews, prior to the Exodus, was confined to family groups or tribes. The assumption has always been that during the antediluvian and patriarchal ages the father officiated as priest or pontifex maximus. ‘This is in- capable of proof or disproof. The fact that during a period of several thousands of years, six men—Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—on eleven different occasions are said to have “erected an altar” and to have offered a sacrifice to Jehovah is an insecure foundation on which to build an assumption that no woman ever did likewise. Aside from this, we must bear in mind that the offerings here referred to—with the exception of that of Cain—were sanguinary, requiring the slaughtering of animals and the pouring out of blood. Woman, both physically and tempera- mentally, is unfitted for such gory work. But there were other priestly functions, and there were bloodless sacrifices. It is an indisputable fact that many countries of antiquity had priestesses as well as priests. So far as Hebrew women were concerned, we are willing to allow the presumptive, but not the assumptive. The author of this volume is not building on con- jecture. Since proof or disproof is not forthcoming, we waive the question of woman’s share in public worship during the ante- 101 102 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN diluvian and patriarchal ages, and pass at once to a consideration of her status in the church under the Mosaic dispensation. During the first Hebrew commonwealth, women were admitted to the Sacred Choir. On the occasion of rejoicing after the pas- sage of the Red Sea and the overthrow of the Egyptian army, two great companies were formed—the men under the leadership of Moses, and the women under the leadership of Miriam—and the song recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Exodus was chanted antiphonally. Moses with his chorus of men sung: “T will sing unto Jehovah, for He hath triumphed gloriously: The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea,” etc. Miriam, followed by “all the women,” and accompanied by their musical instruments, answered them—that is the men, (ond) (the pronoun is masculine) : “Sing ye unto Jehovah, for He hath triumphed gloriously: The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea.” In this great religious celebration, Moses and Miriam were the chief actors. The honors were divided, and they stood facing each other on the threshold of a new dispensation. During the Davidic reign a Sacred Choir was organized, and placed under competent leaders—“Certain of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman and of Jeduthan” (I Chron. xxv:1). The arrange- ment of musicians and singers was by “order of the king.” The number of them “that were instructed in singing unto Jehovah, even all that were skillful, was two hundred four-score and eight.” This choir was “for the service of the house of God” (I Chron. xxv :6). Now a question is—was this body of musicians and singers made up solely of males or were women also admitted? In I Chronicles xxv :5-7, where there is detailed account, we read: “And God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. All these were under the hands of their father for song in the house of Jehovah, with cymbals, psalteries and harps, for service of the house of God. And the number of them, with their brethren that were in- DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION ~~ 103 structed in singing unto Jehovah, even all that were skillful, was two hundred four-score and eight.” Heman’s three daughters were members of the Sacred Choir and their assignment was by order of the king. As is apparent from a study of the Hebrew text, verse six is not the beginning of a new paragraph. The recurrence of the phrase “brethren and sons” in the suc- ceeding verses (9-31) may be urged as indicating that only males were reckoned in the allotment. The objection is invalid from the fact that the Hebrew word for “sons,” (O95) is frequently used to designate offspring of both sexes (Gen. iii:16, xxi:7, xxx:'I, XXX1:17, xxxli:11; Deut. iv:10, et al.). In numberless cases it is rendered “children.” I Chronicles vi:3 (Hebrew text I Chron. v:29), Miriam, the sister of Moses, is listed as a son of Amram. (a%93 AW JAMS ODpy 333) “Every male among the sons (O33) of Aaron shall eat of it” (Lev. vi:18, R.V.). “A male son is born unto thee” (72] jd) (Jer. xx:15). In the inscription of the Psalm xlvi appear these words: “Set to Alamoth ” (nipdy-dy)- I Chronicles xv:19-22, we have this record: “So the singers, Heman, Asaph and Ethan, were appointed with cymbals of brass to sound aloud; and Zechariah, and Aziel and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Unni, and Eliab and Maaseiah, and Benaiah, with psalteries set to Alamoth; and Mattithiah, and Eliphelehu, and Mikneiah, and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, and Azaziah, with harps set to the Sheminith to lead. And Chenaniah, chief of the Levites, was over the song: he instructed about the song, because he was skillful.” The word “Alamoth,” appearing in such connection, has proved a stumbling-block to commentators. There can be no question as to its meaning elsewhere. It is the Hebrew for “maidens,” “damsels,” “virgins,” “young women.” In Psalm Ixviii:26, we read: “In the midst of the damsels (nindy) playing with tim- brels.” Canticles i:3: “Therefore do the virgins (mindy) love thee.” Instances might be multiplied. The meaning of the word, aside from Psalm xlvi and I Chronicles xv :20, is indisputable. But why difficulty here? Because Psalm xlvi formed part of the Hebrew Psalter, and I Chronicles xv :19-22 relates to the arrange- ment of the Sacred Choir. To allow the usual rendering under 104 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN such circumstances would indicate beyond question that women had a place in the Tabernacle choir, so expositors have wrestled with the offensive word “until the breaking of the day.’’ One would have “Alamoth” refer to some musical instrument, although ancient art and modern excavations have not revealed such. Another surmises that as the Psalm xlvi was arranged for the “Alamoth,” the intention was that it should be sung by boys, because they have “female voices”; overlooking the fact that the author of the Psalm was an Israelite and familiar with the Hebrew word for “boys.” Plumer says: “ ‘Alamoth’ is rendered ‘virgins’ in Canticles 1:3, vi:8. Some here read, virginals or virgin tunes.” He does not account for the absence of “tunes” from the text, nor does he enlighten his readers as to the nature of “virginals.”’ Elsewhere he says: “It probably in some way refers to music.” Lowth says: “T am not at all satisfied with any explication I ever met with of these verses, either as to their sense or construction, and I must give them up as unintelligible to me.” Plumer says: “The names of musical instruments in the Bible are the torment of translators. ... We do not, certainly, know the shape, size or power of any of them.” Hengstenberg paraphrases thus: “After the virgin manner.” He offers no apology for the introduction of a new word, for substi- tuting the singular for the plural, nor for changing a noun into an adjective. Forkel, in his “Gesch der Musik,” 1, p. 142, understands “virgin measures.’ The same objection applies here as in the preceding, viz., the introduction of a new word, the sub- stitution of the singular for the plural, the conversion of a noun into an adjective, and, further, lack of explanation as to the char-’ acteristics of “virgin measures.” But why this juggling with noun and adjective? Why this substitution of singular for plural? Why this lugging in of “tunes,” “measures,” and “musical instrument”? Why this “hop- ping, skipping and jumping” around the word “Alamoth”’? It has one unquestioned meaning, viz., “maidens,” “damsels,” ““vir- gins,’ “young women’; and there is no proof that it has ever had any other signification. Why dabble in surmises? Why not DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 105 face the issue with open-mindedness? Some commentators have had the hardihood to do so. Gesenius, the Hebrew lexicographer, renders nindy-by (Psalm xlvi & Chron. xv:20) “after the man- ner of maidens,” “i.e., with the female voice, 1.¢., our treble, soprano, opp. to the deeper voice of men.” (3%wW) According to Gesenius, thislast word, “Sheminith” (}*»w) denotes “the low- est and gravest notes, as sung by men, the modern bass, basso,” opp. to ninby-by,, Tholuck renders nivdy-by , “To the tune of the virgins.” Alexander holds that it refers to “soprano or treble voices.” Of this troublesome word “Alamoth,” the ‘Standard Bible Diction- ary” says: “This perhaps refers to some treble effect.” “It must be confessed, however, that the interpretation of all these technical terms, as others cited, is extremely uncertain.” Yet these “many men of many minds,” one and all, concede that “Alamoth,” aside from I Chronicles xv:20 and Psalm xlvi &~+- means, “‘damsels,” “maidens,” “virgins,” “young women.” Such being the case, one can but query whether the difficulty is with the word or in the mind of the commentators. It may be pointed out that the Israelites held religious festivals and open-air celebrations, apart from Tabernacle and Temple services—e.g., after the crossing of the Red Sea and the overthrow of the Egyptian host (Ex. xv:1-21); after the defeat of Sisera and his army (Judges v:1-31) ; on the occasion of the bringing up of the ark by King David (II Samuel vi:1-5; I Chron. xiii:5-8; I Chron, xv:3-28) ; after Jehoshaphat’s victory over the Moabites and Ammonites (II Chron. xx :21-30) ; at the laying of the founda- tion of the second Temple (Ezra 11:10, 11) ; at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem, after their rebuilding by Nehemiah (Neh. xii :27-43) ; at the going up of the tribes, “even the tribes of Je- hovah,” to the annual festivals (Ps. cxxii:4) ; while the Israelites were on their return journey from exile. Some hold that at this period the “Songs of Ascent’ were written and chanted. All such occasions were characterized by singing and the playing of musical instruments. After the organization of the Levitical Choir, it took the lead in such demonstrations. There is abundant proof that women were participants in song and the handling of 99 «66 106 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN musical instruments at these festivities. At the celebration follow- ing the passage of the Red Sea, Moses and Miriam were the chief actors in song; after the defeat of Sisera, Deborah and Barak. In Psalm Ixviii, supposed by some to have been sung on the occa- sion of the removal of the ark, or written in commemoration of the event, appear these words: “The singers went before, the minstrels followed after, In the midst of the damsels playing with timbrels” (v. 25). It may be noted, incidentally, that wherever in Scripture there is mention of “timbrels,” it is quite safe to assume the presence of women. This instrument was played almost exclusively by such. One writer says: “The occasions on which it was used were mostly joyful, and those who played upon it were generally females, as was the case among most ancient nations, and is so at the present day in the East.” “Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand: and all the women went out after her with timbrels and dances” (Ex. xv:20). On the occasion of the bringing up of the ark of the covenant, “David and all the house of Israel played before Jehovah with all manner of instruments made of fir wood, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels and with castanets, and with cymbals” (II Sam. vi:5). “And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, even with songs, and with harps and with psalteries, and with timbrels and with cymbals and with trumpets” (I Chron. xiii:8). “Sing aloud unto God our strength: Make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob, Take up the Psalm, and bring hither the timbrel, The pleasant harp and the psaltery, Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, At the full moon, on our solemn feast day. For it is a statute for Israel, An ordinance of the God of Jacob” (Ps. Ixxxi:2-4). “Let them sing praises unto Him With the timbrel and harp” (Ps. cxlix:3). DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 107 “Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet; Praise Him with the psaltery and harp, Praise Him with the timbrel and dance: Let everything that hath breath praise Jehovah” (Ps. cl:3-6). Now it may be urged that women’s participation in song and music was on these festive occasions, and not at “The door of the Tent of meeting,” nor within the sacred precincts of the Temple. For answer we quote from Sacred Writ: “They have seen Thy goings, O God. Even the goings of my God, my King, into the sanctuary, The singers went before, the minstrels followed after, In the midst of the damsels playing with timbrels” (Ps. Ixviii:24, 25). Psalm xlvi, written to be sung by “maidens” (Alamoth), formed part of the Hebrew Psalter, and was dedicated to “The Chief of Musicians,” or conductor of the Sanctuary Choir. “God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. All these were under the hands of their father for song in the house of Jehovah, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps for the service of the house of God” (I Chron. xxv:5, 6). We quote from “The Standard Bible Dictionary”: “Attached to the Temple, at least in later periods, were singers and players, both men and women, set apart from among the Levites.” The Chronicler gives extensive details about their organization and activity (I Chron. vi, xxv; II Chron. v, xx, xxix, etc; II Kings xii:13; Ezek. xl:44), especially at the end of the Exile (Ezra ii, Neh. vii, xii). The Levitical Choir was instituted by King David. It was arranged in twenty-four courses and placed under the leadership of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman. Prior to the building of the Temple, it sung before the Tabernacle, “And they ministered with song before the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, until Solomon had built the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem (I Chron. vi:32). After the erection of the Temple, its station was on the east side of the brazen altar (II Chron v:12). 108 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN When King Cyrus decreed the rebuilding of the Temple, Zerub- babel, accompanied by almost 50,000 Jews, returned to Jerusalem. Among them were “Two hundred singing men and singing women” (Ezra ii:65). When the foundation was laid, this choir was brought into service (Ezra iii:10, II). In the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, when Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls, there accompanied him, “Two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women” (Neh. vii:67). Provision was made for the maintenance of singing men and singing women. ‘They lodged in chambers provided for them within the Temple wall (1 Chron. 1x:33; Neh. x:39; Ezek. x1:44). In the time of Nehemiah they built for themselves villages round about Jerusalem (Neh. xii:29). Singers, like priests and porters, had “portions” assigned them (Nehii xisojesdit47, xi :r0; LL) Chron vaaxxy :15.)..) “Artaxerxes exempted them from “tribute, custom or toll” (Ezra vii:24), and made “A settled provision” for them “as every day required” ( Neh. xi:23). Women offered audible prayer in the Tabernacle and synagogues, not only in unison with the congregation, but apart therefrom. Hannah prayed in the Tabernacle at Shiloh (I Sam. i:10-15). “Her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore’— because “Her voice was not heard’—“Eli thought she had been drunken.” G. H. Box, in “Religion and Worship of the Synagogues,” p. 299, says: “In the synagogue women said the Eighteen Benedic- tions, but instances are on record that they sometimes offered short prayers composed by themselves as well. Rabbi Jochoman relates that one day he observed a young girl fall on her face and pray, and he records her prayer.” Rabbi Bachrack declared that women used to say Kaddish in the synagogue “when their parents left no male posterity.” Accord- ing to this author, the Kaddish was a prayer corresponding some- what to the Lord’s Prayer. It was read in the synagogue for one year after the death of a parent, and on anniversaries thereafter. DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 109 Under ordinary circumstances, this service was performed by a son, but at times by a daughter, “who put on the praying-shawl (Talith) and mounted the beena.” We must bear in mind that the synagogue was an institution of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, so that the prevalent belief that women never functioned during that period in any public religious service is an error. Such may have been the case within the bounds of Palestine, under the strict surveillance of the Rab- bim, but certainly not among the Dispersion. Ramsay, in “The Church of the Roman Empire,” says: “The honors and influence which belonged to women in the cities of Asia Minor form one of the most remarkable features in the history of the country. In all periods the evidence runs on the same lines. ... The best authenticated cases of Mutterrecht belong to Asia Minor. . . . The custom of the country influenced even the Jews, who in at least one case appointed a woman at Smyrna to the position of Archi- synagogue.” He says further: “Ancient epitaphs attest the fact that certain women earned the titles ‘Mistress of the Synagogue,’ ‘Mother of the Synagogue.’”’ Noting this, one writer comments thus: “Probably by their religious zeal in charity,” overlooking the fact that the duties of such functionaries were not distinctively along such line. Under the Mosaic régime women ministered at the door of the tent of meeting. “And he made the laver of brass, and the base thereof of brass of the mirrors of the women which assembled to minister at the door of the tent of meeting” (Exodus xxxviii:8 R.V. 1884 marginal reading). “And he made the laver of brass and the base thereof of brass, of the mirrors of the ministering women that ministered at the door of the tent of meeting” (Ameri- can Revision). We also have reference to these women, I Samuel sa. “At the door of the tent of meeting” were the altar of burnt offerings and the laver. Here the sacrifices were slain, here the “pillar of cloud” came down and God talked with Moses, Aaron and Miriam (Ex. xxix :43, xxxili:9; Num. xii:5, xvi:42, 43; Deut. XXx1:15, et al.). Here the priest was consecrated; here he abode 110 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN seven days and nights after his consecration; here the sacrifices were eaten; here the Nazarite shaved his head. After the rebel- lion of Korah the congregation of Israel were forbidden to come nigh the Tent of meeting lest they bear sin and die (Num. xvii:13, XVili:22). Women “Ministered” at the door of the tent of meeting. The word here translated “ministered,” or “served” (838) is em- ployed to designate two kinds of service: (a) Military service. (b) Tabernacle or Temple service.—“Mulitia sacra.’ In the case before us it has reference to Tabernacle service. The Hebrew word N28 is employed to designate the service of but one class or order of Tabernacle attachés, viz., The Levites. It is said of them that they S28 xoyd —a literal translation would be, “They warred the warfare.’ Our translators render “Waited upon the service’ (Num. viii:24). The Levites “warred the warfare’ (S28 xox) “in the work of the tent of meeting.” From the fact that S$2¥, aside from its military sense, is used only of the Levites in connection with Tabernacle service, we deem ourselves warranted in concluding that these women who “ministered” (828) “At the door of the tent of meeting” (Ex. xxxvill:8; I Sam. 11:22) belonged to that order. Dr. Hastings says: “$28, a word frequently used in the priestly code for some sort of Levitical service in the Tabernacle” (Num. iv:23). “Ex- cept that some ritual service associated with the priests’ sacrifi- cial work is implied, it is impossible to say what the work of these women had been.” The Levites were ordained. They were inducted into office with prescribed ceremonies. They were offered “a wave offering to Jehovah” (Num. viii:5-26). These women, being Levites and “ministering at the door of the tent of meeting,” would of neces- sity be ordained in the usual manner. As to the nature of the service of these “ministering women,” there must be more or less conjecture. They may have been singers and have “ministered unto the Lord in song.” They may have had other duties to perform. The services of the Levites were manifold. Aside from the DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION _ 111 burdensome labor of erecting and removing the Tabernacle, and slaying of animals offered in sacrifice, they served as porters in the house of Jehovah; had oversight of the chambers and treas- uries; had care of the furniture and sacred vessels; prepared the “confections of spices’; took charge of the fine flour, oil, wine and frankincense; baked the shewbread “and things baked in pans.” Two hundred and eighty-eight ministered day and night unto the Lord in song. In the performance of some of these duties, “women ministered at the door of the tent of meeting.” It may be urged that during the Mosaic régime women were not admitted to the priesthood. We answer that were this the fact, it would afford no just ground for discriminating against the sex in the administration of divine ordinances in the present dis- pensation: (1) Because the priest was typical of Christ in His humanity. His incarnation was in the form of man. (2) Because the office of priest was done away in Christ. Dr. Hodge in his “Outlines of Theology,” p. 399, says: “No priestly function is ever attributed to any New Testament officer, inspired or uninspired, extraordinary or ordinary.” There is no office in the Christian church today corresponding to the office of priest. There is now “one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 11:5). The minister of the Christian era corresponds with the Levite and prophet of the Levitical dispensation, and both these offices were open to women. Christian antiquaries affirm that from the third century, and onward, “Levite” was a frequent designation of a Christian minister. But did Mosaic legislation debar women from the priesthood? The assumption that it did has been well-nigh universal, but recent researches have reopened the question. Nowhere in Scripture is it recorded that women were ineligible to this office. The fact that the priesthood was given to “Aaron and his sons” is not infallible proof that women were excluded. As has been indicated else- where, the Hebrew word OD is, in numerous instances, rendered “children.” Exodus xxix:44, and Numbers xviii:7, we read: 112 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “Aaron and his sons (0°)3) will I sanctify, to minister to me in the priest’s office.” Leviticus vi:18, this same word 0°}3 occurs and we read; “Every male among the children (0°93) of Aaron.” Now if the translators had rendered in the latter passage, as in the former, the reading would be: “Every male among the sons of Aaron.” If on the other hand, they had translated 0°33 in Exodus xxix :44, as in Leviticus vi:18, we would have the following: “Aaron also and his children will I sanctify to minister to me in the priest’s office.” The Hebrew word 0°32 signifies “sons,” and also “children,” inclusive of both sexes. At this point we call attention to the Scripture phrase: ‘Males among the priests” (Lev. vi:29, vii:6; II Chron. xxxi:19). What is its import? There are but two explanations: I. That the reference here is to the male members of the priestly households. Let us examine this. It has been set forth with great confidence by those who are averse to the thought of women in the priesthood. Let us study the phrase in its context and weigh the difficulties that stand in the way of the common interpretation. Leviticus vi:29, “Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.” Leviticus vii :6, “Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in a holy place: it is most holy.” II Chronicles xxxi:19, “Also for the sons (0.33) of Aaron the priests, which were in the fields of the suburbs of their cities, in every several city, there were men that were expressed by name, to give portions to all the males among the priests, and to all that were reckoned by genealogy among the Levites.” The first two passages (Lev. vi:29, vii:6) are a part of the Levitical code, and are regulations concerning the eating of meal, sin, and trespass offerings. The last passage (II Chron. xxxi:19) relates to a decree of King Hezekiah regarding the distribution of accumulated tithes and oblations. In order to reach an impartial verdict concerning the import of the words: “Every male among the priests,” certain facts must be brought into review: (a) The territorial districts of the priestly cities. Some were DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 113 near and some afar—as distances were computed in those days— from Jerusalem. (b) The inconveniences, and at times, perils of travel; afoot, on donkey or on camel back, or in palanquin; over winding bridle- paths or along unkept highways. The climatic conditions would add to the discomforts of travel. During the summer seasons there was intense heat. In the spring and fall there were the “early and latter rains”’—at times torrential downpours: During the winter months the cold chilled the wayfarer and imperiled health. There were also other dangers to be reckoned with. Jericho, a Levitical city, was only a few miles from Jerusalem, but so many robberies and murders were committed along this high- road that it was called “The Bloody Way.” In the song of Deborah we read: “In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, In the days of Jael, the highways were unoccupied, And the travellers walked through byways.” The Apostle Paul, in enumerating the hardships he endured, men- tions “perils of robbers.” This was not a condition peculiar to Palestine. It was characteristic of the age. Along the highways and mountain fastnesses of the Old World today are pointed out caverns which were once the rendezvous of banditti. _(c) The age at which the census of children was required— “A month old and upward” (Num. 111:39, 40, 43, e¢ al.). In his registration for the distribution of tithes and oblations, King Hezekiah reckoned children “From three years old and upward” (II Chron. xxxi:16). This was the age at which the Hebrew mother was supposed to wean her offspring. Leviticus vi:29 and vii:6, if applicable to the priestly household, would require the earlier enrollment. (d) The prolification of the Hebrew race, and size of the priestly family are also factors that must be considered. The attainment of majority was placed, for girls at about thirteen, for boys at fourteen. Celibacy was held in detestation, and marriages were consummated at an early period. Barrenness was counted a reproach, and a numerous progeny as a token of Divine favor. 114 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN So far as records are available, the birth-rate of boys exceeded that of girls. Under these circumstances we are on safe ground when we estimate the average priestly household as alive with juveniles, and a large proportion of these males. (e) A fifth matter requiring special attention is the place where the meal, sin, and trespass offerings must be eaten—“in the courts of the Lord’s house” (Lev. vi:16, 26; vii:2, 6, 7, et al.). This law allowed for no exceptions. (f) The number of priests. During the Davidic reign a census showed 1,760 priests—at a subsequent period there was a con- siderable increase. By order of the King these were arranged in twenty-four courses, each of which served in turn, and for a designated period in the Sanctuary. This assignment made it necessary for a large number of priests to journey to or from the Holy City about the same time. Now if Leviticus vi:29 and vii:6 made it obligatory upon every male of the priestly family to partake of the meal, sin, and guilt offering in the courts of the Lord’s house, we must picture to ourselves a great number of priestly sires laboriously wending their way along unkept highways or narrow bridle paths, having in charge groups of children of various ages down to infants in arms. Those from distant cities must spend several days and nights en route. Food and lodging must be provided. If the weather proves inclement, the discomfort will be great, and, furthermore, a menace to the health. After anxious days and reposeless nights, the way- farers reach their destination, and invade the courts of the Temple —distraught sires, and a horde of tired and hungry children. The sacrificial meal is spread and partaken of amid confusion—it can- not be otherwise. Then what occurs? These wayworn fathers must don their priestly robes and begin their ministrations at the altar. But who will care for these children—boys of all ages— “every male” from the priestly household? What will become of them while their sires serve through long hours and days in the courts of the Lord’s house? These servants of Jehovah may not desert their tasks until their ministrations are accomplished. And how often must these priestly fathers undergo this ordeal? There is nothing in the record to indicate, but presumably as often as DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 115 they “executed the priest’s office,’ in the order of their course. These are pertinent questions, and we may not parry them. It may be urged that a Jewish lad did not become “a son of the Law” until he attained the age of twelve years. This is conceded, but it has no bearing on this question. This was not a regulation of the Levitical code, but a provision of the Rabbim, and came into effect during the second Commonwealth. “Every male among the priests.” “All” and “every” are not synonymous. The former is frequently used with general import. It “sweeps in units” promiscuously, “as a part of a total.” It is generic, and exceptions are permissible. Peter and his fellow- disciples said to Jesus: “All are seeking Thee.” On another occa- sion Jesus said: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself.” In these utterances it was not implied that each and every individual was indicated. The statements were general, “All” was a reference to the masses in totality. It is otherwise with the word “every.” It is specific and allows no exceptions or omissions. It “expresses the idea of all distribu- tively.” “All visualizes the crowd; “every” points to each indi- vidual in that assembly. “All” is general; “every” is particular. The Levitical law provided that “every male among the priests” should eat of the meal, sin, and guilt offerings in the holy place; in the courts of the Lord’s House. None were exempted. To extend this to the priestly household makes the execution of the law impracticable. A further objection to the foregoing interpretation is found in its singularity. It has, so far as the author’s investigation has extended, no parallel in ancient or modern literature. It is “a freak in exegesis’—a “marked deviation from the normal type.” It is without a precedent, and nothing in the nature of exegesis is found en train; it stands apart from the ordinary, a veritable landmark of prejudice. Suppose an edict should go forth that every male among physi- cians in a specified community should conform to a prescribed rule of conduct. Who, for an instant, would contend that this provision extended to the boys in the physicians’ households? Would it not, rather, be universally understood that the ordinance 116 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN applied to male, but not to female, physicians? The phraseology employed would be certain proof that women, as well as men, practiced medicine in that community. No other construction would be put on the language. To question would be to invite ridicule. The same would be true concerning every trade and profession aside from the priesthood and Gospel ministry. In the realm of sacred literature expositors allow themselves a latitude that would not be tolerated elsewhere. The extraordinary exegesis of the phrase “every male among the priests” is to be accounted for in two ways: (1) An un- conscious prejudice on the part of those who offered it, and (2) to their a priori mode of reasoning. Instead of assembling all the Scripture facts concerning woman’s activities in the Old Testa- ment Church, and weighing them with open mind, and drawing conclusion; expositors start out prepossessed with the notion that no woman could serve in the priesthood. Without a scintillation of Old Testament proof to support such assumption, they lay down their proposition, and then exhaust their energies in trying to align the facts of Scripture and its teachings in sustentation of their postulate. , II. But the words “every male among the priests” have a second, and it seems to the author a far more natural interpretation. This makes the phrase “every male among the priests” a differentiation of the sexes. Certain duties were imposed on the one sex from which the other was exempted. In support of this view we offer the following facts for consideration: (1) Nowhere in the Old Testament can be found a passage even intimating that women were excluded from the priesthood. As has already been pointed out, the Hebrew word 0°33, in the oft recurring phrase: “Aaron and his sons,” is elsewhere, in numerous instances, translated “children.” (2) During the first Jewish Commonwealth, women officiated in every other capacity in the church—as singers in the Sacred Choir; as ministers at the door of the Tabernacle; as Nazarites, and as prophets. Under these circumstances it is unreasonable to assume, without Scripture warrant, that they were ineligible to the priesthood. | DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 117 (3) Ministering at the altar on the part of women was not a novelty to the Hebrew mind. Many nations of antiquity had priestesses. A sojourn of four hundred years in Egypt would leave its impress. Arabia, which bordered on Palestine, and was inhabited by kindred races—descendants of Esau, Lot, and Ishmael —had women Kahin, the highest functionary of the Arabian re- ligion. 7 (4) Any objection to women serving as priests could, with equal propriety, be urged against their being Nazarites. (5) Any exposition of Leviticus vi:29, and _yii:6, which denies the admission of women to the priesthood, is forced and unnatural, and, in addition thereto, makes the law itself impracticable. But a question may arise. If women served on a parity with men in this office, why were they granted immunity in the matter of eating the meal, sin, and guilt offerings in the courts of the Lord’s House, while “every male among the priests’ was straitly enjoined to partake thereof? This question may be answered by proposing another. Why was it “An ordinance in Israel” that all males must assemble before the Lord three times in the year, without mention of females? It is written in the law of the Lord—Deuteronomy xvi:16— “Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before Jehovah thy God in the place which He shall choose; in the feast of un- leavened bread, and the feast of weeks, and the feast of Taber- nacles.”’ Now a reference to Exodus xi1:3, 4, 26; Deuteronomy xvi:11, 14, | Samuel i:1-21; Luke ii:41, will show that at the feasts here specified provision was made for the attendance of women. Every year thousands of the sex availed themselves of this privilege, but it was not obligatory. It was left to their own election. Perhaps no code ever formulated guarded so sedulously the health and general well-being of women as the Mosaic, and in the. requirements concerning feasts and sacrifices we have added evi- dence. What was compulsory for men was, at times, optional for women. The unkept highways and crude modes of transportation in those days made travel fatiguing, and at periods in a woman’s life, exhausting. This may account for the fact that only males 118 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN were specified in Leviticus vi:29 and vii:6. But how about II Chronicles xxxi:19? On this occasion there was not strict con- formity to Levitical law, and a journey to Jerusalem was not a requirement. Why was it decreed that portions should be given to “all the males among the priests,” without mention of females? Let us study the context. King Hezekiah made proclamation, commanding the people to bring the portions appointed for the priests and Levites to the Sanctuary “that they might give them- selves to the law of Jehovah.” The response was so generous that a superabundance of first-fruits of grain, new wine, oil, honey, and all the increase of the field were brought to Jerusalem and piled in heaps in the Temple courts and in the store-chambers; beside tithes of oxen, sheep, and dedicated things. ‘The inflow continued for a period of four months, until there was enough and a “great store” left over. The King’s next concern was regard- ing the disposition of this surplus. He appointed overseers and charged them to make allotment to the various priestly cities and their suburbs. Right here we turn aside to study the registers used on this occasion. There were three: (1) The Tribal; (2) The Priestly; (3) The Levitical. We note them in their order: 1. The Tribal: Every tribe in Israel had such a roster. The Hebrews, as all the nations of antiquity, required a registration of all males soon after birth in order to furnish information as to the time when they would be available for warfare. 2. The Priestly: This was an enrollment of “them that were reckoned by genealogy of the priests by their fathers’ houses.” If women served in this office, their names would appear on this register. A careful reading of the record (II Chron. xxxi:15-18) will disclose the fact that the first distribution of tithes and oblations on this occasion was preferential. The priests who were reckoned by genealogy of their “fathers’ houses,” took precedence of such as were not so validated. The words: “Besides them,” in verse 16, are not without signification. “Besides them’—that is besides the preferred—a subsequent distribution was made “To their brethren DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 119 by courses, as well to the great as to the small’ (II Chron. KXKIRTS ) But how came it to pass that priests without certified lineage were permitted in this office? The Hebrews guarded with scru- pulous care these family and tribal records. Strictest surveillance was kept over the priestly register, but here, in the account as given in II Chronicles xxxi, we find priests who were not reckoned by genealogy after their “fathers’ houses.” How do we account for it? We ask the reader to turn to II Samuel vii:18 and note this record: “And David’s sons were priests.” King David was of the tribe of Judah, “as to which tribe Moses spake nothing con- cerning priests,’ but here in clear, bold type it is written: “And David’s sons were priests” (03713). King James’translators deemed this an impossibility, and rendered the passage: “David’s sons were chief rulers.” The 1884 Revisers gave the correct reading: “And David’s sons were priests,” but wrote in the margin, as alternative rendering—‘“Chief ministers.’ The American Re- visers reversed this order, placing “Chief ministers” in the text and “Priests” in the margin. The author takes exception to this unprecedented departure from the uniform rendering of the Hebrew word }fj> . It signifies “priest,” and nowhere in Sacred Writ, aside from II Samuel 5 vili:18, has its import been called in question. We accept the passage as it stands in the Hebrew text: “And David’s sons were priests.” But how could these men, being members of the tribe of Judah, function in the priesthood? It was written in the law of Moses: “Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons (0°33), and they shall keep their priesthood: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” Now it is not supposable that King David would set at nought the Divine prohibition, and place his own sons in this sacred office. We face a dilemma. Shall we, like the meddlesome scribe of the second and third centuries, tamper with the inspired text, to bring it into conformity to our predilec- tions? Shall we follow the lead of translators and inject new meaning into the word i> ? Or shall we accept the passage as 120 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN recorded in Holy Writ, and search diligently for a reasonable explanation? In the judgment of the author, the last course is the safest one to pursue. There was a way, and so far as the writer knows, one only, by which a man in Israel could change his tribal relations—by Beena marriage. This form of nuptial contract is noted in Chapter V of this volume. If the sons of King David wedded daughters of priests, and the alliance was of Beena type, they would sever relation with the tribe of Judah, and be joined to the tribe and family of their wives. In II Chronicles xxxi, we found priests who were not reckoned by “their fathers’ houses.” The explana- tion is simple. These men, in all probability, came into the tribe of Levi and into the family of Aaron by Beena marriage. Under such circumstances they could not be registered by their fathers’ houses. To do so would connect them with a tribe aside from that of Levi. All such were priests without genealogy by their fathers’ houses. It can readily be seen why a man about to wed the daughter of a priest would choose the Beena marriage. It not only made him a member of the tribe of Levi, and of the Aaronic family, but also assured the rights of priesthood to his descendants. But this law operated with equal force in the opposite direction. It disbarred as well as initiated. Ezra ii:62, 63; also Nehemiah vii :64, 65, we find mention of two priests, Hobaiah and Hakkoz. These men wedded daughters of Barzillai, the Gileadite, and were “called after their name.” The last declaration—‘“called after their name,” proves that these were Beena marriages. Bar- zillai “was a very great man” (II Sam. xix:32), which here signifies wealth. The law of Israel forbade an heiress to wed outside her tribe, lest she alienate her inheritance (Num. xxxvi). In order to consummate marriage with the daughters of Barzillai, it was necessary for Hobaiah and Hakkoz to ally themselves with the tribe to which these women belonged. After the return from exile, the offspring of these two men sought admission to the priesthood, but were rejected because their names were not found on the Aaronic roster. Their fathers had contracted Beena mar- riage with women of another tribe, and the genealogy of their DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 121 descendants was reckoned in the mothers’ line: “Therefore they were polluted from the priesthood.” 3. The third register resorted to in the distribution of the tithes and oblations by King Hezekiah was the Levitical. This was an enrollment of all the Levites from twenty years old and upward by their courses. On this occasion, only such as “were reckoned by genealogy” were beneficiaries. This requirement indicates that there were men ministering in this order who were not so reg- istered. As in the case of the priests, their only ingress would be by Beena Marriage. After allotting portions to the priests, their wives, sons and daughters, and to the Levites who were reckoned by genealogy, and to their families, throughout the thirteen priestly cities, the decree went forth that the residue of the tithes and oblations should be apportioned to “all the males among the priests” and “to all that were reckoned by genealogy among the Levites,” dwelling in “the fields of the suburbs.” We must bear in mind that the program of this distribution was in accordance with the King’s commandment, and not in strict conformity to Levitical law. An emergency had arisen, and Hezekiah, like Solomon at the dedication of the Temple (I Kings vili :64.), departed from the letter of the law. In the final decree, verse 19, we meet with the words, “all the males among the priests,’ and here, as in Leviticus vi:29 and vii:6, explanation is required. 1. Commentators averse to the thought that women were eligible to the priesthood allow but one interpretation, viz., that “all the males among the priests,” signifies in this instance, as in Leviticus vi:29 and vii:6, male members of the priestly households. We may not offer here one of the objections urged against such ex- position of the former passages. It was not, on this occasion, required of priestly sires to journey, in company with every male of their families, to Jerusalem. The vulnerability in this case is found in the fact that Levitical Law expressly enjoined that both sexes share the offerings specified in this distribution—‘“First fruits of grain,’ “new wine,” “oil,” ... and “of all the increase of the field”; “tithes,” “vows,” “free-will,” and “peace offerings” 122 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN (Lev. x<14 3) Nunh< xviii :11-13,4193;, Deut.) xii :11, 12, 17, 18; IT Chron. xxxi:5, 6, 14). If Hezekiah set at nought this provision of the Law, it can only be reckoned an arbitrary ruling of the King, and may not serve as a precedent. 2. The second explanation of the phrase under discussion re- quires admission that women functioned as priests. This accounts for its rejection by the great body of expositors. If there is one article of their creed concerning women that expounders of Sacred Writ have announced with a certitude above all others, it is that which taught that, under Mosaic Law, women were debarred from the priesthood. But truth cannot be wounded unto death by false exegesis. Though crucified, consigned to a rock-hewn tomb, and sealed with seven seals, it will have its Easter morn. It is doubtful if this article of the commentators’ faith can stand the test of scholarship through another generation. It is out of plumb, and built on a sandy foundation. If the second explanation is the correct one, Hezekiah’s decree would work no hardship to women priests residing in the suburbs. A reference to II Chronicles xxxi:18 shows that in the distribution throughout the cities the number of persons in each family was taken into consideration. There is nothing to indicate that it was otherwise in the suburbs. If a woman priest was married, she shared in the allotment to her husband’s household; if unmarried, she was accounted a member of her father’s family; if a widow dwelling apart, Levitical Law made special provision in her behalf (Deut. xiv :29, Xvi:I0, II, xxiv:19-21, xxvi:I2, 13). In further study of the claim that women were eligible to the priesthood, certain passages in the Pentateuch may be offered as negations, ¢.g.: Exodus xiii:12, “Thou shalt set apart unto Jehovah all that openeth the womb, and every firstling which thou hast that cometh of a beast; the male shall be Jehovah’s.” Exodus xiii:15, “I sacrifice unto Jehovah all that openeth the womb, being males.” Exodus xxxiv:19, “All that openeth the womb is mine; and all thy cattle that is male.” Deuteronomy xv:19, “All the firstling males that are born of DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 123 thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto Jehovah thy God.” Now this setting apart of firstborn males, both of man and beast, and sanctifying them to Jehovah, may by some be regarded as a prefigurement of the priesthood, especially so because of the fact that during the wilderness journey the Levites—the priestly tribe —were substituted for the firstborn of Israel. Owing to the speci- fication of males in the foregoing passages, inference is drawn that females were rejected, and, as the ordinance was symbolic of the priesthood, women would be ineligible to this office. Let us analyze the argument: (1) We note the purpose of this “ordinance in Israel’; it was commemorative of the slaying of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the preservation of the Israelites: Exodus xiii:14-16, “And it shall be, when thy son asketh thee in the time to come, saying, What is this, thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand Jehovah brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage: and it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that Jehovah slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to Jehovah all that openeth the womb, being males.” Numbers iii:13, “For all the firstborn are mine; in the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast; mine they shall be: I am Jehovah.” (2) That this hallowing of the firstborn in no sense prefigured the priesthood is evident; otherwise only firstborn individuals s, could minister at the altar, and only firstborn male animals be offered in sacrifice. The Levitical code imposed no such re- strictions. But why this specification of males and this passing by of fe- males? Does it not indicate the Divine election of the male sex for sacerdotal service? At this point the reliability of our current text becomes at once an issue. We avail ourself of the scholarly treatment of the subject by Dr. Ismar J. Peritz, in his treatise, “Woman in the Ancient Hebrew Cult.” Dr. Peritz is not only a man of scholarly attainment, but a Hebrew by birth; this latter fact adds weight to his testimony. He says (pp. 133-135) : 124 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “The law of the firstling with its emphasis upon the firstborn male might at first sight appear as a very formidable objection to woman’s inclusion in the cult; but upon careful examination the facts here will be found in harmony with those already adduced. “That the later legislation counts the male only cannot be ques- tioned (Nu. 3:40ff. [P]). But it seems to me altogether doubtful whether this was also the case in the earlier legislation. But as this has been assumed, without a dissenting voice, to have always been so, one feels the need of much courage to call it in question. Yet there are weighty considerations against this assumption that have a right to a hearing. “The origin of the consecration of the firstling is found, as W. R. Smith has pointed out (Rel. of Sem., p. 444), in something of the nature of taboo of the first produce, having its proper parallel in the vegetable kingdom in the law of Lev. xix :23/f., which ordains that for three years the fruit of a new orchard shall be treated as ‘uncircumcised’ and not eaten. This being the case, and as we have found no discrimination against female victims in offerings in general, we might argue on general grounds against the prob- ability of an original discrimination here. There is, however, far more direct evidence that no such discrimination existed in the earliest times: I mention: (a) The term O77 10 or Ww Wp. It is repeated so often that we can scarcely go amiss seeing in it the central idea of the custom and the law. But if this be so, its limitation to a 13] prac- tically annuls it by introducing an entirely different element which takes its emphasis. If there be any meaning or force in the “6b, the 7D} dissipates it. It does, therefore, seem improbable that they both belonged to the original idea, and far more probable that that was contained in the 7, irrespective whether it was male or female, in agreement with the idea of the taboo of the first produce. Cf. also the b> in OMT WP 5D (hot St 12) Hz oxo (b) W. R. Smith has also called attention to the fact ‘in the period immediately before the exile, when sacrifices of firstborn children became common, these grisly offerings were supposed to fall under the law of firstlings’ (Jer. vii:31, xix:5; Ez. xx:26).? But this being so, the passage in Jeremiah, stating that that which was done to O7J2 was also done to O7°NI2, shows that still at 1Tbid. p. 445. DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 125 that time the female was included in the law of the firstling. (c) A careful examination of the working of the texts of the law reveals the fact that the word 431 (male) has only a very doubtful place in them. To facilitate such examination, I present the following tabulated form of the law: Tv) Hx xi: yin %> mamas) oa Sew a2 OMI b> awe 722 5D > wip iid et Xe Kil 12, ko “> mI Awe AAD Tw WD 5D) MIN ONT Ww OD Nay smm> (amin) pny W193 52) InN|Ay) ATOM 8d ON) AWA AID|N jm wD do) IN PII2 3. E. Ex. xxii:28: 2% Jnn Pa WIS 40 J HO EX) xxx1vil9, 20: mw) Mw YB (DIN) ype 521° ana ~wE 5d AIAN Pya 22 5D wn_ yy AI|N 8? ON) AWD AIDN 7M 7HE) BU RV +10. spnbs mid wapn Com) 73x82) Fp22 IY awk Dan 5D 6. P. Nu. 111:40ff.: 20 Synws 25 727 N22 99 APP nw dx AAD AORN “It is to be noticed, in'the first place, that in passages 3 and 1, evidently the oldest form of the law, no specification is made that the consecrated firstborn must be a male. For I take it that 722 may stand for ‘thy children’ as well as for ‘thy sons’ and, as the term 452 has a feminine as well as a masculine plural, it may be either masculine or feminine. Cf. Ges.—Kautzsch’ ed. 26, § 87, 3; and the feminines in 138¥ MIDID NNN Od NAA SAM 2) ynadma) in Gen. iv:4. “We note secondly: If the syntactical position of OM DIN in 2 and the corrupt DIN in 4 be examined, and compared with the position of 45) in 6, it will be seen that in the first two passages, as well as in 5, the word has all the appearance of not being an original part of the sentence but of being an afterthought, a gloss. 126 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “And, thirdly, the term “27 is peculiar to P. JE, it is well known, uses NWS) wX in the place of P’s Map AD (ef. Gen. vii: 2 and 9), and the term nowhere else occurs in JE (cf. Brown and Driver’s Gesenius’s Lex., s.v. "D} ).1 These three facts together, as it seems to me, can lead to but one conclusion, namely, that the term 721 (male) in Ex. xiii:12, xxxiv:1g, and probably also in Dt. xv:19, is due to a later glossing by a source, related to P, and that its object was to bring into harmony the earlier with the later custom. “And altogether our examination of the law of the firstlings, far from pointing to the exclusion of the female from the cult, is but another indication that in earlier times no discrimination was made against the female, but that perfect parity existed between the sexes in matters of the cult.” We underscore these statements by Dr. Peritz: “A careful examination of the wording of the texts of the law reveals the fact that the word “>i (male) has only a very doubtful place in them.’ (The word “male” is placed in parenthesis by the author for the benefit of readers unacquainted with Hebrew.) “In passages 3 and 1, evidently the oldest form of the law, no specification 1s made that the consecrated firstborn must be male.” “The word (male) has all the appearance of not being an original part of the sentence but of being an Leg ai gloss; “ihe term “Di (male) 1s peculiar to P.”’ ©&¢' Other facts must be taken into consideration: (1) Elsewhere in Scripture, where there is mention of. the in- stitution of this ordinance, the word “male” does not appear (Ex. xiii:2; Nu, 11:12, 13, vili:17, xvili:1 53 Ps. Ixxvii:51, cxxxv:8; Cv 330) exxxvi:10). In Exodus xxxiv:20 and Nehemiah x:36 the term 0°32 (sons) is used, but as has been repeatedly noted, this word is of common gender and applies to both sexes. (2) There is no intimation in Scripture that the firstborn of “the Egyptians, slain on the occasion of the Exodus, were all males. This is an unwarrantable assumption. The expressions, “All the firstborn in the land of Egypt’; “There was not a house where 1 This does not apply to the peculiar form 33) found in Ex. 23:17; 34:23. DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 127 there was not one dead,” does not support such conclusion. Also in the preservation of the Israelites there was not sex discrimina- tion. In the institution of the commemorative ordinance the com- mand was: “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast.” These facts lend weight to Dr. Peritz’s supposition that the term “male,” in the aforementioned passages, is not “An original part of the sentence,” but “An afterthought, a gloss.” Our next consideration is the substitution of the Tribe of Levi for the firstborn of Israel (Num. ii1:11-13, 40-51). We read: “And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel; and the Levites shall be mine: for all the firstborn are mine; on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hal- lowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast; mine they shall be: I am Jehovah” (Num. 111:11-13). “And thou shalt take the Levites for me (I am Jehovah) instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel; and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the firstling among the cattle of the chil- dren of Israel” (Num. iii:41). Now it will be noted that it was the TripE of Levi that was chosen—not the male half. There is here no intimation of sex discrimination. At once we are countered with the reminder that in verses 40 and 43, where the numbering of the firstborn is com- manded, males are specified : III:40, ‘““And Jehovah said unto Moses, Number all the first- born males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their name.” III :43, “And all the firstborn males according to the number of names, from a month old and upward, of those that were numbered of them, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and three score and thirteen.” Now the question arises would not this numbering of males to the exclusion of females, on the occasion of the substitution of the tribe of Levi, inferentially at least, debar woman from the 128 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN priesthood? For answer we point the reader to the words of Dr. Peritz. Numbers iii:40 is one of the passages called in question ; not only so, but he adds the significant letters—ff. This brings in iii:43 also. Of the four Hebrew texts of the law ex- _ amined by Dr. Peritz, but one—‘‘P”—has the term “male” in the “passages under review; and furthermore the texts wherein the word “male” does not occur, antedate P. Other facts also claim attention: (1) If—foregoing the question of the reliability of the text— the specification of males would debar women from the priesthood, then the specification of firstborn would debar all other males from the same office. red (2) The registration on the occasion ibs ite dibsttution of the Levites was a tribal census, and not an enrollment of individuals eligible to the priesthood, nor even to Levitical service. This is evidenced by the following facts: (1) It was a general enumera- tion and embraced children “from a month old and upward”; and, notwithstanding that dubious word “male,’ probably of both sexes. Naturally among those listed there would be a considerable number of defectives. All such would be ineligible to the priest- hood. (2) The requirements for Levitical service are given in the fourth chapter of Numbers, and the registration on a dif- ferent basis—“From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, all that enter upon the service, to do the work in the tent of meeting.” (3) Any one acquainted with the requirements for the priesthood will readily understand that the enrollment at the time of the substitution of the tribe of Levi was inadequate to determine eligibility to this office. A reference to Leviticus xxi and Ezekiel xliv will show that a test more rigorous than that of sex was applied. It is remarkable that among the disablements enumerated that of being a woman is not mentioned. In closing this discussion on woman’s eligibility for the priest- hood, we subjoin the following excerpts from Dr. Peritz’s val- uable thesis: “The current opinion on woman’s relation to the Hebrew cult is by no means based upon a special and direct investigation of the subject” (p. 114). DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 129 “The conclusion to which the facts thus treated have led me, if I may here anticipate, is that the Semites in general, and the Hebrews in particular, and the latter especially in the earlier period of their history, exhibit no tendency to discriminate between man and woman so far as regards participation in religious prac- tices, but that woman participated in all the essentials of the cult, both as worshipper and official; and that only in the later time, with the progress in the development of the cult itself, a tendency appears, not so much, however, to exclude woman from the cult, as rather to make man prominent in it” (p. 114). “We have reason to look to other Semitic cults for light’ (p. II5). “The fundamental institutions of the Israelites had a common origin with those of other Semitic peoples. The relation of woman to other Semitic cults has therefore a vital bearing on our ques- Hon? (Pen T5)4 Regarding woman’s position in the Arabic. cult, he says: “The facts, as collected mainly from\Wellhausen’s Reste ara- bischen Heidentumes, lead to the conclusion that this relation is one of almost perfect parity with that of man, there being not the slightest indication that the question of sex from a religious point of view ever comes into consideration” (p. 115). “We find, therefore, in ancient Israel and in the act of sacrifice women enjoyed equal rights with men” (p. 127). Under the Old Testament economy woman could be a Nazarite. Numbers vi:I, 2, we read: “And Jehovah spake unto Moses, say- ing, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall make a special vow, the vow of a Nazarite, to separate himself unto Jehovah,” etc. The valuation of vowers, indicated in Leviticus xxvii, was according to the ability to pay. Geikie affirms that the lifelong Nazarite “stood on an equality with the priest and could enter the Holy Place.” We quote from the “Jewish Encyclopedia” : “Both persons, men and women, took Nazarite vows.” “He is holy unto the Lord” (Num. vi:8), and the regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the high priest and for priests during worship (Lev. x:8, etc., xxi, Ezek. xliv:21). 130 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “Tn ancient times the priests were persons dedicated to God (Ezek. xliv:20, I Sam. i:11), and it follows from the juxtaposition of prophets and Nazarites (Amon 11:11, 12) that the latter must have been regarded as in a sense priests.” We quote also from Scribner’s “Bible Dictionary”: “The Nazarite was evidently of a much more manifold char- acter and played a greater part in the religious life of Israel than the law in Numbers suggests.” “Tn respect of all uncleanness due to contact with the dead... . In this respect, so long as his vow lasted, the Nazarite stood on a level with the Levitically holiest person among the people, viz., the High Priest.” Dr. Hastings in his “Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,” says: “Tn a certain sense, the Nazarite’s life partook of the nature of the priestly as well as the prophetic office.” In the New Schaff and Herzog “Religious Encyclopedia,” we read: “In the case of the Nazarite, there is a connection with the priesthood found in the prohibition of contact with the dead, even of participation in the mourning ceremonies for his own kin, showing the sanctity of the Nazarite; this is illustrated by the fact that the Talmudic tract, Nazir (vii:1) places the Nazarite and the High Priest on the same footing.” The probabilities are that Anna the prophetess, mentioned in Luke ii:36, 37, was a Nazarite. She “departed not from the Temple, worshipping with fastings and supplications night and day.” Ranged around three sides of the Temple were chambers or cloisters “for the abode of the priests and attendants and for the keeping of treasures and stores.” In one of these the prophetess may have dwelt, for she “departed not from the Tem- ple worshipping with fastings and supplications night and day.” The highest office in the Old Testament Church was that of prophet. The priest officiated as man’s representative ; the prophet, as God’s. Dr. Geikie says of John the Baptist, that though a DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 131 hereditary priest, he chose the “higher mission of prophet.” Moses, the prophet, instructed, commanded and even rebuked Aaron, the High Priest. This, the highest office in the Old Testament Church, was held by woman. The first to be mentioned as such was: MIRIAM (Ex. xv:20) Attention may be called to the fact that this woman was smitten with leprosy. That is true, but not for invading a forbidden sphere, but because she “spake against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married” (Num. xii). Aaron the High Priest shared her offense ; the pronoun throughout is in the plural: “And they said, Hath Jehovah indeed spoken only with Moses? Hath He not spoken also with us?” Both were reprimanded. Jehovah said: “Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?” -Aaron in his plea to Moses said: “Oh, my lord, lay not, I pray thee, sin upon us, for that we have done foolishly, and for that we have sinned.” On this occasion, Miriam was the chief offender. Notwithstanding the high official position of Aaron, her name takes precedence of his. In anticipation of what Dr. Peritz has to say concerning this woman we quote from I Samuel ix:9: “Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said, Come and let us go to the seer: (AN) for he that is now called a Prophet (8°33) was beforetime called a Seer, (ANT) e.g., I Chron. ix:22 “Whom David and Samuel the seer (AN) did ordain in their set office.” This passage of Scripture will afford light on the following by the aforementioned author : “In Numbers xii (referred to also in Deut. xxiv:9), belonging to the earliest tradition (JE), we have a detailed account of an inci- dent which purports to involve the question of the relative official rank of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The contention was occa- sioned by the marriage of Moses with a Cushite woman, and par- takes of the nature of a family quarrel. ‘Hath Jehovah indeed spoken only with Moses? hath he not spoken also with us?’ (v. 2), say Miriam and Aaron; and as Dillmann has pointed in (in loc.), the feminine 735N) would show that Miriam was the instigator. The claim that her words imply is prophetic rank and authority 132 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN for herself and Aaron equal to those of Moses. In the settle- ment of the dispute by the intervention of Jehovah, it becomes apparent that her claim of prophetic rank is not denied, and she, as well as Aaron, bears the title of ‘prophet’; only to Moses is ascribed the official preéminence, while she, as the instigator of the insubordination, has to bear the brunt of the punishment. “While the incident thus brings out Moses’ preéminence, it at the same time asserts the official equality of Miriam and Aaron. That the whole incident is brought into intimate connection with the “Yio brs (tent of meeting), the center of the religious cult, is certainly significant. If to this be added the facts, that occasion is taken to state that Miriam is the sister of Aaron (Ex. xv:20), and that in the earlier genealogical list her descent is traced back to Levi (Num. xxvi:59; I Chron. vi:3; Ex. vi:20 [P] does not mention her), while throughout she is conspicuously associated with Aaron and Moses as a leader of the religious community, the conclusion can scarcely be avoided that, as Deborah, like Samuel, so Miriam like Moses and Aaron, is an example of a seer in whom, in the manner of that time, the functions of prophet and priest are combined. The probability of this inference is height- ened, if in this connection again we call to mind the activity of prophetesses in other Semitic religions, and woman’s part as diviner in connection with the oracles later proscribed by the religion of Jehovah” (Woman in the Ancient Hebrew Cult, p. 144). Exodus xv:20, Miriam is called “The prophetess”—the woman prophet. Hodge, in his “Outlines of Theology,” p. 395, in answer to the question: “What is the Scriptural sense of the word prophet?” says: “A prophet of God is one qualified and authorized to speak for God to men. Foretelling future events is only inci- dental.” Geikie in “Life and Words of Christ,” Vol. I, p. 393, says: “A prophet in the Jewish point of view was less a seer than a fearless preacher.’ Sanballat said to Nehemiah, “Thou hast also appointed prophets to preach of thee at Jerusalem” (Neh. vi:7). Gesenius defines prophecy as “The utterances of the prophets, whether as reproving the wicked, predicting future events, or announcing the commands of God.” But we have a Scripture definition (I Cor. xiv:3), “He that prophesieth speakest DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 133 unto men edification, and comfort, and consolation.” Verse 4, “He that prophesieth edifieth the church.” Narrowing the office of the prophet down to the foretelling of future events has been characterized as “The Sunday-school idea.” The prophets were preachers, “foretelling future events was only incidental.” Miriam was a prophet, and the author knows of nothing in the whole range of Biblical or ecclesiastical literature that war- rants differentiating between the office and work of the male and female prophet. The prophetess was a woman preacher, and she spoke with, ‘“Thus saith the Lord,” e.g., Judges v:4, 6; II Kings xx11:14, 15; II Chronicles xxxiv :23, 26. Smend says of the prophetess Miriam that she was probably “more prominent than the tradition represents.” DEBORAH She was also Judge and warrior, and Dr. Peritz claims for her the rank of seer. Again we quote his words: “There seems to me no sufficient ground to call in question the activity of women as seers in the pre-monarchic period in Israel’s history, as has been done by Stade, Montefiore, and others. If early Hebrew tradition is of any historical value whatever, it speaks of a prophetess Deborah as distinctly as of a prophet Samuel, whatever that term may have. In like manner do the earliest traditions prominently associate with Moses and Aaron as head of the Israelitish community their sister the prophetess Miriam (Mic. vi:4; Ex. xv:20; Num. xii, xx:1). But how are we to interpret the term ANX33 as used here? There can be but the one way, it seems to me, which has its basis in the explanation in I Samuel ix:9, and according to which the earlier Hebrew 8°23 wasa AX or FIN. To say this of Samuel, and to call Deborah ‘eine weise Frau, seems an inconsistent choice of the word when used in speaking of woman. There is not the slightest reason for such a distinction, and, in fact, none is assigned; so it seems but fair to ask that the word be allowed to mean the same thing in both cases, in that of Deborah as in that of Samuel. And all the more so because the principal function of ‘Judge’ whether in the earlier sense of ‘vindicator’ or in the latter sense of ‘giving judi- 134 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN cial decisions’ is ascribed to the one as much as to the other. (Cf. Jud. iv:5 and I Sam. vii:16, cf. Moore, Judges, in loco.) If, as may therefore be justly claimed, Deborah was a seer, then all the light which recent investigation has thrown upon the origin and function of the seer is at our service. If the office of seer, as is held by Stade (Gesch i1:468-473), had its origin in the belief that some persons were specially possessed by the divinity; if its function was by means of visions, to reveal the divine will; if, as is illustrated by the case of Samuel, it was intimately connected with the sanctuary; if, as is indicated by the relation of the Hebrew and Arabic terms Kahin, the office of priest and seer were once identical, and the old Israelitish priesthood originated in the settlement of some seers at a permanent sanctuary (cf. Wellh., Heid, p. 130ff., 167), then the function of prophetess had an origin in common with the highest cultic function in Israel, the priest- hood, and this function was, at one time, open, to some extent, to women. ‘To claim this for Samuel seems perfectly natural, for, of course, we find in his case clear indications of such fusion of seer and priest. But the inference that such was the case also when woman filled the same office is perfectly reasonable, and by no means lacks more definite confirmation. Woman’s relation to the teraphim, the oracle of the dead, and divination, as developed above, is here in point, but additional evidences in the same direc- tion and within the Jahveh cult come to us in the case of Miriam” (Woman in the Ancient Hebrew Cult, pp. 143, 144). There are three points in the foregoing we wish to emphasize: (1) The Scripture declared that “a prophet was beforetime called a seer” (I Sam. ix:g). (2) That Miriam and Deborah were among the earliest prophets of Israel. (3) That the seer functioned both as prophet and as priest. Add to these the further fact that in Arabia, a border country, inhabited by a kindred people, “Women were numerous as Kahin —seer or prophet.” HULDAH (II Kings xxii:14-20; II Chron. xxxiv :22-28) During the reign of Josiah, we find the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the High Priest, at the King’s command, DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 135 seeking the word of the Lord at the mouth of this woman. And she spoke with, “Thus saith Jehovah” (II Kings xxii:15-19; II Chron. xxxiv :23-27). At this time Jeremiah and Zephaniah were prophesying in Judah, but there is no record in Sacred Writ that they were consulted. The highest dignitary of the church and the chief officers of State were sent unto “Huldah the prophetess.” In such esteem was this woman held that one of the gates of the Temple was named in her honor. Rabbinical literature affirms that she “was not only a prophet, but taught publicly in the School” (Targ. to II Kings xxii:14). The Authorized Version renders this passage: “Now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the col- lege”; the Revised Version, “Now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the second quarter.” The Hebrew text reads, “Now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the Mishneh.” She was held in such veneration that, aside from those of the house of David, her tomb was the only one tolerated within the walls of Jerusalem (Geikie’s “Life of Christ, Voltlk. pi2o2): Two other women prophets are mentioned in Scripture: The wife of Isaiah (Isa. viii:3), and Noadiah (Neh. vi:14). During the first Jewish Commonwealth, there were schools of the Prophets. In Scripture there is mention of such establish- ment at Gibeah (I Sam. x:5); Bethel (II Kings 11:3) ; Jericho (II Kings ii:5, 7, 15, 16); Gilgal (II ae iv:38). The prob- abilities are there were also others. Now a question arises—Were women admitted to these schools? Were they numbered among “The sons (0°33) of the prophets’’? We might—as has been the age-long custom in matters concerning women—assume that they were not, but one-sided assumptions in time breed distrust. One begins to inquire if, after all, the wish is not “father to the thought”? The stock phrase—“Of course not’”—no longer settles controversy. Our study thus far has revealed the fact that Mosaic legislation seldom, if ever, dis- criminated against woman. Her ecclesiastical rights were almost, if not wholly, unabridged. Even during the second common- wealth, after contact with heathen laws and customs had told on the popular mind, she enjoyed larger privileges than is at times 136 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN supposed. According to the author of “Synagogue Religion and Worship” there were women readers in the Synagogue. It was their office to read and translate prayers for the benefit of the less learned. They were called ““Versagerin’”—“Women Readers.” After Samuel had made known to Saul that he would be king over Israel, he gave him, among others, the following sign: “Thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philis- tines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a band of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and timbrel, and a pipe, and a harp, before them, and they will be prophesying” (I Sam. x:5). Attention has elsewhere been called to the fact that the timbrel was an instrument played almost exclusively by women. It is conceded that in this particular instance, it is not conclusive proof of the sex of the player, but it leaves room for assumption—and that of unusual kind. Women were “Versagerin” in the Synagogues, and they were honored prophets in Israel. As late as the time of Christ we find one of the latter standing in the Temple, speaking to “All them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem’ (Luke 11:38). Is it reasonable to suppose that these women served without train- ing? Rabbinical literature declared that Huldah “Taught in the School at Jerusalem.” Were the doors that swung open to her as a teacher barred against her as a scholar? We conclude our study of the status of woman in the church during the Mosaic dispensation by reference to the following Old Testament passages: Psalm Ixvii:11, “The Lord gave the word: great the company of those that published” (Authorized Version). King James’ translators have entirely covered up the gender of these heralds of God’s Word. The Revised Version reads: “The Lord giveth the word: The women (njnwyn) that publish the tidings are a great host.” As the Hebrew shows, these heralds are women and they are proclaiming God’s Word. Dr. Adam Clark translates the passage thus: “The Lord gave the word: Of the female preachers there was a great host.’ He says: “Such is the literal DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 137 translation of this passage; the reader may make of it what he pleases.” Psalm Ixviii:11, must be taken as history or as prophecy. If it is history, there were many women prophets during the first Jewish commonwealth. If it is prophecy, it points to a reversal of the present policy of the Christian church toward the ordination of women. Isaiah xl:9, 10, “O thou (nwa) that telleth good tidings to Zion, get thee up into the high mountains: O thou (Mw) that telleth good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!” Here again we have a woman herald—according to Dr. Clark, a woman preacher, proclaiming “good tidings” (Gospel), and God gives her the message: “Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!” While we do not dispute the primary reference of this passage, we nevertheless believe that it contains a prophecy—especially as it follows so closely the prophecy concerning John the Baptist (Isa. x1:3-5), which no one disputes. Joel 11:28, 29, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy ...and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out My Spirit.” No presbytery, synod, nor general assembly ; no annual nor general con- ference; no ecclesiastical convocation nor convention, can forever keep woman out of the pulpit. She “shall prophesy,” for “the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Vil WOMAN DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION: ~ IN THE STATE ROM the Exodus, 1491 B.c. to the establishment of K the monarchy, 1095 B.c., the Hebrew from of govern- ment was theocratic. The state was under the immediate direction of Jehovah. During the wilderness journey the execu- tion of His will was entrusted to a triumviri—Moses, Aaron and Miriam. In Micah vi:4, we read: “I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron and Miriam.” Here at the beginning of the Hebrew commonwealth, we find a woman oc- cupying a position of power in the State—associated, by Divine appointment, with her brothers in civil and ecclesiastical authority. At creation Eve stood by the side of Adam when Jehovah God said unto them, ““Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth,” so now, at “the birth of a nation,” “diverse from all of them,’”’—a theocracy—God summons Miriam to stand side by side with her brothers in the highest council of state. We may assume that in this triumvirate Miriam held subordinate relation; that the administration de facto devolved on Moses and Aaron; we may surmise that her share in government was cir- cumscribed to matters concerning women and children. We are reminded that on the occasion of rejoicing after the passage of the Red Sea and the destruction of Pharaoh’s army, Miriam led the women in the Song of Triumph, while Moses led the men. Would this not indicate that her sphere of activity was confined to her own sex and to children? We answer that the same line of argument, if adhered to, would restrict Moses to affairs concern- ing men, for in that celebration he was leader of the male chorus. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Miriam’s duties 138 DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 139 and responsibilities as a member of the triumvirate in any wise differed from that of her brothers. That her activities were not confined to the interests of one sex is evident from the words of - Jehovah, Micah vi:3, 4: “O My people’—He is speaking, not to a sex, but to the entire nation—“O My people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against Me. For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron and Miriam.” Miriam was a national—not a sex—leader, and that by Divine election. Furthermore she was not a nonentity in that council of state. The fact that she was chosen to such exalted position by Jehovah Himself is all the proof we need. God does not call figure- heads to posts of great responsibility; He does not choose women to be leaders out of compliment to the sex. Miriam was qualified, otherwise God would not have made her “a chosen vessel.” This woman received Divine communication, not only in the sense of prophetic inspiration, but in revelation like unto that vouchsafed to the High Priest. In connection with the event recorded in Numbers xii, she, in unison with Aaron, asks: “Hath Jehovah indeed spoken only with Moses? Hath He not spoken also with us?” When the prophetess was smitten with leprosy and “shut up without the camp seven days,” “the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.” She died at advanced age, near the close of the wilderness journey, and was buried at Kadesh, not far from the borders of Palestine. The triumvirate terminated with the death of Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and Joshua, son of Nun, became the leader of the chil- dren of Israel. It is foreign to our purpose to discuss the con- quest of Palestine and its apportionment to the twelve tribes, so we pass at once to the period of the Judges. Judges 11:16 we read: “And Jehovah raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those that despoiled them.” Acts xiii:19, 20: “And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and 140 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN fifty years: and after these things He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet.” Among the judges whom “Jehovah raised up” to save them “out of the hand of those that despoiled them,’ was Deborah the prophetess. This woman was called to leadership in troublous times; the children of Israel had gone a whoring after strange gods; they, “again did that which was evil in the sight of Je- hovah,” and He “sold them into the hands of Jabin, king of Canaan” and for twenty years, “He mightily oppressed” them: “The highways were unoccupied, And the travellers walked through byways, The rulers ceased in Israel, they ceased.” Then Deborah arose—raised up of Jehovah to save His people “out of the hand of those that despoiled them.” “She dwelt under the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.” But Deborah felt herself called to a larger task than the set- tling of controversies between individuals; she believed Jehovah had raised her up to deliver the children of Israel “out of the hand of those that despoiled them,” so “she sent and called Barak, the son of Abinoam out of Kadesh-Naphtali, and said unto him, Hath not Jehovah, the God of Israel, commanded, saying, Go and draw unto Mount Tabor and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? And I will draw unto thee, to the river Kishon, Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thy hand.” But Barak had no relish for such perilous undertaking. He knew he must lead an unequipped army: “Was there a shield or ° spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?” He knew he would not have the undivided support of the nation itself; that Reuben would sit “among the sheepfolds, to hear the pipings for the flocks”; that Gilead would abide beyond the Jordan; and Dan “remain in ships”; that Asher would sit “still at the haven of the sea’; that not an inhabitant of Meroz would come “to the help DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 141 of Jehovah against the mighty.” He knew it all, and like a prudent general, he drew back from such hazardous enterprise. Not so with Deborah; she had unwavering faith in Jehovah. At last to her promptings Barak answered: “If thou wilt go with me, then I will go; but if thou wilt not go with me, I will not go.” “And she said, I will surely go with thee.” “And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kadesh.” Deborah had faith in God; Barak had faith in God and Deborah. Every Bible student is familiar with the issue of the battle that followed: “God subdued on that day Jabin, king of Canaan before the children of Israel, and the hand of the children of Israel prevailed more and more against Jabin, the king of Canaan until they had destroyed Jabin, king of Canaan.” Some have doubted that Deborah herself went into the battle. This is in strict accord with the habit of a certain class of redac- tors. The Scripture narrative throughout represents this woman judge as prime mover in the enterprise. She summoned Barak before her in “the hill country of Ephraim”; she acquainted him with the Divine command; she encouraged him to revolt against Jabin; she said, “I will surely go with thee,’ she accompanied him to Kadish; she was present on the day of battle; she stood by the side of Barak on the height of Tabor; she watched the approach of the Canaanitish army; at the opportune moment, when Sisera’s chariots were sinking in the bog, and his horses plunging in the mire, it was her voice that sounded the command to charge—“Up for this is the day in which Jehovah hath delivered Sisera into thy hand; is not Jehovah gone out before thee? So Barak went down from Mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.” Judges v:15, we read, “The princes of Issachar were with Deborah’”—but where? On the summit of the mountain, apart from danger, or down on that plain with valiant men jeopardizing “their lives unto death”? We have the answer to this question in the Song of Triumph, verse 15: “And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah, As was Issachar, so was Barak; Into the valley they rushed forth at his feet.” 142 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Deborah, prophetess, judge and warrior, lived in a heroic age, when even women at times “jeopardized their lives even unto the death,” “upon the high places of the field.” The victory achieved on the occasion of this battle was celebrated with national rejoicing. The Song of Triumph recorded in’ the fifth chapter of Judges is commemorative of the event. Of this ode, Milman says: “Lyric poetry has nothing in any language which can surpass the boldness and animation of this striking pro- . duction.” Dr. William Smith, in his “Old Testament History,” Pp. 333, says: “One of the most picturesque remains of Hebrew poetry, and deserves to rank with the Song of Moses and Miriam.” But a question arises—who was its author? Hebrew writers down through the centuries have with one accord ascribed it to Deborah. To the average reader the seventh verse would settle the question: “The rulers ceased in Israel, they ceased, Until that I, Deborah arose, That I arose a mother in Israel.” But modern destructive criticism has something to say; it points out that in verses twelve and fifteen, the prophetess’ name appears in the third person, and this is sufficient to generate doubt. The writer of this volume deems this mere quibble in face of the fact that the author of almost every book of the Old Testament refers to himself at times after this manner. If authorship of this ode is denied to Deborah on the ground that her name appears twice in the third person, then in all fairness, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Jonah, Habakkuk, Haggai and Zechariah, must resign the quill and join the procession of “down-and-outs.” We must make a new roster, for all these accredited authors write themselves in the third person—some uniformly so, others vary from first to third. The fact that Deborah’s name appears in the third person in the twelfth and fifteenth verses of this Song of Triumph is not conse- quential enough to withstand the testimony of verse seven, nor to outweigh the uniform opinion of Hebrew scholars through a period of over three thousand years. DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 143 We note in this connection that three of the most inspiring songs of the Bible are the utterances of women—the Song of Deborah, the Song of Hannah, and the Song of Mary—the “Magnificat.” In each particular case the authorship has been questioned—The Song of Deborah, as has just been noted, on the quibble that her name appears twice in the third person; The Song of Hannah and the “Magnificat” without assigned reason, but in both cases it has been suggested that perhaps they were quotations from “some unknown writer,’—the inference of course being that these “un- known writers” were men. Some redactors are apparently averse to allowing woman any share in the making of the Sacred canon. We have further ex- ample in the assignment of the authorship of the various books of the Bible. A rule that prevails in most cases is that when a book bears the name of an individual, unless there is strong reason for the contrary, the authorship is adjudged to that individual. Now and then some one offers challenge, but in the main, the rule prevails. In the assignment of authorship, Joshua, Samuel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and each of the minor prophets, are allowed priority of claim to the books that bear their name. But “There are exceptions to all rules.” Two books of the Old Testament Canon are inscribed with the name of women—Ruth and Esther. This causes dilemma. The men who sit in judgment in such matters have predilections, and at once cast about for some one else on whom to bestow the honor. The Book of Ruth is adjudged to Samuel or to “some unknown author”; The Book of Esther, we are gravely told, was probably written by Mordecai, or by “some unknown writer.” In the case of Ruth, we may allow for doubt, for she was a Moabitess. Not so in the case of Esther; she was a Hebrew, and Jewish law and custom under the first commonwealth required the education of daughters as well as sons. Furthermore, there are recorded in the Book, facts that were personal. These would have been inaccessible to Mordecai unless communicated by Esther. But the queen had scribes at her command, and to them she could impart information as readily as to Mordecai, and they could write at her dictation. It is generally conceded that most of the 144 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Pauline epistles were written by an amanuensis, but this did not deprive the Apostle of the authorship. The last six chapters of the Book of Esther relate to events that occurred several years subsequent to the marriage of the queen. She was no longer an inexperienced maiden. Chapter 1x, verse 29, we read: “Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim,” and in verse 32, “And the commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim.” Is it insupposable that a woman who took hand in affairs of State and wrote “with all authority” was able to record events intimately associated with her own life and vital to the welfare of her people? The composer of this chapter in Jewish history cannot be de- termined dogmatically, but so far as the writer of this volume is concerned, Esther’s claim to authorship of the book that bears her name would be paramount, were it not for one fact—she was a woman. Deborah’s judgeship apparently extended through a period of forty years. Like Samuel she combined in her person the offices of judge and prophet. She stood in front rank among the judges; she delivered her people “out of the hand of those that despoiled them”; “The children of Israel came up to her for judgment,” “And the land had rest for forty years.” An association, venerated by the Hebrews throughout their entire history, was that of the elders. This order was in ex- istence prior to the Exodus. At the expiration of Moses’ sojourn among the Midianites, he returned to Egypt, and in obedience to the Divine command gath- ered “the elders of Israel together” (Ex. iii:16, iv:29). They were in evidence on almost every important occasion in the subsequent history of the Israelites. They accompanied Moses and Aaron when they appeared before Pharaoh; they were assembled when Moses smote the rock in Horeb; they were guests with Moses’ father-in-law at the feast; they escorted Moses when he ascended Mount Sinai; seventy from among the elders were ordained to bear with Moses “the burden of the people”; the elders went in proces- DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 145 sion with Moses to meet Dathan and Abiram: prior to his death, Moses entrusted the Law to the priests and elders; when Samuel rebuked Saul for disobedience in the matter of the Amalekites, Saul’s entreaty was, “Yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people.” David sent of the spoils he had taken to the elders of Judah: when he, and later Solomon would remove the ark of the covenant, they conferred with the elders. So on, down through the history of the Jewish people. The elders were a revered body—representative, judicial, and on all occasions, es- teemed counsellors. We quote from the “Jewish Encyclopedia”: “In primitive times, age was a necessary condition of authority, not only among the ancient Jews, but also among other nations of antiquity. The elders of the nation or of the clan constituted the official class... . What there was of permanent official au- thority lay in the hands of the elders, and heads of the houses; in times of war, they commanded each his own household, and in peace they dispensed justice, each within his own circle. They were the defenders of the interests of their constituency and were especially powerful in local and municipal affairs (Deut. xix :12, MRT QIU RT GH SCR 273) | OS... XMAS Ut y)-2 ) 0) Logethen “with priests, they sometimes participated in certain sacrificial rites (Lev. iv:15,1ix:1). In national affairs they held a very important posi- tion. It was at the request of the elders that Samuel consented to a monarchical form of government in Israel (I Sam. viii:4). It was through their intervention that Abner succeeded in appointing David king over Israel (II Sam. ii1:17). ... It is not known whether all the officers of the commonwealth were chosen from the body of elders but the Scripture record shows that many were (cf. Ex. xvili:25 and Num. xi:16). The institution of elders flourished during the period of the Babylonian exile and continued in Palestine during the Persian and Greek periods.” This influential order made and unmade rulers. It was the elders who placed the government in the hands of Jephthah (Jud. xi). It was the elders who turned the kingdom from Ishbosheth to David (II Sam. in:17). It was fear of this powerful body that prompted Saul’s appeal to Samuel, “Honour me now I pray thee, before the elders of my people.” 146 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN At the beginning of the Christian era “the traditions of the elders” ranked on an equality with the Law given on Mount Sinai, and at times superseded it. The Pharisees said to Jesus: “Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” He answered, “Ye have made void the word of God, because of your tradition.” Now were women members of this venerated order? We have no data on which to base an affirmative answer; we can only con- jecture. In the Old Testament the word “elder” in the noun form—referring to a functionary—occurs only in the plural. Not the individual, but a group or class is mentioned. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to determine to a certainty that women were included. But there are facts that have a bearing on the question. Women were eligible to the highest offices of State—Miriam was a Triumvir; Deborah was national judge and ruler. Under such circumstances, is it reasonable to infer that women were denied a seat among the elders? There are strong probabilities that Deborah was an elder. We deem such inference warrantable for the following reasons: (1) She was “a mother in Israel’ (Jud. v:7). Age was a prerequisite to eldership. (2) She was a judge (Jud. iv:4) and “elders” were a judicial order. (3) She was a ruler and it was customary to choose officers of State from this body (Ex. xviii:25, Num. xi:16). Elsewhere we find a woman apparently functioning as an elder. Joab led his army to the city of Abel with intent to destroy it. “All the people that were with Joab battered the wall to throw it down. There cried a wise woman out of the city, Hear, hear; say, I pray you, unto Joab, Come near hither, that I may speak with thee. And he came near unto her; and the woman said, Art thou Joab? And he answered, I am. Then she said unto him, Hear the words of thy handmaid. And he answered, I do hear. Then she spake saying, . . . J am of them that are peaceable and faithful in Israel; why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of Jehovah? And Joab answered and said, Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy. The matter is not so; but a man of the hill-country of Ephraim, Sheba, the son of Bichri by name, hath lifted up his hand against the king, even DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 147 against David: deliver him only, and I will depart from the city. And the woman said unto Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over the wall. Then the woman went unto all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba, the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab. And he blew the trumpet, and they were dispersed from the city, every man to his tent. And Joab returned to Jerusalem unto the king” (II Sam. xx:15-22). This woman discharged duties which under ordinary circum- stances pertained to elders. Furthermore she had three of the qualifications for eldership: (1) Wisdom. She was “a wise woman.” “She went unto all the people in her wisdom” (vs. 16, 22).\ (2) Age. \. She? was: a smother in, Israel’ (v. 19). (3) She had the confidence and esteem of her fellow citizens. The appearance of this woman at this particular crisis was evidently not a sporadic effort on her part. There is no query in her mind as to the result of her appeal to the citizens of Abel. She speaks with authority and says—it shall be done. ' This evi- dences leadership. “And the woman said unto Joab, Behold his head shall be thrown to thee over the wall” (v. 21). She stands forth as spokesman for her city. Only the fealty of the past would embolden her to speak with such confidence for the future. She was not a novice; she was a tried counselor; an approved leader, and she relied on the fidelity of her people. At the period of this narrative every consequential city in Israel had its group of elders. It was so with Abel, where this woman dwelt. In verse 18 we read: “They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask counsel at Abel; and so they ended the matter.”’ Elders were more than all others, counselors; kings and princes consulted them, e.g., David, Solomon, Ahab, Hezekiah, et al. In the time of Christ, chief priests and scribes “took counsel with the elders.” They were esteemed as oracles; they were the embodiment of wisdom. The woman of this nar- rative dwelt at Abel, the elders of which city were so reputed that the inhabitants of the country round about were wont to say: “ask counsel at Abel; and so they ended the matter.” If this ‘“‘wise woman,” this “mother in Israel,’ was not an elder, she was be- 148 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN yond peradventure, a counselor of elders, and her counsel “ended the matter.” There are elsewhere in Scripture mention of “wise women.” Joab sent to Tekoa “and fetched thence a wise woman,” to hold audience with King David and to prevail on him to recall Absalom (II Sam. xiv). Jeremiah ix:17, we read: “Call for the mourning women, that they may come; and for the wise women that they may come.”’ King James’ translators render, “Cunning women’ ; the Revised Version reads: “Skillful women.” The more exact translationis, “Wise women” (nian) Whether these women were elders it is impossible to determine, but one thing is certain, they were of acknowledged worth in their tribes or gens. We come now to the princes—“‘heads of fathers’ houses.” Dur- ing the Theocracy, and also during the period of the judges, there were no princes of royal blood—the name was applied to “heads of fathers’ houses.” First Chronicles, from the second to tenth chapters inclusive, we have a genealogical record of the posterity of Jacob. For some unassigned reason the tribes of Zebulun and Dan are omitted. In this roster are the names of approximately eleven hundred “sons” (O35). This extends over a period of almost a thousand years—from the descent into Egypt 1706 B.c. to the Babylonian captivity 721 B.c. It is at once apparent that this is not a complete registration of male descendants of Jacob. During that millennium a vastly greater number of sons were born. The census of I Chronicles ii is evidently selective. In the first chapter of Num- bers we read that Moses was commanded to take “the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names.” In that case it was a military enrollment. “Every male, by their polls, from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel.” Not so in I Chronicles ii-x. Here we have a genealogical table of “princes”—‘heads of fathers’ houses.” In- terspersed through the record are these annotations: “These men- tioned by name were princes in their families” (iv:38). ‘These were the heads of their fathers’ houses” (v:24). “They were DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 149 reckoned by genealogy, after their generations, heads of their fathers’ houses” (vii:9). “These were his sons (O°)3) heads of fathers’ houses” (vili:10). “These were heads of fathers’ houses, throughout their generations, chief men: these dwelt in Jerusalem” (viti:28). “All these men were heads of fathers’ houses” (ix :9), et al. But here a difficulty confronts us. No less than twelve daugh- ters’ names appear in this register: Abigail, Zeruiah (ii:16) ; Ahlai (11:31, 34); Achsah (ii:49); Tamar (11:9); Shelomith (111:19) ; Hazzelelponi (iv:3) ; Miriam (vi:3) ; Maacah (vii:15) ; Hammolecheth (vii:18); Sheerah (vii:24), and Serah (vii:31). There can be no mistake, for in each case the sex is indicated in the context. To this list we are warranted in adding the names of two others, that of Miriam (iv:17) (this is other than Miriam the prophetess) ; also Athaliah the “son” of Jeroham (viii:26). These two names appear repeatedly in Scripture, and always feminine—never masculine, so we are justified in adding them to this category of daughters, making a total of fourteen. In all probability there are others, but these cannot be questioned by any unprejudiced mind. It is difficult at times to differentiate between masculine and feminine names in the Old Testament. Some are common to both sexes, ¢.g., one of the daughters of Zelophehad was named Noah (Num, xxvi:33). Other cases might be cited. In innumerable instances masculine names have the feminine termination. In this study we are not taking chances, so from this genealogical table we have sorted out names which are unquestionably feminine and to these have added two which with a reasonable degree of certainty may be listed as such. But why are these daughters catalogued in such connection? Was it an error on the part of some scribe? How came it to pass that they were enrolled while the multitude was overlooked? Surely in a period of almost a thousand years millions of daughters were born. The birthrate among Jews averages 100 girls to I12 boys, but the genealogical table of I Chronicles ii-x shows about eleven hundred males to less than a score of females. Not for a moment can we harbor the thought that this represents the birth 150 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN rate 'in those Ten tribes of Israel. King David had a number of daughters (I Chron. xiv:3), but only Tamar’s name is recorded here. I Chronicles ii:31, we read: “The sons of Sheshan: Ahlai,” and in verse 34, “Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters.” Of these several daughters, Ahlai alone is enrolled. We note here, in confirmation of what has been said elsewhere, that in verse 31 Sheshan’s daughtersare called “sons” (O°}2). The same is true of Athaliah, viii:26. In vi:3, “Miriam the prophetess” is listed as one of the “sons” (0°33) of Amram; only in this case the translators render “children.” Why were these fourteen daughters registered in this genea- logical table—I Chronicles ii-x? Why were they distinguished above their sisters? There can be but one answer. They, like their brothers, were “princes’—‘“heads of fathers’ houses.” In no other way can we account for their enrollment. Of some of these women we have mention elsewhere in Holy Scripture. Miriam (vi:3) was one of the God-appointed leaders of the children of Israel (Micah vi:4). Achsah (11:49) was a daughter of Caleb and wife of Othniel, the first judge after the settlement of Palestine (Jud. 1:12, 13; iii:9). Tamar (11:9) was one of the daughters of King David (II Sam. xiii). Zeruiah and Abigail (11:16) were sisters of David. The former was the mother of three famous sons—Abishai, Joab, and Asahel. Joab was generalissimo of the army during the long reign of his royal uncle and on more than one occasion thwarted his will. David’s lament was, “I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me.” Wherever the pedigree of Joab, Abishai and Asahel is referred to they are called “the sons of Zeruiah,” indicating that their line- age was reckoned in the mother’s line. The name of their father is unknown. Abigail, the other sister of King David, whose name appears in this genealogical table, was the mother of Amasa, commander-in-chief of Absalom’s army on the occasion of his attempt to seize the kingdom. Sheerah (vii:24) was a woman of great personal achievement, “who built Beth-horon the nether and the upper and Uzzen-Sheerah.” The first two named cities, Beth-horon the nether, and Beth-horon the upper, were strategic. DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 151 King Solomon fortified them, “with walls, gates and bars” (II Chron. viii:5). The third city, Uzzen-Sheerah, was named for its founder. Fourteen women—probably others—are “mentioned by name” in the genealogical record of I Chronicles ii-x, and we read, “These mentioned by name were princes in their families” (iv:38). “They were reckoned by genealogy, after their generations, heads of their fathers’ houses” (vili:10). The functions of these “princes—heads of their fathers’ houses,” were judicial, magisterial, military, political, and in the case of Levites—religious. At times they are called, “rulers,” “chief men,” “able men,” “judges,” “seers,” “mighty men of valor,” “famous men,” “men that had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do.” Milman, in his “History of the Jews,” characterizes the “heads of families,” as the Hebrew “aristocracy.” He says: 5) “Joshua twice assembled a sort of Diet, or Parliament, consist- ing of elders, heads of families, judges and officers, who seem to have represented all Israel.” “No doubt the national assembly consisted of delegates from the provincial ones. . . . The chieftain was the hereditary head of the whole tribe; the aristocracy the heads of the different families; these with the Judges, and perhaps the shoterim, the scribes or genealogists, officers of great impor- tance in each tribe, constituted the provincial assembly” (p. 211). According to the “Jewish Encyclopedia,” “What there was of permanent official authority, lay in the hands of the elders and ‘heads of fathers’ houses.’ ” It is evident that the genealogical table of I Chronicles ii-x is in- complete. The tribes of Dan and Zebulon are omitted. The tribe of Manasseh was one of the largest of Israel but only twenty- two “heads of fathers’ houses” are mentioned, while some of the smaller tribes are accredited with several times that number, e.¢., I Chronicles xii :32, “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, the heads of these were 200; and all their brethren were at their commandment.” 152 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “Zelophehad the son of Hepher” belonged to the tribe of Manas- seh. He had no sons, but daughters. Their names are recorded: “Mahlah, and Noah, Haglah, Milcah, and Tirzah” (Num. xxvi:33, XXVliiI, xxxvi:11; Joshua xvii:3). These five daughters came “before Moses and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, at the door of the tent of meet- ing,” and presented their claim. They said: “Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family, because he had no son? Give unto us a possession among the brethren of our father’ (Num. xxvii:4). ‘And Moses brought their cause before Jehovah, And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren: and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them” (Num. xxvii:5-7). After the conquest of Palestine, when the land was divided by lot, these daughters appeared before Eleazar the priest, before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes and renewed their claim, saying, “Jehovah commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren,’ and Joshua did so, “according to the commandment of Jehovah he gave them an in- heritance among the brethren of their father” (Jos. xvili:3, 4). According to the “Jewish Encyclopedia,’ Zelophehad was the eldest son of his father, and as such received a double portion of his property—this went to Zelophehad’s daughters. A question presents itself here: Did the recognition of these daughters’ claim carry with it other than property rights? Did one of these aspirants become the head of her father’s house? The petitioners urge this consideration—“Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family because he had no son?’ Not only were property rights at stake, but the family name was involved. The Hebrews preserved with jealous care their patronymics. Because of this the Levirate marriage was imposed—“that his name be not blotted out of Israel.” If the brother of the deceased defaulted and said, “I like not to take her,” the widow made complaint before the elders, saying, “My husband’s brother refused to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel,” and she loosed the shoe of the delinquent from off his DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 153 foot and spat in his face, saying in reproach, “So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house,” and thenceforth the recalcitrant’s name was called, “the house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” He had dishonored the deceased and allowed his brother’s name to be “blotted out in Israel.” The daughters of Zelophehad not only laid claim to their father’s estate, but they sought means to perpetuate the family name. This could be effected by reckoning the lineage in the female line as in the case of Barzillai’s daughters (Ezra 11:61; Neh. vii:63) and also Zeruiah, the sister of King David (I Chron. ii:16, 17). Whether the eldest of Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah—was elevated to the headship of her father’s house is an indeterminable question. However, certain facts must be taken into consideration: (1) The daughters of Zelophehad were evidently persons of note. Their names are catalogued four times in Sacred Writ. Each time Mahlah takes precedence of her sisters. Aside from the listed names there is mention of these daughters elsewhere (Josh. xvii:6; Num. xxxvi; I Chron. vii:15). Hershon—A Talmudic Miscellany, p. 282—declares that these daughters of Zelophehad were highly esteemed as “sages” and “expounders.” (2) The daughters of Zelophehad were rich in land estate, otherwise “the heads of the fathers’ houses of the family of the children of Gilead would not have appeared before Moses and before the princes, the heads of the fathers’ houses of the children of Israel’ with urgent appeal that these women he prohibited marriage outside their own tribe, lest they alienate their inheritance. If the possessions of these daughters had been inconsequential, the princes of Gilead had not manifested such concern. Dr. Peritz says: “The right of in- heritance belonged to the active members of the tribe.” (3) Zel- ophehad their father left no male issue to assume headship of the family. (4) As has been shown elsewhere, women were eligible to this position. (5) I Chronicles vii:14-19 is a genealogical record of the descendants of Machir, the son of Manasseh and father of Gilead, the father of Hepher, the father of Zelophehad, the father of Mahlah. The roster of I Chronicles vii:14-19 is incomplete, but the omissions can be supplied in part, by reference to other Scripture—e.g., Numbers xxvii:1, Joshua xvii:3, e¢ al. 154 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN The genealogical tables of the Hebrews are often difficult—at times impossible—of decipherment, owing to frequent omissions and to the latitude allowed in the use of terms of kinship; e. g., the word “brother (M8) does not necessarily signify one born of the same parent or parents. It was frequently used in reference to “a relative or kinsman in any degree of blood.’”’ Lot is called Abram’s “brother” (ms Gen. xiv:16). He was in fact his nephew (Gen. xii:5, xiv:12). Laban says to Jacob—“Thou art my brother,” and Jacob assures Rachel that he is “Her father’s brother” (Gen. Xiv:12, 16). Jacob was Laban’s nephew and later he became his son-in-law. There was the same free use of the term “sister,” (minx). Its secondary meaning was “a relative,” “a kinswoman,” “a countrywoman,” ‘‘a member of the same tribe.” Rebekah is called her mother’s “sister” (Gen. xxiv:59, 60). Attention has been called to the liberal use of the word “son” (j3) at times denoting offspring of either sex and frequently applied to grand- children, great-grandchildren and even to descendants of remote degree. Again matters in these genealogical tables are complicated by changing now and then from the male to the female line. All these things may have been intelligible to the ancient Hebrew, but they are disconcerting to the student of today. In the genealogical roster of I Chronicles vii:14-19 appears the name Mahlah. Was this the daughter of Zelophehad? The chronicler says, “And his sister Hammolecheth bear Ishhod and Abiezer and Mahlah.” Whose sister? Presumably Gilead’s, although the record is so involved that this is by no means cer- tain. Was Hammolecheth the wife of Zelophehad? If so this would account for her being called the “sister” or “kinswoman” of Gilead, who was the grandfather of Zelophehad. But how about the two sons of Hammolecheth—Ishhod and Abiezer? There is repeated mention of the fact that Zelophehad, at the time of his death, “had no sons, but daughters.” This can be disposed of by assuming that these sons deceased before their father. This would be “no new thing under the sun.” It was doubtless of frequent occurrence at a period when every able-bodied young man in Israel over twenty years of age—aside from the tribe of Levi— DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 155 was conscripted for military service. It is noticeable that no de- scendants of these two sons are named in the roster. The author does not stress the foregoing solution. It rests solely on the supposition that Hammolecheth was the wife of Zelophehad. In the genealogical table of I Chronicles vii:14-19 appears the name of Mahlah. The individual here referred to belonged to the tribe of Manasseh and was a lineal descendant of Machir, the father of Gilead, the father of Hepher, the father of Zelophehad. Mahlah, the eldest of the five sisters whose names stand out in Jewish history belonged to the tribe of Manasseh, and was the daughter of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Michir, the son of Manasseh. It may be queried—that if Mahlah of I Chronicles vii:18 was the daughter of Zelophehad, why is there no mention of her sis- ters? Two explanations are plausible. (1) If this is a roster of “heads of fathers’ houses,’ Mahlah’s name alone would be en- rolled. (2) Omissions were very common in the genealogical tables of the Jews. I Chronicles vii:17, there is mention of “the sons of Ulam,” but the name of one alone is given. Hepher was a son of Gilead, but he is not listed in the record before us. Innumerable cases could be cited. Mahlah as a proper noun occurs five times in the Old Testament; four times out of the five it is indisputably feminine (Num. xxvi:33, XXvii:I, XXXvi: 11; Jos. xvii:3), and there is not the slightest evidence that it 1s otherwise in I Chronicles vii:18. It is not irrelevant at this point to note that there were “heads of fathers’ houses” prior to the Exodus (Ex. vi:14-25). How much of authority vested in their hands at that date is not evident. In events leading up to the departure from Egypt, the elders stand forth as representatives of the people. During the four hundred years of “sojourn in a strange land,” “the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed ex- ceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.” Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy souls. Moses led forth 2,500,000 people into the wilderness. They were not a disorganized horde. There were tribes and elders and heads of father’s houses. Four- 156 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN teen months after the Exodus we find Moses, Aaron and twelve “princes of Israel” (heads of fathers’ houses) enrolling every able- bodied man over twenty years of age for military service (Num. 1:4, 44). During the era of oppression, when Rameses II was seeking to exterminate Israel, two elect women appear upon the scene— Shiphrah and Puah (Ex. i:15-21). At the peril of their lives they braved the mandate of a relentless despot. “They feared God and did not as the king of Egypt commanded.” And “God dealt well” with them, and because they feared Him, “He made them houses” (Ex. 1:21). . Now what is the import of the record—“He made them houses”’ ? Some redactors infer from this that these two women, who had hazarded their lives, and performed signal service, were rewarded with offspring. Such apparently was the conclusion of the Ameri- can Revisers, for they render the passage—“He made to them households.” A query is in order. Would this explanation have been offered in’seriousness if the subjects had been men instead of women? ‘That Shiphrah and Puah should themselves become mothers in no way singled them out from the multitude; in no way differentiated them from the thousands of their country- women; was no outstanding evidence of Divine favor; and was certainly not an act of recognition on the part of the Hebrew people. The author has no desire to dogmatize, but cannot acquiesce in a conclusion that allows two women of distinguished service no public recognition. A more reasonable explanation is at hand. Would it not be more in accord with the circumstances to hold that the heroines of this narrative were elevated to the headship of their fathers’ houses? Age was a prerequisite for eldership, and it may be that Shiphrah and Puah had not attained unto the years of eligibility to this office, but a grateful people could express their appreciation by advancing their deliverers to the headship of their gens. Because these women feared Jehovah, “He made them houses.” A brief excursus is permissible here. In the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis, and also in the first chapter of I Chronicles, are found genealogies of the Edomites. There is nothing remarkable in this, DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 157 for the Edomites were descendants of Esau, the son of Isaac and twin brother of Jacob. The unusual appears in the sandwiching into this record a genealogical roster of an alien people—the Horites. The Horites were the aboriginal inhabitants of Mount Seir before they were dispossessed by the Edomites. Their name signifies “cave-dwellers,” and refers to their mode of living in caves, many of which are still extant in the cliffs of Edom. But all this does not account for the bringing of their genealogy into association with that of the descendants of Esau. If the reader will turn to Genesis xxxvi:40-43 and to I Chron- icles 1:51-54, he will find a roster of the eleven dukes of Edom— among them two women—Oholibamah and Timna. Oholibamah was one of the wives of Esau (Gen. xxxvi:2, 14, 18). Timna was the pelegesh—secondary wife—of Eliphaz, the eldest son of Esau (Gen. xxxvi:1I2). Both these women were Horites (Gen. xxxvi:20-25, 30; I Chron. 1:38, 39). Genesis xxxvi:2, Oholibamah’s descent is given as a Hivite— “Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite.” This is an error on the part of some copyist. Zibeon was not a Hivite. He was a Horite, as can be attested by a careful study of the genealogical table, Genesis xxxvi:20-25. The mistake is doubtless due to the marked similarity of the two words in the unpointed Hebrew, in which the book of Genesis was originally written. The reader may make comparison: mM (Horite) ; nn =(Hivite). The only distinguishing feature is a slight pro- longation of one letter. Timna was also a Horite (Gen. xxxvi:20-30; I Chron. 1:38, 39). She bore a daughter called after her name, and who, in I Chron- icles 1:35-37, is reckoned as one of the sons (O°)3) of Eliphaz. Genesis xxxvi:12, Timna is called the “concubine” (pelegesh) of Eliphaz. This word did not, in Old Testament times, have the offensive import it has today. After the death of Sarah, Abraham married Keturah. She was his lawfully wedded wife, yet in one instance (Gen. xxv:6) she is called a concubine. The word sig- nified a difference in rank or social standing. It was frequently 158 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN applied to a woman who, before her marriage, was a slave; and this seems to have been its meaning in the case of Timna. We have noted that the Horites were the original inhabitants of Mount Seir. The Edomites waged an exterminating war against them and seized their territory (Deut. 11:12, 22). Now if Timna was among the captured, her status would be that of a slave. When she wedded Eliphaz, she would be called a pelegesh, or secondary wife. Before resuming our study of the status of woman during the Mosaic dispensation, we note three facts: 1. The final “h” which translators have added to the name of Timna in the Authorized Version (Gen. xxxvi:40) is not in the Hebrew. 2. Genesis xxxvi:2, 14, 18, the genealogy of Oholibamah is reckoned, in part, in her mother’s line. The same is true of Mehetable, the wife of one of the kings of Edom (Gen. xxxvi:39). This was a characteristic of matriarchy. 3. The mother and grandmother of Esau, the ancestor of the Edomites, came from a country where matriarchy had a foothold. Edom bordered on Arabia, where “‘most of the jinns were females,” and where matriarchy was “originally the universal rule.” Under such circumstances one need not be surprised to find women-dukes in Edom. In 1095 B.c. the Hebrew nation repudiated the theocratic form of government and established a monarchy. Concerning this re- versal, Jehovah said to Samuel: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them.” This change was effected at the instigation of the elders (I Sam. Vili :4-6). During the monarchy, the question of succession was determined by circumstances. Saul, David, and Solomon reigned by Divine election. At times popular demand determined the choice of the nation’s ruler (I Kings xii:20, II Kings xiv:21, xxi:24, xxiii:30; II Chron, xxxiii:25, xxxvi:1). Occasionally a conspirator gained a following and fought his way to the throne. The usual course was for the sovereign to name his own successor. Bathsheba DURING THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION 159 exacted an oath from King David that her son should sit on the throne after him, to the exclusion of his older brothers (I Kings 1:13, 17). In this case the law of primogeniture was disregarded. Rehoboam “appointed” Abijah “to be prince among his brethren, for he was minded to make him king.” Abijah was not his first- born son, nevertheless it was his father’s will that he should suc- ceed to the throne, so in II Chronicles xii:16 it is written: “Rehoboam slept with his fathers . . . and Abijah, his son, reigned in his stead.” There was nothing in the organic law of the Jewish common- wealth to exclude women from the highest official position in the State, while the example of Miriam, as one of the triumviri, lent encouragement to such aspiration. On more than one occasion during the monarchy a woman was “the power behind the throne” (I Kings 1:13, 17; xxi:7-I1, 25; II Kings viii:18; II] Chron. xxi:6, xxii:3), but the name of but one reigning queen is recorded in Old Testament Scripture—that of Athaliah (II Kings xi). She was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and inherited the dominative character of her mother rather than the vacillating disposition of her father. It was an age when “blood touched blood at the foot of the throne,’ and Athaliah, emulating the example of some of the kings who reigned before her, “arose and destroyed all the seed royal” —only a grandson escaped her hand. She reigned six years with- out molestation. In this fact we have evidence that there was not popular prejudice against a woman sovereign. Her overthrow was accomplished, not by revolt on the part of the people in gen- eral, but at the secret instigation of the High Priest, who sought to restore the throne to the house of David. In the subsequent history of the Jewish nation we find a reigning queen whose name does not appear in Sacred Scripture—Alex- andra. Her Greek name was Salome. She received the reins of government 76 or 75 B.c. We cull the following from the “Jewish Encyclopedia” : “She was the wife of Aristobulus I, and afterward of Alexander Jannaeus. She was the mother of Hyrcanus II, High Priest... . 160 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN The reign of Alexandra marks a most important epoch in the history of Jewish internal government, ... Alexander on his death entrusted the government, not to his sons, but to his wife. . .. This last political act of the king was his wisest, for the queen fully justified the confidence reposed in her. She succeeded especially in quieting the vexatious internal dissensions of the kingdom that existed at the time of Alexander’s death: and she did this peacefully and without detriment to the political relations of the Jewish State to the outside world. . . . Alexandra’s sagacity and tact succeeded in accomplishing what all the military genius of her husband had failed to effect; namely, to make Judza respected abroad.” Jewish writers in general are extravagant in their laudation of this queen. Graetz, in his “History of the Jews,” says: “She came like the refreshing dew to an arid and sunburnt soil.” Another writer says: “Her authority was so greatly respected by neighbor- ing princes that they did not dare make war with Judza,” and still another : “The nine years’ reign of Queen Salome was a golden age in Jewish history.” All this attests that in Mosaic Law and in the Jewish mind there was no obstacle to the sovereignty of women. This concludes our survey of Old Testament teachings concern- ing the status of woman. We turn now to the New Testament. VIIl THE CALTICTUDEVOR, JESUS ALACHI, author of the last book of the Old Testament, M prophesied about 416 B.c. A period of more than four centuries elapsed ere. the dawn of the Christian era. Sacred Writ is silent as to the vicissitudes that befell the Israelites during this interval of time, but we learn from profane chronol- ogists that they were subject, in turn, to Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Syrian, Maccabean, and Roman rule. The seventy years’ captivity , in Babylon and subsequent intercourse with heathen nations left © impress on the laws and customs of the Hebrews. Retrogression is ever a characteristic of false religions. Their praiseworthy efforts are spasmodic: they lack power to raise men out of the mire and sooner or later the gratification of lust becomes the central feature of their worship; and this demands the debase- ment of women. In Babylon every member of the sex was required to enter the Temple and to prostitute herself in the presence of its idol. It was deemed meritorious on the part of parents to devote their daughters to a life of sexual commerce for the enrichment of the sacerdotal coffers. Annually “Babylon the Great’ opened its market for the sale of women. Throughout heathendom, religion and law linked arms to effect ‘ the degradation of the sex. In Persia, even at her best, woman was but “the maid of the man.” In 476 B.c. Athens won the hegemony of Greece. Here, under the archontate of Solon, women were separated into five classes “for the convenience of all con- ditions of men.” (1) Wives constituted the first class. These, from earliest child- hood, had been kept under strictest surveillance—allowed to “see as little as possible, hear as little as possible, and inquire as little as possible.” They existed for the sole purpose of propagating Greek citizens. They were kept, for the most part, in seclusion 161 162 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN and possessed no rights or privileges beyond the will of their lords. A wife did not sit at the table with her master. (2) The second class—the Hetairai—were the only free women in Athens. They were the intellectuals; delivered public addresses, taught rhetoric, elocution, and founded schools of philosophy. The Hetairai associated freely with men of the same rank or station and wielded an immense influence in affairs of state. They dis- dained the marriage relation, because of its enforced ignorance, seclusion and subjection. Of such was Aspasia, the “friend” of Socrates and Pericles. One writer says: “Had these gifted women accepted the position of wife, ignorance and seclusion would have been their portion, while their sexual degradation would have been none the less com- plete” (“The Sexes in Science and History,’ p. 345). Demos- thenes said, ‘“We have heterae for our pleasure, wives to bear us children and to care for our household” (“Women of the Bible,” p. 527). Plato represented a state as wholly disorganized, where wives were on an equality with their husbands. In his “Republic” he provides that “the wives of guardians are to be common, and their children also common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.”’ Socrates asked one of his friends—‘“Is there a human being with whom you talk less than with your wife?’ The Hetairai attended lecture rooms, wrote books and became the companions of statesmen, poets and philos- ophers. They gave themselves as models for images of the gods, and the Greeks lifted up their hands to their statues when they prayed in their temples (““Women of the Bible,” p. 527). (3) The Auletrides, or flute-players. The more fashionable of these were imported slaves. They danced in scant attire at ban- quets and entertainments, and when enthusiasm was at its height, they were auctioned off to the highest bidder. Physical encounters for the possession of these women were not an infrequent occur- rence in the best society. (4) The Concubines. These, too, were purchased slaves. They became members of their master’s household, with the full knowl- edge of the lawful wife, who had no choice but submission. (5) The Dicteriades. Such were not allowed the least freedom THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS 163 of action. They must not appear on the street during the day. Solon, on his elevation to the archonship, established a sufficient number of houses of prostitution to meet the popular demand, and filled them with female slaves. These were procured at the ex- pense of the state, and the revenue derived from their services enriched the general treasury. This was lauded as “a public- spirited measure,” and for its enactment Solon was eulogized as “savior of the state.” In Rome, at this period, every right of woman was invaded. Henry Summer Maine, Regius Professor of Civil Law in the University of Cambridge, in writing on this subject, says: “Roman law taught the perpetual tutelage of women. . . . A female, though relieved from her parent’s authority by his decease, continues sub- ject through life to her nearest male relative, or to her father’s nominee as her guardian.”’ Ch. Letourneau, General Secretary to the Anthropological Society of Paris, in his “Evolution of Mar- riage,’ says: “The terrible right of manus was acquired by the husband with every form of marriage’ (page 201). “Manus conferred on a husband the right to lend his wife to another man.” This “right” was at times exercised, even by men of high estate, as is testified by Roman histories. Dr. Thompson, in “Women of the Bible,” p. 529, says: “Friends exchanged wives, and it was not dishonorable to employ the name of friendship for the purpose of seducing a friend’s wife.’’ Seneca said: “Whoever has no love affair is despised.” Under Roman law a wife was the “daughter” of her husband and included in his “Patria Potestas.” He had absolute control of her property and person. Enforced intercourse with nations such as these in time told on | the Jewish mind and wrought a change in the status of woman. — The Mosaic code could not be revised to suit this exigency, but there was one recourse—the elders. They could “make void the word of God” by their traditions. During the seventy_years’ sojourn in Babylon, these wiseacres among the Hebrews were made alive to “the mistakes of Moses”— among the foremost, his failure to impose restraint upon woman. On the return from the Captivity, they speedily set to work to supply this lack on the part of their great legislator. The result 164 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN 3 was the Oral law—an aggregation of “the traditions of the elders.’ Forthwith strife engendered between the Sadducees and Pharisees ; the former disputing the authority of these interpretations, and rejecting these de novo rules of conduct; the latter assigning them parity with the Mosaic code, and in after centuries claiming for them priority. In the Torah it was written, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it” (Deut. iv:2, xii:32), but “the Pharisean doctors found it imperative to emphasize their belief in the necessary development of the law [Mosaic] to suit the changed conditions.” The struggle between the two sects continued until the death of Alexander Janneus (78 B.c.), when the Pharisees gained the ascendancy, and the Sadducean Sanhedrin was suppressed. The development of the Oral law extended over a period of five and a half centuries. In this course of time a vast stock of laws and usages, not authorized by the Pentateuch, accumulated. It was a principle with the Rabbim that these amplifications and deductions should not be committed to writing, but must be trans- mitted “by word of mouth.” Centuries later they were codified in a dozen folio volumes. This compilation of Jewish civil and canonical law is called the Talmud. It consists of the Mishna or text and the Gemara—commentary. Herein is embodied the Oral law—“‘the traditions of the elders,” which in large measure super- seded the Mosaic code and “‘made void the word of God.” It is not rancorous to affirm that an abatement of the rights and privileges accorded woman under the first commonwealth had a place in the mind of the authors of these canons. A comparison between the Sinaitic and Oral law will show the extent of her divestment. “No less than five treatises of the Talmud are almost exclusively devoted to the regulations concerning husband and wife” (“Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce”). One entire division of the Mishna had to do with laws regarding women. H. L. Hastings says: “Jewish religion of Bible times by no means sanctioned the total subjection of woman subsequently authorized by Moham- medism, nor the low views of woman’s place in religion taken by Rabbinical Judaism.” THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS 165 Oral law and heathen environment told adversely on the life of Hebrew womanhood. In her religious privileges she was circum- scribed; in her domestic and social relationships she was confined within narrow compass. Her religious overlords could not degrade her to the low level of her sex in Babylon, Persia, Greece, or Rome, but they crowded her as near the border-line as a perversion of the Mosaic law would tolerate. At the time of Christ a Rabbi would not recognize a woman— even his own wife—in public. “One of the blessings assigned to men in the synagogue service runs, ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast not made me a woman’ ” (“Synagogue Religion and Worship,” p. 297). “In Hebrew law, women were not competent witnesses, either in civil or criminal cases” (“Jewish Encyclopedia”). The Rabbim held that “together with Eve, Satan was created.” ‘Eve was not created simulta- neously with Adam, because God foreknew that later she would be a source of complaint.’”’ Women went by unfrequented streets to the synagogues and seated themselves apart for worship. Herod the Great—so vile in his private life, to say nothing of his public character, that historians refrain from besmirching their pages with a recital—guarded the Temple from profanation by erecting a “Women’s Court,” beyond which the sex must not trespass. The ruling of Rabbi Hillel permitted a husband to divorce his wife if her cooking did not suit him, or if he saw another woman fairer than she, and had a desire unto her. If a woman went out of the house unveiled, she might be divorced. Many Rabbim locked their wives up when they went from home. One class of Pharisees was called the “Bleeding Pharisees” because they often struck the head against a post as they walked about with their eyes shut lest they should see a woman. Such was the status of woman in Jewry and throughout heathen- dom when Christ entered on His public ministry. Now what was the attitude of Jesus in the matter? I. He set at nought the Oral law, and publicly excoriated its propounders. He said to them: “Why do-ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matt. xv:3). “Ye 166 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN have made void the word of God because of your traditions” (Matt. xv:6). In the great denunciation recorded in the twenty-third chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, He pours out this vial of wrath upon them: “Ye hypocrites, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching doctrines the precepts of men” (vs. 5-9). “Woe unto you, ye blind guides.” “Ye fools and blind.” ‘Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” (vs. 16, 17, 24). “Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, . . . full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness.” “Ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (vs. 27, 28). “Ye serpents; Ye offspring of vipers; How can ye escape the judgment of hell?” (vs. 33). To his disciples He said: “Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. xv:14). In His Sermon on the Mount, we have Jesus’ repeated negations of the traditions of the elders: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, “Thou shalt,’ and ‘Thou shalt not,’ But I say unto you, contrariwise” (Matt. v:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). II. Not only did Jesus utterly repudiate, “by word of mouth,” the Oral law and disallow the pretensions of its defenders; but in practice He habitually disregarded it, and treated as unworthy of notice the ethical obligations and restrictions imposed by the Rabbim. On a certain occasion He journeyed from Judza to Galilee, “and He must needs pass through Samaria.” He approached a village called Sychar. “Being wearied with His journey,’ He sat by Jacob’s well, and “there cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus saith unto her, Give Me to drink.” Now here was serious breach of rules laid down by religious leaders of His nation. (1) It was a maxim, “Jews have no dealings with Samari- tans.” (2) The person here addressed was a woman, and it was a reproach for a rabbi to speak to a member of the other sex in public. When His disciples returned, “They marvelled that He was speak- ing with a woman,” but they held their peace. Jesus discoursed THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS 167 with her on the Water of Life, the spirituality of worship, and made—so far as we know—the first announcement of His Mes- siahship. When she said, “I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ, when He is come, He will tell us all things,’ He Who “knew what was in man,” saw before Him a buffeted soul, yearning for the coming of the “Just One,” and He responded, “T that speak unto thee, am He.” Before this, “there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night.” He, too, was “waiting for the Consolation of Israel’; but to this man—‘a teacher in Israel,” Jesus did not reveal Himself as the promised Messiah, while to this woman, of despised race, He said, “I that speak unto thee an Hei’ On receiving this announcement, the woman left her waterpot and hastened back to the village with the tidings. She “saith to the men: Come, see a Man which told me all things that ever I did: can this be the Christ?” Soon the inhabitants of Sychar are sallying forth to welcome the Messiah Whom this woman pro- claimed. The disciples had been in the city to procure food, but it is not recorded that they brought a single soul to Jesus; while it is “written for our admonition”; that “from that city many of the Samaritans believed on Him because of the word of the woman.’ She publicly proclaimed Christ to a congregation of men, and Jesus had no word of reproof to offer. We have on record another instance where the Divine Master set at naught rabbinical rulings concerning women. “He entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha, received Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word” (Luke x:38, 39). Among the Hebrews, daughters as well as sons were taught to read, but in the time of Christ it was regarded as highly improper to instruct a woman in the Oral law. The rabbinical schools of the age were as closely barred against her as have been the theolog- ical seminaries in Christian lands in bygone generations. No doc- tor of the law would consider her admission to discipleship. It was otherwise with Jesus. Mary was of those “who also sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word.” - 168 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN There is deeper import in this statement than appears on the surface. As to the manner of teaching in those days, Geikie says: “The teacher sat on a raised seat known as ‘the seat of Moses’ (Matt. xxiii:2) with his disciples ranged about him.” This gave currency to the expression, “‘sat at his feet.” It did not apply to a casual listener, nor even to an interested hearer; it had a definite and restricted meaning. The Apostle Paul said, “I ama Jew. . brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts xxti:3). There was a “school of the prophets” at Gilgal, and we read: “Elisha came again to Gilgal . . . and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him” (II Kings iv:38). Moses, in his farewell address, uses these words: “They sat down at Thy feet. Every one shall receive Thy word” (Deut. xxxiii:3). “She had a sister called Mary, which also (xat) sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word.” We call attention to the word “also” (xat) What is its import? According to Thayer, “it generally throws an emphasis upon the word which immediately follows it.” But why stress if Mary were only an ordinary listener to one of Christ’s discourses? or even if she were a believer on Him in the common acceptation of the term? Either there is redun- dancy here, or “also” has significance. She “also sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word.” This word “also” associates her with a group: it brings her into that inner circle which sustained special relationship with the Divine Master. Mark iv:10, we read: “When He was alone, they that were about Him with the Twelve, asked of Him the parables.” Also in Mark iv:34, “Privately to His own disciples, He expounded all things.” Aside from the Twelve, there was an inner circle of disciples who followed Jesus. To this group Mary belonged. It is by no means certain that Martha’s complaint against her sister was confined to the present occasion ;—more is implied. The verb is in the past tense. “My sister did leave (xatéAetxev) me.” The Aorist denotes a past occurrence “without limitations as to completion, continuance or repetition.” The answer of Jesus indicates beyond question that at some previous period Mary had made a definite choice—she had elected THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS 169 (€&eAéEato) “the good part”; she had stepped aside from the routine of domestic cares to devote herself to service in the king- dom which Christ had come to establish. Martha, imbued with the rabbinical teachings of the age, disapproved of her sister’s choice ; she deemed it unwomanly, and appealed to Jesus to rebuke such behavior. We have His answer: “Mary hath chosen the good part, which shall not be taken from her.” With Divine approval she “also sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word.” On a subsequent occasion we find Martha calling her sister secretly, saying “the Teacher (6 8:3décxahoc) is here, and calleth thee” (John xi:28). At a previous period in Christ’s ministry, “there came to Him His mother and His brethren and they could not come at Him for the crowd. And it was told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without, desiring to see Thee” (Luke viii:19, 20). “And He stretched forth His hand towards His disciples, and said, Behold My mother and My brethren: For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother’ (Matt. xii:49, 50). The reference here is not to the Twelve, but to that inner circle of disciples which “sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word,” “they that were about Him with the Twelve” (Mk. iv:10), to whom He privately “ex- pounded all things” (Mk. iv:34), and in this group there were women as well as men. Not only did women sit “at the Lord’s feet,” and hear His word, but they, as well as the Twelve, accompanied Him on His preaching tours through Palestine. In Chapter VIII of Luke’s Gospel, we read: “It came to pass soon afterward, that He went about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God, and with Him the Twelve and certain women.’ ‘The names of some of these are given. There were Mary Magdalene; Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s stew- ard; Susanna; Salome, the wife of Zebedee; Mary, the mother of James, “and many others.’ In referring to these women after the Resurrection, the two disciples on the way to Emmaus designate them as “certain women of our company” (Luke xxiv:22). These elect women not only accompanied Jesus when “He went 170 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN about through cities and villages preaching and bringing good tidings of the kingdom of God,” but they “ministered unto Him of their substance.” Tradition holds that Mary Magdalene was a woman of wealth; Joanna was the wife of a high official in the royal household. Doubtless there were other women of “sub- stance” among the “many others” who accompanied Him. Oral law had shorn woman of many rights and privileges, but she could still hold property—real and personal. The women whose devotion is here recorded attended Jesus on His mission tours “through cities and villages”; in company with the Twelve they journeyed with Him to Jerusalem; they followed Him to Calvary. “There were also women beholding from afar, among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him and ministered unto Him: and many other women which came up with Him unto Jerusalem” (Mark xv:40, 41; Matt. xxvii:55, 56). Later we find four of these women at the foot of the Cross. John, an eye-witness of the Crucifixion, writes: “Now there were standing by the Cross of Jesus, His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John xix:25). They followed Him “through cities and villages”; they followed Him from Galilee to Calvary; they were early at the tomb; but nowhere is it written that Jesus expressed disapproval, or at any time enjoined them “to stay at home and learn of their husbands.” When the body of their Lord was taken from the cross and borne to the sepulcher, “The women which had come with Him out of Galilee followed after, and beheld the tomb and how His body was laid” (Luke xxiii:55). Where were the Twelve Apostles? Why are they not mentioned here, while three of the Sacred writers record the devotion of these women ? These “certain women” were early at the sepulcher that Easter morn when Christ “‘break the bands of death, to be no more holden by it.” “On the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared” (Luke xxiv:1). THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS 171 Jesus appeared first—not to James, who was to become head of the Church at Jerusalem; not to Peter, who was to be primate of Catholicism; not to John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who entered with Him, “into the court of the High Priest,” who stood by the cross, while all the other Apostles “forsook Him and fled’’— to none of these. “He appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (Mark Xvi :9). It was the boast of the Apostle Paul that the gospel he preached was “not after man”; neither did he “receive it from man’; it came to him “through revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. i:11, 12). No apostolic hands were laid in ordination on his head. If he were on earth today, the pulpit of no established church could open to him without special dispensation. His ordination to the Gospel ministry was “not after man.” In his Second Epistle to Timothy we read: “I was appointed (été6yv) a preacher and an Apostle,” but this does not signify ordination. Dr. Adam Clark says: “The word (été0yv) does not imply any imposition of hands by either bishop or presbyter, as is vulgarly supposed.” The same was true of the women “who were early at the sepul- cher.” They did not receive their commission “from man”; it came to them “through revelation of Jesus Christ.” Jesus said to Mary: “Go unto My brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (Jh. xx:17). To the women He said: “Fear not, go tell My brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see Me” (Matt. XXvili:10). 4 The angel said: “Go quickly, and tell His disciples, He is risen from the dead” (Matt. xxviii:7). No higher commis- sion to preach the Gospel was ever given. Dr. H. A. Thompson, author of “Women of the Bible,” says: “There is little wisdom in inquiring—shall women preach? when the Head of the Church Himself sent a woman out to preach the Resurrection before the sluggish male disciples had yet had apprehension of the fact.” When the Lord said unto the women, “Fear not, go tell My brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see Me,” He did not refer to the Apostles only. This is evident from the fact that He appeared unto them that same night in Jerusalem 172 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN (Luke xxiv:13, 33, 34, 36; John xx:19). But His “brethren” were to depart into Galilee and there to see Him. “Brethren” was a broad term and covered the entire body of believers. Take, for example, Matthew xii:49: “He' stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, Behold My mother and My brethren.” Luke viii:21: “My mother and My brethren, are these which hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew xxv:40: “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these My brethren, these least, ye did it unto Me.” Hebrews 11:17: “It behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren.” The angel said unto the women: “Go quickly, and tell His disciples, He is risen from the dead; and, lo, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you” (Matt. xxvill:7). “Disciples” was also a broad term. It was not limited to the Apostles. They were usually called the “Twelve,” the “Eleven,” and the “Apostles.” In Luke vi:13, we read: “When it was day, He called His disciples; and He chose from them twelve, whom also He named Apostles.” Joseph of Arimathza was called a disciple (Matt. xxvii:57; John xix:38). Tabitha, Timothy, Ananias and Mnason were each called “disciple,” but they were not of the Twelve. We read that, “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John” (John iv:r). The women were divinely commissioned to proclaim the Resur- rection and the Ascension to the “brethren”; to the “disciples’— in other words, to the followers of Christ; and it is recorded in Luke xxiv :9, that they “returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the Eleven, and To ALL THE REsT.” About five hundred brethren assembled together and Christ appeared unto them (I Cor. xv:6). So far as our investigation has extended, the consensus of scholarship fixes this meeting in Galilee at “the mountain where Jesus had appointed.” Thither the Eleven also resorted (Matt. XXVili :16-20). Were the women who were commissioned by Christ to gather together this company of believers “into Galilee” in that assem- blage? Yea, verily. The angel said to them, “Lo, He goeth THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS 178 before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him” (Matt. xxviii:7; Mark xvi:7). The evening of the day of the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Apostles and “to THEM THAT WERE WITH THEM,’ as they were assembled behind closed doors for fear of the Jews (Luke xxiv :33; John xx:19-23), and said to them: “Peace be unto you, As the Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.” ‘He breathed on them and saith to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” He “opened their minds that they might understand the Scripture.” He commis- sioned them—the Apostles “and them that were with them’’—to preach “repentance and remission of sins unto all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” James and John were present on this occasion. How about their mother Salome, who came up with Jesus “from Galilee unto Jerusalem? Cleopas was there (Luke xxiv :18, 33). How about his wife, Mary, who stood at the foot of the cross? xix:25). How about the “certain women of our company,” the first heralds of the Resurrection? Were they among “them that were with them,’ when their risen Lord “breathed on them,” and “opened their minds that they might understand the Scripture,’ and commissioned them to preach “repentance and remission of sins unto all the nations’? No names are recorded; we can only surmise, but we must admit the possibility—we go further and say, probability. On this occasion, and to this company, Jesus said: “Ye are witnesses of these things . . . but tarry ye in the city until ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke xxiv:48, 49). This charge was renewed at the time of the Ascension. They were commanded “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father”—the Pentecostal baptism they were to receive—“not many days hence” (Acts i:4, 5). Now it is not recorded whether the women were present the night succeeding the Resurrection when Jesus appeared to the Apostles ‘and them that were with them,” or whether they were of the company that witnessed the Ascension, but there is certitude of one thing—they tarried in the city until they were “clothed with power from on high.” They departed not from Jerusalem, but waited for the “promise of the Father’’—the Pentecostal baptism 174 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN which was to fit for the high service to which Christ had commis- sioned the Apostles “and them that were with them’’—and they received tt. Attention has at times been called to the fact that there were no women among the Twelve Apostles. This is true, and with reason. These men were chosen for a definite purpose—“that they might be with Him? (Mark iii:14). Except when Jesus sent them forth to preach, they were His constant attendants; they accom- panied Him day and night. It was the custom for a Jewish rabbi to have such convoy of disciples. Such close and sustained asso- ciation with a member of the opposite sex would have given rise to defamatory rumor. Jesus never compromised Himself or His disciples, He shunned “the very appearance of evil.’ He stood before His own, and all subsequent generations with the challenge —‘‘Which of you convicteth Me of sin?” There were no women among the Twelve, neither were there any Gentiles; yet no one, in these days, would urge that because of this the Jew should take precedence in the church of Jesus Christ. In the primitive church there was strife over the status of the Jew and Gentile, the Hebrew Christians deeming themselves privileged above converts outside the pale of Judaism, and the fact that the Twelve Apostles were all Israelites may have been ad- vanced in support of their claim, but it has no weight in ecclesias- tical polity today. In time the Pauline maxim, at least in part, prevailed: “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, ... for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 11:28). In the foregoing pages we have studied the attitude of Jesus in relation to His practice; but how about His precepts? What restrictions did He impose on womankind? Since the world.began, founders, propounders, and expounders of religious cults have felt it incumbent on them to shove woman into a circumscribed area, and with pointed finger to warn her not to trespass on the divine prerogative of man. Zoroaster, Lycurgus, Solon, Lao-Tse, Confucius, Draco, Gautama, and Mahomet legislated her restrain- ment; Rabbim weighted the Oral law with maxims concerning the THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS 175 sex ; the Apostle Peter had his say; the Apostle Paul expressed his opinion on the subject; Apostolic and Church Fathers expatiated on the theme; Councils dogmatized and launched decretals. But how about Jesus Christ? How about THE TEACHER? What were His pronouncements on the question? Amid this babel of voices, has He nothing to say? While mankind in general are vocif- erating, why is He silent? Why does He stand apart from all the religious teachers of the world in this matter? Never, so far as we know, did Jesus utter a single sentence in abridgment of the domestic, social, or religious privileges of woman. On one occasion the scribes and Pharisees brought before Him a sinful woman and said to Him: “Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery.” ‘Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?’ (They neglected to mention that Mosaic Law sentenced the adulterer as well as the adulteress to death.) ‘But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they continued asking Him, He litted up Himself and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her, . . . and they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, unto the last; and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.” Our Divine Lord did not extenuate the guilt of this woman. He said to her: “Go thy way; from henceforth sin no more,” but He refused to pass sentence against her so long as her guilty paramour, whose apprehension would have been as easy as hers, was allowed to go free, and while her accusers stood self-con- demned. He refused to approve a double standard. He rebuked the cry of His own and of subsequent ages, “Stone the woman and let the man go free.” Let the reader of this volume call fhe roster of the men who have founded religious sects since the world began, and point to one, if he can, aside from Jesus Christ, who did not discriminate, in some way, against woman. Even Buddha limited the equality of the sexes to matters spiritual. Jesus Christ stands apart from all these founders in this respect—He never by word or deed, lent encouragement to the disparagement of woman. 176 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN What inference must be drawn from this aloofness of Jesus? How may we interpret His silence on a living issue? To the author it seems that this refrainment on the part of Christ must be attributed to one of two causes—indifference or disapproval. No one would for a moment harbor the thought that it was remissness, cowardice, or a desire to evade the question, that sealed the lips of our Divine Lord. Was He unconcerned? Here was a matter of moment; it had disturbed the equilibrium of the race through long centuries; it involved the happiness of one-half the human family; its very mention set the heart of womanhood to palpitating ;—Was Jesus indifferent? He noted the sparrows, the “lilies of the field,”’ and the “two mites which make a farthing,’ and here was a great question, reaching back to the gates of Paradise Lost, and stretch- ing forward to the end of time. Did He pass it over as unworthy His attention? .Far be it from us to accept such explanation of the silence of Jesus. Was it disapproval of man’s self-imposed task to supervise woman—to outline her behavior? The author finds no escape from such conclusion. It may be objected, if such was the attitude of Jesus, why did He not, instead, offer open rebuke? Our answer is that His daily deportment toward the sex was a standing reproof to the spirit of His age. He set at naught every man-imposed restriction on woman. He recognized no double standard: with / Him there was no such thing as a preferred sex. He stood woman side by side with man, and addressed her as a member of the human family. He never singled her out for special instruction. He dealt not with sexes, but with souls. No wonder when He walked the Dolorous Way to Calvary, women followed Him and “bewailed and lamented Him; But Jesus, turning unto them, said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for your- selves and your children.” Verily, “never man spake like this Man.” IX DURING THE INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY A he the Ascension, the Apostles and they “that were with _them” assembled in an “upper room” in Jerusalem, to await “the promise of the Father.” They were in all, “about a hundred and twenty” (Acts i:15). “These all with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer, with the women” (Acts 1:14), for a period of ten days, and then—‘“‘when the day of Pente- cost was now come, they were all together in one place: And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues, parting asunder like as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 11:1-4). We notice here that “they were all together,” “about a hundred and twenty’—men and women. The “tongues parting asunder like as of fire,” “sat upon each one of them”—women as well as men. “They were all’—-women as well as men—“‘filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak’”—women as well as men—“with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” The word here translated, “utterance,” is drogbéyyec8ar. Of this word Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., says: “Not a word of every- day speech, but one ‘belonging to dignified and elevated discourse,’ like the Latin profari, pronuntiare; properly, it has the force of to utter or declare one’s self, give one’s opinion, and is used not only of prophets, but also of wise men and philosophers, whose pointed sayings the Greeks call drogbéyuata.” (“Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,” p. 69). The Apostle Paul uses this word in his defense before Agrippa. “T am not mad, most noble Festus: but speak forth (drog8éy youct) words of truth and soberness” (Acts xxvi:25). 177 178 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN On the day of Pentecost, women as well as men uttered “digni- fied and elevated discourse.” They spoke “with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” In proof whereof we cite the words of the Apostle Peter: “This is that which hath been spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall be in the last days saith God, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your pects shall prophesy.’ ire and upon aes servants Atal on IMy hendnendens In those days will I pour forth of My Spirit; And they shall prophesy.’ ” Peter points to this prophecy as fulfilled on the day of Pente- cost. It was not fulfilled unless the “daughters” and “hand- maidens” prophesied—spoke to “men edification, comfort and con- solation” (I Cor. xiv:3). In I Corinthians xii:7, we read: “To each one is given the mani- festation of the Spirit to profit withal.’ Why, we ask, did the Holy Spirit, on this day of Pentecost, bestow on these women the gift of tongues, if they were not “to profit withal’? We may assume that they exercised their gifts in private, and the men exer- cised theirs in public, but the Bible does not say so. The evidence is to the contrary. “If then God gave unto them the like gifts,” as He did unto the men, who is he that will “withstand God’’? Dr. A. J. Gordon, in an article entitled “The Ministry of Women,” published in ‘““The Missionary Review,” December, 1894, says: “Paul, in referring back to the great baptism through which the Church of the New Covenant was ushered in, says: ‘For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ; there can be neither Jew nor Greek; there can be neither bond nor free; there can be no male and female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. iii:28). A question arises here: Did these women, “baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts i:15), and to whom was imparted a double portion—the gift of tongues (Acts ii:4) and the gift of prophecy, (Acts 11:17, 18; I Cor. xii:10)—“profit withal” after the day of DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 179 Pentecost, or were their ministrations confined to that occasion? In order to reach a safe conclusion on this point, several facts must be brought into consideration: First, we ask—How about the men? How about the Apostles and the “brethren” who were with them? Were the gifts meted out to them by the Spirit a permanent bestowment, or did they cease with the going down of the sun? Has the question ever been asked in seriousness? Jesus said unto the Apostles and “them that were with them’: “Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of these things. And behold I send the promise of My Father upon you, but tarry ye in the city until ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke xxiv :46-48). “Ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be My witnesses, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8, 9). Both in Luke xxiv :46-48, and Acts 1:8, 9, the promised out- pouring of the Spirit is conjoined with the commission to proclaim the gospel “unto all nations’—‘“unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Lest mankind should separate them—even in thought— the sacred writer tied them together with a conjunction (xat). Were the women intruders in that “upper room’? If so, why did not the Holy Spirit single them out? Why did He bestow on them “like gift” with the men? By what process of reasoning do we reach the conclusion that their endowment was temporary, while that of the “brethren” was for the period of their natural life? Who gave to us the authority to limit their ministrations to that “upper room”? Of what use their gift of “other tongues,” if their activities were confined to the narrow circle of their own acquaintances? Whose hand struck out of their commission the words, “Ye shall be My witnesses,’ “Jerusalem,” “All Judza,” “Samaria,” “Uttermost part of the earth’? In a sermon which the Apostle Peter afterward preached in the house of Cornelius, at Czsarea, he uses these words: “Him God raised up the third day, and gave Him to be made manifest, 180 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God.” Were these women who “came up with Him out of Galilee,” to whom Christ first appeared after the Resurrection, and who were “anointed with power from on high,” in that “upper room,” among the “witnesses chosen before of God”? In Acts xiii:30, 31, the Apostle Paul says: “God raised Him from the dead: and He was seen for many days of them that came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now His witnesses unto the people.” Among those who “came up with Him: from Galilee to Jeru- salem,’ who saw Him “after He rose from the dead,” were “Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother of James the Less, and Salome,” and “many other women.” Were they “now His witnesses unto the people”? The women in that “upper room” were empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Gospel within the sacred precincts of the church. The Apostle Peter pointed to the prophecy of Joel as fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. In this we have certain proof that the “daughters” and “handmaidens”’ prophesied (I Cor. xiv:3). In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul declares: “Prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe’ (v. 22). “He that prophesieth edifieth the church” (v. 4). In the twelfth chapter of the same Epistle, he further declares: “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (v. 4). Among the gifts enumerated as bestowed by the Spirit are “prophecy” and “kinds of tongues” (xii:10). The women in that “upper room” having received the baptism of the Holy Ghost; and this same Spirit having bestowed on them the gift of prophecy—speaking “unto men edification and comfort and consolation”’—and this gift being given “to profit withal,”’ and “for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe”—all this being conceded, there is no escape from the conclusion that these women were empowered to proclaim the Gospel to believers —in other words, to the church of Jesus Christ. But further: The Holy Ghost also endowed them with the gift of tongues; they “began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” In I Corinthians xiv :22, we read: “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving.” DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 181 These women were empowered to proclaim the Gospel, not only to Christ’s followers—the church—but also to unbelievers—to the great unsaved multitudes. Nor were their ministrations to be con- fined to their kindred and race. If this were all, their own ver- nacular would meet the requirement, but “the uttermost part of the earth,” could only be reached through the gift of tongues. That the gift of tongues on this occasion was not sporadic is evident from the fact that years later this gift was in existence in the church at Corinth (I Cor. xii:10). The Holy Spirit divideth “to each one severally as He will” (I Cor. xii:11). The Holy Ghost willed that these women should prophesy and speak with “other tongues,” and he divided unto them severally—not as man willed—but as He willed for the work whereunto He called them. Another circumstance that strengthens the claim that these women exercised the gifts bestowed upon them, after the day of Pentecost, is found in the fact that neither Oral law nor Jewish custom forbade a woman to prophesy. The Rabbim had, in many respects, made void the word of God by their traditions, but they could not erase from their sacred writings the names of Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah; so the door was left ajar and woman might enter, regardless of the restrictions otherwise imposed upon her sex. It was because of this, that “Anna, a prophetess,” was per- mitted to stand side by side with Simeon, within the sacred pre- cincts of the Temple, and to give thanks unto God and to speak of Christ “to all them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” Twenty years after the day of Pentecost we find women proph- esying in Jewry. When the Apostle Paul was on his last recorded journey to Jerusalem, he tarried “many days’ “at the house of Philip the evangelist” (Acts xxi:8). This man was one of the Seven (Acts vi:5, xxi:8). He “had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” (Acts xxi:9). If, in a single home, there were four women prophets, is it reasonable to assume that through- out the extended church there were no others? Another fact that merits consideration in our study of the question is this: In the days of primitive Christianity, the place 182 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of assemblage was, more often perhaps than otherwise, a private dwelling. The ten days’ prayer-meeting that ushered in the day of Pentecost was held in an “upper room,” where the Apostles were abiding during their stay in Jerusalem (Acts 1:13). This was, in all probability, the large “guest chamber,’ where Christ and His Apostles partook of the Passover feast and where the Lord’s Supper was instituted (Mark xiv:15; Luke xxii:12). The Apostle Paul, in his epistles, makes mention of “Prisca and Aquila” and “the church that is in their house’ (Rom. xvi:3-5; I Cor. xvi:9). He writes: “Gaius my host, and of the whole church” (Rom. xvi:23). “Salute . .. Nymphas and the church that is in their house’ (Col. iv:15). It may be noted here that some ancient authorities read “her house.’ “Nymphas,” as it appears in the Greek, may be rendered ““Nympha.” He writes to Philemon: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” and “to the church in thy house” (Phile. 2, 3). When released from prison at Philippi, he entered into the house of Lydia and exhorted the brethren (Acts xvi:40). At Corinth, “he rea- soned in the synagogue every Sabbath,” but when the Jews “opposed themselves and blasphemed,” “He departed thence and went into the house of a certain man named Justus” (Acts xviil:4-7). At-Troas, the Christian converts celebrated the Lord’s Supper in an “upper chamber,” and here Paul discoursed “till break of day” (Acts xx:7-11). Peter preached in the house of Cornelius (Acts x:22-27). During their missionary tours, Paul, Barnabas, and Silas availed themselves of the freedom of the synagogue-service and proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah; but when the organization of a church fol- lowed, it was necessary to provide other place of worship, and where converts were not numerous, a private dwelling served the purpose. Paul reminded the elders that he had taught the Ephesians “publicly and from house to house” (Acts xx:20). In Rome he preached “in his own hired house” for two years. “Traces of these earliest house-churches survived in happier days,” says Lindsay. “The ground plan of the earliest Roman church, discovered in 1900 in the forum at Rome, is modelled not on the basilica or public hall, but on the audience hall of the wealthy DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 183 Roman burgher.” ... “The earliest traces we find of buildings set apart exclusively for Christian worship dates from the begin- ning of the Third Century.” ... “We must remember that the meetings of the congregation were held in private houses” (‘““The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries,’ pp. 42, 43). Every circumstance of the case indicates that the women in that upper room in Jerusalem were among the “witnesses chosen before God” to proclaim the Resurrection and the Ascension; to preach “repentance and remission of sins unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” They received the same baptism as the “Apostles and brethren,” and in like measure—“they were all filled.” To them were imparted the same gifts—“prophecy” and “kinds of tongues” ; and for the same purpose—“to profit withal.”’ We may assume that these women were anointed with “power from on high,” in order that they might proclaim the Gospel to their own sex, and that their ministrations were confined to such, but it is not so written. If this were the case, we must in all fair- ness assume the same regarding the “men and brethren.” They were “anointed with power from on high” in order that they might proclaim the Gospel to their own sex, and to confine their minis- trations to such. Having received the same baptism—at the same time and in the same place, and in like measure; having imparted to them the same gifts and for the same purpose, it is audacious to assume, without warrant of Scripture, that the women were restricted as to time, place and manner, while the “apostles and brethren” were allowed unlimited opportunity for the exercise of their gifts. Peter, in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, adduced the prophecy of Joel, and pointed to its fulfillment. Referring back, we read: “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (ii:28). Here we have two conjoined substantives—“sons” and “daughters” —nominatives to the same predicate-—“shall prophesy”; and we do violence to the rules of grammar and of exegesis, and offend our own sense of justice by qualifying the verb in the one case, and neglecting to do so in the other. One fact—and one alone—has prevented the unanimity of man- 184 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN kind on this question, and that fact is—sex. If there had been no women in that upper room; or if the Holy Spirit had stood them aside, the query as to the time, place and manner in which the imparted gifts were exercised would never have been raised. Exegetes would never have quibbled over the matter; redactors would never have scurried about with suppositions. The consensus of opinion would have been that the “baptism from on high” was a sure indicant of Divine approval; that the measure of the allot- ment marked the circumference of the sphere; that the conferment of the gifts was sufficient warranty for their exercise; that the bestowment of the talent was authorization to “trade therewith” “until He come again.” As there were women prophets in the primitive church, it can scarcely be questioned that there were also women evangelists. In Acts viii we read that on the day of Stephen’s death there arose “a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judzea and Samaria, except the apostles” (v:1). “They therefore that were scattered abroad went about preaching (edayyedtGducvor) the word” (v. 4). In Acts xi:19, 20, we read: “They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only to Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they came to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching (eUayyeArGduevor) the Lord Jesus.” Among the most violent of the persecutors of this church in Jerusalem was Saul of Tarsus (Acts xxvi:10). “Entering into every house, and hailing men and women,” he committed them to prison. “In the dispersion, women as well as men fled from the city”; “they were all scattered abroad . . . except the apostles,” and they “that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word.” The word here translated “preaching” is evayyektGw— “to announce glad-tidings.” The bearers of these glad tidings were (evayyektoti}s) evangelists. The term was applied in a gen- DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 185 eral sense to Gospel messengers who were not of the Eleven. Paul wrote to Timothy: “Do the work of an evangelist,’ Philip was one of the Seven (Acts vi:5) and an evangelist (Acts xxi:8). In a restricted sense the word was applied to an order in the church ranking next to the prophets: “He gave some to be apostles, and some prophets; and some evangelists, and some pastors and teach- ers’ (Eph. iv:11). In the case under consideration the bearers of the glad tidings may have included prophets, evangelists, teachers, or even lay members. “Scattered abroad,” driven out of Jerusalem—they went about preaching the word—in the syna- gogues where such were available—in the open air—in private dwellings. There can be no reasonable doubt that among these propa- gandists of the Gospel were many women. The church in Jeru- salem included both sexes; they were all scattered abroad “except the apostles,” and they “that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word.”’ Both sacred and profane history testify to the large part women took in the first century in the spread of the Gospel. According to Professor Harnack, “The church of the second century objected very strongly to the prominent position of women in the apostolic age.” From the very first, women were responsive to the Gospel mes- sage. When Paul and Barnabas went forth to the work whereunto the Holy Spirit had called them, women were eager respondents to the Gospel message. Kurtz, in his “Church History,” Vol. I, p. 36, relates that ere this, “many of the better aspiring heathens, who were no longer satisfied with their sorely degraded forms of re- ligion,” had accepted Judaism to the extent of becoming “proselytes of the Gate,” “who, without observing the whole of the ceremonial law, undertook to abandon their idols and to worship Jehovah.” “In all ranks of society, mostly women.” He adds: “It was just among these that Christianity found hearty and friendly ac- ceptance.” It was the same when Paul, accompanied by Silas, went forth on his second missionary journey. At Lystra, there were Lois and Eunice—women of “unfeigned faith’ (Acts xvi:1; II Tim. 1:5). Lydia was the first-named convert on European soil; and 186 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN the church of Philippi was organized in her home (Acts xvi:14, 15,40). Here, ten years later, we find Euodia and Syntyche, and Paul writes: “I exhort Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yea, I beseech thee also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they labored with me in the gospel’ (Phil. iv:2, 3). At Thessalonica, some of the Jews, a great multitude of “devout Greeks,” “and of the chief women not a few” “‘were persuaded and consorted with Paul and Silas” (Acts xvii:4). “At Bercea many of them therefore believed: also of the Greek women of honorable estate, and of men, not a few’ (Acts xvii:I2). “Among the converts at Athens were Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris” (Acts xvii:34). This woman must have been a person of distinction; otherwise she would not have been singled out and mentioned in connection with Dionysius, one of the judges of the great court. According to Dr. Adam Clark, “no person was a judge in the Areopagus who had not borne the office of Archon, or chief governor of the city.” Damaris was, in all probability, one of the Hetairai. The reader will recall that these women constituted a highly intellectual class. They were themselves philosophers and stateswomen, and asso- ciated with men of the same rank or station. This may account for her being present when Paul delivered his address on Mars Hill. We learn from Acts xvii:18 that his encounter was with certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, who “took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus.” Some have suggested that Damaris was the wife of Dionysius. This is altogether improbable for two reasons: (1) The Greek wife lived in seclusion. The Hetairai were the only free women in Athens. If Damaris had been a wife, her presence in that con- course on Mars Hill would have been an unwonted occurrence. (2) If the wife of Dionysius, she would have been, as Oriental custom required, mentioned as such. Instead of “a woman named Damaris,’”’ we would have—“and his wife Damaris’; or more likely still, her name would be omitted, and the record would stand: Dionysius the Areopagite and his wife. In Athens wives were the adjuncts of their husbands; the Hetairai, on the other hand, were their companions. DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 187 Professor Harnack asserts that the prejudice against women, in the church of the second century, was such as “caused the gradual modification of various passages in the Acts” (“Dictionary of the Bible,’ Hastings, Vol. IV, p. 102). We call attention to the statement of Ramsey (“The Church in the Roman Empire,’ p. 101), that the name of Damaris was omitted from the Western text (Acts xvii:34). In Acts xviii we meet with a woman who was an outstanding character in the New Testament church. We read: “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla . .. and he came unto them; and because he was of the same trade, he abode with them” (vs. 1-3). “And he dwelt there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them” (v. 11). “After this, yet many days [he], took his leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, ... and they came to Ephesus and he left them there” (vs. 11, 18, 19). “Now a certain Jew named Apollos, ...a learned man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures” (v. 24). “And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them and expounded (é&é0evto) unto him the way of God more carefully” (v. 26). We notice here that the pronouns “they” and “them” and the verb “é&é@eyto” are plurals, and that the name of Priscilla precedes that of her husband, indi- cating that she was the chief actor. In the Authorized Version we have the reverse order—Aquila’s name stands first. This is doubtless due to the fact that King James’ translators did not have access to the earlier manuscripts. The Revised Version has rectified this error and Priscilla’s name takes proper place. A. C. Headlam, writing in “The Dictionary of the Bible” (Hastings, Vol. IV, p. 102), says: “The variations in the text of Acts xvili:1-27 have been examined very carefully by Harnack, who shows that the longer text (usually called the Western, or by Blass, B.) is clearly formed out of the shorter, and suggests that 188 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN it has been modified by an interpolator who objected to the too great prominence given to a woman, and has made the position of Priscilla less prominent.” Acts xviii:26 we are told that Priscilla expounded the way of God to Apollos. Here we have a woman not only teaching, but expounding to a man—a “learned man” and one “mighty in the scriptures”’—and this after the Apostle Paul’s residence in her home at Corinth, where she had abundant opportunity to learn his views on the “woman question.” The word here translated “expounded” is éx-ttOyyt. It is the same word as that used in Acts xi:4. ‘When Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest into men uncircumcised and didst eat with them. But Peter began and expounded (é&ett@eto) unto them in order.” The word also occurs in Acts xxviii:23. Paul had reached Rome, and after three days he called together “those that were the chief of the Jews,” “And when they had appointed him a day, they came to him into his lodging in great numbers; to whom he expounded (éEet{Qeto) the matter, testifying the kingdom of God.” Dr. A. J. Gordon, in an able article in the “Missionary Review,” says: “It is evident that the Holy Spirit made this woman Priscilla a teacher of teachers.” It may be interesting to note in this connection that Professor Adolph V. Harnack ascribes the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews to this woman, and gives eight reasons for such con- clusion." A. C. Headlam, in the “Dictionary of the Bible,” Vol. IV, p. 102, comments thus: “An interesting suggestion which has the merit of novelty has been made by Professor Harnack, that in Priscilla and Aquila we have the authors of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Prisca and Aquila were, we know, teachers of prominence who had turned Apollos to Christianity ; they belonged to the intimate circle of Paul’s friends. 1 See Appendix A. DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 189 . . . They had for some time been connected with a small Christian community in Rome, and the Epistle to the Hebrews was clearly, he argues, written to Rome. . . . They were with Italian connec- - tion, but living outside Italy. In the Epistle there is a curious interchange of ‘We’ and ‘I.’ Lastly, the authorship of Priscilla will explain why the writing is now anonymous. The church of the Second Century objected very strongly to the prominent posi- tion of women in the Apostolic Age. This had caused the gradual modification of various passages in the Acts and the desire to separate this work from the name of Priscilla.” In a personal letter to the author of this volume, Dr. Harnack summarizes thus: “My article appeared in the ‘Zeitschrift ftir die Neutestament- liche Wissenschaft,’ January, 1900, pp. 16-41, under the title: ‘The Probability of the Address and the Author of the Letter to the Hebrews.’ Substance: “t. We can undoubtedly be assured that the letter was written to Rome,—not to the church, but to the inner circle. Rom. xv:5. “2, It is an amazing fact that the name of the author is lost. All names mentioned as possible authors do not explain why the earliest tradition blotted it out. “3. The problem is this: Since the letter (according to the closing verses of Chapter 13) was written by a person of high standing and an apostolic teacher of equal rank with Timothy, and if Luke, or Clemens, or Barnabas, or Apollos, had written it, we do not understand why their names or signatures should have been obliterated, hence we must look for a person who was intimately associated with Paul and Timothy, as the author, that we may understand why the name is not given. This can only be Priscilla: “(a) She had a so-called inner circle in Rome—‘The church that is in their house’ (Rom. xvi:5). “(b) She was an Apostolic teacher of high standing, and known throughout Christendom of that day (Rom. chap. 16). “(c) She was the teacher of the intelligent and highly educated Apollos (Acts 18). “(d) She and Aquila labored and taught together, and thus we see ‘I,’ and then again the pronoun ‘we’ used. 190 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “These are the main reasons, but I advise you to read the entire article. “With highest esteem, “GRror WO. Vs AARNACK sr In the “Epistle to the Hebrews” itself, we find criteria to aid us in our search for the author: 1. Its writer was undoubtedly a Jew; 2. A Hellenist; 3. A nonresident of Palestine; 4. Unacquainted with the details of the Temple ritual ; 5. Wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem and the termina- tion of the Temple worship; 6. The disciple of an Apostle; 7. A friend of Timothy; 8. Had personal acquaintance with the addressed; 9. Well versed in Old Testament Scripture ; 10. Had access to Alexandrian Jewish literature, and knowledge of the teachings of Philo; 11. Within the Pauline circle, and attached to Pauline theology ; 12. A scholar of marked ability and attainment ; 13. An individual of prominence and of authority in the primi- tive church. Now we apply these tests to the men who have been proposed as the possible author of this Epistle and how do they qualify? Even the Apostle Paul must be set aside. Barnabas was a Levite, familiar with the Temple ritual, and a frequenter of Jerusalem. Apollos commands the suffrage of many modern scholars, but even he fails to meet all the requirements. We might go through the entire roster of men proposed as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and find everyone falling short in some requirement. How about Priscilla? Let us apply the tests in her case. I. She was a Jew (Acts xviii:2). 2. She was a Hellenist (Acts xviii:2). 3. A nonresident of Palestine. We find her in Rome (Acts Xvili:2, Rom. xvi:3-5); Corinth (Acts xviii:2); Ephesus (Acts DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 191 Xvili:18, 19, 24-26); and she was known to “all the churches of the Gentiles,’ but there is no intimation in Scripture or in ecclesiastical literature that she ever visited Palestine. 4. The author of this Epistle was evidently unacquainted with the details of the Temple ritual. The descriptions apply to the Tabernacle of the Pentateuch. If, as all the circumstances in- dicate, Priscilla never visited Palestine, she would have no per- sonal knowledge of the minutia of the Temple worship at the dawn of the Christian era. | 5. The contents of the Epistle show that it was written after the release of Timothy (xii:23) and before the destruction of Jerusalem and the finality of the Temple worship (viii:4, 5). The Acts of the Apostles carry us to the close of the second year of Paul’s Roman imprisonment. The Second Epistle to Timothy, the Apostle’s last extant message, is believed by the generality of scholars to have been written a short time before his martyrdom. In neither of these documents is there any mention of Timothy’s arrest or incarceration, so it is reasonable to conclude that it was a subsequent event. A reference to II Timothy iv:9-13, indicates that he was about to start on a journey to Rome with the ex- pectation of seeing the Apostle. It is more than likely that on the occasion of his arrival he was apprehended. His effort to communicate with a prisoner under sentence to death would awaken suspicion. The writing of The Epistle to the Hebrews followed his release and before the downfall of Jerusalem. Under these circumstances it is safe to fix the date between 67 and 70 a. p. Tradition, inscriptions, and New Testament Scripture prove con- clusively that during this period and anterior, Priscilla was an outstanding character in the churches within the Pauline area. 6. She was a disciple of the “great Apostle to the Gentiles.” There is no controversy here. 7. She was a friend of Timothy. When Paul came to Corinth, he took his abode with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii:3). While he was yet an inmate of this home he was joined by Silas and Timothy (Acts xviii:5). There is every probability that these new arrivals shared the hospitality of this worthy couple until Paul departed thence and “went into the house of a certain man 192 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN named Titus Justus . . . whose house joined hard to the syna- gogue” (Acts xviii:7). Timothy, Priscilla and Aquila were also associates in labor at Ephesus. In his last extant epistle the Apostle Paul sends greetings, through Timothy, to “Prisca and Aquila.” 8. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was personally ac- quainted with the parties addressed. This at once opens the ques- tion as to its destination. This is a matter of vital moment for it fixes the abode of the writer. In the thirteenth chapter, nine- teenth verse, we find a significant expression: “That I may be restored to you the sooner.” This can only import that the author was a fellow-townsman, absent for a season, and contemplating a return. There has been much speculation as to the destination of this epistle. That it was not an encyclical letter is apparent. In a number of passages a particular group is addressed (v:II, 12; MISA S MUTA RE 7 TO) 23h eb al niee rOLessor jitiarnacke says “We can undoubtedly be assured that the letter was written to Rome.” The author of this volume thinks otherwise. With the data at our command we conclude that the epistle was written at Rome, and addressed to a group of believers residing in one of the provinces—probably the church at Ephesus—in justification whereof we submit the following: (a) The earliest traces of this writing are found at Rome. This would indicate that it was addressed to or from that city. (b) Hebrews xiii:24. “They of Italy salute you.” An un- constrained interpretation of this passage favors Rome, or some outlying district within the bounds of the country designation. (c) This epistle was written somewhere in proximity to the place where Timothy suffered imprisonment. To the author’s mind, this was Rome. The latest information we have concerning him, prior to the writing of this epistle, he was at Ephesus and about to journey to the imperial city. The next mention we have of him, in Sacred Writ or elsewhere, is in Hebrews xiii :23, “Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set at liberty.” Com- mentators are agreed that the Second Epistle to Timothy was written but a short time before Paul’s martyrdom—about 68 A. p. DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 193 As the contents show, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written between 67 and 70 a.p. Under these circumstances Timothy’s imprisonment at Rome seems well-nigh established. The fact that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews had early knowledge of his release would indicate proximity to the place of his con- finement. As to the destination of this epistle, the following facts merit consideration : (1) Disciples at Ephesus were not in the throes of persecution as were the believers at Rome. In the latter city they were “sewn up in skins of wild animals, they were cast out to be devoured by dogs; others were crucified, or wrapt in tow and besmeared with pitch, they were fixed on sharp spikes in the imperial gar- dens, where the people gathered to behold gorgeous spectacles, and set on fire to lighten up the night.” In Hebrews xii:4, we read: “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood.” Certainly this could not be said of the Christians at Rome. Professor Harnack would escape the difficulty by maintaining that the epistle was addressed “not to the church, but to the inner circle’ (Rom. xvi:5). We can scarcely believe that an epistle, declared by eminent scholars to be “unparalleled in content and preéminent in composition,” was addressed to a handful of believers. Christians at Ephesus, as elsewhere, were subjected to an- noyances; were “made a gazing stock both by reproaches and afflictions,’ but it is not recorded that they “resisted unto blood.” In the Epistle to the Ephesians, in The Acts of the Apostles, nor in the Apocalyptic message to this church, is there mention of martyrdoms, or orgies of blood. MHistorians inform us that dur- ing the Neronian period, persecutions “seem to have been limited to Rome, and to have ended with his death.” (2) In Hebrews v:11, 12, we find this record: “Ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food.” In the Epistle to the Romans, xv:14, we have this commendation from the pen of the Apostle Paul: “I myself also am persuaded of you brethren, 194 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN that ye yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.” Evidently these two epistles were not addressed to the same body of believers. “By reason of the time ye ought to be teachers.’’ The Apostle Paul spent three years in Ephesus—a longer period than with any other church, with the possible exception of Antioch. This city was also the center of Timothy’s activities. Priscilla and Aquila labored here, and it may be, for a time, Apollos. The saints at Ephesus were favored above the average both as to the time and the teachers allotted them. (3) We will not enter into the modern controversy as to whether this Epistle was addressed to Jews or Gentiles. As to the traditional superscription, “To the Hebrews,’ Dr. Andrew C. Zenos, Professor of Biblical Theology, McCormick Theological Seminary, says: “It is undeniable that this title formed no part of the original writing.”” We only note that the Jewish population at Ephesus was considerable. The Apostle Paul began and con- tinued his work of evangelism in the synagogue, “But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for the space of two years; so that all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts xix:9, IO). (4) Another important fact determines us in our conclusion that the destination of this Epistle was Ephesus. In the thirteenth chapter and twenty-third verse, we read: “Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.” Here we find that this released prisoner was about to journey to the city or community to which this epistle was addressed. Timothy was a man of “often infirmities” ; his incarceration was not conductive to health. Released from confinement, where, in his debilitated condition, would he be likely to go? Would he not, in the very nature of the case, seek the solace of friends? For years he had been in intimate association with the saints at Ephesus. When Paul was on his third mis- sionary journey, Timothy accompanied him to this city. He DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 195 continued here, with occasional visits to other churches, during the Apostle’s three years of strenuous labor. He was of “them that ministered unto him” (Acts xix:22). He was placed in superintendency when Paul departed into Macedonia (I Tim. i:3). He was at Ephesus when he received the last letter from the Apostle—importuning him to “give diligence to come shortly.” It seems to the author of this volume that, released from de- bilitating confinement, impulse and sober judgment would prompt Timothy to return to the friends among whom he had labored so long and zealously. Judging from The Acts, and from the Pauline Epistles, more of his time and effort had been devoted to the “saints at Ephesus” than to any other church within his compass. The tradition is that he was overseer of this congrega- tion till his death. If the facts adduced substantiate, or even render probable, our supposition that the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to the Christian community at Ephesus, then we must, as is shown by xiii:19, find its author among the residents of that city. Who were the prominent characters in the church at Ephesus? We are dependent on the New Testament record for our answer. We give them in their order: Paul, Timothy, Priscilla, Aquila. To this list some would add Apollos. We might also mention two eminent men who, at least for a period, resided in this city —Mark and Luke. Let us consider each in relation to the author- ship of this Epistle. I. PAUL. We may almost say that the consensus of modern scholarship rejects him. There is so much in the Epistle inharmonious with the Pauline style of writing, the arrangement of contents, the language employed, the rhythm and classical Greek, all differentiate this letter from the Apostle’s accredited epistles. So much has been written in disproof of the Pauline authorship that it is 1 We must fix the destination of this epistle within the Pauline area in order to allow for a visit from Timothy in his enfeebled condition. Rome is out of the question. If his imprisonment was elsewhere, there is no probability on release from prison he would visit this city—in the turmoil of persecution—to coeur ate 196 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN impossible to reproduce it even in summary, here. We refer the reader to the many treatises that have been published on this subject. 2. TIMOTHY. Hebrews xiii:23 proves beyond question that he was not the author of this Epistle. 3. MARK. John Mark has been suggested as the possible writer of this letter. He was at Ephesus when Timothy received his Second Epistle, in which Paul charged him to bring Mark with him to Rome. This counts in the evangelist’s favor, but there is coun- teracting testimony. We have Mark’s Gospel with which to make comparison. This negatives any claim that can be made in his behalf as the possible author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is noticeable contrast between the two writings; the Markian characteristics are wanting in the latter. Take for ex- ample his frequent use of the word “straitway” (<00t¢). It oc- curs forty times in his Gospel—twenty-nine times in the first six chapters. It is not found in The Epistle to the Hebrews. Other distinguishing features are wanting. The contrast in composition is sO apparent that he has but few supporters. 4. LUKE. He was with Paul during the last months of his imprisonment (II Tim. iv:11). While he is nowhere mentioned in connection with the work at Ephesus, the fact that he was Paul’s traveling companion, and his biographer, allows for the assumption that he was with him during his three years’ ministry in that city. As to his authorship of The Epistle to the Hebrews, the same ob- jection applies as in the case of Mark, wiz., the difference in the style of writing. We have Luke’s Gospel and The Acts with which to make comparison, and the dissimilarity is so manifest as to discourage effort in his behalf. 5. APOLLOS. Here is one who, since the time of Luther, has received favorable DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 197 consideration. Modern scholars especially are disposed to lend him their support. In some respects he has advantage over others, but we must not overlook the fact that there are also adverse cir- cumstances, and they demand attention: With a single exception Apollos was not an outstanding char- acter in the Pauline churches. It is remarkable that, aside from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, his name appears but once in the Pauline writings. He is never joined with the Apostle in the superscriptions and never mentioned in the salutations. There is no. record that he was at any time his traveling com- panion. In all this there is proof that, apart from Corinth, his itinerancy was outside the Pauline area. Apollos came to Ephesus soon after the Apostle’s departure for Jerusalem. He left for Achaia before his return. The context seems to indicate that he was again in the city when Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians (xvi:12). Aside from these two occasions he is not mentioned in connection with the work at Ephesus. He certainly was not in the neighborhood of that city when the Apostle penned his Second Epistle to Timothy. Other- wise his name would appear in the salutations with that of “Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus.” After the reference in I Corinthians xvi:12, years elapse before we have further knowledge as to his whereabouts. Titus 11:13 he is mentioned in company with Zenas as on a journey to Crete. This is the only instance in which his name appears in the Pauline writings, out- side the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Some months after Apollos’ conversion to Christianity, and be- fore Paul’s return from Jerusalem, he left Ephesus and went to Corinth. His presence in the latter city caused commotion. He was a masterful dialectician, and “powerfully confuted the Jews”; his acceptability in the church was such as to create a party in his behalf, one faction saying: “I am of Paul,’ and another, “T, of Apollos.” The contention was such that he withdrew to Ephesus or its vicinity. Later when Paul “besought him much” to return to Corinth, “it was not at all his will” to go. Whether Apollos visited this church on a subsequent occasion is a matter for conjecture. There is no intimation of such occurrence in 198 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. It may be that his high regard for the Apostle, together with his former experience at Corinth, induced him to stand aloof from the Pauline churches. He was not a schismatic, and refrained thenceforth from build- ing “upon another man’s foundation.” That the two were on friendly terms is evident in Titus 111:13, but their fields of labor were apart. The absence of Apollos’ name from the Pauline manuscripts, with the exceptions noted, is not without significance. A further consideration. If Apollos wrote this Epistle we must account for his presence in Rome at the time of writing. He is never mentioned, in so far as the author of this volume can ascertain, in connection with the Christians of that city. This fact militates against the claims that are made in his behalf. 6. PRISCILLA AND AQUILA. We conjoin these names, not only because they were wife and husband, but also because they were co-laborers in the Gospel. We place the name of Priscilla first because this is the New Testament order. Priscilla and Aquila ranked next to Paul and Timothy in the church at Ephesus. When Paul departed from Corinth and em- barked for Syria, there accompanied him “Priscilla and Aquila . and they came to Ephesus, and he left them there” (Acts xvili:18, 19). During his brief stay in this city, Paul “entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.” When he again set sail for Syria, he committed the work to Priscilla and Aquila. When, a year or more later he returned he found a well organized congregation in Ephesus (Acts xviii:27). When he wrote his first letter to the Corinthians from that city, he sends greetings from Aquila and Prisca, “with the church that is in their house” (I Cor. xvi:19). Some time after the death of Claudius—54 a.p.—Aquila and Priscilla returned to Rome. Later we find them again in Ephesus. They were in this city when Timothy received his second epistle. Priscilla and Aquila were important factors in the life of the church at Ephesus. But how may we allow for the presence of this couple in DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 199 Rome at the time the Epistle to the Hebrews was written? Cer- tain facts claim our attention. Aquila and Priscilla were residents of Ephesus when Timothy received the Apostle’s last extant epistle, with its harrowing information of his approaching martyr- dom. Ona former occasion these devoted friends had “laid down their own necks” in his behalf (Rom. xvi:3, 4). Timothy, ac- companied by Mark, hastened to Rome. Is it insupposable that Aquila and Priscilla went with them? It is true we have no record to this effect, but it is also true that no event of that perilous journey is recorded. Aside from their devotion to the Apostle Paul, there were other influences that would draw Priscilla and Aquila to Rome at this particular crisis. On two former occasions they had resided in that city (Acts xvili:3; Rom. xvi:3). They had a large circle of friends in that community. Their home at one time had been the place of assembly for the Christian congregation (Rom. xvi:3-5). Under all these circumstances a brief sojourn on their part would not be an unaccountable event. No individual whose name has been proposed as the possible author of this letter had greater inducements to visit Rome at this particular period than Aquila and Priscilla. The fact that they were with Timothy in Ephesus when he started on the journey strengthens the probability that they accompanied him. 9g. The author of The Epistle to the Hebrews was well versed in Old Testament literature. How about Priscilla? For answer we have only to point to the fact that she was the chief expounder of “the way of God” unto Apollos. The teacher is supposed to equal if not surpass his pupil in knowledge. When Apollos came to Ephesus, although “he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus,” he knew “only the baptism of John” (Acts Xviii:25). “When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more ac- curately” (Acts xviii:26). Some months later he departed for Corinth. In the meantime he had made such progress in his knowledge of “the way of God” that on arrival in that city “he powerfully confuted the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” Who were his in- 200 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN structors? Not Paul—up to this time the two had not met— but Priscilla and Aquila. Need we other certification of their knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures with their Messianic types and prophecies? 10. A further test must be applied. The author of this letter to the Hebrews was acquainted with Philonian philosophy. One writer says: “The Epistle to the Hebrews differs from all other books in the New Testament in the representation of the Philonian philosophy throughout. The parallels are numerous and striking.” Bleek makes a list of twenty-two passages in which there is strong resemblance between them. This fact has induced many to support Apollos as the author of this Epistle. What can be said in favor of Priscilla at this point? We submit the following: In the year 40 A.D., Philo, “the great master of the Jewish- Alexandrian school,’ was chosen a member of the embassy sent to Rome in behalf of the Jews. This embassy remained in the city over half a year in a vain effort to secure an audience with the Emperor Caius Caligula. Now in all probability this embassy of Jews, charged with an important mission in the interests of their race, would, during this waiting time, be brought into close contact with the Jewish residents of Rome. This would afford Philo abundant opportunity to unfold his system of philosophy to his own countrymen, who in their turn would be eager to hear such renowned personage. All this occurred but ten years before the Emperor Claudius “commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome” (50 A.D.). Among the banished were Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii:2). Whether or no they resided in the city at the time of Philo’s visit is an open question. If so they were undoubtedly among his auditors. If, on the other hand, their arrival was subsequent to his sojourn, they could learn of his doctrines from such as had embraced his system of philosophy. But they had further op- portunity to acquaint themselves with the teachings of this cele- brated scholar. Apollos, the Alexandrian Jew, came to Ephesus during their first residence in that city. He was a “learned man” from the seat of Philonian philosophy. Some have gone so far as to adjudge him a pupil of Philo. When Priscilla and DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 201 Aquila heard him discoursing in the synagogue, they perceived his imperfect knowledge of the Christian doctrine, and “they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more - accurately.” The phrase “they took him unto them” may import more than a casual reader discerns. We have a similar expression (Acts xviii:3). It is said of Paul: “And he came unto them; and ... he abode with them.” Orientals were noted for their hospitality, and the clause “they took him unto them’ may signify that Apollos was invited into their home as a guest. Whether this be the case or not, those months of intimate association as teachers and disciple allowed for frequent interchange of thought on the merits of Philonian philosophy. 11. The author of The Epistle to the Hebrews was within the inner Pauline circle, and attached to Pauline theology. For months the Apostle was an inmate of the home of Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts xviii:2, 3,6). They were his traveling companions (Acts xviii:18). He calls them “fellow-workers” (Rom. xvi:3). He sends them greetings (Rom. xvi:3, II Tim. iv:19). In writing Priscilla’s name, the Apostle always uses the diminutive form “Prisca.” This was a home address and signified intimate friendship. The affectionate regard the Apostle manifested toward this couple was reciprocated. For his sake they “laid down their own necks” (Rom. xvi:4). That Priscilla and Aquila were attached to Pauline theology is quite evident from the fact that the Apostle names them as “fellow-workers,” and their field of labor was within the Pauline churches. 12. A scholar of marked ability and attainment. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Origen said: “The thoughts are wonderful, and not second to the acknowledged writings of Paul.’ Luther said: “Tt certainly is a wonderous fine epistle, which speaks in a mas- terly and solid way of the priesthood of Christ, and finely and fully expounds the Old Testament.” Of modern commentators, Edwards estimates it as “one of the greatest and most difficult books of the New Testament.” Dr. Philip Schaff eulogizes thus: “Tt is full of Pentecostal inspiration. Traceable to no Apostle, it teaches, exhorts, and warns with apostolic authority and power.” Delitzsch says: “The Epistle to the Hebrews has not its like 202 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN among the epistles of the New Testament.” Prof. D. A. Hayes says: “The most important single Epistle in the New Testament. . . . Distinguished by brilliant eloquence and euphonious rhythm.” Probably no epistle in the Scriptures has received so much laudation as this letter to the Hebrews. Now is it for a moment conceivable that a woman could be its author? ‘This question has been answered both in the affirmative and the negative. Dr. Adolph Harnack, one of the greatest scholars of the age, declares his belief that the Epistle to Hebrews was written by Priscilla. Moulton, Schiele, Peake, and Rendel Harris also incline to this view. Dr. D. A. Hayes, of Garret Biblical Institute, answers in the negative. He says: “We are disposed to doubt whether either Priscilla or her husband had sufficient culture to compose this Epistle, and we are disposed to question whether any woman in the Pauline circle would either have assumed or have been granted such a position of authority in the church as the author of this Epistle held” (The New Testament Epistles, p. 59). The last writer produces no proof whatever. He offers instead a gratuitous assumption. He is “disposed to doubt’; he is “dis- posed to question,” and this uncertain state of mind constitutes his argument. | As to Priscilla’s mentality and scholarly attainments, we point again to the fact that she was the chief instructor of Apollos; that she not only taught, but “expounded” Scripture to this man of cultured intellect. There is another matter to which the author of this volume attaches weight, viz., the placing, both by Paul and Luke, of Priscilla’s name before that of her husband’s. This is not a triviality. It has import. Aside from the matriarchy, and within the ranks of royalty, “since the world began it hath not been heard,” in so far as we know, except in the case before us, that a wife’s name should precede her husband’s. In every age and clime conventionality has decreed otherwise. Even at the present time, when sex prejudice is disappearing fast, a reversal of the usual order would cause surprise, and in all probabilty, un- favorable comment. In the Pauline age, women in general were known in their relation to some man, e. g., “Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses” (Mark xv:40). “The mother of DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 203 Zebedee’s children” (Matt. xxvii:56). “Joanna, the wife of Chu- zas, Herod’s steward” (Luke viii:3), e¢ al. If such be the case, how can we account for this remarkable innovation on the part of Paul and Luke, otherwise than to hold it a recognition of the super-ability of Priscilla? Not that her husband was mediocre—he was not. He was Paul’s “fellow- worker,” and one of Apollos’ instructors—but his wife was a woman of extraordinary endowment. Jerome (350-390 A.bD.) wrote a biographical work on the pre- eminent Christian women of his age. Among his contemporaries he names Marcella, who publicly preached the Gospel in Rome. He pays her this tribute: “All that I learnt with great study and long meditation, the blessed Marcella learnt also, but with great facility, and without giving up any of her other occupations, or neglecting any of her pursuits.” He adds: “Rome became Jeru- salem under the influence of Marcella.” He relates how diff- culties in translation were submitted to her, “and always we had reason to admire the correctness of her decision.” He writes of Paula (Vidua), a famous Hebrew scholar, and confesses that to her he referred the most difficult portions of his commentary on Ezekiel. He lauds Demetria as a “prodigy of sanctity’; and Fabiola as “the wonder of the ages.” He names other women, and declares that their fame can never perish. A like character was Priscilla. Tertullias records: “By the holy Prisca, the Gospel is preached.” Her fame was such that one of the oldest catacombs of Rome—the Coemeterium Priscil- lae, outside the Porta Salaria—was named in her honor. A church —“‘Titulus St. Prisca’’—was erected on the Aventine. It bore this inscription from the fourth to the eighth century. Later, Pope Leo III (795-816) ordered a change. Thenceforth it bore the name “Titulus Aquilae et Prisca.’ The name of Prisca is often met with in the monuments of Rome. There was a legendary writing known as “Acts of St. Prisca,” extant in the tenth cen- tury. A. C. Headlam says: “Prisca, in some way or other, oc- cupied a prominent position in the Roman church”; and again: “The traditions of the Roman church, where the name of Prisca 204 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN was of considerable importance, suggests the possibility of some interesting discoveries being made.” It was facts such as these, and maybe others yet unknown, that induced the Apostle Paul and the Evangelist Luke, to disregard the conventionalities of their own, preceding and succeeding ages, and four times out of six to place Priscilla’s name before her husband’s, 13. We come now to our final test. The author of The Epistle to the Hebrews was an individual of prominence and authority in the Primitive church. This would certainly apply to Priscilla as has already been shown. She was one of Paul’s co-laborers in the Gospel (Rom. xvi:3). She was known to “all the churches of the Gentiles” (Rom. xvi:4). In both Ephesus and Rome the home of Aquila and Priscilla was the assembly place for a Christian congregation. It can scarcely be expected that we would close this discus- sion without reference to the fact that The Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous. Prof. O. V. Harnack characterizes this as “an amazing fact.” Prof. D. A. Hayes says: “This is one of the strangest facts in all literature, that the author of so important a document as this should have left no trace of his name upon church history.” ... “It is strange enough that any epistle in the New Testament should be anonymous, but that this master- piece among the epistles should be anonymous seems doubly strange.” Almost every writer on this subject has commented on the unaccountability of this disappearance. No reason can be assigned. Explanations have been attempted, but their weak- ness is excusable only on the plea that there is nothing stronger to offer. One writer who champions the authorship of the Apostle Paul attributes the absence of his name to modesty on his part. But why more modest here than in his thirteen acknowl- edged epistles? In II Thess. iii:17 we read: “The salutation of me Paul with my own hand, which is the token in every epistle.” “In every epistle.’ Did the Apostle subsequently discontinue the signing of his letters, or was the Epistle to the Hebrews an ex- ception? Another explains the absence of the author’s name, whoever he be, on the ground that he was so well known that DURING INAUGURATION OF CHRISTIANITY 205 his signature was unnecessary. Was he better known than Paul, Peter, John, Jude, Luke and Mark, who attached their names to authenticate their writings? In every case where a man has been proposed as the author, the anonymity of this Epistle is inexplicable. It is otherwise with Priscilla. The absence of the name of the writer is a strong argument in her favor. The expurgation can easily be accounted for if she, or any other: woman, was the author. In the language of Dr. Ramsay: “The universal and Catholic type of Christianity became confirmed in its dislike of the prominence and public ministrations of women. This dislike became abhorrence, and there is every probability that the dislike is as old as the first century, and was intensified to abhorrence before the middle of the second century.” Dr. Gore, commenting on the Epistle to the Ephesians, p. 228, says: “In the early Christian church the influence of women was put to far nobler uses than in Asiatic cities. . . . In other parts of the Empire the women of the Christian Church were conspicuously in advance of those outside. In somewhat later days of the church there was some resentment at the high and free position assigned to women in the New Testament documents. Thus one celebrated MS. of the New Testament—the codex Bezee—changes ‘not a few of the honorable Greek women and men’ (Acts xvii:12) into ‘of the Greeks and the honorable, many men and women.’ In xvii:34 it cuts out “‘Damaris,’ and in xvii:4 it changes the ‘leading women,’ into ‘wives of the leading men.’ The spirit which prompted these changes in an early Christian scribe and reviser has not been wanting in much later ages, though it had not a chance of tamper- ing with our sacred text.” The prejudice that scrupled not to mutilate the New Testament manuscripts; to wrest Scripture to express thought foreign to the mind of the inspired writer; to change feminine names into masculine, as in Romans xvi:7, and Colossians iv:5; to reverse the order where the feminine preceded the masculine as in Acts xvili:26 (A. V.)—a prejudice which would do this and much 206 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN more would not hesitate to expurgate the name of Priscilla, or that of any other woman, from The Epistle to the Hebrews. The author of this volume does not claim that the data sub- mitted in this discussion aggregate a certainty as to the author of this Epistle—that can only be determined when archeologists have unearthed further treasure-tombs of the by-gone ages—but does insist that they constitute an array of circumstantial evidence that may not be brushed aside with the depreciatory comment: “We are disposed to question whether any woman in the Pauline circle would either have assumed, or have been granted such a position of authority in the church as the author of this Epistle held.” Never in the history of the Christian church did woman hold such high position, or take such prominent part in the propaga- tion of the Gospel as in the Apostolic age. It was only as the hier- archy gained in power that she was relegated to the background. Xx PETRINE (PREGERTS laid down rules and regulations concerning women— the Apostles Peter and Paul. The former is very brief in his treatment of the subject—seven verses of his First Epistle comprising all he has to say relative to the matter. The Pauline code is more extended and has to do with the domestic as well as the ecclesiastical status of woman. In the present chapter we confine ourselves to a study of the Apostle Peter’s teachings affecting the relationship of wife and husband. A critical review of any epistle requires first of all that it be placed in its proper setting. Certain matters must be brought into consideration: (a) The time of writing. (b) The persons ad- dressed. (c) General and local conditions. These all have a bearing on the contents, and ignorance here may invalidate our exegesis and lead to false conclusions. When Christ commissioned the Twelve to go forth and preach “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ He charged them, say- ing: “Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; no wallet for your journey; neither two coats, nor shoes; nor staff; for the laborer is worthy his food” (Matt. x:9, 10). When He sent forth the Seventy, He said to them: “Carry no purse, no wallet, no shoes: and salute no man on the way” (Luke x:4). Now here are explicit commands from the highest authority; yet today no Home or Foreign Board attempts to carry out this program in the sending forth of missionaries. Why? Because time has wrought changes in national boundaries; in laws and social customs, and made it inexpedient, if not impossible, to op- erate along the lines of nineteen hundred years ago. The spirit of the command is vital today, but “the letter killeth.” The best way 207 () the nine authors of the New Testament, but two have 208 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN in which to accomplish results nineteen hundred years ago may be the least effective in the present era, owing to the lapse of time and changed conditions. Also the persons addressed must be taken into consideration. Only a mental defective will hold that an athlete must regulate his food and exercise according to rules laid down for a weakling; that the curriculum of the scholar must relate to the capacity of the tyro: that the freeman of today must abide by an ethical code which bears the imprint of an autocratic age. “Circumstances alter cases” and at times demand a change of modus operandi. What is best under a given environment may be ill-advised under another. Martial law is a necessity in times of war, but an infringement of human rights when peace prevails. When Blackstone delivered his introductory lecture as Vinerian Professor at Oxford, he laid down the following rule concerning the interpretation of laws: “The most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the law itself ought likewise to cease with it” (Vol. I, p. 60). The casuistic utterances of the Apostles were, as often as other- wise, inseparably bound up with existing laws and local customs. All this must be borne in mind when we study the epistles. We must give them their proper setting; we must reckon with the environment of those addressed. The First Epistle of Peter was a message to “the elect, sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” “Dispersion” was a term applied to Jews dwelling outside Palestine. There are passages which would indicate that there were also Gentile converts among the addressed (i:14, 18; 11:10; iv:3). Such were probably proselytes to Judaism. The five provinces named were in Asia Minor and under Roman rule. The consensus of opinion seems to be that this Epistle was written at a late period in the Apostle’s life—some opine during the Neronian persecutions. This is disputed by the Tiibingen school. PETRINE PRECEPTS 209 The Epistle, in the main, is hortatory. There are continual ref- erences to trials. Dr. Gloag says: ‘““The time was come when judg- ment must begin at the house of God (iv:17). Christians were exposed to false accusations as malefactors (i1i1:16). They were liable to be dragged before heathen tribunals; they were called upon to give an answer (éroAoyta) for their faith (iii:15). They were reproached for the name of Christ, and were made par- takers with Him in His sufferings (iv:13, 14). Their Christianity was regarded as a crime” (iv:16). If the storm had not already broken, its mutterings were heard. On every hand were portents of woe. The mind of the author of this Epistle was filled with foreboding. A few leagues beyond stood the cross on which Himself would be crucified; the converts He addressed were passing through “fiery trial” (iv:12). The Apostle exhorts them to be “steadfast in the faith” (v:9) ; to com- mit their “souls in well-doing unto a faithful Creator” (iv:19g) ; he points to the sufferings of Christ, and entreats them to be armed “with the same mind” (iv:1); he enjoins them to lead ex- emplary lives, in order that their revilers may be put to confusion (111:16) ; he admonishes them to “be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (ii:13), and adds, ‘For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (ii:15) ; he charges household servants to regard the will of their masters (11:18); he appeals to wives to be deferential to their husbands (i11:1) and to husbands “in like manner” to dwell with their wives “according to knowledge” (11:7) ; he lays it upon the younger to be “subject unto the elder” (v:5) ; and finally he importunes all—master and servant, husband and wife; old and young—to “gird” themselves—as the slave girded himself with a white scarf or apron—“with humility to serve one another” (v:5); and all this “for the Lord’s sake” (11:13), “having a good conscience” that wherein they “were spoken against” their revilers might be “put to shame” by their “good manner of life in Christ” (iii:16). One of the charges brought against primitive Christianity, and which served as a cause for persecution, was that it taught wives to be disrespectful to their husbands, servants to rebel against 210 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN their masters, and children to disobey parents. Adherents were stig- matized as “busy-bodiesin other men’s matters” (dot etentoxor0<) There is reference to this charge in the Epistle, iv:15, “Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evil-doer, or as a meddler in other men’s matters.” The Apostle was concerned that they “abstain from all appearance of evil,’ that by well- ordered lives they “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.” It was a time of exigency; persecution was even now active or impending, and he would “cut off occasion” from them which desired occasion. Another fact that must be reckoned with was the laws under which these converts were living. The Patria Potestas regulated every Roman household. Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia were conquered provinces and governed by Roman en- actments. The Patria Potestas conferred on the father auto- cratic power over his dependents and descendants. He had life and death authority. He could inflict any punishment he willed on his slaves: “Under Roman law a man could kill his slave as he would kill a dog. One Roman nobleman used to cut up such of his slaves as broke dishes, and fed them to the lampreys in his pond. The slave had no protection whatever against his master’s avarice, anger, or lust.” “If a master was killed in his house, all the slaves could be put to death” (“The Wonderful Law,” p. 67.) ‘Tacitus, in his “Annals,” xii:42, relates how a bondservant, under great provocation, slew his master. The matter came be- fore the Senate. Cassius, the Stoic, defended the law, and six hundred slaves, all innocent, were put to death by order of the Roman Senate, to expiate the crime. By a constitution of Antoninus Pius (86-161 a.p.) the condi- tion of the slave was somewhat ameliorated. He could flee for refuge to the temple or to a statue of the emperor. If on in- vestigation it was shown that the master had used unrestrained violence, he could be compelled to sell his slave on equitable terms. The Patria Potestas conferred on the father life and death power over his descendants. In the “Institutes of Justinian,” Book i:ix, we read: “No other people have a power over their children such PETRINE PRECEPTS 211 as we have over ours.” ... “The child born to you and your wife is in your power. And so is the child born to your son of his wife, that is, your grandson or granddaughter; so are your great-grandchildren, and all your other descendants. But a child born to your daughter is not in your power, but in the power of its own father.” A Roman father could put his son to death or sell him into slavery. He could do the same with his son’s wife and children, and even grandchildren. According to the “Institutes of Justinian,” “children, natural or adoptive, have almost no means of com- pelling their parents to free them from their power” (Book I, sec. xii). The “Institutes of Justinian’ (527-565 A.D.) were declared to be.a mollification of previous law. The father had the legal right “During their whole life to imprison, scourge, keep to rustic labor in chains, to sell or slay, even though they may be in the enjoyment of high state officer” (Ortolan’s “History of Roman Law,’ p. 107). “If a father granted freedom to his son, that son was no longer a member of his family” (Eliza Burt Gamble— “The Sexes in Science and History,” p. 190). In order to bring the wife under the absolute power of her husband, she was held in law to be his daughter. Henry Summer Maine—Member of the Supreme Council of India and Regius Professor of Civil Law in the University of Cambridge, writing on this subject, says: “Anciently, there were three modes in which marriage might be contracted according to Roman usage, one involving a religious solemnity, the other two the observance of certain secular for- malities. By the religious marriage, or Confarreation; by the higher form of civil marriage, which was called Coemption; by the lower form which was termed Usus, the husband acquired a number of rights over the person and property of his wife, which were on the whole in excess of such as are conferred on him in any system of modern jurisprudence. But in what capacity did he ac- quire them? Not as husband, but as father. By Confarreation, Coemption, and Usus, the woman passed in manum viri—that is, in law she became the daughter of her husband. She was included in his Patria Potestas. She incurred all the liabilities springing 212 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN out of it while it subsisted and surviving it when it expired. All her property became absolutely his and she was retained in tutelage after his death to the guardian whom he appointed by will.” Letourneau, General Secretary to the Anthropological Society of Paris, and Professor in the School of Anthropology, in his “Evolution of Marriage,” p. 201, says: “To the Potestas of the father succeeded the Manus of the hus- band.” “The terrible right of Manus was acquired by the husband with every form of marriage.” “The Manus invested the husband with a large right of correction over his wife, though in very grave cases he was to assemble the family tribunal, which included the children of cousins-german. These family tribunals took cognizance even of murder committed by the wife, and they were still in use under the emperors. On the other hand, the Roman husbands did not let their legal right of beating their wives fall into desuetude, for Saint Monica consoled the wives of her ac- quaintance, whose faces showed marks of marital brutality, by saying to them: ‘It is the duty of servants to obey their masters . . . you have made a contract of servitude.’ ” St. Monica reminded these abused wives that they had made “a contract of servitude.’ In the “Evolution of Marriage,” by Letourneau, pp. 198, 199, we read: “Marriage of children, especially little girls, was the rule at Rome, since the nuptial majority of girls was fixed at twelve years, but they were often betrothed, even married, before that age.” ... The wife was still such a child that on the day of her wed- ding she took ceremonious leave of her playthings and dolls, offer- ing them up to the gods.” Who today would hold that a child of such age, under the coercive Patria Potestas, could make a “‘con- tract’? Now the First Epistle of Peter was addressed to converts facing, or already in the throes of persecution. Chapter iii:1-6 was an appeal to wives living in five Roman provinces and under the Patria Potestas and Manus Viri. Under the circumstances, the PETRINE PRECEPTS 213 Apostle offered the only wise counsel—submission. Resistance could avail them nothing; contrariwise, it would fan the fires of persecution. He would spare them, so he entreats them to be “subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake’”—servants to their masters—‘“‘not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward” ; wives in like manner to their own husbands “that even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives”; likewise the younger to “be sub- ject to the elder.” The marvel is not that the Apostle, under such circumstances, offered the foregoing counsel—he could scarce do otherwise— the astounding feature is that down through the centuries legis- lators have endeavored to hold wives in the terrible bondage of the Patria Potestas and Manus Viri; and that Christian clerics have labored assiduously to impress on the mind of womankind that such was the will of God concerning them. Time came when public sentiment demanded a majority age for the son; Christian civilization decreed the manumission of the slave; but to the pres- ent hour, common and canonical law hold that a wife can never be emancipated from the control of her husband. Hers must be a perpetual tutelage. A third fact that must come under review in our study of these Apostolic injunctions is the representative character of the Roman father and husband. While the Patria Potestas conferred such despotic power, it also imposed responsibility. The father was held accountable for the acts of his descendants. Theodore W. Dwight, Professor of Law at Columbia College, New York, says: “The power of the father imposed upon him a corresponding duty. He was liable for the wrongful acts of his son while under power. He had a representative ownership.” The same was true as regards the wife. Her legal status was that of daughter of her husband. She was included in his Patria Potestas. She was rated as his property, but his ownership was representative. He was chargeable for her offenses, both civil and criminal. In the eyes of the law she was a minor. Now to be made liable for the overt acts of another in equity demands that the person held accountable be invested with power 214 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN to restrain. So with these husbands. If they must answer for the conduct of their wives, justice required that they also have some right of supervision. In the foregoing facts, and in these alone, we have the explana- tion—the why and wherefore—of the Apostle’s entreaty to Chris- tian wives, resident in the five named provinces of Asia Minor, to submit themselves to their husbands. The author is well aware that this view is not in accord with that of the generality of commentators. Down through the cen- turies redactors, especially of the older school, have maintained that I Peter iii:1-6 was an iteration of the Divine purpose con- cerning woman; a reannouncement of a basic principle—rooted and grounded in elemental law. So much is involved in the proper determination of this ques- tion that we pause and ask these exponents of the Divine will to give us some assurance. The following is what they offer: First: They point with confidence to the priority of man’s creation. Here they find incontestable proof that God “From the beginning” decreed his supremacy over woman. Second: In the marked distinction accorded Adam in the naming of the brute creation there is further certification of his lordship. Third: That overworked passage—Genesis i11:16—is requisi- tioned to prove that the Almighty imposed a curse on womankind because of Eve’s initiatory part in the transgression. Even such as concede the equality of the sexes at creation hold Genesis iii:16 to be a decree of divestment. All these claims have been considered, and, we trust, refuted, in the first three chapters of this volume. There is no need for repetition here. In the foregoing array of arguments we have the substructure on which redactors build their claim that I Peter iii:1-6 is applicable to wives of all generations and under all circumstances. We challenge this conclusion. It rests on an insecure founda- tion. It sets at naught Genesis i:26-28. It contravenes the Divine plan. Furthermore, proponents of this doctrine place themselves in conflict with the Apostle Peter. It is reasonable to assume that PETRINE PRECEPTS 215 the author of an epistle is the best authority on the matter of address. He knows, better than others, to whom he writes. Now expositors in general have regarded the First Epistle of Peter as an encyclical letter to Christian believers in general. It is fre- quently referred to as “The First Epistle General of Peter.” We have the Apostle’s word to the contrary. The superscription reads: “Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” There is nothing ambiguous here. The statement is plain, definite, and should be decisive. We have no right to assume that the Apostle misdirected this Epistle. He knew what he was doing, and we tamper when we add to, or take from this superscription. The Second Epistle of Peter was general; ad- dressed “to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.’’ This makes it an encyclical letter to the entire body of believers. Not so the First Epistle; it is restricted “to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,.” Another fact that must not be overlooked is this: While exposi- tors have strenuously maintained that I Peter iii:1-6 is grounded on a primal decree of the Almighty, or have sought to rivet it to Genesis 111:16,—“Thy desire shall be unto thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’—the Apostle himself has nothing to say along this line. He makes no mention of such decree; there is no refer- ence, on his part, to Eve’s transgression. Expositors have deemed the relation of these two passages a matter of vital importance; they have kept it in the forefront; they have passed it on from generation to generation, but the Apostle Peter, in penning this message to these wives of Asia Minor, neglected to enlighten them as to the basal principle—according to these commentators—on which his exhortation is founded. This silence on the part of the Apostle leaves room for question. One begins to query if, after all, these interpreters of Scripture may not be in error; if their claim be aught else than gratuitous assumption. ; A careful review of the First Epistle of Peter shows beyond 216 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN peradventure that the Apostle’s plea is grounded solely on. “the present distress.” He minds these converts of “the fiery trial” that is come upon them to prove them; that they are now “put to grief in manifold temptations” ; that their enemies are on the alert; that they are under surveillance; he stresses the need of caution and urges “that by well-doing” they “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men”; he assures afflicted servants, suffering wrong- fully, of a “recompense of reward”; he enheartens wives in bond- age under the Patria Potestas and Manus Viri with a hope of leading unbelieving husbands into an acceptance of “the truth as it is in Jesus.” Not a word about the Creation and the Fall: he makes no mention of generations to come. He is dealing with “the present distress” and counseling these converts how to meet it. He incites and encourages them to faithfulness by the example of Christ and the promise of eternal reward. There is a further fact that must be reckoned with. If, as commentators of the older school have held, I Peter iii:1-6 is bind- ing on subsequent generations; if it is an entailment, then we must face the fact that I Peter 11:13, and 11:18, are entailments also. We cannot generalize the one and restrict the others as to time and place. We cannot abjure the “divine right of kings” and hold to the “divine right” of husbands; we cannot manumit the slave and drive an awl through the ear of the wife. The same hand that wrote: “Wives be in subjection to your own husbands,” wrote also: “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors as sent by him.” “Fear God, Honor the king.” “Servants be in sub- jection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is acceptable, if for con- science toward God a man endureth griefs, suffering wrongfully.” If the Apostle Peter wrote, not only for his own generation and to meet an emergency, but for all time regardless of circumstances, then rebellion against despotic government is revolt against God, and all anti-slavery agitation is contravention of the Divine will. Down through the centuries despots and their supporters have wrested passages such as these from their contexts, and used them PETRINE PRECEPTS 217 to suppress the right of the individual in the home, church, and state. We come now to the text, I Peter iti:1-6, “In like manner (6u0tws) ye wives be in subjection (drotaccéuevoat) to your own husbands; that if any obey (éxe:Ootdctv) not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; be- holding your chaste behavior with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; but the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner aforetime the holy women also, who hoped in God, adorned them- selves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed (Sxnxovev) Abraham, calling him lord: (xdprov) whose children ye now are, if ye do well, and are not put in fear by any terror.” The introductory word—éwotwc—rendered, “in like manner,” or “likewise,” associates this passage with something that precedes —either ii:13 or 11:18. If to the former, the reading would be: “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake... . In like manner wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.” In this relation, the import of the injunction would be, that as subjects of the state, these converts should submit to the laws of the government—even though such laws be harsh and oppressive. They should do this “for the Lord’s sake’—for the honor and advancement of Christ’s kingdom. Even so, “in like manner” and for the same reason, wives are enjoined to submit themselves unto their own husbands. The law of the government under which they lived placed them in subordinate relation—Submit “for the Lord’s sake,” and the Apostle adds further incentive—the possibility of winning unbelieving husbands to Christ. If duolws relates the injunction to ii:18, we have the following : “Servants be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. . . . In like man- ner ye wives be in subjection to your own husbands.” “Jn like manner’ —that is, with the abjectness of a servant. It is a satisfaction to know that the majority of exegetes relate 218 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN this passage to ii:13. However, there are exceptions. Some, perhaps due to their habit of thought, associate it with ii:18. We need to have a care here lest we involve ourselves in difficulty. This word 6uofws occurs in two other passages in this Epistle. We find it in i11:7 and v:5. Here, too, it must have an antecedent. If we relate iii:1 to ii:18, we cannot go further back to find an antecedent for iii:7. We cannot play leapfrog in exegesis. If we attach iii:1—“in like manner ye wives’—to ii:18—“servants be in subjection to your masters,” then we must find the antecedent of iii:7, “Ye husbands in like manner” (éyotws) in iii:t or ii:18. There is no escape, and in either case we have forced these husbands into servile relationship. “In like manner” as servants are subject to their masters “with all fear,’ even so are husbands to honor their wives “wth all fear, not only the good and gentle, but also the froward.” If we find the antecedent in iii1:1, we have the fol- lowing palatable deliverance, “in like manner ye wives’’—that is, in the manner of servants toward their masters—“be in subjection to your own husbands.” ... “Ye husbands in like manner’— that is, as servants toward masters—“dwell with your wives accord- ing to knowledge, giving honour unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life.” We encounter a like difficulty when we come to v:5. If we relate i1i:1 to 11:18, then we must find the antecedent of v:5 in 11:18, iii,:1 or iii:7. The reader may take his choice, but the author of this volume prefers to make ii:13 the antecedent of all these passages, “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.”” Citizens to the state, servants to masters, wives to hus- bands, the younger to the elder, and husbands to honor their wives, and to dwell with them “according to knowledge’—and all “for the Lord’s sake.” “In like manner ye wives be in subjection (Sxotaccéuevar)to your husbands.” A better rendering of this passage would be, “In like manner wives submit yourselves,” or “subject yourselves to your own husbands.” The Apostle uses this verb bxotécow in his in- junction to converts in general (ii:13); to household servants (41:18) ; to wives (iii:1) ; to the younger church members (v:5) ; PETRINE PRECEPTS 219 but with a noticeable change of tense and voice. In ii:13 and v:5 we find the second aorist, passive—brotaynte—“Be subject”; in 11:18 and iii:1, the present tense and middle voice—brotaccémevat —“subject yourselves.” Shall we attribute this change of tense and voice to inadvertency on the part of the Apostle, or shall we conclude there is import? We must concede there is distinction between enforced and voluntary submission. The one implies external pressure, the other inward prompting. Whether the Apostle wrote wittingly or unwittingly, there is a difference between Onotaynte and brotaccéuecvat. In the first there is recognition of an external authority; in the second, this is absent. When the author of this epistle wrote: “Be subject (Sxotdynt¢), to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake”; also, “Likewise ye younger be subject (dxotéyyte) unto the elder,” therewas recog- nition of external authority—an authority inherent in state and church. It was otherwise when he addressed the wives and house- hold servants. He changes from the second aorist to the present tense and from the passive to the middle voice. There is, on the Apostle’s part, no acknowledgment of a master’s right to hold in subjection a fellow-creature, nor of a husband’s right to constrain his wife. The authority possessed by the master and the husband was not inherent, but adventitious; so the Apostle appeals to these wives and household servants to make, not an enforced, but volun- tary surrender—in the language of Phillips Brooks, to exercise “the higher right of giving up one’s right”—“for the Lord’s sake.” As further incentive to this voluntary yielding, the Apostle holds before the minds of these Christian wives a hope of winning unbe- lieving husbands to an acceptance of “The truth as it is in Jesus.” That even if any (tve ¢% ttves) obey not the word, they may with- out the word be gained by the behavior of their wives (iii:1). The most effective sermon is a godly life. A young man, when asked under whose preaching he was converted, replied, “I was con- verted under my uncle’s practicing.” During a revival in Chicago an infidel went forward for prayer. Facing the audience he said, “For years I have been an unbeliever, but the consistent life of my Christian wife has convinced me that she has something I have 220 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN not. I want what she has, and I believe she has religion—pray for me,” and he knelt at the altar. Instances such as these could be cited by the thousands. The Apostle Peter encouraged these Christian wives to make personal sacrifice, to exercise “the higher right of giving up one’s right,” in order that they might win unbelieving husbands. “That even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behaviour of their wives; beholding your chaste behaviour with fear.” Into this last clause translators have inserted a word not found in the Greek—the word “coupled,” making the passage read, “Be- holding your chaste behaviour coupled with fear.” This word was inserted to express a thought in the mind of the translators— namely, that the fear here spoken of was on the part of the wife. But this is by no means certain. The fear, or reverence, may have been on the part of the husband in beholding the “chaste behaviour” of his wife. Such effect has often been produced in the mind of an irreligious person when brought into association with a saintly individual. Stanley was awed by the godly life of Livingstone; a skeptic, thrown for a brief period into society with Fenelon, declared himself unable to remain longer without becoming a Christian. The passage before us, without emendation by the translators, reads: “Beholding your chaste behaviour with fear” (énontetcavtes thy év p6Bw dyviy dvactoophy budy). The ques- tion is—is the éxoxteUcavtes (beholding) in the sphere of fear? or is the &vacteogyy (behavior) in the sphere of fear? (thy éy goBw). The arrangement of the Greek would indicate the former. It is gratifying to know that the majority of commentators who attribute the fear to the wife make it the fear of God rather than the fear of the husband. This harmonizes the passage with the last clause of i11:6—“are not put in fear by any terror.” In the estimation of the author of this volume it would be far better to translate this passage as it stands in the Greek without emendation, which expresses only the opinion of translators. “Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel: PETRINE PRECEPTS 221 but the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (iii :3, 4). It is an indisputable fact that down through the ages mankind in general, and lawmakers and religious leaders in particular, have manifested lively interest in the manner and style of woman’s dress. On the other hand, they have shown almost no concern as to the apparel of their own sex. The prophet Isaiah, 700 B.c., had something to say on this subject. He was a habitué of a palace and a student of affairs about him, and left to posterity this inven- tory of the habiliments of the women of his age: “‘anklets,” “‘cauls,” “crescents,” “pendants,” ‘‘bracelets,’ “mufflers,” ‘“‘headtires,” “ankle-chains,”’ “sashes,” “perfume-boxes,” “amulets,” “rings,” “nose-jewels,’ “festival robes,” “mantles,” “shawls,” ‘‘satchels,” “hand-mirrors,” “fine linen,” “turbans,” “veils,” “girdles,” and “well-set hair” (i1i1:18-24). Solon, Athenian sage and lawgiver, 638 B.c., wrestled with the problem of woman’s attire; Marcus Porcius Cato, 234 B.c., harangued the Roman Senate on this weighty theme. Church fathers and prelates, “after the manner of men,’ made pronounce- ments on this grave question. The leaders of some religious sects have fixed the style of woman’s dress and the manner in which she should arrange her hair; and, in doing so, have usually suc- ceeded in making her appear outlandish. The Apostles, Paul and Peter, were not inattentive to the mat- ter of woman’s attire; the latter especially appreciated its impor- tance. A reference to iii:5 will reveal the extent of his investiga- tion—back to the Patriarchal age. “Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel” (11:3). This passage, like many another mandate of Scripture, has at times been misconstrued. Some religious sects have under- stood it to be a prohibition of “the plaiting of the hair, or the wearing jewels of gold.” Fortunately, their literalism carried them no further, otherwise it would have compelled them to also interdict the “putting on of apparel.” The Apostle Peter was not condemning personal adornment— 222 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN 99 66 “the plaiting of the hair,” “the wearing jewels of gold,” or the arraying of one’s self in becoming attire—he was only counseling these Christian wives not to make these externals their main fea- ture of attractiveness; there was something more substantial— the inward charm—the charm of mind; “The hidden man of the heart”; “The incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” This should be their chief concern. “For after this manner aforetime the holy women also who hoped in God adorned themselves, subjecting themselves (dnotaccéuevat) to their own husbands; as Sarah obeyed Abra- ham, calling him lord” (iii:5, 6). The Apostle here sets before the mind of the readers an interest- ing example of conjugal fidelity—“as Sarah obeyed (bxxovev) Abraham, calling him lord” (xJUetoy). The word rendered in this passage “obey” is the Greek word btaxotw. Its primary definition is “to listen, hearken’” (Thayer’s “Greek-English Lexicon,” p. 638). Of the noun dxaxoq formed from this verb Uraxobw, the same lexicographer says: “The word is not found in profane authors; nor in the Septuagint, except in I] Samuel xxi1:36 with the sense of favorable hearing; in II Sam- uel xxili:23 Aq. we find 6 éxt braxohy tives, Vulgate, qui alicui est a secretis, where it bears its primary and proper signification of listening.’ (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 637.) If translators had adopted the primary import of Sraxobw in I Peter i1:6, the rendering would be—“as Sarah listened,’ or, “as Sarah hearkened” unto Abraham. Instead of this, they chose the secondary meaning, making the passage read—‘“as Sarah obeyed Abraham.” We turn now to Genesis xxi:12 and find this record: “And God said unto Abraham . . . in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken (yaw) unto her voice.” This word also has a primary and a derivative import—primary, “to hear,” “to hearken” ; derivative, “to obey” (Gesenius: “Hebrew and English Lexicon,” p. 1086). Yraxotdw and yw are cognates; the im- port of the one is the import of the other. The primary meaning of both is—“hearken”; the ‘derivative signification of both is PETRINE PRECEPTS 223 “obey.” If the translators had passed over the primary meaning of the verb yow in Genesis xxi:12, and adopted the secondary, as in I Peter ii1:6, this passage—Genesis xxi:12—would read: “And God said unto Abraham... in all that Sarah saith unto thee, obey her voice.” Ynaxotw is found in Acts xii:13 and is there translated in the Authorized Version—“‘hearken’”—and in the Revised Version— “answer.” ‘The word also appears in Romans x:16 and is rendered “obey” by King James translators, and “hearken” by both the English and American revisers. Why did the translators choose the primary rendering—“heark- en’’—in the case of Abraham, and the secondary rendering—‘“obey”’ —in the case of Sarah? Fairness would have required like treat- ment. Either both verbs should have the primary translation, or both the secondary. In the former the reading would be: “In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice,” and: “Sarah hearkened unto Abraham’; in the latter, “In all that Sarah saith unto thee, obey her voice’—and “Sarah obeyed Abra- ham.” Sex discrimination in the handling of God’s word is reprehensible, and is a sure index of a prejudiced mind. Sarah was no servile spouse. When occasion required, she as- serted herself with a resoluteness that accomplished her purpose. In view of this fact, if for no other reason, StaxoUw in I Peter iii:6 should have its primary rendering—“hearken.” The Apostle Peter further informed his readers that this ex- emplary wife called her husband “lord.” Sarah hearkened unto Abraham “calling him lord” (xJerov). There was nothing obse- quious in this. It was the usual form of address to a person in Abraham’s position. He was a great chief. The children of Heth said to him: “My lord; thou art a prince of God among us” (Gen. xxili:6); his “substance was great” (Gen. xiii:6) ; he “was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. xiii:2) ; “he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen” (Gen. xiv:14). The probabilities are that every- one that approached Abraham addressed him as “my lord.” Aside from all this, “my lord” was the conventional address to any esteemed individual. Jacob, on his return from Padan-Aram, met 224 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN his brother Esau, and greeted him as “my lord” (Gen. xxxiii). Aaron, in his appeals to Moses, called him “my lord” (Ex. Xxxii:22; Num. xii:11). All through the Old Testament we meet with this form of address. It was usual in the time of Christ. When the Samaritan woman conversed with Jesus at Jacob’s well, although she regarded Him at first as but a strolling Jew, she called Him “lord,” (xdete) (John iv:11). The impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, though he “knew not who it was,” said to Jesus, “lord (xUere) I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool” (John v:7). When the Greeks accosted Philip, they called him “lord”—‘“Lord (xtete) we would see Jesus” (John xii:21). When Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on the morning of the Resurrection, “she, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto him, ‘lord’ (xJete), if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him’ (John xx:15). The Philippian jailer addressed Paul and Silas as “lords’—“lords (xdetot) what must I do to be saved?” (Acts xvi:30). The Apostle John, in his Second Epistle, uses this word twice in the feminine. “The elder to the elect lady” (xtera). “And now I beseech thee, lady” (xJeta). The point we emphasize is this: “lord’’ was a conventional ad- dress, expressive of respect. In the case of Sarah it meant no more than for a wife of today to call her husband—‘“mister”—for “mister” is derivative from “master”; but such thought is not in the mind of the wife when she so addresses her husband. When a man accosts a neighbor or acquaintance as Mr. So-and-So, he is far from conceding that one’s right to rule over him. In time not far removed, correspondents signed themselves—“Your obe- dient servant”; “Your humble servant,” etc. President Lincoln was wont to thus subscribe himself when writing to members of his Cabinet. Today custom decrees that we address comparative strangers as “Dear Sir’; ‘““My Dear Madam,” etc. No one holds such expressions to be terms of endearment. “Respectfully yours,” “Sincerely yours” are not regarded as tokens of self-sur- render. All these are conventional phrases, and are not rated at face value. PETRINE PRECEPTS 225 We know from Sacred Writ that Sarah was no obsequious spouse. She called her husband “lord” because it was the custo- mary address to a person of his standing. He, on the other hand, called her “Sarah,” which means—“princess.” If the reader will turn to our English Versions of the New Testament, he will find that in the passages cited—John iv:11; V:7, 133 Xi1:21; xx:15; Acts xvi:30—the translators have ren- dered xdotoc “sir” instead of “lord.” This is due to the fact that after the Resurrection a sacredness was attached to the term “lord” on account of its association with Jesus Christ. Because of this the rendering, “sir,’”’ was adopted where the address was to a human being. Why did the translators of the New Testa- ment depart from this rule when they came to I Peter iii:6? Why make an exception here? Why not, in conformity to their custom, render xUeto¢g “sir,” instead of “lord,” making the passage read: “as Sarah hearkened unto Abraham, calling him ‘sir’ ”’? The Apostle Peter’s exhortation to wives is followed by an in- junction to husbands: “Ye husbands, in like manner (dyolws) dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor (ttunv) unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel (dcfeveotéo w oxevet), as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered” (I Peter iii:7) (R.V.). The Authorized Version renders: “giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel.” Alford makes 6yotws here refer back to 11:17, “Honour all men, Love the brotherhood, Fear God, honour the king.” Meyer, on the other hand, finds its antecedent in 11:13. “Be subject to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake.” He says “Verse iii:7, éuotws, with the participle following, refers back, as in ili:1, to Uxotaynte ta&on &vVOow xtloet, with which the exhortation begins; though there is no bxotaccéuevot (cf. 11:18, iti:1) there lies some- thing corresponding to it in the fact that the wife on her part possesses a tt to be acknowledged by the husband.” “Dwell with your wives according to knowledge.” Of this Meyer says: “In an intelligent and reasonable manner.” 226 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “Giving honour (ttwhy) unto the wife” (A. V.). “Giving honor (ttuny) unto the woman” (R. V.). The word ttuy, translated “honor,” is of noble import. It means more than “esteem” or “respect.” These are states of mind. “Honor” is an attitude of mind expressed in conduct. It has subjective and objective influence. Furthermore, it implies recognition or valuation of worth in its object. The Apostle enjoins these husbands, not only to esteem their wives, but to manifest the same in their behavior. There must be, not only inward appreciation, but also outward recognition of their value. Wordsworth says of honor: “’Tis the finest sense of justice which the human mind can frame.” Webster says: “A token of esteem paid to worth”; “A nice sense of what is right, just, and true, with course of life correspondent thereto.” “As unto the weaker vessel” (d&cBeveotéom oxedet). In what sense is woman weaker than man? Certainly not from a moral or religious viewpoint. For ages mankind has accredited woman with being the “better half” of the race, and statistics seem to justify the tribute. We are told that from three-fourths to four-fifths of the inmates of penal institutions are males. This is the more remarkable when we take into consideration the unfavorable eco- nomic conditions under which women have labored. Joseph Cook, after depicting the deplorable lot of the wage-earning woman of his day, exclaimed with fervor: “How many men are there today in Boston who would starve to death for the sake of being vir- tuous ?” Women preponderate numerically in all branches of the church. They are more active in philanthropic and eleemosynary enter- prises. Even in heathen lands they are more responsive to the appeals of religion. While the Bible makes no such distinction, men in all ages have set the moral standard higher for women than for their own sex. This is tacit admission on their part of the moral superiority of women. Whether this higher development is due to environment or is constitutional, we are not prepared to say. We are dealing solely with the fact. Is woman mentally inferior to man? For ages this was held PETRINE PRECEPTS 22'7 as axiomatic. It was taken for granted that man excelled in the realm of intellect. He confidently announced his superiority, then stood guard over the institutions of learning, lest woman should enter and disprove his assumption. Today there is reversal—at least in part—of this attitude. Doors are unbarred, academic halls are open, and in every department of science and of art woman is proving herself a formidable competitor. Even in highest institutions of learning she is walking off with prizes. In 600 B. c., Athens unfettered one of her five classes of women —the hetaira. These emancipated members of the sex “culti- vated all the graces of life.” They also trained the intellect. Among them were individuals who achieved renown as poets, philosophers and rhetoricians. During the long period of her sequestration, when the world frowned on the education of woman, ever and anon the talent within her asserted itselfi—at times in association with some man, who relieved her of odium by appropriating to himself the honors of her achievements. We live in a different at- mosphere today. In this era, a large proportion of mankind are willing to be just to woman—some are even generous. General Lew Wallace frankly declared that he could never have written “Ben Hur” without the assistance of his wife. M. Curie refused the red ribbon because it was not also tendered to Madame Curie, who had more to do with the discovery of radium than he himself could claim. In times agone the size and weight of woman’s brain in com- parison to that of man’s, had an interesting place in the discussion of her mentality. Some years ago Dr. Hammond disturbed school boards and regents of colleges considering the admission of women on equal footing with men, by announcing nineteen marks of dif- ference between the male and female brain. The matter was brought to the attention of Dr. Spitzka, the most eminent authority on the question in America. The following is his reply in sub- stance: He declared the aforesaid “marks,” in the main, an as- sumption; that no man could tell the male from the female brain by inspection alone; that the assumed points of difference did not necessarily indicate inferiority in the female, and that as a matter 228 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of fact, no man living could locate sex peculiarities in the human brain. This great anatomist also reminded his interrogator that great inequality had existed in the treatment of the subject; that up to that time the brain of no prominent woman had been tested. “We are pitting,’ he said, “the contents of Webster’s mighty cranium against the brain of the female tramp, whose body re- mains unclaimed in the charity hospital,’ and added, “Even then the average difference in weight between the male and female brain is but one hundred grammes. However, weight does not figure, as the difference between Gambetta and Cromwell, both statesmen, was nine hundred grammes.” To Dr. Hammond’s statement that the specific gravity of the female brain is less than that of the male, Dr. Spitzka made this trenchant answer: “It is known that in old age and dementia the specific gravity of the brain increases.” In the “Literary Digest” of March 27, 1897, is an article under the caption—“Is Woman’s Brain Inferior to Man’s?” We quote the following: “In a recent issue of ‘Self Culture,’ Dr. H. S. Drayton tells us that while woman’s brain is smaller than man’s, it is larger in proportion to the total weight of the body, and is more finely or- ganized, so that, in his opinion, honors are about even. Says Dr. Drayton: “ “At the outset it can be said that, so far as the construction of the brain elements in themselves is concerned, there is nothing that warrants opinion regarding any defect as such to be set to the account of woman. “*There are some authorities who claim that on the score of quality, on.the fineness and delicacy of her general constitution, woman may assert a comparative superiority. Professor G. B. Bruhl of Vienna, for instance, in his paper on Woman’s Brain, Woman’s Mind, appears to think that the absence of difference in their tissue elements implies the absolute equality of the sexes. “If we were to limit ourselves to the question of weight or size alone in the attempt to determine mental capacity, great injustice would be done. Yet there are many physiologists, or writers on brain-capacity, who stickle for the four or five ounces of over- weight in the male brain as a positive determination of its su- PETRINE PRECEPTS 229 periority, and apparently forget that in all examinations of nerve property, its structure as to quality and health should be taken into consideration. “In typical womanhood the general physiology is smaller and finer, the nervous system especially being more delicate and sym- metrical. In proportion to her weight, however, the brain of woman is somewhat heavier, so that putting the two things to- gether, it may be claimed as a reasonable conclusion, and not a concession of gallantry, that woman, so far as the brain and nervous system are concerned, is very nearly, if not absolutely, upon the same plane with her masculine counterpart.’ ” Professor Ludwig Btichner says: “Neither the chemical nor the physical examination of the brain by means of the microscope has yet shown any real difference between the two species of brain by which any distinction of functional capacity can be discovered.” In all discussions as to the relative mental caliber of men and women, another fact must not be overlooked. For ages man has had encouragement in the training of the intellect, while woman has, until recently, had obstacles piled in her pathway. Readers may recall when it was said of a woman of marked ability—“She has a man’s head.” One writer delivered himself after this fashion: “Now and then we meet a woman with a man’s head, but it is an unfortunate thing for the woman.” The author of this volume believes in “the eternal feminine” and agrees in part with the aforesaid writer. We can conceive of nothing more unfortunate than “a woman with a man’s head,” except it be a man with a blockhead. “Giving honor unto the woman as unto the weaker vessel.” Most modern commentators agree that the weakness here spoken of is physical. If it is not moral, spiritual, or mental, it must of necessity be physical. Woman is inferior to man in muscular development; he is the stronger vessel. Of course his greater opportunity for training must be taken into consideration. Her indoor life has been against woman. In heathen lands she has been imprisoned in zenanas and harems. In the ranks of the poor she has been an overworked beast of burden. Even in civilized lands, until recently, custom decreed that she be sequestered in the home. 230 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN From earliest childhood girls were taught they must not romp and play as their brothers; they must not be “tomboys.” Girls of today are allowed larger freedom and the results are visible. The gymnasium and outdoor sports have wrought for their physical development; but when all has been done in the way of training, the fact remains that the average woman is no match for the average man when it comes to a trial of muscle. _ There are exceptional individuals on both sides, but this does not invalidate the rule. The young woman of ancient Sparta enjoyed unusual advantages in the way of physical training, but in general the Spartan youth was stronger than the Spartan maiden. That this difference is not due solely to environment, but is constitutional, is proven by the fact that this same law prevails in the animal kingdom. Among beasts the male is stronger than the female. Man excels in muscular development, but the law of compensa- tion operates. Woman exceeds in vitality. Her power of re- sistance to disease is greater than man’s; she can survive a shock that would be his undoing. Insurance statistics prove that women in general are longer lived than men. In computation, allowance must be made for hazards that attend masculine vocations, but these are in a measure offset by the perils incident to parturition. Woman was not built for the heavier tasks of life. This is evident from the fact that she is not “armed and engined for the same.” She is less vigorous than man; is of finer texture; her anatomical structure is more complex ; her contour more symmetri- cal; her nervous system more delicate and sensitive. Hers the holy office of motherhood. At creation “Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Gen. ii:15). His ap- portioned task, to grapple with physical forces. “And the man called his wife’s name Eve” (mim—Life) “because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. iii:20). Hers to enfold and nourish spiritual beings entrusted to her bosom. Man, because of his superior brawn, is in the order of nature, woman’s defender—her warder from physical harm. But again the law of compensation operates. In the realm of morals, woman PETRINE PRECEPTS 231 takes precedence; she stands erect where man succumbs. He is her knight in armor when physical danger threatens; she is his good angel when the forces of evil bombard the soul. Charles Hanson Towne, in his poem entitled, “Woman,” writes: “Oh, little woman heart, be glad, be glad, That you are what God made you! Well I know How you have nerved me when the day was sad, And made me better—yea, and kept me so! * * * * “A silent influence to whose source I trace The little good there ever was in me. “To be a woman, is there any more That you have need to be from day to day? How wonderful to have your heart, your store Of purity and goodness, and to say: ‘One that I love is nobler since I came; One that loves me is better for my sake?’ ”’ Men of the nobler sort have ever paid tribute to the refining, purifying influence of a true woman. She is an inspirational force in man’s life. The presence—yea, even the memory, of a loving mother or wife has made many a man invulnerable to the poisoned darts of his foe. In general, man apart from the whole- some society of woman, lowers his standard of living. In the Divine economy the sexes are complementary. The weakness of the one is the strength of the other. They are mutually helpful: Man, woman’s defender in the hour of physical strife; Woman, man’s support when the moral battle wages. XI PAULINE DECRETALS: DOMESTIC STATUS: OB WOMAN storm center in every controversy over the domestic and ecclesiastical status of woman. Opponents in particular have exalted these writings to first place in every discussion of the subject, and their author to the position of supreme arbiter of every mooted question. Genesis 111:16 and the Pauline epistles are the “stock in trade” of such as seek to stay woman from the path of progress, and to perpetuate her age long restrainment; of such as hold with Chaucer: NOR nineteen centuries the Pauline epistles have been the “Women are born to thraldom and to penance, And to be under man’s governance” ; or with Dryden: “He shall rule, and she in thralldom live.” Genesis 1ii:16 has already received consideration, and we now turn to the writings of the great Apostle to the Gentiles. Thirteen epistles—omitting Hebrews—are accredited to this author. In five of these—I Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, I Timothy, and Titus—the Apostle legislates on the question under discussion. For convenience we arrange his decretals under two heads— First, such as have to do with the marriage relation—husband and wife. Second, his rulings concerning woman’s position in the church. The former is the theme of the present chapter. We will study these writings in their chronological order, in so far as such can be determined. As to the time when these several documents were written, chief authorities are at agreement in assigning them dates within the Neronian period. Persecution was rife or impending. It is further to be noted that they were addressed to churches or indi- 232 PAULINE DECRETALS 233 viduals within the bounds of the Roman Empire, where the relation- ship of husband and wife was predetermined by the State in the law of Patria Potestas and Manus Viri. In general, the Apostle Paul, in writing these epistles, faced the same conditions as con- fronted the Apostle Peter when he wrote to the “Elect,” “So- journers of the Dispersion,” in Asia Minor. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS In the order adopted, the First Epistle to the Corinthians _ becomes the object of our study. Our first task here is to dif- ferentiate between inspired and uninspired utterances. We are not in accord with redactors who hold that every deliverance of an Apostle was under the Divine inflatus; especially do we dissent from such claim when the writer of the epistle assures his readers to the contrary. The Apostle himself was the best judge as to inspiration, and when he records: “But to the rest say I, not the Lord” (vii:12); “I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give my judgment” (vii:25), he avers his lack of spiritual illumi- nation, and we accept his words at face value. F. W. Robertson, in his “Expository Lectures,” says: “The whole of the seventh chapter of the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians is occupied with some questions of casuistry. ... There are, however, two great divisions into which these answers generally fall. St. Paul makes a distinction between those things which he speaks by commandment and those which he speaks only by permission; there is a distinction between what he says as from the Lord, and what only from himself; between that which he speaks to them as being taught of God, and that which he speaks only as a servant, ‘called of the Lord and faithful’” (p. 116). He says further: “The duty must be stated, not universally, but with reference to those circumstances.” Drane says: “He is speaking in accordance with his own judg- ment, not giving a command of Christ” (p. 115). “The whole of the rest of this chapter (I Cor. vii:12-40) is, as the Apostle himself tells us, his own opinion” (p. 116). Beet, commenting on vii:25, says: “‘I give my opinion, refus- ing to speak with apostolic authority. This by no means proves 234 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN that when he claims this authority, as in verse 17 and xiv :37, his words are not absolutely binding. It rather proves that he could measure the degree to which he was enlightened by the Spirit” (DAT 29) Dr. Hodge says: “ ‘I have no commandment of the Lord,’ that is, neither Christ Himself, nor the Spirit of Christ, by Whom Paul was guided, had commissioned him to do anything more than counsel these persons. He was inspired, or led by the Spirit, in this matter, not to command, but to advise.” Bishop Ellicott, writing on the same passage, says: “ ‘I give my opinion or advice.’ It seems scarcely to amount here to ‘judgment’ ; but in accordance with the tenor of the whole passage, to point to the ‘opinion’ which the Apostle had formed on the whole difficult subject.” Some commentators—especially of the older school—hold other- wise. They are unwilling to admit that an Apostle could speak or write unmoved by the Holy Ghost. Their contention is that in the statements, “To the rest say I, not the Lord”; “I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give my opinion,” the writer of this Epistle is not disclaiming inspiration, but only acquainting his correspondents with the fact that the Lord Jesus had made no pronouncement on the questions at issue. Meyer says: “He dis- tinguishes, therefore, here and in verses 12 and 25, not between his own and inspired commands, but between those which pro- ceeded from his own (God inspired) subjectivity and those which Christ Himself supplied by His subjective word.’ This, to the author’s way of thinking, is a wresting of language. The Apostle differentiates between his inspired and uninspired utterances. In his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, he says: “That which I speak, I speak not after the Lord, but as in fool-° ishness” (xi:17), and also informs his readers that for a time he experienced regret over the writing of the First Epistle (vii:8). But why regret if he believed himself to be writing under the influence of the Spirit? It is not required of us to accord that which the Apostle himself disclaims. “I have no commandment of the Lord.” If the Apostle Paul meant by this that the Lord Jesus had left on record no rule PAULINE DECRETALS 235 governing the matter under discussion, he would, in all probability, have written—“WV/e have no commandment of the Lord.” Instead, he uses the first person singular—‘I’—individually—‘“have no commandment of the Lord.” The Holy Spirit had not “opened his mind” on this question, and in lieu thereof he gives his own opinion. The author of this volume yields to no one in reverence for Sacred Writ, but does not subscribe to the view that every time an Apostle took a pen in hand he was “moved by the Holy Ghost.” One expositor goes so far as to hold the Apostles were at all times and under all circumstances prompted by the Spirit. We inquire, How about that controversy at Antioch? (Gal. ili:11-15). Here we have two of the leading Apostles at variance; but why at variance if both were under the influence of the Holy Spirit? In his “Epistle to the Galatians,” Paul uses this strong language: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face because he stood condemned” (ii:11). He went further, and rebuked his fellow-Apostle before the church (11:14). It is said of Barnabas: “He was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith” (Acts xi:24); but on one occasion the contention between Paul and this fellow-laborer was so sharp “that they parted asunder one from the other” (Acts xv:37-41). The New Testament does not teach the infallibility of the Apostles; they were men “of like passions with us,” and “compassed with infirmity.” When occa- sion required, God used them as His vehicles, they spoke and wrote and also acted under the impulse of the Spirit, but they were not at all times and under all circumstances “moved by the Holy Ghost.” Down through the centuries there has been a disposition on the part of the church to clothe the Apostle Paul with infallibility. He never made such claim. The Protestant Church, in particular, has assumed such attitude. There has been no pronunciamento to that effect, but the mental bias has been in that direction. It may almost be said that the Apostle Paul has held in the Protestant Church the position accorded the Apostle Peter in the Church of Rome. There is some show of reason in the charge that Protes- tantism is a Pauline type of religion. It is safe to affirm that in Protestant pulpits five times as many texts are chosen from the 236 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Pauline writings as from the sayings of Jesus: theological semi- naries, as a rule, spend far more time on the study of his epistles than is given to the Gospels. In the minds of some clerics the man of Tarsus well-nigh supersedes the Man of Galilee. He was beyond question a master mind; the Christian era has produced none greater; he was prince of the Apostles; “a chosen vessel,” ordained of God to bear the Gospel to “the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel,” but he was not superhuman; he was not inerrable. Only one impeccable Being has ever tabernacled in the flesh—JESUS, THE CHRIST. In our study of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, we group the passages which the author himself has indicated as uninspired : VII :2-9: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by con- sent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency. But this I say by way of permission, and not of commandment. Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. “But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.” Vil:12-17: “But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman which hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Yet if the unbe- lieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or PAULINE DECRETALS 237 how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife? Only as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches.” VII:25-40: “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think therefore it is good by reason of the present distress, that it is good for a man to be as he is. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry thou hast not sinned: and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh; and I would spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none: ... I would have you free from cares. He that is unmarried is care- ful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. And there is a difference also between the . wife and the virgin. She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit; not that I would cast a snare upon you, but that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distrac- tion. But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin, if she be passed the flower of her age, and if “need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry. But he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching his own will, and hath determined this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin, shall do well. So then both he that giveth his own virgin in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better. A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth: but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will: only in the Lord. But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment, and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” Not only does the Apostle Paul assure his readers that the fore- going adjudgments are of himself and “not of the Lord,’ but the contents confirm his statement. They bear the imprint of the human rather than of the Divine. Take a few examples: 238 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN VII:1: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” We turn to Genesis ii:18, and read the affirmation of Jehovah: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make to him( \> )help as his counterpart.” Redactors holding to the plenary inspiration of the Apostle seek to modify his statement by attaching the quali- fying clause of verse 26—“By reason of the present distress.” This is forced exegesis. There is no grammatical connection between the two passages. “By reason of the present distress” relates itself, not to what precedes, but to what follows. VII :2,3: Here the Apostle treats of marriage in its lowest terms. He does not hold it up, as in Ephesians v:22-33, as a symbolism of the union of Christ and the Church. Instead of “the holy estate of matrimony,” he lowers it to an expediency for the gratification of sexual appetites. Much of the seventh chapter is devoted to a laudation of celibacy and a depreciation of wedlock (vs. I, 7, 8, 26, 127, 32-37, 38, 40)... We; quote from Meyer: Hersays: “Ruchert thinks that Paul exhibits here a very poor opinion of marriage and Baur has more fully developed this idea so as to assert that the Apostle’s view of marriage is at variance with the moral conception of it which now prevails.” VII:4: “The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband.” Here is a heathen dogma, adopted by the Jewish Rabbim. Nowhere, aside from this passage in First Corinthians, does it find sanction in God’s word. Peter Taylor Forsyth, in “Marriage: Its Ethic and Religion,” p. 78, says: “The principle of any human creature being the absolute property of another is quite fatal to Christianity, and must be outgrown. ... Wherever she is so regarded, Christianity must bring a radical change. In so far as woman’s position anywhere is slavery, Christianity must alter it.” The dogma that “a wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband,” has degraded multitudes of women into sexual slaves; in manifold cases it has demanded a sacrifice of health and self-respect, and at all times denies to the wife a self-deter- mination that belongs to the female of the brute creation. The Apostle imbibed this doctrine, not from Sacred Scripture, but from the Oral law. He was a Pharisee, and never severed connection with this “straitest sect” of the Jewish religion. On PAULINE DECRETALS 239 the occasion of his last visit to Jerusalem, when haled before the Council, he cried out: “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees’ (Acts xxili:6). The Pharisees were zealous champions of the Oral law —its chief defenders—and the Oral law taught that “a wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband.” VII:15: The Apostle makes willful desertion a ground for the severance of the marriage relation. This brings him into conflict with the teaching of Jesus. Matt. v:32 we have the words of our Lord: “Every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.” Also Matt. xix:9, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”’ Mark x:12, “If she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.” Expositors tug and wrench at this saying of Jesus in an effort to bring it into accord with the Pauline precept. Why not reverse the process? If alignment must be made, why not adjust the Apostle’s teaching to the norm of Jesus? Must conformity be on the part of Paul or on the part of Jesus Christ? Expositors tell us that Christ was addressing an assemblage of Jews, and the rule laid down was applicable only to persons of that nationality ; that He was not contemplating the Gentile world. The Apostle, we are told, faced an entirely different situation; his was a new problem—the marriage of believers and nonbelievers— Christians and heathen. Here, they say, were cases not provided for in the rule laid down by Christ, hence the Apostolic precept. Expositors who take this position are treading on dangerous ground. How about the “every one” and the “whosoever”? Are they not inclusive of the race? Do they not environ Jew and Gentile? Do they allow for exceptions? Do they not make pro- vision for contingencies? If we may restrict the meaning of “every one” in Matthew v:32, we may do likewise in Matthew vii:8, and for the same reason. The Sermon on the Mount was preached to a Jewish congregation. If we may limit “whosoever” in Matthew v:32, and in Matthew xix:9, to persons of Hebrew birth, we may do likewise with John iii:16. This, the sweetest 240 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN message of the New Testament, was spoken to a Jewish rabbi. Follow out this rule and you have robbed the Gentile world of the Gospels. Almost all of Christ’s discourses were to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” but through them He spoke into the ages— for the race and to the race. His “everyone” and “whosoever” embrace humankind. There is bare possibility that the Apostle Paul was dealing, not with divorce, but with separation. Such, however, is not the opin- ion of commentators. If he lays down a rule for the severance of the marriage tie, he is at variance with the teachings of Jesus on this subject. This of itself is sufficient proof that he spoke of himself and not of the Lord. VII :29-31: In these verses the Apostle evinces his belief in the imminence of the Parousia, He shared, in common with the early Christians, the expectation of the speedy return of our Lord to es- tablish His Kingdom. To maintain that the Apostle here refers to the brevity of human life is an unsatisfactory explanation—a sub- terfuge—resorted to in order to relieve from the charge of errancy. In the foregoing passages all wrenching and distorting can be avoided by accepting the plain, unequivocal statement of the Apostle: “This I say by way of permission, not of commandment.” “To the rest say I, not the Lord.” “I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my judgment.” There is no derogation in such confession. It redounds to the credit of the author of this Epistle that he refused to foist on his readers his own opinions as commandments of the Lord. Aside from the uninspired passages colligated, there are but two paragraphs in this First Epistle to the Corinthians bearing on the domestic status of woman—vii:10, I1, and xi:3. The former has to do with desertion on the part of wife or husband and is self-explanatory; the latter is more involved and demands serious consideration: “T would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, but the head of woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.” We confine our study to the second clause of this passage— “But the head of woman is the man” (xeqadt 82 yuvatnds 6 dyno). Our objection here is to the translation. In the Greek PAULINE DECRETALS 241 language the word for woman and the word for wife is the same— Yuv%. The word for man and for husband is the same—dyjo. Unless determined by the context, the choice of rendering rests entirely with the translator. The alternate reading of the passage before us is—The head of a wife (yuvatxés) is the husband (dvje). Instead of this, the translators have adopted the more inclusive rendering—‘‘The head of woman (yuvatxés) is the man” (gyno). Far more is involved in this choice of words than appears on the surface—more perhaps than the translators them- selves realized. In this general statement they have iterated the Roman dogma—‘the perpetual tutelage of woman.’ She must ever be the ward of man—betfore marriage, her father; after marriage, her husband; in case of his death, a guardian designated in his will or her nearest male relative. Under no circumstance can she attain majority. She must ever be a minor; ever under the governance of man. This was not only a provision of Roman law, but an inflexible mandate of the heathen world——““The head of woman is the man.” The passage as it now stands, in both the Authorized and Revised Version, is a bare restatement of the dogma—‘“The perpetual tutelage of woman.” At all times and under all circumstances she must have an overlord. It has been a boast of Christianity that it manumitted woman. Far from it, if the adopted rendering of I Corinthians xi:3 is the correct one. Instead of liberating her, it has riveted her chains; it has proclaimed a thraldom never sanctioned by the Law of Moses. It has linked arms with heathendom to keep her in per- petual vassalage; from the cradle to the grave it entangles her in “a yoke of bondage’; for her there is no year of Jubilee; Christ never set her free. J. J. Moss, in his book, “Criticism and Exegesis of Scripture,” p. 5, says: “As God’s government or headship is over Christ, and Christ’s over man, so is the man’s over the woman in the church, whether the man be the woman’s father, brother, husband or son.” We protest against the accepted rendering of I Corinthians xi:3 in so far as it relates to woman. We reject it as an anti-Christian 242 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN proclamation. It jars with the Golden Rule, and that which jars with the Golden Rule of Christ is not of “the mind of the Spirit.” Expositors seek to mollify the rigor of the passage as translated, by assuring the reader that certain things “must be understood.” “Tt must be understood” that the Apostle had only believers in mind when he made this declaration; that “the head of every man is Christ ; and the head of woman is the man,” applies only to such as are in vital union with their Lord, and members of His body— the Church. This only complicates matters; it increases the diff- culty. We find ourselves in a maze. If only a believing man can be the head of a believing woman, how about the Christian wife whose husband rejects the faith? Must she seek another man in the Church of Jesus Christ to exercise lordship over her? We learn from the Acts of the Apostles, and from other histories of the early Christian church, that there were many women converts. The ratio in the church today is, approximately, two women to one man. If every woman must have a masculine head, considerable doubling up must be required. Each man must “head” at least two women. Like the Mormon elder, he must be “‘sealed” to more than one—his own wife and some unwedded sister. The result would be domestic infelicity. The unmarried man would be equally distraught in his attempt to “head” the spouse of some unbeliever. Roman law decreed that the husband should be the sole and abso- lute head of his wife, but in the case before us the unfortunate woman would be double-headed—a spiritual head under the ruling of the Church, and a legal head under the law of the Empire. Under such circumstances the Church would face some serious problems. It may be objected that such is not the import of the passage before us; the Apostle had no such apportionment in mind, and such inference is unwarrantable. His intent is evident. He is laying down a law for Church government. All authority must vest in the male members, women are debarred from all adminis- terial offices. They may serve, but always under the superintend- ency of man. They may be “hewers of wood and drawers of water unto all the congregation,” but under no circumstances may they occupy “the chief seats in the synagogues.” PAULINE DECRETALS 243 There is no denying that the latter interpretation of the Apostle’s words has found favor in ecclesiastical circles, and that the policy of the church has been shaped along this line. Early in the second century men arrogated to themselves the right to govern in eccle- siastical affairs, and from that time to the present, with few excep- tions, women have been excluded from the legislative and executive departments of the church. But there is one fact fatal to this construction of the passage under review, and that is the Apostle’s practice. He would not, and with consistency could not, interdict what he himself allowed. That he permitted women to hold office will appear in our next chapter—“The Status of Woman in New Testament Church.” The rendering of I Corinthians xi:3 in both the Authorized and Revised Versions is so unsatisfactory—so fraught with difficulties and entanglements, that Dr. Drane, in his “Commentary on the Pauline Epistles,” rejects it altogether. He adjudges the entire section, xi:2-16, to be an interpolation; the work of some scribe who edited the Epistle. We are not prepared to go this length on the mere assumption of a redactor. Instead of this, we contend for a sane translation. This we may have by adopting the alternate rendering—“the head of a wife is the husband”—or allowing the pronoun possessive force—“her husband” (6 évno). This relieves from entanglements, harmonizes with the context and brings the passage into complete accord with Ephesians v:22-24. Dr. Weymouth, in his “Modern English Translation,’ renders thus: “T would have you know that of every man, Christ is the Head; that of a woman, her husband is the head.” This headship of the husband will receive consideration in con- nection with a closely related passage—Ephesians v:22-24. I Cor- inthians xi:4-16 will claim our attention in the succeeding chapter. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE EPHESIANS Ephesus, in the time of the Apostle Paul, was a large and flourishing city—the capital not only of Ionia, but of the entire province of Asia. Domestic relations in this commercial and religious center were determined by Roman law and Greek cus- toms. The Apostle Paul understood this. Here he had founded 244 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN a church; here he reasoned daily in the school of Tyrannus. “And this continued for the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” The Epistle to the Ephesians was written about A.D. 63, while the Apostle was suffering imprisonment at Rome. The subject of this volume confines our study to chapter V, verses 21-33, inclusive. “Subjecting yourselves (Sroaccéuevor) one to another in the fear of Christ. : “Wives [be in subjection] unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the Head of the church, [being] Himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so [let] the wives also [be] to their husbands in everything. Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that He might present the church to Himself a glorious [church] not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself; for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of His body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself: and [let] the wife [see] that she fear her husband” (R. V.). In transcribing this passage, we have bracketed the words not found in the Greek text. We begin our study of this fifth chapter of Ephesians at the twenty-first verse. This is essential to a clear understanding of what follows. The twenty-first verse furnishes the verb for the twenty-second. Because of this the two must not be disjointed. V :21: “Subjecting yourselves (Snotaccéuevot) one to another in the fear of Christ.” The Apostle is here exhorting the members of the Ephesian church to a voluntary surrender of personal pref- erences, one to another. The verb Srotaccéuevot is in the middle voice. Not compulsion, but impulsion: not external pressure, but PAULINE DECRETALS 245 internal prompting. Not a yielding under constraint, but with ready mind. “Subjecting yourselves one to another.” The rule as here laid down is general, binding on every member of the church, regard- less of sex—men as well as women; husbands as well as wives. No room for preferential rights. It can readily be seen that under such circumstances the verb bf Unotaccduevot would be devoid of servile import. An obligation which is mutual, a duty which is reciprocal, precludes self-assertion on the part of any. No one can arrogate to himself the right to dictate. No matter what txotdsow may signify elsewhere, in the case before us it can only mean Christian courtesy; a due regard for the opinions of others; a readiness to make concessions in the interest of harmony and good will. Verse 22: “Wives unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (Al yuvaines totic tdtors dvSedoty Oo tH xvetw). In the Greek the verb is wanting and must be supplied from the preceding ‘verse—twenty-one; and according to the rules of syntax, the supply must be made without change of voice, tense or mood. Yrotacoéuevor must be carried from verse twenty-one to verse twenty-two without modification. But how do we find it in our English Bibles? We marvel that men charged with the sacred task of translating God’s Word would assume the responsibility of wresting Scripture to bring it into line with their own predilec- tions. A reference to both the Authorized and Revised Versions will reveal the fact that the translators, in carrying Unotaccduevot from verse twenty-one to verse twenty-two, have changed both mood and voice; they have substituted the imperative for the par- ticiple and the active for the middle. Instead of making the pas- sage read—“Wives [subjecting yourselves] unto your own hus- bands,” they have rendered, “Wives [be in subjection] unto your own husbands.” Furthermore, the verb when carried forward must have the same import; there must be no stressing; no underscoring. The contents of Sxotdéccw in verse twenty-two must be measured by its contents in verse twenty-one. If in verse twenty-one it means a self- 246 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN imposed restraint on the part of members of the church in their attitude one toward the other; a deferential regard for the wishes of fellow-Christians ; a concessional spirit that refuses to be self- assertive—if this is its import in verse twenty-one, we may not add to, or take from in its transference to verse twenty-two. Yrotao- oéucyot is the predicate of both sentences, and the self-subjection of the wife need not go beyond the self-subjection of the church member. Forsyth, commenting on this exhortation to wives (v:22), says: “The verse before [twenty-one] urges the mem- bers of the church to submit themselves to each other in the fear of God. So that the precept to the wife is no more than a par- ticular application of the general precept given to every Christian, male or female, which therefore enjoins also due submission in its own kind of the Christian husband to the Christian wife. It means mutual and complementary forbearance, concession, courtesy, sacri- fice’ (“Marriage: Its Ethics and Religion,” pp. 72, 73). The question may arise—why does the Apostle, after the gen- eral exhortation of verse twenty-one, single out wives for special instruction? We counter with another—why does he, in verses twenty-five to thirty-three, single out husbands for the same pur- pose? The reason is apparent. Primarily, he is setting forth, under the figure of marriage, the union of Christ and the church. In verse thirty-two he says, “I speak in regard of Christ and the church.” Secondarily, he is indicating the obligations devolving on Christians in special relationship—that of wife and husband. Aside from the precept laid down in verse twenty-one, which is general and binding on every member of the church, there was special reason why these Ephesian wives should regard the will of their husbands. Ionia was a conquered province, under the sway of Rome, and the law of Patria Potestas held the husband responsible for the conduct of his wife; he was amenable for her offenses. This being the case, equity demanded that the wife take counsel with her husband. “Wives [subjecting yourselves] unto your own husbands as unto the Lord” (At yuvaines totic iStore dv8edew (Snotaccéuevat) Os TO xvoelw). What is the import of the words “as unto the Lord’? PAULINE DECRETALS 247 Is the wife to revere her husband as Christ personified and submit to him as if he were the Lord? Christian consciousness rebels against such thought. This would be naught but idolatry. Under the precepts of God’s word no mortal may demand such homage. The phrase, “as unto the Lord,” is found elsewhere in the Pauline epistles. In Ephesians vi:7 we read: “With good will doing service, as unto the Lord, and not men.” In Colossians iii :23, ““Whatsoever ye do, work from the soul (é% puxf¢) as unto the Lord, and not to men.” In these two instances the added words, “And not to men,” precludes the thought of adoration of the creature. In Ephesians vi:5 we have a similar phrase: “Serv- ants be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your lords (xvelots) with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ” (®¢t@ Xetotg). Who will hold that the Apostle is here injoining slaves to regard their masters as Christ incarnate? Away with such thought! God’s word forbids creature worship. What then is the import of the words “as unto the Lord” and like expressions? Simply this: The persons here addressed were to exercise “the higher right of giving up their rights” for Christ’s sake. They were to make this surrender in order that His king- dom might be established in the earth. In these human exactions they were to find opportunity to serve their Lord. In the preceding verse, Ephesians v:21, the Apostle writes to church members in general: “Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ,” and in I Corinthians x:31, ‘““Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” He says, in effect, “Look beyond the seen to the unseen.” V :23: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the Head of the church, Himself the Saviour of the body.” Here is a passage that men of certain type have hugged to their bosoms; they have hidden it in their hearts; it has been their song by day and they have meditated thereon “in the night watches.” Let us analyze it. ‘The husband is the head of the wife.” In what sense? Is the Apostle here teaching that the husband is the head of the wife in matters spiritual? At once difficulties appear. We read 248 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN further : “Christ also is the Head of the church.” Now the church is made up of individuals of both sexes. In the average church there are more women than men. Is the Headship of Christ limited to male members, or does it extend to the entire church? If to both sexes, why is He sufficient for the one and insufficient for the other? Again: If Christ is Head of the wife, and her husband is also her head, she is double-headed and must serve two masters. If her Divine Head and her human head are not in accord, she is “in a strait betwixt two”; whom must she obey? If we answer, she must “obey God rather than man,” we at once concede that her husband is not her spiritual head. Furthermore, if the husband is the spiritual head of his wife, what are his functions? Is he the interpreter of the Divine will concerning her? Jesus, when speaking of the advent of the Holy Spirit, said, “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all the truth.” Does the Spirit pass by the wife and guide only the husband? Is the husband a mediator in his wife’s behalfi—a daysman betwixt Christ and her soul? If he is her spiritual head, he has functions to perform. It is written: “There is one Mediator between God and man”—Christ Jesus. Must there be two media- tors between God and woman—Christ and the husband? Was the veil of the Temple rent in twain “for men only”? Jesus said, “Come unto Me.” Was the invitation limited to the male sex? Did He intend that wives should approach Him through their husbands? Beet, commenting on this passage, says: “ ‘Head of woman’—i.e., immediate head, for Christ is the Head of the whole church. Woman is placed by God under the rule and direction of the man. This is most conspicuously true of husband and wife. But since marriage is but a fulfillment of God’s purpose in the creation of the sexes, these words are true of the sexes generally” (p. 181). If, as this writer says, the husband is the “immediate head” of his wife, is Christ her remote Head? Is He to the husband “a God at hand,” and to the wife “a God afar off’? And the unmarried woman—the maid or the widow—is she privileged above the wife? Does she stand on a level with male PAULINE DECRETALS 249 members? Is Christ her immediate Head? May she come to Him in direct approach, or must she ever stand aside because she has no intermediary ? These questions are not irrelevant; they are all bound up in the declaration—“The husband is the head of the wife.” Any individual with mind unwarped by prejudice can readily see that the husband is not the spiritual head of his wife. Here is a realm wherein she stands erect—‘“‘never in bondage to any man.” Her husband has no preferential rights in the kingdom of her Lord. In Christ Jesus “there can be no male and female,” for “all are one.” | If we differentiate between the spiritual and the moral, the husband is likewise not the head of the wife in the latter realm. He may not stay her from the right, nor command her to the wrong. Here is a realm sacred to the individual and he may not lift hand or voice against her. But one law pervades this domain, and it is constitutional—it is inscribed on every doorpost and lintel —‘“We must obey God rather than men.” Any intruder here, be he potentate or husband, may be defied, and that with Divine approval. The Apostle Peter wrote, “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,” but when he stood before the Council in Jerusalem and was straitly charged “to speak henceforth to no man” in the name of Jesus, he answered: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye; for we cannot but speak the things we saw and heard,” and he walked forth from that Council chamber, undaunted by threat- enings, and heralded anew the message of his Lord. God never empowered any mortal to act as custodian of another’s conscience. Reformers have bled and martyrs have died because they would not surrender the right of self-determination in matters of religion. Even as the Apostle wrote this Epistle, he was suf- fering imprisonment because he would not “be judged by another man’s conscience.” If the husband is not the head of his wife in matters moral or spiritual, his authority over her has well-nigh reached the vanishing point. There is nothing left for him to supervise but acts of moral indifference, and acts of moral indifference are non-essentials. As 250 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN soon as an act becomes essential, it takes on moral aspect, and this carries it at once into the realm of conscience, and every approach to conscience is posted—“No trespassing here.” But the husband is further hedged in at every attempt to domi- nate his wife. He may not have a free hand in acts of moral indifference. In this field of action he comes face to face with the rule laid down in verse twenty-one—‘Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.” This is a general rule; it applies to every member of the church; to husbands as well as wives. In writing to the Galatians, the Apostle makes this law of mutual concession even stronger. He says: “Through love be bondservants (SouAevete) one to another” (Gal. v:13). All that is said in Ephesians v:23 concerning the headship of the husband applies with equal force to I Corinthians xi:3. If the husband had no authority over his wife in matters moral or spiritual; if in all else he is bound by the rule laid down in verse twenty-one, in what sense was he her head? Jn a legal sense. Roman law made the husband the sole and absolute head of his wife. His will was her law; from his decision there was no appeal. When the Apostle wrote to the Ephesian Christians: “The husband is the head of the wife”; “As the church is subject to Christ, so also (are) wives to their husbands in everything” (ddd ¢ A éxxAnola Obrotdccetar tH XototG, ottws xal yuvatnes tote dvéeactv éy navtt), he was making a statement; he was not giving a command. A careful reading of the original will reveal the fact that the words “Jet” and “be” are not part of the Greek text. They were written without warrant into our English ver- sions by translators. The Apostle Paul never wrote: “As the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their hus- bands in everything.” He wrote, “As the church is subject to Christ, so also [are] wives to husbands in everything.” This is the alternate rendering in the Revised Versions—1884 and 1901. The verb in the first member of this sentence is in the indicative mood, and there is no justification whatever for changing it to the imperative when it is carried forward. By doing so the translators have transformed a statement into a command. PAULINE DECRETALS 251 “As the church is subject to Christ, so also [are] wives to hus- bands in all things.” Such was the status of the wife throughout the Roman Empire when the Apostle penned his epistle. Her hus- band was her legal head. In making this statement the Apostle was not passing judgment on the law of Patria Potestas; he was not commending it to future generations; he was citing it in illus- tration of a spiritual truth. He was discoursing on the Headship of Christ and the obligation that rests upon the church to be in all things subject to His will. In illustration thereof he pointed to the relationship of husband and wife under the law of the Roman Empire. His language was, in part, symbolic. In verse thirty-two he says: “This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and the church.” Ephesians v:23-30 is particularly involved because of the com- mingling of hortative and symbolic language. The Apostle Peter found in the writings of “beloved brother Paul some things hard to be understood.” If this was true of a contemporary, how much more of those who study his messages after many recensions, and that at times by scribes who scrupled not to mutilate or rearrange. It is a well-known fact that some passages in the Authorized Version were rejected by the Revisers, because found to be inter- polations. We marvel less at this tampering when we bear in mind that the Pauline epistles were not rated on a par with Old Testament Writ until the second century. After all, were these meddlesome scribes more blameworthy than translators of a subse- quent time who manipulated the Sacred Text and made it express thought not in the mind of the author—notably passages relating to women? The fact that the Apostle Paul points to the status of husband and wife under the law of Patria Potestas in illustration of Christ’s relation to the church, by no means justifies the conclusion that the law met with his approbation. Elsewhere he draws comparisons from human slavery; e.g., “Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price”; “He that was called being free, is Christ’s bond- servant”; ‘““Be bondservants one to another,” et al. He subscribes himself, “A bondservant of Jesus Christ.” In the employment of 252 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN these figures of speech was he approving human slavery? He wrote, “War the good warfare’; “Suffer hardship with me as a good soldier of Jesus Christ”; “Put on the whole armor of God”; “Fight the good fight of faith,” et al. Was he lauding war- fare? He lacks in discrimination who makes such claim. The same is true of the individual who maintains that the Apostle Paul, in pointing to the status of husband and wife under Roman law, in illustration of the Headship of Christ, was applauding the subor- dination of the wife. V :23: “The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church; Himself Saviour of the body.” This last clause—“Himself saviour of the body’—has disturbed commenta- tors. Taken by itself, the import is evident. Jesus Christ, Saviour of His body—the church. It is the connection that perplexes. In the associated sentence is parallelism—‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church,” but how about this attached clause—“Himself Saviour of the body’? Is the parallelism continued into this latter statement? Is the hus- band the Saviour of his wife? Heathen religions have at times so taught. Was the Apostle Paul promulgating such doctrine? Few, if any, among us are willing to go such lengths. One expositor says: “The parallelism fails here.” “The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church; Himself Saviour of the body.” There was a sense in which the Roman husband was the saviour of his wife. He was her substitute; he suffered in her stead. He was wounded for her transgressions; he was bruised for her iniquities; the chastisement of her peace was upon him, and with his stripes she was healed. In the domestic tribunal he was her judge and could inflict punishment even to the extent of taking life, but in the courts of the state he was her substitute; her “sin-offering,” and in his punishment she was justified—he was her saviour. Is there parallelism here? Do we not read: “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all”? “Himself bear our sins in His own body on the tree’? “Being now justified by His blood, shall we be saved from the wrath through Him.” PAULINE DECRETALS 253 EPHESIANS V:25-33 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved -the church, and gave Himself up for it; that He mighty sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that He might present the church to Himself a glorious [church], not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; be- cause we are members of His body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife as himself; and [let] the wife [see] that she fear her husband.” The words in brackets are not in the Greek text. They are supplied by translators. “The Emphatic Diaglott” renders the latter phrase: “So that she may reverence the husband” (4 58 yuvi fva goftattéydvdea). This gives force to tye which is disregarded by most translators. A transliteration of the passage would be: “The and wife so that she may reverence the husband.” This would make the wife’s rever- ence for her husband contingent on his behavior toward her. Here is an idealistic portrayal of marriage, but notwithstanding its loftiness and beauty it has never claimed half as much attention as Ephesians v:22-24 and I Corinthians xi:3. The author has never heard it read in the pulpit. Seldom is it quoted with exact- ness and rarely, if ever, with emphasis. Mankind in general have overlooked the Apostle’s injunction to husbands. Had they given | serious heed, laws unjust to wives had never marred the lives of multitudes of women. Ephesians v :25-33, while symbolic of Christ and the church, is also a homily on love of the wife. “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself up for it’; “Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own 254 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN bodies”; “He that loveth his own wife, loveth himself”; “Do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as Himself.” While husbands come under the general rule laid down in verse twenty-one, there is here no specific injunctions to submit them- selves to their wives. The entire emphasis is laid on love. Now aside from conscience, love is the most compelling force in the world. Said a lover to his lady: “Your wish is my law.’”’ He spoke a verity. A man is ruled by the woman he loves, and he would not have it otherwise. It is only when he loves himself the more, that he seeks to dominate her. The husband who loves his wife even as himself becomes her willing subject. Her wish becomes a law he cheerfully obeys. He goes further, and anticipates her desire in order to fulfill. The Lord Jesus announced a universal law when He said to His disciples: “If he love Me, ye will keep My commandments.” P. T. Forsyth, in his treatise, “Marriage: Its Ethics and Religion,” says: “Where most love is, there also is most obedience.” Love is also an impelling force: it prompts to service and to sacrifice. Again Jesus said: “Even as the Father loved Me, I also have loved you.” And elsewhere, “I am in the midst of you as He that serveth.” When the Apostle Paul enjoined husbands to love their wives even as themselves, he insured their self-submission. Here was a case where the major charge included the minor. COLOSSIANS I111:18, 19 Colosse, like Corinth and Ephesus, was a Greco-Roman city. It was situated in Phrygia Pacatiana of Asia Minor, and, as the map shows, not a great distance from Ephesus. This fact must be borne in mind in our study of the passage before us. The simi- larity of this Epistle to that of the Ephesians is so marked as to be noted by almost every commentator. Dr. Adam Clark says: “Everything in the sentiments, order, and diction of the two writ- ings corresponds with what might be expected from this circum- stance of identity or cognation in their original. In numerous instances the verbiage is identical.” It is true that in Ephesians PAULINE DECRETALS 255 the Apostle amplifies his thought, while in Colossians he condenses, but, in substance, the charges are the same. “Wives, submit yourselves (Snotéccecbe) unto your own hus- bands, as it is fit in the Lord” (A. V.). “Wives, be in subjection (ixotdscecfe) to your husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord” (R. V.). The verb here rendered, “submit yourselves,” “be in subjection,” is brotacow the same as found in Ephesians v:21. In both in- stances it is in the middle voice. But the middle and passive terminations are the same. The translator must choose between the two. In Ephesians v:21, where the address is to church mem- bers in general, the middle rendering is required, and translators so recognize. But dependent on this same verb is verse twenty- two, where the injunction is to wives. At once the translators, in violation of a rule of syntax, substitute the passive for the middle. This changes the import. It makes a difference to ‘a man whether he lies down, or is knocked down; whether he strikes himself, or is struck by an outside force. The physical results may be the same, but the psychological are wholly different. In Colossians 11:18, the King James translators adopted the middle rendering: “Wives submit yourselves.” The Revisers, on the other hand, have chosen the passive—‘‘Wives, be in subjec- tion.” Circumstances indicate that King James’ translators were right and the Revisers wrong. We ask consideration of the fol- lowing data: The Ephesian and Colossian churches were adjacent to each other ; the local conditions were practically the same. The epistles to these churches were written at, or about, the same time; by the same author; they were forwarded by the same messenger; the contents were, to all intents and purposes, the same. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the injunctions to wives in both instances would have the same import. There is no apparent reason why the Apostle should discriminate against the wives of Colosse. In Ephesians v:21 the middle voice is deter- mined by the context; in Ephesians v:22, by the carrying forward of the verb; and in Colossians 11:18, by cognation. 256 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN We reject the rendering of the Revised Version and adopt that of the Authorized—“Wives submit yourselves.” This brings Colossians iii:18 into line with Ephesians v:22, as the latter should be’ translated. Not only should the verb in these two passages agree in voice, but in both instances it should have the same import. Now in Ephesians v:22, the contents of OUxotacow must be measured by its contents in verse twenty-one—Here is its iron bedstead. ‘Yxotécow, in verse twenty-one, signifies a concessional attitude toward fellow-Christians; a deferential regard for their wishes. As before stated, the yielding here enjoined is mutual and devoid of servile import. This was all the Apostle required of the Ephesian wives—and by implication, of the Colossian. They were to hearken to counsel; listen to advice—in sort, they were to be courteous and deferential in their attitude toward their husbands —husbands who, under the law, were held responsible for their conduct. We notice that this verb, bxotdscw, is the only one used by the Apostles Paul and Peter in their injunctions to wives, and in such instances it always has the middle ending. The Apostle Peter, in his reference to Sarah, iii:6, employs the verb bxaxoUw, the pri- mary meaning of which is, “To listen, hearken.” The verb Unotdoow never appears in the New Testament in relation to children or bondservants. Colossians 1i1:19, “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.” This charge in substance is the same as that of Ephesians V :25-33, and all we have said of the latter applies with equal force to this injunction to the husbands of Colosse. Dr. Adam Clark, in his comments on the relative duties mentioned in this Epistle to the Colossians, says: “The directions here to wives, husbands, children, parents, serv- ants, and masters are so exactly the same in substance with those in Ephesians v:22-33 and vi:1-9 that there is no need to repeat PAULINE DECRETALS 257 what has been said on those passages; and to the notes there, the reader is requested to refer.” In this connection we call attention to comments on Ephesians V :25-33, found on pages 243-254. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY V:14: “I desire therefore that the younger [widows] marry, bear children, rule (olxoSecnotetv) the household, give none OC- casion to the adversary for reviling” (R. V.). The Authorized Version reads: “I will therefore that the younger women marry,” etc. This is so manifestly out of har- mony with the context that it is now universally rejected by scholars. Timothy, Paul’s “true child in the faith,’ was in charge of the church at Ephesus during the absence of its founder. During this period the Apostle wrote this letter of instructions and forwarded it to Timothy. There is much in this Epistle that will claim our attention later; for the present we confine our study to v:14. The verb dSecrotety is the strongest word for rule in the Greek language; “despot,” “despotic,” “despotism,” are its English derivatives. Thayer defines the word in its noun form as “uncon- trolled power.”’ Now here, in I Timothy v:14, the Apostle Paul declares it his will that “the younger widows marry, bear chil- dren,” and exercise “uncontrolled power” over the household. No wonder that expositors are nonplussed; no wonder they have little to say by way of comment. An interesting question here is—Who are included in this house- hold, over which the wife is to hold despotic sway? Is the hus- band himself a member, or does he stand without the pale? There would be no difficulty in determining the matter if the Apostle had conferred despotic authority on the husband. Under such circumstance, commentators would undoubtedly hold the wife to be a member of the household. But the Apostle did not so write; he inscribed on the pages of Sacred Writ, “for the edification of believers,” and to the confusion of commentators: “I desire there- 258 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN fore that the younger [widows] marry, bear children, rule (otxeSecnotety) the household.” Not for a moment does the author of this volume entertain the thought that the Apostle extended the wife’s sway to her husband. The subjugation of the husband is as repellent to our mind as is the subjugation of the wife—neither form part of our creed. One fact is conclusive proof that the wife’s strong rule was limited to children, servants, and other dependents. Nowhere in the Apostle’s writings is despotic power conferred upon the hus- band. Roman law allowed for such, but not the Apostles Paul and Peter. The husband might advise; might counsel and admon- ish, but never, under Apostolic ruling, could he impose his will upon his wife. She was invested with the right of self-determination. It is altogether unlikely the Apostle would confer on the wife greater authority over the husband than he was allotted over her. “Give none occasion to the adversary for reviling.” The con- stant concern of both the Apostles Paul and Peter was that Chris- tian converts lead exemplary lives. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS II :4, 5: “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient (dxotascouévas) to their own hus- bands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (A. V.). Titus was a Greek convert. At the time this Epistle was written he was in charge of the church at Crete. The island was a part of the Roman Empire, and domestic relations were determined by the law of Patria Potestas. Much that has been said in reference to the churches of Corinth, Ephesus and Colossz applies here. The local conditions, if’ not identical, were at least similar. The Apostle’s instructions relative to the officiality of the church will claim attention in the following chapters. “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands.” (This is the only instance in the Bible where the wife is enjoined to love her husband.) “To love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home.” PAULINE DECRETALS 259 The rendering of the Authorized Version—‘“keepers at home,” is a glaring mistranslation. The Revised Version reads: “workers at home.” The word in the Greek is, in some manuscripts— olxoueyéc, from ofxoc, “house,” and épyoy “work,” “employ- ment,’ “business”; in others it is olxoved¢ —a compound of bd otxog —“house,” and oteo0¢ —“keeper,” or “guardian.” All de- pends on the presence or absence of the one Greek letter—y. In the one case the Apostle desires that these younger women be industrious housewives; in the other, that they be guardians of the home. Some have translated the passage thus: “To love their husbands; to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, house- keepers,” etc. The rendering, “housekeeper,” is applicable in either case; in the first, in attending to the orderly arrangement of the home; in the second, in guarding and protecting it from sinister influences. Either, and both, are the bounden duty of every wife and mother. “A worthy woman looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.” A slovenly house- wife is a millstone about her husband’s neck. It is also the sacred obligation of the wife and mother to guard her home from con- taminating influences. The earning of a livelihood compels the frequent absence of husband and father; and it devolves upon the wife and mother to stand as sentinel over her household; to ward off every foe that would invade her “holy of holies’”—the home. “Obedient (bxotaccougvas) to their own husbands” (A. V.). “Being in subjection to their own husbands” (R. V.). The word here rendered “obedient” in the Authorized Version, and in the Revised, “being in subjection,” is the familiar verb, Oxotécow. Here again we find it with the middle ending, assuring self-deter- mination. The rendering should be—‘“submitting themselves to their own husbands.” The writer being the same, and the cir- cumstances almost identical, we are justified in the conclusion that the verb bxotasow has the same import here as in Ephesians V:21, 22, and in Colossians 11:18. The Apostle would have these Cretan wives manifest courteous, deferential regard for the wishes of their husbands. This is the duty of every wife; it is also the reciprocal duty of every husband, as is indicated in Ephesians v:21. 260 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “That the word of God be not blasphemed.” We find here the same anxious care on the part of the Apostle that these converts lead irreproachable lives, as appears in his writings elsewhere, and as is manifested in the Epistle of his fellow-Apostle, Peter. It was an age of persecution; Christianity was on trial; they were surrounded on every hand by argus-eyed enemies, eager to de- nounce them for any breach of law or custom. Dr. Ramsay, in his “History of the Church in the Roman Empire,” maintains that the chief charge against Christians at this particular period was that they were disturbers of the social order. He says: “We have seen that charges of breaking up the peace of family life formed the subject of anxious consideration and advice, both to St. Paul and to St. Peter; and we cannot doubt that such charges had often been carried into court. The father, husband, or master dealt in private with individual members of his family; but he must go before the courts in order to punish the person who tampered with their beliefs or habits” (pp. 347, 348). Elsewhere he says: “The remarkable word &doteteticxotog has never been explained. It appears to be a rendering into Greek, of a charge brought against the Christians, which had no single term to denote it, and for which this bold compound was framed by the writer. I cannot doubt that it refers to the charge of tampering with family rela- tionships, causing disunion and discord, rousing discontent and disobedience among slaves and so on” (p. 295). Under these circumstances the keynote of the charge, both on the part of the Apostles Paul and Peter, was obedience to law— subjection to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake—not only to laws that were just, but also to laws that were unjust, so long as they did not invade the realm of conscience. He says: “We bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the Gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. ix:12). “Giving no occasion of stumbling in anything, that our ministration be not blamed” (II Cor. vi:3). “All things are lawful; but all things are not expedient” (I Cor. x:23). To the Ephesians, Paul writes: “Look therefore carefully how ye walk, not as unwise, but as wise; redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” The Apostle Peter taught the same lesson. Submission even to PAULINE DECRETALS 261 wrongdoing. “If, when ye do well, and suffer, ye shall take it patiently, this is acceptable with God” (I Pet. ii:20). The Lord Jesus laid down the same rule of obedience to law and non- resistance to personal abuse. On one occasion He was in Caper- naum. They that received the tribute money came to Peter and said, Doth not your Master pay the didrachma? When they were come into the house, Jesus said to Peter: “What thinkest thou, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers?” And when Peter answered : “From strangers,” Jesus said unto him, “Therefore the sons are free. But lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a stater; that take, and give unto them for Me and thee” (Matt. xvii:25-27). On another occasion He said: “If any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall impress thee to go one mile, go with him twain” (Matt. v:39-41). Under Roman law a soldier could impress a civilian to accompany him one mile to carry his accoutrement. Jesus said, “Go with him twain.” It is a remarkable fact that while the Gospels and Epistles were written at a period when slavery, in its most terrible aspect, per- vaded the Roman Empire; when monsters such as Nero sat upon the throne; when the earth was drenched with human gore; when the wife was the chattel of her husband, the student of Sacred Writ may search the New Testament from cover to cover without finding a single pronouncement in direct condemnation of slavery, despotism, warfare, or the degradation of woman. Even He Who spoke as “never man spoke’ uttered, so far as we know, not one syllable in direct protest. The genius of Christianity was against these and every other wrong, but the methods of Christianity were not revolutionary. Christ sent forth His disciples not “to turn the world upside down” by inciting to rebellion against legally constituted authority, but by broadcasting eternal principles, which would, in time, prove themselves “mighty through God to the pulling down of the strong- hold of sin.” XII IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH PAULINE ATTITUDE HE New Testament is a compilation of twenty-seven separate documents. Assuming that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse, and that the author of Hebrews is unknown, we have herein the productions of nine different writers. Of these, only two—the Apostles Peter and Paul—felt it incum- bent upon them to single out women for special legislation. Of these two writers, the latter alone has aught to say regarding the activities of women in the church. Of the thirteen epistles accredited to this Apostle, in only three does he broach the subject, and in one of these, in response to a letter of inquiry. The reader can readily see that this question, which has loomed large in the history of the church, was not an absorbing theme with the writers of the New Testament. In order to comprehend the Pauline precepts, we must acquaint ourselves with the Pauline practice. We cannot afford to set the Apostle at variance with himself. His sayings must harmonize with his personal behavior; his teachings with his conduct. Now aside from his precepts, what attitude did the Apostle Paul assume toward the public functioning of women in the church of Jesus Christ? For answer we turn to the New Testament records. We take first the case of Priscilla, already studied in chapter nine of this volume. Dr. Headland, writing in the “Dictionary of the Bible,” Vol. IV, p. 103, says: “Prisca, in some way or other, occupied a prominent position in the Roman church.” Dr. A. J. Gordon, writing in the “Missionary Review,” says: “It is evident that the Holy Spirit made this woman Priscilla a teacher of teachers.” She was chief instructor to Apollos—‘“a learned man” ; and “mighty in the Scriptures”—and this after the Apostle Paul’s residence in her home at Corinth. Not only does the New Testa- 262 PAULINE ATTITUDE 263 ment bear ample testimony to her activity in the spread of the Gospel, but we find her name inscribed on monuments at Rome and a church erected to her memory on the Aventine. What does the Apostle Paul have to say to all this? Has he no word of reproof to offer? We turn to his letter to the Romans, xvi:3, and read: “Salute Prisca and Aquila’’—putting her name first—‘‘my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles: and [salute] the church that is in their house.” We turn to I Corinthians xvi:19, and find:_ “Aquila and Prisca salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” We turn to his last extant epistle—II Timothy iv :19, and find this message: “Salute Prisca and Aquila.” According to the Apostle’s own words, here was a woman known and honored in “all the churches of the Gentiles.” He not only accords her the unusual distinction of naming her before her hus- band, but he enrolls her as a “fellow-worker’’—a term he elsewhere applies to Timothy, Luke, Mark, Clement, Aristarchus, Justus, and Urbanus. It is evident that the Apostle did not regard the activi- ties of Priscilla with disfavor. Priscilla is called cuvepy6s. In I Cor. xvi:16 the church is enjoined to be in subjection to the cuveoyol. Another woman standing out prominently in a writing of the Apostle was Phoebe. Romans xvi:1, 2, we read: “I commend unto you Phcebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: 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” CARY): “T commend unto you Phcebe our sister, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self” (R. V.). Here we have a striking example of the unreliability of our English versions, when the question of the ministry of women is at issue. The word here translated “servant” is the Greek word 264 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Btdxovoc. It occurs twenty times in the Pauline epistles; sixteen times it is translated “minister” (Rom. xiii:4; xv:8; I Cor. ii1:5; Ti Cor, uit:6 swiss Sines og (alan em pidibey wie teas 137,123,225 tv: 7 ed Ness. Tie Ok na yO) wi DReestites tans rendered “deacon” (Phil. i:1; I Tim. 111:8, 12). Only once in the Pauline writings is the word 8téxovog translated “servant,” and that single exception is Romans xvi:1, where the word is used in reference to Pheebe. Dr. Katharine Bushnell, in her book, ‘““God’s Word to Women,” says: “It seems to us that divers weights and measures have been employed, occasionally, when translating the utterances of the Bible’; and she cites, among other instances, the case before us. The author of this volume will go further than Dr. Bushnell, and make the statement without qualification—“divers weights and measures” have been used in the translation of the Bible. Again and again translators have given a word one rendering when applied to men, and an entirely different rendering when applied to women. Romans xvi:1 is only one instance. Proverbs xx:10 we read: “Divers weights and divers measures, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.” Why should it be said of Paul thathe was made a d8taxovogc— minister? (Eph. 11:7; Col. 1:23); of Tychicus, that he was a “Beloved brother and faithful 6:¢x0voc—minister”? (Eph. vi:21; Col. iv:7) ; of Epaphras, that he was a faithful 8:¢x0voc—minister ? (Col. 1:7); of Timothy, that he was God’s 8:éxovoc—minister ? and of Phcebe, that she was a 3taxovoc—servant? Dr. James M. Gray, in commending Dr. Bushnell’s book, says: “It is time a woman should interpret what the Bible says about women.” Bishop Lightfoot, commenting on Romans xvi:1, also on I Timothy iii:11, says: “If the testimony borne in these two passages to a ministry of women in the Apostolic times had not been thus blotted out of our English Bibles, attention would probably have been directed to the subject at an earlier date, and our English church would not have remained so long maimed of one of her hands.” Dr. A. J. Gordon, in the article before referred to, says: ‘“Dea- PAULINE ATTITUDE 265 coness has timidly crept into the margin of the Revised Version, thus adding prejudice to slight by the association which this name has with ‘High Church sisterhoods and orders.’ ” We object to the translation ‘“deaconess” on the ground that no such word as 8taxdyicca occurs in the New Testament. Bishop Ellicott says: “The proposed rendering ‘deaconess’ is open to the objection that it introduces into the New Testament the technical name 8taxdvtcow which is of later origin.” One of the earliest appearances of the word staxéyvtcoe in church literature is in the Apostolic Constitutions. Dr. J. M. Ludlow in his volume, “Woman’s Work in the Church,” p. 21, says: “The ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ on this subject, I must say, appear to me, quite in accordance with the view now perhaps most gen- erally entertained, that they represent the condition of the Greek Church at some period of the second century.” Dr. Katharine Bushnell comments thus: “It was not until the middle of the third century that an order of women called ‘Dea- conesses’ became common in the churches of the East; they were scarcely ever known in the early centuries in the Western branch of the church.” Every member of the Revision Committee was familiar with these facts when it wrote in the margin the word “deaconess.” Atéxovoc—“deacon,” is of common gender and applies to either male or female. Phoebe was a 8taxovoc. But Paul, Tychicus, Epaphras and Timothy were also 8téxover. Why did not the translators rendered thus: “I Paul was made a deacon”’? “Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful deacon”? Epaphras, “who is a faithful deacon of Christ”? Timothy, ‘“God’s deacon”? In every instance in the Pauline writings where the word 8tdxovo¢g is used in connection with a proper noun, the translators pass over the rendering “deacon” and adopt “minister’—except in the case of Phoebe. Why an exception here? In the three instances where the translators have rendered “deacon’—Philippians i:1; I Tim- othy i11:8, 12, —dtdxovoc is used apart from proper names and in reference to groups. We quote from Kurtz’s “Church History,” Vol. I, p. 188: 266 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “At the time of the Didache which knows nothing of a subordi- nation of presbyters under the bishop (indeed like Phil. i:1, it makes no mention of presbyters), this relation was one of thoroughly harmonious coordination and cooperation. In the thir- teenth chapter the exhortation is given to choose only faithful and approved men as bishops and deacons ‘for they discharge for you thy Aettoveytay thy TOOgHTMY xal StdacxaAwy and so they rep- resent along with those the tettuyuévot among you.’ The service of prophets, according to the Didache, was preéminently that of the dpxteeets, and so there was entrusted to them the consecration of the elements in the Lord’s Supper. This service the bishops and deacons discharged, inasmuch as, in addition to their own special duties as presidents of the congregation, charged with its administration and discipline, they were required in the absence of prophets to conduct the worship.” That women officiated as “ministers” in the early Christian church is apparent from the report of the younger Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, about 104 A.p. He says: “However I thought it necessary to apply the torture to some young women who were called ministers” (ministrae). In both the old Italian Version and in the Vulgate, Phoebe is called a “muinistra.’ “Origen (184-253 A.D.) in commenting on Phcebe and her mission, speaks of the ministry of women in the church as both existing and necessary” (Ludlow’s “Woman’s Work in the Church,” p. 24). Not only is the translation “deaconess” inexcusable in the case before us, but not even the rendering “deacon” meets the full requirements. In the second verse of this chapter it is said of Phoebe that she “was made” (éyevn§n) a moocta&ttc. Here we have the first aorist passive form of the verb. This is incongruous with the rendering of both the Authorized and Revised Versions. Every candid student of the original text must realize this. Why should it be said of Phoebe that “she was made” a “succourer,”’ or that “she was made” “a helper’? The translators recognized the inappropriateness of such rendering, and, without warrant, changed to the active form—‘“She hath been a succourer” (A.V.). “She hath been a helper” (R.V.). Phoebe was made (éyevn6n) PAULINE ATTITUDE 267 a Teoctatic. The office, whatever it was, had been bestowed upon her by an outside agent. The word xpoctatt signifies, “a woman set over others.” (Thayer’s “Greek-English Lexicon,” p. 549); it is the feminine of the noun tpoctdty from the verb tootctynut, which means “to set over’; “to be over”; “to superintend”; “to preside over.” We have the participle form—rpotctdguevoc—in Romans xii:8, and the translators render, “He that ruleth.’ We have the same word in I Thessalonians v:12: “Know them that labor among you and are over you” (nootetasévous); also in I Timothy v:17, “The elders that rule(xpocotHte¢) well.” Dr. Hodge, in his commentary on Romans, p. 618, says: “The word properly means, one who is placed over, who presides, or rules.” But here in Romans xvi:2, it is recorded of Phcebe that “she was made a Tooctatts —in other words, she was constituted a Teoctatic— “a woman set over others’—by some authority apart from herself. At once a difficulty presents itself. Phoebe was a woman, and it would never do to have a woman exercising ec- clesiastical authority over others. But the translators rose to the occasion. Instead of giving cpootatts its primary signification— “a woman set over others”; they went far afield and fastened on the word “succourer.” ~ The Revisers, more blameworthy still, adopted the rendering “helper’—a word of not even distant kin- ship to mpoctaéttc. Some commentators have suggested “pa- troness” as a happy solution of the difficulty. Would translators have resorted to such makeshifts if Phoebe had been a man? If a masculine name had been inserted here, would they not have hailed its possessor as a bishop, or at least as a “ruling elder”? But Phoebe was a woman, so at once, out of the bag are brought the “divers weights and measures.” Concerning the rendition “patroness,” Dr. Hodge says: “There is very slight foundation for the ascription of this meaning to the word in the New Testament, and as it is elsewhere used in its ordinary sense (I Thess. v:13; I Tim. vi:17) tt is commonly understood of rulers. Some take it in reference to rulers in gen- 268 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN eral, civil or ecclesiastical; others, of church rulers or elders.” “It is more common, therefore, to understand meotcta&uevoc, of any one who exercises authority in the church” (Hodge on Romans, p. 618). “The earliest regulation concerning ‘Patrons’ in the West is that of the Council of Orange, 441 a.p.” (“Christian Antiquities”). The Reverend J. F. Denham, M.A., F.R.S., St. John’s Col- lege, Cambridge, England, commenting on the term “priest,” says: “The English word is generally derived from the New Testament term presbyter (elder), the meaning of which is, however, es- sentially different from that which was intended by the ancient terms. It would come nearer, if derived from mpotcthnyt or Toototawat, ‘to preside,’ etc. It would then correspond to Aris- totle’s definition of a priest, tv med¢ tods Meods xUoetoc, ‘pre- siding over things relating to the gods’ (Polit. iii:14), and with the very similar one in Hebrews v:1, “Every high priest taken from among men, is constituted on behalf of men, with respect to their concerns with God (t& mec tov Ocdy), that he may repre- sent both gifts and sacrifices for sins.’ ” Phoebe was a teoctatic. This is the feminine of the noun moootatyn; from the verb moootctyur. According to Dr. Denham, Teototyut embodies very closely the sense of the term “priest.” The New Testament word for “bishop” is éxloxonos. It signi- fies “overseer.”” Now Pheebe “presided over many.’ If she were a “ruling elder,” her jurisdiction would be limited in the main to a congregation. It requires the acumen of translators and com- mentators to exclude her from the bishopric, and to register her “a servant” or “a deaconess.” Instead of Phoebe being a “servant” of the church at Cenchre, or even a “deaconess,” as translators would have us believe, she was a minister (8téxov0s¢) even as Paul, Timothy, Tychicus, Epaphras and Apollos were ministers (8téxovot) instead of being made or constituted a “succourer” or “helper” or “patroness,” she was made a “ruler over many,’ and that by the Apostle Paul’s appointment, for he says, xat éuod adto0—“and of me “PAULINE ATTITUDE 269 myself.’ This we take to be the genitive of source or agent. Phoebe received her appointment from the hands of Paul him- self; he recognized her authority and enjoined upon others to do the same. Her visit to Rome was on church matters, and the Apostle entreated the Christian community of that city to “re- ceive her in the Lord worthily of saints,’ and to stand by her (xaeactite) “in whatsoever business” (teéyyatt) she might under- take. Dr. A. C. Headlam, writing in the “Dictionary of the Bible’ (Hastings), p. 850, says of Phoebe: “The fact that she went with a letter of recommendation suggests that she was traveling in the service of the church.” “The words by which she is in- troduced (cuvtctynut se buiv), imply a formal introduction to the Roman community.” “The description of her as mpoctdétic, sug- gests that she was a person of some wealth and position. The word again is probably technical; it implies legal representative.” Here was a woman who was minister of the church at Cen- chrea, the seaport of Corinth, only nine miles from that opulent city. She exercised authority “over many,” and her appointment was from the hand of the Apostle himself. Instead of rebuking her for unsexing herself, he gives her a letter of introduction to the Christian community at Rome and charges the church to “stand by her” in any business in the transaction of which she needed assistance. “The term used in the Greek is a legal one, hence it is supposed that some kind of legal business called her to Rome” (“Peoples’ Commentary”). Another woman whose name stands out with distinction in this sixteenth chapter of Romans is Junia. In the seventh verse we read: “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow- prisoners, who are of note among the apostles (A.V). (0% ttvé¢ elory éxtonmot év toto drootéAotc). Commenting on this passage, Dr. Gordon says: “As a woman is named among the deacons in this Chapter, so it is more than probable that one is mentioned among the apostles. Is Junia a feminine name? So it has been commonly held. But the év tot¢ axootéAots with which it stands 270 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN connected has led some to conclude that it is Junias, the name of a man. This is not impossible, but Chrysostom, who as a Greek Father, ought to be taken as high authority, makes this frank and unequivocal comment on this passage: ‘How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be counted worthy of the name of an Apostle.’ ” Chrysostom lived in the fourth century and ranked among the most learned of the Greek Fathers. His comment in detail is as follows: “Indeed to be an Apostle at all is a great thing; but to be even amongst those of note; just consider what a great en- comium this is. But they of note, owing to their works and their achievements—Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy the appellation of Apostle.” Bishop Lightfoot says: “It is doubtful if there was such as a name as Junias, while Junia was a common name among the women of Rome.” Dr. Hodge says: “It is commonly taken as a female name.” Dr. A. C. Headlam says of Andronicus and Junia: “They were distinguished among the Apostles, a phrase which probably means that they were distinguished members of the Apostolic body, the word Apostle being used in its wider sense.” He says further: “Curiously enough Chrysostom does not con- sider the idea of a female Apostle impossible.” If the individual here spoken of had been a man, the name would have been Junius—not Junias. In such case the accusative ending “‘ayv,” as in the text (’louvtav) would be incorrect. The Authorized Version renders this name as feminine—Junia. The Revisers, notwithstanding the weight of evidence to the con- trary, make it masculine—Junias—coining a name which neither they nor their fathers knew—no, nor yet the Romans. “Of note among the apostles” (oftivés elory éxtonuot gy totg droctéAotc), This means one of two things. Either that Junia was an apostle of note, or that she was held in high esteem by the apostles. The fact that the preponderance of testimony points to Junia as a woman would at once induce some to adopt the second explanation. One expositor makes frank confession on this point. He says: “If the person here spoken of was a woman, PAULINE ATTITUDE 271 we must adopt the second view, because a woman could not be an apostle.” He first asswmes that a woman could not be an apostle, then makes his exegesis conform to this assumption. Bigg, in his commentary, comments thus: “Some think he [Paul] speaks of Andronicus and Junias (Rom. xvi:7) as apostles, but the second name is more probably Junia, and the sense is uncertain.” Redactors stand ready with their “divers weights and measures” and the import of the clause—Of note among the apostles,’ is dependent on the sex of this second individual. Aside from Romans xvi:7, we know from church history that one woman at least was called an apostle. In the “Acts of Paul and Thecla”’—a document quoted as early as the second century to prove woman’s right to baptize—Thecla is called an apostle. Of this ancient writing, Ramsay in his “Church History” says: “The ‘Acta Pauli et Theklae’ goes back ultimately to a document of the first century.” ‘“Thecla belonged to one of the noblest families of Iconium.” He says further: “The ‘Acta Pauli et Theklae’ is the only extant literary work which throws light on the character of popular Christianity in Asia Minor during the period we have been studying (50-170 a.p.). Thecla became the type of the female Christian teacher, preacher and baptizer, and her story was quoted as early as the second century as a justifica- tion of the right of women to teach and to baptize.” Dr. Ramsay also declares that numerous Mss. of the “Acta Pauli et Theklae” are extant “including versions in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic and Slavonic.” He says: “Prof. Rendel Harris told me that he had seen at Mount Sinai eight or nine Mss.,” and adds significantly, “In process of time, the objectional features were toned down and eliminated, so that in extant Mss. not a single trace remains of Thecla administering the rite of baptism to others (“Church in the Roman Empire,” pp. 375, 376). The term “apostle” was not confined to the Twelve. Paul was an apostle, but he was not of the Twelve; Barnabas is called an apostle (Acts xiv:14); James, the Lord’s brother, is called an apostle (Gal. i:19); Matthias was chosen an apostle (Acts 1:26) ; Epaphroditus is called an apostle (Phil. ii:25) ; II Corin- 272 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN thians viii :23, it is said of certain brethren that they were apostles of the churches. The foregoing considerations, together with the fact that in the Greek we have the spherical Dative (év tot¢ &xootéAot¢) determine us in favor of the first view, viz., that Junia was an apostle of note. Here was a woman holding highest office in the New Testa- ment Church. Instead of administering reproof, the Apostle Paul sends her greetings. In this sixteenth chapter of Romans, ten women are mentioned. The names of eight are given. Phcebe, “a minister of the church at Cenchree”’; Priscilla, a “fellow-worker”; Mary, “who bestowed much labor’ on the Christians at Rome; Junia, “of note among the apostles”; Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who “labored in the Lord”; “Persis, the beloved, which labored much in the Lord”; and Julia. The Apostle also sends greetings to the mother of Rufus, and the sister of Nereus. Now we call attention to the fact that of the eight women whose names appear in this sixteenth chapter of Romans, seven are said to be actively engaged in Gospel service. What were their functions? We have already studied the cases of Phceebe, Priscilla and Junia, but how about Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis? Did they hold official positions in the church, or were they laywomen? Commentators have a convenient method of disposing of all such cases. They write after each name, “She was probably a dea- coness”’, ignoring the indisputable evidence that there was no such functionary in the New Testament Church. There were male and female deacons, but no deaconesses. The latter was an outgrowth of the second century, when prejudice had relegated woman to the background. We call attention to a fact which readers may verify by a study of commentaries. It is quite the custom of expositors to write after the name of a man who stands out with any degree of prom- inence in the Pauline epistles, words such as these—‘Tradition holds that he was bishop of”—naming the diocese; while after the name of every woman whose activities are mentioned with ap- PAULINE ATTITUDE 273 proval they register the refrain—“She was probably a deaconess.” The “Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia” devotes almost an entire column to a biographical sketch of Aquila, ending with these words: “The Greeks call Aquila bishop and apostle, and honor him on July 12. The festival of Aquila and Priscilla is placed in the Roman Calendar, where he is denoted Bishop of Heraclea, on July 8.” This same Encyclopedia dismisses Priscilla —the more prominent character of the two—with a mention in seven lines in which are these words: “Wife of Aquila, and probably like Phoebe, a deaconess.” Let us note what the Apostle Paul has to say about the four women whose names are yet before us: v. 6, “Salute Mary who bestowed much labor (moAA& éxontacev) on you” (R.V.). The Authorized Version reads: “Greet Mary, who bestowed much labor on us.” J. J. Moss, rejecting the Revised rendering and adopting the Authorized, edifies his readers thus: “She made and mended, cooked and washed for the Apostles’ (“Criticism and Exegesis of Scripture,” p. 162). It must be disconcerting to those who incline to such view to learn that the earlier manuscripts read, not “us,” but “you’’—that is on the church at Rome. Surely the erudite exegete just cited would not hold that Mary “made and mended, cooked and washed” for the entire congregation. Humanitarian consideration forbids such conclusion. “Salute Mary who labored much (moAkd& éxorlacty) for you” (ets bua). The word here rendered “labored much,” or as in our English Versions, “bestowed much labor,’ is the Greek verb xomtéw—noun form x6n0¢. It occurs in I Corinthians xv:10, where the Apostle Paul says: “I labored (éxoxtac«) more abun- dantly than they all”; also in the following passages: John iv:38: “I sent you to reap that whereon ye have not labored (xexomtaxate); others have labored (xexomtaxacty) and _ye have entered into their labor” (xémov); I Timothy v:17: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, espe- cially those who labor (xoxt@yte¢) in the word and in teaching”; 274 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN I Thessalonians v:12: “We beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor (xomt@vta%>¢) among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work’s sake” ; Galatians iv:11: “I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor (xexomfaxa) upon you in vain” ; Colos- sians 1:29: “Whereunto I labor (xox) also, striving, according to His working, Who worketh in me mightily.” Now in all these cases and others that might be cited, xomttaw, is used, according to Dr. Joseph Henry Thayer, to signify “The toilsome efforts of teach- ers in proclaiming and promoting the kingdom of God and Christ.” In I Corinthians xvi:16, we have this Pauline injunction: “That ye also be in subjection (Srotécoy8e) unto such, and to every one that helpeth in the work and laboreth” (xom6vett). This would indicate that the laborers here spoken of were persons exercising authority over others. This was certainly so in the case of Paul; of the ruling and teaching elders mentioned in I Timothy v:17, of the rpootatart of I Thessalonians v:12, and also of the apostles to whom Jesus spoke in John iv:38. But how about Mary who la- bored much for the church at Rome? J. J. Moss says: “She made and mended, cooked and washed for the Apostles.’’ Commentators in general tell us that “she was probably a deaconess.” Dr. Har- low Bates calls attention to the fact that “inscribed sepulchral stones unearthed from her tomb” accredit the claim that the “Mary” mentioned in Romans xvi, as laboring much, “was the bishop or pastor of the church of Beretus” (Beirut). V:12. “Salute Tryphzna and Tryphosa who labor (xoxtwcac) in the Lord. Salute Persis the beloved, which labored (éxottacty) much in the Lord.” Here again, in the case of these three women, we have the verb xontaw—with the added clause—“In the Lord.” It seems to the author that only the most wilful prejudice can blind the mind to the fact that these women were propagandist of the Gospel—either teaching elders, evangelists or preachers. That there were such in the New Testament church will appear in our later study. Philippians iv:3. “I exhort Euodia, and I exhort Syntyche to be PAULINE ATTITUDE 275 of the same mind in the Lord. Yea, I beseech thee also, true yoke- fellow, help these women, for they labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of life.” Here are two women—Euodia and Syntyche—eminent in the church at Philippi. McGriffert, in his “The Apostolic Age,” tells us that their names occur frequently in the inscriptions—in Gruter and Muratori. He says: “The English Version treats the first as a man’s name, and others have in like manner interpreted the second. Noimstance however of either Euodias or Syntyches have been found in the mscriptions.’ Bishop Lightfoot, says: “Two female names are clearly required here, as there is nothing else in the sentence to which adtat¢ can be referred. Euodia and Syn- tyche appear to have been women of rank, possibly deaconesses in the Philippian church’ (Commentary on Philippians). He says further: “It may, I think, be gathered from St. Luke’s narrative that her (woman) social position was higher in this country [Macedonia] than in most parts of the civilized world.” “The extant Macedonian inscriptions seem to assign to the sex a higher social influence than is common among the civilized nations of antiquity. In not a few instances a matronymic takes the place of the usual patronymic.” “The active zeal of the women in this country is a remarkable fact, without a parallel in the Apostle’s history elsewhere, and only to be compared with their prominence at an earlier date in the personal ministry of our Lord” (“Intro- duction to Church of Philippi,” by Lightfoot, p. 57). Gore, in his commentary on the “Epistle to the Ephesians,” p. 228, says: “In the early Christian Church the influence of women was put to far nobler uses than in Asiatic cities.” Euodia and Syntyche were prominent in the church at Philippi— a city of Macedonia. Of these women the Apostle says: “They labored with me in the gospel’ (év t@ ebayyeAtw). Here is a particularly strong expression. Of all the individuals whose names appear in the Pauline writings, of only one, aside from these two women, is it said that he or she labored with the Apostle “Jn the gospel’”—and that one is Timothy. In this same Epistle, second chapter, twenty-second verse, we read: “But ye know the proof 276 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of him, that as a child (serveth) a father, he served (é30UAeucey) with me in the Gospel” (cig td edVayyéAtov); but even here the Apostle does not employ the spherical Dative, as in the case of Euodia and Syntyche. There is a further difference. In his reference to Timothy he uses the verb—éovAdéw—which means to serve under the direction of another; while in relation to Euodia and Syntyche he employs the first aorist active of cuva0Xéw which signifies—“To labor together with.’ In I Thessalonians iii:2, the Apostle writes of Timothy in these words: “Our brother and God’s minister in the Gospel.’ Here, as in the case of Euodia and Syntyche, he uses the spherical Dative—év t@ edayyeAty. These women labored “together with” the Apostle Paul in the sphere of the Gospel, and he beseeches his “true yoke-fellow” to “take hold together’ (suvkaydavw) with them. Bishop Lightfoot says: “The rendering adopted by the English version, ‘help those women which labored,’ etc., is obviously incorrect.” The exegesis that would make this an appeal to effect, if pos- sible, a reconciliation between these two women is the most sense- less and inane imaginable. It certainly would never have been offered in seriousness except for an ardent desire to get rid of two women who evidently occupied a very prominent place in the church at Philippi, and who labored with Paul “in the Gospel.” The Rev. Dr. W. K. Brown says: “The term ‘help’ indicates a similarity in the labors of the males and females. And the charge is, ‘help those women,’ which being given to a man, fully confirms the associate labor of men and women” (“Gunethics,” p. 100). After the names of these two women—foremost in the church at Philippi, associates with the Apostle in the spread of the Gospel —commentators have written: “They were probably deaconesses.” In Chapter IX we called attention to the fact that when the Apostle Paul was on his last recorded journey to Jerusalem, he tarried “many days” at the house of Philip the evangelist, who re- sided at Cesarea. “Now this man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” (Acts xxi:9). Here was an opportunity for the Apostle Paul to show to his own, and to succeeding gen- PAULINE ATTITUDE 277 erations his disapproval of the public ministry of women, but Luke makes no such entry in the narrative. There is no intimation of dissatisfaction on the part of the Apostle. In the cases that have come under our review, either by greetings to the individuals or in messages to the churches, he manifested approbation. In prac- tice he measured up to the rule announced in I Corinthians xi:11, and in Galatians 111:28—‘‘Neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman in the Lord’; “There can be no male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.” XITI IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH (ContTiInvep) PAULINE MANDATES 4 \HERE is no probability that any reader of this volume will take issue with us when we affirm that the Apostle’s prac- tice and precept must parallel each other. He must not be at cross-purposes with himself. He must be consistent. Before studying in detail the Pauline precepts relative to woman’s activities in the church, let us find their range; let us ascertain their compass; let us measure their projectile force. Was the Apostle speaking to the churches of the Roman Empire, or was he broadcasting laws for the churches of the future? Here is a vital question, and it must be answered—and answered to the satisfaction of the present generation. It was General Fisk who said: “No question is settled until it is settled right.” Look through the files of the Christian church, covering a period of almost two thousand years, and you meet one oft-recurring ques- tion—“It would not down,’—and that question is before the ecclesiastical assemblages of today, and it will never be settled “until it is settled right’—that question is the status of woman in the church of Jesus Christ. Foregoing, for the time being, the matter of translations, the controversy over woman’s position in the church has centered in the main about this one point—were the Pauline rulings local or were they general in their application? Regardless of what the answers of the past have been, we present the question anew to our readers. To aid us in the solution of this problem, let us consider some other laws laid down in these epistles and the attitude of the church concerning them. Take for example a proviso in I Timothy 111:2, 12; v:9; Titus 1:6. The Apostle here expressly rules against elevating to office in the church persons who had contracted a 278 PAULINE MANDATES 279 second marriage. He says: “The bishop therefore must be with- out reproach, the husband of one wife,” etc. “Let deacons be husbands of one wife,’ etc. “That thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge: if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife,” etc. At the time the Apostle wrote there was in both Greece and Rome a strong prejudice against second marriages. There is no ground for believing that Paul himself entertained such sentiment, but he was careful not to run counter to public opinion in this matter. In I Corinthians x:32, he says: “Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God: even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.” Some have endeavored to evade the conclusion that the Apostle here prohibits the election or appointment of persons of second marriage to office in the church, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Any other explanation lays the New Testament church open to the charge of tolerating polygamy and loose divorces. We subjoin some testimony from ancient documents on this question: Origen (186-253 A.D.) says: “Neither bishop, priest, deacon nor widow must be twice married.” He here speaks of the presbyterial widow. ‘The ordination of twice married men was forbidden by the Apostolical Canons (Canon xvii), and Constitu- tions (11:2, vi:17), and by all the synods that dealt with the sub- ject except those held among the Nestorians. In “Christian Antiquities’ (Smith and Cheetham), Vol. II, p. 1486, we have this record: “The regulations in regard to the marriage of candidates for orders were governed by the Pauline injunction pr&¢ yuvatnds &vdee. (I Tim. iii:2, 12; Titus i:6). As to the interpretation of that injunction, there appears to have been a consensus of opinion. It excluded those who having lost one wife, had married another.” “The Western rule rigidly excluded from the priesthood all who had married a second wife, whether the first marriage had taken place before or after bap- tism.” 280 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Tertullian (150-226 A.D.) urged as an argument against second marriages that: “The Apostolic injunctions forbid the twice mar- ried to be bishops, nor suffer a widow to be received to (or selected for) ordination—allegi in ordinationem—except she has been the wife of one husband only; for the altar of God must be exhibited without spot” (Ad Ux; Book I, C. 7). So strong was the prejudice against second marriages in the early church that “The Council of Neoczsarea, 314 A.p. forbade priests from honoring with their presence the festivities customary on such occasions; as those who married a second time were subject to penance,’ and the Council of Laodicea—352 A.p.— “Deemed it a matter of indulgence to admit to communion those who conducted a second marriage” (“Sacerdotal Celibacy,” p. 24). “Although the church forbore to prohibit absolutely the repeti- tion of matrimony among the laity, it yet at an early, though uncertain period, imitated the rule enforced on the Flamen Dialis, and rendered it obligatory on the priesthood, thus for the first time drawing a distinct line of separation between the great body of the faithful and those who officiated as ministers of Christ. It thus became firmly and irrevocably established that no ‘Diga- mus, or husband of a second wife, was admissible to holy orders. As early as the time of Tertullian we find the rule formally ex- pressed by him, and he even assures us that the whole structure of the church was based upon the single marriages of its ministers.” “This was the formal rule of the church as enunciated in the ‘Apostolic Constitutions and Canons’” (“Sacerdotal Celibacy,” Pp. 25, 26). The testimony along this line is voluminous. For further proof the reader is referred to the “Apostolic Constitutions,” vi, xvii, XVili, XIX, XXVIi. Bishop Ellicott says: “We decide in favor of (c. b.) and con- sider the Apostle to declare the contraction of a second marriage © to be a disqualification for the office of an éxtcxomo¢g or dtd&xovoc. (“Pastoral Epistles,” pp. 56, 57). Blackstone, the great English jurist, says: “In the canon law, bigamy was the marrying of a second wife after the death of the first, or once marrying a widow. This disqualified a man for PAULINE MANDATES 281 orders, and holding ecclesiastical offices.” Shakespeare uses the word in the latter sense in “Richard IIT.” Notwithstanding the irrefutable testimony available along this line, we have even at this late day the ludicrous spectacle of men who have contracted a second marriage—some even a third— sitting in the councils of the church and voting against admitting women to official positions on the ground that the Apostle Paul said: “Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not per- mitted unto them to speak’; “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man.” If the church of today enforced the rule laid down by the Apostle Paul in I Timothy i1i:2, 12, and Titus 1:6, a goodly proportion of its ministers would be unfrocked and official boards would undergo many changes. Centuries ago the church shelved this mandate of the Apostle on the ground that it was a temporary regulation and local in its application. Another law laid down by the Apostle and rigidly adhered to in the New Testament Church is found in I Corinthians vi:1-6. Here the Apostle is even stern in his utterance: “Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the un- righteous, and not before the saints?” In the primitive church differences between fellow-Christians were adjudicated “out of court,’ by a church tribunal. How is it today? How many re- ligious bodies conform to the Pauline requirement? For cen- turies the law has been in discard on the plea that circumstances are wholly different. Another mandate of the Apostle equally neglected is sonia in I Timothy ii:8, “I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lift- ing up holy hands.” It was both a Jewish and a heathen custom to pray with outstretched hands. We have references to this attitude in I Kings viii:22; Psalms xxviii:2, xliv:20, Ix111:4, CxXxxiv :2, cxli:2; Neh. viii:2. Aristotle says: “All we of human kind stretch forth our hands to heaven when we pray.” Now the Apostle Paul enjoined this posture in prayer. Clement of Alexandria, 192 A.p., and his contemporary Tertullian, mention this custom as prevalent among the early Christians. Origen says: “We ought without doubt in prayer prefer the stretching forth of the hands and the lifting up of the eyes.” How do the churches 282 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of today regard this apostolic injunction? It is needless for us to say that a minister who would assume this posture in the modern pulpit would be deemed eccentric and would be ousted by his congregation; yet this appointment of the Apostle lies in juxtaposition with his other ordainment: “Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection” ; which latter the ecclesiastical courts of the past have ruled, was given to the race in perpetuity. Another custom of the primitive church was “feet-washing.” That the Apostle Paul approved this practice is evident in his charge to Timothy: “Let none be enrolled as a widow under threescore years old, the wife of one man, well reported of for good works . . . if she hath washed the saints’ feet,” etc. (I Tim. v:9, 10). Notwithstanding the fact that this ordinance had back of it the command of Jesus: “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet” (John xiii:14), clerics had no compunction in relegating it to the past. We call attention to one other Pauline mandate—side-tracked many centuries ago: his charge concerning the “holy kiss.” In four several epistles he enjoins this salutation (Rom. xvi:16; I Cor. xvi:20; II Cor. xiii:12; I Thess. v:22). The same hand that wrote: “Let the women keep silence in the churches” (I Cor. xiv :34) also wrote—and in the same epistle—“Salute one another with a holy kiss.” The Apostle Peter gives the same charge to the elect of the Dispersion in Asia Minor: “Salute one another with a kiss of love” (I Pet. v:14). The “holy kiss,” or the “kiss of love,” as it was also called, was an essential part of the religious services of the primitive church. Tertullian declared that prayer was incomplete without it. It was given after baptism; at ordinations; at espousals; to the dying; and at funerals to the corpse. In “Christian An- tiquities,’ by Smith and Cheetham, Vol. II, p. 90, we have this statement: “The holy kiss originally formed an element of every act of Christian worship. No sacrament or sacramental function was deemed complete in its absence.” ‘Even common prayer without the kiss was considered to lack something of its true character.” PAULINE MANDATES 283 Justin Martyr says: “When we have ceased from prayer, we salute one another with a kiss.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “Then the deacon cries aloud, ‘Re- ceive ye one another, and let us kiss one another.’ ” These early Christians carried their osculations so far that they “Even embraced doors, thresholds, pillars, and pavements of the church, and above all the holy altar” (“Christian Antiquities’’). Not only were the services of the early church characterized by a round of kisses, but these were given promiscuously. We quote the following from Hastings, Vol. IV, p. 936: “That the kiss of Christian brotherhood and sisterhood was not restricted between the sexes is plain from the fact that in later times it was subject to abuse, which led to the restriction being imposed upon it. Athenagoras (177 A.D.) quotes some apocryphal writing under the designation of ‘The Logos,’ in rebuke of the abuse, which says: ‘If anyone kiss a second time because it gives him pleasure,’ etc., and again, ‘Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation should be given with the greatest care, since if there be mixed with it the least defilement of thought it excludes us from eternal life.’ Clement of Alexandria condemns ‘The shameless use of the kiss, which ought to be mystic.’ Tertullian remarks on the reasonable complaint of a pagan husband that his wife should ‘meet any one of the brethren to exchange a kiss.’ ” So much abuse crept in that in time restrictions were placed on the custom. According to Dr. Hastings, “The earliest instance of the new regulation appears in the ‘Apostolic Constitutions.’ ” It was there ordained that “The clergy salute the bishops; the men of the laity salute the men; the women the women.” Another authority on Christian antiquities says: “Nor is there any doubt that the primitive usage was for the ‘holy kiss’ to be given promiscuously, without any restriction as to sexes or rank, among those who were all one in Christ Jesus.” Any minister of today who would attempt to carry out this Pauline injunction would be unfrocked and driven from the com- munity, regardless of apostolic mandates. Now we ask by what law of justice have the courts of the church set aside these laws and ordinances on the ground of obso- 284 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN leteness, while holding to the perpetuity of the Pauline rulings concerning women? How comes it that his commands regarding a digamus, church trials, feet-washing and the “holy kiss” have waxed “old as doth a garment,” and “as a vesture”’ have been folded up and changed, while ecclesiastics who decreed their dis- usage have chorused that the mandates relative to women are the same, and their “years shall not fail”? At once we have this answer—the charge concerning the digamus, church trials, feet- washing and the “holy kiss,” was concessional to local prejudice and customs. Time wrought changes along these lines and the necessity for such provisions no longer existed. It was other- wise with the Apostle’s rulings concerning woman. These were grounded in the immutable purpose of the Almighty. For refutation of this claim the reader is referred to Chapter I. When we have divested ourselves of the thought that Jehovah God predestinated the subordination of woman, we have cleared our vision to the extent of seeing that the Pauline rulings con- cerning her activities in the church were temporal in their char- acter, and local in their application. Like his mandates relative to second marriages, church trials, feet-washing and the “holy kiss,” they were determined by circumstances. Dr. Robertson, in his “Expository Lectures,” p. 118, says: “Tn all such cases, therefore, as are dependent upon circumstances, the Apostle speaks not as inspired, but as uninspired ; as one whose judgment we have no right to find fault with or cavil at, who lays down what is a matter of Christian prudence, and not a bounden and universal duty.” John Stuart Mill said: “To pretend that Christianity was in- tended to stereotype existing forms of government and society, and protect them against change, is to reduce it to the level of Islamism or of Brahmism.” We turn now to a study of these Pauline precepts in detail. We begin with his “First Epistle to the Corinthians,” xi:4-16: “Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoureth her head: for it is one and PAULINE MANDATES 285 the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have [a sign of] authority on her head, because of the angels. Howbeit neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman: but all things are of God. Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” This portion of Scripture is at once both a challenge and a torment to commentators. It is doubtful if there is any passage in the New Testament, outside “The Revelation of John,” that has so distraught expounders as the one before us. Drane in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles, rejects the entire section, xi:2-16, as an interpolation. We are not prepared to go this length. We believe it a hazardous undertaking. If one redactor may slash the Sacred Text because it perplexes him, others may do likewise. The result would be a mutilated Bible. Throughout this volume the author has sedulously avoided calling the au- thenticity of the text in question, except in cases where the evi- dence is indisputable. Our complaint has been against translators and exegetes. While exercising due precaution in this regard, we have not been unmindful of the fact that during the latter part of the first, and also during the second century, a strong antipathy developed against the public functioning of women in the church. This feel- ing resulted in a tampering with the Sacred Text. This was especially noticeable in passages effecting women. Of this there is indubitable proof. Notwithstanding these facts, we still main- 286 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN tain that the safer course to pursue in the case before us is to accept, as far as possible, the text as it now stands, abiding the time when archeologists will lay their larger contribution at the feet of modern scholarship. If excrescences there be, we may rest assured that the future will disclose them. In the providence of God “there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: neither hid, that shall not be known.” The disputation over Dr. E. S. Buchanan’s professed discovery of a second century version of the New Testament is not yet ended. A recent article in a New York daily declares that the old controversy has again “flared up” among Biblical scholars. We quote the following: “Dr. Buchanan’s text was taken from vellum manuscripts, known as ‘Codex Huntingtomanus Palimpsesius, supposedly brought here after they were stolen from a Spanish monastery.” Dr. Bu- chanan was former curator of the Hispanic Society of America. He contends that he “deciphered the text after months of patient reading of underwriting which had been washed out by acid, but which was indelibly imprinted by the original writer.” “The putative version antedates by two or three centuries the Vulgate which was a translation made by St. Jerome in the fourth century from the Hebrew texts.’’ Dr. Buchanan first asserted his discovery in 1917. He declares that when his version was first printed it was suppressed in this country. It is interesting to learn that this disputed version “assigns to woman a more superior place than previously accepted versions.” The Christian world can afford to wait the verdict of Biblical scholars on this mooted discovery. The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written in response to a letter of inquiry addressed to the Apostle Paul and also in rebuke of certain disorders that prevailed in the church at Corinth. Any fair-minded reader can see, that under such circumstances, the contents would be largely local in their application. It is true the inscription reads : “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth [even], them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place.” The phrase: “all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place,’ does not make the Epistle PAULINE MANDATES 287 general. In Colossians 1:23 we find this statement: “Not moved away from the hope of the Gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven.’ In the fifth and sixth verses of the same chapter we have these words: “The Gospel which is come unto you; even as it is also in all the world.” Dr. Jesse Hurlburt says: “‘AII the world’ is taken throughout the New Testament for the Roman Empire.” These are hyperbolic forms of speech, without intent to deceive, and the readers would so understand. The Pharisees said concerning Jesus: “Behold how ye prevail nothing; lo, the world is gone after Him” (John X11 :10). | The phrase: “With all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place,” could only apply to churches under the Pauline jurisdiction, otherwise the “holy kiss,” feet washing, church trials, and prohibition of digamous officials is binding throughout Christendom today. The Apostle Paul could not determine questions of casuistry for congregations outside his own diocese. The reader will remem- ber that on a certain occasion he went up to Jerusalem, and en- tered into an amicable agreement with his fellow-Apostles— James, Cephas and John, that they should minister to the Jews and he and Barnabas to the Gentiles. In Galatians ii:7-9 we read: “When they saw that I had been intrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the Gospel] of the cir- cumcision (for He that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles) : and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles; and they unto the circumcision.” The Apostle Paul had a defined field of labor: his mission was to the Gentiles. He was not ‘a meddler in other men’s matters” ; he did not build on “another man’s foundation.” It was not Paul, but Peter, who wrote to the elect “Sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.” I Corinthians xi:4, “Every man praying or prophesying, having 288 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” In the preceding verse —xi:3—we read: “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [or wife] is the man [or her husband] and the head of Christ is God.” This headship of the husband has been fully treated in chapter eleven of this volume. “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Now exegetes who contend that this Epistle was general in its scope place the Apostle Paul in a position where they must defend him from the charge of misrepresentation. It was not every- where held to be an act of irreverence on the part of men to pray or prophesy with the head covered. The reverse was true of the Jews. The talith was worn “by all male worshippers at the morn- ing prayer on week days, Sabbaths, and holy days: by the hazzan at every prayer before the ark; by the reader of the scroll of the law when on the almemar” (“Jewish Encyclopedia’). Every devout Jew covered his head when he entered the Temple or a synagogue for worship. The Apostle Paul himself conformed to this custom. In Jerusalem, on his missionary tours, and even in Corinth when he entered a synagogue, he “veiled,” or covered his head. The same was true of Peter, James, John and all the other Apostles. The Lord Jesus, in conformity to the custom of his race, prayed and prophesied with His head covered. Under such circumstance how could the Apostle Paul send out announce- ment to the entire Christian world: “Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonoureth his head”? Dr. Adam Clark says: “This decision of the Apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews, for they would not suf- fer a man to pray unless he veiled, for which they gave this reason: “He should veil himself to show that he was ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold Him.’ ” A Jewish writer affirms that in Bible times his race held that a man with his head uncovered was “In undress.” He says: “The Talmud speaks of the covered head of men as conducive to piety because the uncovered head was deemed slovenly and indecent” (“Jewish Service in Synagogue and Home,” p. 302). If the Apostle Paul had addressed this message—“Every man PAULINE MANDATES 289 praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head”’—to the entire Christian world, he would not only have exceeded his jurisdiction, invaded churches over which he had no control, but he would have aroused resentment in every con- gregation where the Jewish element predominated. Such was not his method of procedure. He says: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews: to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the gospel’s sake” (1 Cor. ix :20-23). In the sixth chapter and twenty-third verse of this Epistle, he says: “All things are lawful: but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful: but all things edify not.’ The Apostle Paul was no truckler; he was no trimmer; where principle was involved, he made no compromise; he “gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour’’; but in matters purely conventional, he ac- commodated himself to circumstances; he became “all things to all men’ in his desire to “by all means save some.” Corinth was a Graeco-Roman city, governed by Roman law, but dominated by Greek customs. Dr. Adam Clark says: “Every part of the Grecian learning was highly cultivated here: so that before its destruction by the Romans, Cicero scrupled not to call it totius Graeciae lumen—the eye of all Greece.” According to McGriffert, the “prevailing culture of the world” was at this time Hellenic. Now Greek custom decreed that men should uncover their heads in worship. Authorities differ regarding the Romans. The forementioned Jewish writer—Dembitz—-says: “The Romans, as a matter of pride, braved the sunshine and rain with uncovered head. When they invaded the Holy Land the covered or uncovered head became a badge of distinction be- 290 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN tween the Jew and the invading foreigner.” “When Paul of Tarsus set forth his views to churches made up of Jews and Gen- tiles, intending to fuse both elements into a new communion, rather than a Jewish sect, like that over which James presided at Jerusalem, he demanded that the men should sit in the church with uncovered head, as the surest method of breaking the lingering tie between the church and the synagogue. From this command in Paul’s Epistle comes the Christian custom, by which the bare head alone is admissible in worship, or wherever else respect is to be shown to anyone; probably the lifting of the hat in salutation had its rise when Christians meeting each other took it off as a mark of recognition” (“Service in Synagogue and Home’). The “Lutheran Commentary,” says: “The Jews prayed with veiled faces, in order to express their great reverence of God. Among the Romans, the practice was similar. The Greeks, on the other hand, required that the head should be uncovered when sacred rites were performed.” Dr. Adam Clark says: “A man indeed ought not to cover his head; nor wear his cap or turban. It was contrary to the custom that prevailed, both among the Greeks and Romans,” The covering or the uncovering of the head by men was a live issue in the church at Corinth. The congregation was dis- turbed by factions. One party said, “I am of Paul”; another, “T, of Apollos”; a third, “I, of Cephas”; and the fourth, “I, of Christ.” The Cephas party was in all probability composed of such as contended for Jewish customs in the religious services. The Pauline party was evidently the strongest, for in his epistles the Apostle commends the church for obedience to his mandates. The covering or uncovering of the head in religious services was evidently one of the questions propounded in the letter the Apostle had received from this Corinthian congregation, and he handles the whole matter with the skill of a diplomat. He directs that they shall conform to the custom of the Greeks. Corinth was a city of Greece and the capital of Achaia. His ruling would doubtless be a disappointment to Jewish members, but the attention of the reader is called to the tactfulness of the Apostle. If we turn to PAULINE MANDATES 291 the salutation, i:1-3, we will find that he joins with his own name that of Sosthenes. Now Sosthenes was a Jew, a resident—or at least a former resident of Corinth. When Paul first visited this city this man was a ruler of one of the synagogues (Acts xvili:17), so he must have been an individual of influence among his own people. He was a convert to Christianity and, in all probability, a member of the Corinthian church—at least had been. This would have weight with the Jewish members. It would mollify them to know that Sosthenes approved the decision of the Apostle. There were other prominent Jews in the Church at Corinth, Cris- pus, chief ruler of the synagogue; Gaius, Paul’s host and of the whole church (Rom. xvi:23); Stephanus, first fruit in Achaia —(I Cor. xvi). Whether the foregoing ruling had wider application than to the church at Corinth the reader must determine for himself. It seems to the author the fact that this was an answer to a question propounded by this Ropeicesuc would give it distinct local bear- ing. “Every man” would signify every man in the church at Corinth. It certainly could have no wider range than to the churches within the Pauline jurisdiction. If Roman men wor- shiped with covered heads—a mooted question—it is improbable the Apostle would have aroused antagonism by prohibiting the custom. ‘That he did not regard the veiling or the unveiling of the head a matter of vital importance is evident from what he says in verse thirteen—“Judge ye among yourselves,” etc. X1:5. “Every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoureth her head.” The Emphatic Diaglott renders the last clause “Disgraces the head of herself.””’ Here we have irrefutable proof that women prayed and prophesied in the church at Corinth; otherwise the words of the Apostle would have no import. If ecclesiastics had given one half as much attention to this passage as to xiv:34, women would never have been silenced in the churches. Unfortunately the latter mandate has loomed so large in the estimation of churchmen that it has obscured their vision when they came to the study of the passage now before us. Commentators in general have tugged and wrenched at xi:5 almost to the point of exhaustion to bring it into line with xiv :34. 292 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN If they had labored as strenuously to bring the latter into accord with the former they might have been more successful. In Hastings’ “Bible Dictionary,’ Vol. IV, p. 936, we have this lucid explanation of these kindred passages: “The Apostle assumes that women prophesy and pray in the church, only directing that they do so veiled. A little later he orders women to ‘keep silence in the churches’ (xiv:34). This seems to imply that on further reflection he thought it not suff- cient to protect their modesty that women should wear veils while preaching or praying, and therefore forbade their exercise of the gift of prophesying in public at all,” The author has italicized the words requiring our attention. Just here we propound some questions: (1) Was this message concerning the women of the church at Corinth inspired or uninspired? Was the Apostle speaking of himself or “of the Lord’? Was he giving his own opinion, or was he “moved by the Holy Ghost”? If the latter, how could he alter or revoke? Is the Holy Spirit vacillating? Does He have after-thoughts? Does He reconsider? Does He prompt the Apostle to say one thing, and an hour later move him to the con- trary? If the position of the foregoing writer is the correct one, it destroys every vestige of inspiration so far as the passages before us are concerned. If the Apostle was expressing his own private judgment in this matter; if he was giving his opinion, unilluminated by the Holy Ghost, his ruling is unauthoritative to women living two thousand years later, and under wholly different circumstances. (2) This writer also declares that the Apostle “on further re- flection,” forbade these women to exercise “the gift of prophesy- ing in public at all.’ We turn to I Corinthians xii:11, and read, “the same Spirit dividing to each one severally even as He will,” and in verse 10, among the bestowments of the Holy Spirit is mentioned the “gift of prophesying.” Now if the Holy Ghost endowed these women with this “gift,” who was the Apostle Paul that he should forbid its exercise? At once it is pointed out that this self-same writer qualifies his statement by adding—“in pub- } PAULINE MANDATES 293 lic.’ This is true, but how could these women preach without a congregation? The Apostle himself defines prophesying as speaking “unto men edification, and comfort, and consolation” (xiv:3, 4). This presupposes an audience, and speaking to an audience is speaking “im public.’ Does this erudite expounder of Scripture assume that these women preachers spoke “edifica- tion, and comfort, and consolation,” to bare walls and empty benches? What a tangled web he weaves! McGriffert, in ‘The Apostolic Age,” p. 527, says: “Women as well as men prophesied at Corinth.” Expositors are at their wit’s. end to dispose of these women preachers in the church at Corinth. They point to xiv:34, “Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.” This passage will receive consideration in due season. For the present all we have to say is this: if xi:5 and Xiv:34 are in conflict, one or the other must be uninspired or misinterpreted—The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. Some commentators endeavor to relieve the situation by as- suming that these women preached to their own sex alone. That this was not the case is evident from the fact that the Apostle required them to wear veils. Herein is proof of the mixed con- gregations. Dr. Adam Clark says: “Whatever may be the meaning of praying and prophesying in respect to man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to woman. So that some women at least, as well as some men, might speak to others edification, and exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of prophesying or teaching was predicted by Joel 11:28, and referred to by Peter, Acts 11:17. And had there not been such gifts bestowed on women, the prophecy could not have had fulfilment.” Tertullian (150-226 A.p.), writing on this subject of men and women in religious services, says: “Together they pray, together they prostrate themselves, together they perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually exhorting, mutually sustaining. Equal are they both found in the church of God” (Book II, Part IV, chapter 8). 294 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “They must have been in view if it was requisite for them to be veiled. Their prophesying before the church involves their being in the presence of the whole community” (Hastings Bible Dic- tionary, Vol. IV, p. 936). Some redactors are bold enough to assert that these were un- usual cases. This is not assumption; it is presumption. There is nothing in the text to indicate that these women were excep- tions. In verse 4 the Apostle says: “Every man praying or prophesying”’; and in verse 5, “Every woman praying or prophe- sying.” Except for the change in gender, the expressions parallel each other. If only two or three women had received this en- dowment of the Spirit, the Apostle would, in all probability, have written—Let the women who pray and prophesy, etc. Instead of this, he uses the more comprehensive form—‘‘Every woman,” etc. He lays down one proviso for men—the uncovered head: he lays down one proviso for women—the veiled head. It was a requirement of both Greek and Roman custom that a woman veil when she appeared in public. One writer says: “This was, and is, a common custom through all the East, and none but public prostitutes go without veils.” The Oral law of the Jews was severely strict on this point. The Talmud declared it to be the duty of a husband to divorce his wife if she went abroad with her head uncovered, and further decreed the forfeiture of her kethubah. At the time the Apostle wrote, the unveiled head was a proclamation of harlotry. All he required was that these Corinthian women, when engaging in religious services, conform to the common usage. Robertson, in his “Expository Lectures,” says: “To pray unveiled was to insult all the conventional feelings of Jew and Gentile.” Henry Eyester Jacobs, writing in the “Lutheran Commentary,” says: “A woman can worship to edification and can profitably dis- charge every duty as a member of the congregation to which the Lord may call her, with her head uncovered. The grace of God is not bound to such externalities. But what of itself is a matter of no importance may under certain circumstances be of great moment, while under others its significance need not be regarded. PAULINE MANDATES 295 . . . The decision here given has, therefore, an entirely temporary character and temporary validity.” The Augsburg Confession takes the above position in Article XXVII. There was special reason why Christian women should veil while officiating in the religious services in the church at Corinth. ' Heathen priestesses—and there were many—offered petitions and delivered their oracles with uncovered heads and disheveled hair. The Apostle counseled nonconformity to this heathen practice. But there was further reason. Corinth was a grossly immoral city. One commentator says: “Public prostitution formed a considerable part of their religion, and they were accustomed in their public prayers, to request the gods to multiply their prostitutes... . So notorious was this city for such conduct, that the verb xoptvOralecbar—*To Corinthize’—signified to act the prostitute: and xoetvOta xooa—a ‘Corinthian damsel,’ meant a harlot or a com- mon woman.” According to Strabo, the Temple of Venus alone “maintained not less than a thousand courtesans who were the means of bringing an immense concourse of strangers to the place.” ~ McGriffert says: “Corinthian immorality was proverbial the world over.” The city was thronged with lewd women who went abroad with uncovered heads; chaste women veiled their faces. The veil itself was a distinguishing badge between the virtuous woman and the prostitute. Not only was the city riotous in immortality, but the church was scandalized by the gross behavior of some of its communicants. Of the membership in general, Lindsay says: “They were a num- ber of burghers, freedmen and slaves who, as their names show, were mostly of Roman origin, gathered from the wealthiest and most profligate city on the Mediterranean.” The Apostle’s own words show that his converts were in the main from the lower strata of society. 1:26, he says: “Behold your calling, brethren, how that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble [are called],” and in vii:21, “Wast thou called being a bondservant? care not for it, but if thou canst become free, use 296 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN it rather.” But if their social rank was low, their former moral condition was far worse. Here is the Apostle’s reminder: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulter- ers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you” (vi:9-I1). The Apostle adds: “But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” That this purifying process had not extended to the entire mem- bership is evident from xi:17-22, where the Apostle censures them for drunkenness, and v:1-13, where he reprimands them for har- boring fornicators. They had not all been “washed from their filthiness.” It was an act of foresightness and prudence on the part of the Apostle to require that women praying and prophesying be veiled. It spared them insult both from the unsanctified within and the lecherous without. One fact we wish to emphasize is this: Nowhere in this address “>, does the Apostle urge the wearing of veils on the ground that they symbolized subjection. This is a figment in the mind of com- mentators. His plea rests solely on the fact that the unveiled head brought disgrace upon the woman herself and wrought dishonor to her husband. He advances no other argument; he assigns no other reason. All higgling about the veil being a symbol of sub- jection is a chimera born of prejudice. It is doubtful if veiling ever had such import. The custom, in all probability, originated with women; and so far as themselves were concerned, it signified one thing, and one thing only—modesty. The double standard of morals has always prevailed in the East. Women, going abroad, were forced to endure the searching stare of the male sex. Innate modesty prompted them to shield them- selves behind the veil. They were actuated by the same feeling that induces the modern woman to “pass by on the other side” rather than to encounter a group of street-corner loafers. Men in time approved the practice of veiling because it afforded protection to their wives, sisters, and daughters. This, coupled PAULINE MANDATES 297 with the jealousy of Oriental husbands, stabilized the custom. There was no thought of the veil as a symbol of subjection. It had no such mystic import. How the false idea of subjection asso- ciated itself with the veil is a matter for conjecture. It probably originated in the mind of a founder of some religious cult; from thence it passed to priest and Rabbim—and, as events show, to com- mentators. Outside this limited circle the thought has met with scant acceptance. Inquiry in countries where the practice pre- vails would elicit the almost universal answer—our women veil because it is immodest to do otherwise. Not one in a thousand, unprompted, would offer other explanation. And:this is as true of men as of women. In Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible” is found this statement: “With regard to the use of the veil, it is important to observe that it was by no means so general in ancient as in modern times. Much of the scrupulousness in respect to the use of the veil dates from the promulgation of the Koran (in the seventh century A. D.), which forbade women appearing unveiled except in the presence of their nearest relatives.” The Apostle Paul never taught that the veil was a symbol of subjection. There is no such intimation in his epistles. Further- more, the Bible nowhere countenances such doctrine. It furnishes no example in support of such belief. When Rebekah saw Isaac approaching, she did not cover her face in token of subjection. She came from a country where matriarchy had a foothold. Cir- cumstances indicate that she herself was reared in such home. She had made a long and wearisome journey to wed an entire stranger, and when she saw him approaching to claim her as his bride she lowered her veil; not to pledge subjection, but in womanly modesty. Tamar sat by the wayside with her face covered to the intent that Judah might not recognize her. Moses veiled his face be- cause “When Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.” We challenge the reader of this volume to cite a single instance 298 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN from the Bible where the wearing of the veil signified subjection. It is a fiction pure and simple. The same is true in regard to the veiling of the bride. Cere- monies attending an Oriental wedding lasted seven days. On the third or fourth evening the maiden—heavily veiled—was led by her father, or some near relative, to the bridal chamber, where the groom awaited her. That veiled head signified, not subjection; it signified modesty. Christian, the jurist, says: “Whatever may be the origin of feme-covert, it is not perhaps unworthy of observation, that it nearly corresponds in its signification to the Latin word nupta; for that is derived a nuberdo, 1.e., tegendo, because the modesty of the bride, it is said, was so much consulted by the Romans upon that delicate occasion that she was led to her husband’s home covered with a veil” (Blackstone, Vol. I, p. 441). “The head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman [or wife] is the man” [or husband]: “and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head cov- ered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman praying or proph- esying with her head unveiled dishonoureth her head” (xi:3-5). We couple with this verse seven: “A man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman [or wife] is the glory of the man [or her husband]. Now allow expositors to thrust in their claim that the veil is a badge of subjection, and see what follows: I.—(a) The veil is a badge of subjection. (b) A wife should be veiled to show she is in subjection to her head—her husband. II.—(a) The veil is a badge of subjection. (b) The husband should not be veiled; thereby showing that he is not in subjection to his head—Christ. Again: I.—(a) The veil is a badge of subjection. (b) The woman who prays or prophesies, wearing this PAULINE MANDATES 299 badge of subjection, honors her head—her husband— by acknowledging his authority over her. II.—(a) The veil is a badge of subjection. (b) The man who prays or prophesies wearing this badge of subjection dishonors his Head—Christ. He must not acknowledge the Divine authority over him. But expositors assure us that the veil is also a badge of humility: (a) A woman must wear a veil to show that she is humble. (b) A man must not wear a veil; he is not humble. Verily the Apostle’s logic is awry or expositors have misinter- preted the veil. But these elucidators offer further information. They affirm that man should pray and prophesy with uncovered head because he is God’s representative on earth; His vicegerent; woman, on the other hand, is man’s representative in the home and should cover her head. We ask, how about Christ? He prayed and taught with covered head. Did He represent the Father? Was He “God manifest in the flesh’? If He represented God and prayed with covered head, how comes it that man is charged not to veil his head because he represents God? Commentators lay much stress on man’s representative character. We subjoin the following: “As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast of the field, etc.: so woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man” (Dr. Adam Clark). “As the moon in relation to the sun; so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man, 1.€., in has order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent” (Portable Commentary). “Paul indicates the godlike rule and lordly majesty which the - 300 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN position of man as the head of his wife involves. ... In her management as his housewife the exalted position of man is mani- fest” (Dr. Kling). “Since God would have the male sex to be a kind of representa- tion of His glory, majesty and power, a man ought not by hiding his face . . . to conceal the glory of God shining in him” (Dr. Cruden). “Man is God’s glory: He has put in him His majesty, and he represents God on earth: woman is man’s glory; taken from the man, shining not with light direct from God, but with light derived from man” (Dean Alford). Commentaries are plentifully supplied with such deliverances, but we forbear to quote further. The sum and substance of it all is this—Man should uncover his head because he is God’s repre- sentative; woman should hide her face because she is man’s. A sinister compliment to the male sex. The author once stood in the temple at Luxor, Egypt, and gazed on a colossal statue of Rameses II. It represented the monarch as seated. At his side stood the diminutive figure of his wife— her head barely reached his knee. In this way the “Pharaoh of the oppression” sought to convey to his own and subsequent gen- erations some idea of his almightiness. The mummified body of Rameses II lies in the museum at Cairo; his spirit transmigrated. The efforts of commentators to crowd wife-subjection into the Pauline arguments have so disarranged his syllogisms, so disjointed his premises and conclusions that they themselves feel constrained to apologize in his behalf. McGriffert, in “The Apostolic Age,” p. 306, says: “Paul himself evidently felt the weakness of the argument and its inconsistency with his general principles, for he closes with an appeal to the custom of the churches: ‘We have no such custom, neither have the churches of God,’ therefore you have no right to adopt it. This was the most he could say. Evidently he was on uncertain ground.”—“On uncertain ground!’ and “moved by the Holy Ghost!” Sir William Ramsay says: PAULINE MANDATES 301 “He is not free from the beliefs and even the superstitions of his age. . . . In the nonessentials he sometimes, or often, remains impeded and encumbered by the tone and ideas of his age... . The instructions which he sometimes gives regarding the conduct of women are peculiarly liable to be effected by current popular ideas. . . . Where both angels and women are found in any pas- sage, Paul is peculiarly liable to be fettered by current ideas and superstitions.” Others attribute these characteristics to their author’s “early training in the great Rabbinical schools.” We suggest that the fault is not with the Apostle, but with expositors. They have meddled with his argument, they have introduced extraneous material. Relieved of foreign entanglements, the Apostle’s reasoning is not only ingenious, but logical. A dispute had arisen in the church at Corinth over the matter of veiling. The Apostle was appealed to and he endeavors to settle the controversy. He lays down two lines of argument and keeps to his text. His first proposition is this: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head cov- ered, dishonoreth his head.” Now the Apostle reasons along this line and this line only. He says nothing about man being pre- destinated to rule over the “beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and every living thing that moveth upon the earth’”—woman included. He affirms that a man ought not to pray or prophesy with his head covered, and indicates the reason—by doing so he dishonoreth Christ, his Head. Now the point to be stressed is .. not the lordship of man, but the dishonor shown Christ by an act of irreverence. To unveil the head was to recognize His divinity ; to omit this homage was to degrade Him to the level of a human being—the Greeks would so interpret. Hellenists always bared their heads in the presence of their deities; this they deemed an act of worship. The Apostle was mindful of this fact. He reckoned on the impression that would be made on the popular mind. He knew that the sophistical Greek would regard the covered head an acknowledgment on the part of Christians that their leader—Christ—was not divine. Because of this he ruled. 302 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN that man “ought not to veil his head.” His act would be misin- terpreted. The Apostle’s second proposition is this: “Every woman pray- ing or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head: for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.” The Greeks did not deem it an act of irreverence on the part of women to pray or prophesy with their head covered. By doing so they did not dishonor Christ. For this reason this phase of the question does not enter into the Apostle’s discussion. The reader may recall that Jewish women were exempted from laying their hands on the head of animals offered in sacrifice. This was a conces- sional arrangement; so among the Greeks women were granted immunity in the matter of unveiling before their deities. In verse four of the chapter before us the Apostle points out the reason why a man should bare his head when praying or prophesying—in order that he might not dishonor Christ: in verse five he assigns the reason why a woman should veil her head when functioning in the same capacity. The uncovered head, for her, was an insignia of harlotry—“one and the same thing as if she were shaven.” He says nothing about being in subjection to her husband. He gives but one reason—the “shame” attached to the unveiled head; its disgraceful significance. Prostitutes uncovered their heads; the punishment meted out to the adulteress was to have her head shorn—historians fail to enlighten their readers as to the penalty inflicted on adulterers. In his ruling regarding the veiling of women, the Apostle, as in the case of men, was reckoning with the impression that would be made on the popular mind; he was taking thought for “things honorable in the sight of all men”; and who of us can cavil? Verse xi:7: “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman (or wife) is the glory of the man” (or her husband). There is no intimation here that woman is not also, and equally, “the image and glory of God”; otherwise the Apostle would be in conflict with the teachings of Sacred Writ elsewhere. In Genesis v:2, we read: “Male and female created He them: and blessed them, and called their name, DAN (man) in the day when PAULINE MANDATES 303 they were created.” Link with this Genesis 1:26, “God said, Let us make DUN (man) in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion,” etc. Dr. Hodge, in answer to the question— “In what sense was man created in the image of God?” says: (1) “In respect to the spirituality of his nature, man, like God, is a rational, moral, free agent.” Is not woman “a rational, moral, free agent” also? (2) “In respect to the moral integrity and holiness of his nature.” Is not woman’s “moral integrity and holiness of nature” on a par with man’s? (3) “In respect to the dignity and authority delegated to his person, as the head of this department of creation” (“Outlines of Theology’). In confirmation of the last point, Dr. Hodge gives Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said unto them [Adam and Eve], Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (The words inclosed by brackets are offered as explanatory by the author of this volume.) A careful study of this passage will, beyond peradventure, show that “the dignity and authority” spoken of by Dr. Hodge was “delegated” to woman as much as to man. Orthographers and lexicographers are agreed that T-H-E-mM—spells THEM, but com- mentators in general persist in writing and pronouncing the word —HIM. How comes it that the Apostle in xi:7 singles out man as “the image and glory of God,’ and makes no mention of woman as being such? The reason is apparent. He is not discussing woman in her Divine relationship, but in her human. Man in the covering of his head dishonored Christ: woman, on the other hand, by unveiling, brought dishonor on herself and to her husband. The argument is this: Man ought not to dishonor Christ, himself being “the image and glory of God.” To dishonor the Son was to dishonor the Father also, whereas he ought to glorify Him. Woman brought no dishoner to Christ by covering her head, 304 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN but she brought shame and confusion to herself and to her husband by unveiling. Then the Apostle carries his argument into the following verses: 8,9. “For the man is not of (é%) the woman: but the woman of (éx) the man: for neither was the man created for (8t«) the woman; but the woman for (8t«) the man.” His first statement, that man is not from (é*%) woman, but woman from (éx) man, is a reference to her creation. She was formed from man’s side. The second statement: “Neither was the man created for (8fa) , the woman, but the woman for (3{e) the man,” is an objectional translation. Ata with the accusative, gives the “ground or reason” on “account of which a thing is done.’ The rendering “for” carries with it an impression of proprietorship which is not in the Greek. Eve was created “on account of” (8t«) Adam, because he was in a divided state without her, but she was not created to be his property, but his counterpart. Ata does not carry with it the thought of possession; it assigns the cause or reason. Holding to the English rendering, these expositors maintain that as woman was created “for the man,” she must of necessity be subordinate to him. We ask all such to turn to verse twelve of this chapter, where the matter is still under discussion. “For as the woman is of (éx) the man, so is the man also by (8t«) the woman.” If translators had rendered 8te here, “for,’ as in verse nine, the reading would be: “So is the man also for (Sta) the woman.” Now adopt the same line of reasoning as in verse nine, and we have the following: The man is “also for (8fa) the woman,” therefore he must of necessity be in subordinate relation to her. The translators evade such inappreciable conclusion by rendering ofa in this instance “by’ instead of “for” as in verse nine. God said, “It is not good that the man should be in his separa- tion, I will make to him a help suitable to him.” Man was incom- plete and insufficient in himself, and God provided a correspondent being, and this correspondent being was to be a “help,” not a PAULINE MANDATES 305 hindrance, not a shame; she was to do him “good and not evil all the days of her life.” It is related of Dr. Livermore that on one occasion he sat on the platform while his talented wife, the Rev. Mary E. Livermore, delivered an address. At the close of the meeting a captious indi- vidual approached, and with a covert sneer inquired: “Well, Doc- tor, how do you enjoy being Mrs. Livermore’s husband?’ In- stantly Dr. Livermore replied : “I am delighted, sir, I am delighted! I am the only man in the world who has that honor.” Dr. Liver- more felt himself honored in the applause bestowed on his gifted wife. | The Apostle Paul appealed to the Christian wives in the church at Corinth to be exemplary in their deportment and to bring honor to their husbands. The casting aside of the veil degraded them in the estimation of the public. This wrought special injury to the husband, for under the law of Patria Potestas he was held respon- sible for the misconduct of his wife. XI:10: “For this cause the woman ought to have power over her head, because of the angels” (8t& todto dgethet h yuvi) éEouctay eyetv ert ths xegadts dia toto ayyéAous). The Authorized Ver- sion renders thus: “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels.” The translators have entered in the margin this note: “That is a covering, in sign that she ts under the power of her husband.” The Revised Version reads: “For this cause ought the woman to have [a sign of] authority on her head, because of the angels.” Expositors are agreed that this passage is one of the most diffi- cult in the New Testament to elucidate. Dr. Adam Clark says: “There are few portions in the sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of conjectures and explanations, and are less understood, than this verse. ... Our translators were puzzled with it: and have inserted here one of the largest marginal readings found anywhere in their work: but this is only on the words ‘power on her head, which they interpret thus: ‘that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. But, admitting this marginal reading to be a satisfactory solution so far as it goes, 306 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN it by no means removes all the difficulty. Mr. Locke ingenuously acknowledged that he did not understand the meaning of the words: and almost every critic and learned man has a different explanation. Some have endeavored to force out a meaning by altering the text.” Now what is the trouble? Here is a plain, definite statement— “The woman ought to have power (é&oucta) over (éxt) her head” ;—the language is unequivocal; the import of every word is established; the grammatical construction is faultless—there is not found in the New Testament a more simple, direct statement —‘‘The woman ought to have power over her head.” Why all this hubbub? We have similar passages in the Bible and expositors have experienced no difficulty with them. Take, for examples, the following: Luke ix:1, “Power and authority (éS0ucta) over (éxt) all demons.” Luke x:19, “Authority (é0ust«) over (éxt) all the power of the enemy.” Rev. ii:26, “Power (é&0ucta) over (éxt) the nations.” Rey. vi:8, “Power (éS0ucta) ... over (éxt) the fourth part of the earth.” Rev. xiv:18, “Power (é§0uat«) over (éxt) fire.” Rev. xvi:9, “Power (éf0ucta) over (éxt) these plagues.” Translators were not “puzzled” over these passages. In not a single instance did they feel it incumbent upon them to insert a “marginal reading.”” No commentor “ingenuously acknowledged that he did not understand the meaning of the words”; “almost every critic and learned man” did not have “a different explana- tion’; no one endeavored “to force out a meaning by altering the text.” We ask any unprejudiced reader to point out the source of difficulty in I Corinthians xi:10: “The woman ought to have power (gEoucta) over (éxt) her head.” How do we account for it that “there are few portions in the sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of conjectures and explanations, and are less PAULINE MANDATES 307 understood, than this verse”? If the reader is nonplussed for an answer, the author will enlighten him as to the cause of this dilemma; it centers about one word—and one word only—and that word is—“woman.” If the Apostle had written—“The man ought to have power over her head”—there would have been no difficulty ; the meaning would have been as clear as the noonday; translators would not have been “puzzled”; no need for “marginal reading,” or ingenuous confessions; critics and learned men would have agreed in their explanations, and no redactor would “have endeavored to force out a meaning by altering the text.” But the Apostle did not so write. He wrote, to the confusion and dismay of translators and expounders—“The woman ought to have power over her head.” We call attention to the fact that in all the passages cited as examples the translators have rendered the preposition, énxt “over” instead of “upon,” making the reading—“authority over.” In the opinion of the author this is the rendering that should be adopted in I Corinthians xi:10—“power over her head,” rather than “power on her head.” Now let us study this passage as it appears in our Revised Version, after translators have wrought their will upon it. “For this cause ought the woman to have (a sign of) authority on her head.” But we protest the words, “a sign of,’ are not found in the original text; the Apostle never wrote—“a sign of,’ and trans- lators have no right to add to or take from his statement. They are blameworthy in this matter. If the Apostle had written, “A man ought to have authority over her head,” no translator or expositor would have juggled with his words. Take, for example, the passages given as references—Luke ix:1; x:19; Matt. ix:6; Rev. 11:26; vi:8; xiv:18; xvi:g—no one has laid hands on them; no one has forced into them the words—“a sign of.’ Why should I Corinthians xi:10 be singled out for special treatment? We need not go afield to find an answer. Commentators complain that I Corinthians xi:10 is hard to elucidate. Again we suggest that the difficulty is not with the text, but with its expounders—its confounders. They endeavor to make the Apostle say something that he did not say. He declared that a 308 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN woman ought to have authority over her head, and they manipulate to make him say the contrary; he writes about her having power, and they legerdemain with “a sign of.” The exposition of I Corinthians xi:10, as it appears in the Revised Version, and as interpreted in the marginal note of the Authorized Version, merits place in a curiosity shop. First, we are told that this “sign of authority” on the head of the woman is the veil. Naturally we are taken aback at this announcement. Heretofore expositors with one voice have in- sisted that the veil was a symbol of subjection; here they make it an insignia of authority. We are perplexed. How can it bea token of power and at the same time a sign of subjection? Again these elucidators bewilder us by affirming that this “sign of authority’ on the head of the woman indicates that she is with- out authority; this insignia of power, that she is devoid of power. But the climax is reached when we are assured that this “sign of power” on the head of the woman symbolizes, not what belongs to her, but that which belongs to her husband. This is equivalent to saying that the crown on the head of a king signifies, not that he rules, but that he is under rule: the scepter in his hand, not that he governs, but that he is governed. If the veil—“a sign of authority’’—on the head of the woman is, as King James’ translators assure us, “a covering, in sign that she ts under the power of her husband,” one can but wonder why this insignia of authority is not on the head of the ruler, instead of on the head of his subject. Why should woman “wear that which pertaineth unto a man”? Sir William Ramsay, an accepted author- ity on the Pauline writings, says: “Most of the ancient and modern commentators say the ‘author- ity’ which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject—a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the New Testament, where (as they seem to think) Greek words may mean anything that the com- mentators choose.” We return to the plain, simple statement of the Apostle: “For this cause ought the woman to have power over her head.” Now PAULINE MANDATES 809 this must mean one of two things: either that she has authority over her mystical head—that is, her husband; or that she has power over her physical head. Let us take these in order. (1) For this cause ought the woman to have power over her mystical head—her husband. To the author of this volume the thought of husband-subjection is as repellent as the thought of wife-subjection: marriage is not a form of servitude wherein one party is in bondage to the will of the other. (2) “For this cause ought the woman to have power over her head”—that is her physical head. This passage, as the author understands it, is simply a declaration on the part of the Apostle, that in this matter of veiling or unveiling the woman ought to have the right of self-determination. This word éfouctla —in the Authorized Version rendered “power” and in the Revised Version “authority,” is sometimes translated “right,” signifying choice. Take, for example, the following passages from the Revised Version: I Corinthians ix:4, “Have we no right (é&ousta) to eat and to drink ?” IX :5, “Have we no right (é§0ucta) to lead about a wife?” IX:5, “I only and Barnabas, have we not a right (é§oucta) to forbear working?” IX:12, “If others partake of this right (é&oucela) over you, do not we yet more? Nevertheless we did not use this right” (€§0ucta). IX :18, “So as not to use to the full my right (é€0ucte) in the gospel.” II Thessalonians iii:9, “Not because we have not the right (éEoucta). This word— é§ovct«—translated in these passages—‘“right”— is used in I Corinthians xi:10—“For this cause ought the woman to have power (é&oucta) over her head.” If we adopt the render- ing “right” instead of “power” or “authority,” we have the fol- lowing: “For this cause ought the woman to have right (é§0ucla) over her head.” . We turn to Thayer’s “Greek-English Lexicon” and find the first 310 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN definition of gfoucta to be—“power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.” With these facts in mind, we take I Corinthians xi:10 and achieve as follows: “For this cause ought the woman to have right over her head”—1in other words, the woman ought to have the “power of choice’—the “liberty of doing as she pleases’—in this matter of veiling or unveiling. The above statement leads us to a definite conclusion. It is this: The agitation in favor of women uncovering their heads when praying or prophesying was not on the part of women, but on the part of men. The former are by nature more conservative than the latter; they cling more tenaciously to customs; they shrink from innovations ; this would certainly be the case where the change would jeopardize their reputation for chastity. In the sixteenth verse the Apostle says: “We have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” Christian women were not casting aside their veils; they were not seeking notoriety; and the Apostle ruled that in the Church at Corinth no constraint should be put upon them. They had, the right to determine this matter for themselves—each woman had authority over her own head. - But how about the introductory phrase—‘for this cause?” What cause? This connects the statement with the Apostle’s argument in the preceding verse. Woman was created on account of man—to be a help—not a detriment, therefore she ought not to be constrained into an act that would bring dishonor to herself and to her husband. “Because of the angels.” Here is a clause that has nonplussed commentators. Through the centuries they have wrestled with it, and at times have brought discredit on themselves and on the angels. The question is not of vital moment here, so we pass it by without discussion. Verses II and 12 are self-explanatory. Verse 13, “Judge ye in [among] yourselves: is it seemly (xeéxw) that a woman pray unto God unveiled?” The word meétw signifies that which is “becoming,” or “befitting.” According to Lindsay, this church at Corinth had its business sessions, where it ruled “its members in the true democratic fashion of a little village republic.” The decisions were reached by vote. PAULINE MANDATES 311 The question of the unveiling of women preachers had reached an acute stage, and the Apostle, after presenting reasons why there should be no departure from the common custom, refers the whole matter to the business session of the church for adjustment. This may be the explanation; on the other hand, he may be saying to his correspondents—stop and consider, and you will see that, under present circumstances, it is inadvisable for these women to lay aside their veils: “All things are lawful . . . but all things are not ~ expedient.” Verse 14, “Doth not even nature itself teach you that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?’ (R. V.). The Authorized Version renders—‘“a shame to him?” Here is a remarkable state- ment—remarkable in that it is at variance with facts: (1) Nature does not teach that it is a shame to a man to have long hair. In childhood and youth one sex has little advantage over the other in this matter. The treatment the male head receives after adolescence is responsible in largest degree for the difference in later years. In countries where men’s hair is allowed to grow— in China, for instance—it averages well, both in length and abun- dance, with that of women. The male ancestors of these Corin- thians were famed in history for the luxuriant growth of hair. Their ancestors were called “the long-haired Greeks, or Achzans.” (2) Custom, at the time the Apostle wrote, and centuries before, did not account it a shame to a man to have long hair, it was rather a distinction. Absalom’s flowing tresses were his especial pride. The Nazarites wore their hair long and they were revered to the extent of placing the lifelong one on an equality with the High Priest. Eusebius, the historian, records that no razor ever came upon the head of James the Apostle. Among the Jews, every man who assumed a vow allowed his hair to be unshorn. For a certain period during his residence in Corinth Paul himself allowed his locks to grow. “He had a vow” (Acts xviii:18). He shaved his head at Cenchrez. Under these circumstances, how may we account for the Apostle’s words: “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?’ Dr. Katharine Bushnell offers the most satisfactory explanation the author has 312 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN met with. She suggests there is an error in the punctuation. The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament were written in uncials ; these were without punctuation. It was several centuries after the Apostle wrote before these marks were introduced. Doubtless punctuators were sincere, but they were uninspired. This being the case, it is conceivable they could err in judgment. Dr. Bushnell points out that by substituting a period for the interrogation mark this sentence is changed from a question into an affirmation, and reads: “Not even nature itself teaches you that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him.” This is effected without the change of a single word, and brings the statement into accord with facts. Verse 15: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.” We only pause to note that some have claimed that the Apostle here taught that the women of the Corinthian Church might pray and prophesy with heads un- veiled: that their hair was a sufficient covering. We might so understand, were it not for the fact that such interpretation brings the passage into sharp conflict with the context. EN XIV IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH: PAULINE MANDATES (ConrTINvED) ¢ AHE opponents of “mutual rights’ for women in the church of Jesus Christ, rivet their attention, in the main, upon two passages in the Pauline Epistles—I Corinthians xiv :34, 35, and I Timothy ii:12. Here they find their Gibraltar: here they plant their batteries; from here they belch forth shot and shell. Take these two passages out of the Bible, and you have torn the ground from under their feet; there is nothing left for them to stand on. In the mind of redactors these passages loom so large that the recorded facts of Scripture, the predictions of the prophets, and the known practice of Christ count for little in comparison. In- stead of interpreting these two passages in the light of other Scrip- ture, they interpret all other Scripture in the light of these two passages. Instead of making the Apostle harmonize with Christ and the prophets, they seek to make Christ and the prophets har- monize with the Apostle. Before taking up these two passages which have been made to do duty so long in the warfare against the ecclesiastical equality of women, we lay down two rules as guides in our exegesis: (1) These sayings of the Apostle must be made, if possible, to accord with other teachings of revelation on this subject. We cannot afford to array Paul against Christ and the prophets, or to set him at variance with the recorded facts of Scripture. To make the Bible contradict itself is to go a long way toward invali- dating any theory of inspiration we may hold. We must interpret “according to the analogy of faith.” (2) These two passages must be brought into accord with other Pauline teachings on the subject, and they must harmonize with his practice. The Apostle must be consistent with himself: other- wise his authority as a teacher sent from God is annulled. 313 314 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Even the most prejudiced must acknowledge these rules to be correct guides in exegesis. Under Rule 1 we aver that the commonly accepted interpretation of I Corinthians xiv:34, 35, and I Timothy 11:12, does not har- monize with Divine appointments under the Old Testament dis- pensation, with the predictions of the prophets, or with the practice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Under Rule 2 we reject the commonly accepted exegesis of I Corinthians xiv :34, 35, and I Timothy ii:12, because it makes the Apostle self-contradictory. He not only permitted, but encouraged the public ministry of women, both by practice and precept. With these rules in mind we turn to I Corinthians xiv:34, 35: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not per- mitted unto them to speak; but (they are commanded) to be under obedience, (8 xotaccésbwoay) as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (Authorized Version, I6II). “Let the women keep silence in the churches; for it is not per- mitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church” (English Revised Version, 1884). “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak but let them be in subjection, as saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shame- ful for a woman to speak in the church” (American Revised Ver- sion, IQOT). The authenticity of this passage has been questioned. Weinel and Cane suspect that verse 34 is an interpolation by a later hand, as also I Timothy ii:12. MHilgenfeld, Holsten, Schmiedel, and others, regard verses thirty-four and thirty-five as interpolations. In some of the Ambrosiaster MSS. these two verses are trans- ferred to the end of the chapter and follow verse forty. For reasons before stated, the author prefers to treat them as genuine, PAULINE MANDATES 315 leaving to future archzological discoveries to reveal spuriousness, if such there be. In our study of this passage, we call attention first to the inno- vation in the American Revised Version (1901). In the Author- ized Version (1611) and in the English Revised Version (1884), the clause, “as in all the churches of the saints,” is a part of the preceding paragraph, making the reading thus: “For God is not (a God) of confusion, but of peace: as in all the churches of the saints.’ The American Revisers have wrested the phrase—“as in all the churches of the saints’—from its venerable alliance and attached it to the succeeding paragraph. The result is the most uncouth sentence within the lids of the New Testament: “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches.” Not only is there redundancy, but the ordinary rules of syntactical arrangement are disregarded. This is so manifest that commentators in general are not in sympathy with this new alignment. From numerous protests we quote the following: “The last clause of this verse (33) is made the first of the following sentence by a number of critics (De Wette, Billroth, Meyer, and formerly Stanley), reading thus: ‘As in all the churches of the saints let the women keep silence,’ etc., and so Lachmann and Tischendorf print in their texts: but not Tregelles. Their ground appears to us weak, and the proposed connection seems far from natural. All the elder interpreters adhere to the punctuation of the received text, and they are followed by Neander, Osiander, and latterly by Alford” (“The International Illustrated Commen- tary’—on Epistles of Paul, p. 219). Alford, in a note in his Greek New Testament, says: “Tn all the churches of the saints,” God is a God of peace; let Him not among you be supposed to be a God of confusion. I am compelled to depart from the majority of modern critics of note, e.g., Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. 7 and 8), Billroth, Meyer, De Wette, and adhere to the common arrangement of this latter clause. My reason is, that taken as beginning the next paragraph, it is harsh beyond example, and superfluous, as anticipating the reason about to be given ov yao, %. t. Y. Besides which, it is more . in accordance with St. Paul’s style to place the main subject first, 316 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN see I Timothy iii:8, 11, 12, and we have an example of reference to general usage coming in last, in aid of other considerations, (Chapter xi:16) ; but it seems unnatural that it should be placed first in the very forefront of a matter on which he has so much to say.” Dr. S. T. Bloomfield, D.D., F.S.A., vicar of Bisbrooks, Rutland, comments thus: “There is no reason, with many eminent editors and expositors from Bishop Pearce downward, to connect these words with the words following. For thus the gravity and authority of the Apostle’s injunction will be injured, and great irregularity sup- posed—namely, that of introducing an inferior reason first in the sentence. And what example is there of a sentence so commencing with an ®¢ ? ‘This seems to have been an expedient resorted to from the connection between these words and the preceding ones, being not very obvious. But why should we not consider this (like very many others in St. Paul’s epistles) as a briefly worded clause, standing in the place of a complete sentence, introduced by an illative particle?” In reference to this innovation, Bishop Ellicott says: “It really only weakens the force of the strong final (%va) sentence with which it would thus be associated. We therefore, with the earlier expositors, and apparently all the Versions, connect the clause with what precedes.” Meyer, while supporting the change, concedes that “ ‘As in all the churches of the saints’ is referred by the Fathers and most of the older expositors, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, to what precedes.” Later he says: “Paul is decided against all undue exaltation and assumption on the part of women in religious things, and it has been the occasion of much evil in the church.” He fails to mention the fact that most of the disturbances along this particular line, down through the centuries, have been attributable to “undue exaltation and assumption” on the part of the male sex. “Tt has been the occasion of much evil in the church.” From the middle of the second century women have, in the main, been silent nonentities in the assemblies of the saints. PAULINE MANDATES 317 The author rejects the new arrangement as it appears in the American Revised Version for the following reasons: (1) It gives—in the language of Dean Alford—a reading “harsh beyond example.” (2) It violates the rules of orderly syntactical arrangement. (3) It is not in accord with the Pauline style of composition. (4) All previous Versions, so far as known, attached the clause to the preceding paragraph. (5) It sets aside Patristic testimony. The early Fathers lived on the confines of the Apostolic Age; were familiar with the Greek language and the peculiarities of its construction. All this gave them advantages not possessed by modern critics. © (6) No sufficient reason is assigned for this departure. It seems to the author but an abortive effort on the part of a minority to make verses 34 and 35 general, instead of local, in their application. (7) The great body of expositors reject this new alignment. The English Revisers had in their ranks as much of scholarship; they had before them all the data accessible to the American Committee, and were not impressed with the need for change. (8) Connecting the clause “as in all the churches of the saints” with what follows instead of what precedes, results in a false state- ment. This fact alone should determine the controversy. Women did not keep silence in the assemblies of the saints during the Apostolic Age—not even in the church at Corinth—as is attested by xi:5. We turn now to a study of the text: “Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not per- mitted unto them to speak: but let them be in subjection (Snotaccésbwoay), as also saith the law (6 véuoc). And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (R. V. 1884). Sixteen verses of the eleventh chapter of this epistle, as noted in the preceding chapter of the volume, are devoted to a discus- sion of seemly attire for women when “praying or prophesying” in the public congregation. Under such circumstance, the pro- hibition in xiv:34, 35 cannot possibly relate to such ministrations. To hold otherwise is to make the Apostle inconsistent and self- « 818 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN contradictory. In the language of Dr. A. J. Gordon, “it is quite incredible . . . that the Apostle should give himself the trouble to prune a custom which he desired to uproot, or that he should spend his breath in condemning a forbidden method of doing a forbidden thing.” Many commentators remark on the “apparent discrepancy” be- tween this passage and xi:1-16, and then endeavor to reconcile the difference by reading their own thoughts into the text; they interline xi:1I-16 with suppositions; they weight it down with “probabilities.” Instead of reading xiv:34, 35, in the light of xi:I-16, they pull and wrench at xi:1-16 to bring it into line with XIV :34, 35. Prof. A. H. Sayce says: “The Biblical records have been put into a category by themselves, to their infinite harm and abuse. Commentators have been more anxious to discover their own ideas in them, than to discover what the statements in them really mean.” But there are men who manifest a fair spirit even within the ranks of expositors. Dr. A. J. Gordon, in his admirable article in “The Missionary Review,’’ December, 1894, says: “Here, again, the conduct of women in the church should be studied in relation to that of men if we would rightly understand the Apostle’s teaching. Let us observe, then, that the injunction to silence is three times served in this chapter by the use of the same Greek word otétw, twice on men and once on women, and that in every case the silence commanded is conditional, not abso- lute. ‘Let him keep silence in the church’ (v. 28), it is said of one speaking with tongues, but on condition that ‘There be no interpreter.’ ‘Let the first keep silence’ (v. 30), it is said of the prophets, ‘Speaking by two or three’; but it is on condition that ‘A revelation be made to another sitting by.’ ‘Let the women keep silence in the church’ (v. 34), it is said again, but it is evidently on condition of their interrupting the service with ques- tions, since it is added, ‘For it is not permitted them to speak .. . and if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.’ This last clause takes the injunction clearly out of all reference to praying or prophesying, and shows—what the whole chapter indicates—that the Apostle is here dealing with the various PAULINE MANDATES 319 forms of disorder and confusion in the church: not that he is repressing the decorous exercise of spiritual gifts, either by men or by women. If he were forbidding women to pray or prophesy in public, as some argue, what would be more irrelevant or mean- ingless than his direction concerning the case: ‘If they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home’? .. . In fine, we may reasonably insist that this text, as well as others discussed above, be considered in the light of the entire New Testament teaching—the teaching of prophecy, the teaching of practice, and the teaching of contemporary history—if we would find the true meaning.” Dr. Jacob, in “The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament,” says: “A due consideration of this ministry of gifts in the earliest days of Christianity—those times of high and sanctified spiritual free- dom—both shows and justifies the custom of the public ministra- tion of women as well as men; the former as well as the latter were allowed to use them in Christian assemblies. This seems to me quite evident from Paul’s words in I Cor. «1:5, where he strongly condemns the practice of women praying or prophesying with heads unveiled, without expressing the least objection to the public mimstration on their part, but only finding fault with what was considered an unseemly attire for women thus publicly engaged. The injunction contained in the same epistle (I Cor. xiv :34), ‘Let your women keep silence,’ etc., refers, as the context shows, not to prophesying or praying in the congregation, but to making remarks and asking questions about the words of others.” A learned Chinaman, schooled in Oriental custom, when asked to explain this passage of Scripture, answered promptly, “The Apostle is rebuking women for disturbing the services by asking questions.” | A survey of circumstances, and a careful study of the phrase- ology of the text, ought to reveal its import. Great disorder pre- vailed in the religious services of this church at Corinth. Each one had a Psalm, a teaching, a tongue, an interpretation, and all endeavoring to participate in the service. The Apostle seeks to 320 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN quell this disturbance; he commands silence. “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Let those who are speaking in an “unknown tongue” refrain unless an interpreter be present; let the prophets speak in turn; let the women desist from asking ques- tions and thereby adding to the confusion. The custom of interrupting the speaker prevailed throughout the Orient, but the practice was confined to men. The conventionalities of the age deemed it an unseemly thing on the part of women. In the Jewish synagogues, men interrupted, interrogated, judged, and even refuted the statements of the speaker, but a Rabbinical ordinance forbade women to ask questions. Read the Gospel record and note how often Jesus was interrupted in His public discourses. Now it seems that some of the women of the church at Corinth had followed the example of the men in this matter, and the Apostle expresses disapproval. It would give occasion “to the adversary to speak reproachfully”; so he directs that if, in the future, “they would learn anything,’ they should “ask their own husbands at home.” The thirty-fifth verse ought to determine beyond question the import of this passage. It ought to be conclusive evidence to any unprejudiced mind that the Apostle is not here referring to “pray- ing and prophesying.” “If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.’ When an individual prays, he or she is not asking questions: when an individual prophesies, he or she is not seeking to learn, but contrariwise, imparts instruction. In the passage before us—xiv:34, 35—the Apostle rebukes these Corinthian women, not for an attempt to teach, but for an unseemly effort to “learn.” To the author the foregoing explanation is satisfactory, and meets all the requirements of the case without “reading into” the text of either xi:1-16 or xiv:34, 35. But there is another explanation which merits, at least, our consideration. Dr. Lindsay, in his volume, “The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries,’ p. 58, says of the Church at Corinth: “It has its meeting for edification, open to all who care to at- tend, when conversions are made which multiply the little com- PAULINE MANDATES 321 munity; its quieter meetings for thanksgiving, where none but the believing brethren assemble, and where the common meal en- shrines the Holy Supper as the common fellowship among the brethren .. . its business meetings where it rules its members in true democratic fashion of a little village republic.” This writer mentions three distinct orders of service (1) The public meetings. (2) The meeting where only members of the church were admitted; where the common meal was partaken of and where the Lord’s Supper was administered. (3) The executive session where all matters of business were attended to. In regard to the latter, Dr. Lindsay says: “This local unity took shape in the meeting of the congregation which is expressly called “The Church’ by the Apostle, at which all the members apparently had the right of appearing and taking part in the discussion and voting—women at first as well as Mens sees “This meeting had charge of the discipline of the congregation and of fraternal relations between the community and other Chris- tian communities. Letters seeking Apostolic advice were prepared and dispatched in its name (I Cor. vii:1). It appointed delegates to represent the church, and gave them letters of commendation (II Cor, iii:1, 2; vili:19). . . . The whole administration of the external affairs of the congregation was under its control; ... It expelled unworthy members (I Cor. v:1-8), it deliberated upon and came to conclusions about the restoration of brethren who had fallen away and showed signs of repentance (II Cor. ii:6-9). It arrived at its decisions, when necessary, by voting, and the vote of the majority decided the case” (p. 55). Professor Kurtz, in his “Church History,” Vol. I, p. 61, says: “The Christian service was in like manner from the first divided into a homiletical-didactic part, and an eucharistic-sacramental part,” but on page 64 he also makes mention of the executive ses- sions of the church. “If any one caused public scandal by serious departure from true doctrine or Christian conduct,” he says, and in spite of pastoral counsel persisted in his error, he was by the judg- ment of the church cast out, but the penitent was received again after his sincerity had been proved (I Cor. v:1; II Cor. ii:5). 322 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN We call attention to the statement of Dr. Lindsay, page 55 of his volume; that this executive session was “expressly called ‘The Church.”” Now if such were the case, it is barely possible that the Apostle, in his charge concerning women—xiv :34, 35— had special reference to such meeting. At the time he wrote a serious case of immorality on the part of one of the leading members of the congregation was about to come before the church for trial (I Cor. v:1-7). The nature of the offense was such that it would be out of place for a woman to participate in the discus- sion. For this reason the Apostle charged “If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” The correctness of this exegesis is dependent on two things: (1) The validity of the statement that these business sessions were “expressly called ‘ The Church.” (2) A second matter that must be accounted for is the plural “churches.” The Authorized Ver- sion reads: “Let your women’”—that is the women of this par- ticular congregation—‘“keep silence in the churches.” There was but one church in Corinth—how then could these women “keep silence in the churches”? If the Apostle refers to the executive sessions we can understand why the plural form appears, for the case about to be tried was of such magnitude as to require time for its disposal. The word “your” does not appear in the Re- vised Versions. On the whole, the first explanation of this passage is the simpler and meets every requirement. “Let them be in subjection (dnxotaccésbwoay) as also saith the law’’ (R. V.). The Authorized Version renders thus “(They are commanded ) to be under obedience (dxotaccés8woay) as also saith the law.” The words, “They are commanded,” are not found in the Greek, neither are they required by the context. They are supplied by the King James’ translators. They do not appear in the English and American Revised Versions. The word dxotaccésbwoay, translated “obedience” in the Au- thorized Version, and “subjection” in the Revised, is the same word used in Ephesians v:21, where the Apostle exhorts church PAULINE MANDATES 323 members: “submitting yourselves (Sxotaccéwevot) one to another in the fear of God” (A. V.) (R. V.). “Subjecting yourselves (Sxotacodmevor) one to another in the fear of Christ.” Here, as in every other instance when applied to wives, the verb is in the middle voice.’ The import of the word has been fully considered in Chapter XI. “As also saith the law (6 véuoc).” What law? Not the Mosaic law. In our study of the status of woman under the Mosaic régime, Chapter V, we found that the Sinaitic code nowhere taught the subordination of the wife. The only provision that could be interpreted as giving the husband the slightest authority over his wife is Numbers xxx, where he might interdict a “rash’’ vow or a vow that would “affitct the soul.’ Even here he was limited “to the day that he heareth.”’ “As also saith the law.” Is the reference here to the Oral law? There is no probability that the Apostle had such in mind when he penned these lines. He incurred the enmity of the Judaizers when he refused to impose the ceremonial law on Gentile converts, and it is altogether unlikely that he would bring such into bondage to the Oral law—“The tradition of the elders,’ which Christ so scathingly condemned. “As also saith the law.” If the reader will take his Bible and turn to I Corinthians xiv :34, he will find as marginal reference— “Genesis 11:16.” Translators and expositors with one accord point back to this resourceful passage as “the Law.” The Hebrews classified the Old Testament Scripture as “the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiograph,” or “Psalms.” Now it was in this first division—“the Law” or Pentateuch, they found their solution—Genesis 111:16: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” We give the passage, not as it should be translated, but as it occurs in our English Versions. The author, after investigation of considerable range, has never yet found a redactor pointing to Genesis iii:17-19 as “the Law” —‘‘Unto the man he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I com- c 324 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN manded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” If Genesis ii1:16 is “the Law,’ Genesis 111:17-19 is “the Law” also. If Genesis iii:16 is in the Torah, Genesis iii:17-19 is in the Torah also—and moreover, Genesis xxi:12. “And God said unto Abraham, ... in all that Sarah saith unto thee, obey (yow) her voice.” i For a study of Genesis 111:16, the reader is referred to Chapters II and III of this volume. The Apostle Paul used the term “Jaw” (véuos) with latitude. In his Epistle to the Romans, he writes about the “law of faith’; “law of the Spirit”; “law of their minds’; “law of sin,” etc. Some expositors hold that when véuo¢ is preceded by the article it has reference to the Mosaic law. Others of equal repute hold the contrary. It will aid us in our exegesis to pause and consider the circum- stances. The Apostle was addressing a Greek congregation. The church was composed, in the main, of Greek and Roman converts. Such being the case is it not more than probable that he would use the word yéuo¢ in its Greek or Roman sense? In its Roman sense vouoc signified the civil law, and this embodied the Patria Potestas. In its Greek sense it purported usage or custom. Dr. Gloag says: “The term yéuo¢ which he employs, is the Greek word for custom, right, an ordinance, law” (“Introduction to Pauline Epistles,” p. 253). Thayer, in his “Greek-English Lexi- con,” gives as the primary definition of véuoc, “Anything estab- lished, anything received by usage, a custom, usage, law.” The Apostle Paul adapted himself to circumstances: It is true that in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians—both Gen- tile churches—he uses the word yéuoc 1n reference to the Mosaic law. This was necessary from the fact that in these two epistles PAULINE MANDATES 325 he was refuting the claim of the Judaizers, and withstanding their efforts to impose the Mosaic ritual on Gentile Christians: he was contrasting salvation by “The works of the law,’ and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Verse 35. “If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.” This injunction xiv:34, 35 was given to married women, and evidently was intended only for such as had Christian husbands. One expounder of Sacred Writ holds to the contrary. He ex- tends the interdiction to all women and avers that it applies with greater force to the unwedded than to the married. But how are the former to acquire information? He enlightens his readers. The unmarried woman must inquire of some wife, who will pass the question to her husband: he in turn may ask in the public congregation, and report the answer back along the line. “Let them ask their own husbands at home.” In “The Inter- national and Critical Commentary,’ edited by Robertson and Plummer—page 325—we find this palatable morsel: ‘Perhaps ‘husbands,’ by analogy, would cover brothers and sons.” In short, according to these writers, a woman must never acquire knowledge along religious lines, immediately, but always mediately through some male member of the household. How far is this removed from the heathen dogma? If young theologues are nourished on such pabulum, can we wonder that women are excluded from the councils of the church? I Timothy ii:11, 12. “Let the women learn in silence (Hovyte) with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach (3tddéoxetv) nor to usurp authority («d0evtetvy) over a man, but to be in silence” (houxtg) (A. V.). Weinel and also Cane regard this passage as an interpolation. “Let the women learn in silence” (Hovytg) (A. V.). The word jouxta in this case rendered “silence” by King James’ translators, occurs in I Peter iii:4; I Thessalonians iv:11; I Tim- othy 11:2; I] Thessalonians i11:12, and in each instance is rendered “quiet.” If the translators had rendered “silence” asin I Timothy . ii, we would have the following: 326 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “A meek and silent (qovytou) spirit” (I Pet. iii:4). “That ye study to be silent (jovyaterv) and to do your own business” (I Thess. iv:11). “That we may lead silent ({cbytov) and peaceable lives” (I Tim. 11:2). Why did King James’ translators vary the rendering in I Tim- othy ii:11? The Revised Version gives a uniform reading and renders thus: “Let a woman learn in quietness,’—that is with- out distraction, in a tranquil, decorous manner. ‘Trench, in his “New Testament Synonyms,” defines qHatytog as “Tranquillus in verbis, vuliu, actu.” Dr. Gordon says: “ ‘Let a woman learn in quietness’ (Hovx!¢), an admonition not at all inconsistent with decorous praying and witnessing in the Christian assemblies. When men are admonished, the King James translators give the right rendering to the same word: ‘That in quietness (Aovytas) they work and eat their own bread’ (II Thess. iii:12), an injunction which no reader would construe to mean that they refrain from speaking during their labor and eating.” I Timothy ii:12. “But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion («J8evtety) over a man” (R. V.). King James’ translators are blameworthy for the rendering they have given this verse: “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man.” “Usurp” is not in the Greek, nor is it implied in auGeytety. Bishop Ellicott says: “A further meaning not con- tained in the word.” As to this twelfth verse there are two explanations, either of which seems plausible: 1. The one advanced by Wiesinger, viz., that the regulation here laid down had special reference to the wife in her relation, to her husband. He says: “The transition in verse eleven from Yuvatxag to yuyn shows that the Apostle now passes on to some- thing new, viz., the relation of the married woman to her hus- band.” Paul did not permit a wife to instruct her husband in the PAULINE MANDATES 327 capacity of a 8téaoxaAoc, in the church. We have elsewhere noted that the Greek word for woman (yuvy) and the Greek word for wife (yuvn) are the same: the Greek word for man (évqje) and the Greek word for husband (d&vqje) are the same. The passage before us can as properly be translated: “I permit not a wife to teach or to have dominion over her husband’’; and the succeeding context favors such rendering. To have allowed a wife to instruct her husband in the public assembly in the capacity of a 8éaoxaAo¢ would have outraged every prejudice of the age. To set a wife to teach her husband in the church would have been as odious to that generation as to set a slave to teach his master. The Apostle never, when avoidable, ran counter to the prejudices of the people; he never ignored conventionalities. He took Tim- othy and circumcised him, “because of the Jews that were in those parts’ (Acts xvi:3) he counseled abstinence from meats offered to idols, that the conscience of the weak be not wounded (I Cor. viii) ; he directed the women in the church at Corinth to wear their veils (I Cor. xi), because the uncovered head was a proclama- tion of harlotry: he provided that those who had contracted a second marriage should not be elevated to office in the church (I Tim, iii) because at that time there was popular prejudice, in both Greece and Rome, against remarriages. He writes to the Corinthians: “Give no occasion of stumbling, either to the Jews or to the Greeks, or to the church of God, even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved” (I Cor. x:32, 33). He ex- ercised prudence that “the word of God be not blasphemed.” 2. A second explanation is as follows: In the early Christian church teachers (8:3é0xahot) were a dis- tinct order. In the New Testament they are ranked third in the order of the clergy. In I Corinthians xii:28, 29, we read: “God hath set some in the church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers” (8t6acxdAous). “Are all apostles? are all proph- ets? are all teachers” (t3doxaAor)? In the Didache the dt3doxaAor ranked fourth in the order of ecclesiastics. 328 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN The New Testament throughout differentiates between preach- ing (xnetcow) and teaching (8:3dé0xw). It is said of Jesus (Matt. xi:1), “He departed thence to teach (8t8décxerv) and to preach (xnedcey). II Timothy i:11 the Apostle Paul says “I was ap- pointed a preacher (xjev§) and an apostle and a teacher” (St3doxahocg). Citations might be multiplied. To make teaching (8t8dexw) and preaching (xynetccw) the same thing, is to charge the sacred writers with redundancy. As to the manner of teaching, according to Dr. Geikie, the teacher sat on a raised seat, known as “the seat of Moses” (Matt. xxili:2) with his disciples ranged about him. He propounded questions and allowed the disciples to give their opinions, adding his own when he thought proper. The scholars could also, in their turn, propose questions. It is said of Jesus, on the occasion of His visit to Jerusalem, when twelve years of age, that His parents “found Him in the Temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors” or teachers (8:dacxéAwy) “both hearing and asking them questions” (Luke 11:46). We also know from the New Testa- ment record of Christ’s teaching, how largely questions and an- swers entered into it. This method of imparting instruction in- volved disputation—controversy—the teacher always reserving the right of authoritative decision on the question at issue. The in- terruptions by questions, and the contradictions, were at times carried to such extent as to culminate in disorder, and even vio- lence. On the occasion when Christ denounced the scribes and Pharisees, they “pressed upon Him vehemently to provoke Him to speak of many things.” This mode of teaching was carried over into the Christian Church. Paul reasoned daily for two years in the school of Tyrannus at Ephesus: (Acts xix:9). Apollos was a 8t8écxaAo¢ (Acts xviii:25), and “powerfully confuted the Jews” at Corinth (Acts xvili:28); Paul reasoned every Sabbath in the synagogue at Athens (Acts xviii:4). The verb in each case means, “to argue”; “to discuss’; “to dispute.” This was the authoritative teaching the Apostle Paul is supposed to have prohibited on the PAULINE MANDATES 329 part of women; and such the interruptions and asking of ques- tions he forbids in I Corinthians xiv :34, 35. We call attention to the fact that the Apostle does not here forbid a woman serving in the capacity of 68tddécxaA0¢; he only restricts her to her own sex. He says: “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man” (dvdo6c). There is nothing in Greek Syntax, so far as the author knows, that prevents a&v8eé¢ from being the object of Sddoxetv as well as of ad@evtety. Paraphrased, the sentence would then read: “I permit not a woman to teach (8¢8décxetv) a man, nor to have dominion over him.” We must bear in mind that punctuation marks were not introduced until centuries after this passage was written. It was not the Apostle, but the “latter-day” scribe, who placed that comma after ériteéxw. The present English style of punctuation marks came into vogue about the sixteenth century. It has been asserted that the title 8:3acxaAo¢ is never applied to a woman in the New Testament. This is a mistake. In Titus ii:3, we read: “That the aged women (noecGittdac) likewise be reverent in demeanor, ... teachers (xaAo-d5t3acxdéAous) of that which is good.” Dr. W. K. Brown translates the passage thus: “That women elders (toecGitr5ac) likewise be reverent in de- meanor . . . teachers of that which is good.” The provision here is that they teach their own sex. According to this second view the Apostle Paul did not permit women to instruct men in the capacity of 8t8décxaAoc, where dis- putation played so large a part—disputation unrestricted by our modern rules of propriety, but which often degenerated into wrangling: as both sacred and profane history attest. The wis- dom of such restriction can scarcely be questioned, especially in a country and age when the relations of the sexes were so exclusive. He did permit them to instruct men in other capacity than that of Stsdoxadog. This is evident from I Corinthians xi, where he provides for their prophesying; and as is shown in the case of Priscilla expounding Scripture to Apollos (Acts xviii:26). Of the two explanations of I Timothy ii:12, the first seems the 330 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN better supported, viz., that the Apostle did not permit a wife to instruct her husband in the capacity of a 6t8acxaAoc, in the public congregation. We are led to this conclusion by the fol- lowing fact. The Council at Carthage, 398 a. D., prohibited women exercising the office of 6:3aéo0xaA0¢, (Canon xcix), while Canon xii provided that they might privately teach their own sex. If the custom had not prevailed, the Council would not have interdicted it; if women had not instructed men, Canon xii would not have restricted them to their own sex; if they had not taught in public, the Council would not have put a ban on such practice. I Timothy i1:15. For a discussion of this passage, the reader is referred to Chapter III of this volume. I Timothy 11:8-10. “I will therefore that the men pray every- where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness (aid00¢) and sobriety; not with braided hair or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women pro- fessing godliness) with good works” (A. V.). “T desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness (aiso0¢) and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls, or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing god- liness) through good works” (R. V.). The controversy here centers about the two Greek words, BovAouuar (“I will,” or “I desire’) and nxpocebyecbat, (pray). In verse nine the verb is wanting, and must be supplied from verse eight. Now the question is, shall GobAouwat alone be carried forward, or BotAouuat moocedyecOar? If BotAouuat alone, the reading is: “I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands,” etc. . .. [I desire] “in like manner that women adorn themselves in modest apparel,” etc. But where is the relevancy of the clause—“in like manner” (@cabtws)? Where is the similarity of conduct? If BolvAouuvat and meocedyecOat are carried forward we have PAULINE MANDATES 331 the following : “I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands,” etc... . [I desire] “in like manner that women [pray] in seemly apparel,” etc. This second rendering is supported by De Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, Mack and others. Dr. A. J. Gordon says: “By general consent the force of GobAovpat—T will,’ is carried over from the eighth verse into the ninth: ‘J will that women’ (vide Alford). And what is it that the Apostle will have women do? The words ‘In like manner’ furnish a very ‘suggestive hint toward one answer, and a very suggestive hindrance to another and common answer. Is it meant that he would have the men pray in every place, and the women, ‘Jn like manner, to be silent? But where would be the similarity of conduct in the two instances ? Or does the intended likeness lie between the men’s ‘lifting up holy hands,’ and the women adorning themselves in modest ap- parel? So unlikely is either one of these conclusions from the Apostle’s language, that as Alford concedes, Chrysostom and most commentators supply tcoocetyecbat ‘to pray’ in order to complete the sense. If they are right in so construing the pas- sage—and we believe the ®caltw¢ ‘in like manner,’ compels them to this course—then the meaning is unquestionable. ‘I will there- fore, that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, etc. In like manner I will that women pray in modest apparel,’”’ etc. “In one of the most incisive and clearly reasoned pieces of exegesis with which we are acquainted, Wiesinger, the eminent commentator, thus interprets the passage, and, as it seems to us, clearly justifies his conclusion. We have not space to transfer his argument to these pages, but we may, in a few words, give a summary of it, mostly in his own language. He says: “ “tT, In the words ‘in every place,’ it is chiefly to be observed that it is public prayer and not secret prayer that is spoken of. “2. The reocebyecbat, ‘to pray’ is to be supplied in verse nine, and to be connected with ‘in modest apparel’; so that this special injunction as to the conduct of women in prayer corresponds to that given to the men in the words ‘lifting up holy hands. This verse, then, from the beginning, refers to prayer; and what is said of the women in verses nine and ten is to be understood as referring primarily to public prayer.” 332 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN The interpretation here given brings this passage into complete harmony with I Corinthians xi:4-6.. The Apostle there directs that women pray and prophesy with their heads veiled, in con- formity to the custom of that age: he here enjoins them to pray © in seemly apparel. Of xatactoAkn, Ellicott says: “Not simply ‘dress,’ a meaning for which there is not satisfactory authority, but ‘deportment,’ as exhibited externally, whether in look, manner or dress.” “With shamefacedness” (atSo0i¢) (A. V.). “With shamefastness” (aidoi¢) (R. V.). The rendering “shamefacedness,” as found in the Authorized Version, is wholly inexcusable. The same word—aisw>s—occurs in some Mss. in Hebrews xii:28, and is there rendered “reverence” (Aatpebery Oe@ werd aldoc xat edraBetac). “Serve God ac- ceptably with reverence (ais0%¢) and godly fear” (Heb. xii:28). Now if at3¢ signifies “shamefacedness” in I Timothy ii:9, it also signifies “shamefacedness” in Hebrew xii:28; if “reverence” is the proper rendering in Hebrew xii:28, “reverence” is the proper rendering in I Timothy ii:9. Did the fact that I Timothy ii:9 re- fers to women, in the opinion of translators, afford sufficient ground for a change in the rendering? Whatever their premises, their con- clusion seemed to be that atéw¢ applied to men and women, meant “reverence,” applied to women only, it signified “shame- facedness.” The Revised Version render the word “shamefast- ness.” Bia aaa | Dean Alford characterizes the translation “shamefacedness” as an “unmeaning corruption.” Of the word substituted by the Revisers—“‘shamefastness,’ Dr. Katharine Bushnell says: “An obsolete word, giving an entirely wrong sense to the uninformed mind. The impression either word leaves upon the mind of the ordinary person is that in one sense or another, Paul would have woman and shame go together. The translators did not find it necessary to adopt either an unmeaning corruption or an obsolete word when they encountered the same noun in the only other passage in the New Testament in which it occurs. When man (with woman) is described in his attitude towards God, ‘a con- PAULINE MANDATES 333 suming fire’ in Hebrew xii:28, it is at once discovered that the > 99 proper sense of this Greek word aidw<¢ is ‘reverence. Trench, in “New Testament Synonyms,” xix, xx, says of aldw>: “Tn it is involved an innate moral repugnance to the doing of a dishonorable act.” “Ai3w¢ finds its motive in itself, implies reverence for the good as good, and not merely as that to which honor and reputation are attached” .. . “To sum up all, we may say that at6W¢ would always restrain a good man from an un- worthy act.” In a footnote, found on pages 71 and 72, he con- demns the translation “Shamefacedness,”’ and says: “It is inex- cusable that all modern reprints of the Authorized Version should have given in to this corruption.” According to Bishop Ellicott, aiéu¢ ‘“‘marks the innate shrink- ing from anything unbecoming.” I Timothy v:1, 2. “Rebuke not an elder (xpecGutéew), but exhort him as a father; the younger men (yewtéeouc) as brethren: the elder women xpecGutépac as mothers; the younger (vewtéoac) as sisters, in all purity.” Rev. Dr. W. K. Brown renders this passage as follows: “Rebuke not an elder (npecbutépw), but en- treat such as a father; the younger men (vewtép0uc) as brethren; the eldresses (teecButéeas) as mothers, and younger female min- isters (vewtéoas) as sisters, with all purity.” He says further: “The common version of our Bible would convey the idea that these directions were simply intended for the private members of the church. That we are correct in limiting these words to an officiality, anyone may satisfy himself by reading the ninth and fifteenth verses inclusive of this chapter” (“Gunethics,” p. 122). Bishop Ellicott makes the words pecBitepoc, xeecBireoa, yeMteeos, and vewtéoaw indicative of age, rather than office. Both views have supporters. We call attention to these verses as pre- liminary to our study of v:9-12. We know from ecclesiastical history that in the primitive church there were “eldresses” ~ 334 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN (xpecQiteoat). They were also styled “presbyteresses,’ or “presidents.” Webster defines “presbyteress” as follows: “In the early and medieval churches, a female presbyter or elder, one of those aged widows who were dedicated to the service of the church and constituted an ecclesiastical order.” Tertullian declared that women appeared in every early ref- erence to ecclesiastical orders. He writes “Four titles are ap- plied to the women clergy, all of which occur in the New Testa- ment.” Among these he mentions the “presbyteress’ and designates it as an “Apostolic order.” Luker and Malleson main- tain that “widow,” like “elder,” was a title of seniority, and was “unknown in Roman epigraphy for a woman who had lost her husband.” We are told that in catacomb frescoes bishops and women-elders are pictured seated in Episcopal chairs. In a work entitled “Origin of Monasticism” is found this statement: “Seats in the Presbytery show that ‘widows’ formed a bench of women- elders.” A record of these “seats” in the Presbytery was extant in Rome as late as the ninth century. The office of presbyteress was abolished by the Council of Laodicea (363 A.D.) Canon xi: “That one ought not to establish (xa0tetac8a) in the church the women called xpecGutida¢ or presi- dents” (reel tod wh év exxAnota xabtoracba). The word xa0to- sao0a here rendered “establish,” is elsewhere rendered “ordain.” The word teesbutéeas appears in I Timothy v:2, but in Titus 11:3 we have npecbittsac—“presbyteresses” or “presidents.” IIpecGittda¢ is rendered in Latin by both Dionysius Exiguus and Hervetus, “presbyter” and “presidents.” According to Lambert, “so called because they sat in front of other women in a place appointed for themselves.” In a note in Codex Canonum Ecclesie Universe, Lambert says: “These, it will be observed, are not called apecButeptdac or teorocae (presbyteresses or priestesses), an order which Epiph- anes denied to have ever existed in the Christian Church.” Right here we call attention to the word teponpenetc. (Titus ii:3) ren- dered in our English Versions—“reverent in demeanor” (R. V.) PAULINE MANDATES 335 “behaviour as becometh holiness” (A. V.). Ieoompemets is a com- pound of two Greek words—tepé¢ and xoeéxw. The primary sense of the latter is “to stand out, to be conspicuous, to be emi- nent.” Its secondary meaning is “to be becoming, seemly, fit.” ‘Ieeéc signifies, “sacred, consecrated to the deity, pertaining to God.” Its derivatives are teget¥c—“priest”—‘“one who offers sacrifices and in general is busied with sacred things’; teedbutos —“sacrificed”’; “offered in sacrifice’; tegov—“a sacred place, temple.” | The Apostle Paul uses this word teeé¢ in I Corinthians ix:13, “Know ye not that they which minister about sacred things (ot ta teok épyatéwevor) eat of the things of the temple (tepod), and they which wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar ?” Trench, in “New Testament Synonyms,” after commenting on the rarity of this word in the New Testament, Septuagint, and Apocrypha, says: “To persons, the word elsewhere also is of rarest application, though examples are not wanting. Thus tepd¢ &vOewxog is in Aristophanes (Rane, 652) a man initiated in the mysteries; kings for Pindar are as having their dignity from the gods. .. . ‘leeé¢ answers very closely to the Latin ‘sacer,’ It is that which may not be violated, . . . its inviolable character springing from its relations, nearer or remoter, to God; and 9etoc and teed¢ being often joined together. .. . Thus the tepetg is a sacred person, as serving at God’s altar.” Dean Alford, commenting on the xpecbiteoa, I Timothy v:2, makes this statement: “There being, in this case, no official term to occasion confusion.” The word conjoined with zeéxw in Titus ii:3 is an “official term.’ It is applied to women and it occasions “confusion” to commentators. Translators have rendered the compound, tepotpetetc, “be- haviour as becometh holiness” (A. V.), “reverent in demeanor” (R. V.). This is inadequate; it by no means measures the full import of the word. A literal translation would be—“as becometh priestesses,’ or “as becometh sacred persons,’ or persons who bd 336 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN minister in sacred things. Of this term tepetc, derivative from the word applied to these women, J. F. Denham, M.A., F.R.S., St. John’s College, Cambridge, England, says: “With which term the idea of sacrifice was always connected in ancient times.” The official import of the word is not to be ignored or concealed by generalities, even though it “occasion confusion.” The Authorized Version places in the margin—“holy women,” but this in itself does not express officiality. Dr. Hodge, in “Outlines of Theology,” p. 399, declares: “No priestly function is ever attributed to any New Testament officer, inspired or uninspired, extraordinary or ordinary. The whole duty of all these officers of every kind is comprised in the functions of teaching and ruling.” We do not dispute this assertion, but there is a further fact that in the primitive church, Christian clerics were frequently called “priests,” and women presbyters were called “presidents” and “priestesses.” This is well attested by patristic writings, and in the case under discussion, Titus 11:3, the Apostle applies to these women a term ordinarily associated with the priesthood. In its compound form it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Was this inad- vertence on his part, or was there design? Were the individuals referred to elderly laywomen, or was their authority a Divine bestowment and so recognized by the church? The evidence is before us, and we leave the verdict to the unbiased judgment of the reader. It is equally well established that in the primitive church there were “consecrated virgins” bound by the “public opinion of the church” to celibacy. Origen (Eccles. vii:4; Hospices, De Origen Monarchalus 1:10) says: “The ‘sacred virgins,’ or ‘ecclesiastical virgins,’ were an important part of the organization of the church in its first three centuries, and their names were enrolled on the list of church officials.” The Councils of Ancyra (315 A.D.), Valence (374 A. D.), Toledo (400 A.D.), and successive Councils, imposed a penalty on “con- secrated virgins” who married; they were censured for “going back from their profession”; for “falling from a higher vocation.” PAULINE MANDATES 337 Ludlow, in “Woman’s Work in the Church” (p. 254, Appendix D), says: “We find that there was a register of such virgins (church virgins) similar to that of the widows; that they were supplied with victuals like the widows and the ministering clergy, at the expense of the church at first, and after Constantine, of the State, unless Pagan or Arian persecution interfered to stop their maintenance.” (See, for instance, Theodoret, Book I: Con. II; or Athanasius, Encyclic. to the Bishops, C. 4.) Mention in the writings of the Church Fathers show that “con- secrated virgins’ and “presbyterial widows’ were recognized orders in the primitive church. First Timothy v:9-12, “Let none be enrolled as a widow under three score years old, (having been) the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she hath brought up children, if she hath used hospitality to strangers, if she hath washed the saints’ feet, if she hath relieved the afflicted, if she hath diligently followed every good work. But younger widows refuse: for when - they have waxed wanton against Christ, they desire to marry; having condemnation, because they have rejected their first faith’ (American R. V. “Pledge’’). Bishop Ellicott takes the widows here mentioned to be presby- teresses. He says: “If this view be correct, verses 3-8 will seem to relate specially to the support widows are to receive; verses 9-16 to their qualifications for an office in the church.’ He adds: “Their office was ‘presbyterial’ (rpecBittSe¢) rather than ‘diaconic.’ The external evidence,” he affirms, “for the existence of such a body, even in the earliest times, is so fully satisfactory, and so completely in harmony with the internal evidence supplied by verse 10sq., that on the whole (y) may be adopted with some confidence.” He maintains that the widows mentioned in verses 3-8 are recipients of alms from the church; but the widows of verses 9-12 are office-holders—women presbyters. He says: “We find noticed in this chapter the yne« (widow) in the ordinary sense, 7) Sytws yHea, the desolate and destitute widow; 7 xaAct- Aeyyevn XNea (enrolled widow), the ecclesiastical or presbyterial 338 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN widows.’ Of the young widows, mentioned in verse I1, he says: “They were not necessarily to be excluded from the alms of the church, but were only to be held ineligible for the ‘collegium viduarum. ” The law of Lycurgus provided that no one should become an “elder” under sixty years of age. The Apostle’s reason for rejecting the “younger widows” was that they would remarry. In doing so they “rejected their first faith.” Ellicott defines this as “their engagement to Christ not to marry again, which they virtually, if not explicitly, made when they attempted to undertake the duties of the presbyterial office’ (Pastoral Epistles, pp. 82, 86, 88, 89). The Apostle Paul was inflexible in his ruling that a digamus must not hold office in the church. If we turn to I Timothy iii:2, we find that the bishop must be “the husband of one wife.” A second marriage disqualified him for office. The same was true of the deacon (ii1:12), and here in I Timothy v:9 he provides that the presbyteress must be a woman of single marriage. He goes further and excludes the “younger widows” from the “col- legium viduarum,” lest they wax “wanton against Christ” and remarry. In doing so they have “condemnation because they have rejected their first faith.’ How comes it that churchmen have not clung as tenaciously to this ruling as to the Apostle’s supposed mandates against women functioning in a public capacity in the church? I Timothy 111 :8-13, “Likewise [must] the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, nor greedy of filthy lucre,” etc. “Even so [must their] wives (yuvatxas) (be) grave, not slan- derous, sober, faithful in all things.” “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,” etc. (A. V.). The Revised Version renders the eleventh verse thus: “Women m like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.” Now the question is, to what women does the Apostle here PAULINE MANDATES 339 refer—to womankind in general, or to some particular group or order? There are three answers: (1) The Authorized Version translates yuvatxac—“their wives ’—making these women the wives of deacons. This is so manifestly incorrect that it was rejected by both English and American Revisers. This interpretation is now quite generally discarded. It rests solely on assumption. (2) That the Apostle here rules in regard to women in general. While this explanation has the support of commentators who would deny women official position in the churches, it seems to the author of this volume even more unreasonable than the first. In this chapter the Apostle is giving explicit directions concerning the office-bearers of the church—the bishops and the deacons. He names the qualifications for the bishopric, then passes to the diaconate. In the very midst of his charge concerning deacons, he writes: “Women in like manner (must) be grave,” etc. Would the advocates of this second interpretation have us believe that the Apostle here ruled that women in general must be as grave as deacons? “In like manner’ ? Again the construction of the paragraph is against this view. According to these exegetes, the Apostle writes three verses of his charge concerning deacons (8-10), then “goes off at a word” and interjects.a verse (II) concerning women in general. After relieving his mind in this single verse, he bethinks himself of the deacons and returns to his former subject (12, 13). Must we conclude that this sober-minded Apostle could not restrain himself sufficiently to complete his ruling concerning office-holders before addressing himself to womenkind in general? This second ex- planation may well be characterized as “a vagary of exegesis.” (3) The third, and, to the author’s mind, the sane exposition of this eleventh verse is, that the Apostle was here giving instruc- tions concerning women deacons—not “deaconesses,” for, as else- where noted, no such word as é8taxévicce is found in the New Testament. In verses eight to ten and in verses twelve and thir- teen he rules concerning men, and in verse eleven concerning women deacons. This gives the charge a proper setting. The proof that there were women deacons in the early Christian 340 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN church, with all the rights and privileges of the office, is indis- putable. The same is true of the woman elder. II Timothy ii:2: “The things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men (dv@emn0tc), who shall be able to teach (8:6é5a:) others also.” The word here translated “men” is &v@pmxog. It is a generic term and signifies “person”; “individual.” The Apostle Paul is now “ready to be offered up’; the time of ‘ his departure “is at hand”; he is here giving his parting instruc- tions to Timothy, his “true child in the faith.” He forecasts the dangers that threaten the church in the future. If he had been as anxious to debar woman from the ministry as some of his suc- cessors would have us believe, he would have used the word dayne and forever have settled the question of sex. In dvne the thought of sex is made prominent. Instead of this he uses the generic word &y0ownos. After careful study of this entire question from all its angles— study extending over a period of years—the author is convinced that the Apostle Paul in no way discriminated against women. He enjoined upon both sexes to be obedient to the laws of the Empire, and to conform to the customs of the age in which they lived, when such laws and customs did not conflict with conscience. This was a matter of expediency. This “prince of the Apostles” was leagues ahead of his own and subsequent generations on the “Woman question.” XV CONCLUSION P HE Bible, as the inspired Word of God, has been an inestimable boon to humankind. Its entrance has given light; its leaves have been “for the healing of the nations”; but mistranslations and misinterpretations, such as noted in the preceding chapters, have been “an evil under the sun.” They have wrought detriment to the race; they have retarded sincere seekers in their efforts to acquire truth. Nowhere has prejudice wrought more insidiously and more disastrously than in its distortion of Scripture teachings concerning woman. By so doing it has inflicted irreparable injury—not only on one sex, but on the entire race. The maleficent results have been manifold. We call attention to the following: I: IT HAS METED INJUSTICE TO WOMAN: The wrongs inflicted in heathen lands have no place in this reckoning. We pass over the disabilities imposed during the second Jewish Commonwealth, and confine our study, in the main, to results occurrent in so-called Christian lands. In the second Chapter of this volume we pointed out how prejudice, fed and fostered by erroneous interpretation of Scripture, arrayed society against every member of the sex who manifested self-determina- tion or attempted self-development. It placed obstacles in the way of every woman who stepped aside from the beaten path; it barred doors against her ; it placarded her as a rebel against Divine will. In our study of the New Testament teachings concerning woman, repeated mention has been made of the law of Patria Potestas. Under its provisions the disabilities of woman were entire. This law, in all its rigor, prevailed when Christianity was introduced into the Roman Empire. A century and a half later, 341 342 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN under the rule of the Antonine Cesars (86-180 a.D.), we find woman almost completely emancipated. The manuscript of Gaius, a celebrated jurist of that age, shows that the legal disabilities of woman had been practically annulled. This writer devoted an entire volume to descriptions of the “ingenious expedients devised by Roman lawyers to evade the letter of the ancient law.” Eliza Burt Gamble, discoursing on this subject, says: “From facts at hand it is observed that the object of the Roman lawyers was to frame an edictal jurisprudence which should supersede the older law, or which in effect should annul its power.” The same writer says: “In the second century of the present era woman’s freedom had been practically won.” What wrought this social evolution? What effected this nulli- fication of the law of Patria Potestas in the brief period of a hun- dred and fifty years? A recent writer, averse to Christianity, attributes the change to “the principles involved in the Stoic philosophy.” Sir Henry Maine accounts for it after this sort: “Led by their theory of natural law, the jurisconsults had at this time assumed the equality of the sexes as a principle of their code of equity.” The author of this volume dissents from these views. If this change was effected by “the principles involved in the Stoic philosophy,” how came it to pass that these principles were not operative along this line during the three hundred years that pre- ceded the introduction of Christianity? Zeno, the founder of this system of philosophy, lived three centuries before the Christian era. He established his school in the ‘Painted Porch” at Athens. He made converts among scholars and statesmen, not only in Greece, but throughout the Roman Empire. He had adherents among the nobility, but in the three centuries that Stoicism ante- dated Christianity what did it accomplish toward the uplift of womankind? Did it effect the release of the thousand enslaved victims who ministered to the basest instincts of male worshipers in the Temple of Venus at Corinth? Did it manumit the dic- teriades at Athens, who were denied all freedom of action and served under the one law—“refuse no demand of a customer’? Did it abolish the auctioneering of beautiful auletrides to highest bidders at public gatherings where wine flowed freely? Did it CONCLUSION 343 elevate the Grecian wife and make her a companion of her husband instead of his child-bearer? Did it abrogate the conventional law imposed on woman: “See as little as possible; hear as little as possible; inquire as little as possible”? And throughout the Roman Empire, did Stoicism ameliorate the rigors of the Patria Potestas before the advent of Christianity? It had three hundred years in which to inculcate its principles; in which to educate society and reconstruct the social system, but how much did it effect for the betterment of womankind before the issuing in of the Gospel dispensation? And those jurisconsults—how efficacious was their “theory of natural law,” “the principle of their code of equity,” in establishing the equality of the sexes before Christianity leavened the Roman Empire? Sir Henry Maine says: “Christianity tended somewhat from the very first to narrow this remarkable liberty.” The reference here is to the freedom accorded women during the rule of the Antonine Cesars (86-180 a.D.). Here is a remarkable statement; let us analyze it. Christianity was introduced into Rome at an early period— Meyer surmises during the lifetime of our Lord. Most writers on the subject are convinced that it was carried thither soon after the day of Pentecost, as “sojourners from Rome” were present on that occasion (Acts 2:10). The Epistle to the Romans was written 57 or 58 A.D. There was at that time a flourishing Chris- tian community in that city. It is safe to assume that Christianity was planted in Rome prior to 46 a.p. Now Sir Henry Maine charges that “Christianity tended somewhat from the very first” —46 a.pD.—“to narrow this remarkable liberty,” achieved during the reign of the Antonine Cesars—86-180 A.D. In other words, “Christianity tended somewhat to narrow this remarkable liberty” from forty to one hundred and forty years before it was an actual- ity. A remarkable statement! That Christianity energized “from the very first” for the eman- cipation of woman is evident from the following fact: One of the earliest charges brought against the Christians of Rome and the provinces, and which engendered persecutions, was that they were 344 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN disturbing the social order; interfering with domestic relations; changing age-long customs. At Philippi Paul and Silas were haled before the magistrates, beaten and thrust into the inner prison on the charge: “These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, and set forth customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans.” Christians were stig- matized as “‘meddlers in other men’s matters” (d\Aototeticxomos). Ramsay says: “We have seen that the charges of breaking up the peace of family life formed the subject of anxious considera- tion and advice both to St. Paul and to St. Peter.”’ Of the word dAotetentoxoros, he says: “I cannot doubt that it refers to the charge of tampering with family relationships, causing disunion and discord,” etc. Christianity did not teach rebellion against con- stituted authority; it enjoined submission “to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,” but it promulgated truths incompatible with injustice; it inculcated principles subversive of wrongdoing; it awakened and enlightened the public conscience. If Christianity, in its initiatory stages, produced such results, even to the extent of arousing persecution, what must it have effected in the period lying between its introduction and the close of the Antonine regimen? Notwithstanding the persecutions inflicted, Christianity made rapid strides throughout the Roman Empire, and even beyond its limits. As early as 170 A.D. we find a Christian prince, Abgar Bar Maanu—in Mesopotamia. It gained footing in Persia, Media, Bactria, and Parthia. Paul himself preached the gospel in Arabia. During his second missionary journey he, accompanied by Silas, came to Thessalonica, a city of Macedonia. The Jews residing there incited a mob against them, and the cry was: “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also” (Acts xvii:1-6). The letter of the younger Pliny to the Emperor Trajan (A.D. 98-117) shows that Christianity had made such headway in Bithynia that the governor was at a loss to know how to proceed against it. “Great numbers of every rank and age and of both sexes” had become its converts. It was during this period—from 46 A. D. to 186 A. p.—the eman- cipation of woman was effected in the Roman Empire; the equality CONCLUSION 345 of the sexes was established. Shall we attribute this reconstruc- tion to “the principles involved in the Stoic philosophy”? Shall we ascribe it to the jurisconsults’ “theory of natural law’—“a principle of their code of equity”? Or shall we accredit it to the leavening influence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Right here we underscore a statement: Jf Christiamty wrought efficaciously along the line indicated, it must itself have assumed this attitude toward woman—otherunse it could not have been a motive power in the reconstruction of the social system. The primitive church must, in its polity and in the domestic relation- ships of its members, have exemplified the Pauline mandate: “There can be no male and female: for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.” In this fact we have testimony corroborative of what has been said in the preceding chapters of this volume. At this juncture we are confronted with a serious question. It is this: If Christianity wrought for the emancipation of woman; if it effected the equality of the sexes in the Roman Empire within a hundred years after its introduction, how, do we account for the fact that “this remarkable liberty”—an achievement of the Apos- tolic and post-Apostolic Ages (30 A.D.-I170 A.D.)—was entirely abrogated during the Old Catholic Age (170-323 a.p.)? What force lay back of this counter-current? What motive power effected this reversal? There is but one answer to this question— the church werarchs. We make no acrimonious charge when we say that in every age and clime religious magnates have been the most effective force in actuating the subjugation of woman. If the reader questions this allegation, we point in proof to the sacred literature of pagan cults; to the Oral law of the Hebrews; to the Institutes of Mohammed; to patristic writings; to the decretals of ecumenical, national, and provincial councils, and, furthermore, to the exposi- tory literature on the shelves of our theological libraries. These proponents and expounders have wrought on the highest instinct of the race—the religious impulse. They have urged upon both sexes that it is the Divine decree that woman should be in sub- jection to man. 346 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Rev. Annis F. F. Eastman, in an address before the “World’s Parliament of Religions,” in Chicago, 1893, said: “Before entering upon an investigation of the relation of religion to woman, we must decide what we mean by religion. If we mean any particular form of faith, body of laws, institutions, organiza- tion, whether Hindu, Greek, Hebrew, or Christian, then we are forced to the conclusion that no one of these has given to woman an equal place with man as the full half of the unit of humanity, for every organized religion, every religion which has become a human institution, teaches the headship of man, and that involves, in some measure and degree, the subjection of woman and her consequent inferiority.” This statement is broader in one respect than we are willing to allow. We must differentiate between the original contents of a religion and its increments; between the tenets of its founder and the accruments of expositors. Buddha, for example, avowed the equality of the sexes in matters spiritual, but turn to one of the Shasters called the Padma Puran, and see how Hindu priests overlaid the teaching of this religious founder: “A woman has no other god on earth than her husband. The most excellent of all good works she can perform is to gratify him with the strictest obedience. This should be her only de- votion. “Her husband may be crooked, aged, infirm; offensive in his manners. Let him also be choleric and dissipated, irregular; a drunkard, a gambler, a debauchee. Suppose him reckless of his domestic affairs, even agitated like a demon. Let him live in the world destitute of honor. Let him be deaf or blind. His crimes and his infirmities may weigh him down; but never shall his wife regard him but as her god. She shall serve him with all her might, obeying him in all things, spying no defects in his character, and giving him no excuse for disquiet. “Holding in low estimation her children, her grandchildren, and her jewels, in comparison with her husband; when he dies she will burn herself with him, and she will be applauded by the whole world for her attachment. “When in the presence of her husband, a woman must not look CONCLUSION 347 on one side and the other. She must keep her eyes on her master, and be ready to receive his commands. When he speaks she. must be quiet and listen to nothing besides. “Let all her words, her actions, and her deportment give open assurance that she regards her husband as her god. Then shall she be honored of all men and be praised as a discreet and virtuous wife.” The Mosaic code was singularly free from sex bias; Rev. Annis F. F. Eastman says: “The laws of Moses exalt women.” But how about these same laws after they had suffered exposition at the lips of the Rabbim? Take, for example, the following: A wife complained to the great Rabbi Rav of the cruel treatment received from her husband. This expounder of the Mosaic law replied, “What is the difference between thee and a fish, which one may eat either broiled or cooked ?”’ Rabbi Yochanan quotes the Mishnic Rabbim as teaching that a husband may do as he pleases with his wife, “It is like a piece of meat, brought from the shambles, which one may eat, salt, roast, partially or wholly cooked.” Let the reader bear in mind that the Rabbim were elucidators of the Old Testament Scriptures. They were the recognized authority in all matters of casuistry. It was a principle universally accepted that their sayings were weightier than even the Law of Moses. “Unconditional obedience was required to every rabbinical precept.” A Rabbi outranked the High Priest. To dispute with such, or to murmur against him, “was a crime as great as to do the same toward the Almighty.” It was the rulings of these religious hierarchs that dragged woman from the exalted position assigned her under the first Jewish Commonwealth to her low estate under the second. It was to these “blind leaders of the blind” that Jesus said in reproof : “Ye have made void the word of God because of your traditions.” But how about the hierarchs of the Christian Church? Did they prove an exception? We turn to history for an answer. In the eighth chapter of this volume we studied the attitude of Jesus on this question. We noted that women accompanied Him on His, preaching tours through Palestine, and His disciples referred to 348 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN them as “women of our company”; we found Mary seated in that “inner circle’ that gathered “at the Lord’s feet and heard His word.” We saw the women of His “company” early at the riven tomb, and heard the risen Christ commission them to herald His resurrection and ascension. We found further that never, by word or act, so far as the Gospel record shows, did the Divine Lord discriminate against woman. In the ninth chapter we studied the position assigned woman in the organization of the Christian church. How, on the day of Pentecost, she received the baptism of the Holy Spirit in like manner and in like measure as man; how, when the disciples “were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria,” she too “went about preaching the word’’; how Philip the evan- gelist had four daughters “which did prophesy” ; how Priscilla took precedence of her husband in expounding the Word of the Lord to Apollos; we found throughout the Book of Acts prominent mention of the part that woman took in the propagation of the Gospel; how the first convert on European soil was a woman, and the first church established in her house. In the tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth chapters we studied Apostolic practice and teachings. We found the great Apostle to the Gentiles recognizing woman in every official position in the church, even the Apostolate. In addition to all this, we have scanned the pages of profane history and found that within a hundred years after the introduction of Christianity the equality of the sexes was established in the Roman Empire. We pass over a period of two centuries and look again in on the church and, lo, the change! We find woman silenced in the assem- blies of the saints; we find her driven from the ranks of the clergy and commanded not to prophesy; forbidden to approach the altar; debarred from every official position, allowed to serve only in the humble capacity of “deaconess” under the supervision of man. We behold her as a wife re-immeshed in the toils of the Patria Potestas. We ponder on the change and again we ask—What force lay back of this counter-current? What motive power effected this reversal ? That church magnates, and not Christianity itself, was respon- CONCLUSION 349 sible for this reaction is proven by the following considerations: First: Christianity could not have wrought for the emancipa- tion of woman in the first and second centuries, and for her enslavement in the third and fourth. Second: If Christianity, in the third and fourth centuries, de- prived woman of the liberty she enjoyed in the Antonine period; if it forced her back into the low position she occupied before the Gospel advent, we must forgo all thought that it energized in her behalf in the first two centuries. We must concede that not Chris- tianity, but paganism, effected her release. We must disclaim the hue and cry that the Gospel of Jesus Christ emancipated woman. We must assent to the claim of Sir Henry Maine, Eliza Burt Gamble, and other profane writers, that Christianity tended from the very first to narrow the remarkable liberty achieved under “the principles involved in Stoic philosophy” and the jurisconsults’ “theory of natural law.” Third: Christianity could not effectuate the emancipation of woman in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Ages and her enslave- ment in the Old Catholic Age without itself undergoing change. Change implies departure. If the Gospel of the Old Catholic Age was a departure from the Gospel of the Apostolic and post-Apos- tolic Ages, it was not in complete accord with the teachings of Jesus and the practice and precepts of His primitive disciples. There was maladjustment somewhere. Fourth: We must reckon with the fact that the suppression of woman in the church and her relegation to the background kept pace with the growth and assumptions of the hierarchy. A care- ful survey of the acts and the canons of ecumenical, national, and provincial councils and synods will verify this statement. Christianity in its initial stage was democratic. Jesus said to His followers: “Be not ye called rabbi: for one is your teacher and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, the Christ. But he that is greater among you shall be your minister. And-whosoever shall exalt himself shall' be humbled ; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.” 350 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “Ve know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you; but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your bondservant; even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.” “He that is greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that reclineth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that reclineth at meat? but I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.”’ When He washed the Apostle’s feet, He said: “If I then, the Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye also should do as I have done to you.” When James and John sought preferment, He rebuked them. When the Apostles wrangled over which of them should be the greatest, He said in reproof: “If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and minister of all.” Simon Peter charged the elders of the Dispersion not to lord it over “the flock of God,” but to gird themselves with humility and to “serve one another.” The Apostle Paul made mention of James, Cephas and John as “those who were reputed to be somewhat,” but added: “What- soever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth not man’s person.” He called himself “the bondservant” of Jesus Christ. He wrote to the Galatians: “Through love be servants one to another.” To the Romans: “Set not your mind on high things, but be carried away with things that are lowly.” To the Corin- thians: “I, who in your presence, am lowly among you.” “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” Jesus, in His censure of the scribes and Pharisees, said: “They make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues . . . and to be called of men, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.” CONCLUSION 351 We look in on the church a few centuries later and find these lessons in humility in discard. We see the bishops and presbyters —mayhap bishop-presbyters—robed in insignias of rank, seated on thrones apart from their fellow-Christians, while the deacons stand in attendance. We hear them addressed as “My lord’; “Your grace’; “Vicar of Christ”; “Prince of the Church,” etc., while the minor clergy and laymen acknowledge themselves to be “Your humble servant”; “Your dutiful and obedient servant,” e¢ al. In time we find these magnates of the church assembled in Councils from which the laity is excluded, and in which the subor- dinate ranks of the clergy have no voice. We hear them ordaining that no deacon may be seated in the presence of a bishop without his permission; no presbyter or deacon may preach if a bishop be present without dispensation ; laymen and women may not approach the altar, nor lift their voices in the songs of God’s house. If any reader doubts these statements we refer him to patristic writings and to the acts and canons of church councils. We have naught to do with the age-long controversy over the identity of bishop and presbyter, but for convenience we assume there are three orders of the clergy mentioned in the New Testa- ment—bishop, presbyter (or elder), and deacon. The Diotrephes of the later generations were not content with this simple classi- fication. It was incommensurate with their growing ambition, so they instituted the more august orders—Arch-bishop, Patriarch, and, in time, Cardinal and Pontifex Maximus. Professor Kurtz, commenting on the early struggle between the bishops and presbyters for supremacy, says: “This peaceful co-operating of the two orders undoubtedly soon and often gave place to unseemly rivalry, and the hierarchal spirit obtruding itself in the Protepiscopate, which first of all reduced its colleagues from their original equality to a position of subordi- nation, soon asserted itself over against the extraordinary offices which had held a place co-ordinate with, and in the department of doctrine and worship even more authoritative and important than that of the bishops themselves. They were only too readily successful in having their usurpation of their offices recognized as bearing the authority of a divine appointment. These soon com- 352 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN pleted the theory of the hierarchal and monarchical rank of the clergy and the absurd pretension to having obtained from God the absolute fullness of His Spirit and absolute sovereign power.” In the primitive church the rights of the laity were duly recog- nized; they shared in the administration. Peter proposed the choice of a successor to Judas Iscariot, not to the Eleven, but to the hundred and twenty assembled in that “upper room” at Jeru- salem; and they, not the Apostles, “put forward two, Joseph called Barsabas, whose surname was Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed ... and they gave lots for them: and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.” The laity, and not church magnates, nominated and elected Matthias to the Apostolate. We quote again from Professor Kurtz. In contrasting the con- stitution, worship, and discipline of the primitive church with that of the Jewish, he says: “In the council of the Christian church, on the other hand, with reference to all important questions, the membership of all be- lievers is called together for consultation and deliverance (Acts vi:2-6; xv:4, 22). A complaint on the part of the Hellenistic members of the church that their poor were being neglected led to the election of seven men who should care for the poor, not by the Apostles, but by the church.” In the disputation occurrent over imposing circumcision on Gentile converts, the Antiochian Christians deputized Paul and Barnabas to carry the matter to “the Apostles and elders” at Jeru- salem. But even on this occasion the church was called into con- sultation. Acts xv:4 we read: “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and elders.” In Acts xv:22, “Then it seemed good to the Apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” The Corinthian church had its congregational gatherings for the disposition of business. The Apostle Paul superscribed his Epistle to the Philippians CONCLUSION 353 to “all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons,” giving the “saints” precedence of the “bishops and deacons.” We note further that in this church there were several bishops, which would preclude autocratic power on the part of any one of them. In the Old Catholic age we find a reversal. The rights of the laity and subordinate clergy were cur- tailed from time to time, until finally all power lodged in the hands of the hierarchs. We quote further from the same author: “This relapse to the Old Testament standpoint was, moreover, rendered almost inevitable by the contemporary metamorphosis of the ecclesiastical, which existed as the necessary basis of human or- ganization, into a hierarchal organization, resting upon an assumed divine institution. For clericalism, with its claim to be the sole divinely authorized channel for the communication of God’s grace, was the correlate and the indispensable support of hierarchism, with its exclusive claims to legislative, judicial, disciplinary and administrative precedence in the affairs of the church” (Kurtz, Voli pr tos. “From the Nicene Council in 325 a.p. the bishops alone had a vote and the presence of the laity was more and more restricted” (Vol. I, p. 193). The relegation of woman to the background in the church kept pace with the growth of the hierarchy. Ramsay, in his “History of the Church in the Roman Empire,” after conceding the promi- nent position assigned woman in the primitive church, says: “The universal and Catholic type of Christianity became confirmed in its dislike of the prominence and public ministration of women.” The dislike “was intensified to abhorrence before the middle of the second century.” This writer makes this further charge: “Under the influence of this feeling the changes in Acts xvii:12 and 34 arose in Catholic circles in Asia Minor.” The reference here is to the omission of ‘‘Damaris” in Codex Beze, and he adds: “There seems no doubt that this omission is deliberate and inten- tional.” His further reference is to Acts xvii:12, which was changed from “Greek women of honorable estate, and of men, not 354 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN a few,” and made to read: “Of the Greeks and the honorable, many men and women.” Now it was impossible for these changes to have been wrought without the knowledge and connivance of the church dignitaries. We must reckon with the fact that these prelates were converts from Judaism—a Judaism suffering the blight of rabbinical in- struction; Greek converts with low inbred concepts of woman’s place in Divine and human economy; Roman converts, having back of them centuries of the law of Patria Potestas and Manus Viri. Moreover, they were several generations removed from personal contact with the Apostles and their immediate successors. Under such circumstances it was an easy matter to drift away from the standards and usages of the primitive church; easy to read their predilections into the Sacred Text. Rev. Annis F. F. Eastman, in his address before The World’s Parliament of Religions, referred to on an earlier page, made this declaration: “Organized Christianity is not the imitation of the life and teachings of Christ among His followers. Christianity is the teach- ing of Jesus, plus Judaism, plus the Roman spirit of law and justice, and Grecian philosophy, plus the ideals of medizval art, plus the nature of the Germanic races, plus the scientific spirit of the modern age.” He says further: “If it be urged that the progress of Christianity since Christ’s day has often seemed to be backward from His ideal, in reference to the man and the woman, there is but one answer—and that is, that Christianity, as He proclaimed it, soon became mingled with Jewish ideas and Greek philosophy, and received the impress of the Romans and the different people that embraced it” (“The World’s Parliament of Religions,” p. 757). The concern of the church today should be to divest Christianity of its increments, of its excrescences, and to hold fast to the “truth as it is in Christ Jesus.” Soon after his ascension to the throne, Constantine convened the first Ecumenical Council. It met at Nicza, a.p. 325. The Em- peror and 318 bishops were in attendance. Prior to this assem- CONCLUSION 355 blage, Provincial Synods had attained the position of fixed and regularly recurring institutions. We find them in session as early as 170 A.D. In these Synodical conventions presbyters and deacons sat alongside bishops, and shared with them in the proceedings. According to Professor Kurtz, the laity in general attended and “no decision could be arrived at without the knowledge and ac- quiescence of the members of the church.” The decrees were communicated to remote congregations by Synodical rescripts. During the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods, women were eligible to the office of presbyter and deacon, and as such would be entitled to a voice and vote in these convocations. The sum- moning of the first Ecumenical Council by Constantine 325 a.p. marked a new era in the Christian church. The bishops alone had a vote in this august body, and from thenceforth the presence of the laity was more and more restricted. The minor clergy were also denied recognition, and, in time, all legislative, judicial and administrative power centralized in the hierarchs. It is not within the scope of this volume to tabulate all the disabling acts passed by general, national, provincial, and diocesan Councils regarding laymen in general and women in particular. We cite but a few from Ecumenical bodies divesting the latter of rights and privileges previously possessed : The Council of Laodicea (352 A.D.) prohibited women serving as priests or presiding over the churches. Canon xi Council of Laodicea 365 a.p. decreed: “That one ought not. to establish (xa6tctac8at) in the church the women called moecButtsac or “presidents.” It is worthy of note that Tertullian and Cyprian commonly call the bishops “presidents” or “‘provosts of the church.” Council of Laodicea, Canon xliv, decreed “that women must not approach the altar.” The Fourth Synod of Carthage (398 a. D.), Canon 99, expressly declared : ““A woman, however learned and holy, may not presume to teach men in an assembly” (“Mulier quam vis docta et sancta viros in conventu docere non praesumat’). Canon 100: “A woman may not baptize.” Two hundred and fourteen bishops were in attendance at this Synod. The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.p.), Canon xv, forbade a 356 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN deaconess being ordained before her fortieth year, “but if, receiv- ing the imposition of hands, and remaining some time in the ministry, she gives herself to marriage, doing despite to the grace of God, let her be accursed, together with her paramour.” The Council of Ancyra (357 A.D.), Valence (374 A.D.), Toledo (400 A.D.), and successive Councils, imposed a penalty on any ecclesiastical virgin or widow who married. The second edition of Justinian’s code (534 A.D.), the sixth Novel (535 a.D.), im- posed the death penalty “if a deaconess leave the ministry to enter marriage or to choose any other mode of life.” The Synod of Orange (441 A.pD.), the Synod of Epaone (517 A.D.), the Synod of Orleans (533 a.D.), prohibited the ordination of deaconesses. So far as the investigation of the author has extended, the decrees concerning women, with very few exceptions, were restric- tive or prohibitive—an abridgment or an annulment of rights and privileges previously possessed. If the reader desires to pursue further a study of these acts of ecclesiastical councils, we refer him to the Codex Canonum by Dionysius Exiguus, or to other compilers. We stress the fact that after 325 a.p. hierarchs alone sat in Ecumenical, National, and Provincial Councils; they alone wrote their will into the law of the church; their voice and vote divested woman of every vestige of ecclesiastical office and authority. To fully comprehend the adverse attitude of these prelates one must acquaint himself with the patristic literature of the age. Not content with degrading woman to almost a nonentity in the church of Jesus Christ, these magnates further dealt her a stag- gering blow in her domestic and social relationships. We have already pointed to the fact that during the Antonine period the law of Patria Potestas had passed into desuetude, so far as the oppression of women was concerned, and the equality of the sexes was established in the Roman Empire. But with the rise and development of the church hierarchy, the old law was resuscitated, and, in its main features, fastened on womankind throughout Christendom for a period of almost two thousand years. This is CONCLUSION 357 a serious charge and demands substantiation. We submit the following facts of history: On Constantine’s ascension to the throne, 323 A.p., Christianity was recognized as the religion of the Roman Empire. Union of state and church followed. While the Emperor was titular head of the latter, authority de facto lodged in the hierarchy. In every province and country where Christianity gained standing, church prelates were reckoned with, not only in matters of religion but, as time went by, more and more in affairs of state. Canon law grew apace and ecclesiastical courts extended their jurisdiction. All this had a bearing on the domestic and social status of woman. We take England as a notable example, for the following reasons: (1) The British government has been pronounced “the best government in the world.” (2) The vast territory over which it has extended its rule and on which it has impressed its laws. (3) It is one of the oldest and most enlightened Christian civilizations on the globe. In 55 8. c. Julius Cesar revealed Britain to the Roman world. A century later the Emperor Claudius undertook its conquest. In time the island was subdued and became a Roman province. The work of civilization followed. For three hundred years Rome maintained her supremacy in the island, but in the beginning of the fifth century she was compelled to withdraw her legions to defend Italy against the Goths; and Britain was left to withstand as best it could the invasions of the Jutes, Saxons, and Engles. With the defeat at Deorham (577 a. p.) the bulk of Britain was subjugated, and the conquerors took possession of the island. John Richard Green, in his “History of the English People,” says: “What strikes us at once in this new England is this, that it was the one purely German nation that rose upon the wreck of Rome. . . . Britain was almost the only province of the Empire where Rome died into a vague tradition of the past. . . . Its laws, its literature, its manners, its faith went with it. Nothing was stronger proof of the completeness of this destruction of all Roman life than the religious change which passed over the land. Alone 358 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN among the German assailants of Rome, the English stood aloof from the faith of the Empire they helped to overthrow. The new England was a heathen country. Homestead and boundary, the very days of the week, bore the names of the new gods who dis- placed Christ.” There is proof that the Gospel gained an early entrance into Britain; historians say “probably through intercourse with the Romans.” There is an ancient tradition, whether reliable or other- wise we are not prepared to say, that a British king, in the middle of the second century, besought the Roman bishop Eleutherus to send Christian missionaries to the island, and his request was granted. Certain it is that by the end of the third century Chris- tianity had taken root in Roman Britain. But with the withdrawal of the Roman legions and the subsequent conquest of the island by the English, all this was changed. In the language of the afore- mentioned historian, “Roman roads indeed led to desolate cities. Roman camps still crowned hill and down. The old divisions of the land remained to furnish bounds of field and farm for the new settlers. The Roman church, the Roman country house were left standing, though reft of priest and lord. But Rome was gone.” “Its laws, its literature, its manners, its faith, went with it.” In 596 A.p. the long-interrupted intercourse with Rome was renewed by Pope Gregory I sending a mission to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons. Augustine, a Roman abbot, accompanied by forty monks, landed on the island. Prior to this, however, Christianity had again found ingress through the Britons who, on the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons, had been driven into North and South Wales. Augustine, on his arrival, found in the British church several divergences in respect of worship, constitution, and dis- cipline from the Roman practice. He insisted on conformity to the rules and regulations of the papal see. His Anglo-Saxons converts acquiesced to these demands. Not so the Britons. They repudiated the pretensions of the Roman hierarchy. A fierce struggle ensued. In the meantime, Pope Gregory conferred on Augustine archiepiscopal authority over the entire British and Anglo-Saxon church. This of course intensified the strife. The CONCLUSION 359 matter ended in a complete and unconditional surrender to Rome. From thenceforth until the reign of Henry VIII, in the sixteenth century, the English church was a subject of the Roman see. An ecclesiasticism powerful enough to subjugate the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons in matters of religion would of necessity be a factor in the establishment of laws and customs. Up to the time of Augustine’s landing, and two and a half centuries after- ward, England had no written laws. All controversies were settled according to the lex non scripta, the unwritten, or common law— “a collection of maxims and customs . . . of higher antiquity than memory or history can reach.” According to legal phraseology: “Time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” Now it is altogether unsupposable that these maxims and cus- toms are of equal antiquity. In the very nature of the case some would antedate others. Blackstone himself takes knowledge of this fact. Wharton defines “common law” as “a system of juris- prudence developing under the guidance of the courts so as to apply a consistent and reasonable rule to each litigated case. It may be superseded by statute, but unless superseded it controls.” It is by others defined as “the unwritten law (especially in Eng- land) ; the law that receives its binding force from immemorial usage and judgments of the courts. The term is often used in contradistinction from the statute law.” In the latter half of the ninth century, more than two hundred and fifty years after Augustine and his forty Roman monks landed in England, King Alfred codified the maxims and customs in what was subsequently known as his Dome-Book, “for the general use of the whole kingdom.” Upward of two centuries later Edward the Confessor prepared a second edition. Because of this, his- torians style Alfred the “Legum Anglicanarum conditor’ and Edward the Confessor the “Restitutor.” When Alfred the Great, in the last half of the ninth century, compiled the maxims and customs of his realm in his “Dome- Book,” “for the general use of the whole kingdom,” he also, unwittingly, compiled them for a large part of Christendom. Wherever the Union Jack has unfurled, the common law has followed. Not only England, but her dependencies have owned 360 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN its sway. Except when modified or displaced by statute, it prevails today in a realm “on which the sun never sets.” When the English colonists came to America, they brought the common law with them. We quote from Sharswood. He says: “Tt is true that the common law was the substratum of the juris- prudence of the thirteen States by whom the constitution of the United States was first adopted. The men by whom it was framed had been educated under that system, and many of them lawyers. No doubt, upon the commonly received principles of interpretation, the language of that instrument, and the technical terms employed in it, are to be construed by the common law.” After pointing out how new States were parceled out of old and how others were ceded to the United States by France, Spain, and Mexico, he con- tinues as follows: “In Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and California the common law has been adopted by express legislative enact- ment, so that Louisiana is the only State in which any other law prevails. In that State the law of France, which is the Roman civil law, with such modifications as obtained at the time of her purchase, is the foundation of her jurisprudence.” Since the birth of this Republic the common law of England has been the common law of the United States, and except where “superseded by statute,” it controls. It is the “substratum of the jurisprudence” of every State in the Union with the exception of Louisiana, which acceded with the Roman civil law. We are not concerned with common law in this connection only in so far as it relates to woman. A comparison of this instrument with the Roman law of Patria Potestas will reveal remarkable similarity. In its main features the former is almost a replica of the latter. How do we account for this? How came it to pass that Rome stamped her impress on the usages and laws of the Anglo-Saxons? We cannot explain it by pointing to the fact that the Roman legionaries were in Britain for a period of almost three hundred years—from the middle of the first century a.p. to the beginning of the fifth, Rome withdrew her legions more than a century before the conquest of the Britons by the Anglo-Saxons and they never returned. Add to this the fact that the vanquished fled before the invading hordes and took shelter in North and CONCLUSION 361 South Wales—priesthood and people were driven out together. According to the historian, John Richard Green, “not a Briton remained as subject or slave on English ground.” Aside from all this, the invaders—Jutes, Saxons, and Engles—were heathen- pirates of the sea, and intensely hostile to every thing Roman. Neither can we explain the similarity of the two laws, in so far as they relate to women, on the supposition that the Anglo-Saxons, at the time of the conquest, held like view as the Romans on this subject. History precludes such assumption. The Engles and the Saxons were both of pure Teutonic stock, and the honor accorded woman by the ancient Germans is one of the outstanding facts of history. Injuries offered to women were estimated doubly or trebly higher than those offered to men. Private vengeance was permitted and the offender might be deprived of liberty or life. It is true that a woman was punished, when she transgressed, more severely than man, but it was due to the fact that she was considered less capable of the commission of crime, and because she received higher indemnity when injured. Wolfgang Menzel, the German historian, says: “In pagan times women were generally despised, and regarded as beings of an inferior order; but among the Germans, even in the earliest ages, they were considered as standing equal in point of honor to the men, and in many respects were even acknowledged to be superior. The honor in which women were held exercised so great an influence over the customs and character of the Ger- mans, and consequently over their arts and poetry, as to produce the romance by which their productions are mainly distinguished from those of the East, the Graeco-Roman, or antique. “An insult offered to female modesty or honor was deemed an unpardonable crime, and punished with death. “The day after the wedding the husband presented his wife with a gift, called the morning gift, of which she could not be deprived. “Every woman, possessed of sufficient strength, was free to carry arms. Women were also allowed to speak in council, and those noted for capacity and skill often headed great and important enterprises.” The Germans, although pagans, continued thus to honor woman 362 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN until missionaries from Rome sought them out and Christianized them. Kurtz, in his “Church History,” says: “Tn the German states from the earliest times the superior clergy constituted a spiritual aristocracy which by means of their higher culture won a more influential position in civil life than the secular nobles. In all important affairs of state the bishops were the advisers of the king; they were almost exclusively employed on embassies; on all commissions there were clerical members and always one-half of the Missi dominici were clerics. This nearness to the person of the king and their importance in civil life made them rank as one of the estates of the realm” (p. 501). If not the legionaries; if not the Anglo-Saxons themselves made Roman impress on the common law in its relation to woman, how about the Britons? For almost three hundred years they were subjects of Rome before the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons. May they not have accepted Roman ideals concerning the sex and transmitted them to the newcomers? ‘That this is altogether im- probable is evident from the following reasons: (1) The Britons were driven out of the conquered territory and took refuge in Wales. “Not a Briton remained as subject or slave on English ground.” As time elapsed and some drifted back to their native soil, their animosity toward the Anglo-Saxons was so intense that they refused to make any effort toward secur- ing their conversion to Christianity. When the Roman Abbot Augustine and his forty monks landed in England, 596 a.p., one of the demands he made of the British church was that it join him in an attempt to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons. This was one of the questions at issue between them. (2) In the second place, the Britons themselves were unfriendly to the Romans. It is true that for almost three hundred years they had been subjects of the Empire, but they had no alternative. Legionaries kept them from rebellion. It is also true that mis- sionaries from Rome came among them and established churches, but when the legionaries were withdrawn and the marauders of the sea poured in upon them, Roman laws, literature, manners and religion disappeared before the onsweeping hordes. CONCLUSION 363 When the Britons fled to Wales no doubt but some of the faith- ful pastors accompanied their flock. At least two hundred years had elapsed since the missionaries came among them. In the meantime, native preachers had been trained, and these were not wholly subservient to Rome. This was manifest when Augustine asserted his archiepiscopal authority and commanded conformity to the laws and usages of the Roman see. The Britons repudiated the pretensions of the Roman hierarchy, and it was only after prolonged and bitter controversy that they were brought into submission. 7 | If not the legionaries, the Anglo-Saxons, or the Britons, placed the trademark of Rome on the common law of England, in so far as it related to woman, how else may we account for it? The author finds but one answer to this question. It is this: There was in the island a strong Romanizing force not yet reck- oned with—the Roman clerics. They came to Britain soon after its annexation to the Empire. They continued their propagandism for more than two hundred years before the invasion of the Jutes, the Saxons and the Engles forced their departure. In 596 a.p. they returned in the person of Augustine and his forty Roman monks. They came bearing in their hands the canon law and compelled both Britons and Anglo-Saxons to bow to the mandates of the Roman see. Blackstone defines the canon law as “a body of Roman ecclesiastical law, relative to such matters as that church either has, or pretends to have, the proper jurisdiction over. This is compiled from the opinions of the ancient Latin fathers, the decrees of general councils, and the decretal epistles and bulls of the Holy See.” These “Ancient Latin fathers’ were of the prelatic order, and as such sat in the ecumenical councils. Their writings testify to their low concept of woman. They held to the supremacy of man and made the wife in all things subservient to the will of her lord. Only bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs had a voice and vote in these general councils of the church, so we are warranted in our affirmation that the canon law was the expressed will of the hierarchy. Not only were these missionaries exponents of the canon law— 364 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN a law that degraded woman—but they were Romans—bred and reared in homes where the status of woman was determined by the law of Patria Potestas and Manus Viri. They were familiar with Roman maxims and customs. They were schooled in these usages. Add to all this the training received in their study of patristic writings, and we can understand, at least in a measure, how well fitted they were to promulgate these teachings and prac- tices among a people in a formative stage of civilization. The fact that they were religious teachers and these Anglo-Saxons their converts, educated while the masses were untaught, would give them immense influence in the settlement of controversies. In all this we have an explanation of the fact that the common law, especially as it relates to woman, is, in many respects, almost a fac-simile of the Roman law of Patria Potestas. These men adjudicated disputes submitted to them according to the rules of Roman jurisprudence. Under the circumstances one could scarcely expect them to do otherwise. In time their rulings would have the weight of lex non scripta. Even in cases where these clerics were not arbiters, their opinions would have weight in their com- munities. For two and a half centuries this was the sole method of procedure in matters under controversy. Concerning the common law of England, Blackstone says: “In the knowledge of this law consisted great part of the learning of those dark ages; it was then taught, says Mr. Seldon, in the monasteries, in the universities, and in the families of the principal nobility. The clergy, in particular, as they then engrossed almost every other branch of learning, so (like their predecessors, the British Druids) they were peculiarly remarkable for their pro- ficiency in the study of the law. . . . The judges therefore were usually created out of the sacred order, as was likewise the case among the Normans; and all the inferior offices were supplied by the lower clergy.” In the latter part of the ninth century King Alfred, “Legum Anglicanarum conditor,’ prepared his Dome-Book. It was a compilation of the recognized maxims and customs in various parts of his realm, and was intended “for the general use of the whole kingdom,” and acquired the name “common law.” CONCLUSION 365 King Alfred was a devout churchman, as was also Edward the Confessor—the Restitutor. The latter is honored as a saint in the Roman Catholic church, and the former was characterized by Freeman as “a saint without superstition.’ Without doubt both these monarchs, in conformity to the practice of the age, had a prelate who served as private chaplain and confessor. According to John Richard Green, “The first missionaries to the Englishmen, strangers in a heathen land, attached themselves necessarily to the courts of the kings, who were their earliest converts, and whose conversion was generally followed by that of their people. The English bishops were thus at first royal chaplains, and their diocese was naturally nothing but the kingdom.” Now it is not supposable that either of these devout monarchs would undertake and prosecute tasks of such magnitude as the compilation or the restoration of the common law of England without advising with the prelates. The private chaplain and confessor would especially occupy vantage ground as counselors. Blackstone (Vol. II, pp. 60, 61) says: “In the time of our Saxon ancestors, the bishop of the diocese sat with the alderman, or in his absence, the sheriff of the county in the county court.” The same high authority further declares that “the original or first institution of parliament is one of those matters which lies so far hidden in the dark ages of antiquity that the tracing of it out is a thing equally difficult and uncertain” (Vol. I, p. 147). In the Introduction to Volume I, page XXV, we have this state- ment: “Parliaments, in some shape, are of as high antiquity as the Saxon government in this island.” It was through the subtle influence of the clerics—every man of whom at that period was a minion of the papal see—that the hierarchs of the church were seated as “lords spiritual” in the British parliament, “in which the legislative power and the supreme and absolute authority of the state is vested.” In later time we find in this august body two archbishops, twenty-four bishops; twenty-six mitred abbots and two priors, and the chronicler adds: “Tn those times equal in number to the temporal nobility.” Chitty says: “On the union with Ireland, an addition of four representa- tive spiritual peers, one archbishop, and three supreme bishops 366 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN was made for Ireland, to sit by rotation of sessions’ (Blackstone, Vol. I, Book I, Chap. 2, p. 155). Nor was this all. Ecclesiastical courts were established, which had sole jurisdiction over certain matters of law, among which were all cases relating to marriage, divorce, and alimony. The law that prevailed in these courts was ecclesiastical—a combination of canon and civil law. The latter embodied in slightly modified form the Roman Patria Potestas. We note particularly that these ecclesiastical courts, which ad- judicated according to ecclesiastical law, had jurisdiction over cases relating to marriage, divorce, and alimony. Blackstone says that common lawyers borrowed—“especially in ancient times, almost all their notions of the legitimacy of marriage from the canon and civil laws.” But all these were not the only achievements of the hierarchy. “Benefit of clergy” was also allowed. Under its provisions clergy- men were exempted from “criminal process before a secular judge.” A further claim was permitted. The kingdom was divided into ecclesiastical provinces, dioceses, archdeaconaries, deaneries and parishes, and tithes were imposed on the inhabitants for the benefit of the church. It was also decreed that the canon and civil law should be taught in the universities. Verily Pro- fessor Kurtz was right when he appraised the English clergy— many of whom were foreigners—‘“an influential order in the State, with carefully defined rights.” It was ecclesiastics who put the stamp of Rome on the common law of England, and through that law degraded womankind over a large part of Christendom—in England and her dependencies, and, through her colonists, in the United States of America. We now invite the reader’s attention to some of the provisions of the common law which are, not in phraseology but in substance, a duplication of the Roman law of Patria Potestas. (1) At common law, as a general rule, a married woman was incapable of making contracts. “Her contracts are absolutely void.” “All deeds executed, and acts done, by her, during cover- ture, are void; except it be a fine, or the like matter of record, in CONCLUSION 367 which case she must be solely and secretly examined, to learn if her act be voluntary” (Blackstone, Vol. I, p. 444). (2) The property of a married woman, real and personal, vests in her husband. “A woman’s personal property by marriage be- comes absolutely her husband’s, which at his death he may leave entirely away from her.” He is “absolutely master of the profits of the wife’s hands during coverture.” Blackstone says: “Our own common law has declared that the goods of the wife do instantly upon marriage become the property and right of the husband.” We may be reminded that this law, has been modified by statutes. Our answer is that we are treating of common law, and not of its subsequent modifications. In Kentucky a sheriff waited outside a church door until the conclusion of a marriage ceremony, and then seized the bride’s coach and horses in pay- ment of the groom’s liabilities. At the hymeneal altar all her possessions passed automatically to her husband. Some years ago a man residing in Virginia wedded a woman who owned property. In time a child was born—a daughter. Later the wife died. Her property having passed to her husband, she was unable to make any provision for her child. The husband remarried. The daughter of his first wife and her stepmother could not agree, so the former was compelled to leave home and earn a livelihood by teaching. The salary allowed in those days was meager. The father, at his death, willed all the property acquired from his first wife to his second wife and her children, while the daughter of his first wife was left penniless. In all probability this husband would have scrupled to lay hold on the possessions of a fellow-man without just compensation, but be- lieved himself justified in appropriating his wife’s estate and using it to his own profit, and at death disposing of it as he saw fit. This, according to his view, was his “right” as a husband. The Golden Rule applied to all mankind, but not to woman—especially a wife. If this husband had died prior to his first wife, he could have willed away the property acquired from her through marriage and she would have had no redress at law. It was a cruel fiction in times agone for a man to stand at the marriage altar and _ solemnly recite “with all my worldly goods I thee endow,” know- 368 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN ing full well that from thenceforth he would be sole possessor of his bride’s earthly belongings. (3) Not only did common law divest a married woman of all her possessions and transfer them to her husband, but it robbed her of every opportunity to acquire property, real or personal, during coverture. If she sought employment outside her home, her husband was entitled to her wages, and she had no claim against him. At one time in England women took the place of mules and drew the coal cars from the mines on their hands and knees, but these poor driven slaves received no requite for their toil. Their husbands collected the price of their flesh and blood and expended as pleased them. The United States of America cannot point the finger of shame at England in this matter. The same law prevailed in this country until set aside by statute in some States of the Union. It was this injustice that stirred the soul of Elizabeth Cady when but a child. Her mother was dead and she spent much time in the office of her father, Judge Cady. She heard the appeals of drunkards’ wives; heard them tell of how they toiled at the washtub to earn bread to feed their half-starved children, and their husbands collected their wages and spent the same for liquor. The child pleaded with her father in behalf of these distressed wives and mothers. The Judge explained to his little daughter that while he sympathized with these poor women, he could do nothing to relieve them, for the law gave the husband the power to collect his wife’s wages. Elizabeth, on learning this, determined to remedy the evil by seizing an opportunity to cut these wicked laws out of her father’s books when he was absent from his office. She confided her purpose to her nurse, who in turn informed the father. Judge Cady took his child upon his knee and made clear to her that such drastic conduct on her part would not obviate the wrong. The legislature alone had power to set aside these unjust laws. In an outburst of indignation Elizabeth vowed that if she ever reached womanhood she would go to the legislature and effect the change. She lived to execute her purpose. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of the women who, in 1848, signed the call for the first CONCLUSION 369 woman’s rights convention in America. We subjoin their declara- tion of independence adopted at Seneca Falls, New York. Not only could a wife collect no wages for work performed out- side the home, but neither could she claim remuneration for any service rendered within her husband’s domicile or on his estate. She might toil as laundress, scrubwoman, cook, dishwasher, cham- bermaid, seamstress, nurse, hostess and housekeeper in general, but in the eyes of the law her labor had no monetary value. An unmarried maid in the kitchen could demand her hire, and expend it as she deemed proper; the unmarried washerwoman at the close of the day could require her wages. Not so the wife and mother. No matter how long the hours or how irksome the toil, she earned nothing. Her husband supported her; anything she received from him, he gave her. If he intrusted her with funds to meet house- hold expenses, they were an “allowance.” Under common law, no matter how long or how indefatigably a married woman toiled, she could acquire nothing in her own right. She must ever be a pensioner on her husband’s bounty. A couple residing in Illinois were in impecunious circumstances when they wedded. Both were frugal and industrious, but neigh- bors agreed that the wife toiled harder than the husband. Years went by and through their joint efforts and increased value of land, he—not they—acquired a fortune. The farm was sold at handsome profit and the thousands of dollars realized were de- posited in the bank to the sole credit of the husband. The author vouches for the statement that when that wife desired a modest sum of money to purchase curtains for her drawing-room, she importuned for weeks before her husband reluctantly granted her request. Of the thousands of dollars in the bank, acquired through joint efforts of husband and wife, she could legally claim not one penny. Long years of arduous toil netted her nothing but food and the garments her husband loaned her. We use the term “loaned” advisedly, for courts have ruled that, under the common law, the apparel worn by a wife is the property of her husband. We may be reminded that under the law this wife could 1 (See Appendix B.) 370 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN go to the store and make her purchase and order the bill to be sent to her husband. That is true, but as this woman remarked, “then there would be trouble.” A married woman may toil for years in the home, on the farm or in her husband’s place of business; she may secure employment outside all these, and add her wages to the family income, but if she dies before her husband she may not bequeath one dollar of the acquired property. She can dispose of nothing; everything vests in her husband. If, on the other hand, he dies before his wife, he may devise everything away from her except her dower. The dower is not, as is sometimes misunderstood, one-third of the husband’s estate; it is only the income from such third, and only a life appertainment. At death the wife can make no dis- position of her dower. It reverts to heirs named in her husband’s will, or if he dies intestate, the law determines its disposal. Statu- tory enactments have changed somewhat the rights of dower, but that is aside from the question under consideration. Our concern is common law dating to a time “whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” Blackstone says: “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law.’”’ He might have added—And the husband that one. He comments further: “The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is in- corporated and consolidated into that of the husband.” Apropos we quote the following eulogium found in Hooker’s “Ecclesiasti- cal Polity”: “Of law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world. All things in heaven and earth do her homage—the very least as feeling her care, the greatest as not exempted from her power; both angels and men and creatures, of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy.” Take also the following from C. J. Marshall: “That every man has a natural right to the fruit of his own labour is generally ad- mitted: and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of CONCLUSION 371 those fruits, and appropriate them against his will, seems to be the necessary result of this admission.” (4) The common law, in one respect, degraded the wife even lower than the Patria Potestas. Under Roman law her status was that of daughter of her husband. In common law she was rated as his servant—slave would be the more appropriate designa- tion—for she could claim no wages. Dunlap, in his “Abridgment of Elementary Law,” says: “At common law the disability of a married woman is almost entire, her personal existence being merged, for most purposes, in that of her husband.” “In general, whatever she earns, she earns as his servant, and for him, for in law her time and labor, as well as her money, are his property.” Compare the above with Webster’s definition of “slave”: “A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another.” In reference to common law, Buckle, in his “Tecate, ”” says: “This imperishable specimen of human sagacity is, strange to say, so grossly unjust toward women that a great writer upon that code has well observed that in it women are regarded not as persons but as things; so completely were they stripped of all their rights, and held in subjection to their proud and imperious masters.” The legal term for husband was “her baron, or lord.’ The legal term for wife was his “feme’”—female. Ecclesiastics ex- acted of every woman as she stood at the hymeneal altar, a solemn promise to “obey him and serve him.” If a wife suffered injury in her person from outside sources, she could bring no action for redress without the concurrence of her husband, and in his name as well as her own. If damages were awarded, they went to the husband. The wife had no claims upon them. If the husband brought suit to recover damages for in- juries inflicted on his wife, he did so on the plea that she was his servant, and he was deprived of her ministries. But the degradation of the wife was made complete by rating her as the sexual servant of her husband, and if injured, awarding him damages on this score. A wife who suffered an automobile 372 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN accident in the present decade told a friend she never experienced such humiliation as when, in the open court room, her attorney defined her status under the law. These are cruel facts, but they are facts, and because they are shameful actualities, the author dares, in the language of Wendell Phillips, to be “as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice.” (5) Another prerogative of the husband in common law was that of inflicting corporal punishment on his wife. Blackstone says: “The law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement,’ but adds: “This power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds.” He informs his readers that the civil law “gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife,” allowing him, for some misdemeanors, to lash and club her severely. After enlightening the legal profession along these lines, this sage in common law observes as follows: “Even the disabilities which the wife lies under are, for the most part, intended for her protection and benefit: so great a favorite is the female sex of the laws of Eng- land.” The author recently heard two ministers, one from New York and the other from Illinois, relate how English husbands in the community where these pastors resided had inflicted corporal pun- ishment on their wives. When admonished to desist from such performance in the future, the answer in both cases was sub- stantially the same: “Things have come to a pretty pass in this country when a man is not allowed to whip his wife.” But this privilege of the husband was not restricted to England and her colonies; it extended to the United States. Until within ‘a few years, a man residing in Connecticut might beat his wife with a rod “not thicker than his thumb”—so great favorites were the wives in that New England commonwealth. In every State of the Union, where not superseded by statute, the old law theoretically prevails, but public sentiment, in these latter days, is so relentless in this matter that irate husbands are somewhat chary about exercising this “ancient privilege.’ The Roman Patria Potestas allowed a husband to put his wife to death. - The common law put some restraint upon a husband in this CONCLUSION 373 respect. He might not, by violent means, deprive her of life, but he might by ill-usage impair her health and shorten her days. (6) The most poignant feature of the common law, in its re- lation to woman, and one that allies it to the Roman Patria Potestas, is that which empowers the husband and father to rob the wife and mother of her offspring. No matter how depraved a man might be, nor how capable his wife, he could by will assign his children to the care of a guardian residing in any quarter of the globe, and this regardless of the moral character of such custodian. A case is on record where a prospective father bequeathed his unborn child to relatives in a foreign land. If a husband died intestate, the court presumed the wife incapable of caring for her offspring, and appointed a guardian. If, for some cause, a husband and wife separated, the law, re- gardless of the fitness of the parties, assigned the children to the father. A case is on record where a woman of unblemished char- acter, who had for years supported a worthless, drunken husband by keeping boarders, decided to leave him. He at once threatened to take from her their only child—a son. She consulted several attorneys, and each in turn assured her that her husband’s rights were paramount; that only the mother of an illegitimate child had priority of claim against the father. This woman of irre- proachable character went into court and swore that her husband was not the father of her child. It was her last resource. Every auditor in that court room, even the Judge himself, disbelieved her statement, and accepted the oath as from a mother distraught at the thought of losing her boy. The author recently learned of a minister’s daughter alienated from her husband. By process of law he gained possession of their only child. The mother was inconsolable over the loss of her little one and became violently insane. She died soon after. Some months ago a physician in Florida deserted his wife, tak- ing with him all their children. The plaint of the agonized mother was—‘‘Oh, if he had only left me my crippled child!” The author knew personally a devoted Christian woman, young and beautiful, who immolated herself by living with a husband who was a moral leper. While he “wasted his substance in riotous living,” she 374 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN was in want. The writer advised her to seek divorce, assuring her that God’s law released her. With downcast eyes, and in almost inaudible tones, she answered: “I endure it all for E *S sake’”’—naming her ten-year-old boy. A gifted woman in Pennsylvania, in order that she might have the care of her daughter—a girl of twelve or fourteen—rewedded the man she had divorced because of his shameless adulteries. Three years later the author met that woman and failed to recognize her. The suffering she endured had so wrought on body and mind that she was, apparently, verging on insanity—but she clung to her child. We are assured that cross victims sometimes agonize for days before death releases them; but down through the ages wives have suffered the tortures of crucifixion, from the altar to the tomb, rather than be separated from their children. Mother love is the nearest approach to the divine. “There is no Love like a mother’s— *Tis the sun that shineth forth, There is no Truth like a mother’s— ’Tis the star that points the North, There is no Hope like a mother’s— ’Tis the April in the clod; There is no Trust like a mother’s— *Tis the Charity of God; The Love and Truth, the Hope and Trust That makes the mortal more than dust.” (JoHNn Jarvis HoLpen.) When we think of the weary, often painful, period of gestation, when all the vital forces of the mother are drawn upon to nourish the growing fetus; of the pangs of parturition, when she passes into the “valley of the shadow of death’; of the months of lacta- tion when she pours her life substance into her child; of her sleepless nights and watchful days and ceaseless ministries of love —when we think of all these, we have by no means sounded the depths of a mother’s affection for her child. Oh, the Strabant matres that have walked the Dolorous Way! Oh, the Niobes CONCLUSION 375 that have wept themselves into stone because of a cruel law that tore from their heart and bosom the object of their deepest de- votion, and handed it over to one who never suffered a pang in giving it existence! Every mother bears in her own person the Divine credentials of her mission, and to rob her of her trust, is a violation of a law of nature. It is cruelty to the mother; it is heartlessness to the child. The law of the jungle is more merciful in this respect than is the law of mankind. Throughout brute creation the male regards the maternal rights of his mate, and never molests her young while under her protection. Amid the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air, there is no such thing as paternal pre- rogative. Mother right is everywhere supreme except in the realm of humankind. This is not a dissertation on the cruelty of husbands. Far from it. Frances Willard once said, “The meanest thing on earth is a woman-hater, and the next meanest thing is a man-hater.” Down through the centuries there have been husbands who ap- proached, in human measure, the Pauline ideal; on the other hand, as every reader of this volume knows, there have been in every age and clime men as cruel to their wives as human law allowed. Some one has said that the lot of woman has been tolerable— especially in Christian lands—only because so many fathers and husbands have been more considerate than the laws under which they lived. In the foregoing review of common law we have exposed, in a measure, the injustice imposed on womankind by clerics who came to the British Isle. They came as heralds of the Gospel— reciting with their lips the Golden Rule of Christ, and bearing in their hands the infamous Roman law of Patria Potestas. Sir Henry Maine says: “T do not know how the operation and nature of the Ancient Patria Potestas can be brought so vividly before the mind as by reflecting on the prerogatives attached to the husband by the pure English Common Law, and by recalling the rigorous consistency with which the view of a complete legal subjection on the part of the wife is carried by it, where it is untouched by equity or 376 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN statutes, through every department of rights, duties and rem- edies” (“Ancient Law,” p. 154). Nor was this all. 1135 A.D. a copy of the Justinian pandects was discovered at Amalfi, Italy. This was a digest of the civil law of the Roman Empire, and incorporated the: Patria Potestas. The clergy everywhere in England and on the continent hailed this discovery with enthusiasm, and the Roman civil law, with slight modification to suit the different countries, was soon in vogue all over the west of Europe. According to Blackstone: “Tt established in the twelfth century a new Roman Empire over most of the States of the continents.” Now’ it was the zeal of church prelates that effected this. In England especially it was resisted by the common people, but church hierarchs combined it with the canon law and established it in the ecclesiastical courts, and their influence prevailed to have it taught, as was the canon law, in the universities. Nor were the prelates of the Eastern church blameless in this matter of degrading woman. The rift between the Grzco-Roman and the Greco-Byzantine churches occurred, according to some writers, in the ninth century. Kurtz, in his history, dates the final schism at 1054 A.D., at which time the two branches solemnly excommunicated each the other. Prior to this, Eastern and Western hierarchs sat side by side in Ecumeni- cal Councils, and formulated canon law for the government of the church universal. That law, the joint product of Byzantine and Roman prelates, divested woman of the rights and privileges she enjoyed in the church during the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Ages, and relegated her thenceforth to the background. Having submitted these undeniable facts, we ask every fair- minded reader to decide for himself, or herself, as to the warrant- ableness of the author’s claim that not the Bible, but religious hierarchs, have effected the subordination of woman. It was so in the heathen world; it was so in the second Jewish Common- wealth; and the facts adduced in this volume prove beyond perad- venture that it has been so in Christendom. The womanhood of the world has just grievance against the religious hierarchs of the past. CONCLUSION | 377 Now what is to be said of the state of mind that lay back of all this? Were these religious teachers “blind leaders of the blind,” or must we seek other explanation? So far as heathen priests are concerned, they are outside the purview of this volume. As to the Jewish Rabbim, we might offer apology in their behalf, on the ground that the Hebrew nation had undergone seventy years’ captivity in Babylon, and imbibed heathen ideals. We might do this, were it not that our lips are sealed to palliation by the de- nunciatory words of our Lord, addressed to these same hierarchs: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and all uncleanness... . Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judg- ment of hell?” But how about the hierarchs of Christendom? The men who sat in council and framed laws to degrade woman? Who, through their emissaries, the missionaries and delegated clerics, imposed the law of Patria Potestas in almost all its main features on the womanhood of Christendom for well nigh two thousand years? Men who permitted the expurgation of women’s names from sacred manuscripts; the transposing and changing of the feminine into the masculine; the altering of entire sentences, as in the Codex Beza? How about these men? May we extenuate their fault ? | It is the purpose of the author to be charitable, where charity is permissible. Some of these prelates were converts from Judaism, and had suffered indoctrination at the lips of the Rabbim. Others were converts from heathenism—Greeks and Romans, and wedded to their prejudice against woman. Making due allowance for all these things, we cannot ignore the fact that in the ecclesiastical councils sat the church fathers. The writings of some of these are still extant, and in them are passages vituperating woman. She was regarded as the source of all evil in the world. Not only her own sins, but the sins of the race were charged against her. She the temptress, and guile- less man her hapless victim. In some ancient paintings, sin is represented as a serpent with a woman’s head. Tertullian said 378 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of woman: “Thou art the gate of hell”; Jerome: “Women are to be shunned by every man who cares for his soul.” Cuthbert taught that a woman should not comb her hair, wash her face, nor bathe, for, said he: “Women, even when ugly, cause too much sin.” His aversion was such that he allowed no woman in his church. After his death, no member of the sex was permitted to approach within a certain distance of his shrine. Another pious church father, ruminating on the words of Jesus—“In My Father’s house are many mansions”—soliloquized thus: “This fact entitles one to believe, that as room will be plenty, men and women will be widely separated in Paradise, as they should be on earth.” Many of these church fathers, like the Pharisees who brought the adulteress before Jesus, abominated sin—in a woman. It could not be expected that prelates holding the sex in such estimate could view complacently woman’s activities in the church of Jesus Christ. But how about their successors—clerics who through the cen- turies followed in their footsteps? Who sat in church councils and reaffirmed their policy concerning woman? How about bishops and archbishops active in State affairs, who gave voice and vote in favor of laws to oppress her? How about translators who used “divers weights and measures” in rendition of God’s word? How about exegetes who tortured Hebrew and Greek syntax to make it express their own thought, rather than the mind of sacred writers? How about expounders of Sacred Writ, who in pulpit and on seminary rostrum “exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” and led their auditors astray on this question? How about com- mentators whose dissertations lade the shelves of ecclesiastical libraries and implant erroneous ideas as to woman’s true place in Divine economy? How about these? The author refrains from passing judgment. To their own Master they stand or fall. The probabilities are that many, if not most, of these men were sincere. They premised it the Divine will that woman should be in subjection to man, and followed this line of argument to its false conclusion. We recall Christ’s words to His disciples: “Yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God”; and the words CONCLUSION 379 of the Apostle Paul: “I was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it igno- rantly in unbelief.” He writes concerning those who “have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” It is barely possible that some of these men commiserated, even as they crucified, and like the ancient Jew each severally thanked God he was not born a woman. It is well to remember here the prayer of our Divine Lord, even in the agonies of Calvary: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” } II: IT HAS WROUGHT INJURY TO THE CHURCH: Misinterpretation, mistranslation, and misapplication of Scrip- ture passages concerning woman, has wrought incalculable injury to the church of Jesus Christ. It immeasurably retarded the progress of His kingdom. The Interchurch Movement’s Sur- vey showed that in the Protestant church of America the ratio of women to men was fifty-nine to forty-one. Almost three-fifths of the membership are women. There are enrolled in the Sabbath-schools 15,617,000 young people. In _ these schools there are 2,000,000 volunteer teachers and officers. It is claimed that sixty-seven per cent of these teachers are women. Authorities tell us that eighty-three per cent of all additions to Protestant churches come from the Sabbath-schools, and only seventeen per cent from other sources. Nor is that all. A recent writer on this subject says: “Sunday-schools not only furnish the largest number of additions to the Church, but also furnish its most enduring additions. Of the converts brought into the Church through customary revival methods, eighty-seven per cent fall away in five years, while forty per cent of those brought into the Church through educational activity fall away in five years.” One has only to stand outside the church at the hour of dismissal of Sabbath-school and note how few of the scholars remain to the preaching service, to awaken to the fact that the religious instruc- tion of youth rests very largely in the hands of womanhood. Speaking in general terms, the sermon does not appeal to the young. The sparsity of such in the congregation is a matter that 380 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN demands serious consideration on the part of all who are in- terested in the affairs of Christ’s kingdom. There are several million enrolled in the young people’s so- cieties of the various denominations, and the proportion of fe- males to males is two to one. It is safe to say that four-fifths of the superintendents of Junior work are women. It is a rare thing to find a man active in this line. In tabulating woman’s accomplishments in the church of Jesus Christ today, we must not overlook the splendid achievements of Home and Foreign Missionary Societies. It is estimated that, including the wives of missionaries, forty per cent of the working force in the foreign field are women. We must also appraise the services of deaconesses, women evangelists, assistant pastors and church visitors. Our inventory would be incomplete were we to overlook the fact that a number of the smaller denomina- tions have removed the ban against the ordination of women, and in the United States census three hundred of the sex are listed as clergymen. Now we ask the reader to reckon in his mind what it would mean to the church of Jesus Christ today to dispense with the minis- tries of woman. To silence her voice in the choirs? To forbid her testimonies in the prayer-meetings? Her teaching in the Sab- bath-schools? Her superintending Junior organizations and con- ducting young peoples’ meetings? Her assisting in evangelistic services? Her functioning in Home and Foreign Missionary Societies? Her serving as Assistant Pastor, deaconess, or church visitor? What would it mean to the church of today to disband the entire working force of women, and send them back to the privacy of domestic life, or divert their energies into other chan- nels? What it would mean to the church of today, it meant to the church for a period of fifteen hundred years, while woman sat apart in the house of the Lord, her lips sealed, her feet bound, her hands tied—penalized for Eve’s transgression. Some years ago Francis Murphy conducted his temperance cam- paign in the city of Pittsburgh. The services were held in the Methodist Protestant Church on Fifth Avenue. Afternoon and CONCLUSION 381 night the auditorium was thronged. At the height of interest Mr. Murphy invited Miss Frances E. Willard to come to Pittsburgh to assist in the campaign. One afternoon, as she sat on the plat- form, Mr. Murphy requested her to offer prayer. She was about to do so, when the pastor arose and forbade it. No woman could offer audible prayer in a church where he was in charge. It is said that on this occasion Miss Willard bowed her head and wept. Day after day and night after night, for weeks, men, the dregs of society—drunkards and debauchees—were brought into the meetings. No doubt but numbers in that motley throng were fit subjects for segregation. They made their way down the aisle, some of them so much under the influence of liquor as to require assistance. On the table before the pulpit lay the pledge cards. These were presented and signed. Hundreds of these same cards were later displayed in the windows of saloons, where they were exchanged for drink. After the formality of signing, as many of the signees as could be induced to do so were led to the platform to rehearse the story of their downfall. The pastor received them—men in all stages of physical, mental and moral degradation—with extended hand and beaming countenance. Mr. Murphy, himself an ex-saloon- keeper, and, as he often stated in his addresses, a pardoned crim- inal, stood by their side as they related their experiences. These men, at times, seemed to vie with each other in depicting how low they had fallen, and the one who could tell the most lurid tale was the one most lionized. While this was going on, the white- souled Frances Willard sat apart—forbidden to open her lips in prayer—guilty of the one unpardonable sin within the walls of that church—that of being born a woman. On one occasion a minister entered his church and found a small company of women assembled to discuss some phase of Christian service. The leader requested one of the number to lead in prayer. The minster raised his hand in protest, exclaiming— “Wait!” and hastened from the room. The author was present on another occasion when a professor remarked to his class of young theologues—“A woman sacrifices her modesty when she ' offers prayer in public.” 382 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN Not only did the clergy disallow the activities of woman within the church, but also disapproved of her public participation in re- ligious affairs outside. A man so pious as the Rev. Samuel Wes- ley, father of John and Charles Wesley, administered reproof to his wife, because during his absence from home she assembled the family servants and a few neighbors, and read, and com- mented on God’s word. This attitude of the clergy, during a period of fifteen hundred years, paralyzed the energies of one- half the working force in Christ’s kingdom. It may be pointed out that during the Medieval Age there were not the same opportunities for service on the part of women, even if the clergy had been favorably disposed. There were no Sab- bath-schools nor young people’s societies, nor other lines of Christian service that at the present time especially engage the attention of women. That is true, and such would, in large meas- ure, be the case today if Christian women would lay aside their tasks. If the sixty-seven per cent of women teachers would withdraw from the Sabbath-schools, the system would be disor- ganized. The same results would follow in young people’s so- cieties—two-thirds of the membership being women. If the forty per cent of women missionaries should abandon the foreign field, Mission Boards would be distraught over the situation. The probabilities are that if the path of Christian womanhood had not been blocked, the forenamed agencies would have been in operation centuries before they were realized. She would not have been, for fifteen hundred years, unmindful of the young. It is chimerical to affirm that if women vacated their tasks in the church today, they would be replaced by men, and the affairs of the kingdom would function as before, or even better. The thought is fantasy. Right here we confront a stern fact. It is this: Women never supplanted men im the, activities of the church. They were accepted because men were unavailable. If the latter had responded to the call, women would not have been invested with the right to serve. There was no other resource. Neces- sity, and not “a willing mind,” compelled the prelates to unbar the door. A like situation confronts the church today regarding the ordi- CONCLUSION 383 nation of women to the Gospel ministry. The creed of hierarchs on this question is imperiled by the fact that a sufficient number ’ of men are not available to supply the pulpits. In every denomina- tion there is a dearth of ministers, and theological seminaries re- port a reduction in the number of young men preparing to preach the Gospel. In the South and Southwest sections of the United States there are 5,600 vacant pulpits. The following figures are taken from the “Interchurch Survey,” and apply to the United States: “In one denomination 3,388 congregations did not have regular pastoral care. In another there were 994 fewer ministers than in 1914. In the New England section, of one denomination, thirty- five per cent of the congregations were without regular ministers in 1915. One denomination reports: ‘2,000 churches pastorless and shepherdless ?’ “In a denomination having 963 congregations only 627 have settled pastors. Another reports a net gain in three years of 25,680 members, but only thirty-four ministers. “Another denomination needs a thousand ministers a year, to fill the gaps, but had in 1919 less than 600. “In Ig1I there was a total decrease of 178 theological students as compared with 1910; in 1913 there were twenty per cent less than in 1912. “These losses occurred during a period marked by a large in- crease in the number of church members and of college students; by extensive evangelistic campaigns; by special religious work in colleges; and by Student Volunteer Movement. “In one denomination 1,624 more unordained ‘supply preachers’ were used in 1918 than in 1898. In another, out of 986 ministers, only 476 gave their full time to ministerial work.” Dr. Frederick Lynch, writing in “The Christian Work,” says: “The English religious press is just now full of letters regard- ing the serious shortage in candidates for the ministry. The situa- tion seems quite desperate. Since the war, the classes in theologi- cal seminaries have been only one-half or one-third the size of the classes of pre-war days. In the Anglican communion, the prob- lem is already assuming serious condition, as there are hundreds 384. THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of churches without pastors, and the situation grows more and more alarming.” The various denominations have sent out S. O. S. calls, imploring young men to fill the vacant ranks, but the lack of response is disconcerting. The need is compelling some, even of the stronger denominations, to consider the advisability of ordaining women. Some writers on this subject attribute the shortage of ministers to inadequate salaries, and charge the laity with dereliction in this matter; the author would place the blame elsewhere. It is written in Sacred Writ: “And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” “The powers that be” in the church have answered—our sons shall prophesy—and have barred the doors to daughters. This setting at naught the word of God by their traditions accounts for the present dearth of ministers. It is an astounding fact that the church of Jesus Christ marches in the rear of every other profession in according full recognition to women. More astounding still that, while down through the centuries the allied forces of evil have offered every inducement to woman to cast her lot among them, the magnates of the church have waved her back, and repulsed her efforts to serve the cause of righteousness. A lecturer of the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union was attending a convention. She was a woman of ability— so much so that her own denomination made her an exception and licensed her to preach the Gospel. On this occasion she was invited to occupy the pulpit of a church, the pastor of which was absent. As she entered the vestibule, she was confronted by a stern individual, and the following conversation ensued: “Madam, do you believe the Bible?” “T certainly do,” she replied. “Do you accept it as the inspired word of God?” “T do,’ was her answer. CONCLUSION 385 “Then how,” said her interrogator, “do you dare to go into that pulpit this morning and preach to this congregation?” It was about time for the services to begin. Realizing this, she said to her interlocutor: “Sir, there is not time for controversy, but I infer from your remarks that you are opposed to women preaching.” “T most certainly am!” he replied with emphasis. So is the devil!’ she responded, and passed to the pulpit. Now that woman uttered a volume of truth in that single sen- tence. Satan and his entire constituency have, down through the centuries, been averse to woman preaching. They have recognized, as the church has not, her great power for good or for evil. Frances E. Willard believed herself called to the ministry of God’s word. In her book, “Woman in the Pulpit,’ she gives this testimony. ‘There is pathos in her words: “Even my dear old mother-church, the Methodist, did not call women to her altars. I was too timid to go without a call; and so it came about that while my unconstrained preference would long ago have led me to the pastorate, I have failed of it, and am perhaps writing out, all the more earnestly for this reason, thoughts long familiar to my mind. “Let me, as a loyal daughter of the church, urge upon younger women who feel the call, as I once did, to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, their duty to seek admission to the doors that would hardly close against them now in any theological seminary . and let me pleadingly beseech all Christian people who grieve over the world’s great heartache, to encourage every true and capable woman, whose heart God has touched, in her wistful pur- pose of entering upon that blessed Gospel ministry, through which her strong yet gentle words and work may help to heal that heartache, and to comfort the sinful and sad ‘as one whom his mother comforteth,’ ” Man closed the door of the ministry to Frances E. Willard, but God opened to her the world, and she went forth a flaming evangel of truth. Millions waited on her ministry and she tied the white ribbon round the globe. Anna Howard Shaw sought ordination at the altar of her 386 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN church, the Methodist Episcopal, and was denied. She applied to the New York Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church and was accepted. She was assigned to a village pastorate and served acceptably for seven years, then stepped outside her nar- row bounds to champion a world reform, and thrilled two conti- nents with her eloquence. The Church of England afforded no room for the talent and energy of Catherine Booth, “The Mother of the Salvation Army,” so she took her stand by the side of her husband, William Booth, in the work of evangelizing the degraded classes in London. She became a preacher and turned many to righteousness. She was the mother of eight children, seven of whom became preachers. One of these, her eldest daughter, Catherine Booth Clibborn, has a family of five sons and five daughters, and eight of these are preachers. The Salvation Army was organized in 1861 and in the brief period that has elapsed since then has assumed world pro- portions. Humanly speaking, this would be impossible had the Salvation Army, like the church, failed to recognize the equality of the sexes. The church had no room for the ministries of Maud Ballington Booth, so she wended her way to jails and penitentiaries, with God’s word in her hand, and His love in her heart, and today an army inside prison walls, and thousands who have served their term and been released revere her as “The Little Mother.” Clara Barton found scant encouragement for her God appointed task within the courts of His sanctuary, so stepped outside and founded the ever alert, ever prepared organization—The American Red Cross—an organization that may be characterized as Chris- tianity in action. We might extend this list indefinitely. We might add the name of Miss Robart of London, who, in 1839, organized the Young Woman’s Christian Association; Elizabeth Fry, whose consecrated efforts tamed “the savages of Newgate prison”; Florence Nightin- gale, “The Angel of the Crimea,” who was in deed and truth, the forerunner of the Red Cross; Anna Wittenmyer, whose great work in the Christian Commission during the Civil War, was the means of saving thousands of lives and the restoring of invalided eee CONCLUSION | 387 soldiers to health and usefulness. She it was who conceived and established a “Home” for soldiers’ orphans. All others are the outgrowth of her initiative. “Mother Stewart”—a born leader —who mobilized the womanhood of this country against the drink trade and led them forth in the great crusade of 1873-74; Mattie McClellan Brown, Right Worthy Vice Templar of the Interna- tional Order of Good Templars, who would gladly have exchanged the platform for the pulpit, if the barriers had been removed, but No! Ecclesiastics forbade. The International Order of Good Templars saw its opportunity, and this gifted woman laid her eloquence and her fine executive ability on an altar outside the church of Jesus Christ: Katharine Bushnell, who was _ instru- mental in breaking down the system of legalized vice in India, and exposing “the hidden things of darkness” in the opium trade of India and China; Anna Gordon, who presides over a constituency which reaches “from sea to sea and from shore to shore”; Carrie Chapman Catt, whose name appears in almost every published list of the “greatest women of America”; Jane Addams, the Shepherdess of the Hull House Settlement; and a host of others whose names might well be inscribed high on the scroll of the world’s benefactors. The church afforded these women of ten talents no tasks com- mensurate with their ability, so they lifted their eyes and looked on the fields outside, and lo! they were “white already unto the harvest,’ and the laborers few. In the need, they read God’s call to the larger service. The church lost, but the world gained when they responded: “Here am I: send me.” Who can charge them with dereliction? A new term has been coined by religious writers in these lat- ter days—that of “detached service’”—meaning Christian and hu- manitarian effort outside the pale of the church. The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union; Salvation Army; Volunteers of America; Young Women’s Christian Association and American Red Cross, all belong in this category. It is a notable fact that three of the organizations above named were founded by women, and in the establishment of the other two, the wife was an equal participant with her husband. This 388 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN “detached service” might have been performed within, instead of apart from, the church, if prelates had read aright the Pauline declaration: “There can be no male and female: for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.” A bishop said recently: “The brainy women members of our churches are going more and more into club work, and more and more into politics, while they should be devoting themselves to the church.” Commenting on this plaint of the bishop, Welthy Housinger says: “This good bishop cannot see that the time has long since passed when the highly trained women, who are leaving our colleges, are willing to take up any work which does not enable them to see the possibility in the future of sharing in the administration of that work. ... I do know that when a young woman of our church leaves college halls today, she has an intelligent idea of every vocation, from aviation to brokerage, and may enter every one except the ministry. She may become a policeman or a judge; she may be a mayor or a senator, but she may not be ordained as a minister of the Gospel of Christ. So the young women of trained intellect and talent, as they come out to take their share in the world’s work, specialize, in increasing numbers, in law, and not a few have become Judges. (One is now the Assistant Attorney General of the United States.) They specialize in jour- nalism and become editors; they specialize in education and be- come college presidents, but they may not, in the name of the Father, receive a child into the church nor administer the sacrament to the dying.” If the bishop here spoken of desires to enlist the “brainy women members of the churches,’ he must advocate for them larger tasks than that of quilting and serving tables. God never entrusted man or woman with ten talents, or even five, and charged the recipient to trade with one, and to hide the others in a napkin. Tasks can- not be assigned the women of today after the measurements of the Church at Corinth nineteen hundred years ago. The types of womanhood are different and this difference must be reckoned with. If the authorities of the church persist in pouring new wine ee CONCLUSION 389 into old wineskins, the skins will burst and the wine will be spilled. Apprehension has been expressed in some quarters that if women are allowed larger scope, the church will become “feminized.” We remind these foreboders that for fifteen hundred years the church was masculinized, and while, during that period, it built up a powerful hierarchal system, its spiritual life was at lowest ebb. So long as we follow the Divine plan, the cause of God will not be disturbed, and the Divine plan is that the daughters, as well as the sons, “shall prophesy.” The editor of the “Interchurch Survey Volume” (American) sums up the situation in these timely words: “With the development of women’s movements, social, philan- thropic and political, it may yet develop that the men inside the church will be as much disturbed about the women who are out- side the church as the women are today disturbed about the men. City women will undoubtedly soon become a serious problem for the churches. The way must be opened for the fuller participa- tion of women in the control of churches and denominational boards. They must be permitted to minister on an equality with 9 men. III: RACE IMPAIRMENT: A third injury resultant on the misconceptions and misapplica- tions of the teachings of Sacred Writ concerning woman is race impairment. The degradation of one sex unavoidably effects the degradation of the other also. The race is one, but of two com- ponent parts, and to wound the half is to afflict the whole. “Whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it.” A writer on this subject says: “There is no man’s cause that is not woman’s, and no woman’s cause that is not man’s. . . . The fact is that men and women must rise or sink together.” The breeders of blooded stock are as careful in the selection of the dam as in the selection of the sire. Mankind has adopted a wholly different policy in its treatment of human procreation. They have acted on the assumption that the physical, mental and moral condition of the mother was not consequential to the welfare 390 THE BIBLE STATUS OF WOMAN of her offspring. The vigor of the progeny was derivative from the sire. The science of eugenics has revealed the fallacy of such teaching. The maternal influence is as great, and along physical lines even greater than the paternal. A woman stunted physically, mentally and morally, cannot engender the highest type of off- spring, and when man, by unjust laws and customs, insisted on dwarfing womankind, physically, mentally and spiritually, he im- peded the progress of the race. We submit the following well- attested case as illustrative of the strong prenatal influence of the mother: A young man by the name of Kallikak, of good ancestry, lived in illicit relation with a feeble-minded girl. She gave birth to several children—all like their mother, subnormal. Later this young man wedded an intelligent young woman. The offspring of this union were of wholly different mental type—capable and alert. Dr. H. H. Goddard, in the interest of eugenics, traced the descendants of these two women through several generations, and reported as follows: Of the offspring of the first mother, 222 were feeble-minded; of the second, 496 were normal, of good character, and persons whose business ability added to the wealth and well-being of society. Here was a clear case where the mother, rather than the father, determined the mentality of the offspring. In closing this discussion, the author desires to pay tribute to the noble men who by voice and pen, in halls of legislation, and in councils of the church, have championed the cause of woman- kind. Their name is legion and their number has increased with the unfolding of the years. Often in the past, the pioneers of this reform were compelled to stand apart and be pelted by their fellowmen; today they are acclaimed as heralds of a renaissance. They were a revival and “survival of the fittest”; in themselves a prophecy of the juster manhood of the future. Such men have merited the wealth of a mother’s love; the full measure of a wife’s devotion, and the unstinted gratitude of woman- kind. The welfare of the race demands the equalization of the sexes. CONCLUSION 391 State and church leaders who ignore the rising tide of public opinion on this question, and ruthlessly seat themselves astride the safety-valve of progress, must arouse to the peril of such ad- venture, or find their place in the rank of discards. Sooner or later the Golden Rule of Christ will usher in the Golden Age of humankind. WANTED—WOMEN “Good women are God’s sentinels: in the darkest of earth’s night, They hold with stout hearts, silently, life’s outpost toward the light ; And at God Almighty’s roll-call, ’mong the hosts that answer ‘Here!’ The voices of good women sound strong and sweet and clear. “Good women are brave soldiers; in the thickest of the fight, They stand with stout hearts, patiently, embattled for the right; And though no blare of trumpet or roll of drum is heard, Good women the world over, are the army of the Lord. “Good women save the nation, though they bear no sword or gun, Their panoply is righteousness, their will with God’s is one; Each in her single person revealing God on earth, Knowing that so, and only so, is any life of worth. “Don’t talk of woman’s weakness! I tell you at this hour The weight of this world’s future depends upon their power ; And down the track of ages, as Time’s flood-tides are told, The level of their height is marked by the place that women hold.” APPENDIX A PROBABILITY ABOUT THE ADDRESS AND AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. By Von A. Harnack, of Berlin. Published in the Zeitschrift Fiir Die Neutestamentliche Wissen- schaft, 1900. (Translated by Mrs. Emma Runge Peter, of Bellevue, Pennsylvania, U. S. A.) The last detailed examination of the composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Zahn, Einleitung in d.N.T. 1899 2Bd.110-158) has reached a definite decision in reference to the recipients of the letter; in reference to the author, however, it ends with the rather hopeless words of Origen: Tic 886 yoavas thy éxtotoAny td wey aAnOes Oedc oldcy. That definite decision is, in my opinion, so convincingly ex- plained that doubts existing formerly, also shared by me, cannot easily arise any more. Zahn has proven by an extremely careful exegesis that the recipients of the letter form a smaller circle (“throughout equally placed and equally minded”) of old Christians within a larger—we might say metropolitan—congregation (a house-congrega- tion, beside which there were one or several others like it in the same town), and that this congregation can hardly be any other but the Roman. This result explains, as he correctly saw, the absence of an address;1 its disappearance would remain a puzzle if the letter had been directed to a church in its totality or to a circle of such.? If the letter was destined for a smaller group, it is more or less com- prehensible that tradition has not preserved the names, no matter whether the author annotated them, or indicated the recipients orally to the bearer of the letter. 1Justly Zahn declares it to be impossible that the author himself headed the letter xed¢ ‘KGoatoucg although it is found in the tradition of Paul and Barnabas; it originated from a redactor who added this letter to others. Zahn’s refusal of the address is indeed surprising, because his idea about the members of the circle to whom the letter was addressed is apt to favor the address. 2 This supposition is also in every other respect entirely unfeasible. APPENDIX 393 However impressive the arguments are by which Zahn determined the address of the Epistle, just as unconvincing are his proofs for all the recipients being native Jews. I can only see in it the sunset-glow of the opinion—most fortunately contested by Zahn himself—that the Epistle cautions against return to Judaism, indeed was written for this very purpose. “There is not the slightest indication of a return, or even possible return, of the readers to participation in Jewish cult in the entire Epistle to the Hebrews” (p. 136). “The author is writing to Christians who, since their conversion, had nothing to do with Jewish sacrificial cult” (p. 137). ‘The author does not at all refer to the question in which manner the combining of Christian creed with lawful mode of living should be judged” (p. 136). “The practical exhortations (they are entirely of moral nature, and do not touch upon the question of nationality at all) do not appear as suffixed applications, but as an expression of the main purpose, in the service of which are the most explicit and artistic arguments” (p. 124). After these concessions by which Zahn agrees with the opinions of Jiilicher, Von Loden and myself, it seems almost unimportant how you answer the question of the addressees’ nationality, as it has nothing to do with the purpose of the letter to strengthen Christians, who becoming faint and half-hearted, are in danger of losing every- thing through this very faint and half-heartedness. But Zahn, recognizing this, confuses the end in view, and contradicts himself by saying in reference to Ch. 13:13 (p. 130) the request of “moving without the camp” could be addressed to native Jews only, for their having been “within” from the beginning is presupposed. If the exhortation of the author really culminates in the demand “to re- nounce the communion of Jews that cast out Jesus,” then all the exegetes, contested by Zahn, are right, who find in every chapter of the letter the exhortation not to relapse into semi-Jewish belief and Jewish actions. Still more contradictory it is when Zahn, on p. 145, asserts that the sad condition of the readers is to be explained through Jewish-Christian bitterness (“the Jewish majority of Roman Christians in 584 were devoted to their people, and grieved that the majority of 3 This assertion is so much more striking since Zahn himself admits this to be a figurative expression corresponding to the symbolic of the entire letter. Yet it might not have been directed to Gentile-Christians! Especially daring it is, moreover, when Zahn indicates on p. 153 the expression mapeuGoAn to have been chosen in consideration of Jerusalem lying in ruins. In the midst of symbolism this realism! 4 Zahn’s idea that the Roman congregation consisted quite predominantly 394 APPENDIX Jews who did not believe in the Gospel, were just as much repressed in Christendom as they lost hold on national and political matters; they were even open to many a Jewish protest against the Gospel. The frame of mind which Paul opposes in the entire Epistle to the Romans, especially in Ch. 9:1-11, 12, might rise to the bitterness of heart which the Epistle to the Hebrews is set against”). Leaving it out of the question that something else but “bitterness” is noticed in the Epistle to the Hebrews—how is it to be explained that nowhere in the letter this “Judaism” is entered upon, if the entire lamentable condition of the addressees is the consequence of their “Judaism”? Or are the so-called theoretical paragraphs to be understood in this sense? But it is Zahn himself who turns against this in very decided expressions! To few it will seem plausible what he believes to have ascertained by positive considerations in reference to the Jewish descent of the addressees, leaving Ch. 13:13 out of the question. He does not wish to refer to the title cod¢ ‘EGeatoug but Gentile-Christians could not be written to that God had spoken to “us” through the Son; further- more, the letter presupposes readers accustomed to measure everything that presents itself to them as God’s deed and creation according to the Old Testament, especially to the law. Ch. 3:7—4, 11, finally, must not be taken generally symbolically, but symbolic-historically, and with its forty years referred to the years 30-70 after Christ. And then it would be certain that it could be of interest only to born Jews for whom the destruction of Jerusalem was the critical catastrophe. Leav- ing the inacceptable explanation of Ch. 3:7—4, 11 aside,® all these arguments arise from a very arbitrary definition of the scope of Gen- tiles’ feeling and thinking. The Heathen by birth, becoming Christian, was built on the foundation of the Old Testament. That explains everything, t.e., no limits can or may be drawn regarding the devout- ness with which he familiarized himself with the Book, and felt the contents as his property, his history, and his pedigree. For that very reason it is unjust to demand of the Gentile-Christian to remain con- stantly conscious of God’s having spoken to the Jews only through the Son, and to him through the Apostles. If the Old Testament fathers are for the Gentiles “our fathers,” then the “Son” did come of born Jews, at the time of the letter to the Romans, is probably the reason for his finding only Jewish-Christians in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 5 Zahn allowed himself to be led to it by the direct introduction of the quotation; but how can such a weak foundation uphold such a structure, especially as the author in his Old Testamental quotations historizes nowhere else, neither under cover nor openly. APPENDIX 395 to all; He is, to be sure, the joint-Creator and Saviour of the world. In so sublime a writing as Hebrews 1:1, etc., the “jytv” meaning “we Christians altogether,” is just as much in place as the “xécuoc¢” re- peated four times in John i:9, 10.6 On page 131 can be read in which manner Zahn expounds the positive argument for the Heathen origin of the readers (Ch. 6, 1f.). I wish to remark that I should not like to draw from it an absolutely sure testimony for this origin. What is characteristic for the Epistle to the Hebrews is that the difference between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians does not exist any more; indeed by no expression or reminiscence are we re- minded of it.7, He who mixes with the purpose of the letter and the characteristics of the readers anything derived from their alleged nationality confuses the entire picture. Before I turn to the question of the authorship, I deem it expedient to group comprehensively the observations that speak for a definite circle (a house-congregation) of Roman Christians. The decision concerning authorship is closely dependent on the decision of the circle of readers: 1. The letter was, as far as we know, first in evidence at Rome. According to Eusebius it was made use of in the First Epistle of Clemens (96 A.D.). 2. The greeting, Ch. 13:24 (domdGovtat bua of &xd tho “ItaAtac) —the only one contained in the letter—shows the author to be out- side Italy, the recipients in Italy. At any rate, this is the nearest interpretation. 3. The designation “tyotuevot,” used thrice (Ch. 13:7, 17, 24) for the ruling ones, is to be found in the Roman congregation (see the First Epistle of Clemens, and xponyovusvor in Hermas). 4. The confident hope that God would not let the congregation sink entirely, is based by the author, Ch. 6:10, upon the efficacious love which they showed, and are still showing, and this love does not include only the nearest companions but extends far beyond them (td Eoyov budv xat h a&yann Fy évedstEacbe cic td Svoua adroy, Staxovnoavtes totic aytors® xat dtaxovotvteg). If every one 6 To make this argument still stronger, we read, Ch. 2:3: (} owtnela) kexhy AaBotoa Aareiobar Ste tod xuplou brd tHyv dxouckyvtwy elc Huds EBeBarwby. From these words Ch. 1:2 receives its closer definition. 7 Also the exhortations in Ch. 13:9 have no reference to it. 8 ot &ytot= Christians in general. If the author had also thought’ of Christians abroad, he would have been obliged to express himself differently. That the assertion ot &ytot indicated the Christians of Jerusalem, is not 396 APPENDIX of them shows the same ardor—shown in labor of love—also in Christian hope and depth of conviction (v. 11), then everything will be well. The efficacious care for the Christians in general is known to have been the principal merit of the old Roman congregation (see e.g., Dionysius of Corinth in the letter to Soter). 5. The congregation has not only passed through hard times, gen- erally speaking, but also through extremely acute afflictions (Ch. 10:32, etc.), due to their being Christians. These afflictions, not of recent occurrence, are described in very strong expressions (xoAA} &OAnots xabnudtwy, dverdstapotc te xat OAtveoty OeatetCduevor, } aonayr coy Unaoydvtwy). They recall the description of the Neronian persecution in the first Clement letter. This comparison becomes still more perfect if you combine Ch. 13:7 with Ch. 10:32, etc-—a com- bination that presents itself in disposition and manner of expression in both chapters.1° Hence it follows that “nyotwevor” suffered mar- tyrdom in this persecution, and especially such “yyotwevor” as brought the message to the congregation.1! The expression does not designate them as the first missionaries—a more definite name would probably have been chosen in this case—but it does say that the present con- gregation is in a way indebted to them for their having become Christians. What congregation can be thought of more readily than the Roman, having witnessed the Neronian persecution and the martyrdom of Peter and Paul? These Apostles were not the founders of the Roman congregation, but they might well be designated as Hyovpevot Oudy, ottives éAdAnoay buty tov Adyov t00 Bcod, And the request utwetobe thy mtotty (adtmy) is again paralleled to I Clement 5, where Peter and Paul are extolled as vyevvate Unodelypata and broyoauwol. provable and the hypothesis that the great Pauline congregation be meant, is altogether without support. ®The guttcévtes (10, 32) does not necessarily mean that they were newly converted at that time. 10 There, as well as here, the author begins with wvnuovebete (or dvautuyte oxecfe) ; there as well as here, a complete heroic episode is the point in question; there we read, Ov dvabewpotvtes tiv ExBacty ths avacteoghs wtuetOce chy wlotty, here, xotvwvol.tdv ots d&vactespougvwy yevnPévtec. Zahn explained well why the bloody victims of persecution are not spoken of more dis-. tinctly in Ch. 10:32, etc. The point in question is to remember the labor of those who endured persecution. It would have been utterly improper to emphasize their escape from martyrdom. 11 The great majority of exegetes acknowledge the fact in Ch. 13 7, the martyr’s death of those concerned can only be thought of. APPENDIX 397 6. If the hypothesis of the Roman address has everything in its favor !2 according to the arguments 1-5, and no argument against it is to be found,!* it is very probable on the other hand that not the Roman congregation in general, or any general congregation, was the recipients. The negative argument that such an address could not easily be lost, was mentioned before. The positive arguments in favor of a smaller group are the following: (a.) The addressees form a group “throughout equally minded.” Their religious and moral ideas are the same; nowhere does the author distinguish among them groups, shades, or anything like that. But as he, on the other hand, did not write a treatise, but presupposes very concrete conditions, it is not easy to think of a congregation, least of all of as large and manifold one, as the Roman.1* (b.). The exhortation in Ch. 5:12: xal yao égetAovtesg elvae Srddoxnahot Ota toy Yodvoyv, maAty yYoctav Eyete TOO Stddoxery Suas cannot be addressed to an entire congregation where minors and neophytes always are. It can only be meant for a definite group of older Christians,> a group whose growth had not shown as much progress recently as in the beginning. 12 Also the general expression ot dxotcavtes (Ch. 2:3) for those to whom the author and readers are indebted for their Christianity, is conclu- sive. The Roman congregation was not of apostolic origin. 18 The title «pbc “EGoatouc is incorrect, and causes the same difficulty, no matter how the real address is explained. In the manner which I hinted at tentatively in my Chronology, I., p. 479, one will never be able to decipher it in its origin. It is chosen just as poorly as the title zod¢ ’Egectouc for the Pauline circular writing to Asia. The most probable still is (it being precarious to suppose an old error-xpbd¢ todc étatpouc would be the nearest) that the rich Old Testament contents have led to it. The title “Ad gentes,” found in some of the Catholic letters, is best to be compared, as Zahn cor- rectly sees. Yet this title is found very rarely. 14 Tt would lead too far if we were to show by the many exhortations, how improbable it is to think of them as meant for an entire large congre- gation, and how unpsychological the author would have been had he addressed himself to such a one. 15 Heinrice (Theol. Ltg., 1895, Col: 289) writes: In its strangely didactic attitude, the Epistle is somewhat striking—as long as it is judged as a writ- ing to a congregation. .. . It demands a closer circle of readers, and this is stated by the author himself. To a congregation he could not write: “For the time ye ought to be teachers.” Likewise, it is not characteristic of a congregation, if he speaks of the readers as such, as have ministered and do still minister to the saints (6:10). According to 13:24 he distin- guishes them from the ‘*yotyevotr, not all of them belonging to them, and from the ytot, the congregational members at large. Do these expressions not indicate distinctly a group of evangelists about whose de- velopment the author is troubled? Only the final decision seems strange 898 APPENDIX (c.) That a select circle of older Christians is referred to is also made evident by the exhortation to call to rememberance “the former days,” and their former fyoUwevor already illuminated (Ch. 10:32, etc.; 13:7)—their personal experience is supposed in both cases— and also by the recognition of their reputation of having performed great works of love in olden times (Ch. 6:10). The sentence fol- lowing immediately: éxt@uwotuwev 68 exactoy buoy thy adthy évdetxyucbat onmoudhy xtA., does not read as if written to a large congregation but to a small homogeneous circle. (d.) In Ch. 13:17 we read the addressees should obey their Hyotwevot. In Ch. 13:24, greetings are sent to all their jyoUwevot, and all saints. These words, not called forth by any special context, cannot easily (or not at all), be explained in any other way but that the addressees form a special circle in the general town-congregation, and have their own ‘yovuevot, but also owe obedience to the hyolwcvot of the general congregation. The somewhat indistinct expression tiy értouvaywyhy éautmy (Ch. 10:25) refers perhaps to the special meeting of the select circle (thus Zahn), yet a definite de- cision here is impossible. (e.) We do know, especially of the Roman congregation, that in olden times, house-congregations existed there. If we know it not, we could suppose it from the Epistle to the Philippians and other documents, even a priort. Indeed we read in Romans 16 of three,16 namely the house-congregation of Priscilla and Aquila (v. 3-5),17 of Asyncritus and companions (v. 14), and of Philologus and com- panions (v. 15). To one of these, or to a fourth one—which must have been formed before the Neronian persecution—the so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is written. Shall we be able to decide to which one? This leads us to the question concerning authorship. In answering this question, critique has—as formerly in reference to the recipients—allowed itself to be guided much too little by the astonishing fact that the author’s name was lost. The author calls Timothy “our brother,’ ?® and was, as we shall see immediately, a here. Evangelists? Very likely only such as were to prepare themselves for this calling. But then the whole picture is disturbed. Heinrici pressed the dgefhovtec elvat StSdexaAor unsuitably, and took it too literally. 16 Zahn has proven anew the reasons for separating Ch. 16 from the Epistle to the Romans as insufficient. 17Tt is a pleasing, but not a probable supposition, that all the persons named by Paul, vs. 6-13, belong to Prisca’s house-congregation. 18 We shall see later that the meaning is not only “the Christian brother.” APPENDIX 399 respected teacher in Rome in former times; nevertheless his name is lost, so that in order to regain it, guessing was applied in the second century. The names of Paul, Clement, and Luke, owe their connec- tion with the letter merely to brain-wrecking guess-work. And the same is very likely true about the name of Barnabas. In my Chro- nology I, p. 478, I explained why one cannot be satisfied with it, and further reflection has strengthened me in my doubts. How can the loss of Barnabas’ name or its substitution by Paul’s be explained? 1° Zahn’s proof for Tertullian’s not rendering an African, and conse- quently not a Roman, tradition in calling the letter “Barnabas’ epistula,” seems to me not a happy one. Moreover, it remains most probable that the letter was known in Africa, and therefore also in Rome by the name (about 220), without belonging to the New Testament. Neither can it be proven decidedly that Ireneus and Hippolytus knew and cited the letter as anonymous. Yet Zahn justly draws the conclusion from the fact—since the letter is spoken of as Paul’s and as Barnabas’ —that there was in its history (before the end of the second century) a period during which it circulated anonymously. Then it is feasible that the congregation circulating it—and that was the Roman—sent it without the author’s name, possibly because they did not know it any longer (yet that is less probable), or because they suppressed it intentionally.2° In either case, we must look for a man near Paul, and a trusted companion of Timothy, whose name or position explains this strange, intentional or unintentional suppression. ‘The names of Luke, Clement, Barnabas, or Apollos, do surely not explain it. After these preliminary remarks we shall turn to the statements the letter offers regarding its author; they are by no means sparse. Before we speak about the most important ones, an investigation about the use of “we,” “you” and “I,” is needed. Let me tabulate: VV elt) Tso 0N2 TEA VE Sees GcOmIA NO Asi=a0 FT, 713, Id4-16> 5115 0292310) E119) 103 7 sT4tONeOs orl» O8i4,4= 24-202 10, 15,20, 22°24, 2040; 304 1133, 405812 -1v ay. O25,. 20391 350, Oe 1 3-1 54110, 20, 215/23. Oli 4+ b. 12,13) (Chey WgsOnid 5) 4s Fe COLavey 7) 345 11 1;1 123 0 :9-12% 9425. 20,932-30 +-1253-8) $2425 132273) 740, 10-1G,,21-25... Lt IT 33244 LAc1On22,023327 19 Let me refer also to the fact that tradition knows really nothing of Barnabas’ sojourn in Rome. The pseudo-Clementine works of fiction, and even later concoctions of a similar character, are surely not to be considered. 20 The characterization of the letter as Barnabas’, in Africa or Rome, belongs consequently to a relatively late time. | 21 Undoubtedly we must read here ‘yoy; the byev would be contrary to the author’s style in this connection. 22 The non-originality of the pou in Ch. 10:34 is generally admitted 400 APPENDIX The more attentively the change of “we’ and “you” is studied, the more we admire the author’s stylistic elegance also here. The basis of his mode of expression is the communicative “we,” and he keeps it up as long as the nature of the arguments permits, and returns to it as soon as possible. He even writes (Ch. 4:1): go@yPduey uy mote xXataArettougyyns emayyeAtas etocANcty Sox tig €§ budy Doteonxévat, Especially characteristic is Ch. 10:24, etc. xatay- OMUEY........ BAémete........ huUaotTaveytwWy HUWY Or verse 29: doxstTE.... otdaucy yao, and further 32-39, where a long paragraph, written in the second person, ends thus: fuctc 8&8 otx éousy OrootoAe. In the thirteenth chapter finally let us observe tua (v. 6) after éertkavOdvecbe and utuynoxeobe, and how the author, vs. 10-15, and then in the expressions xUetov nudy (v. 20) év HUty (Vv. 21) again and again returns to “we.” This communicative “we” is more than a stylistic form; it teaches unequivocally that the author includes himself with his readers, not generally as a Christian with Christians, but he counts himself belonging to their very group; their weal and woe are his; he feels as one of their members, and he knows himself to be one. Therefore he must have lived and labored among them for some time. Some special places will prove abundantly that we are not deceiving ourselves in this opinion. The author speaks also as a teacher and guide who—by virtue of his intimate knowledge of his readers’ past and present, and by the position he once filled among them, a position not yet expired—is justified in teaching, praising or blaming them, in remonstrating with them most earnestly. In such cases he uses the second person. When using it for the first time, he adds the solemn and cordial ddeAgot gytot and repeats adeAgot once more (Ch. 3:1, 12). In 4:1; 5i:1I, 12; 6:9-12; 10:25, 29, 32-36, “you” could not be avoided very well, as can easily be seen. ‘These are all the places in which it occurs up to Ch. 12:3. It becomes different in the two concluding Chs. 12:3; 13:25. Because the language becomes more impressive, and the admonition briefer, “you” of the authorized teacher is the rule. The authorized teacher—for the “entire style of the letter indicates the author’s being accustomed to teaching, and as teacher is enjoying a certain influence, not only among other Christians but also among the readers.” The masterly style in pneumatic exegetics, the clear- ene the variant is hardly older than the belief in Paul’s authorship of the pistie. APPENDIX 401 ness of expositions, the excellency and skill in exegetic and -admoni- tory style prove that some one is writing who has had practice in theological delivery. However, the “we” which dominates the arguments, demands an even closer consideration. Not everywhere—but only in the majority of cases—does it mean “I and you readers.” In a few cases (see é.g., I, 2) it means “we Christians’—it is unnecessary to eliminate these—in other cases, however, neither this one nor the communicative interpretation is in place. If I see correctly, the verses 2:5; 4:13; 5:11; 6:1-3; 9:11; 13:18, 23 are involved. To these the four verses in which the author uses “I”: 11:32; 13:19, 22, 23 must be added. From these fourteen parts, we shall exclude the three dubious, moreover, subordinate ones; for meet Hg Aawdodwev (2:5), the modc Ov HutydAdyos (4:13) and rept 05 mods Hutv 6 Adyoso (5:11) can very well be understood communicatively, even if the similar xat tt ete Aéyw; éxtAciver we yao Stnyobwevoy 6 yodvocg (11:32) makes us think of a literary plural form.?8 But an author who in using the communicative plural goes so far as to write go@yOdusy un cote Soxy tic Sudy Soteonxévar may have thought of these phrases as communicative. The acceptance of a literary plural is therefore un- necessary. The “we” in parts 5:11—6:11 and 13:18, 23 remains to be explained. We must begin with 13:18. In this place, “we” can- not be communicative, neither can it be literary plural form, for the words “Pray for us, for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly,’ are followed immediately by: “But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.” Thus the author discriminates between “we” and “I.” The argument that “tjy@v” is still influenced by the preceding plural (of HyoUwevor buoy) (v. 17), and is a slight incorrectness eliminated by the author in verse 19, is unfeasible. The verses 17 and 18 are indeed very closely connected; but if it is still conceivable that he, on account of combining those jyotuevot with his own person, wrote Teel HUY instead of npocetyeobe wept guob, it is inconceivable, nevertheless, that he wrote wetO6ucba yao Ott xadty cuvetdnoty éxouey, and in doing so, also thought of those ‘yovusvor distant to him (thus Von Soden). Much more can we agree with Weiss that the other persons—those near the author—are included in the plural. 23 Without using a pronoun, the author writes in 9:5:nepet dv odx getty voy A€yety xat& uéooc. 402 APPENDIX How many they were cannot be deciphered. Yet there cannot be many, as they are in the same relationship to the readers as the author, and they must have known at once who was meant. By the words: teetscotépwsg 8& Tapaxark® xtA., the author becomes prom- inent in their midst. If it is certain that “we” in verse 18 is neither a communicative nor literary plural, then it is very probable that also in verse 23 a real plural of authors is to be thought of.24 After the author wrote in verse 22: “And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhorta- tion: for I have written a letter unto you in a few words,” he con- tinues (v. 23): “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty: with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you. Salute all them that have the rule over you,” etc. Why does the author not write tv a&secdooyv tiyd0eov, if he wanted to give Timothy merely an epitheton ornan??5 And that he wanted to designate him as his and the readers’ brother in a restricted sense is not very likely. Timothy was undoubtedly a jyotuevoc. Hyotuecvotr are, to be sure, ddeAgot, but not ddcAgot judy, for common Christians. Add to this the author’s changing from jwseig to éyw, exactly as in verses 18, 19. Therefore it must be acknowledged that the author speaks also here in the name of a group of few persons who, like himself, call Timothy their colleague, 7. e., call themselves his equal. There must be some- thing peculiar about this “group” if the author could further pass from “we” to “I” twice, and if he in so intimate and so solemn a declaration, as given in verse 18, simply was allowed to speak in their name. While “TI,” aside from the places spoken of before, occurs yet 11:32 —in an indifferent sentence—a “we” not communicative is found in 6:1-3; 9:11. The noncommunicative character is quite distinct in verses 9, 11 (renetoueba?® 58 rept Sudv ta xpetocova nal éyd- 24 As far as I know, that has always been overlooked. 25 It is easily understood why so many excellent exegetes do not read joy. They did not understand the reference (to the senders only), and necessarily it was for them a stumbling-block. Let us compare Paul’s manner of speech. He writes xobaptog 6 &3eAn6¢ (Rom. 16:23), Dwabévng 8 48. (I Cor. 1:1),’AnxoAAew to5 &S. (I Cor. 16:12), Tryd0eoc, 6&3. (II Cor. 1:1; Philem. I; Col. 1:1). Tuytxds & dyanntds 4&3. (Col. 4:7). But when he adds judy, it is never a literary plural, or referring communicatively to the readers, but designates the brother as a brother of Paul and his co-workers. See I Thes. 3:2; II Cor. 8:22, 23; compare further the &seAp6g pou in II Cor. 2:13; Phil. 2:25. APPENDIX 403 Leva GUTHOLAG, ct xat OUTWS AaAOUME.... EttOumodmey 38 Exaotoy budy chy auchy évdetxyvucbat croudny). Then it is surely proper to look upon the “we” at the beginning of this chapter also thus, and not communicatively (gcommevOa........ motnowwev). Ch. 6:1 and the fol- lowing is to be paraphrased with the Greek expounders and Luther: “Therefore we will give up the instruction in Christian rudiments and proceed to perfection 27) ..., and this we shall do if God wills it.” This is also shown by the inserted, the author speaking of funda- mentals and instruction, 7.¢., using expressions prohibiting the com- municative explanation of “we.” But if “we” is not communicative here, we can see in it only, either the real plural of the senders, or the author’s literary plural. Since we have been shown in Ch. 13 that a “group” is in back of the letter, and since furthermore no literary plural occurs anywhere else, and finally since it is improbable that the author who uses the communicative plural so constantly (and next to it the literary singular), should ever use the literary plural, we shall have to recognize a real plural of the senders in the plural of the first person, Ch. 6:1-11. Consequently there are two or more in whose name the author speaks; they, as well as he, are to the readers, teachers who laid the foundation—or helped to lay it—of their Christianity. They are confident that their Christianity will finally assert itself; they praise their labor of love, and they express the vivid desire that every one of them may show the same ardor Teds THY TANPODOPLAY THS EAnisoS Hoyt téAOUG. A few verses remain to be examined by means of which we shall become more closely acquainted with the author. In Ch. 2:3 we read: nic husic éxqeuSducba tHhAtxadtyns aucrhoavtes owtnelas, tts choyty AaBotoaw Aahetobar St& to xuptou bnd TOY axoucdytwy els Hua éBeGarw0y; consequently the readers as well as the author, were not personal disciples of Jesus, but received the Gospel from them. The expression ‘ot &xoUcavteg” may include apostles. If, how- 267 cannot understand how Weiss—in explaining this plural—can refer to Ch. 2:5, and take it communicatively. Note, too, next to merefouceba the address dyanntol. 27 The éxt tedetétyta receives its meaning through the preceding “8 tH a&exns Adyoo”, and the succeeding “d3aynHv”. Compare also 5:12: dgetAovtes elvat StSkoxaror Stak tov yodvoy mhAty yoelay Eyete tol dtShkoxetv bac. The following shows distinctly that the author, or the senders themselves, belong to the fundamental teachers of this circle. 404 APPENDIX ever, the originators of the readers’ and author’s Christianity were apostles, then we have a right to expect this definite expression, or an equivalent one, to have been chosen. At any rate, the readers and the author belong to a second generation, 1.e., genealogically, not chronologically. Zahn directs our attention to the author’s treating the circle he writes to, not as a second generation but as identical with those who (in this place) were the first to become Christians. In Ch. 10:32-34, the author shows his intimate knowledge of the time of great suffering his readers passed through honorably “in former days.” His knowledge of their present inner position and actions is shown in the entire letter, above all in the 6étaxovoUyte¢ Ch. 6:10, and the sentence (Ch. 12:4) oltrw uéyets atuatosg dy- TIKATESTHTE TAOS THY auUaetlay dvtayuviCduevot (Ch. 2:4).28 Referring to the entire conclusion, Ch. 13:7-24, it is the relation of the readers to the tyobwevot upon which it is based, and which forms the ever recurring theme. We recognize further the author’s (the senders’) somehow or other considering himself as one of them—shown in the entire letter and the relation between readers and them not to have been entirely cloudless. The author speaks at first of the blessed fyoltuevor having suffered martyrdom. Even here, their “cgvacteogn” stand out significantly. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever’ is offered as consolation for the loss of mortal nyoUuevor. These words are followed immediately by a warning against divers and strange doctrines, which are char- acterized in the following verses as ascetic (thus most interpreters) or, as Von Soden interprets on the contrary, as libertine doctrines. When the author adds the proof of nothing having been profited (“the heart not being established with grace”) by those taking part therein, he shows again his accurate knowledge of the inner conditions in the circle addressed. He is not satisfied with the mere statement of the actual want of success, but adds a theoretical refutation of that false position (inconsiderate participation in sacrificial repasts) (v. 10-15) by which the example of the old jyotucyot surely was not followed. To the false xotvwvt« he opposes (v. 16) the real Christian, namely the éutota xat xotvwvta. Returning to the relation of the readers to their jyobwevor (now 28 We cannot conclude by means of these words that the readers have not experienced a bloody persecution. They have not yet resisted sin to the very last. As to prisoners and mistreated ones at that time, see Ch. 13:3. | APPENDIX 405 to the present ones, however) thus (v. 17): “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you’—it is probable that those “strange doctrines” caused controversy, and the readers tried to maintain their independency against the ‘fyotuevor. As the author adds to this exhortation the words (v. 18): “Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things, willing to live honestly,” it follows from this justification—almost an excuse— that the author sides with the fyovusvor (shares their opinion in the point of controversy in opposition to the majority of the readers), and that this condition was known by the recipients before receiving the letter, connections between readers and the author having taken place continually.2® This is also evident in the next sentence (v. 19): “But I beseech you the rather to pray for me, that I may be restored to you the sooner, “7. e., the readers are counting upon his return, and their prayer is to hasten it.2° The groxatasctab® buiv shows dis- tinctly the author’s belonging to the circle addressed, and his absence being only temporary, This “membership” may be of various kind. We spoke about the change from plural to singular. The lack of an éyw (see also v. 23) is to be noted: it shows the change as such not at all to be perceived by the author. This proves again that the “group” in whose name he speaks must be extremely close to him to identify himself with it. As the rememberance of the saints fyotusvor is followed in verse 8 by the reference to Jesus Christ, so the mentioning of the relation between the readers and the present fyotuevot, and of self-justifica- tion, is followed in verses 20, 21 by the appeal to the God of peace. In the mot@y év futy td edadeecotov evomtoy adtod 31a “Ino0d Xototod we see changed in truly Christian spirit to a confident prayer to God, what was just noticed as the very endeavor of the author himself. The very tone just touched (“the God of peace”) explains the timbre of the 22d verse: “And I beseech you brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in a few words.” He could, and might have entered upon their inner con- 29 The self-justification of the author is comprehensible only if he knew that there was a distrust, be it ever so slight (see Von Soden referring to it). 80 These words do by no means indicate the author’s captivity. How fre- quently has Paul—although not imprisoned—been “hindered” from coming to his congregation. 406 APPENDIX ditions more explicitly, and more severely, but did not do it in order to make his words so much more penetrating. Also this verse shows the author’s claim to a certain degree of authority concerning the readers. Another personal and joyful communication he has for them: His—or as he expresses himself “our,” 1. e¢., the senders— brother Timothy is set at liberty, and will accompany the author to the addressees, if he should come shortly.24_ The senders are on very intimate terms with Timothy; he is not for them only a person to be held in respect, but “their brother.” The author will not come to them attending Timothy, but will—if possible—bring Timothy along without postponing his own journey on his account. The result is that the author, or the senders of the letter, were prominent Christian teachers, belonging likewise to the Pauline circle of friends. With a saluation to all jyotwevot and all Christians at the respective place, adding the greetings of a group of Italian Christians, the Epistle ends. Let us sum up our results: The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is written after the death of Peter and Paul, to a “house-congregation” in Rome, having existed there for many years. The author—no per- sonal disciple of Jesus, but won by such for the Gospel—belonged formerly to this circle in Rome, not only as a common member, but as a teacher or man of authority. Separated from them later, he took attentive and vivid interest in their fate and inner development, and remained in touch with them. In the near future he wishes to return to them. But the feeble and faint-hearted condition his friends are in, makes it seem advisable to send in advance a detailed letter full of vigorous exhortation, which at the same time is to abolish the beginning of certain distrust against his person. This letter shows masterly didactic, literary style, gained through long practice; evi- dencing complete indifference concerning the difference between Jewish and Pauline Christianity, in the sense of later Paulinism, but without its means. The author belongs to the Pauline circle, and calls Timothy espe- cially his brother, and by doing so places himself at least on the same level. Chapters 6 and 13 show us him speaking for several for whom, in proportion to the readers and Timothy, the same is of value as is of value for him, and who are so near him that imperceivedly he changes from plural to singular and vice versa, even speaks of their conscientious self-examination as of his own. 81 Timothy had not been imprisoned at the place where the author was staying. APPENDIX 407 Should the name of this man and the names of those upholding him not be ascertained, in spite of all Pauline letters and the Acts? May one not say a priori they must be found there? The person in question is too prominent, and his connection with Timothy and Rome places him too near the circles known by us, to make it probable not to have ever been named, either in Pauline letters or in the Acts. Luther thought of Apollos, and Zahn combined once more, on pages I5I and 157, etc., what he considers to speak in favor of the authority of our letter. But no tradition knows anything of his ever having been connected with the Romans, as he was with the Corinthian con- gregation, and—what is still weightier—it cannot be understood why tradition would not preserve his name as author. The same reason that speaks against Barnabas also speaks against Apollos—and Barna- bas has at least one testimony in his favor, even if it does not appear before the beginning of the third century. But there is—if not everything is misleading—a solution to the problem, although as far as I know, nobody thought of it—Prisca and Aquila. The hypothesis that leads the Epistle to the Hebrews back to them is so highly commendable, because it does justice, un- restrictedly, to all observations the letter offers concerning author and recipients, and because it explains just as unrestrictedly why the names were lost: it is on account of Prisca. Only in six places in the New Testament are we taught something about Priscilla and Aquila,*? but these few places put them in the foreground of the history of the Apostolic era. In this respect it is highly significant that the author of the Acts gave them so much space in his narrative, for we know that he is very sparing of it in the second half of his book wherever there is no reference to Paul.*® Furthermore it is noteworthy that not only the author of the Acts places Prisca’s name before her husband’s (18:18, 26),°4 but also Paul wrote ’AxtAacg xat Iletcxe only in I Corinthians 16:19, whereas in Romans 16:2 and II Timothy 4:19, Hletoxa xat ’Axdrac. © 32 The Aquila of the pseudo-Clementines has nothing in common with our Aquila. Even if he were identical with him, nothing would be gained from those tales. Fabulous accounts of a still later time amount to just as little. 33 He surely knew a great deal more about them than he relates, which is proven by his knowledge of their previous history (Aquila, a Jew, born in Pontus, having lived formerly in Rome). 84 At the introduction (18:2) that was impossible, of course, but see further on. 35 In Corinthians, husband and wife themselves send greetings—the hus- band’s name being first was proper. In the two other passages Paul sénds 408 APPENDIX Hence Prisca was the principal person, either in reference to the significance of the couple for the missions and Christian service, or she was of nobler birth than her husband (the one as well as the other may have been the case). The latter case seems probable to Ramsay; °° he writes: “Probably Prisca was of higher rank than her husband, for her name is that of a good old Roman family. Now, in Acts 18:2 the very harsh and strange arrangement of the sentence must strike every reader. But clearly the intention is to force on the reader’s mind the fact that Aquila was a Jew, while Priscilla was not; and it is characteristic of Luke to suggest by subtle arrangement of words, a distinction which would need space to explain formally. Aquila was probably a freedman. The name does indeed occur as cognomen in some Roman families; but it was also a slave name, for a freedman of Maecenas was called (C. Cilnius) Aquila. There is probably much to discover in regard to this interesting pair, but in this place we cannot dwell on the subject.” I cannot see that Acts 18:2 (xatl ebowmy tive "Loudsatoy dvéuate "Axdrav, Iloveexdy t@ yéver, xposodtuy éAnrubdta dnd "Itartac xat TptoxtrArav yuvatxe adrod) gives certain proof of Prisca’s not having been a Jewess.8? This explanation of that part, as well as her name signifying her descent from a worthy old family, and of her being of higher rank than her husband, remain merely a noteworthy possibility. However that may be—at any rate she must have distinguished herself through her Christian activity beside her husband, or even more than he. That is seen strikingly in Acts 18:26 and Romans 16:2, etc., for according to that part, not only Aquila, but also Priscilla, instructed Apollos (dxobcavtes 38 adtod IlptoxtArAw xat "Axurde meoceAdBovto aitoy xat dxorbéotepoy adt@ eFéHevto thy 68bv tod Oc00—we may con- clude from it that she was the principal teacher, else she would hardly have been mentioned,®* and in the Epistle to the Romans, Paul greetings to them, and mentions the wife first. Therefore, the passage in Corinthians does not gainsay Prisca’s preference universally adhered to by Paul and Luke. Ly Paul, the traveler and the Roman citizen (3d edition, 1897, p. 268, CLC?) 87 The style of the sentence is indeed striking. Prisca being mentioned at all (and that in the form obdvIIprcx. or something similar, but parallel to Aquila), and, therefore, reading rpocnAOev aitd¢ adds very much to the prominence of the woman. Compare Blass regarding construction, edit. maior, p. I95. 88 Chrysostom, who had fine sense of style, omits Aquila entirely in his APPENDIX 409 calls her and Aquila—not only the latter—his “helpers in Christ Jesus.” This expression—not frequently used by Paul—signifies much; Prisca and Aquila are legitimized by it as professional evangelists and teachers. But Paul adds the following: ofttves bree tHS PuxXTS “ou toy &xuTMY TOayHAOV OnéOnxav ofc obx éyW Udvosg edyaorotd GhAX nal maou at éexxAnotat tOv €0vGv. Unfortunately we do not know to which heroic occurrence the first half of the sentence refers; the second half shows the Christian labor of husband and wife to have been really ecumenical. Paul does not tell us through which deed “all the churches of the Gentiles’? were indebted to Prisca and Aquila,®® but the fact of their having worked so vigorously and suc- cessfully among the Gentiles is significant enough. They must have overcome all Jewish prejudice as to have the Apostle look up to them with admiration and thankfulness, and to have him assure them of the gratefulness of the entire Gentile church. Where else did he speak about one of his helpers in expressions of such broad recogni- tion? Finally it must be mentioned that, when Apollos was dis- posed to go to Achaia, the pair anticipated him, and by a letter to the Corinthian Christians, procured good reception for him (18:27).*° Besides these testimonies—receiving and instructing Apollos, and ecumenical mission work, and teaching—we know but little about the outer vicissitudes of the pair. By the edict of Claudius they were driven from Rome; they had just reached Corinth when Paul arrived there. Whether they were Christians when leaving Rome, or were converted by Paul, is not said in the Acts; consequently we may as- sume this or that. Nothing being said about it, however, in the Acts, and Paul’s silence concerning it, makes their coming to Corinth as Christians more plausible. The “Ioddatog (18:2) does not speak paraphrase of the passage, and designates Prisca alone as the teacher of Apollos: Sevier thy yuvatxa thy "AmoAAG roocAauBavonévny xal xarnxioacav thy 63dv to xuoelou. 89 The activity of husband and wife in the three principal places, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, is probably sufficient. I do not consider it probable that all Gentile churches owe thanks to Prisca and Aquila only for having saved the Apostle’s life. Neither Origen nor Chrysostom thought of it thus, but thought of their gtAoEevia xat thy dad tH Yonuk twy AettovEylay. 40 rootpepauevot causes difficulties no matter whether we refer it to Apollos or to the Corinthian Christians. Blass’ hypothesis of a Latinism, the word, being equal to “antevertontes,” is interesting. &3 on ld i i ; ie & i i! / : : 7 7 = De mR | a ii ; ; MW Hay A aly it i Poe att 3 ; «te Merb 1 ’ we : vi - = 4 ey) Wy r ; > ’ ; a¥ DS a: ihe iad q f : ee el Ve el ae ant \ , us a) a he Bible status of woman, Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library “ii Av 7 I 7 7. a eee ave és eee i » ¥ pa we BE % S85 gh Bet Yoh RAY hy ale ov at és eb Naps Minds fect loeb mb fiatsetine 0 AA AIL : nS De | . Ou eth hee es as ti reefs dt what Be Oke ' nce ed oh et 6A thet tet hse ef ‘ 4.<4 Hy ; ; rad) ta ! 4 re ; te f Sette dat Bote d 4 be afd Le OSes A fe ’ " f se % S Pitas 's afta Re fas; - oT . f , : nit Bot aed, 2 v4 pot SOPepes ¢ , An, ‘ 5 c vet Ris ; ‘ ee an . »4