The Myth and Meaning of 'I Do Not Permit a Woman to Teach'

What did Paul mean by "I do not permit a woman to teach"? This verse from 1 Timothy 2:12 that seemingly forbids women from teaching or preaching or 'having authority over a man' has long been used to ban women from ministry or even speaking about Biblical truth in many contexts. While most Christian denominations have taken these infamous words at their English face-value, if we study the words used and the rest of Scripture we will be able to see that this was not a universal ban on women teaching, and that Jesus and Paul both treated women with respect and dignity, and not like the lesser beings that many today believe.

Let's take a look at how this New Testament passage typically reads in English Bibles:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." -1 Timothy 2:11-14

It's easy to quickly read over those sentences from the NIV Bible and think that Paul is not permitting any woman, ever, to teach. Many denominations teach that because Eve was the one that was deceived it means that all women are gullible and easily deceived. Therefore, they cannot be trusted with teaching or exercising any kind of authority. 

Here we have the myth: women aren't allowed to teach. Period.

This one belief has held back millions of women from teaching the Gospel, and has brought a barrage of rude remarks and abuse on most women who do teach Scripture. But of course, the way denominations apply this supposed teaching of Paul is plainly at odds against what they believe he said. If women are so easily deceived that not a single one is fit to teach anything related to the Bible...then why is it okay for women to teach children or other women? Most people will point to "assume authority over a man," and make an assumption that Paul is saying that women just can't teach men. But, if the reason they can't teach is because women are gullible or easily deceived...why would they be allowed to teach women and children? Would that not be an incredibly terrible way to run things...to have deceived people teaching wrong ideas to children and then expect the children to grow up and understand faith and God's word? Would any denomination recognize that a teacher is deceived and then decide that they are fit to teach children and women?

However there is no caveat here that it's fine for women to teach children, their own or otherwise, or other women. Most people who teach this myth were taught the majority of what they know about God's word in children's Sunday school - and nearly all Sunday school teachers are women. I also frequently hear from women who attempt to teach me that women aren't allowed to teach...an irony so heavy that it's barely worth mentioning.

But you know what? That is not what Paul's getting at.

First of all, Paul frequently mentions women who are teachers and leaders in the early church movement, and he does so positively. Of all the people Paul offers greetings to at the end of the book of Romans, he only commends Phoebe, calling her a deacon and a leader (Romans 16:1). And he tells the people he's writing to, to support her. Most scholars believe that by listing her first, Paul is indicating that she is the one bearing his letter. That means that one of the most significant books in the New Testament was originally entrusted to a woman...which means once the letter was read, any questions about it would be directed towards Phoebe, who would then explain or elaborate on the meaning of Paul's words. Another word for explaining something would be teaching.

The second person he mentions in Romans is another woman, Priscilla. He calls her and her husband, Aquila, his coworkers in the Messiah. In Romans 16:12, he mentions three more women who work in YHWH, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis. In 1 Corinthians he encourages all believers to prophesy and speak in tongues...including women. Paul also points out in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 that men and women have equal rights in the marriage.

We have covered elsewhere that the notorious, "Let women be silent, they are not allowed to speak," passage of 1 Corinthians 14:34 was Paul quoting someone else's incorrect quotation of Biblical law. 

In light of Paul being supportive of women like Phoebe in leadership roles in the church, it simply does not make sense that he would simultaneously ban all women from teaching. We see that he put Phoebe in a position of teaching his letter to the Romans. This sudden ban also doesn't fit with the Old Testament, where we see women like Deborah, Miriam, and Huldah in leadership roles. Contrary to popular belief, the Old Testament never says that women can't teach or lead.

So what is going on in 1 Timothy 2:11?

We should note that Paul's letter is composed in response to questions and concerns that Timothy was dealing with at the time. This means he wasn't compiling a list of life advice or helpful hints to pastoring, but is referencing specific situations and events that Timothy was dealing with.

If you study the New Testament, you're probably aware that ancient Greek doesn't have grammar in the sense that we are used to in English. The word that is mostly translated as "a woman" is just one word - gyne (Strong's G1135).  Which does mean a woman, but it means a certain or specific woman. It does not mean all women. The significance of this is huge.

This changes the meaning of this sentence from, "I do not permit any women to teach," to "I do not permit that specific woman to teach"!

The meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12: Paul does not permit a specific woman to teach.

Further support for this idea comes from the rest of the passage.

"...she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." 

Many Christian denominations will tell you that because God made Adam before Eve, then the men of the world are entitled to do all the teaching and hold all the leadership positions, and women are forbidden from all ministry opportunities. But Scripture never says that Adam was superior because he was made first. Mind you, Adam was the second-to-last part of creation...are pigs and insects and fish superior to Adam because they were made before him? John and Stasi Eldredge teach in their book Captivating that woman being formed after Adam wasn't an insult or a sign of a lesser status, but that she was formed last as a fitting climax to the Creation story itself.

And if being made first is the issue here, wouldn't that mean that the pastor of every church should be the oldest person there? Should there be a ban on learning anything from someone who is younger than we are?

But why does Paul bring up that Adam was formed first? Well, if he's talking about a specific woman that Timothy is having trouble with, he's bringing it up because it ties in with the issue that he was addressing.

What many scholars believe was happening was that a certain woman in Timothy's congregation was teaching that Eve was formed first and that Adam was the one that was deceived. This information is incorrect based on the book of Genesis. So Paul was saying that he was not permitting this specific woman to teach, because what she was teaching went against the basics of what the Bible teaches.

This is a perfectly sensible approach to what was a bad situation for Timothy's community, and that's what I would want from any church or ministry...that they wouldn't allow any person - female or male - to preach incorrect information about Scripture, to anyone.

If we look at the passage in this light, where Paul is not placing a universal ban on all women teaching for all time, that makes sense with how he does support certain women who teach, such as Phoebe and Priscilla. Paul is not banning women from teaching, he's banning bad teaching.

We should also note that Paul is not banning all women everywhere from having any kind of authority over males. He's saying that he does not endorse this specific woman having authority, because she was wrong about what the Bible says. We know that Paul is not against women exercising authority or being in leadership. As mentioned earlier, he told the people in Rome to listen to Phoebe and be supportive of her.

A better translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 would be:

"I do not permit that woman to teach, because she lacks understanding about basic issues like Adam and Eve being formed."

I hope by now we can see that the criteria that Paul valued when it came to teaching was correct knowledge and understanding of the word of God and the work of the Messiah. Qualification is not based on gender. God used both men and women to teach his word, tell of his glory, to serve as prophets and leaders in the Old Testament and the New Testament and he still does so today.

Related posts:
The Truth About 1 Corinthians 14 and 'Women Should Be Silent'
Who Was Phoebe in the Bible?
Mary and Martha - The Real Meaning of the Messiah's Words in Luke 10

Who Was Phoebe in the Bible? (Her Significance as a Deacon in Romans)

This post takes a look at Phoebe, a deacon in the early church that Paul mentions in the book of Romans. We will take a look at who Phoebe was, where we see her in the Bible, where she was from, the connection she had to Romans, the significance she carries, and how that applies to believers today. Learning about Phoebe will give us a better understanding of what the Bible says about women in ministry. There's a lot to be gleaned from her, including Paul's beliefs about women.

Where we see Phoebe in the Bible:

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me." -Romans 16:1-2 NIV

These two verses contain several significant details about Phoebe's life and ministry that we need to unpack!

Who was Phoebe in the Bible?

She lived in the coastal town of Cenchrea, in what is now Kechries, Greece. Living in a harbor town, she would have met many travelers stopping between Asia Minor, Italy, and Macedonia, and would have been exposed to various ideas and goods from around these parts of the world. This is the same town that Paul stopped in, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, and cut his hair off, thus fulfilling his Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18). It seems likely that Phoebe and Paul met during this time, whether as a first meeting or to catch up again. Interestingly, Scripture does not record that Paul started the church in Cenchrea. It's possible that he did, but it's also a possibility that the Good News reached Phoebe's city another way. 

What Romans 16 tells us about Phoebe:

If you read Romans 16, you'll see that Paul had plenty of people to highlight and greet (the whole chapter - 25 verses - is him doing so), but the very first person he wanted to call attention to was Phoebe. And she is the only person listed that he specifically commends, and he goes out of his way to call attention the fact that she is a deacon and a leader. Other people he lists as friends, coworkers, brothers, or sisters, but only Phoebe does he give a title of leadership to.

This shows that Paul did not have a problem with women in leadership.

While Paul didn't hesitate to ban certain women from ministering or teaching when they were sharing things out of line with the Bible, he obviously did not have a problem with what Phoebe was doing or teaching - or he would have said something, as he frequently called out those in ministry for not acting appropriately. (Including Peter!)

Was Phoebe a deacon or a servant?

Different versions of Scripture translate Phoebe's title as either deacon (NIV) or servant (KJV), so which is it? The Greek word that's used is, diakonos. This word is usually translated as 'minister,' and it's the same one that Paul used in the previous chapter to describe the Messiah (Romans 15:8). Paul also uses it at other times to describe himself (Ephesians 3:7, Colossians 1:23).

Many denominations teach that while diakonos means minister or deacon in the case of Jesus and Paul, it means something more like servant or assistant when it comes to Phoebe. Downplaying Phoebe's role comes from misunderstanding Biblical passages related to women, and it is not implied by text itself. It's difficult to believe that Paul meant some sort of watered-down version of the word for a few reasons.

1. Paul is a master wordsmith. If he truly meant to call Phoebe a secretary or assistant or a lady that helps a lot, he would not have opted to use the exact word that he used 20 sentences earlier to describe the very Savior of the world. A middle schooler might make that kind of error on a homework assignment, but that's not what's happening here. 

2. If he did mean that Phoebe's work was insignificant, he wouldn't have mentioned her first. The next people he lists are Priscilla and Aquila, whom he calls his 'coworkers'. Paul shows respect to and believes in the work that Phoebe is doing.

3. The rest of what he says about her does not support this.

Scripture honors Phoebe with the title of deacon.

Paul instructs believers to receive Phoebe in a worthy manner.

We see that in Romans 16:2 Paul tells his readers to receive this woman in a manner that's worthy of the saints. Not just to receive her, but to receive her well. He's calling on them to be particularly good to her. He also tells the Romans that they are to support Phoebe. More than simply offering financial provision or help with the logistics of her visit, he is calling them to stand by her. The text indicates that he is calling on his readers to offer her moral support and respect.

Phoebe likely was responsible to explain the book of Romans.

Most scholars believe that by listing her first, Paul is indicating that she is the one he entrusted to bear this letter, which we of course know as the book of Romans. This means that one of the most significant books of the New Testament was originally entrusted to Phoebe, a woman. As she lived near a major harbor, it would have been relatively simple for her to sail to Rome from there. It was not only her job to transport it to Rome, she was responsible to clarify, explain, or elaborate on the questions the readers and listeners had, which naturally would be directed at her. 

Think about the implications of that. Paul sent the book of Romans with her and put her in a position where she would need to explain what he meant to anyone who didn't understand his meanings. This shows that he believed her to be capable of correctly explaining and expounding on his message. Paul placed Phoebe in a position to teach!

Phoebe was a spiritual leader to Paul.

"...for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me." -Romans 16:2b NIV

The end of the mention of Phoebe highlights another significant detail about her. The NIV uses the word 'benefactor' and many translations use the word 'helper'. It's easy to read words like that and think that Phoebe supported Paul financially, or that she let the apostles stay in her house occasionally, or maybe she cooked for them or did their laundry. We assume that the only help she was able to give was housekeeping or money...because the truth is that much of the church has significantly downplayed the roles and actions of the women of the Bible. We haven't been taught the significance of women like Phoebe, so it's easy to miss.

But once again, if we dig deeper into Scripture, and examine what words Paul used and what they meant to him, we will see that his words mean something more than what we have assumed.

The word that is translated as helper or benefactor is the Greek word prostatis (Strongs G4368) - a feminine noun derived from proistemi, which is usually translated to rule over, or something similar. We only see this word once in the New Testament, which should call our attention to the significant meaning behind it.

According to Strongs, prostatis means:

1. A woman set over others.

2. A female guardian, protectress, patroness.

Phoebe is a woman set over others, including Paul (Romans 16:2).

Further support for this idea comes from the definition of the root word, proistemi which means: to set over, to be over, superintend, preside over, to be a protector or guardian, to care for, give attention to. This is dynamite! Phoebe is a leader. 

It is very, very difficult to read these definitions and think that this woman had done nothing for Paul except make a donation or feed him a few good meals. Paul respected Phoebe as a spiritual leader. Again, Paul is an excellent communicator...if he hadn't meant that Phoebe was over others or acting as a guardian, protector, and patron, he would have used a different word. His word choice highlights that he himself learned from her and considered her a leader in the church.

It's also worth noting that even if we jump to the last possible definition of this word - 'patron' - it doesn't fit well with what many believe this passage to mean. In the cultural context of the time, a patron was someone who provided significant help. This is not someone who makes a $20 donation, but someone who sponsors the entire ministry, and pays yearly salaries. If Phoebe were wealthy enough to do so, would it make sense for Paul to tell the Romans to support her financially? Wouldn't there be better uses for their money than giving it to a very wealthy woman? The text simply can't mean that all Phoebe did was fund his ministry, or that the only support he expected the believing community to offer her was financial.

Elsewhere in Scripture we do see women financially supporting the Gospel (Joanna and Susanna in Luke 8:3), and prostatis is not the word used. If Phoebe's work was about physical or financial provision, that would have been described differently.

The latter part of Romans 16:2 could be translated as, "...for she has been set over many people, including me."

What Phoebe's life means for us today:

Her life demonstrates that the role of women in ministry is not limited just to children or other women. It's not just about doing secretary tasks, sweeping the floors, taking care of orphans, and so on. While those tasks matter, and those who do them are honored in the kingdom of Heaven, Phoebe's life and ministry show that women can also teach the Gospel and have positions of leadership in churches and ministries.

Paul himself, undoubtedly one of the greatest teachers of the Gospel in history, went out of his way to highlight that not only was this woman a deacon, but he himself was under her spiritual influence and authority. Paul respected her ministry. She had taught and encouraged Paul. Paul chose to validate that. Phoebe's life is a validation of women in ministry.

I know that many people will disagree with this message because it just doesn't fit with what so many pastors and churches have told us about women in ministry. I would highly encourage you to study the original meanings of the words Paul chose to use and look at what this passage meant to the writer. Here's a link to the Strongs definition of prostatis to get your studies started.

More about women in the Bible:
The Significance of Sarah in the Bible
1 Corinthians 14:34 Does Not Mean Women Aren't Allowed to Speak
The Real Meaning of the Mary and Martha Story

The Real Meaning of the Story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42)

I think the story of Mary and Martha, where Jesus is at their house and Martha is upset that Mary is not being more helpful, has probably caused more frustration than maybe any of the Messiah's words. His statement in Luke 10:41-42 "Martha, Martha, you are upset and worried about many things - but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her," has been misunderstood as a criticism of Martha worrying about a meal. We've misunderstood some things in this story, and this post will shed light onto what was actually happening and what was meant in this part of Scripture.

Who were Mary and Martha? 

They were sisters who were both devoted followers of the Messiah during his ministry. The Bible speaks highly of the faith of each of them, and says that Jesus loved them both (John 11:5). They were from Bethany, and they hosted Jesus in their home. Their brother was Lazarus - who was raised from the dead by the Messiah. We see Mary and Martha in the Bible in Luke 10, John 11, and John 12.

The story of the confrontation between Martha and the Savior about Mary's lack of help is found in Luke 10:38-42.

We are told the story goes like this...

Mary and Martha were followers of the Messiah, and they were hosting him and many of his Disciples in their home. While Jesus was waiting on lunch to be served, he began teaching those who were there. Martha was hard at work in the kitchen, preparing an elaborate meal. But her sister Mary sat down to listen to the words the Messiah spoke instead of helping with the food or setting the table. Martha felt annoyed that she was stuck doing all the hospitality work for this large group of people and became upset...and then Jesus reprimands her. He tells her she's making too much food and losing sight of what's most important. He says that Mary made the wiser choice by not helping in the kitchen.

Over and over I have heard that story used to reprimand women for the work they do in providing nourishment to others. It's also used to shush women if they raise any qualms about needing help with making dinner or church kitchen responsibilities. Don't complain, you're the one choosing the less important thing.

Jesus told Martha that "only one thing is required." I've heard many times from the pulpit and Bible studies that this reprimand was because Martha was making too many separate dishes, when she should have just made one simple thing so that she would have had time to come listen herself while the soup simmered or whatever.

I actually remember being in the Christ for the Nations bookstore and seeing a cookbook called something like, "Only One Thing is Needed." It was inspired by the words of the Messiah and filled with recipes for casseroles, stews, and other one-dish meals.

I probably don't have to tell you how much frustration, shame, guilt, and annoyance this interpretation of the notorious Mary/Martha story has caused millions of women. Throughout history women have been given the workload of feeding, not just their families, but relatives, neighbors, coworkers, and church members. They are tasked with figuring out what picky eaters will eat and feeding them multiple times a day. They are called on to feed hundreds of people at funerals and other church functions. They are expected to take meals to new mothers, the elderly, the sick, and the bereaved. If there's an office party that food needs made for, who prepares it is mostly decided not by their position in the company, but by gender. Moms step up to feed the basketball team after games. Women around the world cook for dozens of people to make family reunions possible and make meals to celebrate birthdays and countless occasions. They do this work heroically, with limited budgets, accounting for dietary restrictions and preferences, limited ingredient availability, and often on short notice. This work typically goes unappreciated, their work not valued or noticed, and is almost always done without pay. It's rare for men to pitch in their share of cooking and clean up at events like this. While many women do this work joyfully, it is still work, and I don't know anyone who would prefer kitchen duty to listening to the Messiah speak.

No one wants to be Martha in this story, doing the work while missing out on what's better. Plenty of women wish they had more time for Bible study or hearing the words of Jesus...but who is going to feed everyone? The simple reality is that most people cannot afford take-out or convenience foods every night...to say nothing of the significant cost of professional catering for large events. Even if you are able to outsource this kind of work, it just puts someone else in the position of having to do the cooking when they could be doing something else. And now Martha is getting in trouble (from Jesus himself, no less) because she was taking too much time to cook for everyone?! How fair is that?

I've struggled for years to understand this story. Surely the point of this story is not to manage your time better or you'll get into trouble? The point can't be that making meals is a bad thing. The point can't be that if you say that you want help then you're doing something wrong. Surely Jesus, who so often saw and recognized the needs of women and always treated them with kindness, wasn't mad at a woman working hard to provide a meal for him and his followers?

In fact, this whole incident is quite brief and much of what we've talked about has been assumed, not actually taken from the word of God. Luke 10:38-42 is limited to these words:

Now it happened as they went that he entered a certain village; and a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at Jesus' feet and heard his word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached him and said, "Don't you care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her to help me." And Jesus answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, Mary has chosen the good part, which will not be taken away from her."

Did you catch that there's no mention of cooking a meal here? Martha was busy serving. The Bible does not say that she was busy with serving food to the Messiah. It says she was busy serving. Big difference.

The word used for serving in Luke 10:40 when it says that Martha was busy serving is diakonia. This is usually translated to mean:

1. service, ministering, especially of those who execute the commands of others

2. of those who by the command of God proclaim and promote religion among men

3. the ministration of those who render to others the offices of Christian affection, especially those who help meet need by either collecting or distributing of charities

4. the office of deacon in the church

5. the service of those who prepare and present food

We can see from this definition, this word is rarely used to mean preparing food. Given the context of the definition, even if food is being talked about it's more likely to mean cooking for a huge crowd for charity reasons, and not so much for a dinner party in a home setting.

Just to demonstrate that diakonia is rarely used in the context of cooking and serving a meal at home, we see it translated otherwise in these places:

But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. -Acts 6:4

His purpose was to equip God's people for the work of serving and building up the body of Messiah. -Ephesians 4:12

Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministry. -Acts 12:25

God gave us the ministry of reconciliation. -2 Corinthians 5:18

I know your works, your charity, and service, and faith. -Revelation 2:19

Given verses like these, and that Paul frequently used this word to describe his ministry, it seems unreasonable to assume that the service Martha was doing was serving one meal at home. The way Martha describes Mary's actions further supports this understanding of the verse. When Martha says that Mary has left her she uses the word kataleipo, which means forsaken. If this passage was truly about Martha wanting help with dinner, I doubt she would have chosen such a strong term to describe Mary's slipping away for a few minutes to hear the Messiah speak.

It's most likely that what Martha was doing was running some sort of ministry. Maybe she was caring for orphaned children or lepers. Perhaps she had been assigned charity tasks by a religious leader in her community. She may have been doing deacon work (yes, the New Testament mentions several women as deacons). She could have been working on an outreach project to share good news within or outside of her community. Or she could have been working on collecting and distributing charity to the poor or unwell.

Many scholars believe that Mary and Martha (as well as their brother Lazarus) were part of the Essenes - a religious sect of their day. The Essenes were known for charity work and did much caring for the sick and providing for the poor. So that would certainly fit with the idea that Martha was doing ministry work instead of sitting at the Messiah's feet.

This is why Martha takes her complaint up with the Messiah, and not her sister. If this was about putting a meal on the table, she likely would have told Mary that she needed help. But instead Martha went to Jesus and asked, "Don't you care that my sister has forsaken me to do this work by myself?" I think that was her way of saying, "I am doing all this work for you, and if you cared then you would send someone to help me." She's not talking about setting the table or dishing up the food. She's not talking about needing a hand for a few minutes with clean up. She's talking about significant ministry projects.

And we should note that the Messiah is not upset with Martha! Most of grew up believing that his "Martha, Martha" statement was paired with an eyeroll or came out of frustration. We think of the famous, "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia," line from The Brady Bunch and think of someone who has lost their patience with this person. But that's not the case here. Instead of belittling Martha for her choices (no matter if that's making a meal or running a ministry), Jesus speaks tenderly to her. His repetition of her name was said out of concern or empathy, which fits with what he says next, "You are anxious and worried." He's not making fun of her. He's not criticizing her. He's empathizing with how she feels. He's showing her that he does care.

And what Mary was doing was not shirking practical work so that she could do what she wanted - however spiritual that was. I used to picture Mary's actions as selfish. I would picture the busyness of my grandma's kitchen when she was making a meal for her large family - meat need to be sliced, gravy made, the potatoes mashed, vegetables chopped, water poured, the table set - and it would seem like rather than helping her God wanted me to go sit down and read my Bible? Wouldn't that be unkind of me to leave my grandma with all that work? Wasn't it unkind of Mary to expect Martha to serve her along with everyone else they had in their home?

But that is entirely the wrong picture to have about Mary and Martha!

We should also note the wording in Luke 10:39, that says Mary was sitting at the feet of the Messiah. This is not necessarily a reflection of her physical posture (though it could have been). Sitting at the feet was a phrase that was used to describe someone learning from a teacher and being their disciple. That's significant because many have taught and believed that women can't be disciples, in direct contrast to what Scripture teaches and demonstrates. This information also changes the narrative from a picture of Mary sitting and listening to Jesus for an hour or so while Martha cooked, to an ongoing habit in their lives. 

Luke 10:38 says that the sisters "opened their home" to the Messiah. It does not tell us if that was for one day or many. In the traditional rendering of the story, it's easy to assume that it was for one meal or one evening. But there's no reason to think it couldn't have been for a longer period of time. That would mean this wasn't about the logistics of one meal. Days or weeks could have passed where Mary was being discipled by Yahusha, while Martha was continuing on with the ministry by herself.

This gives us perspective on where Martha was coming from when she went to the Messiah. Don't you care that I'm stuck doing all this work for you by myself? This was not about the practical logistics of one meal, but likely an ongoing situation where Martha saw the needs in her community, and wasn't sure how they could be met without her. She was working to help people, and she wrongly believed that she couldn't stop to listen to the words of the Messiah or to grow in relationship with him. Like Peter when he walked on water, she wound up focusing on the storm around her and not listening to the Messiah's words. We see similar mindsets today when people believe that there is too much work to be done to pause and worship on the Sabbath day, or when our focus is on doing good deeds ahead of spending time with YHWH. 

Yes, good works are an important part of our faith. As James says, "Faith without works is dead." What we do is important. But the Bible also teaches that hearing Scripture is what equips us to do those good deeds. If we do not spend time on our relationship with the Messiah, we will not be equipped and our works will not have the same impact. And, like Martha, it will often leave us feeling anxious and perhaps not cared about by God.

The story of Mary and Martha is in no way a reprimand to the millions of women who spend more time in the kitchen than they would prefer. And it's certainly not a prohibition against serving side dishes. Jesus was not mad at Martha, but had compassion for the worry that she dealt with from not pausing to be with him. This story is a reminder that the weight of the world does not fall on our shoulders. It's a reminder that a lifestyle of time spent in Scripture, prayer, and worship is foundational to good works. It's a permission slip to prioritize your relationship with the Messiah above getting things done in his name.

Related posts on women in the Bible:
Overlooked Truths in Proverbs 31
The Significance of Sarah in Scripture
A Woman of Valor

1 Corinthians 14:34 Does Not Mean Women Aren't Allowed to Speak

This post examines the infamous words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that have lead the Christian church to believe that women aren't allowed to teach or speak. We will take a closer look at what this passage actually means and learn the truth about it, as well as come to a better understanding of the role of women in the faith community! 

Have you ever been told, "women should keep silent in the church," or that women can't teach men or be leaders? Much of that belief paradigm comes from this passage:

"Let your women be silent in the assemblies for they aren't allowed to speak; but let them subject themselves, as the law says. And if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in an assembly." -1 Corinthians 14:34-35

On a cursory reading, this seems black and white doesn't it? Women can't speak in a congregation or church setting. But there is a major problem with this passage...can you spot it?

First let's take a look at some of the minor problems:

-This passage is talking about speaking and not teaching. There's no side note here that it's okay for women to teach other women or children, despite what the church often teaches.

-Does anyone really believe that women can't speak at all like this passage seems to say? Can they greet others? Correct a child? Tell the men the building is on fire?

-Not all women are married. So who are the single ladies supposed to direct their questions to?

-Husbands don't have all the answers to spiritual questions, even if they are believers.

-Sometimes it's improper for men to speak in an assembly too, depending on the circumstances and what's being said.


These are pretty significant flaws but have you spotted the biggest problem of all?

As the law says. As the word says. As it is written.

Can you find a verse in the Torah that says women aren't allowed to speak in an assembly? Nope, because the Bible doesn't say anything like this! There is nothing in the Old Testament that is consistent with the rest of the above passage. There are no laws from Scripture about women needing to be silent. And we know, from Scripture, that women weren't forbidden to speak or could only seek spiritual counsel from their husband. Women throughout Scripture were outspoken, and leaders. They are seen in the Temple and worshiping YHWH. They served as prophets, gave counsel, lead armies to war. They were queens, mothers of nations, song writers, worship leaders, intercessors. All of these things require speaking.

What does this mean? Is there error in Scripture? Was one of the premier Bible teachers wrong? Paul, the author of Corinthians, was deeply familiar with the Torah. How could he have made an error like this?

Either...

1. This section was added by someone other than Paul, the author. This would be sin as Scripture says that it is wrong to add to or take away from Scripture, so we shouldn't be holding this up as sound doctrine.

or...

2. Paul is quoting someone else's opinion, not making a declaration. 

Paul often used what is called a 'straw man' approach in his writings, basically meaning he would contrast different ideas. A good example of this would be in Romans 7. When we don't catch that he is doing this (either contrasting different beliefs, or quoting someone else's belief), his writings get confusing and, as Peter said, hard to understand.

Either way Paul was not advocating for women to be silent!

It's important to realize that Paul was incredibly familiar with Scripture and would not have incorrectly quoted it. Many scholars believe that he would have memorized the entire Old Testament. He was fully aware that Scripture does not forbid women from speaking in a congregational setting or from roles of ministry. We see that Paul himself didn't feel that way, and frequently mentioned women he worked with in ministry.

We also need to pay attention to the context of these two sentences. At this point in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul has spent more than the last two chapters talking about Spiritual gifts - specifically speaking in tongues. Just a few verses prior he even specified that both genders should speak in tongues, so does it make any sense to go back on that directive a couple of sentences later?

The very next verse cues us in even more.

"Or did the Word of YHWH start with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?" -1 Corinthians 14:36

Paul is calling them out for incorrectly claiming that Scripture says women can't speak in an assembly. It sounds like Paul says, "Nice try. We all know the Bible. And that's not what it says." Or, "Seriously? Do you think you guys are the only ones with a copy of Scripture? Because we all know that's not in it."

And then Paul encourages everyone to desire to prophesy and expressly says not to forbid speaking in tongues. As we can see, he is not forbidding women to speak or teach. He is quoting someone else's false teaching and correcting it by encouraging both genders to practice their spiritual gifts!

Related posts:
The Myth and Meaning of 'I Do Not Permit a Woman to Teach'
The Significance of Sarah in the Bible
Overlooked Truths in Proverbs 31
Who Was Phoebe in the Bible?