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

What the Bible Says about Rape and Sexual Assault

As the title says, this post talks about rape. I do my best to not be unnecessarily graphic, but obviously this is a sensitive topic for many. Please use caution and only delve in when you are emotionally in a good place to do so. If you have been assaulted, I hope you know that God's heart aches for what you've gone through.

This post talks about what the Bible says about rape. My hope is that this will clear up some incorrect assumptions that have been made about Scripture on this topic, and that we will be better able to see the character and love of God even through this overview. Every once in a while I hear from someone that suggests that honor-killings are part of the Old Testament, or that girls who were raped were stoned to death, and I face palm. NO. This is not the Word of God. We will look at what the Bible actually says about sexual assault, and we will see God's justice in that. We will also see that many of the notorious "rape laws" of Deuteronomy 22 aren't about rape, but focus on violations in marriage.

Who was raped in the Bible?

Some of the women raped in the Bible include Dinah and Tamar. Dinah was the daughter of Jacob and Leah. Her brothers Simeon and Levi were so angry about how she had been violated, that they wound up killing all the males in the town that the perpetrator was prince of (Genesis 34). Tamar was a princess of Israel as a of daughter of King David, and his wife Maacah. She was raped by her half-brother Amnon, after her father had unknowingly sent her into a dangerous situation. Two years later, Tamar's brother Absalom had the perpetrator killed (2 Samuel 13). Judges 19 records an unnamed woman being brutally gang raped and murdered. It's also possible that Sarah endured similar violation at the hands of pharaoh.

Biblical instructions for dealing with rape are found in Deuteronomy. 

If a man happens to meet in a town a woman pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death - the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. -Deuteronomy 22:23-24

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. ...For the man found the young woman out in the country, and though she screamed, there was no one to rescue her. -Deuteronomy 22:24-27

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.  -Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Depending on how we read these instructions, they can sound archaic and draconian. They used to make me angry. If I get raped then I have to marry the guy and can never get divorced?! Women were stoned for this?! I often hear from people who just can't embrace the Old Testament because of things like this. A lot of people read it like God wants an honor-killing, and if a girl is raped then she should be killed. And if you read it like that, then yeah, it makes sense to be upset with God because nothing is just or fair or kind about that.

But that is not the meaning of this passage!

The first thing we need to recognize 'rape' is not the literal meaning of the word that is translated variously as rape, lie with, or sleep with.  The word used to imply sex is sakab (Strongs H7901), which means to lie with or sleep with. This is used similarly to the English phrase, "sleep with," which is generally a euphemism for sex, but can also be used literally. When Samuel lies down in the Tabernacle (1 Samuel 3:3), he is lying down to sleep, nothing sexual is meant. Sakab in itself does not denote rape. Rachel used this word when she acquired mandrakes, it was what Potiphar's wife said when she tried to entice Joseph, and Leviticus uses this word to describe intimacy in marriage. But sakab is also used in the stories of Dinah and Tamar being raped in Scripture. We have to look at the context of the verses to see if the act was consensual or forced.

This means that Deuteronomy 22 addresses various sexual encounters, and not just rape!

When most of us think of rape, we think of someone going about their business until a stranger appears and assaults them. But it's actually more common for rape to be perpetrated by a friend, date, or boyfriend than for the victim to be grabbed in a dark alley by an unknown assailant. 

In my work with teenagers and young adults, it is concerning how often young men are surprised by allegations of rape. Frequently young men are shocked when a friend or girlfriend accuses them of rape, after what they believed was consensual sex. It's not that there wasn't sex and someone is falsely accusing them. It's that there was sex that one person thought was consensual, but that the other didn't. The same sexual act was experienced differently by the girl and the guy. She felt she was being raped, while he had no idea. 

Obviously not all sexual assault is like this - some people are attacked by strangers (we'll get to what the Bible says about that). But it is alarming how often this happens. And we can blame it on poor sexual education, bad morals, the patriarchy, movie culture, or whatever, but in this case we aren't so much concerned about why this is happening, as with the fact that YHWH made provisions to prevent this. 

Why does it matter if the woman screamed or not?

God has always intended for his people to know his words and instructions like these. These directions were given to all his people. This means that all his people had clear instructions about what consensual sex would look like. Men knew that if a woman was screaming and he pushed sex on her that was a capital offense that he could be put to death for. Women knew that if they didn't make it clear they weren't okay with it (by screaming), then they would be held accountable as well. With this instruction, there would be no surprises after the fact. Each party knew what was happening.

I believe the provision of screaming was so that men knew forcing sex on someone who was resisting was absolutely off-limits. It painted a clear picture of what, "No," looks like, and also prepared and empowered women about what to do should they find themselves in those circumstances. We might feel like it should be obvious what constitutes rape or consent, but I can attest from talking to hundreds of teens (and adults) that it is not clear to everyone. If the simple 'rule of scream' were laid out today, many people would benefit from that, and much trauma and heartache could be avoided.

Now the Bible is not saying here that if you were raped and didn't scream because of shock or fear then you are somehow to blame for the assault. NO. If you were raped, you are not to blame! This stipulation was intended to create a culture of clear guidelines for consensual sex. We do not have that culture today, and many suffer trauma because of it. For many people, seeing physical relationships played out on television and in movies is their only information about what the moments leading up to sex look like. How many movies have you seen where a first kiss escalates to clothing coming off within ten seconds? When the people involved are not even in a relationship? I would say sex is portrayed like that more often than not in movies. The dysfunction of this is a massive disservice to our culture. 

Because of the stipulation about screaming, the implication is that if you were not actively resisting you are prepared to be accountable for this action. Again, that's not to cast blame on victims who were pressured into sex and threatened into silence. Most women and girls today have never been told what to do if they are assaulted or if a boyfriend takes things further than they would like. If they've heard anything it's typically about self defense (i.e. the stranger in the alley), which offers limited help for those smaller and less strong than the attacker.

Notice that the Bible doesn't say, "If a girl is raped, then stone her"! It gives different instructions for different circumstances.

We can see from the examples in Deuteronomy that the only case where a woman was to be stoned was if she didn't scream, it happened in town, and she was engaged. These circumstances indicate that the sex was consensual, and, therefore, that she was committing adultery. In Scripture, the start of a marriage is at the engagement. If an engaged person chose to sleep with someone else, both parties were to be stoned for adultery - provided the act had been witnessed by two or three people who would testify to this (Deuteronomy 17:7). There are other posts where we tackle the topics of stoning and adultery on this blog which I'll leave links for at the end of the post if you want to know more about that. For what it's worth, the Bible doesn't record anyone being stoned for adultery. 

The element of this act happening in town further points to the woman's consent. People were in much greater proximity to each other during Bible times, with larger families living in smaller homes, and no one had earbuds in or had the radio blasting. We should also remember that homes and dwelling places with multiple rooms were not common until the past two hundred years of recent history. The privacy of multi-story homes with soundproof walls did not exist in Biblical times. Most people throughout history have lived in one room homes or tents, which meant that sex was something that happened in the dark that you tried to tune out. It would not have been a mystery who was sleeping with whom in your household, or if they were a willing participant or not. The implication here is that help was available if it was wanted. If the woman screamed someone nearby would hear and come to her aid.  Note that the example in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 there is no suggestion of the sex being forced, unless the woman cries out for help. By not crying out when there were people around to help, points to it being a consensual encounter. Stoning absolutely was not to happen to someone that was raped.

Let's examine the the different circumstances Deuteronomy 22 gives.

-The engaged woman in town who did not scream from verse 23.

As we've discussed, the hypothetical unmarried couple in this example was participating in consensual sex, and thereby committing adultery. If there were two or three witnesses to this then both the man and the woman could be stoned. Note that this is different from culture's that practice honor-killing where an innocent victim of rape is murdered while the perpetrator goes free. That is not God's heart at all! The only time a woman was to be theoretically put to death was for consensual adultery with multiple witnesses. There is no record of this happening in the Bible.

-The engaged woman raped in the countryside from verse 24.

In this case, with the assault happening in the countryside the implication is that there were no witnesses, and no one around to come and help the woman. What happens in this case, according to the Bible, is that the woman is to be believed. "Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving of death." She is not punished at all, even if she is engaged, since she did not consent. This meant that if an unmarried woman became pregnant after being raped, or if rumors spread that she had slept with someone, others weren't to decide that this was consensual and stone her. In this we see YHWH providing security for women, in that if this happened to them they were not to be harmed or punished in any way.

-The single woman who is violated.

This is the one that used to bother me the most. So if you get raped you're just stuck with the guy who hurt you? But once again we see the sakab word here and nothing in the text suggests that rape occurred. Also while the man is obligated to marry her, we don't see that she has to marry him. (Marriage is consensual in Scripture.) Note that neither Dinah nor Tamar were married off to their rapists. We see the man being held to an extremely high standard of sexual conduct, and if he was going to pressure a girlfriend into sleeping with him or coerce a single woman to do so, he had to be prepared to pay a fine, and marry the woman without ever divorcing her. This was to ensure the woman's livelihood if a male took advantage of her. We see a modern variation of this played out with 'shotgun weddings.' Note that the woman in question does not necessarily have to accept the marriage offer, but a law like this naturally would have lead to all members of society exercising more caution before getting into bed with someone, and fewer vulnerable young women being taken advantage of.

I believe that these laws were intended to be protection for both women and men. The rule of scream ensured that women would know what to do in a situation where they were being pressured to sleep with someone or physically forced to do so. Women knew that if they were raped, then their side of the story was to be believed. Men better understood boundaries and would have been protected from  false accusations of rape. Single women knew that if they slept with a man he wouldn't have the option to leave her with no means of financial support. And both parties understood if they slept together, they needed to be prepared for marriage. 

In most of these examples, the implication is that the woman and man knew each other, and sex was consensual. But what about someone who is just randomly attacked and raped? We see the answer in Deuteronomy 22:26, "Only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death." Rape is so abhorrent to God, that he says the perpetrators should be put to death! Think of the cultural implication of that. Rape would be much less common if would-be perpetrators understood that they could be killed for this offense, instead of risking a two-game suspension from football, for example.

You may have noted that in that example the woman was engaged. But what if she wasn't? Again she would not be harmed. Exodus 21:16 tells us that kidnappers should be put to death. If someone is abducted or forced into sex, that would be a form of kidnapping. Kidnapping is also abhorrent to God, and the perpetrator would be put to death, not the victim.

What does the Bible say about rape? "Do nothing to the woman...she is innocent." 

I hope this post helps to shed light on the fact that the Bible absolutely never stones or kills victims of the horrendous crime of rape. We see through the above Scriptures and the Bible's high standards for sexual conduct, that God wanted to create a society that eliminated rape as much as possible.

Related posts:
Biblical Law and the Woman Caught in Adultery
Stoning in the Bible
The Significance of Sarah in the Bible

The Significance of Sarah in the Bible

Who is Sarah in the Bible and what does this Biblical matriarch teach us? I believe she is one of the most significant characters in Scripture, and that her presence has so much to teach us about faith and also about how the Living God esteems women.

In the Christian church today, Sarah is treated as a minor character at best. She is often overlooked in favor of her more well-known husband, Abraham. She is usually regarded as something of an assistant to him, and if anything about her is focused on, it's usually the infamous Hebrews 11 verse that has been used to shame thousands of barren women...Sarah had enough faith to get pregnant.

But there is so much more to her! God made promises to her. Angels showed up to give her messages. Two kings wanted her as their queen (including the Egyptian pharaoh - likely the most powerful man in the world at the time). God himself instructed her husband to call her princess. The Bible records her faith as exemplary. Peter wrote that her descendants are those who do what is right without fear. It's time to take notice of her. It's time to recognize the importance of Sarah from the Bible, and what her life teaches us today.

We don't know a lot about Sarah's life growing up in what is now the country of Turkey, but we do know plenty of adventures she had as an adult. Starting with her marriage to Abraham, a blood relative of hers (more on that later), their move away from their homeland and family to the Promised Land, and even some sojourns in the land of Egypt, leading up to her birthing her only child in her 90s. After she had died, at the age of 127, Scripture even records the story of the acquisition of the burial plot for this great woman.

When we look at Sarah, we need to see that she is not spiritually significant only because she was married to Abraham. She does not play a secondary role to him. While Abraham is expressly mentioned more often in Scripture, most all of these mentions are referring to Abraham and Sarah together as a unit. All of the promises to Abraham are promises to Abraham and Sarah together. Not just Abraham. Not just Sarah. But Abraham and Sarah as one, because they are both halves of a whole before YHWH. Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:31 tell us that a husband and wife are one.

Abraham and Sarah are one in the eyes of the Creator. She has just as much of a part in this story as he does.

Both the Old and New Testaments tell us that a husband and wife are one. This does not mean that either loses their identity, but rather that who they are as individuals is a key part to who they become as one flesh. If you mix yellow with red, you will get orange. But if you mix that yellow with blue instead, then it becomes green. Both colors directly influence the end result. There is simply no way to have green without both blue and yellow. Together Abraham and Sarah became something different than what they would have been with anyone else.

We see this truth played out expressly in the story of Abraham having a son with Hagar. If God's promise of a son was just to Abraham, then it wouldn't have mattered who the mother was. But this story shows that God made this promise to Abraham and Sarah together.

After years of waiting for the promised heir, Abraham and Sarah still have not had a child. Keep in mind, they around the ages of 86 and 76 respectively, so it’s not surprising that they started to think that maybe this wasn’t going to happen. Sarah (who is still called Sarai at this point), starts to feel like maybe this promise is really more for Abraham than for her.

“And Sarai said to Abram, ‘See, YHWH has restrained me from bearing. Please, go into my maid; perhaps I will obtain children by her.’” -Genesis 16:2a NKJV

We can see from this language that Sarah must have felt that she was the reason YHWH’s promise had yet to happen. She blamed herself, perhaps thinking she was holding everyone back from God’s best. She took herself out of the picture, suggesting that Abraham could have children with Hagar, and then she could have some sort of stepmom or adopted mother role. This approach was successful, and sure enough, Hagar did conceive, and bore a son. You can imagine everyone congratulating themselves on his arrival. Their plan had worked. They made YHWH’s promise really happen. The boy Ishmael was living proof.

Except, YHWH had promised a son to Abraham and Sarah. Not to Abraham and Hagar. Not to Abraham and whoever. Not even a son from other parents that they would physically adopt. The promised heir would be Sarah’s flesh and blood, just as he would be Abraham’s. We see this clarified in Genesis 17:16 when YHWH said that Sarah would have a son with Abraham, and that Sarah specifically would be blessed and “become nations.” He also told Abraham to stop calling his wife ‘Sarai’, and start referring to her as ‘Sarah,’ which means princess. When the Living God calls someone a princess, I think we’d better take note of that. This tells us that this woman isn’t just a supporting character, but is highly esteemed and valued by YHWH.

If Sarah wasn’t important, if Abraham just needed a wife to birth and raise children, then why did the promised child need to come from her? Why couldn’t Ishmael have been a stand in, since he was, after all, Abraham’s son? Simply because when YHWH made that promise, he was making it to both of them. He promised that they would have a child, not just he. His words and instructions weren’t only for Abraham, just as they aren’t limited to men today. Sarah had a crucial role to play in this great story. While church organizations have largely underplayed the validity and value of her faith and actions, the Bible does not. In Hebrews 11 her faith is recognized.

“By belief also, Sarah herself was enabled to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the normal age, because she deemed Him trustworthy who had promised.” -Hebrews 11:11

Please do not read that as a chastisement for those who struggle with infertility. The Bible is not saying that if you just believe you will get pregnant, then that will happen. Belief is not a necessary element to having a baby, as millions of people who don't believe in God have children. Sarah did not seem to believe she herself would conceive a child. That’s evidenced by the Hagar debacle, and by her reaction to the words of the angels who visited her and Abraham. She heard the angel (or some would say YHWH himself in the flesh) say that she was to have a baby, she “laughed within herself.” Genesis 18:12 says her thoughts were, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my husband being old too?” Translated into modern parlance I imagine it something like, “Yeah right. After all these years of no pregnancies I’m finally going to have a baby when my husband is 100? Ha!”

We should also take another look at this passage where the angels appeared to Abraham with this news that Sarah would have a son. This Genesis 18 story is typically used to highlight Abraham's importance (he was visited by angels!), and underplay Sarah's (she was secretly listening). Church tradition would have us believe that heavenly visitors of some sort (again either angels or perhaps YHWH himself), came down to have a meeting with Abraham. But look at the text...

If I have now found favor in your eyes, please do not pass your servant by. Please let a little water be brought, and was your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. And let me bring a piece of bread and refresh your hearts, and then go on for this is why you have come to your servant. 3-5

And he took the curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them, and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. 8

And they said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” 9

Abraham gives a rambling invitation for the visitors to stay and be refreshed. Then he goes to prepare veal, and serves it to them. And how do the angels respond? Do they tell Abraham they want to speak to him? Do they express gratitude for his efforts? No, they ask for his wife!

Could you imagine if this story was reversed? Say that Sarah was the one inviting the visitors to a meal and refreshments. The heavenly visitors say, “Yes, serve us,” (as they did to Abraham in 18:5), and then they ask to speak to her husband. Wouldn't that fit a lot better with the all too common storyline that women are somehow less important than men? But no, the angels show up and they want to speak to Sarah. Genesis 18 is completely upside down from what church tradition has taught us to expect. The real star of this passage is Sarah. The case can be made that Sarah then came to hear what the visitors had to say to her directly. And don't forget that YHWH himself insisted the promised child had to be from Sarah in Genesis 17:19.

Sarah didn’t make having a baby happen (though we see that she tried, hence the birth of Ishmael), and the takeaway isn’t that she just ‘had enough faith’ to become pregnant. Her faith was not in her body's ability to bear a child. Her faith was in God. All she knew was that YHWH was trustworthy. She believed God. And she continued to believe God, even though she hadn't yet seen him keep his promise. She chose to believe, even when she couldn’t see how things were going to work out. And because she made that choice she became the mother of “many nations” (Genesis 17:16). Many of us are physical descendants of Sarah, whether or not we are aware of that. But either way she is a spiritual mother to us.

And because there are spiritual matriarchs to our faith as well as patriarchs, we know that both men and women have instrumental roles to play in YHWH's plan of restoration, every day. Don’t even consider believing the lie that women’s beliefs and actions are secondary to the faith of the men in their lives! Both genders have great significance spiritually. If you read Hebrews 11, you’ll notice that while Abraham gets recognized for his faith, the words are different than how the next verses describe Sarah’s. And that is because she added something to their collective faith that he did not. The Bible doesn't say that the people of Israel came into being because Abraham had faith, but because Sarah did.

Sarah and Abraham were related. Genesis 20:12 tells us that Abraham and Sarah had the same father, but different mothers. They were related by blood. Scholars debate if they were really full half-siblings or if they were less close blood relatives. One school of thought is that Sarah was really his niece, since Abraham describes Lot as his “brother,” even though elsewhere in Scripture he is described as his nephew (Genesis 13:8). The logic being that if Sarah is a granddaughter of Abraham's father, they still have the same ‘father.’ Abraham justifies misleading King Abimelek by saying that Sarah was in fact his sister...but fails to mention their marriage.

No matter if they were full half-siblings or not, I think the point is that they came from the same place. They literally came from the same family. Abraham’s lineage is not somehow better than Sarah’s, and she is not lesser than him. She belongs here just as much as he does. By letting Sarah and Abraham come from the same family, YHWH was assuring that her bloodline couldn't be used against her, while also validating that Sarah is just as much part of his family as Abraham is.

We learn from Sarah's life that women are not secondary characters in the story of redemption. Her story teaches us more about what the Bible says about women and how the Living God honors women. When YHWH refused Abraham's plan of making Ishmael the heir, he demonstrated that Sarah had an equal part in the promises he had made to them. YHWH does not treat women as side-kicks or tag-alongs, but esteems them as he does their male counterparts. Don't miss that he taught us this story early on in Scripture. The New Testament tells us that God's family exists today because of the faith of Sarah. Never underestimate the faith of one woman.

Where is Sarah mentioned in the Bible? Where can I read about her?

We see Sarah mainly in Genesis, but she appears throughout Scripture, particularly when we keep in mind that most mentions of Abraham are actually referring to her as well. The prophet Isaiah speaks of her, as do the writings of Paul and Peter in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews honors her as an example of great faith.

Genesis 11-25
Isaiah 51:2
Romans 4:19, 9:9
Hebrews 11:11-12
1 Peter 3:6

These are passages that use Sarah's name to talk about her. But again, when the Bible speaks of Abraham, it most often means Abraham and Sarah. When Scripture references ‘Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,’ for example, this draws our attention not to Abraham's many sons, but to the one whose mother was Sarah.

More about women in the Bible:
Overlooked Truths in Proverbs 31
Should Women Be Silent in the Church? Understanding 1 Corinthians 14
Who Was Phoebe in the Bible?

Overlooked Truths in Proverbs 31

We need a better understanding of Proverbs 31. This passage of Scripture has been twisted, abused, and taken out of context for many years, and too many women have been left feeling inadequate because they don't do every single thing listed. I'd like to say clearly that the Holy Spirit did not inspire this part of the Bible to leave women feeling discouraged! 

The true meaning of the passage of Proverbs 31 is beautiful, but too often it has been used to reprimand women for not "doing it all," or not doing more, or to try and tell women that their only role in society should be inside the home. Most of us read it as a checklist of things we need to or 'should' do. Select wool and flax. Hire servants. Buy a field. Plant a vineyard. Sew clothes. Make a quilt. Gather food. Cook. Stay up late. Get up early. Help the poor. Have energy. Show strength. Make items to sell in the marketplace. It seems like a bit much.

But...it's a poem. It was never meant as an itinerary for all women, everywhere, throughout history. I believe that the many different activities are listed to demonstrate that being a woman of valor can look like a lot of different things! And it shows that all of these jobs, many of which are not glamorous, or are not praised in our culture, have significance. The range of activities in this poem celebrate the various professions, skills, hobbies, and value of women from all walks of life.

We should also note that Proverbs 31 isn't even directed at women. Verse 1 says that the Queen (likely Bathsheba, as "King Lemuel," is thought be Solomon, since the word lemuel means "for God") taught this saying to her son. She wasn't saying it to her daughters to tell them that a woman of valor had to do all these things. This wasn't a checklist. She was saying this to her son. I believe she did this to teach him to recognize that valor and value can come in many different forms. 

This poem calls attention to tasks that need done, but aren't necessarily noticed by those who don't do them. How many times have you gotten up early or stayed up late to attend to the work at hand and felt like no one noticed your effort? Have you worked to be generous to the poor, contribute to ministries, or provide for your family only to have your efforts feel taken for granted or downplayed? 

Proverbs 31 is not just about commercial undertakings, parenting, and homemaking either. It's not about resume building or interesting quips to put in a biography. It highlights specific character traits. Being able to laugh, acting with dignity, speaking with wisdom, generosity, and fearing YHWH are all celebrated in this passage of Scripture. The Queen was pointing out that these traits should be valued and respected!

This Bible passage is a reminder to all of us, but men in particular, not to take for granted the significant work done by women of valor. This is why the last verse says, "Honor her for all that she has done." Proverbs 31 calls us to recognize the character and resilience of the women in our lives. 

Related posts:
The Truth About 1 Corinthians 14
Who Was Phoebe in the Bible?
Five Books That Changed My Understanding of Scripture
A Hebraic Perspective on 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?