God's View of a Woman

[Amie]

God's View of a Woman
Frank Viola

[This article is the transcript of a spoken message that Frank Viola delivered to a newly planted church in Santiago, Chile on December 31, 2001. Note: The Chilean culture tends to have a very low view of women.]

In Israel in the days before Christ was born, the Jews had a very dim view of women. Women were not allowed to receive an education. Hence, they were largely uneducated. They basically learned how to raise children and keep the house. Women were also pretty much excluded from worshiping God.

In Herod’s temple, there was a special court that stood on the very outside. It was called the court of the Gentiles. The Gentiles could go into that court, but they were limited to that area alone. Five steps above the Gentile’s court was the women’s court. The women were limited to that one area. Fifteen steps above that was the Jewish men’s court. Thus the men were given far more privilege to worship God than were the women.

A woman had no voice in her marriage. Her father decided whom she would marry, when she would marry him, and why she would marry him. A woman could not divorce her husband under any condition. Only a man could initiate a divorce.

Jewish women were to be seen as little as possible in public. In fact, young men were warned about talking to women in public. So much so that it was a shame in ancient Israel for a man to talk to a woman in public. Consequently, most women stayed out of the streets. They were regarded as inferior to men. They were regarded as property just like cattle and slaves. A woman was viewed as the property of a man, and they could not inherit property.

The Jewish males prayed a daily prayer of thanksgiving. I am going to read the prayer to you. It shows how poorly the Jews looked upon women. It goes like this:

"Praise be to God. He has not created me a Gentile.
Praise be to God. He has not created me a woman.
Praise be to God. He has not created me an ignorant man."

This was man’s view of a woman in first-century Israel. It was not much better in other cultures. In fact, ever since the fall of man, women have been regarded as second-class citizens—inferior to men. But . . . something happened that changed all of that.

Jesus came!

The above is not the whole article. To read the rest, click here: http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1416

One person commented touching on the seeming competition for "high place" among men and women. When the author here calls the women to a high place, I hear it as stepping up at our men's sides and not as a higher position... that of course, is when we're feeling lower. I never do in my marriage, but I still feel it at times in ministry (no, not here).

Amie

[Me Again]

Amie,
I think that this strikes at the heart of what Jesus was talking about when he said that "the first shall be last, the last first;" and "whoever is to be greatest, must be the least..." Women, like gentiles, were looked down upon by the Jews. They were considered equivalent to servants.

The problem I see with any egalitarian movement is the tendency to forget this important aspect of the kingdom of God. The tendency to want to make women EQUAL to men is potentially dangerous, if not approached from a kingdom perspective. Is it really God's intention to RAISE women in stature? Perhaps, but what does that mean in the kingdom of God?

In God's kingdom, the ones who are to be the leaders should be "the servants of all." Just as Martha chose to serve by preparing dinner for the Lord and his followers, so we all should be willing to serve one another. Just as the Lord himself washed his followers' feet, we too should be servants.

So, I would propose to all that, rather than elevating the status of women, we should be focused on lowering the status of men. Man's pride was the problem with the prayer cited above. Thus man needed to humble himself in the sight of the Lord. This was, and is, the message of scripture. It is what runs contrary to our religious tendency to exalt ourselves, as is evidenced by "the Health and Wealth Gospel," which wants us to "dress to the nines" to show how much God has blessed us.

In the kingdom, I would propose, we are to humble ourselves to show how much we desire to be a blessing to others. It's a hard thing, and I think that God's grace is always sufficient for those of us who have a difficult time doing this very thing. I believe that in this way we "elevate" the status of women, not by bragging about them, but by serving them. Men, servant of women - what a concept!

ed

[Paige]

Ed,

I think you are right in that the status of men was being lowered. I see the reality of it in that the the OC man (self identified, ego-man, as Barry might say) was coming to nothing, and was finished at the end of the age.

However, where I think Frank Viola might be right is looking at the new creation that was coming to be in the transition of the ages. That creation was neither _____ nor ______ (fill in blank from Gal.3:28). The new identity was framed in God, in His unconditional love. They were joint heirs with Christ, which is an elevation in status, IMO. That identity doesn't seek to measure itself against another, and therefore can be a servant of all. Does that make any sense to you?

2 Cor. 5:15-17 speaks to that reality, imo. It was being worked out in the transition of the ages. Now, I think we could say that it is completely worked out. The freedom that comes from that new identity does not box anybody into some kind of status that must be maintained in order to please God, and stay in His good graces. (I think it also does not deny real biological differences in gender. IOW, women and men have different biological parts, and those parts still have a different function.) Boy, I'm hoping this is coming off right.

Paige

[Me Again]

Again, humility is not unworthiness. Humility is understanding who we really are in God. So, yes, this does elevate our status...but it does so in God's eyes. When it elevates us in our own eyes, I think we miss the kingdom life.

This is worked out in the whole "self-esteem" fiasco. Research has shown that those men in prison for mass/serial murders have some of the highest self-esteem numbers of anyone. What is this correlation, or could it be causal? These men who see themselves as better...far better...than others, see other humans as disposable, or unworthy of continued existence. Many of these serial murders are "ridding society of the trash," the "runts of the litter," so to speak.

Low self-esteem is not good either, and is not the same as humility. Humility is a proper self-esteem, more actually a self-efficacy (an understanding of our position in God). Man, following the example of Adam, thought more highly of himself than he ought. Women were frequently reminded that they were not as good, or worthy, as man was. Christ's kingdom "humbled the proud, and exalted the humble." I think this is the balance that we are looking for - God, in Christ, has exalted those who are humble - including, and especially, women. In God's kingdom, "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill humbled." This is the way of the kingdom.

ed

[Paige]

This is worked out in the whole "self-esteem" fiasco. Research has shown that those men in prison for mass/serial murders have some of the highest self-esteem numbers of anyone.

I had heard this a few years ago, also. I've always wondered about the term "self esteem". Since you have a degree in psychology (don't you?), do you see a difference with that term and the ego-man/self-defining OC man? Off the top of my head, I do, but I haven't studied it out on the collegiate level.

I agree with your correlation between humility and kingdom life (hope you didn't think I wasn't previously). That is what I meant about having our identity in God, as children of God. I think that the security that that identity gives us allows us not to feel threatened by external circumstances (perfect love casts out fear), and fuels the desire to serve others.

Paige

[Me Again]

No, I understand where you stand Paige, as well as Amie's position. I agree with both of you whole-heartedly. My posts are more of a "watch out for the implications" thing. What I mean by that is many women, in the past, bought into the "feminist" movement, which sought to elevate women's status. This was done through grasping at political, economic and sexual power. Women were encouraged to be "like men," with all the baggage that comes with that.

Let me say something quickly about self-esteem and the ego-man. I think that there is a great correlation there. Self-esteem calls for us to define ourselves. This is not far from the assessment that "we are gods." Although God has declared just such a thing, it should be understood as our "position." God made us to be gods. When we grab hold of it, rather than emptying ourselves, I think that's where the problem comes in.

Self-esteem is dangerous in that it tells us to think positively about ourselves. This esteem is easily damaged, as we allow others to help define us. If we reject the definition that others place on us in favor of a higher esteem of our own defining, we risk becoming so high-minded that we make excuses for hurting "the little people." However, if we reject ego-man, and allow God to define us, there is a proper balance then. We are worthy, we have esteem, because God made us and loves us.

ed

[Amie]

Ed,

I see that there were a number of ways to take the lifting up of women which is why I qualified it per, "I hear it as stepping up at our men's sides and not as a higher position... that of course, is when we're feeling lower."

I don't mean stepping up to this supposed high male status, or fighting to be "King/Queen of the mountain", I mean from feeling worthless to feeling worth. Jesus calls women forward to that imv.

I would argue the science behind the testing of serial killers. I believe that they have complex defense systems built in because they esteem themselves so low. The "ice man" for example has been classified as narcissistic. Watching the interview with him, I saw the interviewer tell the "ice man" that there was no hope for him, that he is an emotionless psychopath and I saw a damaged man from that finding. Of course, he has no choice but to embrace that as who he is and to use that as a source of esteem. Needing a source though, indicates need.

Serial killers often have an impaired ability to empathize and I am not one to think that the majority of them are born that way. I realize that their brain scans are different than ours, but the brain does not stop developing at birth.

I do see how science often will work to build esteem by encouraging people to find sources and evidences for esteem, rather than getting to the heart of the issue. If it isn't a religion that folks use to evidence that they are loveable, acceptable, etc, then it is superiority (like most serial killers), ability, etc. I do not find that to be a true esteem for self but to be the leaven of the Pharisees.

I do think that valuing people, and enabling them to value themselves is a healthy self esteem and I think that you do that every day Ed.

Many feminists sought external sources to evidence their esteem. I agree with you, they worked not only to be like men, but to be the better and superior man. This says to me that they were still seeking approval rather than owning it. A woman owning approval is a danger to no one, a woman seeking it, is a danger to herself.

Amie