The Bible: Women Are More Present Than We Might Think

Recently, I heard from a woman who said that since about the age of 12 years, she has attended church weekly, sometimes multiple times a week. Yet in all those years, she heard little teaching that features, highlights, or affirms women. She said, “From a very early point in my journey I would consider whether words like ‘he,’ ‘men’ or ‘disciple’ were intended for everyone or just males. In many instances during my studies, I would replace those words with ‘she’ or ‘women’ in my notes, because it made it feel more personal and applicable to me as a woman. Still, I have pretty much always felt like an outsider or like there was something wrong with me…. I have often felt like the church was the most repressive institution for me as a woman, and I do not think that could possibly be Jesus’s intent, given the way he interacted with women.”  

 Indeed, exclusion of females is not reflective of Jesus. Paul gets a bad rap, too. But he held a much higher view of women than we often hear. Is it any wonder that women are leaving churches in unprecedented numbers?  

 In the weeks ahead, I plan to address some of this woman’s concerns. And today I’ll begin with this assertion: Bible translations sometimes hide the presence of women. But we’re there.

 Case in point: a familiar verse I heard quoted this week—words the apostle Paul wrote to his protégé Timothy: “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). When I heard the word “men” in that saying, I knew the underlying Greek said anthropoi. That is, people. As in, “Teach people who will teach other people.” But I wondered if others in the room heard it that way? Did the males in the room do the mental gymnastics to include their sisters, daughters, wives, nieces, female co-workers? Did the females hear themselves represented? Or did they assume the apostle’s exhortation applied only to somebody else? Increasingly, when people hear the word “men,” they don’t think “humans”; they envision only “males.” Some good data on language use backs up this assertion. In fact, saying “men” when we mean “people” now qualifies as Christianese. 

Anthropoi can mean humans or males. So, we ask: were the many witnesses to whom Paul spoke males only? No, Paul publicly taught women and men. Did he expect women also to pass on what they heard? He did (see Titus 2:3). So why render the word as the exclusive “men,” and thereby exclude females?

The translation I’m citing here was published not in 1611, but in 2001, by a team of more than 100 all-male evangelical scholars and pastors. Some think Bible translations have become more female-inclusive since the dawn of radical feminism in the US; but since World War II, some translators have actually given us less inclusive translations. If we believe it is not good for a man to be alone (Gen. 2:18)—indeed, if we believe Genesis teaches the complementary relationship of men and women—we know we need each other. Including in translation work. One would think that would be a no-brainer, especially in an area in which God seems to have given one sex unique gifting.

Last week, I heard another example—the famous quote from Jesus: “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matt. 4:19). Now, again, we know Jesus expected the twelve to seek both male and female disciples. But sure enough, translators have rendered anthropoi as “men.” In fact, they included this tiny footnote: “The Greek word anthropoi refers here to both men and women.” So, these translators acknowledge the author has both men and women in view, but they still render the language in a way that excludes females. Why would they do that?

I’ve already written about other examples of translation gender bias here (a man who walks in the counsel of the wicked vs. a person who…) and here (a man should provide for his own family vs. someone providing for that person’s own family). As is evidenced by the correspondence I referred to above , many people have not even been told that the very word “disciple” in the New Testament refers to male and female followers of Jesus. But Dorcas is explicitly called a disciple (Acts 9:36). 

Bottom line: Women are more represented in the scriptures than many translations indicate. Far more.

And I haven’t even mentioned passages that actually outright address women in ministry. Romans 16 is filled with them. Theologian Marg Mowczko observes, “Most English Bibles, including the ESV [which is the source of my examples above], are reliable and trustworthy in how they translate verses and passages that pertain to the doctrine of salvation. The same cannot be said about how they translate verses that pertain to women in ministry. Some Bible readers aren’t even aware that many women are mentioned in the New Testament as being ministers and church leaders. This is because English translations have typically obscured or downplayed the passages that mention these women. The English Standard Version (ESV) and the New Living Translation (NLT), in particular, are notorious for downplaying the ministries and roles of New Testament women in their translations.” 

Andrew Bartlett, author of Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts (IVP, 2019), wrote a piece for CT in the past year in which he highlighted some of the most egregious renderings of New Testament verses relating to women.    

The best source for clarity on the topic of women’s inclusion is the Greek New Testament. But the ability to learn Koine Greek—or Hebrew, languages in which the Bible’s human authors wrote—is a privilege most people don’t have. So, we need to use and recommend the best translations we can find. Check the front pages of your Bible(s) and see who served on the translation committee(s). Look for male and female teamwork and geographic and denominational diversity. For English, I like the NET, the CEB, and the 2011 version of the NIV.  I especially like the NET in the YouVersion app, which makes it easy to check out translation notes that are accessible to most English readers. 

 Yesterday, I received a text from a female Bible teacher with whom I’d been discussing this topic. She wrote, “I’m going to look up every verse that says ‘man’ in Logos [Bible software] to see if I’m included. Mind blow. I just looked up James 5:16. ‘The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.’ So, my prayers are powerful and effective too!” 

Yes. Yes. Yes! They are. 

Next time: Why don't we see more women in the Bible?

Is Peter Insulting Women? Part 2

Weeks ago I wrote part one of this series, exploringthe question of whether the apostle Peter was a misogynist.Here's the second and final installment: 

In the apostle Peter’s first epistlehe writes some words that can trip up the twenty-first-century reader. Both hisinstruction to wives and to husbands can make us say, “Whoa! What?” Aftertelling wives to have gentle, quiet spirits, Peter adds an example: “Sarahobeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you dowhat is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Pet. 3:1–6). He goes on to tell the husbandsto live with their wives “according to knowledge” because—and here’s thekicker—she is the “weaker vessel” (v. 7).

Are today’s wives to call theirhusbands “master”? Are women “less” than men? Is that what the Bible teaches?

No way.

First, by describing the godly womanas having a “gentle, quiet spirit,” Peter was not saying extroverted womentrump introverted women. Nor was he saying that women with gifts of teachingand exhortation go against their feminine nature in exercising these gifts. A“spirit” here is not a personality type; it’s an attitude. So having a gentle,quiet spirit is an equal-opportunity option. Every woman has the opportunity todemonstrate a rock solid trust in God.

As for “calling him lord,” noticethat in writing of Sarah and Abraham, Peter does not issue a command for wivesto call their husbands, “lord” or “master” likeBarbara Eden’s character in the old sit-com “I Dream of Jeannie.”  Ifanything, doing so today would repel people from the faith. Even men. A studyof 50,000 married couples has revealed that both husband and wife are morehappy when both of them feel the freedom to speak up. In situations where onlythe husband isdominant, both husband and wife express less satisfaction.

The whole point of Peter’sinstruction was to win them (3:1).  So he is not sayingwomen should shut up and be slaves to their husbands, or say “yes, master” tothem—which in this day would repel rather than draw. Rather, he’s using Sarah’swise behavior to illustrate his point about being respectful. In extracanonicalJewish writings roughly contemporary with Peter’s letter, Sarah frequentlyaddressed Abraham as “lord.” And such speech revealed an honoring heart.

As for what it means to be a “weakervessel,” Paul uses the word "vessel" elsewhere to refer to thephysical body. Nevertheless, one commentator, who explains verse 7 erroneously,expresses what many fear this verse means: The implication of the fall is thatby virtue of her being deceived by Satan, a woman is more easilydeceived. 

When I read such statements, I thinkof an experiment that researchers Dr. Russell Clark and Dr. Elaine Hatfieldconducted at Florida State University in 1978 and 1982. Psychology studentshelped these experts conduct research in which a person of average attractivenesswould approach someone of the opposite sex on campus and proposition him orher. The results: seventy-five percent of guys said yes, and if they said no,they usually offered a reason such as, “I’m married.” But not one single womanaccepted the offer of a male. In fact, most told the guy in no uncertain termsto get lost.  A multitude of theories have been put forth to explain thesemen’s and women’s choices, but it certainly seems to contradict the theory thatwomen are more easily deceived than men—especially because the word “deceived,”as we are using it here, has connotations of being more vulnerable to sin.

Paul makes plain in his second letterto the Corinthians that all humans, not just women, are subject to deception asEve was. Addressing the entire church, he wrote, “But I am afraid that just asthe serpentdeceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from asincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). Both general and special revelation indicate that deceptionwhere temptation is concerned is not limited to women.

So what does it mean? Probably“weaker” simply means…weaker! Females on average have always had less musclemass than men. This is less apparent to those of us living in a society inwhich we never hoist bags of grain, yank on mules’ bits, or cultivate our owngardens. But everyone in Peter’s audience would have been much more consciousof this differential than we are. Add to this the fact that childbirth was thenumber one cause of death for wives. Peter’s audience would have been quiteaware of females’ physical strength relative to men’s.

In addition to physical weakness, andthe risk of exploitation that accompanies it, women also had less social power.Note that Peter reminded husbands that their wives were their spiritual equals.Those who read in Peter’s “weaker vessel” description a reference to women as“lesser” see the opposite of his meaning here. Peter is elevating women. In hisless-often-quoted but essential conclusion, he tells husbands to “show them (wives)honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinderyour prayers.” The instruction to the husbands is to view their beloveds not asdeficient creatures, but as a co-heirs.

That “heir” language, focused as itis on inheritance, would have sounded radical to those in a world that limitedwomen’s ability to inherit and own property. In Christ, not only is the wifegranted an equal inheritance with her husband, but his treatment of herinfluences how their impartial judge hears his prayers.

Peter’s picture, when lived out,then, is of a family structure in which the man and woman grant each otherhonor and respect. She respects him, he honors her: two sides of the same coin.And their interaction foreshadows a future they will share as joint-heirs,equals, when Christ reigns on earth. 

“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done….”