Incarnation and the Dignity of Women

The Jewish prophet Isaiah tells us that “the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14). Oliver Crisp from the Theological University in Bristol believes that “every important issue to do with the person of Christ deals with his divinity and humanity in some fashion.” (Crisp, 2007) The issue I want to raise concerns the dignity of women. How does the virgin birth of Jesus Christ (incarnate) relate to this issue in the twenty-first century? I am a man, with a vast limitation to empirically answer this question. Even so, my goal is to provoke thought surrounding the incarnation positively affirming God’s redeeming ways.

L. F. Cervantes went on record by saying “the birth of Jesus was the turning point in the history of woman.” (Cervantes, 1967).It would help by looking at a brief history to understand Cervantes comments. While brief, the history is graphic, brutal, and powerfully condescending towards women. My hope is that the reader will re-think the magnificence of incarnation fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy – as it relates to a woman’s dignity.

My hypothesis is simple: If it was not for the incarnation of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, the cultural evolution of women would not be as dignified as it is today – at least in our Western culture. To that end, it is important to appreciate that our Western culture is largely shaped by the ancient Greco-Roman cultures. This will be the basis for looking at a brief history. One more thing, it is also important to see the counter-culture of Jesus within the Greco-Roman world and His redemptive words, behavior and posture.

The Greeks

The Athenian woman, especially wives, had a very low status. They were not allowed to leave the marital home unless accompanied by a male escort, often a trusted slave chosen by the husband. If the husband had male guests over at his house, similar to a mid-week poker game in our culture, the wife and other female guests were retired to the women’s quarters known as gynaeceum. The only women that were allowed a measure of freedom at a social event were the mistresses of the men, known as the hetaera. These women could accompany the husband outside the home as a public sexual partner. In other words, a wife stayed at home while the husband went out to indulge his appetites, especially sexual ones.

According to the second-century Greek biographer Plutarch (46-120 AD) these women were kept under lock and key. Therefore, the average Athenian married woman had the social life of a slave. She could not divorce her husband, whereas, he could divorce her at anytime for anything. This was amplified in the poet Euripides’ (480-406 BC) tragedy called Medea where one character lamented, “Surely, of all creatures that have life and wit, we women are of all unhappiest.” (Medea 231-32).

This unhappy journey began in the formative educational years. For instance, Athenian boys were sent to school, girls were not. As a girl grew through puberty into a woman she was not permitted to speak in public. Alvin Schmidt quotes three Greek poets and philosophers in his book How Christianity Changed the World (2004); Sophocles (496-406 BC) “O woman, silence is an adornment to woman”; Euripides (480-406 BC) “Silence and discretion are most beautiful in woman, and remaining quiet within the house”; and Aristotle (384-382 BC) “Silence gives grace to woman.” Homer (8^th century), another Greek poet, created a character called Telemachus in his work called Odyssey who sharply scolded his mother Penelope for daring to speak while men were present saying, “Speech shall be for men’’ (Odyssey 1.359). Most, if not all poets and philosophers, equated women with evil. This is seen in Aristophanes’ (448-380) play called Lysistrata where he writes, “Women are a shameless set, the vilest of all creatures going” (Lysistrata 368-69). It does not stretch the imagination to understand where the mythical idea of Pandora and her box of evil came from – Greek poets and philosophers!

Regarding children, it was an economic liability for a wife to have daughters, whereas, the opposite was true concerning boys. The principle focus of validating a woman was her ability to give birth to a boy. The 2006 movie “300” clearly portrayed this in the overwhelming preference given to boys and their journey to become men.

The Romans

The Roman culture was similar the Greek’s attitude towards women. The differences would be slight. For instance, only upper-class girls had an education – but only in grammar and reading. To add insult to injury, the women had no lawful appeal. Married women were under the law of manus placing her in the absolute control of her husband. She was his possession and could dispose or divorce her even for a minor error. The Roman statesman Cato (95-46 BC) made it possible for a wife to have no say in what her husband’s slaves did, or did not do. She was also forbidden to own property.

The Twelve Tables of Roman Law stated the rights of paterfamilias on the man but not the woman giving him rights over his wife, children, and grandchildren. This did not limit him to divorce and dispose his wife but to literally execute her and any of the children. He had the power of life and death in his hands supported by the law. Caesar Augustus (63 BC-14 AD) reinforced this by issuing lex Julia de adulteriis specifically for adultery. This did not limit the husband to liable adultery in the case of his wife, but required consent from extended family for other offenses. For instance, if she displeased him in bed, he could petition a relative and then kill her – also supported by Roman law.

Further Roman laws like partria potestas did not allow a woman to speak in public. Therefore, city councils, legal courts, civic entities, the Senate, and other governing bodies were all dominated by men. Therefore, men made laws concerning women without the contribution of a female voice. To crown the law concerning women, infamia made her a person of no reputation, legal or social standing. She was her husband’s property and pseudo-slave.

The Hebrews

While the focus is on Greco-Roman history, it is worth noting the Hebrew culture. It must be stated that the Jewish culture did not use women sexually like the Greek or Roman counterparts. As for the rest, it was similar. For instance, a woman could not testify in a court of law (Yoma 43b) or speak in public. The rabbinic oral law stated it was “shameful to hear a woman’s voice in public among men” (Berakhoth 24a). Synagogue worship separated the women from the men by a partition called the michetza. It was not until the 1700’s that Jewish women were allowed to sing in their synagogues, and even then, only the liberal places of worship. Social gatherings, mealtimes, rituals, celebrations, rites of passage and other cultural settings barred a woman, to some degree, as an inferior person. It must be noted that this brief view does not carry any anti-Semitic tone intentional or unintentional.

Into this Greco-Roman and Hebrew context God became incarnate through His Son, Jesus Christ. It must be noted that this context was not the democratic, politically correct, bill of rights Western culture we have today.

Jesus and Women

There is a large body of evidence throughout the four Gospel accounts that Jesus raised the status of women, not to new heights, but renewed heights socially, intellectually and spiritually. He renewed them because all His ways were, and are, redemptive. An example of this is seen in John’s Gospel concerning the Samaritan woman. For Jesus to sit by Jacob’s well and talk with this woman was radical and very unusual for the culture. Not only was the Greco-Roman influence widespread, but the Jewish culture had an inbuilt hatred for Samaritans. It is interesting to note that after Jesus requested some water her response was not, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan” as this would draw a line of hatred between Jews and Samaritans. Instead, she responded, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman.” (John 4:9). Any self-respecting Jew would not talk to a Samaritan woman as the rabbinical oral law clearly stated, “He who talks to a woman [in public] brings evil upon himself.”(Aboth 1.5). Added to this, it is also interesting to note the response of the disciples that they “were surprised to find him talking to a woman.” (John 4:27).

Another example of Jesus’ redemptive approach towards women was at the house of Martha in Luke’s Gospel. She behaved according to the cultural norms and waited on the men. The scene is provoked by her sister, Mary, sitting with the men like a student learning from Jesus. This violated rabbinic oral law, “Let the words of the Law [Torah] be burned rather than taught to women.” (Sotah 3.4). What transpired in that house was radical and transformative because Jesus dared to teach a woman. Martha complained to Jesus, “Tell her to help me!” (Luke 10:40). This was a cultural norm and acceptable, but Jesus’ response was radically redemptive saying, “Mary has chosen what is better” (Luke 10:42). In other words Jesus was saying, “What the culture is doing to you as women is not how God intended you to live – Mary has chosen the intended way.”

On another occasion Jesus explained to Martha that He was the resurrection and life. Followed this profound statement was a question that did not fit the cultural norm asking, “Do you believe this?” (John 11:26). A man is asking a woman what she thought. The earthshaking statement of Jesus that He was, in fact, the resurrection and life, was only mentioned once – and to a woman. In this way he was reinforcing his earlier point in Martha’s house. By calling for a verbal response Jesus broke the socio-religious culture. It must be stated again that Jesus was not raising the status of a woman but renewing it.

Rescuing prostitutes from human trafficking, healing a woman who ‘dared’ touch the tail of his garment, raising the Phoenician woman’s child, the woman of Nain and many more examples are found throughout the Gospels. It is worth noting that a highly unusual occurrence unfolded within the culture that involved women – they following Jesus. In keeping with Greco-Roman culture, He was their escort. He also chose those women to inform the men that He was resurrected. Again, Jesus was reinforcing His point by revealing Himself to them, and giving them vital information for the men.

While His redemptive and liberating life renewed women, Jesus never started a women’s movement, feminist or otherwise. Instead, he changed the hearts and thinking of people without creating socio-political or socio-religious movements.

Christ-Followers Emulating

The incarnation was precisely timed for the Greco-Roman culture. This cannot be separated from understanding the Scriptures. With that in mind, those who followed Jesus emulated his radical counter-cultural redemptive work. For instance, St. Paul recognizes many women were vital to the church – not just to work with children. This is seen by recognizing Priscilla in Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:19); Apphia in Colossae (Philemon 2); Nympha in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15); Phoebe in Rome (Romans 16:1-2). It is remarkable that the Early Church Father Origen recognized Phoebe as having apostolic authority (which is debatable) as he was not known for his inclusion of women. Another example would be Lydia who was a radical woman going against the Greco-Roman culture as a businesswoman and friend of St. Paul (Acts 16); Euodia and Syntyche are mentioned by the apostle because they “contended at my side in the cause of the gospel” (Philippians 4:2). Although much debate surrounds St. Paul’s attitude towards women it can be clearly stated that he followed, and emulated, Christ not the socio-religious culture of his day.

St. Paul also brings a whole new construct to family life commencing with “[everyone] submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21). In the same tone he speaks to wives about submitting to their husbands “as you do to the Lord” (5:22). He does not removed a husband as the head of his household, instead, he places Christ, not the Roman laws of manus or partria potestas, over the man (5:23). The power of life and death are no longer in the hands of a man but returned back to God. With a defiant tone against the Greco-Roman culture he instructs, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (5:25). The two-for comes in the following verses that “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies” (5:28) opposing the practice of a mistress while placing the wife in gynaeceum.

Post St. Paul

From St. Paul to the twenty-first century the Greco-Roman ways have attempted to ebb and flow like a tide, even in the church. Various denominations have sought to suppress women and subjugate them to a minor and inferior place in society and the church. Thankfully, the dignity that Jesus gave to women has prevailed in the Western culture. I would even go as far to say that feminist groups owe the origin of their freedoms, not to State and Federal laws because of lobbyists, but to the incarnation where God became a man and changed humanity from within.

It must be understood that one of the attractions Christianity had to people under the suffrage of Greco-Roman culture was the dignity it gave to women. They were an instrumental part of rapid church growth numerically, spiritually and geographically. One example was not practicing infanticide (baby girls and those who were deformed at birth were literally thrown away). This was not an act of the Legislator but the transformer of hearts and thinking in Jesus’ redemption. Another example of this was Helena (246-330 AD) the mother of Emperor Constantine the Great (272-337 AD) built many churches throughout the empire with her own resources. The list is endless containing well-known and unknown names of women who have been a catalyst of growth, change and transformation in society and the church.

Summary

Having looked at a very brief history of the Greco-Roman culture it is obvious that a male dominated world treated women as inferior, sexually objective, and as property to be controlled. Into this culture Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. The Good News He came to bring was not just for eternal life, but for this life. He dared to break the socio-political and socio-religious bigotry in his teaching, behavior, and posture. Although this is obvious, he was man, not a woman who came to liberate women. He did not start a women’s movement or distort God’s original intention in creating a woman. The impact was so great that others emulated Him, filled with the same Spirit, to bring change and transformation to the hearts and thinking of every culture.

Conclusion

Counterfactual history asks the “what if” questions that would change the way we live today. To conclude, I would ask the reader to think this through: “What if the incarnation had no happened, but instead, some other virtuous sophisticated method of transforming culture created by mankind, for mankind, and not the incarnate where divinity and humanity coexist? Would women be truly free with the dignity they once had in Eden?” 

 

It is a dreadful thought that my own wife and daughter would be considered inferior persons (counterfactual history). At the same time, it gives me pause to thank God for His Son Jesus Christ who redeemed our hearts and thinking, as men, to “treat our wives with the proper respect” (1 Peter3:7) and other unrelated women “with absolute purity” (1 Timothy 5:2) unlike the Greco-Roman ways – still found online today. It also gives me pause to thank God that he has changed my heart and thinking to be “like Christ” (Ephesians 5) towards my wife and daughter. I conclude with this thought: “Only incarnation (God coming to us like us) could radically change the socio-political and socio-religious attitudes deeply rooted in the Greco-Roman culture that we enjoy in Western culture today – and we [men] need to emulate that.”