{"id":1041,"date":"2019-05-12T01:25:10","date_gmt":"2019-05-12T01:25:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.theoikonomist.com\/?p=1041"},"modified":"2019-05-12T23:18:21","modified_gmt":"2019-05-12T23:18:21","slug":"women-within-the-christian-context-part-1-mary-magdalene-is-arya-stark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.theoikonomist.com\/?p=1041","title":{"rendered":"Women Within The Christian Context Part 1: Mary Magdalene is Arya Stark"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Preface<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few introductory remarks before I dive into the topic at hand. First, this subject matter is not an area of primary research for me and many of you will probably know the literature much better than I do, but there are one or two things I may be able to add to the subject. Even then, it will be a fraction of what has been said on this subject. Secondly, I don\u2019t know if we need another Christian man to tell us how we ought to think about women within the Christian context, however, this has been something I have thought about for years and always wanted to do a post\/talk on this topic. desire to write a post vs. uncertainty in navigating gender role\/climate? Lastly, I get a little nervous about the word \u201cegalitarianism\u201d. I recognize and understand what is being said of course. I think part of my anxiousness is that our culture is so polarized; that a decision on one point commits us into a specific group. The other part of it is that egalitarianism is a hope without the knowledge of, as NT Wright calls, \u201cour freedom in Christ\u201d. What NT Wright means by \u201cour freedom in Christ\u201d is, the hope that is found on the cross points to a completely separate \u201cphilosophy\u201d that is outside of (or not constrained by) egalitarianism. Egalitarianism states that all humans should either get the same or be treated as the same in respects to political, economical, social, and civil rights status. As Christian, maybe we start our understanding of equality, not by \u201cshould be the same\u201d, but by \u201calready the same\u201d. \u201cAlready the same\u201d as in there is no gender (or race). There is only, individuals, human beings, creatures, God\u2019s people, community, etc. In other words, as the Apostle Paul writes:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.\u201d (Galatians 3:28 NIV)<\/em>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Galatians 3:28<\/strong>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Th book of Galatians is about The Law vs grace. Who is considered inheritors and part of God\u2019s family and who is not. The point Paul is making in the book of Galatians is that God has one family and this family consists of all those who believe in Jesus; this is the family God promised to Abraham and The Law can\u2019t stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through Jesus. However, the book of Galatians (and more importantly this particular verse) is not at all about how we could relate to one another within this family; it is about the fact that the ground is even at the foot of the cross.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, as to the English Standard Version, Paul is a lot clearer in what he is conveying:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, <\/em>there is no male and female<\/em><\/strong>, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.\u201d (Galatians 3:28 ESV)<\/em>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ESV is considered essentially a \u201cliteral\u201d translation that tries to capture the precise wording of the original text. As such, it emphasizes on \u201cword-for-word\u201d correspondence. It\u2019s interesting that Paul is stating \u2018no male and female\u2019 rather than using another neither\/nor statement. \u201cNeither…nor\u201d is a sentence structure that is used to connect the same kind of word or phrase in the sentence and it make it a negative statement about two things. For example:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNeither the Houston Rockets nor the Portland Trail Blazers will be able to beat the Golden State Warriors\u201d.<\/em>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To put it in another way, both teams, unfortunately, will not win against the Golden State Warriors. Not this team and not the other. The verse from the NIV is essentially stating the same thing as the ESV verse, but what\u2019s fascinating, at least for me, is Paul in the ESV is emphatically saying \u201cno\u201d instead of using the same \u201cneither…nor\u201d pattern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gospels<\/strong>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can\u2019t ignore the fact that Jesus chose twelve male apostles. There were all kinds of reasons for this within the practical and cultural world in which they worked and lived in. But every time this point is made, we need to remember that the disciples all forsake Jesus and ran away; and it was the women who came first to the tomb, who were the first to see the risen Jesus.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Greek word for \u201capostle\u201d is “one who is sent off”. It refers to an emissary or anyone sent on a mission. As a result, an apostle becomes an ambassador of the one who sent him\/her. A representative or promoter of a particular news. We frequently think of the twelve disciples and Paul when we think of the word \u201capostle\u201d. Then we remember that there are other people that hold the title \u2018Apostle\u2019. Andronicus, Junia (a woman), James, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, Silvanus, and Epaphroditus. But what makes these particular people, the non-original twelve, \u201capostles\u201d? More importantly, what qualifies someone, like Mary Magdalene, to be an apostle?
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essentially, it boils down to three criterias:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n