Parallel objective lessons from Paul

There are two instances of parallel objective lessons in Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 5 and I Timothy 2. The objective in the former involved the salvation of a certain individual. He was the focus of Paul's admonition in I Corinthians chapter five. There are three progressive points which Paul uses to escalate and build up his point in his letter to the saints in Corinth. Paul gave them 1) an instruction “deliver such a one to Satan,” (I Corinthians 5:5a) 2) the reason or purpose for that instruction, “for the destruction of his flesh,” (I Corinthians 5:5b) and 3) the expected results from that instruction “that his spirit may be saved.” (I Corinthians 5:5c)

Here is the other similar instance of Paul’s teaching

Read More

Observation and query on Artemis in Acts 19

This observation and query is taken from my daily reading from last week (June 29) which covered Acts 19.

This is the single and only instance in the scriptures of any mention or reference to Artemis. The Holy Spirit in his wisdom introduced the saints in Christ to Artemis in this passage. The temple of Artemis was located in the city of Ephesus. Yet, the overall knowledge of Artemis with those who lead, teach and preach is dismal. Typically, a Sunday morning Bible study on the book of Acts chapter nineteen might meander through a low-grade PG-rated soft porn about sexual immorality and temple prostitutes. (Generally, a way is found to expound with great emphasis regardless of the book being studied, on Gnosticism. Yet, Gnosticism was a newcomer to Asia.

Read More

Quietness, Salvation and Women

Women, specifically ours sisters in Christ, are often told and in many instances are instructed as to their place in the ministry of the church, not surprisingly, by men. They are to be quiet and silent in that assembly of believers. There is, to be sure, no small number of women who have accepted this instruction and teaching of men. Those women have themselves become active propagators of this message of men concerning the ministry of women in Christ. I will not question the sincerity or the good intentions behind this teaching. I derive no spiritual thrill from casting names on them or questioning their faith. This is not in discussion. What is in discussion is a carnal, worldly approach to the reading and teaching of the scriptures. What is in discussion here is the teaching which continues to be perpetuated as much by men as by women which calls for and places the quiet and saved woman into a second and lower tier in the royal priesthood of believers. This is especially true of women who are willing, able, and even more; who have a calling to teach and preach. This is at vastly serious odds with the scriptures.

Read More

Sisters in Christ: Fulfilling the Ministry of Teaching and Preaching

two reasons

There are two reasons, one really, often given for not only the suppression of sisters in Christ to fulfill their ministry in preaching and teaching. There is the outright denial for them do so, also. The first reason on which all other reasons behind this dogma are rooted is in the Genesis account. The reason, according to proponents of this teaching, centers on 1) the order of creation, and 2) the woman sinned first.

The second related reason for this suppression and denial is essentially the same as the first reason. It is found in I Timothy 2 and is directly associated with and related to the Genesis account by the apostle Paul. Again, the argument from the I Timothy passage, proponents argue, is that the passage is clear enough and requires no interpretation. The apostle Paul conveyed to Timothy who was in Ephesus that he did not permit a woman to teach. Paul then proceeded to give two clear, specific reasons as to why he forbade women to teach, 1) Adam was created first, and 2) it was Eve who was deceived. The similarity between I Timothy 2 and the Genesis account is undeniable. It seems quite clear, right?

a third reason

A third reason is actually the response to any plausible explanations and suggestions concerning Paul's instructions in the light of his and Timothy's ministry under the shadow of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus to dismiss these as nonsense, irrelevant and unnecessary. The reason these are dismissed, proponents argue, is because Paul never mentions Artemis. This is quite true. However, this response also reflects an utter oversight and neglect of the one who did mention Artemis, namely, Luke in Acts 19. Yahweh was to the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea what Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and Asia. See the testimony of Demetrius in Acts 19 concerning the widespread presence and influence of Artemis. (The content of this article is covered in this lengthier article.

what the saints learn

Yet, the saints in Christ mostly embrace and parrot what those who lead, teach and preach and declare as dogma. There is no need for any substantive exposition of the scriptures or understanding for the edification of the saints. The teaching to the saints concerning our sisters in Christ is rooted more on male dominance than servanthood. One clear indicator of this is how teaching and preaching are equated with and viewed as synonymous with leadership. Such notions of dominance are unknown to a servant. Those who teach and preach are foremost called to be servants, specifically in the ministry of the word of the Lord. Furthermore, the tokenism that sisters in Christ can indeed teach and preach _ to other sisters has the same, familiar shade and ring of another time when black brothers in Christ, to say nothing of our sisters under that male-dominant fellowship of the saints, lived under the dire spoken and unspoken message that they, too could indeed preach and teach _ to other blacks only. There are three responses as to why these reasons are an insufficient explanation to the words of Jesus and Paul. My response to these explanations is in the following order: the second reason, then the first reason and the third reason last.

First, lets look at the response to the explanation of Artemis to the second reason that Paul's instructions to Timothy to forbid women from teaching are clear and require no interpretation. If this were an example of the right handling of the scriptures it ought to hold equally true of other equally clear texts. Here is one of those texts: Matthew 5. When was the last time you knew or heard of  someone who put out the eye that offended them? When was the last time you knew or heard of someone who cut off the hand that offended them? Of course, the point is that these very clear words of Jesus are invariably presented and taught with an explanation. Why? Is there something about the text of these words of Jesus which is not clear? The indication concerning Paul's words to Timothy, at the very least, is that while they may be quite clear they, like those words of Jesus, require an interpretation and explanation. It is hardly responsible to stake a case with the argument that Paul never mentioned Artemis and here is why such irresponsibility is suspect.

Just as it is true that the apostle Paul never mentioned Artemis in I Timothy and his other writings; Jesus never mentioned Rome in Matthew 24. This was the prophecy of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD. Those words of Jesus were just as much as the words of Paul a matter of salvation; the former concerning the physical salvation of the saints in Jerusalem, the latter concerning the spiritual salvation of the saints in Christ in Ephesus. Does the fact that Jesus did not mention Rome by name mean that the disciples were clueless as to what the words of Jesus might mean? How is that the saints are able to discern the political power in question, namely, Rome in Matthew 24, but seem so utterly clueless to discern the spiritual power in question, but clearly named by Luke in Acts 19 as Artemis in Ephesus? Now, with this very brief orientation on Artemis as a real factor in Paul's message and ministry and Ephesus in mind lets backtrack to the first of the two reasons on the order of creation and who sinned first.

Second, the explanation that Paul was reiterating a primer in I Timothy 1 on Jewish theology on the Genesis creation account for the Gentile saints in Christ may possibly have elicited a hearty amen from the Jews and a nice response from the Gentiles. However, Paul's mission was considerably more than eliciting hardy amens from his listeners. His mission was to debunk and dethrone the deception of Artemis before the Gentiles in Ephesus and throughout Asia and to that end what he wrote to Timothy would likely have resonated with the Gentiles as being in opposition to Artemis. They were familiar with and knew the claims of Artemis of being born first and then assisting her mother Leto give birth to her twin brother, Apollo. They were familiar with and knew the claims of Artemis as being the savior of women in childbirth. Contrast these claims of Artemis with Paul's words throughout his letters (five of six written to churches and individuals in Asia; six if Titus is included) concerning Jesus as the firstborn and the savior, not of women only, but of all mankind.

The following is an excerpt from my article, The belief of childbearing in I Timothy 2.

There are three elements Paul bears out concerning salvation and which focus exclusively on the woman: 1) the instruction (I do not permit a woman to teach), 2) the reason for the instruction ( FOR Adam was first formed . . . BUT the woman being deceived), and 3) the expected results from the instruction (BUT she will be saved through her childbearing). There is a another instance of an objective with a similar end result involving the salvation of a certain individual who became the focus of Paul's admonition in I Corinthians chapter five. Paul gave an instruction deliver such a one to Satan, (I Corinthians 5:5a) the reason for that instruction, for the destruction of his flesh, (I Corinthians 5:5b) and that his spirit may be saved. (I Corinthians 5:5c) The progression from point 1 to point 2 to point 3 in the I Timothy passage suggests these (instruction, reason for instruction and expected results from that instruction) are related and are inseparable. Any response to one part can not be done while disregarding or discarding the other two.

So, why did Paul, given the NT examples of obedience to the gospel message of salvation (a belief) through faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior state the expected results for points 1 & 2 in point 3 that the woman will be saved through her childbearing?

The apostle Paul's reference to the creation account would not be something with which his former pagan brethren would be familiar. What would definitely resonate with them was the references to firstborn and savior as these related to Artemis. They learned from Paul and Timothy that 1) not only were Adam and Eve NOT born, but they were CREATED, and 2) Jesus was FIRSTBORN, not from woman, but from the dead through the power of the RESURRECTION. (see Paul exposition on the Begotten from Psalm 2 in Acts 13)

conclusion

The instruction of Paul concerning the silence of our sisters and to not permit them to teach can not be appraised without acknowledging the presence and influence of Artemis in Paul's ministry and message. Those sisters, priestesses particularly, who had emerged out of the cult of Artemis and had become disciples of Jesus as Savior could easily be mistaken for teaching a message of Artemis. It was simply not expedient for them to be teaching at the time. The time would come for them to join with their brothers in the fulfillment of their ministry in teaching and preaching. The instruction to them to learn quietly and to forbid them to not teach was no different than when the apostle himself was earlier in his travels and on the way to Ephesus was, not once, but twice forbidden to preach in north Asia by the Holy Spirit . Just as we do not see or read, but rightly understand, that the prohibition on Paul by the Holy Spirit was removed it is neither a stretch nor implausible to understand that the same was true of our sisters in Ephesus. Admittedly, the idea of being present with a sister teaching or preaching is not in my comfort zone, but heeding and proclaiming the word of God is not about what makes us or keeps us comfortable.

Read More

Matthew 24 & I Timothy 2: Power and salvation in Rome and Artemis

power and salvation

This article is about two different factors which affect the saints in Christ, particularly as these factors are seemingly outside of their control. Two instances for our learning in which these factors appear are Matthew 24 and I Timothy 2. They appear in the two different geographic areas of Jerusalem and Ephesus. These factors are 1) a power, and 2) the salvation of the saints. These scripture passages do not name the power to which the Holy Spirit alludes, but the passages do give instruction for the enlightenment of the saints concerning their salvation as they were affected by those powers. How the Holy Spirit spoke to us through these passages speaks is for our understanding and enlightenment concerning other areas not the least of which includes the teaching and preaching of the gospel of Jesus by the saints who are the royal priesthood of believers.

The purpose for the focus on these passages is that the saints in Christ might gain an understanding and appreciation for the awareness of New Testament speakers and writers of the historical context.

Specifically, it is about how history and context are assumed and acknowledged in some passages of scripture, but they are ignored in other passages.

If you are like me it probably grates on your ears when you hear history and context; especially when the two appear together in the same sentence. It is not that either of these represent a problem. Rather, it is that too often the mere mention of the terms of history and context are given as the default answer and explanation for passages and concepts which we struggle to understand much less teach. Those writers, and speakers such as Jesus, were aware of the power under which they lived, struggled, and in the case of Jesus, would be put to death. Those writers and speakers understood that what was paramount was the salvation, that is, the preservation of the saints, not at all costs, but such as would bring glory to God.

an unnamed power/salvation made certain

God makes no apology for the reality of the world in which the saints reside. Although God was the ultimate mediator between Israel and the world powers which rose to prominence his warnings with respect to those powers was about how God could and would unleash them as his instruments of punishment on Israel should they ever fall away from the commandments of the Lord their God. Jesus instructed and warned the saints at various times about those world powers. The saints were to be wise and aware in their response towards the actions of those powers if they were to preserve and save their lives. God does not always refer to those powers by name as he did in the numerous visions which Daniel received from God. It would be careless for the saints to gloss over or dismiss the relevance of a passage in the first or twenty first century on the basis of a shallow, yes; shallow claim, namely, because a specific power is not named. Just as bad as dismissing a passage is the false notion of a so-called conservative interpretation which purports to just follow the word without taking into consideration the factors of a power and salvation of the saints in the historical context of the scripture.

Matthew 24: the power of Rome in Jerusalem

For example, Jesus never revealed by name the governing power to which he alludes in his prophecy in Matthew 24 in that historical context. Jesus expected that the disciples would look, understand and discern that when that unnamed power brought on the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem it would be in accordance with the judgment which he had foretold in their presence. The disciples had received instruction and insight from Jesus 40 years prior to the destruction of the temple. Generally, we assume and acknowledge the history and the context of Matthew 24. How is it that history and context seem impersonal enough and easier so as to attain a general understanding and acceptance at a discussion level while an unnamed power receives less than a similar understanding and acceptance?

Those disciples who listened and remembered knew what they were to do;  emerged, their salvation made certain because of the words of Jesus. Those who either did not listen, forgot, or dismissed the instruction from the Lord; perished. Those who might have foolishly and arrogantly reassured themselves that “God will save us;” perished. This false reassurance had abounded in Israel in the days leading up to their final captivity; first by Assyria and later by Babylon. Even as all the signs of which the prophets had forewarned them about were being made manifest they mistakenly believed and expected deliverance and salvation from those powers from God.

When Jesus revealed to the disciples who marveled at the enormous and beautiful temple that not one stone would be left unturned they were astonished. This was not history. It was the future. Certainly, the Jews could draw on the scripture and their collective memory of their Babylonian captivity and the destruction of the temple at that time. However, for the most part they could not connect or see a need to draw the connection between those past things in their history with world powers and the future destruction by an unnamed power which Jesus spoke to them. It was prophecy. Jesus opened a window for them to reveal to the disciples in much the same as God had done for Daniel as to what was to happen, not centuries later, but during their lifetime:

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Yet, the prophecy of Jesus bore the certain knowledge that there would be some, not all,  who would not survive the events of those days because they failed to listen, understand and remember. They were unwilling or unable to understand and accept that the power in the prophetic message of Jesus was Rome. Subsequently, they perished.

I Timothy 2: the power of Artemis in Ephesus

A second example is found in the I Timothy 2 passage which involves the ministry of Paul in Asia.

Yahweh was to the Jews in Jerusalem and all Judea what Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and all Asia.

This reality is attested to by Demetrius in Acts 19 whose testimony was preserved for the saints by the Holy Spirit. Yet, Paul, like Jesus, never named that power in Ephesus. The saints  were expected to look, understand and discern what Paul’s instructions meant and how they were to respond to those instructions under the shadow, not of the temple of God in Jerusalem, but of the temple of Artemis; the power in Ephesus. It is quite plausible and likely that some of our brothers and sisters who had come to faith in Jesus had emerged from the cult of Artemis. They knew and had lived under the power of Artemis. In Ephesus, the female dominant cult of Artemis held sway and its hold over women: Artemis was the savior of women in childbirth.

Women in Ephesus and throughout Asia had, like Eve, been deceived by Artemis. They had believed Artemis was their savior. But Paul boldly asserts and affronts that message of Artemis when he declares of our sisters in Christ that:

she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

The mistaken assumption by which some teachers and preachers of the word in the body of believers impose the additional qualifier of childbearing to salvation in Jesus borders on appalling and apostasy. Yet, those same teachers and preachers remain as oblivious as those who in Jerusalem who perished. They do not listen, they have forgotten, or they reason that their message of salvation, not just for women, but for men, too, has been made more sure and better secured than what the Holy Spirit who indwells them revealed through his servants, the apostles.

Women in the cult of Artemis were not saved through childbearing anymore than our sisters in Christ are saved through childbearing. Women in the cult of Artemis were saved by Artemis. Women in Christ were saved through childbearing without regard or reliance on Artemis. This is Paul’s confident assertion that the salvation of our sisters was through their continued walk in faith, love and sanctification with sobriety, _ without Artemis. The fact that they bore children without the aid or reliance on Artemis not only silenced the adversary (typically, Satan by name, but in Ephesus his name was Artemis) but it shut up the insults of the adversary that women who departed from Artemis were gossips and busybodies. (I Timothy 5:15)

How is it possible that despite the mention of women’s costly apparel, (perhaps former priestesses in the temple of Artemis) women teaching and women bearing children under the shadow of the temple of Artemis the saints remain adamantly oblivious to power of Artemis whom the Holy Spirit saw fit to introduce to us in Acts 19? Those who wonder blithely why Paul did not mention Artemis by name and therefore feel justified to reject the unnamed power of Artemis in their understanding of I Timothy and Paul’s letters must also wonder and reject the unnamed power of Rome which carried out the destruction of Jerusalem in which those who did not heed the message of Jesus perished.

just like old times

The understanding which some saints claim concerning, for instance, the I Timothy 2 passage is akin to another fatal forgetfulness and misunderstanding by some of our first century brethren. It does not seem likely, given the admonition of Jesus prophecy to the disciples in Matthew 24, that there were some disciples who probably concluded before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple that everything would return back to life as usual; just like old times _ as long as they remained faithful.

They were determined to the end, in their disdain for the power of Rome, to disregard Rome in no less the same manner as the saints disregard Artemis, today. After all, the call by Jesus was for the discerning saints to be faithful, right? Isn’t that enough? Those who escaped death during the destruction of the temple thought they could resume life as a Jew and be neither the wiser nor be filled with the Holy Spirit for what God had just granted them. But, Jesus expected the saints to consider, to discern, to understand and to act accordingly with respect to the power of Rome which would soon come down hard on them.  Those who thought to seek safe refuge in the city, Jesus alerted them, would seal their fate because they failed to heed his words.

There is a staunch explanation which exalts men as leaders which is not even a matter in discussion in I Timothy. It is bad enough to mistakenly equate teaching and preaching with leadership, but it is even worse to glibly ascribe spirituality to a man simply, not even because he is a man, but because he is a leader and must therefore be spiritual. It escapes our notice that if those who were to wait on tables (Acts 6) were to be full of wisdom and the Holy Spirit how much more so those who lead the people of God. It is another mistaken notion to equate spirituality with being full of the Holy Spirit. The explanation purports (faithfully and lovingly, if not biblically, the saints are reassured) to put and keep women in their place because of their gender as ordained by God. The thought behind this rank and file order is derived from Paul’s reference to the Genesis creation account. This egregious explanation pins Eve’s sin in the garden on those sisters in Christ who have been, like their brothers, redeemed and washed by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

This explanation borders on apostasy, not unlike Israel’s apostasy under the reign of their kings, when the sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation of women must be enhanced with childbearing. The view of these teachers and preachers is as mistaken and ignorant as those saints who scrounged for reassurance in the familiar, “God can do anything” even as Rome unleashed her judgment of Jerusalem according to the decree of God. It is a view not unlike that of believing that everything would return to normal after the destruction of the temple; a notion which reverts to the garden to make certain the salvation of women by imposing on them Eve’s sin in the garden and the condition of childbearing. It is a impression about male dominance not unlike the female dominance in the cult of Artemis; just good ol’ boys, just like old times. Yes, Paul clearly and undoubtedly makes a reference to the Genesis creation, but any explanation about that reference which is oblivious to and rejects the unnamed power of Artemis is as flawed as to reject the unnamed power of Rome in the destruction of Jerusalem.

conclusion

The settings of history and context are reflected in the scriptures. It is within these settings in which the Holy Spirit brought out and presented various factors concerning the powers which affected the salvation of the saints in Christ. They, like us, were to understand and be enlightened by these things. The result of the saints who persevered and overcame either the power of Rome in the destruction of the temple or the power of the cult of Artemis, was that the priesthood of believers not only remained faithful, but they continued faithfully in the teaching and preaching of the gospel of Jesus.

This is a call and support for those brothers and sisters in the royal priesthood of believers who are not only not against Jesus but who are with him in the teaching and preaching is to listen, understand and heed the words of Jesus for the salvation of those who know not Jesus as Lord and Savior. Just as Jesus warned about the false messengers in the day of visitation on Rome telling the saints to go there or come here to preserve their lives, beware of messengers who clothe themselves with an assumed spirituality merely because they are men and they happen to lead. peace in Jesus.

Read More

Fourth Avenue Church of Christ: A commendation with exhortation

It was about five years ago that I was led by the Holy Spirit, rather unexpectedly, to an understanding concerning the royal priesthood of believers. Prior to that time I could and did, at best, maybe parrot some vagaries and at worse, teach ignorantly what I did not understand. This term, royal priesthood, which God used, not of the as-yet nonexistent Aaronic priesthood at that time, but of Israel is taken up by Peter to refer, not to men, not to women, but to the saints in Christ.

The time of that understanding was not a place of comfort where the Holy Spirit led me back then, but I understood and accepted this truth; He does not lead us where we would like to go. Although I am not going to go into the details of the results of that study and examination and will refer those interested to my article, Artemis and the Royal Priesthood of Believers, I do want to make some brief comments concerning the decision of the Fourth Avenue church of Christ to bring a woman intern preacher on their staff. Here is the video.

Read More

The Cult of Artemis and the Royal Priesthood

Sisters and brothers teaching and preaching the will of the Lord
in light of I Timothy 2 and Paul's letters.

The royal priesthood of believers

(My original, longer version of this article is on this blog. I do not purport to offer an exegesis of the text nor to cover or otherwise rehash the multitude of views for and against this subject. I am confident of the content and trust readers will ponder it themselves and respond accordingly.)

Sisters and brothers, the called out saints in Christ, the royal priesthood of believers, as Peter called us, (I Peter 3:9) stand out and apart from the world in which we live and minister. It is the royal priesthood which God in his divine wisdom ordained for the work of teaching and preaching the knowledge of his divine will. Yet, the same reluctant spirit of Moses to go to Pharoah is alive today. It manifests itself, not in the reluctance of the priesthood to go, but in how men have determined half of that priesthood, namely our sisters in the faith that is in Christ Jesus, ought not to go. Still, the royal priesthood is unlike any other in the world because of its call to minister to those who are in Christ as well as those who are in the world.

The world immerses men, women, youth and children in culture and although cultures differ between countries and the peoples of the world these cultures all have the common effect of diverting knowledge and worship away from the living God. There are too many facets, good and bad, in culture, nonetheless it is the call and duty of priests to teach, offer sacrifice and pray with and for those to whom they minister in the body of Christ and those to whom they minister in the cultures of the world. Condemning culture or casting those things we do not understand under the broad umbrella of culture does little to enlighten the saints. Similarly, “It was a first century cultural practice” as the default explanation to the saints in Bible class is as unconvincing, dry and lifeless as ancient temple ruins.

Broadly speaking, there are two views in the royal priesthood of believers attributed to Paul and which bear on the ministry and proclamation of the gospel by sisters and brothers in Christ. These include, in the order as presented by Paul in I Timothy, teaching and the exercise of authority by women, with the sole cause being to silence women, and the precedence of Adam in the order of creation, with the sole effect being silent women. Both of these views are exacted from Paul's ministry message in Ephesus to Timothy who, like Paul, ministered under the shadow of the temple of Artemis. The central text in this discussion is I Timothy 2:9-16. There's no question the words are Paul's anymore than their importance and prevalence in the church today. However, there is a question as to how we attribute our interpretation and meaning of Paul's words to these views as being what Paul intended.

This article is limited to the religious beliefs in the cult and culture of Artemis and how these relate to teaching and preaching in the priesthood of believers in the assembly of the saints.

Although this article is not about culture I believe a working definition of culture is helpful as we seek to minister, not to change culture, but to bring to the transformation of the new birth those who know not Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Culture is how different people can and do participate or interact in beliefs, customs and laws, but with no more commitment or shared beliefs then an afternoon in the park. An atheist, Muslim, or Christian can participate and interact equally in the soccer game or a moment of prayer at a family celebration whose beliefs, customs and views of law may be at vastly different odds with every one of those of the celebrating family. Such participation in that activity hardly constitutes an embrace of beliefs or conversion, but it is common in the interactions of people in culture.

Paul arrives in Ephesus

The transforming ministry of the work of the Spirit in Ephesus began with the arrival of the apostle Paul. It was not without some obstacles. He had been twice forbidden by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6,7) from speaking the word in the northern regions of Asia. He exited Asia west into Macedonia, worked his way south to Corinth before crossing the Aegean Sea east back into Ephesus in Asia.

The account by Luke of Paul’s arrival and departure from Ephesus on this second missionary journey is brief. Luke relates this in two verses in Acts 18:18-21. Paul continued on his way to Jerusalem.Then, after a short stay in Antioch he departed from there on another missionary journey. This time Luke is just as brief with his account of Paul’s journey through the upper country of north Asia saying only,

“he departed, [from Antioch] and went through the region of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing all the disciples” (Acts 18:23) before [he] “came to Ephesus.” (Acts 19:1)

There he ministered for at least two years despite no mention of the removal of the prohibition from speaking the word in Asia Paul had received earlier from the Holy Spirit. It is significant it was here in Ephesus where Paul delivered through Timothy an instruction concerning the teaching and the exercise of authority to the royal priesthood of believers, or more specifically, to our sisters in the faith.

What was the purpose the Holy Spirit forbade Paul to speak in Asia?

What was the purpose the Holy Spirit forbade our sisters to teach in Ephesus?

Did the Holy Spirit intend for this instruction to remain in effect forever?

The mere colossal presence of the temple of Artemis may well have made Paul realize this was the place and purpose of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. His mission was as clear and as colossal as the temple itself: Dethrone and demolish Artemis and the female-dominant-oriented culture which prevailed in Asia. Yet, our understanding of Paul's mission and words is almost entirely on the basis of all things Jewish or the popular mystic allure and fascination of Gnosticism. The latter was one of various corruptions of the gospel which would hit the church, indeed that corruption began in Paul's lifetime, but Artemis had been around much longer and was well entrenched in Asia. Certainly, Gnosticism is a valuable study of the New Testament, but how can we study and understand Paul's message while remaining oblivious to Artemis?

Artemis of the Ephesians: three beliefs

Artemis, the daughter of Zeus, or Diana as she was known to the Romans, was introduced for the saints in Christ in Acts 19. Although Paul was literally on the sidelines and was mentioned by name he was not directly involved at that time in which a riot nearly broke out. It is the testimony of Demetrius which reveals Artemis was not merely an obscure local deity in Ephesus. She was well known and worshiped throughout Asia.

Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and Asia what

Yahweh was to the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea.

There were numerous and different beliefs attributed to Artemis, but this article is limited to three widely held beliefs and how these have come to affect the priesthood of believers. 1) The belief that her mother gave birth to Artemis first. Artemis then turned and assisted her mother give birth to her twin brother Apollo, 2) A belief evolved from this act by Artemis at the time of her birth with Artemis asserting herself as the savior of women, particularly, at childbirth, and 3) She presided over kings. Paul seems to allude and refers to all three of these beliefs in his writings which would likely have resonated as familiar with the saints in Christ who had come out of the cult of Artemis.

The apostle Paul wrote at least six letters to churches and individuals in Asia which include: Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, I & II Timothy, and Philemon. Titus, who was on the island of Crete 200 miles off the southwest coast of Asia, could possibly be included in this number.

Instructions to those who teach in a church on the brink

Some time after Paul’s departure from Ephesus it became apparent there were matters which demanded Paul’s urgent attention. There were men who had strayed, wanting to be teachers of the law whom Paul said they did not understand what they were saying despite their confident assertions. (I Timothy 1:7) This was an urgent matter given the battle zone conditions in Ephesus and Paul was clear on Timothy’s need to instruct those men not to teach strange doctrine and other matters they did not understand.

There was no need for similar instruction to silence or stop Philip’s daughters in Caesarea (Acts 21:9) who had the gift of prophecy. Paul stayed in Philip's house and was in a position to instruct or otherwise admonish Philip's daughters. The significance of this relates to the reluctant admission by some that although some sisters did prophesy in Corinth this was not in the assembly, but out in public to the unbelieving. This claim is contrary to what Paul stated that prophesy was a sign not for the unbelieving, but for those who believe. (I Corinthians 14:22) Similarly, the sisters in Corinth were not instructed to be silent or to cease their prophesying, but to do all things in an appropriate and orderly manner. (The silence Paul did invoke in Corinth and which is so distorted by many is no different than a modern day situation where a wife interrupts her husband who is an elder or preacher while he is addressing the congregation on the basis of their physical relationship as husband and wife, not as by the Spirit. Even then, Paul said, the Spirit is subject to those who speak and God is not a God of confusion. The instruction of silence would be just as fitting and appropriate were an elder to interrupt the preaching of the word on the basis that he must correct error which has been delivered to the congregation. While the need to confront error is true such a confrontation would make for nothing less than a carnal spectacle. The matter could be handled just as well by addressing the congregation and the individual after the message.)

The circumstances in Ephesus represented a potential situation for sisters in Christ to become embroiled or to be mistaken as being part of the carnal mind-set of those wanting to be teachers of the law. Perhaps even worse was the possibility they could be mistaken, in a teaching role, as dominant priestesses of the temple of Artemis or her broader cultural dominance in Ephesus. (It seems plausible that priestesses who had emerged from the cult of Artemis would have the means to possess gold, pearls and expensive clothing and it is they who are the specific reason for Paul's instruction on the matter of their outward appearance.) Either way, their association could potentially have produced a clash with Paul’s mission on Artemis as carried on by Timothy. It is an audacious stretch to smear to embroil our sisters with others in Ephesus with the false teaching which had emerged in the church on the basis, as some have stated, that there were some women who were gossipers and idlers. Paul never made any suggestion or statement that the women were involved in teaching false doctrine. Nonetheless, the church in Ephesus seemed on the brink of becoming another Corinth.

It is an unfortunate understatement that Paul’s words for unity, enlightenment and instruction, directed as much to our brothers as to our sisters in Ephesus, continue to be primarily a perpetual silence of our sisters. The determination to maintain that silence is often upheld by men purportedly by the Spirit. However, it is to be noted that too often it is their career status and accomplishments which are the qualifications by which it is determined they are worthy to lead the saints in Christ, not because they are, full of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 6) The fact that there are sisters who insist on the silence of their sisters and reject as offensive the idea of one of their own gender preaching and teaching is no more a understanding or submission to the will of the Lord than those brothers who beat their chest and in arrogant defiance declare, "not as long as I have anything to say about it." We know Paul was misunderstood at various times much to his dismay and sometimes utter frustration. Clearly, those misunderstandings of Paul were not limited to our first century brethren in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Today, one can only wonder about studies which emphasize language, historical interpretations and concocted, strained spins on first and twenty first century views on culture. These end result of these studies is that they are applied to the discussion on preaching and teaching by sisters in Christ with no more clarification or understanding in those studies than the exegesis of those same scriptures. Often these support or obscure a prohibition to teach written by Paul, but with little understanding or explanation as to why the Holy Spirit gave that prohibition and why Paul wrote it. Today, are men of a similar mindset who profess to be teachers and preachers any less to be admonished? How about those who want to be teachers, but who do not know what they say or about what they (despite their defiance) strongly affirm or any differently than Paul urged Timothy to admonish certain men in I Timothy 1.

The target of Paul’s message: Artemis, not our sisters

Unlike the contemporary emphasis on the silence of women  in I Timothy 2 Paul's primary objective emphasis was his unrelenting attack on Artemis. The notable absence of Artemis' name in Paul's writings may suggest he was mindful to not create or provoke a hostile reaction against the church even though he himself fought with “wild beasts” in Ephesus. (Note: This reference in I Corinthians 15:32 may be yet another subtle reference to Artemis who was the protectress goddess of wild beasts.) We know of similar measures he employed for the advancement of the kingdom of God whether it was consenting to Timothy’s circumcision (Acts 16:3) or Paul’s participation in temple rituals in Jerusalem. (Acts 21) In one instance Paul’s well-intended strategy to remain free of any obligations when he first preached in Corinth backfired on him. Men with no other intention than to malign Paul and cast reproach on him and the gospel were troubling the faith of the saints. A gospel message, they said, for which Paul could not even bring himself to receive the customary monetary gifts for traveling itinerants (while he instead relied on churches in Macedonia which supplied his needs through the arrival of Timothy and Silas, Acts 17:15; 18:5, II Corinthians 11:9) was a worthless gospel and one of which he was ashamed. Yet, Paul remained unfazed when he asserted he would do what he had done all over again. Such was his confidence in the cause of the gospel. (II Corinthians 11)

Every one of Paul’s six letters previously mentioned reverberate with declarations, references and allusions to Artemis and which, for Paul and the saints in Christ, constitute the basic tenets of our faith: 1) Jesus is firstborn, 2) Jesus is savior, and 2) Jesus is king. Paul delivers every one of these as affronts and assaults on the cult of Artemis. Our view of these tenets of faith without regard and in isolation from the Artemis cult being torn down and demolished by Paul and Timothy's ministry is as astounding as it is to the weakening and the peril of our faith.

It is a bitter irony that Paul's strategy to not permit women to teach during the battle to silence the cult of Artemis forever has silenced many of our sisters for too long through our own seriously questionable understanding of his words.

If Eve was to be a helper to Adam in the garden how is we fail to understand our sisters today are to be no less helpers in the preaching and teaching of the gospel? No, not every woman is called anymore than every man is called to preach and teach. However, whether or not those sisters are called is not a matter for brothers, anymore than sisters to forbid it, because it upsets them or they just don't think it is right. These weighty matters of the kingdom demand a response which enlightens and edifies the saints in the Spirit.

There is a muted argument (oh, the irony!) by some as to any question or discussion on Paul’s clear words regarding women and teaching. Quite simply, some saints reason, Paul is so clear on his instruction concerning our sisters there is no need to examine or study the matter. Really? The test of this reasoning is to compare and apply it with other equally simple, clear words spoken by Jesus to remove the eye and cut off the hand which caused us to sin. Who takes these clear words of Jesus literally without any discussion?

Jesus, the Son of God: three beliefs

The three aforementioned tenets of the cult of Artemis were that: 1) she was firstborn, 2) she was the savior of women, and that 3) she presided over kings.

However, Paul boldly asserts Jesus, not Artemis, is the firstborn. (Col 1:15, 18) Although Jesus was born to a woman (Galatians 4:4, Paul's only allusion to the virgin birth) He is the firstborn, not from woman, but through the resurrection declared to be the Son of God.

Then, Paul boldly asserts Jesus is the savior of man (kind), not only woman as was Artemis. Whatever the image revered (Acts 19:35) by the Ephesians which fell from Zeus Paul repeatedly asserts the purpose for which Jesus came (not fell) from heaven and was sent from heaven and to give himself as a ransom for all was to save mankind. (I Timothy 2:6)

Finally, Paul boldly asserts Jesus is king eternal (I Timothy 1:17) and has a kingdom (Col 1:13). All things, including thrones and dominions, were created by him, through him and for him. (Col 1:16) There were no kings before Jesus on his throne and there will be no kings to succeed him or preside over him or his eternal throne.

created, not born

Lastly, unlike Artemis who was born of a woman, Adam and Eve were created, not born, into this life. They were formed by the one who created all things. Paul’s specific mention that it was the man, Adam, who was created first is an enlightening if-you-must-know affront to Artemis’ claims of being first-BORN. It is also an enlightenment for his Gentile brethren, and not, as the saints are told, today, a primer or a reiteration on the Torah for a Jewish audience on the order of creation. It seems improbable Paul's focus was on who was deceived, deceived first or deceived completely, because ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) This is not an imperative command by Paul for our sisters to busy themselves bearing children, but that WHEN these sisters in Christ bore children their joy would be a two-fold affront to Artemis. 1) They could rejoice in the birth of their child, and 2) they could rejoice in their salvation which was in the Lord Jesus. Paul's mention of the disobedience by Eve was as much Adam's and, this, is the sin problem of man and woman. The indisputable truth is that salvation from sin for women (and all mankind) is through faith in Jesus, not childbearing or Artemis as savior.

Paul’s wording that the woman fell into transgression may be yet another allusion to the deception of Artemis as savior. The female goddess Artemis (born, not created) was as disobedient and deceived as was Eve. Anyone who would presume to declare themselves a savior when they themselves have fallen into transgression is quite deceived. Devotees of Artemis in Ephesus were familiar with the image which fell down from Zeus. (Acts 19:35) It may well be that Jesus himself alluded and played on the familiarity of that fall in his opening admonition to the churches in Asia of which Ephesus was the first which he addressed: Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I am coming to you swiftly, and will move your lamp stand out of its place, unless you repent. (Revelation 2:5) Salvation is the reason Jesus, the Son of God, came into the world. Unlike Artemis, there was redemption and salvation for Eve and all mankind from her deception, disobedience and fall.

Therefore, Paul's statement that woman is saved through childbearing is not concerning salvation from sins. It is not the woman, our sisters, upon whom Paul seeks to invoke and impose Eve's disobedience so as to lord it over them. Eve was unlike Artemis in that Eve was created; Artemis was born. Eve was like Artemis in that despite their reversed order of birth, Artemis being born first then her brother Apollo and Eve being created second to Adam; they both similarly fell into transgression and were deceived. Paul's peculiar wording that the woman has fallen into disobedience seems suggestive of something present, as in the present reality of the female goddess Artemis. Yes, Satan was/is the enemy, our adversary, and in Ephesus his name was Artemis for which reason young widows in Christ were to bear children . . . and give no occasion to the adversary for insulting. (I Timothy 5:14, the second of only two times Paul refers to women and childbearing and both are in this letter. I am mindful of the reference in Galatians 4 of Hagar, but Paul himself declares that childbearing reference is an allegory.) The salvation of the woman (and the man) is contingent upon their continued life of faith, love and sanctification with sobriety in Jesus, _ not Artemis. Let us not deceive ourselves about the disobedience of Adam. (Romans 5:14)

Conclusion

The apostle Paul was not timid about using tactics in the war to topple and dethrone the cult of Artemis. In the Ephesus church, under the shadow of the temple of Artemis, there was no time for the priesthood of believers to be party to a spectacle in the scheme of something far greater than men teaching what they did not understand or women teaching at all. There would come a time when sisters would help their brothers just as Eve with Adam in the garden, not in the care of a garden, but in the teaching and preaching ministry of the gospel. The time came for Paul himself after being forbidden two times by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in northern Asia. He finally arrived in Ephesus and in the power of the Holy Spirit began his transforming ministry with the royal priesthood of brothers and sisters, some by their teaching others by their silence, in Christ in Ephesus, but each supporting, helping and aiding as co-workers with Paul and later with Timothy.

I have attempted to avoid the tactic of modern day culture politics which is just as evident in the church as it is in the world. It is a tactic which infuses gender to foment this subject in pursuit of the equality of political correctness as well as the stiffness of egalitarianism and complementarianism exchanges. This is a key reason for the preferred use in this article of the biblical term, the royal priesthood, which does not distinguish between male or female. Other approaches to this subject include different views with different possible word meanings and interpretations of the text. The approach in this article has been devoid of the familiar and available excellent language and historical approaches to this subject. This perspective of the cult and culture of Artemis is rooted in Acts and the epistles of Paul and is separate from the common words and verses spun ceaselessly and with precious little accomplished. It is a perspective as valuable as gender, grammar studies and Jewish interpretations which have dominated the discussion.

There's a significant, if not powerful, account about how Artemis came to seize the children, specifically, little girls, of the people of Ephesus. It speaks loud volumes to what the church continues to do with little girls. Little boys do not escape the message even if it takes them some years to gain some understanding of it.

When the Ephesians learned a wild bear had killed a little girl they hunted it down and killed the bear. Artemis, protectress goddess of wild beasts, was enraged (clue: note how often anger appears in Paul's letters) and declared that thereafter virgin girls would be dedicated to serve in her temple. Of course, these girls grew up to be women whom Artemis "saved" time after time through their birthing experience. Later, when these women came to the knowledge of the love of God in Jesus they rejoiced, not only in their salvation, but in childbearing.

What is the point about Artemis and how the church brings up little girls? It is really a reversal in the church from what it was in the temple of Artemis: Little girls grow up from their early childhood being devout and dedicated only to reach that point as women. They reach that point where it becomes apparent they can no longer serve while simultaneously living in the reality that they are prohibited from teaching and preaching in the assembly of the saints.  Some little girls from their youngest years grow up actually thinking and being let to believe that they can and will, like anyone and everyone, teach and preach the gospel of the kingdom of God.

The obvious reality as it plays out in the church and for those little girls, then young girls, then women is that there are a lot (really?) nice things (serve communion? take up the collection? [but are prohibited from doing]) which they can do in the church, _ it's just not teaching and preaching in the assembly of the saints in Christ. Whatever nice and good thing they do they might do it as unto the Lord they are to do it _ divided, segregated by gender. It does not require great insight to discern the similarities towards women, our sisters in Christ and the church's past in America. The male leadership of the church was slow and reluctant to see the end of slavery and the emancipation of blacks in America. Little boys are not exempt from noticing these things. They grow up and as men can see, even though they if they do not have an understanding or comprehensive response to what they only see, the silence by their own brothers on the silence of their sisters is inescapable. Thereby, half the royal priesthood of believers continues to be silenced.

This is a call for the royal priesthood of brothers and sisters full of the Spirit to hold true to the calling of God to teach and preach the will of the Lord whether in the assembly of the saints or in the city park. This is not a matter of personal like or dislike, comfort or discomfort. I had no idea or intentions of a change of mind, that is, of my understanding on this matter when I began to examine it. The change of mind was not difficult, despite having not so much opposed our sisters in ministry as much as a misunderstanding that teaching and preaching. It was my just my own ignorance that the call of being about the Father's business was to be filled solely by men. It was when I stayed clear to avoid a rehash of the familiar arguments from both sides and examined not just a word/verse or passage, but the overall ministry of the apostle Paul that I, no, the Holy Spirit, brought me to gain the perspective reflected in this article.

The beliefs which exalted Artemis in Ephesus and throughout Asia were false. However, they represented a real source of belief for those who were captive until their eyes were opened through the preaching of the gospel by Paul and Timothy, then. The time has come, today. Who can forbid that brothers and sisters teach and proclaim that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father? Maranatha.

Selected reading:
Religious Cults Associated with the Amazons by Florence Bennett Anderson
A Woman Called by Sara Gaston Barton
Women in the Church: Reclaiming the Ideal by Carroll Osburn
I really appreciate the heart and spirit with which Carroll Osburn treads through the multiple views on the subject. He's got a great response to each, yet I was surprised at his own less-than-substantive conclusion on the subject. There's no doubt he is quite capable of expounding long on I Timothy 2, but I expected a bit more.
The Early Amazons: Modern and Ancient Perspectives on an Ancient Myth
Reading 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Its Literary Context
The single most glaringly audacious assertion in the above article is  Doug Heidebrecht's mistaken alignment of our sisters with false teaching as one of the reasons for Paul's instruction concerning our sisters in the faith.The Cult of Artemis and the Royal Priesthood

Read More

The belief of childbearing in I Timothy 2

Read this I Timothy 2 text in which I have underlined key words.

1 I exhort therefore, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and givings of thanks, be made for all men: 2 for kings and all who are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; 4 who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all; the testimony in its own times; 7 to which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth in Christ, not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8 I desire therefore that the men in every place pray, lifting up holy hands without anger and doubting. 9 In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing; 10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in quietness with full submission. 12 But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; 15 but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

the practice of circumcision and culture
If a person were reading the NT for the first time and asked you what is circumcision how would you answer him/her? Some probable answers might include that circumcision was 1) a cultural practice, 2) a cultural practice in Israel, or 3) a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, the father of Israel. Circumcision was not a cultural practice in Israel. It was a religious practice.

Read More

The Cult of Artemis and the Royal Priesthood

Sisters and brothers teaching and preaching the will of the Lord
in light of I Timothy 2 and Paul's letters.

The royal priesthood of believers

(My original, longer version of this article is on this blog. I do not purport to offer an exegesis or to cover or otherwise rehash the multitude of views for and against this subject. I am confident of the content and trust readers will ponder it themselves and respond accordingly.)

Sisters and brothers, the called out saints in Christ, the royal priesthood of believers, as Peter called us, (I Peter 3:9) stand out and apart from the world in which we live. It is the royal priesthood which God in his divine wisdom ordained for the work of teaching and preaching the knowledge of his divine will. Yet, the same reluctant spirit of Moses to go to Pharoah is alive today. It manifests itself, not in the reluctance of the priesthood to go, but in how men have determined half of that priesthood, namely our sisters in the faith that is in Christ Jesus, ought not to go. Still, the royal priesthood is unlike any other in the world because of its call to minister to those who are in Christ as well as those who are in the world.

The world immerses men, women, youth and children in culture and although cultures differ between countries and the peoples of the world they all have the common effect of diverting knowledge and worship away from the living God. There are too many facets, good and bad, in culture, but it is the call and duty of priests to teach, offer sacrifice and pray with and for those to whom they minister in the body of Christ and those to whom they minister in the culture of the world. Condemning culture or casting those things we do not understand under the broad umbrella of culture does little to enlighten the saints. Similarly, “It was a first century cultural practice” as the default explanation to the saints in Bible class is as unconvincing, dry and lifeless as ancient temple ruins.

Broadly speaking, there are two views in the royal priesthood of believers attributed to Paul and which bear on the ministry and proclamation of the gospel. These include teaching and the exercise of authority by women, with the sole cause being to silence women, and the precedence of Adam in the order of creation, with the sole effect being silent women. Both of these views are plied from Paul's ministry message in Ephesus; proclaimed and written under the shadow of the temple of Artemis. The central text in this discussion is I Timothy 2:9-16. There's no question the words are Paul's anymore than their importance and prevalence in the church today. However, there is a question as to how we attribute our interpretation and meaning of Paul's words to these views as being what Paul intended.

This article is limited to the religious beliefs in the cult and culture of Artemis and how these relate to the teaching and preaching in the priesthood of believers in the assembly of the saints.

Although this article is not about culture I believe a working definition of culture is helpful as we seek to minister, not to change culture, but to bring to the transformation of the new birth those who know not Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Culture is how different people can and do participate or interact in beliefs, customs and laws, but with no more commitment then an afternoon in the park. An atheist, Muslim, or Christian can participate or interact equally in the soccer game or a moment of prayer at a family celebration whose beliefs, customs and views of law may be at vastly different odds with every one of those of the celebrating family.

Paul arrives in Ephesus

The transforming ministry of the work of the Spirit in Ephesus began with the arrival of the apostle Paul. It was not without some obstacles. He had been twice forbidden by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6,7) from speaking the word in Asia. He exited Asia west into Macedonia, worked his way south to Corinth before crossing the Aegean Sea east back into Ephesus in Asia.

The account by Luke of Paul’s arrival and departure from Ephesus on this second missionary journey is brief. Luke relates this in two verses in Acts 19:18-21. Paul continued on his way to Jerusalem after a short stay in Antioch before heading out, again. Once again, he departed for another missionary journey from Antioch. This time Luke is just as brief with his account of Paul’s journey through the upper country of north Asia saying only,

“he departed, [from Antioch] and went through the region of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing all the disciples” (Acts 18:23) before [he} “came to Ephesus.” (Acts 19:1)

There he ministered for at least two years despite no mention of the removal of the prohibition from speaking the word in Asia Paul had received from the Holy Spirit. It is significant it was here in Ephesus where Paul delivered through Timothy an instruction concerning the teaching and the exercise of authority to the royal priesthood of believers, or more specifically, to our sisters in the faith.

What was the purpose the Holy Spirit forbade Paul to speak in Asia?

What was the purpose the Holy Spirit forbade our sisters to teach in Ephesus?

Did the Holy Spirit intend for this instruction to remain in effect forever?

The mere colossal presence of the temple of Artemis may well have made Paul realize this was the place and purpose of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of him. His mission was as clear and as colossal as the temple itself: Demolish and dethrone Artemis and the female-dominant-oriented culture which prevailed in Asia. Yet, our understanding of Paul's mission and words is almost entirely on the basis of all things Jewish or the popular mystic allure and fascination of Gnosticism. The latter was one of various corruptions of the gospel which would hit the church, but Artemis had been around much longer and was well entrenched in Asia. Certainly, Gnosticism is a valuable study of the New Testament, but how can we study and understand Paul's writings while remaining oblivious to Artemis?

Artemis of the Ephesians: three beliefs

Artemis, the daughter of Zeus, or Diana as she was known to the Romans, was introduced for the saints in Christ in Acts 19. Although Paul was literally on the sidelines and was mentioned by name he was not directly involved at that time in which a riot nearly broke out. It is the testimony of Demetrius which reveals Artemis was not merely an obscure local deity in Ephesus. She was well known and worshiped throughout Asia.

Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and Asia what

Yahweh was to the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea.

There were numerous and different beliefs attributed to Artemis, but this article is limited to three widely held beliefs and how these have come to affect the priesthood of believers. 1) The belief that her mother gave birth to Artemis first. Artemis then turned and assisted her mother give birth to her twin brother Apollo, 2) A belief evolved from this act by Artemis at the time of her birth with Artemis asserting herself as the savior of women, particularly, at childbirth, and 3) She presided over kings. Paul seems to allude and refers to all three of these beliefs in his writings which would likely have resonated as familiar with the saints in Christ who had come out of the culture of Artemis.

The apostle Paul wrote at least five letters to churches and individuals in Asia which include: Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and I & II Timothy. Titus, who was on the island of Crete 200 miles off the southwest coast of Asia, could possibly be included in this number.

Instructions to those who teach in a church on the brink

Some time after Paul’s departure from Ephesus it became apparent there were matters which demanded Paul’s urgent attention. There were men who had strayed, wanting to be teachers of the law whom Paul said they did not understand what they were saying despite their confident assertions. (I Timothy 1:7) This was an urgent matter given the battle zone conditions in Ephesus and Paul was clear on Timothy’s need to instruct those men not to teach strange doctrine and other matters they did not understand.

There is no need similar instruction to silence or stop Philip’s daughters in Caesarea (Acts 21:9) who had the gift of prophecy. Similarly, the sisters in Corinth were not instructed to be silent and cease to prophesy, but to do all things in an appropriate and orderly manner. (The silence Paul did invoke in Corinth and which is so distorted by many is no different than a modern situation where a wife interrupts her husband who is an elder while he is addressing the congregation on the basis of their physical relationship as husband and wife, not as by the Spirit. Even then, Paul said, the Spirit is subject to those who speak and God is not a God of confusion. The instruction of silence would be just as fitting and appropriate were an elder to interrupt the preaching of the word on the basis that he must correct error. While confronting error is true, such a confrontation would make nothing less than a carnal spectacle. The matter could be handled just as well by addressing the congregation and the individual after the message.)

However, the circumstances in Ephesus represented a potential situation for sisters in Christ to become embroiled or mistaken as being part of the carnal mind-set of those wanting to be teachers of the law. Perhaps even worse was the possibility they could be mistaken in a teaching role as dominant priestesses of the temple of Artemis or her broader culture dominance in Ephesus. (It seems plausible priestesses who had emerged from the cult of Artemis would have the means to possess gold, pearls and expensive clothing and it is they who are the specific reason for Paul's instruction on the matter of their outward appearance.) Either way, their association could potentially have produced a clash with Paul’s mission on Artemis as carried on by Timothy. It is an audacious stretch to smear and embroil our sisters with others in Ephesus in the false teaching which had surfaced in the church on the basis, as some have stated, that there were some women who were gossipers and idlers. Paul never made any suggestion or statement that they were involved in teaching false doctrine. Nonetheless, the church in Ephesus seemed on the brink of becoming another Corinth.

It is an unfortunate understatement that Paul’s words for unity, enlightenment and instruction, directed as much to our brothers as to our sisters in Ephesus, continue to be primarily a perpetual prohibition against our sisters, and brothers too, who love God. This, by men who love God no less, but whose career status and accomplishments are more often the qualifications by which it is determined they are worthy to lead the saints in Christ, not because they are, full of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 6) The fact there are sisters who reject as offensive the idea of one of their own gender preaching and teaching is no more a response than those brothers who beat their chest and declare defiantly, "not as long as I have anything to say about it." We know Paul was misunderstood at various times much to his dismay and sometimes utter frustration.

Today, one can only wonder about studies which emphasize language, historical interpretations and concocted, strained spins on first and twenty first century views on culture. These studies are applied to the discussion on preaching and teaching by sisters in Christ with no more clarification or understanding in those studies than the exegesis of those same scriptures. They often support or obscure a prohibition to teach written by Paul, but with little understanding as to why the Holy Spirit gave that prohibition and why Paul wrote it. Would a scene such as this provoke and admonishment to men of a similar mind-set who lead and who want to be teachers but do not know what they say or about what they (despite their defiance) strongly affirm as Paul did in I Timothy 1, today?

The target of Paul’s message: Artemis, not our sisters

Unlike the contemporary emphasis on the silence of women  in I Timothy 2 Paul's primary objective emphasis was his unrelenting attack on Artemis. The notable absence of Artemis' name in Paul's writings may suggest he was mindful to not create or provoke a hostile reaction against the church even though he himself fought with “wild beasts” in Ephesus. (Note: This reference in I Corinthians 15:32 may be yet another subtle allusion to Artemis who was the protectress goddess of wild beasts.) We know of similar measures he employed for the advancement of the kingdom of God whether it was consenting to Timothy’s circumcision (Acts 16:3) or Paul’s participation in temple rituals in Jerusalem. (Acts 21) In one instance Paul’s best-intention strategy to remain free of any obligations when he first preached in Corinth backfired on him. Men with no other intention than to malign Paul and cast reproach on him and the gospel were troubling the faith of the saints. A gospel message, they said, for which Paul could not even bring himself to receive the customary monetary gifts for traveling itinerants (while he instead relied on churches in Macedonia which supplied his needs through the arrival of Timothy and Silas, Acts 17:15; 18:5, II Corinthians 11:9) was a worthless gospel and one of which he was ashamed. Yet, Paul remained unfazed when he asserted he would do what he had done all over again. Such was his confidence in the cause of the gospel. (II Corinthians11)

Every one of Paul’s five letters previously mentioned reverberate with declarations, references and allusions to these basic tenets of our faith: 1) Jesus is firstborn, 2) Jesus is king, and 3) Jesus is savior, every one of which were assaults on the culture of Artemis, also. Our view of these tenets of faith without regard and in isolation from the Artemis culture being torn down and demolished by Paul and Timothy's ministry is as astounding as it is to our peril.

It is a bitter irony that Paul's strategy to not permit women to teach during the battle to silence the cult of Artemis forever has silenced many of our sisters for too long through our own seriously questionable understanding of his words.

If Eve was a helper to Adam in the garden our sisters today are no less helpers in the preaching and teaching of the gospel. No, not every woman is called anymore than every man is called to preach and teach. However, whether or not those sisters are called is not a matter for brothers, anymore than sisters to forbid it, because it upsets them or they just don't think it is right. This weighty matter of the kingdom demands a response which enlightens and edifies the saints in the Spirit.

There is a muted argument (oh, the irony!) by some as to any question or discussion on Paul’s clear words regarding women and teaching. Quite simply, some saints reason, Paul is so clear on his instruction concerning our sisters there is nothing to examine or study the matter. Really? The test of this reasoning is to compare and apply it with other equally simple, clear words spoken by Jesus to remove the eye and cut off the hand which caused us to sin. Who takes these clear words of Jesus literally without any discussion?

Jesus, the Son of God: three beliefs

The three aforementioned tenets of the cult of Artemis were that: 1) she was firstborn, 2) she was the savior of women, and that 3) she presided over kings.

However, Paul boldly asserts Jesus, not Artemis, is the firstborn. (Col 1:15, 18) Although Jesus was born to a woman (Galatians 4:4, Paul's only allusion to the virgin birth) He is the firstborn, not from woman, but through the resurrection declared to be the Son of God.

Then, Paul boldly asserts Jesus is the savior of man (kind), not only woman as was Artemis. Whatever the image revered (Acts 19:35) by the Ephesians which fell from Zeus Paul repeatedly asserts the purpose for which Jesus came (not fell) from heaven and was sent from heaven and to give himself as a ransom for all was to save mankind. (I Timothy 2:6)

Finally, Paul boldly asserts Jesus is king eternal (I Timothy 1:17) and has a kingdom (Col 1:13). All things, including thrones and dominions, were created by him, through him and for him. (Col 1:16) There were no kings before Jesus on his throne and there will be no kings to succeed him or preside over him or his eternal throne.

created, not born

Lastly, unlike Artemis who was born to a woman, Adam and Eve were created into this life. They were formed by the one who created all things. Paul’s specific mention that it was the man, Adam, who was created first is an enlightening if-you-must-know affront to Artemis’ claims of being first-BORN. It is also an enlightenment for his Gentile brethren, and not, as the saints are told, today, a primer or a reiteration on the Torah for a Jewish audience on the order of creation. It seems improbable Paul's focus was on who was deceived, deceived first or deceived completely, because ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) This is not an imperative command by Paul for our sisters to busy themselves bearing children, but that WHEN these sisters in Christ bore children their joy would be a two-fold affront to Artemis. 1) They could rejoice in the birth of their child, and 2) they could rejoice in their salvation which was in the Lord Jesus. Paul's mention of the disobedience by Eve was as much Adam's and, this, is the sin problem of man and woman. The indisputable truth is that salvation from sin for women (and all mankind) is through faith in Jesus, not childbearing or Artemis as savior.

Paul’s wording that the woman fell into transgression may be yet another allusion to the deception of Artemis as savior. The female goddess Artemis (born, not created) was as disobedient and deceived as was Eve. Anyone who would presume to declare themselves a savior when they themselves have fallen into transgression is quite deceived. The familiarity in Ephesus, particularly among devotees of Artemis, of the fall may well have been related and associated in their mind with whatever, the image which fell down from Zeus. (Acts 19:35) It may well be that Jesus alluded and played on the familiarity of that fall in his opening admonition to the churches in Asia of which Ephesus was the first he addressed: Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I am coming to you swiftly, and will move your lamp stand out of its place, unless you repent. (Revelation 2:5) Salvation is the reason Jesus, the Son of God, came into the world. Unlike Artemis, there was redemption and salvation for Eve and all mankind from her disobedience, deception and fall.

Therefore, Paul's statement that woman is saved through childbearing is not concerning salvation from sins. It is not the woman, our sisters, upon whom Paul seeks to invoke and impose Eve's disobedience so as to lord it over them. Eve was unlike Artemis in that Eve was created; Artemis was born. Eve was like Artemis in that despite their reversed order of birth, Artemis being born first then her brother Apollo and Eve being created second; they both similarly fell into transgression and were deceived. Paul's peculiar wording that the woman has fallen into disobedience seems suggestive of something present, as in the present reality of the female goddess Artemis. Yes, Satan was/is the enemy, our adversary, and in Ephesus his name was Artemis for which reason young widows in Christ were to bear children . . . and give no occasion to the adversary for insulting. (I Timothy 5:14, the second of only two times Paul refers to women and childbearing and both are in this letter. I am mindful of the reference in Galatians 4 of Hagar, but Paul himself declares that childbearing reference is an allegory.) The salvation of the woman (and the man) is contingent upon their continued life of faith, love and sanctification with sobriety, _ not Artemis. Let us not deceive ourselves about the disobedience of Adam. (Romans 5:14)

Conclusion

The apostle Paul was not timid about using tactics in the war to topple and dethrone the cult of Artemis. In the Ephesus church, under the shadow of the temple of Artemis, there was no time for the priesthood of believers to be party to a spectacle in the scheme of something far greater than men teaching what they did not understand or women teaching at all. There would come a time when sisters would help, as ordained in the garden, either their husbands or their brothers in Christ in the teaching and preaching ministry of the gospel. The time came for Paul after being forbidden two times by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. He finally arrived in Ephesus and in the power of the Holy Spirit began his transforming ministry with the royal priesthood of brothers and sisters, some by their teaching others by their silence, in Christ in Ephesus, but each supporting, helping and aiding as co-workers with Paul.

I have attempted to avoid the tactic of modern day culture politics which infuse gender to foment this subject in pursuit of the equality of political correctness as well as the stiffness of egalitarianism and complementarian exchanges. This is a key reason for the preferred use of the biblical term, the royal priesthood which does not distinguish between male or female. Other approaches to this subject include different views with different possible word meanings and interpretations of the text. The approach in this article has been devoid of the familiar and available excellent language and historical approaches to this subject. This perspective of the cult and culture of Artemis is rooted in Acts and the epistles of Paul and is in isolation from the common words and verses spun ceaselessly and with precious little accomplished. It is as valuable as gender, grammar studies and Jewish interpretations which have dominated the discussion.

There's a significant, if not powerful, account about how Artemis came to seize the children, specifically, little girls, of the people of Ephesus. It speaks loud volumes to what the church continues to do with little girls. Little boys do not escape the message even if it takes them some years to gain some understanding of it.

When the Ephesians learned a wild bear had killed a little girl they hunted it down and killed the bear. Artemis, protectress goddess of wild beasts, was enraged (clue: note how often anger appears in Paul's letters) and declared that thereafter virgin girls would be dedicated to serve in her temple. Of course, these girls grew up to be women who bore children whom Artemis "saved" time after time. It was when these women came to the knowledge of the love of God in Jesus that they rejoiced, not only in their salvation, but in childbearing.

What is the point about Artemis and how the church brings up little girls? It is really a reversal in the church from what it was in the temple of Artemis: Little girls grow up from their early childhood being devout and dedicated only to reach that point as women when they can no longer bear to serve while simultaneously living in the reality that they are prohibited from teaching and preaching in the assembly of the saints.  Some little girls from their youngest years grow up actually thinking and being let to believe that they, like anyone and everyone, can and will teach and preach the gospel of the kingdom of God.

The obvious reality as it plays out in the church and for those little girls, then young girls, then women is that there are a lot (really?) nice things (serve communion? take up the collection?) which they can do in the church, _ it's just not teaching and preaching in the assembly of the saints in Christ. Whatever nice and good thing they do they may do it as unto the Lord, but they may do it _ divided, segregated by gender. It does not require great insight to discern the similarities towards women, our sisters in Christ, and the church's past, slow reluctance towards the ending of slavery and the emancipation of blacks in America. Little boys are not exempt. They grow up and as men can see, even though they may not have a understanding or comprehensive response, to what they only see as the sequestration of their sisters. Thereby, half the royal priesthood of believers continues to be silenced.

This is a call for the royal priesthood of brothers and sisters full of the Spirit to hold true to the calling of God to teach and preach the will of the Lord whether in the assembly of the saints or in the city park. This is not a matter of personal like or dislike, comfort or discomfort. I had no idea or intentions of a change of mind, that is, of understanding on this matter when I began to examine it. The change of mind was not difficult, despite having not so much opposed our sisters in ministry as much as a misunderstanding that teaching and preaching as a matter of being about the Father's business was to be filled solely by men. It was when I stayed clear to avoid a rehash of the familiar arguments from both sides and examined not just a word/verse or passage, but the overall ministry of the apostle Paul that I, no, the Holy Spirit, brought me to gain the perspective reflected in this article. The time has come. Who can forbid that brothers and sisters teach and proclaim that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father? Maranatha.

Selected reading:
Religious Cults Associated with the Amazons by Florence Bennett Anderson
A Woman Called by Sara Gaston Barton
Women in the Church: Reclaiming the Ideal by Carroll Osburn
I really appreciate the heart and spirit with which Carroll Osburn treads through the multiple views on the subject. He's got a great response to each, yet I was surprised at his own less-than-substantive conclusion on the subject. There's no doubt he is quite capable of expounding long on I Timothy 2, but I expected a bit more.
The Early Amazons: Modern and Ancient Perspectives on an Ancient Myth
Reading 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in Its Literary Context
The single most glaringly audacious assertion in the above article is  Doug Heidebrecht's mistaken alignment of our sisters with false teaching as one of the reasons for Paul's instruction concerning our sisters in the faith.The Cult of Artemis and the Royal Priesthood

Read More