Chapter 22: Men Didn't Talk to Women and Other Lies. Unfortunately, rather than diminishing, the pseudo-history of the theologians has only proliferated in the past few decades. Yet often, Christians have to go no further than their own Bibles to expose these historical myths. Let me share three such examples with you. Men Didn't Talk to Women. One of the most absurd claims being made today is that Jewish men disdained women and therefore refused to talk to them.
This claim is usually made when commentators discuss Jesus' encounter with a Samaritan woman described in the fourth chapter of John. While his disciples were buying food in a nearby city, Jesus conversed with a woman at a well. When his disciples returned, the Scriptures say they marveled that he talked with a woman. John 4:27. Aha, our theologians tell us. See, men in Jesus' day looked down on women and refused to talk to them in public.
So, according to modern commentators, Jesus was doing something revolutionary merely by talking to a woman. They then argue that it was Jesus who started the feminist movement. But what do the facts show? Taken out of context, that sentence, "They marveled that he talked with a woman," sounds as though men didn't speak to women in Jesus' day. However, when we read the entire passage, we immediately see that this wasn't the issue at all. The context is that Jesus and his disciples were passing through Samaria.
While the disciples were purchasing food at the nearby town of Sychar, Jesus waited outside the city by a well. When a Samaritan woman came to the well to fetch water, Jesus asked her for a drink. The Samaritan woman was surprised that Jesus talked to her. But why was the woman surprised? Because Jewish men didn't speak to women? Not at all. The Scriptures tell us exactly why. Then the woman of Samaria said to him, "How is it that you, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?
For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans." John 4:9. Ah, right there we have the answer. She didn't say, "For men have no dealings with women," but Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. The unusual thing was not that a man was speaking to a woman, but that a Jew was speaking to a Samaritan. When the disciples returned from the town, they too were surprised that Jesus was speaking to a Samaritan woman. But it had nothing to do with gender; it had to do with her nationality. This is evident from what followed.
When the woman left Jesus, she went her way into the city and said to the men, "Come see! A man who told me all things that I ever did—could this be the Christ?" John 4:28 and 29. So the Samaritan woman felt free to converse with the men of the city. There was no gender barrier to such conversation. Did the men brush the woman off in scorn when she spoke to them? Not at all. They went and did exactly what she asked them to do.
Of course, anyone who has read the Bible knows that men spoke with women throughout the Old and New Testaments. Jesus didn't do anything unusual. In Genesis, we have a situation very similar to the Samaritan woman at the well. Abraham's servant rested at a well outside the city of Nahor. When a young woman came to the well to draw water, he said essentially the same thing that Jesus said to the Samaritan woman.
And the servant ran to meet her and said, "Please let me drink a little water from your pitcher." Genesis 24:17. Now, did this woman draw back and say, "How is it that you, a man, speak to me, a woman?" Of course not. She replied, "Drink, my lord," and she gave the man a drink. Genesis 24:18. No, there was nothing unusual about men speaking to women. Jacob spoke to Rachel before they were married. The men of Israel came to Deborah the prophetess for judgments. Boaz spoke to Ruth, and Eli spoke to Hannah.
A noticeable incident in the time of David shows that Jewish men viewed women with esteem, not disdain. David's general Joab was pursuing a rebel named Sheba who had flown to the city of Abel. Joab then besieged the city. The Scriptures tell us what happened next. Then a wise woman cried out from the city, "Hear, hear!
Please say to Joab, 'Come nearby that I may speak with you.'" When he had come near to her, the woman said, "Are you Joab?" He answered, "I am." Then she said to him, "Hear the words of your maidservant." And he answered, "I am listening." 2 Samuel 20:16-22. The account goes on to relate that Joab explained whom he was seeking, and the woman told Joab that the city would deliver the man's head to Joab. Once they did this, Joab withdrew.
So men not only spoke with women, but also listened to their advice when given in wisdom. Elijah spoke to the widow and even lodged with her. Likewise, Elisha spoke with the widow of one of the sons of the prophets and performed a miracle on her behalf. Obviously, Jesus did nothing revolutionary by speaking to a woman. But you may say, "I've heard it said that the rabbis taught that a man shouldn't even speak to his wife if he happens to see her in public." Yes, I've heard claims like that as well.
But have you ever seen anybody produce an actual quotation to that effect? I certainly haven't. I've examined the Mishnah, and it gives no such instructions. I've even checked the Talmud, although it wasn't compiled until nearly 500 years after Christ, and it contains no such statement. There are instructions and restrictions in the Talmud concerning the intermingling of the sexes. But this has to do with propriety between the sexes, not disdain for women.
It is possible that some rabbi in the Middle Ages or some latter time said something to the effect that men shouldn't speak to women. Of course it's possible. But what does that have to do with anything? I can produce quotations from Christian bishops from the Middle Ages on all sorts of subjects. Does that mean that the first-century Christians held to those views? Hardly. Afraid to say God.
As you may have guessed, I quit using commentaries and study Bibles many years ago when I discovered that they contained so much misinformation. However, in the course of research for this book, I purchased or borrowed a number of commentaries and study Bibles just to see what they're saying these days. Usually, I only had to read a few pages in these works before I came across either counterfeit history or some other obvious error.
For example, just a few pages into the New International Biblical Commentary on Matthew, I found this assertion. Matthew uses the term kingdom of heaven rather than kingdom of God out of Semitic reluctance to speak the divine name. In talking about Semitic reluctance, I assume that the commentator is referring to the fact that Matthew wrote his gospel with Jewish readers in mind. Now, it's true that Orthodox Jews today never utter the divine name Yahweh and often avoid even saying God.
But the commentator has committed the same error made by the various commentators on 1 Corinthians 11. That is, he is assuming we can read a modern or medieval practice back into New Testament times. I have to say that it would be ironic if Matthew used the phrase kingdom of heaven to avoid using the term God. That's because he uses God 53 times throughout his gospel. In comparison, Mark, which was written particularly for the Romans, uses the term God only 50 times.
Furthermore, it's clear from reading the New Testament that Jews in Jesus' day had no hesitancy to use the word God. For instance, the unbelieving Jews told Jesus, "We were not born of fornication.
We have one Father, God." Likewise, when Jesus healed a blind man on the Sabbath, the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God because he does not keep the Sabbath." Again, the Jews told Pilate, "According to our law, he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God." The truth is that the Mishnah doesn't even forbid Jews to pronounce the divine name Yahweh, let alone to say the word God. On the contrary, it even encourages a Jew to greet his fellow with God's name.
So Matthew obviously didn't use the term kingdom of heaven to avoid offending Jews. More counterfeit history. Much of the pseudo-history being written by theologians today is done in an effort to promote feminism. The problem is that Jesus never directly taught anything that supports their agenda. So feminists and their theological allies take every situation in Jesus' life involving women and try to turn it into some kind of groundbreaking incident.
We saw an example of this with the case of the Samaritan woman mentioned earlier. In another example, the feminists managed to find something revolutionary in the genealogy of Jesus given in Matthew. The New International Biblical Commentary says this about Jesus' genealogy. Another irregularity sets this family record apart from all others. It makes reference to five women. Extraordinary. The same claim is found in numerous commentaries and study Bibles.
However, there is actually nothing extraordinary in Jesus' genealogy, including the names of several women. Although it's true that the genealogies in Numbers list only the heads of households, that's not the case for all of the Old Testament genealogies. For example, the genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Esau all include the names of various women. In fact, more women are named in the genealogy of Esau, Genesis 36, than in the genealogy of Jesus.
Actually, the Old Testament book containing the largest genealogical list is not Numbers or even Genesis. It's 1 Chronicles. It includes the names of over 50 women in its genealogies. In short, there is nothing unusual or precedent setting in Jesus' genealogy, including the names of five women. Detachment from historic Christianity. I've given some specific examples of historical myths that the theologians have created. But their counterfeit history is merely symptomatic of a much deeper problem.
Their utter detachment from historic Christianity.