Referenced Articles 1 - 
The Apostle Paul

Is Jesus the Only Way to Heaven?                                                     1                                                                                                                                   

The third president had a secret: his carefully edited  

version of the New Testament                                                             6                                                                                                                                                                                          

Facts About The Ancient Roman Empire                                            8                                                                                                                       

Rome’s Bloodiest Emperors                                                                12                                                                                                                                           

Caligula                                                                                                   15                                                                                                                                                                

 What about Misogyny and Are Women Second class citizens?      22

The Acts of Paul (and Thecla)  And Shut Up Woman!  

Explaining Thecla.                                                                                  36                                                                                                                              

Chiefs Kicker Harrison Butker                                                              43                                                                                                                                            

Chiefs Kicker Spreads Antisemitic Lies In Benedictine College 

Graduation Speech                                                                                45

The Antichrist                                                                                         49                                                                                                                                                                        

1

 Is Jesus the only way to heaven?

What did Jesus mean when He said, 

“I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6)?

GotQuestion.org  

“I am the way and the truth and the life” is one of the seven “I Am” statements of Jesus. On the last night before His betrayal and death, Jesus was preparing His disciples for the days ahead. For over three years, these men had been following Jesus and learning from His teaching and example. They had placed their hopes in Him as the Messiah, the promised deliverer, yet they still didn’t understand how He was going to accomplish that deliverance. After the Last Supper, Jesus began speaking about His departure, which led to questions from His disciples.

In John 13:33, Jesus said, “My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.” This prompted Peter to ask where He was going (verse 36). Peter and the others did not understand that Jesus was speaking of His death and ascension to heaven. Jesus’ response was, “Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.” Peter was still misunderstanding and declared that he would follow Jesus anywhere and even lay down His life if necessary. As Jesus patiently continued to teach His disciples, He began speaking more plainly about heaven, describing the place He was going to prepare for them (John 14:2–3). Then Jesus said, “You know the way to the place where I am going” (verse 4). Speaking for the others, Thomas said they did not know where He was going, so how could they know how to follow Him there? It was in answer to this question that Jesus uttered one of the seven famous “I am” statements.

I am – In the Greek language, “I am” is a very intense way of referring to oneself. It would be comparable to saying, “I myself, and only I, am.” Several other times in the Gospels we find Jesus using these words. In Matthew 22:32 Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6, where God uses the same intensive form to say, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” In John 8:58, Jesus said, “Truly, truly I say unto you, before Abraham 

2

was, I am.” The Jews clearly understood Jesus to be calling Himself God because they took up stones to stone Him for committing blasphemy in equating Himself with God. In Matthew 28:20, as Jesus gave the Great Commission, He gave it emphasis by saying, “I am with you always, to the end of the age.” When the soldiers came seeking Jesus in the garden the night before His crucifixion, He told them, “I am he,” and His words were so powerful that the soldiers fell to the ground (John 18:4–6). These words reflect the very name of God in Hebrew, Yahweh, which means “to be” or “the self-existing one.” It is the name of power and authority, and Jesus claimed it as His own.

The way – Jesus used the definite article to distinguish Himself as “the only way.” A way is a path or route, and the disciples had expressed their confusion about where He was going and how they could follow. As He had told them from the beginning, Jesus was again telling them (and us) “follow me.” There is no other path to heaven, no other way to the Father. Peter reiterated this same truth years later to the rulers in Jerusalem, saying about Jesus, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The exclusive nature of the only path to salvation is expressed in the words “I am the way.”

The truth – Again Jesus used the definite article to emphasize Himself as “the only truth.” Psalm 119:142 says, “Your law is the truth.” In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminded His listeners of several points of the Law, then said, “But I say unto you . . .” (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44), thereby equating Himself with the Law of God as the authoritative standard of righteousness. In fact, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). Jesus, as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1) is the source of all truth.

The life – Jesus had just been telling His disciples about His impending death, and now He was claiming to be the source of all life. In John 10:17–18, Jesus declared that He was going to lay down His life for His sheep, and then take it back again. He spoke of His authority over life and death as being granted to Him by the Father. In John 14:19, He gave the promise that “because I live, you also will live.” The deliverance He was about to provide was not a political or social deliverance (which most of the Jews were seeking), but a true deliverance from a life of bondage to sin and death to a life of freedom in eternity.

3

In these words, Jesus was declaring Himself the great “I Am,” the only path to heaven, the only true measure of righteousness, and the source of both physical and spiritual life. He was staking His claim as the very God of Creation, the Lord who blessed Abraham, and the Holy One who inhabits eternity. He did this so the disciples would be able to face the dark days ahead and carry on the mission of declaring the gospel to the world. Of course, we know from Scripture that they still didn’t understand, and it took several visits from their risen Lord to shake them out of their disbelief. Once they understood the truth of His words, they became changed people, and the world has never been the same.

So how do we follow Him today? The same way the disciples did long ago. They heard the words of Jesus and believed them. They took His words and obeyed them. They confessed their sins to Jesus as their Lord and God. They believed that He died to take the punishment of their sins and rose from the dead to give them new life. They followed His example and command to tell others the truth about sin, righteousness, and judgment. When we follow Him in “the way,” we can be assured of following Him all the way to heaven. 

Is Jesus the only way to Heaven?

Got question.org

Yes, Jesus is the only way to heaven. Such an exclusive statement may confuse, surprise, or even offend, but it is true nonetheless. The Bible teaches that there is no other way to salvation than through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He is not a way, as in one of many; He is the way, as in the one and only. No one, regardless of reputation, achievement, special knowledge, or personal holiness, can come to God the Father except through Jesus.

Jesus is the only way to heaven for several reasons. Jesus was “chosen by God” to be the Savior (1 Peter 2:4). Jesus is the only One to have come down from heaven and returned there (John 3:13). He is the only person to have lived a perfect human life (Hebrews 4:15). He is the only sacrifice for sin (1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:26). He alone fulfilled the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). He is the only man to have conquered death forever (Hebrews 2:14–15). He is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). He is the only man whom God has “exalted . . . to the highest place” (Philippians 2:9).

4

Jesus spoke of Himself as the only way to heaven in several places besides John 14:6. He presented Himself as the object of faith in Matthew 7:21–27. He said His words are life (John 6:63). He promised that those who believe in Him will have eternal life (John 3:14–15). He is the gate of the sheep (John 10:7); the bread of life (John 6:35); and the resurrection (John 11:25). No one else can rightly claim those titles.

The apostles’ preaching focused on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Peter, speaking to the Sanhedrin, clearly proclaimed Jesus as the only way to heaven: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul, speaking to the synagogue in Antioch, singled out Jesus as the Savior: “I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin” (Acts 13:38–39). John, writing to the church at large, specifies the name of Christ as the basis of our forgiveness: “I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name” (1 John 2:12). No one but Jesus can forgive sin.

5

Eternal life in heaven is made possible only through Christ. Jesus prayed, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). To receive God’s free gift of salvation, we must look to Jesus and Jesus alone. We must trust in Jesus’ death on the cross as our payment for sin and in His resurrection. “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:22).

At one point in Jesus’ ministry, many of the crowd were turning their backs on Him and leaving in hopes of finding another savior. Jesus asked the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” (John 6:67, ESV). Peter’s reply is exactly right: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68–69, ESV). May we all share Peter’s faith that eternal life resides only in Jesus Christ.

Have you made a decision for Christ because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.

 6

The third president had a secret: his carefully edited version of the New Testament.

By Erin Blakemore. UPDATED:AUG 1, 2019 ORIGINAL:JUL 31, 2019 (from History)

Made for his private use and kept secret for decades, Jefferson’s 84-page Bible was the work of a man who spent much of his life grappling with, and doubting, religion.

A bible assembled by Thomas Jefferson from four different translations on display at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. 

Prepared near the end of the ex-president’s life, the Jefferson Bible, as it is now known, included no signs of Jesus’s divinity. In two volumes, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth and The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Jefferson edited out biblical passages he considered over-the-top or that offended his Enlightenment-era sense of reason. He left behind a carefully condensed vision of the Bible—one that illustrated his own complex relationship with Christianity.

The book was kept private for a few reasons. Jefferson himself believed that a person’s religion was between them and their god. Religion is “a matter between every man and his maker, in which no other, & far less the public, [has] a right to intermeddle,” he wrote in 1813.

But there was another reason for Jefferson to keep his revised Bible private. In the early 19th century, taking a knife to the Bible was nothing less than revolutionary. If the book had been known, argues Mitch Horowitz, who edited a reissue of Jefferson’s book, “it likely would have become one of the most controversial and influential religious works of early American history.”

Jefferson’s editorial work happened in a United States that was deeply rooted in state-sponsored religion. Though many emigrants had come to America to flee religious persecution, laws about religious practice were part of pre-Revolutionary life. Even after the founding of the United States and the ratification of the First Amendment, states used public funds to pay churches and passed laws upholding various tenets of Christianity for over a century after the passage of the Bill of Rights. Massachusetts, for example, didn’t disestablish its official state religion, Congregationalism, until 1833.

Jefferson, a believer in rational thought and self-determination, had long spoken out against such laws while keeping his own views on religion fiercely private. In 1786, he wrote a Virginia law forbidding the state from compelling anyone to attend a certain church or persecuting them for their religious beliefs. The law unseated the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia. Jefferson was so proud of his accomplishment that he told his heirs he wanted it inscribed on his tombstone, along with his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and his founding of the University of Virginia.

7

During his political career, Jefferson’s religious views—or lack thereof—drew fire from his fellow colonists and citizens. The Federalists charged him with atheism and rebellion against Christianity during the vicious 1800 election. Among them was Theodore Dwight, a journalist who claimed that Jefferson’s election would shoo in the end of Christianity itself. “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and

practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, the nation black with crimes,” he prophesied.

Jefferson continued to wrestle with his own views on Christianity after his presidential term ended. His personal correspondence often dealt with religion and religious freedom, and in 1820, when he was 77 years old, he began excising the portions of the New Testament he found unnecessary.

“Even when this took some rather careful cutting with scissors or razor,” writes historian Edwin S. Gaustad, “Jefferson managed to maintain Jesus’ role as a great moral teacher, not as a shaman or faith healer.” Jefferson didn’t intend for the Bible to be read by others, Gaustad notes. “He composed it for himself,” he writes. “He cherished the diamonds.”

During Jefferson’s lifetime, few people knew about the former president’s revised Bible, which he willed to Martha Randolph, his eldest daughter. But in the 1880s, a Johns Hopkins University student, Cyrus Adler, found the cut-up books in a private library. When he learned they were Jefferson’s, he began a search for the book they became.

In 1895, Adler finally got access to Jefferson’s Bible. By that time, the first volume, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was lost. But Jefferson’s great-granddaughter agreed to sell the second volume, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, to the Smithsonian Institution.

Now the world knew about Jefferson’s private Bible, and from 1904 to the 1950s, incoming Senators received their own copy of the Bible. That practice ended once the government-sponsored printing ran out, but in the 1990s, economist Judd W. Patton revived the tradition, and began mailing it to each member of Congress. Today, Jefferson’s secret Bible is held by the Smithsonian Institution, which has digitized the book for anyone to read. 

8 

 Facts About The Ancient Roman Empire 

 May 8, 2024 | 2:40 PM  (From a BuzzNet article but supported by many historical sources.)  

The smell of the city is strong and foul as you make your way down Trajan’s Market. The narrow streets are hot and overcrowded with soldiers supervising, civilians running errands, and the aristocracy taking a stroll in their expensive togas. 

All around you peddlers and customers are squabbling and negotiating prices. Amidst all of the commotion, you can still hear the roars from the Colosseum as another gladiator meets a violent end. Welcome to Ancient Rome. While most people have a basic understanding of Ancient Rome, take a deeper look into the culture that’s credited with shaping the Western World.

Ancient Romans Were Ahead Of Their Time

It may appear that folks of the Roman Empire hardly batted an eye towards same-gender marriage. Emperor Nero who reigned for 13 years during the Roman Empire, married two men during his reign.

During the Saturnalia, Nero married Pythagoras, a freedman under his rule. Nero acted as the wife in the ceremony during this marriage. Of course, Nero did marry some women, but after horribly murdering one of them, he took a young boy named Sporus as his new wife.  Sporus evidently resembled the murdered wife in appearance.  Nero even had Sporus castrated to make him more womanlike.

Caligula often appeared in women’s clothing, evidently a transvestite.  

Emperor Claudius’ third wife, Valeria Messina, was a nymphomaniac.

Homosexuality in Ancient Rome - (Wikipedia)

Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual".  The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active / dominant / masculine and passive / submissive / feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, so they were excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome.

9

Same-sex relations among women are far less documented and, if Roman writers are to be trusted, female homoeroticism may have been very rare, to the point that Ovid, in the Augustine era describes it as "unheard-of". However, there is scattered evidence—for example, a couple of spells in the Greek Magical Papyri—which attests to the existence of individual women in Roman-ruled provinces in the later Imperial period who fell in love with members of the same sex.

Roman Life Expectancy

Although Rome was extremely technologically advanced, that doesn’t mean that the living conditions of the commoners or the city were anywhere close to being sanitary. This led historians to believe that the life expectancy in Ancient Rome was probably around 25 to 40 years old. However, this is a massive misconception because that is the average lifespan of the population, not the expectancy of the individual.

Ancient Rome had an incredibly high child mortality rate with half of the children dying before they were ten years old. However, if you did live past ten, you were expected to live a long life. Another factor that brought the average down was men in military service and women that died during childbirth.

Reclining And Dining Was The Way

Romans didn’t like to eat at the table. They usually enjoyed their meals lying down and eating with their hands — if they could afford to. Typically only the wealthier Romans who enjoyed their meals in such a relaxed state and even then, it was mainly men.

Women weren’t really invited to nice banquets and when they were, they still had to eat sitting upright. Eventually, customs changed to allow upper-class women to enjoy fancy lying-down meals. Enjoying a lavish meal in this manner was a way to show off your wealth in those days.

Atheists Of The Ancient World

Inhabitants of the Roman Empire had a variety of gods and goddesses, but there were people back then who would be considered early Christians. Ironically, these people were considered atheists by the ancient Romans because they didn’t pay tribute (or money?) to any of the pagan gods.

10

But their refusal to acknowledge traditional pagan gods wasn’t the only reason early Christians were considered atheists. These Christians didn’t really practice an organized religion, had no temples or shrines, and no priests. As a result, these people were ostracized from society as salacious rumors regarding their lives would often float around.

 It Wasn’t Good To Be Left-Handed

Although being left-handed today is more of an inconvenience rather than an actual problem, in Ancient Rome, that wasn’t the case. People that were left-handed were considered to be unfortunate or even wicked by their right-handed counterparts. Those who were left-handed were held in suspicion by others because they were also believed to be deceitful people.

Although some people claim that left-handed Romans were held in high regard, this is false. The prejudice against left-handed individuals was so strong that the Ancient Romans began to wear their wedding rings on their left hand’s third finger to avoid sin from lefties.

Fathers Could Sell Their Kids

Ancient Roman dads definitely put their kids to work and that included selling them into slavery. The arrangement, however, was kind of like a lease since the buyer had to return the kid at a certain point.

Fathers did this all the time apparently, but there were limits. You could only lease off your kid as a slave up to three times. If you tried to do it any more than that, you’d be considered an unfit father and therefore, your kid would earn emancipation from you. This is why it was helpful to have more than one kid, so you could lease off each one at least twice.

Wives Took A Three-Day Vacation To Avoid Becoming Property

Wives in the Roman Empire had to be vigilant enough to leave their homes for three days in the year. The “usucapio” laws dictated how long you could possess something before it was legally yours. These laws also applied to humans.

If a wife stayed in her house for a whole year then she legally became her husband’s property. Luckily, women were somewhat entitled to their freedom, so many of them left their homes for three consecutive days to avoid becoming their husband’s property.

Women Were Publicly Shamed For Having Affairs

No one likes to be cheated on, but it happens, even in Ancient Rome. If a man cheated on his wife, the wife couldn’t do anything about it but cry. However, if a woman cheated on her husband, she got the ultimate punishment.

According to some sources, the husband would lock up his wife with her lover. He’d then have about a day to call up everyone he could so that they could come to check out the guy she cheated with. Then, the husband made a public declaration about the affair, providing as many details as possible before he was legally obligated to divorce her.

11

There Was Less Income Inequality Than There Is In Modern-Day America

According to some historians, the wealth in Ancient Rome was spread out more evenly than it is in the present-day U.S. Research shows that Ancient Rome’s top one percent of earners only controlled 16% of society’s wealth. These days in the U.S., the top one percent control 40% of the country’s wealth.

While studies have shown that this inequality is what helped the expanse of the empire, it is also part of what ultimately led to the fall of the Roman Republic. As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, eventually Julius Caesar came along and put an end to all of it.

Ancient Romans Thought Early Christians Were Cannibals

As we’ve learned, the refusal of early Christians to acknowledge the Romans’ traditional pagan gods meant that they were considered to be atheists. It turns out that the Romans also had another negative impression of Christianity.

The ancient Romans believed that Christians were cannibals! This stems from the fact that they “drank” Christ’s blood and ate of his body during their communion services. The early Christians invited Roman authorities to come and observe their communion practices to prove that they weren’t literally eating human beings or drinking blood.

Slavery Was A Big Part Of Life In Ancient Rome

Slavery was an unfortunate but important part of Ancient Rome’s economy. One estimate is that slaves accounted for 10–15% of the total population of the Empire. It was the most widespread between the Second Punic War to the 4th century CE.

As PBS has reported, “Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race. Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory.” It’s also worth repeating that it was not rare for people to sell their children into slavery during desperate times.

Rome’s First Christian Emperor Ended The Practice Of Gladiatorial Combat

Emperor Constantine, the first Christian Emperor of Rome, brought an end to the gladiatorial games in 325. Under his rule, he declared that the violence of the games was unnecessary at a “time of civil and domestic peace.”

Nevertheless, some historians argue that another reason for the games coming to an end was that Rome was fighting fewer wars, and therefore had fewer prisoners to force to fight as gladiators. Unfortunately, for those slaves serving as gladiators during the time of Constantine’s decree, they remained slaves and were forced to work in the Empire’s mines.

12

Rome’s Bloodiest Emperors

BBC History Magazine - Three of Rome’s Bloodiest Emperors Reigned During the Times of Jesus and the Apostle Paul

1.  TIBERIUS.   (Ruled AD 14–37)

Tiberius was the successor to Augustus, but Augustus did not particularly want Tiberius to succeed him. In fact, it was only the untimely deaths of the emperor’s grandsons Gaius and Lucius – and Augustus’s decision to exile their younger brother, Agrippa Postumus – that put Tiberius in line for the imperial throne.

Tiberius was a gifted military commander and respected the authority of the Senate. However, he had a gloomy and increasingly suspicious outlook that won him few friends and led him into a bitter dispute with Agrippina – the widow of his war hero nephew, Germanicus. Fatally, Tiberius relied heavily on the ambitious and ruthless administrator, Aelius Sejanus, who instituted a reign of terror until Tiberius, learning that Sejanus planned to seize power himself, had him arrested and executed.

Tiberius then sank into a state of dangerous suspicion, distrusting everyone around him. He retreated to the island of Capri, revived the ancient accusation of maiestas (treason) and used it to sentence to death anyone he suspected. Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus painted a picture of Tiberius living on Capri as a depraved sexual predator. This may owe more to colourful imagination than to fact – but he did make use of a sheer drop into the sea to dispose of anyone he took issue with. Tiberius was not a monster in the mould of some of his successors, but he certainly set the tone for what was to come.

NOTES:  Tiberius revived an ancient law surrounding treason, then used it as a convenient way of ridding himself of anyone he didn't like.

“Tiberius made use of a sheer drop into the sea to dispose of anyone he took issue with.”

 13

2. GAIUS Aka Caligula.  (Ruled AD 37–41)

Gaius (known as ‘Caligula’, meaning ‘little bootee’ – a childhood nickname given him by his father’s troops) – is perhaps best known for a series of downright strange actions, such as declaring war on the sea and proclaiming himself a god. His reign actually began quite promisingly, but after a serious bout of illness, Caligula developed a paranoia that led him into alarmingly erratic behaviour – possibly including incest with his sister, Julia Drusilla, whom he named as his heir.

Caligula took particular delight in humiliating the Senate, claiming that he could make anyone consul, even his horse (though, contrary to the popular story, he didn’t actually go through with this). As the son of Germanicus, a prominent general, Caligula was keen to establish his military credentials. However, his campaign in Germany achieved little, and his abortive invasion of Britain had to be turned into a battle with the sea god, Neptune. He is said to have told his troops to attack the waves with their swords and gather seashells as booty.

Caligula declared himself a god and used his ‘divine status’ to establish what was, in effect, an absolutist monarchy in Rome. He followed Tiberius’s example of using treason trials to eliminate enemies, real or imagined. But in the end, it was the emperor’s rather childish taunting of Cassius Chaerea, a member of the Praetorian Guard, that brought him down. Chaerea arranged for Caligula’s assassination at the Palatine Games. He apparently protested that he couldn’t be killed because he was an immortal god, but he turned out to be rather less immortal than he thought

NOTES:  Caligula's claims to godliness didn't prove to be much protection from his peeved Praetorian guardsman.  The guardsman killed him. 

14

Nero kicked his lover, Poppaea, to death.

3. NERO.  (Ruled AD 54–68)

Nero is the Roman emperor we all love to hate, and not without reason. He was actually a competent administrator and benefitted from the aid of some very able men, including his tutor – the writer Seneca. However, Nero was also unquestionably a murderer, starting with his step-brother Britannicus, with whom he had been supposed to share power. He then masterminded the death of his own wife, Octavia – after deserting her for his lover, Poppaea, Nero then had Octavia executed on a trumped-up charge of adultery.

Probably on Poppaea’s prompting, Nero had his own mother murdered, but his initial attempt – making use of a collapsible boat – went wrong, and she had to be beaten to death instead. He also snuffed out Poppaea’s life himself, repeatedly kicking her in a fit of anger while she was pregnant with his child.

Contrary to the myth, Nero did not start the Great Fire of Rome; neither did he ‘fiddle’ (nor even play the lyre), while the city burned. In fact, he organised relief work for its victims and planned the rebuilding. But Nero’s fondness for his own music and poetry, which made him force senators to sit through his own interminable and talentless recitals, meant people could easily believe it of him.

Nero was much hated for building his huge, tasteless ‘golden house’ complex (aka the Domus Aurea, a large landscaped portico villa) in the ruins of what had been the public area of central Rome. He undoubtedly persecuted Christians in large numbers, and his infantile insistence on winning the laurels at the Olympic Games in Greece – whether or not he actually won, or indeed finished the race – brought the empire into disrepute.

Nero was eventually toppled by an army revolt that spiralled out of control, becoming a destructive three-way civil war.

NOTES:

Nero kicked his lover, Poppaea, to death.

Nero gave the command for his mother to be murdered in a complex sea accident. When that didn’t work, he opts for a blunter approach: he has her beaten to death.

15

CALIGULA: WAS HIS TYRANNY ALL IN THE MIND?

The story of Caligula has long been about the corruption of absolute power, murderous madness and sexual perversion, but Philip Matyszak reveals how the Roman emperor’s reputation is far more seductive than the mundane reality

The Roman Empire produced some spectacularly bad emperors over the centuries. There was the brutally egotistical Commodus, who moonlighted as a gladiator in the Colosseum, and the bizarre Elagabulus, who dressed in women’s clothing and got about the Palatine in chariots pulled by slave girls. Then there was Nero, whose orgies and tyrannical excesses were notorious. 

No list of Rome’s worst emperors would be complete, though, without Caligula. Everybody knows, after all, of how he threw obscene orgies, had sex with his sisters and was an ingenious and sadistic torturer. And, of course, he was stark, raving mad. Yet most of what we think we know about Caligula comes from accounts (both ancient and modern) based on the authors’ highly active imaginations, rather than historical record. 

It is true that few lives have come close to the absolute heights and profound depths Caligula experienced in just 25 years. He was the youngest son of Germanicus, the rising star of the imperial dynasty, and part of a revered family, which combined celebrity glamour with monarchy and a cult of personality.

As the youngest in this Roman pantheon, he was the ‘chick’, the darling, the mascot. The name Caligula, or ‘Little Boots’, came from adoring soldiers to whom Germanicus liked to display his son dressed as a miniature Roman legionary. Uncomfortable with the moniker, Caligula later insisted on the given name he shared with a famous ancestor – Gaius Julius Caesar. (Many historians today use Gaius rather than the sensational alter ego of Caligula.) 

Caligula’s childhood idyll ended when his father apparently contracted a lethal dose of malaria in Egypt and died in the province of Syria, certain to the last that he had been poisoned. Almost the entire population of Rome turned out to receive his ashes, but significantly the emperor Tiberius was not present. 

16

Germanicus’s sons were potential successors to the emperor, making the family a threat to Tiberius’s second-in-command, the sinister Sejanus, who had ambitions of his own. By now, Tiberius was elderly and had withdrawn to his villa in Capri, leaving much of the governance of Rome to Sejanus. 

Yet Sejanus could do nothing against his rivals while their protector Livia, the mother of Tiberius, was still alive. It was only after her death in AD 29 that Caligula’s mother and his two older brothers were arrested. The mother was flogged so badly that she lost an eye, and died soon afterwards (or was killed) in exile. Caligula’s brother Drusus was deliberately starved in his imprisonment until, in his hunger, he tried to eat the stuffing from his mattress. The other brother avoided a similar fate by taking his own life.

Before Sejanus could move against Caligula, however, he himself was executed when Tiberius awoke to the treachery of his scheming subordinate. Caligula, the last surviving son of Germanicus, was appointed the imperial heir and ordered to live with Tiberius in Capri.

The next six years were stressful beyond belief for Caligula. The biographer Suetonius tells us that he was scrutinised day and night for any signs of disaffection or hints of disloyalty, deliberate or unintentional. Let’s not forget that this was an era when a senator could be put to death for going to the toilet while wearing a ring with the emperor’s portrait. 

FROM MASTER TO MADMAN 

Caligula went to bed every night wondering if he would be woken in the small hours and taken to the cells for summary execution. Even as Tiberius lay dying, the capricious emperor could have abruptly appointed a different successor, which would have meant certain death for Caligula as no other emperor could tolerate his claim to the empire.

Once Tiberius died, Caligula went literally overnight from a near-hostage to the acknowledged master of Rome. His return to the city was welcomed with wild enthusiasm. Soon afterwards, he had a nervous breakdown. In an age familiar with post-traumatic stress we should perhaps expect this. As veteran soldiers will testify, the true psychological impact is felt only upon returning to normalcy and safety, then experiencing utter alienation from others who have not shared the same experience. Caligula’s collapse left him bed-ridden in delirium while an anxious Rome prayed for his recovery. Ancient biographers report that he arose from his sickbed as a madman.

17

The truth proved to be worse though. Caligula, ruler of Rome, had been out of action for weeks – and nothing had happened. The provinces had been governed as usual, the Senate met and passed decrees and the praetorian prefects administered justice. The empire had gone peacefully about its business. The way that the imperial system functioned meant that Rome did not actually need a hands-on ruler. 

Caligula was not really necessary and, to someone with his upbringing, ‘unnecessary’ meant ‘disposable’. As a headstrong young man with a survival instinct ingrained across every fibre of his being, Caligula set about rectifying what he saw as an unacceptable situation. He would make himself necessary, and make the Senate and the people of Rome dependant on his rule. It ended up being a flawed and fatal strategy, but it followed logically from Caligula’s life experience to date. 

SENATE STRANGLEHOLD 

He immediately jettisoned the example of his immediate predecessors, who had carefully pretended to work through the senate, even while slaughtering individual senators. By explicitly taking direct control of the empire, Caligula was not only ahead of his time, he was declaring war on the Senate. Therefore, Caligula’s reign is not about the antics of a young madman, but the story of a political struggle for supremacy – a story told by the victors, for whom libel laws were non-existent and the truth optional. 

The last ruler of Rome to openly place himself above the Senate was Caligula’s namesake, Gaius Julius Caesar, and the Ides of March shows what they thought of that. Nevertheless, Caligula elevated himself above the senate by declaring himself a God. Later, that was less unusual – the emperor Domitian entitled himself Master and God – but at the time this seemed blasphemous and bizarre.

Even in Caligula’s time, it was not unprecedented. In the Greek east, rulers were almost routinely deified, and the divine status of the Egyptian pharaohs had been adopted by their Macedonian successors. Caligula awarding himself the same status in Rome was only insane in the sense that it was a political gambit certain to fail.

Caligula the God had the support of the people and the army, but was a political neophyte with a personality totally unsuited to fighting a senate of ruthless fixers hardened by savage, often fatal, political battles. Senators had connections, clients and a hidden grip on the levers of power. Both sides in this struggle used any and all means at their disposal, but it was Caligula who was outmatched. 

18

One of the weapons of the senate was propaganda. Here, a comment by the great orator Cicero is revealing: “I call this man a gladiator, not as the usual rhetorical insult, but because he really was one.” In other verbal attacks, Cicero labelled opponents as arsonists, patricides (even those with living fathers!), pathics, coprophiliacs and murderers, and even claimed – with no proof whatsoever – that one man killed children to use their organs in necromantic rites. In Roman political invective, mud was hurled with gleeful disregard for the truth, just to see what would stick. 

As for Caligula, the senate seized upon his claim of divinity and interpreted it as madness. They twisted every action of an emperor who was in any case young, headstrong and thoughtless, and simply invented other cases. Even the fact that his wife loved him was seen as evidence of his madness (he allegedly threatened to torture her to discover why). Caligula was also a loving father, but apparently only because his child shared his sadistic inclinations, which excused Caligula’s eventual murderers bashing the toddler’s brains out against a wall. 

MANIACAL MYTHS 

Staying with family relations, the biographer Suetonius reports that Caligula enjoyed sex with his sisters during banquets while appalled guests looked on. Yet Suetonius wrote a century later, when the legend of Caligula as a lunatic had been well established. By then, some believed he had become a sex-crazed madman because his wife had overdosed him with a love potion. Since much of the detail of Caligula’s mental state comes from Suetonius, the claim of incest merits further examination.

The historian Tacitus was born 15 years after Caligula died. Unlike Suetonius, he scrupulously reports allegations as just that – allegations rather than fact – and he does not mention any such dinner party entertainment. Nor does the philosopher – and senator – Seneca, who actually knew Caligula. Both writers do not shy away from the topic, but mention Caligula’s sister Agrippina in connection with incest only with her uncle and son, not her brother. 

19

As to Caligula’s murderous side, there is a definite shortage of victims. While Suetonius is fond of saying the emperor had people slaughtered by the dozen, he is curiously reticent about naming them. Other writers, such as Appian and Plutarch, meticulously document the senators killed in the much bloodier purges of Sulla and the Triumvirs. 

Caligula did order the execution of Tiberius’s son and his Praetorian prefect Macro (who appeared set on emulating Sejanus in ambition), as well as his cousin, the king of Mauritania. But most of his other victims are dubious, like the gladiator who died of an infected wound after Caligula had visited him. So in all there are less than a dozen names. Compare this to hundreds killed by Augustus, dozens by Tiberius, and many more by Nero and Claudius, with most of their high-ranking victims carefully named. 

As there is insufficient space to refute every allegation of Caligula’s madness, two examples must suffice. The first is Philo’s account of a meeting with Caligula. He and a group of ambassadors had travelled from Egypt to complain about the provincial governor, but Caligula was inspecting some mansions he had ordered so the unfortunate ambassadors had to run after him from room to room. Finally, Caligula ordered the breathless delegation to present their case. 

Philo reckons he was dealing with a lunatic, yet this deranged conduct led to a rehearsed hours-long speech being compressed into a five-minute synopsis, after which Caligula decided in the delegation’s favour. He also inspected his buildings while he was at it. 

 20

DAMNED BY HISTORY 

Secondly, we are told that early in his reign Caligula had a sudden impulse to visit the army in Germany and dashed to the frontier with none of the usual preparations. Once there, he decided to kill the army commander and various soldiers. In truth, that commander was a general of suspect loyalty whom Tiberius had earlier ordered to Rome. The general knew he faced execution on arrival there, so replied that if he came he would bring his army; he then remained in Germany. Caligula’s sudden arrival caught him flat-footed and he was executed before rallying allies, whom Caligula subsequently purged. The move was bold, ruthless and decisive, but not necessarily insane.

After Caligula’s assassination four years after he took power, it became even more urgent to stress that he had been mad – he was still popular with the people and army despite his war with the Senate. The new emperor Claudius was insecure in his position and the senate eager to justify Caligula’s killing – so, without Caligula present to retaliate, the damning of his name proceeded without restraint.

CONFIRMING CALIGULA’S ROTTEN REPUTATION

Sometimes we only hear what we want to hear. When people start with an idea they want to be true, they may downplay or reinterpret anything that disagrees with it and enthusiastically accept anything that helps confirm it. (Anyone who has been wildly in love and later disillusioned will know this phenomenon.) Until the concept was given its more scientific-sounding name – confirmation bias – this tendency would be described by the cynical saying, “Give a dog a good name and bless it, give a dog a bad name and hang it”. 

21

Thanks to Suetonius, confirmation bias has shaped our view of Caligula. Why did he commit his atrocities? Because he was mad. How do we know he was mad? Because he committed atrocities. Once we break confirmation bias, other motives become apparent. But then we have a mundane political power struggle, when we secretly prefer the delicious horror of an empire (safely distant from us) ruled by a sex-crazed, murderous tyrant.

DID CALIGULA REALLY MAKE HIS HORSE A CONSUL?

Caligula had a favourite racehorse named Incitatus (The Swift). He gave the animal regular treats and a stable made from marble. Soldiers were ordered to hush the neighbourhood when the horse was sleeping. “It is even said he planned to make the horse a consul.” All the above comes from Suetonius. When even he repeats something as hearsay, it is time to be very wary. 

Instead, the consul story has become part of the Caligula myth. In Robert Graves's novel I, Claudius, Caligula makes the horse a senator, with the intention of making it a consul later, while in Lloyd C Douglas's book The Robe he actually does the deed. In reality, he did not. Perhaps he publicly quipped that even his horse would make a better consul than the present incumbents, and the senate propaganda machine took it from there. It is also possible that Caligula did seriously contemplate making his horse a consul, but as a way of demeaning the senate. Nero later tried to demean senators by making them fight as gladiators and by prostituting their wives. 

22

Evangelism and Apologetics 

What about misogyny? 

Are women second class citizens?

(Various notes from APSE Studies)

APSE Ministries began as an exploration of questions.  We have heard church positions for years.  Where did they come from?  The Bible?  Tradition?  History?  The easy way is to take them at face value.  Our leaders have done the studying for us.  All we need to do is follow them.  No need for us to study.  No need for us to question.  No need for us to think.  No need for us to trust and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit?  I decided to question.  Ask.  Pray.  Study.  Embrace.  Misogyny is one of the topics I wanted to know more about.  

 What about misogyny? 

Misogyny on the Old Testament: 

1. Where did male superiority come from?  

Genesis 3:16  I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing…, Your desire will be for your husband and HE WILL RULE OVER YOU.

2. Numbers 30 is about vows.  They relegate a woman not back to a second class citizen, but about a fifth class citizen.  Men make the decisions.  

Vs 2 When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.  (Basically, if a MAN makes a vow it stands.  He is a male so he is able to speak for himself.)

Vss 3-5  “When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand.   But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lord will release her because her father has forbidden her.  (A young woman can make a vow but the father has veto power over her.  The father has the final say.)

Vss 10-12  “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand.  But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her.  (Once a woman marries, the final say of any vow she makes is now transferred to the husband.)  

Vs 9  “Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.  (Good news.  If her husband dies or he dumps his wife she gets to make decisions on her own.  There is no “superior male” to veto her decision.

23 

3. More examples in Deuteronomy.  Women are essentially property of men.  

An example.  Deuteronomy 21:10  Marrying a captive woman - slightly paraphrased):  When you win a battle and you see a hot woman (vs. 11) and want her for your own wife (add to your harem?), take her home, shave her head, clean her nails, set aside her clothes.  Give her a month to mourn her parents (whom you may have personally killed), then check her out and see if you still want her.  If you decide, nah, never mind, you must let her go as a free woman since you dishonored her.  She, obviously having no rights, would be at your mercy.  Maybe wanting you since you then have to take care of her and she has no family and is dishonored, or maybe not since she probably hates your guts.  (IMHO…)

An aside:

Sexual Complimentarity – John Piper   (Rev. Piper presents courses in conservative Christianity, one being this particular course.  He also has a paper that grudgingly accepts inter-racial marriage since it seems Moses had a wife of color.)

His logic: If women are elders and pastors then there is no difference between man and woman, hence homosexuality is ok.  (That is one giant leap.  I have read it dozens of times and I just don’t get it.)

However it does beg the question on prohibiting women in leadership positions in the church.  i.e. elders, pastors.  Is this based on scripture written in a time when females were denied the opportunity of education?  Are we limiting ourselves based on customs of the 1st century?

Back to misogyny:

4. For all the criticism of misogyny and the anti female material in the Bible, in truth it is actually the opposite. Even in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 when a woman is raped, the fact that her rapist must MARRY HER is revolutionary for the day.  At the time, women had NO RIGHTS.  They were UNCLEAN and useless for 20% of their lives (via menstruation).  They were “dirty” and must be cleansed after menstruation.  

Who would want a raped virgin as his wife?  Very likely no one.  So how could she ever support herself - other than prostitution.  So the law is forcing the rapist to provide for the victim for the rest of her life.  Good news.  You will be provided for.  Bad news.  You must live with your rapist forever.  

24

5. Jewish families had become a bit more liberal, equitable, fair, faithful in treating women, but the eldest son was critical.  If the husband died first, which frequently happened, the woman’s sustenance was wholly dependent on the eldest son.  Hence the concern over the welfare of the eldest son over all children.  Perhaps why the eldest son got the “birthright,” the larger portion of the inheritance? 

The New Testament

The treatment of women in the New Testament involves the two central figures of the books.  Jesus in the Gospels, and Paul in the Epistles.

Jesus:  Jesus was in my opinion the greatest champion for women’s rights in the history of civilization.  The position is covered in the article Jesus: The Greatest Champion for Women’s Rights article in this section.

For Paul, the issue was a bit more complex.  Hence, his writings on treatment and roles and responsibilities of women seem to bounce all over the place.

The meshing of Judaism with the Gentiles was quite a task.   

In the Gentile world, adultery was rampant. 

Here is the problem text from Paul that really offends:  Ephesians 5:21-23

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.   For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.   Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 25

Well that doesn’t sound too good for women.  Except… and this is HUGE.  Men never had this responsibility to a wife before.  This sounds awful but it is really quite radical in its day)

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.  In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—  for we are members of his body.  

 The wording here sounds strangely anti-woman in the 21st century.  Many consider it insulting. 

But PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF PAUL’S DAY.  It was worldly radical - on the OPPOSITE WAY.  For the first time in Greco-Roman society MAN had to love and respect WOMAN.  Care for your wife as much as one cares for himself.  He stated further in Galatians 3:28 …there is neither male nor female…  They are EQUAL.  In Greco-Roman society that was crazy radical and a real boost for the lives of women.  

Paul made similar comments in Ephesians chapter 5:  Woman, (submit /love/respect) your husband.  It will be easier for him to love you.  Man, love your wife, it is easier for your wife to submit to you.  Neither of these comes before the other as we are to SUBMIT TO EACH OTHER OUT OF REVERENCE FOR CHRIST.  (WHY DIDN’T PAUL JUST SAY THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?)

This theme is also in Colossians 18-19  Wives, submit to your husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord.  Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.  

TAKE IN CONTEXT that at that time in the Gentile world marriage was not about love, but about a woman bearing children for her husband (and her own future security IF she bears a son).  This does NOT mean women are second class to their husbands TODAY.  It was a radical idea of the time for a marriage to be about LOVE AND CARING FOR YOUR PARTNER - BOTH WAYS.

(It is critical to remember marriages at the time were mostly arranged marriages.  How much “love” was involved is debatable.)

 26

In these texts Paul is referencing Isaiah:  Isaiah 62:5b  ...as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will God rejoice over you.  (This appears to be the analogy Paul uses in his description of marriage in the epistles, verbiage that was understandable in Paul’s time but seems almost insulting in today’s world of women’s rights.)

BUT… Did Paul go too far?

In the Pastoral Epistles written later Paul seems to soften his position of neother male nor female.  Perhaps to help the church fit in more with Greco-Roman society norms he pulled back a little and put men back in leadership and limited the responsibilities and opportunities for women in the church.  

Read the Apocryphal Book The Acts of Paul and Thecla and Notes on Thecla.  Were The 2 books of Timothy and Titus written in response to women thinking that they can escape a male dominated society through this new religion of Christianity?  Would Paul’s efforts to promote women’s rights doom his fledgling churches?

Let’s look at 1Timothy:

1 Timothy 2  Instructions on Worship   8Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn (the importance here is that women MUST LEARN, a very unusual and PROGRESSIVE POSITION in that in normal life very few women had an opportunity for an education.  The reference is not complete silence, but a quiet demeanor.  Why are we applying this 1st century thought to today?) in quietness and full submission 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man (Note: The word in Greek here is DOMINEER over a man, not that she has to remain totally quiet.  One interpretation is that women may teach but cannot be considered AUTHORITATIVE.  Can MEN DOMINEER over a woman?  If a woman can be authoritative I assume the men can be.  Then again, why are we applying this 1st century thought to today?), she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  4 And Adam was not the one 

27

deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (OUCH.  Try to spin THIS verse to say Adam was as much at fault as Eve for original sin.). 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (MORE OUCH.  A woman who does not procreate is doomed?).

1. Timothy 3  Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons - Where do women fit in?  (OVERSEERS HAVE AUTHORITY.  DEACONS ARE TEACHERS, hence women can  be deacons, or deaconesses, but not have authority.  Women cannot be ELDERS.  Is this a timeless mandate?  Or just because women were teaching heresy in the day.)  Here is a trustworthy saying.   Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable,  able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.  4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect.  5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)  6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited, and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.  12  A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.  (SO WHAT ABOUT HUSBANDS OF WIDOWS?  OR, HORRORS, A DIVORCEE?  What about the father of Janice Hale?  Note: I met Janice at church camp.  I liked her a lot, but I was far from her league.  She was a PK - preacher’s kid.  But man, she was WILD!)

Or should women just accept their fate as second class citizens in the church.  The male superiority in the faith offer this little ditty: “Women, learn from Joseph Barsabbas (Justus), the follower of Jesus that was not chosen to replace Judas.  Mathias was chosen as the 12th apostle.  But Justus continued to serve the Lord Jesus in whatever capacity he could even though he COULD NOT SERVE IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION.  Just like women…  Woman: KNOW YOUR PLACE!”  (Be happy we let you cook and wash dishes?)

 28

From The Historical Jesus by Crossen:  Another thought.

Pg 299  Jesus said:  I have not come to bring peace to the world but daughter against father…   Conflict because of religion (the old covenant vs the new covenant)?  Or BECAUSE JESUS IS UPSETTING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF MALE (Patriarchal) DOMINANCE.  In the various versions, including the Gospel of Thomas, the divisions over Jesus will not only be patriarchal but also INTERGENERATIONAL (parents vs children - sons and daughters, and sons OR daughters and spouses) and also ACROSS SEX AND GENDER - male vs female.

(Were these words written AFTER Paul’s epistles?  But spoken BEFORE Paul’s epistles. Perhaps indicating Paul’s words about woman keep quiet in church and women cannot teach in church are not JESUS’ words but merely Paul trying to make or keep peace with his Greco-Roman male dominated audience.)

No question Jesus was a revolutionary.  He upset the apple cart in more than one area.  Including roles of women.  Although not disciples, he had women in his inner circle.  In fact it seems they funded much or all of his entire ministry.  

Then again, Paul referenced churches in the homes of women (See Lydia - The “purple woman” in Acts 16:11-15), no men mentioned or involved.  The book of Paul and Thecla references a woman missionary.  Seems Paul wasn’t as misogynistic as the conservative churches like to make him out to be.

 29

Does the Bible Teach that Women are Second Class Citizens? 

It seems there are some that believe just that.  Here are 2 articles that put forth a conservative position of women’s roles in society and in the church according to their interpretation of scripture.

The initial paragraphs are notes from an article of July 19, 2017 / biblicalgenderroles.com) 

Additional notes are added from a Bible.org  class by Robert L. (Bob) Deffinbaugh of Dallas Theological Seminary.

(Personal note:  I have a far different take on this subject than the authors of this article.  It comes from my personal experience.I had the good fortune and sincere privilege to attend school with 2 special classmates, Barb and Kathy.  Female.  Kind.  Friends.  And sheer geniuses.  Neither shy nor overbearing.  Definitely humble.  But I guarantee you, either one could overwhelm both of the following 2 authors with knowledge, skills, leadership, speaking, teaching, and dare I say, class.  For either of these 2 authors to suggest Barb, Kathy, or a plethora of brilliant women have to take a back seat to them because Eve bit the apple first is ignorance.  I learned my lesson of respect and equality for women early, not by intimidation, but by friendship and sharing with smart and talented girls and women in my life.  Just as I learned from fellow boys and men.  Even more shocking: Some of them were even gay.  And persons of color.)  

Second class citizen: “A person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society.”

So the question then becomes, does the Bible advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men according to the dictionary definition I just gave?

The answer simply put is YES. The Bible does in fact advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men if “second class citizen” simply means they are to have less rights and opportunities than men.In fact, women occupy the second of three social classes of humanity that God designed.

 30

God’s First-Class Citizen – Man as God’s Image Bearer “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

God’s Second-Class Citizen – Woman the helper to man “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help mate for him.” – Genesis 2:18 (KJV)

God’s Third-Class Citizen – Children as God’s inheritance to man “Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)

 God’s Fourth-Class Citizen - A fourth social class allowed by God because of SinSin’s entrance into the world resulted in crime, laziness, poverty and war. These four human conditions would necessitate that God allow for a fourth class of citizen which is that of a slave.  While God allowed for slavery he also specifically gave rules regarding the humane treatment of slaves and the conditions under which slavery may occur. (Because of sin there is laziness, evidently also stupidity and inability to care for oneself, so God decided for the benefit of that sinner that he should become a slave for his own good.  The only way he could survive…)Is a woman’s second-class status only applicable if she is married or living with her father?

Even if a woman feels called by God to celibacy in his service this does not remove her second-class status. Paul’s divine commentary on the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman makes this clear. I Corinthians 11:3  “3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 

 31

“We attended home church and were told that women are to be submissive to their husbands, and not speak in the church.”  

AUTHOR’S RESPONSE:  If you had church services in your home (as many churches do) then your husband would be right in teaching that you and your daughters should remain silent and simply listen during the spiritual instruction given by the men. This is actually very clearly taught in the Scriptures.  “11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)

So, it is perfectly Biblical for elder women in the Lord to conduct women’s Bible studies in their home or maintain blogs online with other women as long as this occurs under the authority of their husbands. The women teaching should teach what is in accordance with their husband’s teachings and the women attending should do so with their husband’s permission. 

“Some of the men in the church were not very caring and loving husbands and they did not honor their wives. Last year I realized that my efforts to be a Proverbs 31 wife has led me to have a relationship that is not what I consider to be what God wants. My husband is verbally abusive, self-centered, and has neglected his role as Father and Husband.” 

Who determines if a husband is acting in a caring or loving way toward his wife or honoring his wife? I can tell you who does not determine this. Neither his wife nor his children. Ultimately it is God himself who judges whether your husband is caring and loving to you and honoring you in the way God expects of him. And how does he determine God’s will in these areas? By examining the Scriptures and how God loves his wife.

 32

Responses to this article:

1) Nice article.  I disagree on women teaching women about Scripture. They simply can’t be trusted to get it right. Let them teach how to be a good wife and mother, no more.

2)  You only mentioned that with regards to going to church in the article, so I just wanted to make sure you knew it applies to all times, not just in church. Wasn’t trying to be rude though. Sorry if I came off that way. Hope you’ve been doing well lately, and God bless you!

WAIT!  THERE’S MORE! 

Bible.org  Robert L. (Bob) Deffinbaugh Dallas Theological Seminary

Old Testament Precedent: Divine Distinctions Based Upon Gender

Family leadership (rights of the first-born) was passed down from one generation to another through the males. The Abrahamic Covenant passed from Abraham to Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob, and then through his sons. In the Book of Numbers, we find provisions made for the rare instances in which there were no males through which the inheritance would pass down.  But it is clear that such instances are rare, and are the exception, rather than the rule. 

When a census was taken, it was of males only. Of course, we should remember that a census was taken for military purposes, and thus only males 20 years old and older were counted.

Circumcision was a male ritual. It was the male Israelites who identified with the Abrahamic Covenant by means of circumcision. 

The laws regarding ceremonial uncleanness after the birth of a child made distinctions on the basis of gender. A woman who bore a male child was declared unclean for seven days, while a woman who bore a female child was declared unclean for fourteen days.

Only the male Israelites were required to appear in Jerusalem three times a year for the three great religious feasts. In some instances, at least, this must have meant leaving the family behind in order to attend some of these feasts.

33

Contrary to popular representations, angels appear only in masculine form. 

The regulations of the law regarding vows assume the subordination of women to men. A man was bound to his vows. When a single woman made a vow, it could be nullified by her father, and when a woman who had made a vow married, her husband had the right to set aside her vow (at the time he first learned of it, but not later on).

The laws pertaining to jealousy and divorce also distinguished on the basis of gender. If a man doubted the purity of his wife, there was a process whereby his suspicions could be verified or shown to be false.  Regulations regarding divorce seemed to pertain only to the men, but not to the women. In other words, there were provisions for a man to divorce his wife, but not reciprocal provisions for a woman to divorce her husband.

Women were not allowed to assume positions of leadership over men. There were no women priests, no women kings, and only a few women prophets.  Indeed, it was an indication of divine judgment when women ruled over men:

My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths (Isaiah 3:12, ESV).

The bottom line is that with a very few exceptions (and these served to prove a point), women did not lead men in the Old Testament. Instances where women did lead will be dealt with in our next lesson. 

34

The Old Testament evidence is beyond dispute: God distinguished between males and females, on the basis of gender alone. This mountain of evidence sufficiently explains Paul’s concluding words in 1 Corinthians 14:

Paul teaches that women are to remain silent in the church. We know that this means women cannot teach the men, and that they are not even to ask a question. But what does it mean to be “silent”? Some may conclude that this means absolute silence. Thus, a woman could not even sing with the congregation, or lean over to tell one of her children to be quiet. We have drawn the line elsewhere. We believe that the woman’s silence is directly related to the leadership and authority of men in the church. Thus, we believe that a woman should not “lead in prayer,” “teach the congregation,” or exercise authority when the church is gathered.

Do all the same rules apply in the home, or when a ministry group meets? Some might think so. We don’t allow women to teach men, even in small groups and in the context of the home. We do allow women to share observations and to ask questions in these smaller and less formal settings. Could our “lines” be challenged? No doubt, but wherever we do draw the line, someone is sure to disagree.

To press on, we know that Paul has forbidden women to teach men. But we also know that women can teach their children in the context of the home.  Can a woman teach a Sunday school class? We believe so, but we draw the line at the junior high level. Women can teach children, and they can teach women, but we don’t allow them to teach young men. Where these lines are to be drawn is somewhat arbitrary. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and so we try to make these distinctions wisely, realizing that others may draw them elsewhere.

35

However, saner heads put forth: Historical Context of the Scriptures

“The first stage in serious Bible study,” notes Grant Osborne, “is to consider the larger context within which a passage is found.”  He goes on to note, “Since Christianity is a historical religion, the interpreter must recognize that an understanding of the history and culture within which the passage was produced is an indispensable tool for uncovering the meaning of that passage.” Osborne’s advice is especially pertinent considering the wide chasm that exists between the Ancient Near East (ANE) and twenty-first century America.

If we are to understand what Moses meant in the Pentateuch, we must have some understanding of his milieu. Moreover, we must remember that Israel was birthed out of the ANE where patriarchy, primogeniture, polygamy, and slavery were accepted norms. That is to say, Israel did not exist in a vacuum, isolated from its neighboring nations. This close proximity explains why many of those less than ideal structures existed in ancient Israel. 

With this context established, one readily observes that God does not endorse the broken structures of patriarchy, polygamy, slavery and so forth. Rather, we observe that God worked within those already existing structures, seeking to make incremental moral improvements on established practices. This strategy is not too different from a new pastor who aims to take his church in a new direction, but he does so gradually lest he leave others behind.

Of course this is all important because, remember, THE WOMAN IS THE WEAKER VESSEL.("Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7).  She did bite the apple first…

Nor can a woman be an elder!!!  Paul listed qualifications for elders.

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

 36

THE APOCRYPHAL

ACTS OF PAUL (and Thecla)

(THECLA – THE FIRST WOMEN’S LIBBER)

(Sources: The Apocryphal Jesus/The Great Courses by David Bakke, Ph.D., Wikipedia and other various on-line resources)

 The Background from the Acts of Paul (and Thecla):

The Acts of Paul and Thecla is a 2nd-century text (c. AD 180) which forms part of the Acts of Paul.  It was also circulated separately. According to the text, Thecla was a young noble virgin from Iconium who listened to Paul's "discourse on virginity", espoused his teachings, and became estranged to both her fiancé, Thamyris, and her own mother. Thecla sat by her window for three days listening to Paul and his teachings. When her mother and fiancé witnessed this, they became concerned that Thecla would follow Paul's demand that "one must fear only one God and live in chastity", and turned to the authorities to punish both Paul and Thecla. 

Thecla was miraculously saved from burning at the stake by the onset of a storm and traveled with Paul to Antioch of Pisidia. There, a nobleman named Alexander desired Thecla and attempted to rape her. Thecla fought him off, tearing his cloak and knocking his coronet off his head in the process. She was put on trial for assault. She was sentenced to be eaten by wild beasts but was again saved by a series of miracles. Female beasts (lionesses in particular) protected her against her male aggressors. While in the arena, she baptized herself by throwing herself into a nearby lake full of aggressive seals.  Lightning killed the “killer seals.”

Thecla rejoined Paul in Myra, traveling to preach the word of God and becoming an icon.  She encouraged women to imitate her by living a life of chastity and following the Word of God.  She then went to live in Seleucia Cilicia, living in a cave there for 72 years according to some versions of Acts.   Other versions say she spent the rest of her life in Maaloula, a village in Syria. She became a healer, performed many miracles, but remained constantly persecuted.  The text reports as her persecutors were about to get her, she called out to God and a new passage was opened in the cave and the stones closed behind her. The passage and caves are still found in Maaloula and became a very important site for pilgrims. She was finally able to go to Rome and lie down beside Paul's tomb.

37 

COMMENTS:

It is doubtful Thecla existed as a single person, but instead was an amalgamation of many women in Biblical history.  It is known Paul did work with many female believers – Priscilla, Phoebe (Paul called her a servant or “deacon”, the same Greek word Paul used for Timothy), and Jania to name a few.  Priscilla, Julia, and Nereus’s sister traveled as missionaries with their husbands.  In promoting celibacy under Christianity, Thecla demonstrated a way for a woman in the First Century to escape her “required role” as child bearer of the family and to escape domination by her husband.  She could be on her own and make her own decisions, certainly not the societal norm of the day.

(DESPITE THESE OPINIONS, THECLA HAS BEEN NAMED A SAINTE BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND A DAY OF CELEBRATION IS HELD FOR HER EACH YEAR ON SEPTEMBER 24.)

A theory arose that 1 and 2 Timothy were written to correct or dispel the lessons of the Acts of Paul even though the Timothy epistles (perhaps not written by Paul) were written BEFORE the Acts of Paul.  The thought is the Acts of Paul were written later but relied on verbal stories in early Christianity that had survived for years.  Hence, the Book of Timothy calls them “wives tales.”

The Acts of Paul adds to the debate on the role of women in the church AND the role of celibacy in the church AND in Christianity itself.  Paul is basically anti-marriage in this book, although Paul admits marriage is OK in order to prevent lustful living.  He adds church leaders should be celibate.

A contradiction to Timothy where he describes the church leaders as GOOD, FAITHFUL HUSBANDS OF BUT ONE WOMAN WITHOBEDIENT, BELIEVING CHILDREN!

Paul is also an ambiguous figure in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. He is seen as a preacher of asceticism (avoiding all forms of indulgence, sexual, etc.), but one with whom women are besotted (infatuated, intoxicated). His teachings lead Thecla into trouble, and yet he is never there when the trouble comes. This presentation of Paul as an ascetic preacher, discouraging marriage, appears to be very different from that of the Pastoral Epistles. For instance, 1st Timothy 4:1–3 has Paul explicitly condemning anyone who forbids marriage. However, 1st Corinthians 7 is more ambivalent about marriage, saying that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (7:1). This text has been interpreted as ideologically closer to Paul and Thecla. In any event, The Acts of Paul and Thecla indicates one possible understanding of Paul's legacy in the second century. 

38

Was Paul misogynistic or were these epistles added to reset the church somehow, define order in a church that was struggling or that was deemed by leaders (men) to assure the leadership would REMAIN by men?

Seems so.  This presentation says women should maintain headcoverings because they were inferior to men.  Man came from God.  Woman came to serve man.

Also Paul separates woman from man – a woman has long hair and should keep it long.  A man should have short hair to distinguish him from the (inferior) female.

As for women speaking:

Women are to stay quiet in the church.  Was Priscilla?  Was Phoebe?  Probably not.  

In the Acts of Paul the apostle Paul actually commissions Thecla to travel and spread the Gospel.  She offered to and probably did cut her hair to travel like a man, not to pretend to be a man in order to preach, but in order to travel more safely.

Additionally, as stated above, Paul did work with many female believers – Priscilla, Phoebe (Paul called her a servant or “deacon”, the same greek word Paul used for Timothy), and Junia to name a few.  Priscilla, Junia, and Nereus’ sister traveled as missionaries with their husbands.  Think THEY kept quiet???  

39

Shut up, woman!  Explaining Thecla.  And maybe the epistles to Timothy at the same time.

By Despina Iosif  Ancient World Magazine 

 Mary Beard was right in the observation she made in the opening of her book Women and Power that the first recorded example of a man telling a woman to “shut up”; telling her that her voice was not to be heard in public is immortalized in the Odyssey 1.346-7 and 356-9 when Telemachus orders his mother not to express her thoughts and will in the presence of others but rather to withdraw to her quarters (Beard 2017).

Throughout antiquity in the Mediterranean, it was widely held that women were by nature inferior to males and prone to error, that their subordination was totally justified and that it was preferable for them to remain silent. 

The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (from now on: AAPT) did not follow widely held notions on women. It is a fascinating early Christian text written in the second half of the second century AD as a manual for educating liberal and strong women.

This was also precisely the reason why it was soon considered by mainstream Christian fathers as a far too dangerous read for Christian maidens and it got rejected. What if it got ideas into silly little female heads?

Scholars who study the early Christian world ought to consult the entire early Christian literary production, both the canonical and the apocryphal productions, both mainstream and marginal, and not just the fortunate texts that passed the selection process and finally prevailed. For all texts satisfied at one time the needs of the communities which produced them and thus are windows that afford a view of the past and they can help us grasp the preoccupations and the problems troubling the entire early Christian world.

Bishops had to repeatedly meet in formal assemblies (i.e. Synods) in order to discuss which texts they were to approve and which to reject, and the ways they were to be used in order to enforce their will. The last text that made it to the Christian Canon was the Revelation of John, which only became part of the Canon as late as the twelfth century. The apocryphal gospels have been unjustly neglected by scholars for centuries. The Orthodox Church, for it respects tradition, detests them particularly.

40

She totally ignored the social norms of her times. She distanced herself from her upper class family – at first metaphorically and soon after literally – she dissolved the engagement with her fiancée which according to the social standards of the time her family had chosen for her.

Thecla chose to keep her virginity at a time when one was meant to get married and procreate. She traveled around the Mediterranean in order to preach the word of God.

The AAPT were composed in the second half of the second century in Asia Minor to narrate Thecla’s story and to promote Thecla as a role model. It was a very popular read. Many Christian fathers knew it, although they did not necessarily agree with it, and translations of the text survive in many languages: Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopian and maybe Arabic.

The text was written in the not very intellectually demanding koine Greek and it could easily be read regardless of one’s educational background. People could easily follow it as another read it aloud to them; this it seems was the most common way in which texts were disseminated in the ancient world.

The earliest mention of the text belongs to Tertullian, a little after 190, who wrote in On Baptism 17.5, that a presbyter (an elder or minister of the Christian Church) from Asia composed the AAPT and as a result was deposed by apostle John after confessing the sin of its composition.

Why did the text as soon as it circulated offend the sensibilities of male Christian fathers? One reason must have been because it preached an impossible code concerning sexuality. However, I will argue in this paper that it was rejected mainly because it presented Thecla as an empowered, independent charismatic figure and even more so because it showed the remarkable impact Thecla had on her female contemporaries.

Women appear in the text as strongly admiring Thecla – for the choices she made as far as her sex life was concerned, her traveling, her preaching in male clothes around the Mediterranean as a wandering charismatic and her resistance against authority and being vocal about their admiration. Thecla is the undisputed inspirational protagonist of the story. She clearly overshadows the apostle Paul and she highly impresses other women who can no longer hold their enthusiasm for her.

41

At the same time there is the idealization of lifelong celibacy over marriage, of cross-dressing and of traveling as a wandering charismatic. Paul, settling in one place, getting married and behaving according to what society has already prescribed for one’s gender (silence and passivity as far as women are concerned) are clearly of lower value. The text explicitly upsets the boundaries each gender was to observe.

Thecla was a beautiful maiden from an upper class family residing at Iconium. Her family was about to marry her with a socially equal young man called Thamyris. The plan was disrupted when the apostle Paul came to the city and started preaching the Christian ideal of virginity. Thecla was mesmerized and shunned her fiancée and the plans made by others for her future.

Her mother Theocleia was furious with the unexpected disobedience and turned to the authorities and accused her own daughter for being anome (against the laws) and anymphe single), and Paul for being a xenos (foreigner) and a magos (magician). As a result, Paul was arrested and sent to prison, where Thecla visited him. As was customary, she bribed the prison guards (with a silver mirror) to allow her access.

In prison, Thecla sat at Paul’s feet all night listening to his teaching and kissing his bonds in adoration. A public trial was soon held. The judge decided to expel Paul and to have Thecla burnt at the stake. Against all odds, Thecla was saved and she left the city. She met with Paul and she suggested that the apostle let her cut her hair short and join him in his travels around the Mediterranean. Paul unenthusiastically agreed. She also suggested that Paul baptize her. Paul refused, for it was too early. 

Thecla and Paul then begun their travels together and reached Antioch where an upper class individual called Alexander found Thecla attractive and tried to rape her. Paul did absolutely nothing to help her out of the dire situation and even pretended not to be acquainted with her and left the city. Thecla stood her ground. But as a result she had to stand yet another trial for assaulting a nobleman. This time she was sentenced to be thrown to the beasts.

The female citizens of Antioch furiously protested and wholeheartedly and openly supported her. They could not keep silent. She had a tremendous impact on them and they could not endure passively the injustice. A wealthy, upper class woman called Thryphaena, who happened to have just lost her daughter (mortality rates in antiquity before the advent of antibiotics were extremely high), said publicly she would protect Thecla.

42

In a dramatic episode, as she was about to meet her death Thecla, who could not afford to wait any longer for an unwilling male (i.e. Paul) to baptize her, baptized herself in the arena in front of the crowd. (Baptism signified remission of sins and guaranteed entrance to heaven, so Thecla could take no chances.)

By another divine intervention Thecla was saved and set free. She then adopted male attire and started looking for Paul and indeed found him in Myra. Paul suggested she teach the word of God as a wandering charismatic. Thecla happily complied. After many years Thecla returned to Iconium where she tried to be reconciled with her mother. She ended up in Seleuceia and she met her death there.

According to another version of the story that survives, Thecla lived for seventy two years as an ascetic and offered superb medical services to her frequent visitors. The Christian Church promoted ascetics and monks as the new highly successful and highly powerful physicians of the day in an attempt to keep people away from Asclepeia where incubation was practiced. When Thecla was ninety there was yet another attempt of rape against her, this time by a gang of pagans solicited by the physicians of the city who, because of Thecla, had lost their clients. God intervened and prevented the rape. 

 43

Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker

Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker says Pride Month is example of 'deadly sin' during commencement speech

by Lukas Weese May 14, 2024 12:35 PM

Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, speaking during a commencement speech at Benedictine College, referred to Pride Month, the events in June demonstrating inclusivity and support for the LGBTQ+ community, as an example of the “deadly sins” as he advocated for a more conservative brand of Catholicism.

“Not the deadly sins sort of Pride that has an entire month dedicated to it,” Butker said, “but the true God-centered pride that is cooperating with the holy ghost to glorify him.”

Butker spoke for more than 20 minutes to students at the Catholic school in Atchison, Kansas, saying he wanted the graduating class to prevent political leaders from interfering with social issues that impact their relationship with the church.

Butker, 28, criticized an Associated Press article on America’s Catholic Church, which detailed the institution’s shift “toward the old ways.” It highlighted Benedictine’s rules that “seem like precepts of a bygone age,” which include “volunteering for 3 a.m. prayers” and “pornography, premarital sex and sunbathing in swimsuits being forbidden.”

Butker said the story was an “attempt to rebuke and embarrass” places like Benedictine, and that it would be met with “pride” instead of “anger.”

Benedictine, a college with more than 2,100 full-time undergraduates as of September 2022, describes itself as a liberal arts institution aimed at “the education of men and women within a community of faith and leadership.” Butker, who called on religious leaders “to stay in their lane and lead,” praised Benedictine for embracing what he called traditional Catholic values.

“When you embrace tradition, success, worldly and spiritual, will follow,” Butker said.

44

In October 2014, the school ordered basketball player Jallen Messersmith to remove a Pride flag from his dorm room window.

Butker also used the speech to criticize President Joe Biden on several issues, including abortion and the coronavirus pandemic, and questioned Biden’s devotion to Catholicism. Butker also addressed gender ideologies and said that a woman’s most important title is “homemaker.”

“It is you, the women, who have had the most diabolic lies told to you. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world,” Butker said.

The Chiefs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While the NFL isn’t in season during Pride Month, the league participates in LGBTQ+ initiatives. On the Wednesday before Super Bowl LVIII, the NFL hosted a “Night of Pride” event in partnership with GLAAD, the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization. The Chiefs are among the NFL teams that have a Pride selection of apparel with rainbow colors.

Kansas City is among the many North American cities that host Pride events during June, led by the KC Pride Community Alliance.

Butker is a three-time Super Bowl champion with the Chiefs. He was a seventh-round draft pick in 2017 and made 33 of 35 field goals in the 2023 season.

 45 

Chiefs Kicker Spreads Antisemitic Lies In Benedictine College Graduation Speech

Rolling Stone Magazine  MAY 15 2024 AT 9:53 AM

Harrison Butker claimed Congress “passed a bill where stating something as basic as the Biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail”

Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker kicked the hornet's nest last weekend when he encouraged the women of Benedictine College's 2024 graduate class not to embrace their roles as wives and homemakers rather than putting their degrees to use. While the speech drew widespread criticism for his characterization of women and LGBTQ people, Butker also promoted an insidious piece of antisemitic misinformation pertaining to legislation in Congress. 

"I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you," Butker said in his commencement speech. "Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world."

The three-time Super Bowl champion went on to describe how his wife, Isabelle, never achieved her "dream of having a career," but that "if you ask her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud without hesitation, and say, 'Hey, no.'"

Of course, Butker earns millions of dollars per year as an NFL player -- so a second income isn't exactly necessary. Ironically enough, during his commencement speech, Butker quoted Taylor Swift, a woman who has built a wildly successful career and billion-dollar fortune without a husband, who is now dating Butker's teammate, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. 

46

Butker, a devout Catholic, also claimed that "Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the Biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail."

This is a reference to the Republican-led House of Representatives passing a bill that would threaten federal funding for colleges and universities that fail to restrict antisemitic speech. The controversial legislation was almost certainly designed to limit speech criticizing Israel, but it would also target "claims of Jews killing Jesus." 

Some conservative lawmakers opposed the bill on this basis, arguing it would effectively outlaw the classic antisemitic belief that Jews killed Jesus. To be clear, though, the bill threatens university funding, not jail time for bigots. It has not been voted on in the Senate. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said she opposed the legislation because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews." Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) argued "the Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of the bill."

These statements are a misinterpretation of Catholic doctrine. While the Biblical gospels do say that Jesus was presented before Jewish leadership of Judea for judgment, he was ultimately condemned to death by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. Historically, claims that Jews were ultimately responsible for the death of Jesus have been wielded as an antisemitic trope against Jewish populations. 

47

In 2011, Pope Benedict XVI, then-head of the Catholic Church, declared that there was no basis in scripture that would hold Jews in collective guilt for the death of Jesus, and pointed out that -- after all -- the early followers of the Catholic faith were themselves Jewish. 

In his Benedictine College speech, Butker also said that "things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for degenerative cultural values in media all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder." He specifically criticized Joe Biden for being pro-choice, saying that the president "proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally."

The speech wasn't the NFL player's first foray into the abortion debate. In 2022, Butker starred in a misleading TV ad campaign promoting a failed Kansas ballot measure that would have ended constitutional protections for abortion in the state, so that lawmakers could ban the procedure.

In the ad, Butker identified himself as the Kansas City Chiefs kicker, and claimed the amendment would "let Kansas decide what we do on abortion, not judges and not D.C. politicians." 

The ad campaign was funded by the dark money group CatholicVote Civic Action, which in turn was bankrolled by the dark money network led by Leonard Leo -- who is best known as the architect of the conservative Supreme Court supermajority that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion.

48

In an odd coincidence, Leo gave Benedictine College's commencement speech last year, giving a similarly right-wing speech warning of "modern-day barbarians, secularists, and bigots" who are "determined to threaten and delegitimize individuals and institutions who refuse to pledge fealty to the woke idols of our age." 

49

What is the Antichrist?

Gotquestions.org

First John 2:18 speaks of the Antichrist: “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” The specific term antichrist is used five times in Scripture, twice here in 1 John 2:18 and once in 1 John 2:22; 4:3; and 2 John 1:7. So, what is this Antichrist that the apostle John refers to?

The meaning of the term antichrist is simply “against Christ.” As the apostle John records in First and Second John, an antichrist denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22), does not acknowledge Jesus (1 John 4:3), and denies that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 1:7). There have been many “antichrists,” as 1 John 2:18 states. But there is also coming theAntichrist.

Most Bible prophecy/eschatology experts believe the Antichrist will be the ultimate embodiment of what it means to be against Christ. In the end times/last hour, a man will arise to oppose Christ and His followers more than anyone else in history. Likely claiming to be the true Messiah, the Antichrist will seek world domination and will attempt to destroy all followers of Jesus Christ and the nation of Israel.

Other biblical references to the Antichrist include the following:

The imposing, boastful king of Daniel 7 who oppresses the Jews and tries to “change the set times and the laws” (verse 25).

The leader who establishes a 7-year covenant with Israel and then breaks it in Daniel 9.

The king who sets up the abomination of desolation in Mark 13:14 (cf. Daniel 9:27).

The man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12.

The rider on a white horse (representing his claim to be a man of peace) in Revelation 6:2.

50

The first beast—the one from the sea—in Revelation 13. This beast receives power from the dragon (Satan) and speaks “proud words and blasphemies” (verse 5) and wages war against the saints (verse 7).

Thankfully, the Antichrist/beast, along with his false prophet, will be thrown into the lake of fire, where they will spend all eternity in torment (Revelation 19:20; 20:10).

What is the Antichrist? In summary, the Antichrist is the end-times false messiah who seeks, and likely achieves, world domination so that he can destroy Israel and all followers of Jesus Christ.

Referenced Articles: The Apostle Paul 2

Return to Top of Page

Return to Home