Blood, the Synoptics, the Law, the Canons, and the Didascalia

Most Orthodox that circulate in my jurisdiction would accept that women and
menstruating women for that matter are not permitted to enter the altar area. However, how
many of us know what the canons, the Law, or other authoritative sources have to convey on this
subject? Furthermore, based on the evidence is any revision of ecclesiastical law concerning this
matter warranted? Finally, can we be critical of the canons, while maintaining integrity and
respecting the Holy Fathers from whom they were formulated?
First, let us turn to the Holy Evangelist Mark and set the stage for this reflection.1 Jesus
has been asked to heal a girl near death, the daughter of an elder belonging to the synagogue in
Capernaum, named Jairus. The synoptic account describes a great crowd had followed. Among
them, a woman afflicted with “an issue of blood” presumably worked her way through the
multitude and “touched his garment.” (Mark 5:27). Jesus immediately perceiving that power had
“gone out of him” turned around and queried: “Who touched my clothes?” His disciples,
somewhat flummoxed by the question given the large crowd, responded: “Thou seest the
multitude thronging thee and sayest thou, who touched me?” (Mark 5:31). The scene culminates
with the woman coming forward though with fear and apprehension, after which Christ puts here
at ease, indicating that her faith had saved her, bidding her peace, and affirming that she had
been healed. (Mark 5:32-34).
The text, we feel merits further clarification. For starters, Jesus according to the Levitical
law has been “infected” by a woman that is unclean. Additionally, in that cultural milieu the
woman who has pursued Jesus for a cure has also risked discovery and “infecting” others out of
desperation. You see, the Leviticus legislation regulating Jewish life in that era is about purity
and impurity. Leviticus 10 verse 8 demonstrates this clearly. In this passage God communicates
to His priest Aaron: “You and your sons are not to drink wine (…) so that you can distinguish
between (…) the unclean and the clean.” Providing some context to the above text we may better
comprehend the woman’s apprehension in coming forward when Jesus had beckoned. The
measure of one’s purity in the Law was further conditioned by the infraction as was the
accompanying punishment. For instance, the Levitical restitution required for bodily discharges
is much less severe than the penalty that is incurred for idolatry. (See Lev 20:2; and Lev 15).
What are we to think of Jesus’ apparent disregard for the Levitical legislation? Are there other
instances in which, He, according to the Law became ritually unclean? We can think of two other
occasions that come to mind. One is the story recounted in the latter part of the fifth chapter of
Mark provided above, that commences with Jairus petitioning Jesus to heal his critically ill
daughter. Jesus the gospel maintains, arrives at Jairus’s house and his daughter has succumbed to
her ailment. Despite the witness of those attending to the girl, Jesus declares the girl is not dead
but asleep. Unmoved by their scorn Jesus takes the girl’s “hand” and commands her to “rise”,
thus restoring her to life. (Mark 5: 35-43). Then there is the occasion in which Jesus heals the
leper: “When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. And,
behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me
clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And

1
We emphasize reflection. The author is not an expert on the subject matter but rather a student of Theology.
immediately his leprosy was cleansed.” (Matt 8:3). It needs to be noted that in these preceding
examples there is never expressed on the part of Jesus a desire to adhere to the Levitical
prescriptions. While, in this instance an appeal to silence is not a valid argument, in the gospel
account conveying Jesus’ healing of the menstruating women and the subsequent healing of the
elder’s daughter, it would appear that Jesus is more concerned with the law of love than legal
restitution. In this scenario Jesus goes from one event to the next without observing any Levitical
directives. The problem is resolved, we acknowledge, if while Jesus is walking to Jairus’ house
the evening dawns, at which point his ritual purity is secure. The Matthean account of Jesus
touching the leper is nevertheless compelling, given that the gospel was written to Jewish
Christians. Indeed, one could surmise that Jesus’ apparent negligence of the purification rites
could pose for Matthew’s audience a cause for concern. On the other hand, Jesus’ criticism of
the pharisees in Matthew 15 verse 10 could also be proffered as support for a new law that
transcends the former. Perhaps the ethical or the “inner man” Jesus would affirm is of greater
import than the “outer man”. Having perused the Law and the Gospels (synoptics), we now
direct our attention to what the pertinent canons communicate.
Contained in the Rudder is St. Dionysius’s prohibition of menstruating women from
church attendance, touching the “Holy of Holies” and receiving the Eucharist.2In the sixth
ecumenical council, canon 69 restricts “all laity” from entering the altar area, and the local
council held in Laodicea likewise forbids “women” from breaching the holy Bema.3 An
important distinction, however, is made in the interpretation given to canon 69, which reads that
women “shall not go into the holy Bema if they are laywomen.” Why differentiate between
women and laywomen? Only two reasons seem plausible. The distinction allows for the Imperial
women to enter the altar area or certain women, perhaps deaconesses, were permitted to enter,
thus explaining the contrast. The last suggestion seems more credible given the Syrian sources4,
especially the Didascalia.
In the early part of the third century a document of Syrian (perhaps Antioch) origin, the
Didascalia Apostolorum was composed and endorsed by St. Epiphanius (+403), a Cypriot bishop
from Salamis, a father of the Church, and “a strong defender of Orthodoxy.”56 Chapters 24 thru
26 challenges Dionysius’s claims that menstruation is an impediment to “temple” participation.
In chapter XXVI, “On the bonds of the Second Legislation of God” the Didascalia disclaims
Canon two of Dionysius proposing instead that menstruating woman are commanded to
approach the Eucharist:

2
George Manstrantonis, ed., Ancient Epitome of the Sacred Canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church (St. Louis,
MO: Ologos, 196AD), 43.
3
Orthodox Eastern Church, Agapios, and D. Cummings, eds., The Rudder (Pedalion): Of the Metaphorical Ship of
the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Christians or All the Sacred and Divine Canons
(Chicago: Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957), 372;569.
4
There are other sources that support this position not given here. See Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald. Women
Deaconesses in the Orthodox Church.
5
“Epiphanius of Salamis,” Wikipedia, June 30, 2018, accessed July 19, 2018,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiphanius_of_Salamis&oldid=848236603.
6
Bryan Garagan, “The Church’s Canons: Immutable or Mutable” (Trinity College, 2018), 11.
 For if thou think, O woman, that in the seven days of thy flux thou art void of
the Holy Spirit; if thou die in those days, thou wilt depart empty and without
hope. But if the Holy Spirit is always in thee, without (just) impediment dost
thou keep thyself from prayer and from the Scriptures and from the Eucharist.
For consider and see, that prayer also is heard through the Holy Spirit, and
the Eucharist through the Holy Spirit is accepted and sanctified, and the
Scriptures are the words of the Holy Spirit and are holy. For if the Holy Spirit
is in thee, why dost thou keep thyself from approaching to the works of the
Holy Spirit? (My emphasis added).
The argument, then, for the unrestricted movement of women clergy or those women
appointed within the confines of the temple is not entirely untenable, from the Syrian or
Antiochian perspective.
Whether you agree or disagree with this presentation I think the topic is worthy of
discussion. Jesus, from my perspective, as the synoptic gospels demonstrate encounters people in
an intimate way that transcended the Legal and social conventions of His time. The Law was
fulfilled in Him and the canons often reflect this. However, as it concerns the restricted
movement of women in the Orthodox “temple”, I think that the canons need to be revisited and
other esteemed testimony, even extra-canonical sources such as the Didascalia Apostolorum,
require further consideration. This of course can only be accomplished given the appropriate
synodal forum thereby ensuring that the directives of the Fathers are acknowledged accordingly.