“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.”
Romans 16:1-2 NRS
In studying this topic we will find numerous extremes in history. There are people who are approaching this topic not for truth but for approval of their preconceived ideas. We will find that the early church did not have the view that women were never allowed in leadership positions that were adopted later.
Let’s be clear as well that the topic of women in ministry is not a salvation issue, as such we can disagree on this and still respect each others views… also it is not a holiness issue, meaning it is not immoral to come to a different conclusion on this topic in terms of accepting women in leadership roles in the modern evangelical Church.
I have listened and read hours of teaching on this topic… and am shocked at some of the strange teachings I’ve seen. Some progressive leaning Bible teachers have taken this and ran in an unhealthy direction, reading into the text far more than the majority of Bible scholars would find.
Many, like Tim Keller, Mike Winger and others taught the “complimentarian” perspective regarding women in ministry while others like NT Wright teach an “Egalitarian” viewpoint.
What is the difference?
Here is a brief overview:
Complementarian - The belief that a husband should be the spiritual head of his family, and that husband and wife will have different and complementary roles in their marriage. This view is often accompanied by the belief that women should not be in leadership in the Church either.
Egalitarian - The belief that there are no separate gender roles in marriage, and that husband and wife will lead the family collaboratively. This view is often hijacked by progressive Christian’s who allow a largely anti-patriarchal view to drive them forward.
I would not consider myself fully aligned in either the Complementarian or Egalitarian position. I lean slightly towards an Egalitarian view because I see there are normally gender roles within a marriage. All of this said, men and women are equal in the sight of God as evidenced in numerous scriptures. It is evident through scripture that God has primarily utilized men in leadership, but he also had raised up a number of women to lead as we will soon discover. Saying that God reserves leadership solely for men is a complete fallacy according to scripture when read in context. It is very likely that God chose men to lead more because of how strong patriarchy was culturally during the writing of the old and New Testaments.
Men who embrace the patriarchal viewpoint of leadership often point to certain passages written by Paul however they tend to cherry pick their doctrine on this subject through out of context verses to subjugate women into submission. If they chose to actually follow the scriptures on the topic of women - in particular how it relates to their wife they would see a clear teaching in the New Testament where they are asked to “lay down their lives” for their wives. This means the husband will lay down his agenda, his authority and his interests for His wife. If men followed this thread of thinking they would give up their staunch patriarchal control to lead in sacrificial love. Likewise, if women read these passages as intended to be read they would offer up her interests for their husbands. It is clearly a mutual respect that should develop if a couple is following the biblical model. A husband who excerpts authority or demands respect is no longer acting in accordance with scriptures in his gender role, which call for sacrificial love. In a similar fashion, a wife who takes authority over her husband without cause (as an example if he leads her into sin, is abusive or tries to be controlling) is also no longer acting in accordance with scriptures in respectful love. It is a mutual submission to Christ that God is clearly suggesting for married couples in passages found in Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3, and Colossians 3.
Some will point to 1 Peter 3 and say that the scripture points out that the woman is a “weaker vessel”. This passage is referring to the physical strength of her body and not her position in the eyes of God as evidenced by comparing it to Galatians 3:28. Peter is pointing out a physical fact (something our current generation should become familiar with in its destruction of Women’s sports with genetic males). Further to this, look at the number of times that the scriptures point to Adam’s sin as the reason the human race is so flawed. The scriptures are clear repeatedly on the doctrine of original sin.
Some who are reading this are thinking of 1 Timothy 2 now, you know the passage. The one where Paul says women should be quiet in Church? It always seems like Paul’s words here didn’t line up with what we are reading in other parts of the Bible.
What was Paul saying?
Why, if this was a central Church doctrine is it not mentioned more consistently in other parts of scriptures other than the two often cited passages in Corinthians and Timothy? This seems to oppose Galatians message of grace and freedom from legalism.
I’ve learned through reading and study is that central doctrines of Christianity are consistently modeled and written about or alluded to throughout scripture. As such when I’ve found a verse or a couple of verses that appear inconsistent with the rest of the scripture I know that it’s either a translation issue or we misunderstand the scriptural context as it applied to the intended hearers of the passage.
As I delve into this… I admit that there is a ton of really bad theology on both the sides of support for women in ministry and from the traditional patriarchal viewpoint. They are both prone to error… things are not as cut and dried as they appear at first if you have been raised in a largely patriarchal environment. Some of what is being “read into” the texts is pure fiction… and I want to be careful as I navigate this that I am true to the intent and context of the scriptures in question. I want to ensure that I am honouring the scriptures as they would have been understood at the time of their writing.
Before we look at that “holy grail” - passage that is the favourite go to verse for those who condemn any and all involvement of women in ministry found in Timothy, let’s first look at another passage. As I go through this passage I want us to be cognizant of the fact that this is the same Paul that wrote Timothy who also penned the book of Romans. As well, I can bring up a number of other supporting passages showing a track record of support for women in ministry… let’s go:
Romans 16 1-16 is Paul’s farewell to the Roman Church. He begins immediately with a list of people he wants to thank for their support in ministry. Of the 26 people Paul lists… 10 are women in leadership roles. These are not women who were on the sidelines and being quiet but evidently strong and vocal voices for the Gospel and heavily involved with leadership in the Church.
First we read about Pheobe, Paul says of her that she has been a “patron” for many including of himself. The Greek word for Patron here is “prostatis” which is defined as “a female guardian, a protector”. In fact Strongs defines the word as “properly, a woman set over others”:
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.”
It is painfully obvious that Phoebe was not someone who kept quiet, she was someone who had strong influence and led a group of people and who Paul is saying should be helped and supported by the leaders of the Church.
Then he greets Pricilla and Aquila, the powerfully gifted evangelical couple also mentioned in other letters by Paul. Did you notice that Paul calls the woman’s name out first? This does not appear very patriarchal does it? It was common at the time that the men were called first… the fact he mentions the woman first should not be overlooked or taken lightly. During the period this was written it would have indicated she was likely the more gifted or knowledgeable person of the husband and wife duo and that she had greater influence.
“Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well.”
Pricilla and Aquila are mentioned in several places in the scriptures and often her name appears ahead of his. In Acts 18:26 it says in the ESV “He (Apollos) began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
It is very clear that Priscilla was an incredibly knowledgeable and highly intelligent woman in a leadership role. She was not “silent” in some back corner so her husband could do all the speaking. It appears they were a strong evangelistic team. I’ll get into this more shortly, but we are not done reading about these women. It is also really clear that Paul is not chastising these women for operating in leadership roles within the Church. They aren’t being told to remain silent in the Church!
Paul lists several more women… Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Rufus’ mother, Julia and finally Nereus’ sister.
Junia was for years thought to be a man however a historical search of Roman era names shows that Junia was a common woman’s name… not a man’s. Secondly the early church fathers said in their letters she was a woman and thirdly she is paired with a man named Andronicus in Romans 16, probably her husband.
There is some later translations such as the later versions of the King James Bible where the translators chose to translate the verse here as “Junias”. This is largely because of the patriarchal culture at the time of the King James translation and is not supported by the text. The Greek word for Junia here is “Ἰουνίαν” which was a common name for a woman during the time but not for a man.
The vast majority of Bible commentators prior to the thirteenth century broadly accepted the female name, Junia. Further to this, a majority of Bible translations from the late 1300s through the mid-1800s translate Iounian as a woman and not as a man.
These translations include:
Wycliffe (1382, 13902)
Göttingen Gutenberg Bible3(1454)
Erasmus Greek-Latin NT (1519), Tyndale (1525)
Coverdale (1535)
Matthew (1537)
Great Bible (1539–41)
Taverner (1539)
Geneva NT (1557)
Bishops (1568)
Spanish “Bear” Bible (1569), Rheims (1582)
Geneva Bible (1583–99)
Hutter Polyglot (1599)
Reina-Valera4 (1602, 1858, 1909)
King James Version (1611) Giovanni Diodati (1649)
Wycliffe NT (1731)
Webster (1833)
So if you have a 1611 King James Bible it will read “Junia”… but in later translations a trend developed to change Junia to Junias. A great disservice to women. That one letter makes a big difference in this discussion.
There are some who claim Paul was calling Junia an Apostle when he says she was “highly esteemed among the apostles”. Many scholars would say that is reading to much into the text and I would agree. That said, it is clear that she was indeed highly respected among the apostles… which indicates she held a significant leadership or influential role in the early church.
It would be very easy for me to get into the stories of a number of other women in leadership roles, within the scriptures… women like Rahab who is mentioned in Jesus genealogy, Esther, Deborah the prophetess. Then there’s Mary Magdalene and Joanna wife of Chuzza as well as Suzanna who according to Luke 8:2-3 provided for Jesus and the disciples out of their own financial means.
We are not done yet… when Jesus rose, the people he first presented himself to were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James. If God was so fixated on men in leadership, why present first to women? This was entirely opposite of the culture… where women and children were mostly second class citizens. Other than Ephesus and Corinth where large temples to female gods were prominent, women were not considered equal, so presenting himself to women first would seem odd for a God who supposedly wants women to be silent. Choosing to base our entire philosophical understanding of women’s roles as patriarchal based on one or two passages against the backdrop of substantial evidence that opposes that philosophy through other scriptures is lazy Christianity.
I feel like one of these widget salespeople here “but wait there’s more”… let’s not forget about the woman at the well. Extra biblical sources say her name was Photine. If these sources are correct she eventually shared the gospel with Nero himself and was executed soon after. The passage in John 4 says this of the Woman’s evangelistic efforts:
““Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.” So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.””
The gospels seem to devote a great deal of energy talking about the woman at the well. The fact Jesus spoke at length to this woman, that he did not speak down to her but in a gentle, respectful and elevating manner speaks volumes to Gods heart towards women. The disciples were also taken aback by Jesus casual conversation with this woman.
I’ll continue this another post… suffice to say there is substantial evidence that Women in the early Church were elevated and not generally silenced. In comparison to the surrounding culture, women who became Christians had significant opportunities in the Church to learn - something generally denied them in Roman culture, to teach, to speak out.
And that brings us to the much misused and misunderstood Timothy passages…
That’s for next time!
Next post:
Previous blog post can be found here:
Comments