Chapter 2 Acts and Epistles: Prophesying Daughters and Silenced Wives

Chapter 2

Acts and Epistles: Prophesying Daughters and Silenced Wives

Only a few years separated the career of the apostle Paul from that of Jesus, and only a few pages separate their teachings in the biblical text, but the differences between them are dramatic. Although Jesus faced a variety of opinions among his contemporaries, all of his conversations and confrontations took place within a few square miles in Palestine. And all the recorded ones, at least, occurred within a few years. Paul’s ministry, in contrast, spanned two decades and carried him across the Roman Empire. Although the later Greek culture we know as Hellenism had penetrated Palestine, Jesus’ environment was not comparable to that of a resident of cosmopolitan Corinth, Ephesus, or Rome.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the writings by Paul about women and the church introduce issues and approaches not found in the Gospel accounts of Jesus. One instance of this difference is the fact that the Roman laws on the rights of women were advancing over the traditions of the Jewish rabbis, and they affected the environment in which Paul, but not Jesus, preached. Another instance is the dominant figure of the Roman matron—the socially prominent, articulate, forceful kind of woman who appears in contemporary descriptions of Roman life. She was the “liberated” woman of her day and stood in strong contrast not only to the secluded women of earlier years in Rome and in ancient Greece but also to women in Palestine at the time of Jesus’ ministry. The church had to come to terms with the society it was trying to penetrate.

Such differences signal the fact that there are several points of transition that call for attention in a survey of the history of the church in the apostolic age. An understanding of these transitions helps to resolve the tensions that the average reader feels in trying to resolve the ideal of “sons and daughters” prophesying (Acts 2:17) with the reality of the words in 1 Corinthians 14:34 about wives being silent in church.

The Political Transition: From Greece to the Roman Republic and Empire^*

These transitions took place before the time of Christ, but they affected most of the communities mentioned in Acts, and most of these were significant to Paul. It is a commonplace that the conquests of Alexander carried Greek culture across the known world in the process known as “Hellenization.” Successive political transitions were accompanied by a blending of cultures that was especially seen in religion. All of this affected women.

Greece

One might think that women in ancient Greece would have had a high standing in view of the fact that their pantheon included strong female deities as well as male deities. The celebrated goddesses, Athena and Artemis, immediately come to mind, along with Hera, Zeus’ wife, who held considerable power. Yet, as students of the classics will recall vividly, the male deities did not limit their amorous activities to their female counterparts; Zeus himself had a reputation for fondling mortal women. One has to ask whether the stories of this use of women, known from myth and drama, did not affect the average man’s attitude. Of course, the myths themselves were nothing more than products of human fantasy, and most reflected the way men would like to have seen the world. Either way one looks at it—human values shaping the myths, or the myths in turn affecting human behavior—women fared poorly.¹

Whatever the reasons, women, especially wives, lived for the most part in seclusion in ancient Greece. However much they might have been honored in literature or drama, daily life was something else. Men in ancient Athens who found their wives boring and good for little else than housework and rearing children had recourse to the heterae, companions who could provide intelligent party conversation and other favors. Other women, both slave and freedwomen, whose talents were limited to prostitution, were also available. Wives had little to say about it. The situation of women varied somewhat from city to city. Women in Sparta, for example, were better nourished and more active than those in Athens. They were expected to bear children for warfare. In dress they were different also, wearing slit skirts that bared the thigh.² Nevertheless, the average woman in ancient Greece had a dismal existence, with little genuine sexual pleasure, to say nothing about respect and companionship. To be sure, there were notable women, such as Aspasia, the honored companion of the Athenian general Pericles, and Sappho, a renowned poet. Sappho is perhaps known less today for her poetry than for the fact that she was apparently lesbian (the term coming from the name of her island of Lesbos).

In spite of the activities of some outstanding women and some gains by all, “Athenian law of all periods tended to regard the wife as a veritable child, having the legal status of a minor compared to her husband.”³ We ought to keep this somber fact in mind even when noting that women gradually gained more freedom in various areas. Women did play a large role in religion, including that of priestess; yet it has been demonstrated that although women were accepted as prophets, they were not accepted as teachers, a fact that may have some bearing on Paul’s words about women and teaching.⁴ Hellenistic civilization brought some changes, of course, but in the Graeco-Roman world of the last centuries before Christ these were not necessarily for the better. Women became more visible, especially in stage plots (comedy was increasingly popular) and in art, which was often sexually explicit.⁵ The man who wanted a respectable female companion could find a courtesan,⁶ but at the lower level of society, there were, as always, prostitutes.

The Roman Republic

Roman women during the pre-Christian centuries fared somewhat better than Grecian women, though women in the lower classes of Roman society had menial jobs and little respect. Many were slaves. Some were on the public dole. However, education for women was increasing, and the age difference between husbands and wives was decreasing. These trends brought men and women into a closer social relationship. Nevertheless, men preferred to keep their wives in relative seclusion.

Shortly after 200 B.C. Roman women joined in protest of a law called the Oppian Law named after its proponent, C. Oppius) that prevented them from displaying their status in public by means of jewelry, fine clothes, and riding in carriages. Cato, the conservative Roman senator, spoke against repeal, complaining, among other things, that the Roman matrons “could not be kept at home by advice or modesty or their husbands’ orders.” They “dared even to approach and appeal to the consuls.” Cato considered their actions “shameful.”⁷

More of Cato later, but for now we should note that the forces for repeal won out despite his opinion. Susan Bell observes, however, “The modern sympathizer of women’s emancipation might deplore the argument which the tribune Valerius put forward on behalf of the women of Rome almost as much as one might deplore Senator Cato’s entrenched conservatism.” Valerius’ argument was: “Give the women their baubles. These will satisfy their trivial minds and keep them from interfering in more serious matters.”⁸

The Roman Empire

The transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire following the military victory of Augustus over Antony and Cleopatra in 31 B.C. facilitated the passage of laws long awaited. Among these, as noted in chapter 1, were provisions to ensure the growth and stability of families by imposing stiff penalties for adultery and rewarding large families. The institution of the family came under state protection. There is some question, however, as to how effective these laws were in actually improving Roman morals.⁹ Moreover, women continued to be inferior to men de facto. Some received an elementary education and beyond, but marriage at an early age, usually around fourteen, prevented further education for many. Life expectancy for women was to what we today would consider middle age, so it was well to begin a family early. Marriage had differing effects on the status of a woman, depending on the status of her husband and on whether the legal arrangement of manus was adopted. The old custom by which a woman was transferred from the power (manus, “hand”) of her father to the power of her new husband transferred control over her and, for the most part, over her possessions. But this practice diminished under the Roman Empire, and an increasing number of women married sine (without) rather than cum (with) manu. Eventually women studied subjects—such as rhetoric, philosophy, and law—that were previously the domain of men. They attended major social events and participated in sports formerly considered suitable for men only. By the end of the second century the satirist Juvenal would be finding this all too much.¹⁰

The Roman Matrons: Liberated Women

There were women in the early years of the Empire who gained a high degree of prestige and power. Some achieved this by marrying men prominent in politics or in the military. The wives of some of the Roman emperors during the period of the New Testament have been described as “sensational.”¹¹ There were those who exercised great influence in public affairs. Influential women of the upper classes were known as the “Roman matrons.”

After the establishment of the Empire under Augustus, women were allowed to accompany their husbands if the latter had to live for a time in the provinces (perhaps in some governmental post). Prior to that, the wives had to stay in Rome, where they not only could do little but were also suspected of having secret affairs. In fact, it was not unknown for a husband to divorce his wife on returning from an extended tour of duty just on the assumption that she had been unfaithful.¹²

The Roman matrons were criticized by some of the people. It is possible that some of them used their new freedom for unworthy ends. Nevertheless, most of them carried their status of freedom with dignity. Their situation was far better than that achieved by Greek women. They enjoyed a healthier relationship with their husbands, ate with them at table, managed their homes, engaged in informed discussion, and had freedom to be involved outside the home in social activities. In spite of some strong criticism to the contrary, most of them did not flaunt their freedom, and the “women’s movement” of the early Roman Empire gained much attention and many supporters. Some of the moralistic philosophers, such as Musonius Rufus and Seneca, were outspoken on the subject of women’s equality, though in a limited way.¹³ Musonius Rufus thought that women should at least study philosophy.

Certainly Paul and members of his

The Eucharist, a Second-Century Painting in the Catacomb of Priscilla. Such a painting is not unique, as there are memorial portrayals of idealized banquets with the departed person participating. If this is a representation of the Lord’s Supper, as it appears to be, it is noteworthy that all the participants, including the apparent celebrant, are women. (See also the comments on the Eucharist in chapter 3, page 92.) Alinari—Art Resource, New York.

congregations were aware of these outstanding women. For women to exercise leadership in church ministries would, therefore, not be as unusual in that society, as might be supposed. Priscilla, Phoebe, and Lydia were some of the notable women in the church. The early church apparently prospered through the travels of Christian women. Also, a woman in whose home the Christians met would probably have had a strong positive influence in the church, especially if her husband was not yet a believer and she functioned as a hostess and benefactress.

Outside Influences and Roman Conservatism

In general the movement was from a restricted to a more free role for women in the age of Augustus and during the ensuing decades of the Roman Empire. This was especially true of the higher classes. But even Augustus himself had his limits. Prior to his final conquest over Antony and Cleopatra, he taunted Antony for having been influenced by the “feminists” in Cleopatra’s Egypt. In particular the religion of the goddess Isis promoted feminism. This was one of the so-called mystery religions that flooded into the western part of the Empire around the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire. The conservative Romans were wary of these religions, some of which indulged in excesses, such as public self-castration, and it is not surprising that they were viewed with disgust. This became a problem for the Christians, who had to distinguish themselves from such groups. Since Christianity came from the east—the source of many cults, entertainers, and immoral adventurers—this was not easy. It may be that some of Paul’s restrictions on women were at least partly intended to make the distinction clear.

The rumors that Augustus (at that time he was still known by his name, Octavian) heard about the status of men and women in Egypt must have been frightening, if the following comments by the historian Diodorus Siculus were at all typical. Diodorus said that in Egypt

it was ordained that the queen should have greater power and honour than the king and that among private persons the wife should enjoy authority over her husband, the husbands agreeing in the marriage contract that they will be obedient in all things to their wives.¹⁴

Octavian could hardly refrain from reacting to such a state of affairs. To be sure that his soldiers kept their values straight, he urged his troops, “Maintain the renown of your forefathers, to preserve your own proud traditions…to allow no woman to make herself equal to a man.”¹⁵

It is worth noting the reference to preserving the honor of the forefathers. There is a traditionalism here, not merely implied, but explicit. In spite of the strong legal developments of this period after the accession of Augustus, and in spite of the emergence of strong upper-class women, a moral conservatism continued. This conservative reaction has considerable importance for the study of Paul’s injunctions to women, especially regarding public deportment and appropriate covering of the head. Paul wrote about keeping his “traditions” Although this is often thought of only in terms of doctrine, the word also reflected the perpetuation of traditional moral values. It was vitally important for Paul’s congregations to keep his traditions and thus their reputations.

Laws and customs of the various nations in which Christians were living were not uniform. Egypt was more flexible than Rome regarding women, Rome was more flexible than Athens. All, it might be added, were more flexible than Judaism in some ways, but Judaism did accord women a dignity and some practical advantages, such as property rights, that its contemporaries did not. It is therefore not wise to generalize about the position of women in ancient society.

The Religious Transition: From Judaism to Christianity

At the same time that he was trying to adapt the more indifferent aspects of Christian attitudes and behavior to the conventions of his day, Paul was wrestling with how to apply the principles of women’s equality before God and of his responsibility in ministry in confrontation with Judaism. In this, Paul was not merely dealing with ideology and conventional morality, but also with religious opinions that claimed the authority of centuries of tradition and were thought to have had their origin, like Scripture itself, in divine revelation. As observed in the previous chapter, Jewish writings contain both lofty statements about the worth of women and what might almost be called a backlash of opinion concerning “woman’s place.” But in addition to the opinions already surveyed, there are other traditions and laws that, if indicative of attitudes existing in Paul’s day (even if not yet formulated as they came to be in the Talmud), are important to know. Paul’s teachings, especially those in 1 Timothy 2, are customarily viewed against rabbinical teachings, and he is often thought to have reflected his own rabbinic education in his views. But it is notoriously difficult to be sure of what opinions now found in the Talmud were actually held at the time of Paul, let alone what would have actually influenced him. Nevertheless, it is common practice today to quote denigrating comments by the rabbis about women in order to show how bleak the picture was at that time. Some of these comments may reflect attitudes held in Paul’s day, but as we study them, we should be cautious in our evaluation.

The Talmud

The Talmud does contain a number of laws pertaining to women. In fact, an entire section of the Talmud is devoted to women’s matters. It is called Nashim, “Women.” The subdivisions or tractates are on sisters-in-law (Yebamoth), marriage deeds (Ketuboth), vows (Nedarim), the Nazirite vow (Nazir), a suspected adulteress (Sotah), bills of divorce (Gittin), and betrothals (Kiddushin). Even Nazir, hardly a female subject, includes laws regarding women; e.g., a woman cannot impose a Nazirite vow on her son or bring the hair-offering for her father’s vow. According to Kiddushin 33b, women are exempt from laws that are positive (prescriptions rather than prohibitions) and “time-bound” (applicable only on certain days or occasions, as on the Sabbath or at Passover).¹⁶ This principle was a flexible one, with many exceptions. It does, however, help one to see why there were certain restrictions on women.

Actually these were not necessarily restrictions as such. For example, if women were “exempt” from some duty, that exemption might have relieved them from fulfilling the duty, but it would not have prevented them from doing so. It is well known that women were exempt from the study of the Torah, the Jewish law. It is not as commonly known that they were also exempt from the reading of the Torah and from prayer. This does not mean that women were not permitted to pray, but that they were exempt from certain prayers on specific occasions. Even here, a time-bound prayer, such as one said after meals, may be a matter of general spiritual attitude, and so it is specifically permitted by the Talmud. It is debated whether the reason women cannot be counted toward the minimum number of people required to form a congregation is that their function would be essentially that of praying.¹⁷ The suitability of a woman’s reading the Torah in a synagogue service continues to be a subject for debate to this day.

Studying the Torah

As for the study of the Torah, rabbinic opinions were quite strong. It is often said that Judaism prohibited women from learning the Law. One saying is that whoever teaches his daughter the law teaches her nonsense (or, “lechery,” or “obscenity”).¹⁸ This provides us with a specific saying that is variously interpreted and hence worth considering as an example. In the context, the discussion centers on the ordeal of bitter water to determine whether or not a woman had committed adultery (see also Num. 5). Ben Azzai says that it would be well for one to teach his daughter the Torah so that she would know whether she had acquired sufficient merit to sustain this ordeal. Ben Azzai was not an ordained rabbi, though a respected scholar.¹⁹ Therefore, his opinion was not as valuable as that of the noted Rabbi Eliezer, a judgment supported by the fact that the ensuing discussion in the Talmud includes a comment on R. Eliezer’s saying but not on ben Azzai’s. Probably we can assume that R. Eliezer’s view is the more representative of Jewish thought at the time.

On the other hand, it could be suggested that the reason there is a comment on R. Eliezer’s saying, rather than on ben Azzai’s, is that his comment relates to the nature of the Torah itself, containing language that could be interpreted as derogatory of it. (The comment is that the rabbi had not said the Torah was nonsense, but that to one’s daughter it could be as nonsense.) Biale points out that the use of the ordeal in the case of suspected adultery had long since ceased, so ben Azzai was not dealing with an actual situation, but rather was using this as a means of discussing the importance of a daughter’s knowing the Torah.²⁰ Biale holds that even R. Eliezer would have accepted the appropriateness of teaching one’s daughter some Torah for guidance in her daily life. We should also note that in the Mishnah, this discussion is immediately followed by a comment by R. Joshua that a woman “has more pleasure in one kab [a measure of liquid or dry substance] with lechery than in nine kabs with modesty.”²¹ Without expanding the discussion further, we can see something of the complexity of the issue. What is impossible to determine is how prevalent Eliezer’s viewpoint was in the early part of the first century. We do know that women were not disciples of rabbis in a formal study of Torah.

There is one other source telling of R. Eliezer’s opposition to teaching women anything of the Torah beyond the essentials for life. In the Jerusalem Talmud there is a story of a woman asking him a question about the Law—a question he refused to answer on the grounds that “a woman’s wisdom is only in her spinning wheel.” When his son, who, it appears from this passage, was supported by this woman, asked Eliezer why he had not answered her question, he replied, “Let the words of the Torah be burnt and not given to women!”²² It is impossible to absolve Eliezer of having a low view of women. His words about women’s wisdom being in the spinning wheel is a perversion of Exodus 35:25—“Every skilled woman [lit. “wise of heart”] spun with her hands.” Further examples showing that women were often held in low esteem could be accumulated. One often hears the saying that a woman is a “pitcher full of filth with its mouth full of blood, yet all run after her.”²³ Probably few such sayings can be attested as from the first century. Also they are balanced to a degree by kind words about wives, somewhat like those in ben Sira. A question may be raised here, as with the sayings in Sirach, as to whether they are examples of genuine esteem for women as individuals or only as wives and mothers. A celebrated example of a capable, intelligent woman that is often cited is that of Beruria, the wife of the famed Rabbi Meir. However, she lived in the early second century A.D., too late to have served as a model for the first generation of Christian women. Her example is relevant to the early church, though, for it signals the fact that a strong theologically sophisticated woman could make her own way within the Judeo-Christian tradition. She studied the Torah²⁴ and even challenged Meir regarding interpretation.²⁵

Thanksgiving for Being a Male

The following prayer is well known but not always well understood: “Praised be God that he has not created me a gentile; praised be God that he has not created me a woman; praised be God that he has not created me an ignorant man.” This is not an isolated saying but occurs in three traditions—the Tosephta (sayings of the Tannaitic rabbis, mainly in the first two centuries A.D.),²⁶ the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud,²⁷ and the Babylonian Talmud.²⁸ Further, it is a prayer (which is by nature an expression of deep feeling) of something that is an ingrained part of one’s religion. The Talmud traces the prayer back to the first century—again, a claim that cannot be proved but must at least be considered. It is essential to realize that the reason for this prayer is that Gentiles, women, and ignorant men cannot learn the Torah. The person who thus prays is not necessarily prejudiced against the groups cited, but is grateful that he himself can learn the Law. The locus of the problem is therefore not in the prayer itself, but in the previously determined “exemption” of women from this responsibility.

Marriage Laws

As for marriage laws, the Talmud protected women in some ways, but in other ways it tolerated male domination. As had been the case in earlier Roman times, a woman was under the authority of her father until marriage, at which time she was “acquired” by her husband. The marriage relationship held some insecurities for the woman. Although she was expected to belong fully to her husband, he could belong partly to her and partly to others (“…become betrothed to a half of me…”).²⁹ It is disputed, however, whether such polygyny (plurality of wives) was typical.³⁰ The life of a Jewish wife was, of course, largely spent in caring for husband and children. According to the more liberal view of Rabbi Hillel, minor failures in carrying out her duties could constitute grounds for divorce. Some later rabbis even considered bad breath or the size of her bosom to be a factor.³¹ Technically only the man could both initiate and carry through a divorce, but there were ways for women to effect the termination of an impossible marriage.³²

Touching and Ritual Uncleanness

One aspect of the relations between men and women that is especially important with regard to the Gospels is that of touching. In spite of the freedom that women were increasingly granted in the Talmudic period, it was still considered improper for a man to touch a woman or even to exchange glances.³³ Of course, the periods of a woman’s uncleanness were to be observed rigorously from early biblical times (Lev. 15:16–24). A new mother was unclean for seven days and then needed purification rites after thirty-three days (cf. Luke 2:22), or after a longer period if the child was a girl. Any discharge was considered unclean. All of this is relevant to Jesus’ close association with women and the fact that he touched women who were ceremonially unclean (including the dead body of Jairus’ daughter, since a corpse was considered unclean). In the Book of Acts, Peter spoke to Tabitha (Dorcas), but did not touch her until she was resuscitated.

Evidence From Synagogues

The preceding rabbinic opinions seem to be somewhat balanced by evidence that the title “head of the synagogue” and other terms of honor were applied to women in certain inscriptions.³⁴ But some issues revolving around this evidence are not yet satisfactorily resolved. One is whether the titles were merely honorific, not signifying actual office; another is whether a title was given to a woman only because of the status of her husband; and a third is whether the occurrence of titles ascribed to children minimized the significance of those ascribed to women.³⁵

A more positive result regarding the status of women has come from archaeological studies of the structure of ancient synagogues. It was previously assumed that there were separate women’s galleries in the synagogues. Actually there are only three synagogues that seem likely to have come from the first century: those at Masada, on the Herodion, and at Gamla.³⁶ None of these has a women’s gallery. There is a stairway in the synagogue at Capernaum, but this comes from a much later date, and it is doubtful that it led to a women’s gallery. The evidence therefore does not point to a strict separation of women and men in ancient synagogues.³⁷

Philo’s Viewpoint

There are yet other sources of information as to how Jewish people felt about women. One of these is the Alexandrian philosopher Philo. The status of women was, in general, much higher in Hellenistic Egypt than it had been in classical Greece and also much higher than it was in communities visited by Paul. Women in Alexandria during the Hellenistic period enjoyed dignity and freedom, and those of the aristocracy were esteemed by men. On several sections of a frieze women were depicted engaged in various activities, including teaching.³⁸ Respectable women were allowed to participate in religious ceremonies.

In this environment one might have expected that Philo would be outstanding in celebrating the worth and dignity of woman. On the contrary, he was essentially negative. He thought that the virtuous women of the Old Testament were anomalies; he did not think of women as intellectual. They should not frequent “market places and council halls and law-courts and gatherings and meetings”; in short, they should avoid places “with full scope for discussion and action,” for they are “best suited to the indoor life which never strays from the house.”³⁹ Furthermore, “the female sex is irrational and akin to bestial passions, fear, sorrow, pleasure and desire, from which ensue incurable weaknesses and indescribable diseases.”⁴⁰ He also believed that “because of softness [a woman] easily gives way and is taken in by plausible falsehoods which resemble the truth.”⁴¹ This same attitude toward women’s untrustworthiness is found in Josephus. In a section on witnesses, Josephus said, “From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex.”⁴²

The Spiritual Transition: From the Pre-Christian Era to the Age of the Holy Spirit

The definite transition from the pre-Christian era to the age of the Holy Spirit is fundamental in the theology of the New Testament. Volumes have been written on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament era, but, until recently, only a few pages have been written on the implications of the coming of the Spirit for Christian women.

Women at Pentecost

The emphasis that is rightly given to the ascension of Christ, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the rapid growth of the church in the first chapters of Acts has tended to divert attention from the remarkable role of women in that narrative. The first notice we have that a new age was dawning is the mention of women participating in prayer with the men. “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:14). These women are probably mentioned specifically for the same reason that Jesus’ brothers are cited: they had not been accustomed to doing so before. There is no reason to think that the women were not still with this group when the Holy Spirit came upon them. In fact, Acts 2:1 specifies that they were “all together in one place,” and, as we will observe immediately below, women are mentioned in the prophecy of this event. Absolutely no distinction is made between men and women in the act of praying.

The Age of the Spirit: Prophesying Men and Women

The next mention of women is of prime importance. Neglecting to grasp its implications can skew all attempts to understand the New Testament perspective on women. It is foundational for a proper comprehension of the present age (or dispensation) of God’s grace. Peter’s explanation of the Pentecost experience has at its very core the affirmation that God has poured out his Spirit on “all people” (not just on a few prophets or prophetesses, as in the Old Testament period). As he continues, the statement “Your sons and daughters will prophesy” receives reinforcement in the words “Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18). It is hard to conceive of any formulation that would state more clearly that the gift of God’s Spirit and the ensuing prophetic ministry in the church was now bestowed fully and equally on women as well as men. There is a double force here: (1) a prophetic text in the Old Testament (Joel 2:28–32) emphasizes the role of women, and (2) Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit and therefore under God’s direction, chose this text to describe and explain the inception of the age of the Spirit.

The function of this quotation in Acts may be compared with that of the quotation from Isaiah 61:1–2 at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. In the fourth chapter of Luke’s Gospel, the first part of his two-volume work, he describes Jesus’ initial preaching in the synagogue of his home town, Nazareth. Jesus quoted the words “The Spirit of the Lord is on me…” and then proceeded to describe his own anticipated ministry to the socially disadvantaged in terms of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 4:18–19). This becomes the programmatic statement of Jesus’ ministry. Likewise, Luke makes a reference to an Old Testament passage about the Spirit of God at the beginning of his second volume. The rest of Acts demonstrates the fulfillment of this prophecy, including the pouring out of God’s Spirit on women and their consequent ministry of prophecy. Just as the ministry of Jesus provided evidence of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah and the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ, so the ministry of men and women in Acts provides evidence of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel and the truth of God’s plan for the church.

If it is suggested that not all of Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at that time, two comments will clarify the matter. One is that even if that is so concerning Joel 2:28–32, certainly the opening words, if anything, apply to the event at hand. The formula “This is what was spoken” is reminiscent of the formulas used in the Dead Sea Scrolls—e.g., the Habakkuk Commentary—where the authors were accustomed to say, “This” (the event at hand) “is that” (the event predicted in the Old Testament). It is inconceivable that the immediately ensuing words do not apply. Second, the concluding words, “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved,” certainly apply to the present age. Therefore it must be acknowledged that the full and equal participation of women in the Spiritled ministry of prophecy is a mark of the church age.

If it is suggested further that this was a temporary gift, again two observations may be made. First, it would be strange for the explicit characteristic of the present age to be temporary. Second, the passage usually appealed to as proof that prophecy has ceased, 1 Corinthians 13:8 (“But where there are prophecies, they will cease…”) clearly relates, not to the present time, but to the future. The threefold condition described in verses 10–12 of that chapter for the cessation of prophecy does not yet exist: (1) “when perfection comes,” (2) “then we shall see face to face,” and (3) “then I shall know fully.” Perhaps one reason that some interpreters have difficulty in acknowledging the presence of prophecy in the church is that they restrict the meaning of the word prophecy to the infallible form of prophecy that characterized the inspired work of the so-called writing prophets found in the Old Testament Scriptures. But in the New Testament there is a broader meaning to both “prophecy” and “prophet” as we will discover below.

“Neither Male nor Female” (Galatians 3:28)

Galatians 3:28 stands, in the opinion of many, as the most significant single statement of Paul on women: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This bold statement takes its place in a passage in which Paul is describing the transition from the days of Israel’s existence under the law. That law was like the slave in a household who was responsible for the children and saw to it that they did their school lessons. The law was “put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (w. 24–25). Not only so, but in this new day of faith, we have a new relationship with God, as sons to a father (v. 26). The language here emphasizes the difference between the old age of the law and the new age of faith. Now we are “baptized with Christ” (v. 27). Having thus expressed our union with Christ, Paul proceeds to make his famous statement about our union with each other. But it is a relationship that goes even beyond union: it is a relationship in which differences disappear: “There is neither…male nor female.” More precisely, the Greek text has “neither…nor” in reference to Jews and Greeks, slaves and masters, but “neither…and” in reference to males and females, in an apparent allusion to Genesis 1:27, which says that God created us “male and female.” Perhaps there is an implication here that Christ has not only delivered women from the curse but has also brought them into a new relationship in the new creation—a relationship that transcends that of the original creation.

Perspectives will, of course, differ on how Galatians 3:28 relates to Paul’s other teachings. For some it is so sweeping that any restrictions Paul places elsewhere on women’s ministry must be somehow explained so as to eliminate any suggestion of an essential differentiation between the sexes. For others this statement is limited to mean that salvation is available to all irrespective of sex. The reason offered for this latter view is that the context in Galatians deals with justification. The fact is that the immediate context is a contrast between law and gospel. Verses 23–25 describe the chronological sequence of law followed by faith, by which we are justified. “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under…the law” (v. 25). Instead of that, “you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (v. 26). This is a new relationship to God, and it is accompanied, as verse 28 states, by a new relationship of believers to one another. The idea of “newness,” which the text has described so far, first in terms of chronological succession and then in terms of relationship, is also described in the terminology of baptism and of being “clothed with Christ.” We know from Ephesians 420–24 and Colossians 3:9–11 that this is the language of conversion and new life. In the Colossians passage Paul continues with words similar to those in Galatians 328: “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free” (Col. 3:11).

We can see the implication of this when we read the exhortations that follow. These relate to mutual forbearance and love (w. 12–14). Obviously when someone has put on the new “clothing” of Christ, the obliteration of differences in Christ affects not only position but also practice. This should lead us to a proper interpretation and application of Galatians 3:28. The point of this passage is not so much that there is equality as that there is no difference: “There is…neither male nor female.” As we have now seen, such an affirmation has definite, practical consequences in Christian social relationships.

The Geographical Transition: From Palestine to the “Ends of the Earth”

The Book of Acts is a book of transitions. Several major stages are evident in the progress of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. One is the spread of the church from Aramaic-speaking Jewish believers to Greek-speaking Jewish believers. This is apparent in Acts 6:1, where Greek-speaking widows were being neglected by the Aramaic-speaking Christians. These women, the widows, were important enough in the community to have their needs drawn to the attention of the apostles. But the group selected to care for them consisted entirely of men. Was this because only men were considered able to handle the matter or because it was not customary for women to be involved in the distribution of funds in that community, or was it because women would be the beneficiaries of the distribution and therefore it was thought best that they not participate in that work? It is impossible to know with certainty.

It is when the gospel advanced to Samaria that women were mentioned for the first time in the recounting of those who were converted. Acts 8:12 speaks of “both men and women.” In Peter’s wider travels along the Mediterranean coast, where there had been a strong non-Jewish population for centuries, he came to Lydda (Acts 9:32). There he heard of a woman “disciple” in Joppa. The giving of her name in both Aramaic (Tabitha) and Greek (Dorcas), shows that the society was bilingual and hence bicultural. Tabitha had died and because of her reputation for “always doing good and helping the poor,” she was deeply mourned. Peter was called, and the woman was brought back to life, with the result that “many people believed in the Lord” (v. 42).

There is one more brief scene involving Peter when he was released from prison in Jerusalem. On his release he went to the home where the Christians were praying, and Luke notes that it was a Greek servant girl by the name of Rhoda who met and recognized him at the door (Acts 12:13–14).

Bust of Aqmat, Daughter of Hagago; Palmyra, Late Second Century. Christianity was reaching out to prominent women like this. From the British Museum.

Into the Gentile World: Prominent Greek Women

Peter was also involved in the next transition: the taking of the gospel to the Gentile world. Although the Ethiopian servant had become a believer in Jesus before this, it was the conversion of the centurion Cornelius and a large number of other Gentiles (Acts 10:1–11:18) that, by its accompanying vision to Peter and its more public occurrence, clearly marked a new dimension to the preaching of the gospel. The stage was now set for Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.

With the opening of the Gentile world to the gospel, we find that Luke makes more frequent reference to women. This seems to be significant. In the Jerusalem scenes, apart from Pentecost itself, women were not prominent. The Hellenistic widows were in need, for example, but the ministration to them was specifically put in the hands of men. Now the circumstances were changing. Not only are more women mentioned, but their social status often seems to be higher than was true in the Palestinian scene. Luke specifies that women of status were turning to Christ. It is hard to reconcile this attention to prominent women with the claim by some feminists that Luke minimizes the ministry of women in the church. (Cf. the discussion on women in Luke’s Gospel in the excursus to chapter 1.) It has been observed that he fails to mention them to the extent that Paul does in his letters (as, for example, in Romans 16).⁴³ Why does Luke feature women and downplay them at the same time? One reason why relatively little is said of Paul’s female associates may be that Luke mentions mainly those who were actually traveling from one place to another with Paul (e.g., Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, and the group in Acts 20:4–6). He does mention Priscilla in reference to her and Aquila’s traveling with Paul (Acts 18:18) and their subsequent teaching of Apollos (v. 26). In regard to the teaching of Apollos, it has been said that the leading part played by Priscilla “is in perfect accord with the manners of that country. In Athens or in an Ionian city it would have been impossible.”⁴⁴

The Case of the Prejudiced Scribe

Actually, Luke’s citation of important women was apparently too much for one later scribe as he was copying the text of Acts. In Acts 17:4, where Luke speaks of “a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women,” this scribe changed the text to read, “a large number of the Greeks, and not a few of the wives of the principal men.” In verse 12 of the same chapter, Luke wrote that the new believers included “a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.” But the scribe put down, “many of the Greeks and men and women of honorable estate.” He also completely dropped the reference to the woman Damaris, who responded to Paul’s Areopagus speech (v. 34). In Acts 18:26 he reversed the names of Priscilla and Aquila, so the woman’s name would not appear first.⁴⁵

Two women who were unquestionably of strong spiritual character played a role in the progress of the church across Asia Minor, but their names do not appear in the Book of Acts. When Paul arrived in Lystra, he met a man who was to have an important share in the ministry. Timothy was highly commended by the Christians in that area. His father was a Greek, but his mother was “a Jewess and a believer.”⁴⁶ It is not until Paul’s second letter to Timothy that their names appear, along with a comment on their faith: “I have been reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice.”⁴⁷ In the same letter Paul remarks that Timothy knew the Scriptures from his infancy.⁴⁸ Credit for this early training must go to his mother and grandmother, since Timothy would not have learned the Jewish Bible from his Greek father. Even though his father could have been a Jewish proselyte or God-fearer (a Gentile who agreed with basic Jewish teachings), since there is no reference to his name or his faith, in contrast to the strong statements about his mother and grandmother, it must be concluded that these women were solely responsible for the home teaching of the Jewish Scriptures.

To Philippi in Macedonia: Lydia the Business Woman

When Paul arrived in the major Macedonian city of Philippi, he met two contrasting figures. The first was a business woman, whose name may have been derived from the name of the area, Lydia, which in previous years had been the province to which her city, Thiatyra, was attached. The dye industry and the production of dyed cloth for which Thiatyra was famous were of great commercial importance. It is obvious that Lydia was a woman of means and influence. Lydia heard Paul at a Jewish gathering for prayer. She was a “God-fearer”—that is, a person who, though Gentile, attended Jewish services and accepted the basic Jewish teachings about the one true God. She took the initiative to invite Paul to her house and, after Paul’s prison experience and release, she again brought him there. At that time she also had a group of Christian believers there (Acts 16:40). Lydia was a major figure in the apostolic church, and in this chapter of Acts she towered over the other woman, a demon-possessed slave girl whose clairvoyant abilities were being used for profit by her owners. Although the demon was exorcised by Paul, the girl has been lost in the succeeding chain of events; we do not know whether she also was converted. This girl and Lydia represent extreme positions of women in that society. Christianity sought to help each of them.

On to Greece: Damaris

The next major transition in Acts is from Macedonia to Greece itself. Paul’s address before the Areopagus council in Athens is well known. Several people became believers on that occasion, including the woman Damaris (Acts 17:34), who has already been mentioned. The fact that she was converted through Paul’s address at the Areopagus may indicate that she was of some prominence. At least she attended the meeting of that council. She may have been both intellectually curious and religiously sensitive. It may be that she heard Paul speak in the marketplace and desired to learn more of his teaching. The little we know is tantalizing.

Priscilla and Aquila at Corinth

From Athens Paul went on to the important commercial city of Corinth. There he met a Jewish couple who had been expelled from Rome under an edict of Emperor Claudius. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first in Acts 18, a phenomenon that cannot be accidental or meaningless (vv. 18, 26). Her importance in a survey of women in the church, however, stems especially from the particular instance of her teaching Apollos. It is important to assess the significance of this correctly, especially because some years later Paul was to write Timothy that he did not permit women to teach or to arrogate authority to themselves over men (1 Tim. 2:12). Those who hold that Scripture cannot contradict itself generally assume that the teaching referred to in that passage and the teaching that took place here in Acts 18:26 are of different sorts. Some hold that in 1 Timothy Paul taught that women were easily deceived and therefore should teach only other women or children, not men. It is crucial, therefore, to observe the narrative about Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos accurately, as well as the teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12. What, then, was the nature of Priscilla’s teaching here?

Apollos was “a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24). He had been “instructed in the way of the Lord,” he spoke “with great fervor,” and he “taught about Jesus accurately.” He was therefore an intelligent, well-educated, and able teacher. The teaching was apparently done jointly by Priscilla and Aquila and, if the order of the names implies what it seems to, it was not Aquila who took the lead, as might be expected, but his wife. This was not simply a matter of witnessing, but rather of explaining God’s truth. Because Apollos had known “only the baptism of John,” Priscilla and Aquila “explained to him the way of God more adequately,” and after his instruction he “vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.”

Why was this ministry on Priscilla’s part not inappropriate? Was it because the teaching was done privately, not in the church?⁴⁹ It is hard to see how location changes the essential nature of communicating doctrine. Likewise, the fact that she did not occupy a ministerial office is hardly a factor (unless one interprets 1 Timothy 2:12 as relating to teaching specifically as a function of elders), since the concept of religious “office” as we know it today is postapostolic. The New Testament emphasizes what is internal, rather than what is external, so one would expect that Priscilla’s right to teach Apollos had to do with her own spiritual character and knowledge of biblical doctrine, rather than with location or ecclesiastical recognition. Further appraisal must wait for the discussions on 1 Timothy 2 later in this chapter and in appendix B.

Some women in Paul’s day had considerable influence, and intellectual forces such as Stoicism were improving their situation. We have seen that women in Rome were beginning to engage more in social events. But as Christian missionaries pressed their way through the cities and countrysides mentioned in the Book of Acts, they no doubt met only a few women who were really active in public life in any official sense.

Women did not vote, did not serve as iudices, were not senators or magistrates or holders of major priesthoods. They did not, as a rule, speak in the courts…[One who did] seems to have provoked a praetorian ruling that no woman should usurp the masculine role of advocate. As a rule, women took no part in public life…Women might, then, have considerable influence and interests outside their homes and families, but they were acting from within their families to affect a social system managed by men: their influence was not to be publicly acknowledged.⁵⁰

It is not hard to picture Priscilla fitting this role as she and Aquila privately explained the Word to Apollos.

Priscilla’s role in teaching is clear from Luke’s narrative and has earned her a secure and important place in the history of women in the church. Any discussion about the justification for her teaching must not draw attention away from the fact that she must have had remarkable characteristics to qualify as a teacher of someone as capable and theologically educated as Apollos. Why were she and Aquila to do this, rather than someone else? Why is she usually named before her husband? Was she more outgoing than Aquila? Was she better educated theologically, more perceptive, more articulate than he? One thing is certain: she must have had outstanding spiritual qualities to be allowed by God to instruct such a potential leader as Apollos.

Caesarea on the Mediterranean: Prophesying Daughters

Before the apostle Paul returned for the final time to Jerusalem, he stayed for a while in the city of Caesarea, on the coast of Palestine. His host, Philip the evangelist, had four daughters who had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). They were literally “prophesying daughters” and were proof of the validity of Pentecost and the fulfillment of Joel’s prediction about the gift of prophecy to the daughters of Israel. Did they exercise this gift in the church service? Of course, prophecy was not limited to this setting. In the same passage we read that Agabus came and spoke to Paul in a clearly informal situation. But the same Agabus on a previous occasion spoke in what seems to have been a church meeting, as suggested by the fact that he “stood up” to speak and that at the conclusion a decision was made by the disciples (Acts 1128–29). Also 1 Corinthians 11 indicates that women were prophesying in the church. Paul seems to have approved of that practice (“I praise you,” v. 2; contrast v. 17), though he needed to correct them in regard to their head covering.

There was nothing unusual about women prophesying in the early church. Some commentators have suggested that this charismatic activity of women was due to the carnal state of the Corinthian church. It is indeed likely that the church was overenthusiastic and that some of their activities had gotten out of hand, needing the directives of Paul to bring them to order. But it must not be overlooked that the activities of the women (and men) at Corinth and those of Philip’s daughters were in accord with the prophetic declaration of Joel about prophesying daughters.

What was the relation of prophesying to teaching in these New Testament instances? Did the four daughters of Philip and the other “prophesying daughters” actually teach? Paul distinguished between prophets and teachers (1 Cor. 12:28). At the same time, learning did take place when people prophesied and believers were edified (14:5, 19, 26, 31).

Women in Paul’s Letters

During the swift geographical expansion of the church, Paul was busy keeping in touch with previously established congregations. His letters reveal that women were active with him in this mission. The same Paul who had previously persecuted women along with men (Acts 8:3; 9:1–2) now welcomed them as his co-workers. In writing to the church at Philippi he encouraged the church to help the women who had “contended at [his] side in the cause of the gospel.”⁵¹ The word “contended” implies hard work that involved some conflict in the battle to release people from the power of the evil one. He referred also to women who were hostesses of churches that met in their homes. One of these women was Nympha, who lived at Colosse. Paul requested in his letter to the Colossians, “Give my greetings…to Nympha and the church in her house.”⁵²

Another house church was that of Philemon. Apphia was not the main person addressed there, but she was mentioned in Paul’s greeting: “To Philemon…to Apphia our sister…to Archippus…and to the church that meets in your home.” The role of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11) is uncertain, though the NIV interprets the literal Greek “those of Chloe” as meaning “those from Chloe’s household.” Twice Paul referred to the church that met in the home of Priscilla and Aquila, with Aquila’s name coming first in the latter passage, in contrast to the Romans passage and all but the first mention of the pair in Acts.⁵³

Romans 16

It is the last chapter of Romans that contains the most references to women who were associated with Paul in his ministry. Peter Richardson has noted that the proportion of women, ten out of twenty-nine people mentioned, is “startling.”⁵⁴ He also notes that there is a balance in the opening sequence: two women, two men, one woman, one man. But even more striking is that “the range of specific roles is greater for women than for men. Further, in the opinion of an increasing number of scholars, two of the highest offices or roles are ascribed to women: deacon (Phoebe) and apostle (if Junias is a woman, Junia).

Phoebe. Paul mentioned Phoebe first of all, describing her as a “servant of the church.” The word diakonos (“servant”) is that from which “deacon” is derived. It could mean (1) “servant”; (2) “minister,” in the sense of one who ministers the gospel; or (3) “deacon,” in the sense of 1 Timothy 3:8–13. If the expression “their women” in verse 11 of the latter passage means women deacons rather than merely the wives of deacons, as is possible, there would be little doubt that women deacons are referred to in Romans 16. Even without that consideration, unless one assumes that a woman was not permitted to be a deacon, that would be a natural understanding of the term as applied to Phoebe. While the verbal form of the word diakoneō was used to mean serving in general, in the Pauline Epistles the noun form, diakonos, usually indicated a person with a distinctive Christian ministry. In its meaning of “minister” it appears more frequently than many may realize. In 1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:23, 25; and 1 Timothy 4:6 it clearly means someone who ministers the gospel. Although it probably does not have this sense in the case of Phoebe, as she is called a “diakonos of the church,” it is helpful to recognize the potential force of the word, so that we will not automatically think of it only in terms of hidden service.

Portrait of a Woman With Tablet and Stylus, Pompeii. This appears to be a fine, educated woman of the general period of the New Testament. Alinari—Art Resource, New York.

The next word used to describe her, prostatis, belongs to a word group that has a strong connotation of leadership and authority.⁵⁵ It also refers to a benefactor who offers protection. If it were used in the masculine form here, there would be no question but that it would mean one who exercises leadership. A common translation is “helper,” which is too weak. The term in ancient Greek sources was even used for divine beings.⁵⁶ The situation is described by E. A. Judge:

The better attested reading [prostatis], “protectress,” suffered from appearing to assign Phoebe a much higher social status than might have been anticipated, and from the fact that no other individual woman could be found referred to by this term anywhere in ancient Greek. Its common use was for a patron-goddess.⁵⁷

Judge goes on to say that the “missing link has now appeared” in a partially published papyrus dating from 142 B.C. In a legal document a woman is said to be the prostatis of her fatherless son. It means perhaps that she has the formal responsibility of being his guardian (epitropos), but possibly the broader term has been used because of the anomaly of a woman’s being in this position. Paul is thus “acknowledging his dependence on Phoebe.”

Priscilla and Mary. The next woman Paul commended in Romans 16 is Priscilla, well known from Acts 18. He describes her and her husband as “fellow workers.” There is no indication that Paul considered her to be any less a worker than Aquila. Both of them “risked their lives” for Paul (v. 4). Paul also mentioned a woman named Mary, who “worked very hard” (v. 6).

Junia. Andronicus and Junia are the next people whom Paul commended. The name Junia is almost certainly feminine—“almost” would not be necessary were the name in the nominative form in Greek. As it stands, it is a direct object, and the nominative form has to be assumed. But since Junia as a Latin female name would be the feminine counterpart of Junius, as Julia is the feminine counterpart of Julius (a masculine name known from Latin literature), there is every reason to assume that Paul refers to a woman. No contrary evidence has been found by the date of this writing. Neither is there any evidence from the Latin literature of a longer name of which this is an abridgement. John Chrysostom and Jerome referred to this person as a woman; in fact, it was not until the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century that a commentator referred to her as a man.⁵⁸ The eminent New Testament scholar C. E. B. Cranfield concludes that “it is surely right to assume that the person referred to is a woman.”⁵⁹

But does Paul say that Junia was outstanding among the apostles, or to them—i.e., in their opinion? The Greek syntax implies the former. There is, however, another difficulty. Rarely in the New Testament is the word used of a specific person apart from the twelve apostles and Paul. In Acts 1:23–26 Luke says that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. Also in Acts 14:14 Barnabas is called an apostle. Beyond that, except for general references, such as to false apostles, no individual is so named. It is difficult to know, therefore, just how to take this use with regard to Junia. On the one hand, it is improper to jump to the conclusion that she had the “office” of an apostle. On the other hand, it would not be right to assert that she could not have had some distinctive role deserving of the appellation “apostle.”

Other Women. In Romans 16 Paul also mentioned Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa—women who “worked hard” (vv. 6, 12); Persis, “another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord” (v. 12); the mother of Rufus, “who has been a mother to me, too” (v. 13); and Julia and the sister of Nereus (v. 15). The ten women mentioned in this group of Paul’s associates stand as a testimony to the participation of women in the ministries of the church.

Single and Married Women

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul addressed some delicate matters. The details of his instructions are beyond what can be discussed here, but some overall observations can be made. One is that Paul addressed men and women in balance, and in similar balance he evaluated the single and married states. In a remarkable statement, he declares that “the wife’s body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife” (v. 4). The clear implication is that any sexual activity is to be by mutual consent. Men in Paul’s day may have felt that they “owned” their wives and could deal with them in any way they chose. But Paul’s balance, coupled, it might be added, with the Golden Rule, protected the wife from unilateral advances on the part of her husband.

Paul advises those with an unbelieving spouse that their children were not unclean, for, contrary to the common idea that contact with evil ritually defiles, one’s own Christianity “sanctifies” the children and the spouse (v. 14). The so-called “Pauline privilege” allowed a believing partner to permit his or her spouse to leave; the believer was not guilty in such an event (w. 15–17). Virgins were not to be anxious; it was all right for them to stay as they were. A man who had a virgin (possibly one to whom he was engaged; others have proposed that the reference is to the virgin’s father or even, improbably, to one in a “spiritual” partnership) might proceed with marriage arrangements, if that seems good. In all of this, there is no preferential treatment given to men. In every relationship a person is to be pure and considerate.

The “Elect Lady” in 2 John

The apostle John apparently wrote his second letter to a woman. The address reads: “To the chosen [or elect] lady and her children.” John’s mention of her as the recipient of his second letter is parallel to his mention of Gaius in the third. Although some have held that the term lady refers to the church itself, this is hard to square with the alternation between singular pronouns (vv. 4, 5, 13) and various plural forms (vv. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12). The plural probably refers to the lady’s “children” (v. 1), who presumably were the congregation who met in her house (cf. v. 10). The word translated “lady” is kyria, the feminine form of kyrios, “lord” or “sir.” Several women noted above had churches in their homes. This lady seems to have been in the same position. If all these women had the same function as Phoebe—that is, as a prostatis—they may well have been far more than merely hostesses in their relationship to the Christians who gathered in their homes.⁶⁰

It is evident that as the church grew and extended into the Roman world, women were active and prominent. But this expansion required extreme care. The very freedom Christian women had was a potential obstacle to the acceptance of the gospel. It was therefore necessary for the Christian missionaries to take into account the ideological differences among the various sectors of society they were trying to reach.

The Ideological Transition: From Freedom to Conformity

As Paul ventured into city after city, each with its individual history and its heritage of customs and ethical conventions, it was necessary for him not only to contextualize the gospel but also to ensure that nothing in his presentation would unnecessarily alienate his audience. He expressed his principles in that regard in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23: “Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.” This meant, “To the Jews I became like a Jew” and applied also “to those under the law…to those not having the law…to the weak.” In short, Paul said, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” Clearly this meant working hard to empathize with people with whose theology and principles he disagreed. It meant some significant adjustments in his own lifestyle so as to avoid giving offense. He had to find ways to maintain his stand on principles and yet show that he understood the sources and expressions of other people’s principles.

Conventional Secular Morality

Ancient society, like our own, had its conventional morality. Paul realized that the way he would express certain moral principles was not necessarily the way others would. And there was no uniformity in that respect in the Graeco-Roman world. Women were indeed receiving (and taking) more liberties in spite of lingering inequalities. But there was evidence of a backlash among some of the conservative Roman moralists. As noted above, the first-century A.D. historian Livy wrote of the conflict that took place in a previous century when some laws (the “Oppian” laws) restricting expenditures for women’s luxuries were repealed. Some conservatives wished to have these laws continued. The following is from his description of the scene that had taken place in 195 B.C.: “The matrons, whom neither counsel nor shame nor their husbands’ orders could keep at home, blockaded every street in the city and every entrance to the Forum.” The famous Cato then said:

If each man of us, fellow citizens, had established that the right and authority of the husband should be held over the mother of his own family, we should have less difficulty with women in general; now, at home our freedom is conquered by male fury, here in the Forum it is bruised and trampled upon, and, because we have not contained the individuals, we fear the lot…I should have said, “What kind of behavior is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s husbands! Could you not have asked your husbands the same thing at home?”⁶¹

Cato issued a warning in the same speech that reveals a fear that lasted far beyond his own time: “As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors.”

There were laws pertaining to women in various societies, and of course the marital laws would have been universally understood to place women in submission. It is possible that Paul is using the word “law” in 1 Corinthians 14:34 (“women…must be in submission, as the law says”) to refer to these laws. Although it is usually maintained that “law” here refers to the Old Testament, no specific text can be found. Some think it refers to rabbinic law, but others object because Paul never elsewhere uses the term in that way. More to the point, this would have given status to a Jewish legal structure Paul opposed. Given a unique context that does not deal with the doctrine of salvation, there is no reason why Paul could not have used the term “law” in a unique way. Since he was concerned with the submission of women, it is not surprising if he refers to marital law, which, in any form the Corinthians knew it, Jewish or pagan, would support his point. He did not have to subscribe to all the implications of such submission in order to argue that women should not act in church in a way that offends common moral sensibilities.

Plutarch, who lived shortly after the time of Paul, displayed a strongly moralistic tone:

Theano, in putting her cloak about her, exposed her arm. Somebody exclaimed, “A lovely arm.” “But not for the public,” said she. Not only the arm of the virtuous woman, but her speech as well, ought to be not for the public, and she ought to be modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders, since it is an exposure of herself; for in her talk can be seen her feelings, character, and disposition.⁶²

Plutarch continued in the next section to say that a woman “ought to do her talking either to her husband or through her husband.” He says further that if women “subordinate themselves to their husbands, they are commended…and control ought to be exercised by the man over the woman…as the soul controls the body.” This quotation may provide a clue as to why Paul was so concerned about women speaking publicly and about their attire when they did so (1 Cor. 11:1–16; 14:34). Plutarch also said that “it is a matter of pride to hear a wife say, ‘Husband, thou unto me art guide, philosopher, and teacher of the noblest and divinest lessons.’”⁶³ It was therefore considered appropriate for a woman to look to her husband for teaching. Although Roman women were more free to appear in public with their husbands, moral convention, according to this same passage in Plutarch, dictated what might be considered the ultimate put-down: in the company of others “the wife was expected to support her husband and not disagree with him.”⁶⁴ These opinions come from an articulate writer who lived in Greece, where values were somewhat more conservative than those at Rome. Paul, of course, was writing to a church in a Greek city when he wrote to the Corinthians.

For Paul to restrain women from speaking under certain circumstances would therefore avoid offending the moralistic Romans and Greeks. At the same time he would avoid offending conservative Jewish people who would have approved of ben Sira’s dictum: “A silent wife is a gift from the Lord; her restraint is more than money can buy.”⁶⁵

Woman at an Initiation to a Mystery Religion, Pompeii. This wall painting is from the Villa of the Mysteries. Many of the women—as well as men—in Paul’s day were attracted by the Oriental cults with their impressive ceremonies. Alinore—Art Resource, New York.

Apprehensions Concerning Women

As in earlier years, women of New Testament times were active in religion. Their activities encompassed many types of religious cults and ceremonies, from the vestal virgins in Rome to the adherents of the various eastern cults on the fringes of the Empire. Standards of morality varied greatly: the vestal virgins were held in high honor for their fidelity (on which the fortune of the entire Empire was understood to depend) while, at the other extreme, the religion of the goddess Isis spawned both temple prostitution among some and sexual purity among others at the same time. Frenzied or immoral women in the religious cults of Corinth may also have had something to do with the restrictions Paul placed on believing women in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Several scholars have thought that Paul was trying to maintain the distinction between the sexes in chapter 11. One explanation for this may be that he was strongly opposed to homosexuality; another may be that he wanted to counter the sex reversal practiced in some pagan religious initiations. Richard and Catherine Kroeger shed some light on this:

At certain religious events women also shaved their heads, and men assumed veils or long flowing hair and golden hairnets…by the first century of our era a shaven head on a woman and long tresses on a man were viewed as sexual inversions…Sex reversal was also a significant factor in the worship of Aphrodite (the Roman Venus), whose temple dominated the Corinthian acropolis.⁶⁶

They continue by quoting Epictetus to show that even pagan philosophers opposed such confusion of the sexes. Whatever else is involved in 1 Corinthians 11 (and certainly the order of headship is foundational), the passage on women’s head covering, or hair bound up properly,⁶⁷ stands as a strong repudiation of sex reversal and homosexuality. To repudiate or to obliterate the identity God has bestowed on us as sexual beings is a disgrace.”⁶⁸ With respect to 1 Corinthians 14, the Kroegers produce evidence they believe is relevant to Paul’s instructions about women’s silence, showing the “religious pandemonium” that characterized the frenzied worship of the first-century world, including Corinth.⁶⁹

Reference was made earlier to Augustus’ call to observe tradition. E. A. Judge has shown that there is a strong call in 1 Corinthians 11, as well as elsewhere in Paul’s writings, to observe conventions and “traditions,” these being not so much legal or theological traditions as those connected with moral teachings.⁷⁰ There is a heavy use of the language of convention in this passage, and Paul’s final plea at the end of the section on the veiling of women uses the word “custom” rather than “command,” “law,” or the like.⁷¹ This same passage contains various words having to do with honor and shame, concepts that have to do with the perception of Christian standards by the outside world. Even the word “glory” relates to this, as does the concept of doing things in an “orderly” way.⁷² H. C. Kee has shown how strong a motif the concept of shame is in Scripture.⁷³

In short, 1 Corinthians 11 cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. The language is too loaded with significant terms of conventional morality to ignore the world in which the first-century churches existed. Paul knew that the appearance and behavior of women in the church would be a symbol to the watching world.

But his arrangements for women would appeal to Jewish people as well. They were appalled at pagan immorality, and Christians dared not appear to partake of this. Richardson referred to this:

In order not to sever all relationships with the Jewish community, Paul advises some concessions…He wishes to keep himself and the Corinthians sufficiently within Jewish norms to maintain a distinction from the prevailing Greco-Roman behavior…Too much sexual freedom would create problems for the church’s mission to Jews and associate it with the Hellenistic mystery religions.⁷⁴

Paul’s Strategy: Freedom With Restraint

What all this means is that Paul faced a critical question in his missionary strategy. He had stated his principle of the unity of men and women in Christ when he wrote Galatians 3:28. He had also written the Galatians about his authority as an apostle and about his freedom from the Jewish law. But in 1 Corinthians he seemed to reverse himself. He was willing, he said, to become like a person under that law in order to win them to Christ.⁷⁵ That meant both an abrogation of his personal freedom and a modification of his attitude to Jewish legalists. It was a self-limiting concession, not a reversal of conviction. In the same way, for Christian women to avoid offending Jewish and pagan moralists, they needed to be veiled (or appropriately coiffured) when they spoke in the public assembly, and under certain conditions they were not to speak at all.

But this was not mere social accommodation, nor was it an abandonment theology or of conviction. Quite to the contrary, it was in complete accord with Paul’s conviction that the man was the head of the woman and should not be “shamed” by her. It was also in accord with his missiological principles. Therefore, his instructions were solidly based on three sets of convictions: (1) there must be a proper relationship between wives and husbands; (2) one must have a sensitivity to the moral conventions of others, especially those whom one desires to win to Christ; and (3) personal freedom under grace must be respected.

Maintaining his principle of freedom while exercising restraint presented a difficult challenge for Paul. How could he maintain his own convictions about women being one with men in Christ and at the same time avoid offending the people he sought to win for Christ? It is significant that shortly after he explained his approach in 1 Corinthians 9, he came to the matter of women’s attire and coiffure in chapter 11. This provides us with an example of how to deal with ideologies, values, and conventions in differing cultures. The abiding value of 1 Corinthians 11 is not in the specific apparel women wear but in the means by which we (1) express our sensitivity to the ethical conventions of others and (2) communicate our own biblical, ethical values.

One obvious clue that this is what Paul was doing is the proliferation of words in that chapter that have to do with honor and shame. There are also some clues in the following chapters, including the passage in chapter 14 on women’s silence. In fact, the concluding words to the latter chapter about doing things “in a fitting and orderly way” leap out at the reader who is familiar with the vocabulary of first-century ethical convention.

In chapter 11, Paul wrote to people in Corinth and in other cities where there were churches who were familiar with certain conservative attitudes to women, on the one hand, and with certain pagan aberrations, on the other. These included the shrieking of women in the temple cult and the exchange of sex roles in some of the pagan cult rituals. To meet the first requirement of sensitivity in those who seek to communicate the gospel message within a given culture, Paul honored the ethical conventions about women’s modesty by prescribing veils (or having the hair bound up). The same recommendation also accomplished the second requirement: to communicate his own ethical values about the distinction between men and women and the responsibility of a woman not to shame her “head”—i.e., her husband. By having a modest appearance, the Christian woman was able to maintain her distinction as a woman, honor her husband, and avoid offending Jew and Gentile moralists (for whom a woman’s speaking may have been difficult enough, let alone her appearing in what was considered immoral attire).

Moral sensibilities were also protected by women when they were careful about when and how they spoke in church. It was one thing to prophesy; it was something else to enter into discussion, ask probing questions, and presume to evaluate the words of a prophet. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 would have been understandable “in all the congregations” (v. 33). Just as those speaking in tongues were to desist if there was no interpreter (v. 28), and those prophesying were to cease if the Spirit gave a word of prophecy to another (v. 30), so there was a time when women were to be silent as well (vv. 34–35). Since most women in that society were married, and since it would have been awkward for single women to speak when wives were to be silent, it is probable that all women were under the same restrictions.

Such restrictions did not cancel the privilege of women to prophesy, nor did it abrogate Paul’s principle of equality expressed so vividly in Galatians 3:28. Paul was able, therefore, to allow freedom to the “prophesying daughters” and at the same time to impose restrictions for the sake of reaching people for Christ and maintaining ethical standards.

The freedom Paul gave women was apparently to pray and to prophesy, provided they had the appropriate headcovering (possibly coiffure—their hair should be bound up modestly). In 1 Corinthians 11:10 Paul says that women “ought to have a sign of authority on their head.” Although this was formerly understood to mean that they were under authority, with translators adding the words “sign of” before the word “authority,” recent research has brought this into question. Many scholars now think that the Greek phrase means that women have a certain authority or right. This may be the right to speak in public.

The approach suggested here is just one of several that biblical scholars have proposed. This issue, along with such crucial matters as the meaning of headship (1 Cor. 11) and the structure of the passage on women’s silence (1 Cor. 14) must wait until Appendix B, where full citations will be given.

“Household” Relationships

Non-Christians no doubt had varied opinions concerning the scattered groups of Christians meeting in homes across the Roman Empire. To some they might have been thought of as another voluntary association such as the clubs, guilds, and voluntary religious groups. Perhaps they reminded people of the mystery cults meeting secretly in small groups. To others they might have had some of the characteristics of a Jewish synagogue. Since they had a community life with at least some organization and government, they could be compared in some ways to a small municipal community. Because they studied the Scriptures assiduously, they also could be described as a scholastic community.

But there was also a point of comparison with another known social unit: the household. The Christians functioned as a family. Very likely the owner of the home where they met had a certain prominence as the host or hostess. Households could be small, but they could also be very large, as was the case with pagan Roman households that included a number of slaves. The various members of the household needed

Procession in Honor of Isis, Rome. Isis was a favorite goddess at the time of the New Testament. Note that, in contrast to Christian practice, the men have head coverings, whereas the women do not. This frieze is in the Vatican Museum. Alinari—Art Resource, New York.

to have guidelines for their mutual relationships. Several New Testament passages provide such guidelines, for example: “Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…Children, obey your parents in the Lord…Fathers, do not exasperate your children…Slaves, obey your earthly masters…Masters, treat your slaves in the same way” (Eph. 5:22–6:9; cf. Col. 3:18–4:1). “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands, so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives” (1 Peter 3:1).

A first-century reader would have recognized these words as being a part of the familiar “domestic code.” Scholars today call the various series of ethical injunctions found in and outside of the New Testament by the German name Haustafeln, “household tables [of rules].” These go back to the time of Aristotle.⁷⁶

In the New Testament, these codes are found in the writings of both Peter and Paul. There are typically three pairs of instructions: to husband and wife, to father and child, and to slave and master. This form appears clearly in Ephesians 5:21–6:9 and in Colossians 3:18–4:1.

The reference in each of these to the submission of wives has been troublesome to feminists. Was Paul subordinating wives to husbands, and did Peter follow this same line of thought with regard to the marriage of a Christian wife and an unconverted husband? Or did Paul not intend to make this an absolute command for women, but rather simply to include her submission as one way in which Christians are to submit to each other? In Ephesians 5 there is first the injunction to mutual submission (v. 21) and then the application to women—without even repeating the word “submit” in the original text. This has often been taken to mean that all Christians are to submit to all other Christians, even husbands to wives (by their loving self-sacrifice—the extreme act of submitting one’s own good to that of another). In the same way, fathers express this quality by not provoking their children, and masters by not threatening their slaves.

Objections to this interpretation include the fact that the parallel passage in Colossians does not begin with a command to mutual submission. That is not an insurmountable problem, especially if Paul wrote the two epistles at virtually the same time and had the same general circumstance in mind. Nevertheless, the form of the Colossian passage must not be glossed over. It is also said that it is impossible for everyone to submit to everyone else. This assumes that submission means obedience, that this is what the Greek word always means, and that two people cannot obey each other.

But, some maintain, it is noteworthy that although Paul tells slaves and children to obey, he does not use that word with wives. Likewise, in 1 Peter, although Sarah is said to have expressed her submission to Abraham by obeying him and calling him “lord” (or “master”), that certainly does not mean that submission is expressed in every culture by obedience and calling one’s husband “lord.” Few would insist on the second part of Sarah’s submission.

Feminists argue that there is a voluntary submission that can be mutual, because it is an attitude, an ideal. There is, they say, nothing impossible about mutual deference. In fact, they might argue, it is no more impossible than it is for each Christian honestly to consider every other Christian better than himself or herself, something Paul also commanded in Philippians 2:3.

Yet another approach to the matter of the submission of wives is to note that such an injunction was not particularly Christian, since such submission had long been expected in most ancient societies. The new and Christian element, the argument would run, was the way in which this submission was to be expressed—i.e., as to the Lord himself and on the analogy of Christ and the church.

Recently scholars, most notably David L. Balch, have given more attention to the social circumstances of Peter’s injunction to wives. If Christians were under scrutiny and in danger of severe persecution, as the First Epistle of Peter makes clear; if the Romans were uneasy about new religions (recalling, for example, the “feminism” of the religion of Isis from Egypt); and if the domestic code was a common way of expressing relational values, Peter’s injunction to wives takes on new significance.⁷⁷ It follows injunctions to submit to the government (2:13) and to masters (2:18). It begins with an adverb, “likewise,” or “in the same way” (3:1), which reappears in verse 7: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives.” It would have been unthinkable—and suicidal, if this code of moral values is part of the defense Christians can make to governing authorities (cf. “be prepared to give an answer” in v. 15)—to say, “Husbands be submissive to your wives.” But it could be argued that if Ephesians teaches a kind of mutual submission, this exhortation to husbands not to exercise a pagan heartless domination over their wives fits in well.

Whether or not the Christian domestic code was, as Balch has argued, a useful tool in averting Roman persecution (see appendix B for alternatives), the text itself gives a reason for the wives’ submission: to bring about the conversion of their husbands. This attention to submissive relationships in view of unbelievers who were observing the Christians has a parallel in Titus 2:3–10. Wives were “to be subject to their husbands, so that no one [would] malign the word of God.” Young men were to be self-controlled and have integrity of character so opponents might be ashamed because they had nothing bad to say about the Christian community. Slaves were to be subject to their masters and show that they could be fully trusted so that “in every way” they would “make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.” Feminists suggest that just as slaves were told to be obedient for the sake of Christian witness even though slavery was destined for abolition, so wives were to be submissive for the same reason, though arguably their submission was not intended by either Peter or Paul to be permanent. Traditionalists, however, could respond that in neither Colossians nor Ephesians does Paul specifically relate his teaching to Christian witness as is done in 1 Peter and Titus.

In summary, Paul moved from convictions regarding freedom in Christ in Galatians to apparent conformity to conventional morality in Corinthians and perhaps in Titus, with a parallel in 1 Peter. These conventions were not immoral or unethical but, in fact, were compatible with Old Testament teachings. Interpreters differ as to how much of the teachings about head covering, silence, and submission was part of this conformity to moral convention for the sake of an unimpeachable Christian testimony and how much embodied timeless commands. Was the principle, for example, of not dishonoring one’s head intended to be applied today in head coverings or in some other way? What would Peter or Paul say?

The Chronological Transition: Approaching the End of the Apostolic Era

After the events narrated in the Book of Acts, Paul was apparently set free and resumed his travels. But once again he was arrested and imprisoned. During this latter imprisonment, around A.D. 65, he wrote the Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Although the apostle John was, as far as the facts can be established, still to live for some years, the first great wave of missionary advance was ending. Sadly, false teachers were already penetrating the church. Paul needed to maintain order in the churches and assure the continuity of sound teaching. He sent letters to Timothy in Ephesus and to Titus in Crete for this very purpose.

Several important kinds of instructions are in these letters. There is a concern, first of all, for doctrine to guard against false teaching. Second, Paul insisted that Timothy and Titus maintain a moral teaching and personal way of life that would be in accord with their teaching. Third, he established a continuity of doctrine and pastoral protection of the “flock” by providing clear qualifications for elders and deacons. In this context Paul touched on several topics, including activities of men and women in the church services and the enrollment of widows for support.

Paul’s instructions about prayer (1 Tim. 2:8–10) can be viewed in two ways. Either he taught that the men were to pray and the women to adorn themselves modestly or he taught that the men were to pray in an appropriate manner, lifting holy hands, and the women also were to pray in an appropriate manner, not displayng extravagance. The verb “to pray” does not occur in the clause about women. However, the fact that the verb “adorn,” which is in the proper form to be the main verb, does not occur in the same early position as the verb “pray” does in the first clause, but appears later in the clause, raises the question as to whether it really is the main verb. Also, Paul says “likewise,” or “in a similar manner,” which could mean that the women were doing the same thing as the men. So opinions are divided as to whether Paul was including or excluding women in his statement about public prayer.

Far more difficult is the next paragraph beginning with the words “A woman should learn in quietness” (v. 11). The word “quietness” (sometimes rendered “silence,” though its adjectival form appears immediately above in verse 2 with the clear meaning of “quiet”) reappears at the end of verse 12. This shows two things: women are indeed to learn, a remarkable advance over Jewish reserve on that point, and they are to learn in a quiet spirit.

Paul then stated that he did not permit a woman to teach or to assume undue authority over a man. Traditionally, the passage has been understood to enjoin the permanent restriction of women from teaching and from any kind of church authority. One problem with this viewpoint is that the word Paul used for having authority is not the normal one. In fact, it is an extremely rare verb that had, along with the noun form, a history of bizarre meanings, such as murder, suicide, and sexually related actions. At the time this book is being written there is still need for an accurate, exhaustive study of this verb.⁷⁸ One thing does seem certain already: it had a meaning much stronger than the normal verb for exercising authority, exousiazō. Around the time of the New Testament it seems to have indicated the act of originating (not likely here, unless it means the heretical idea of woman originating man) or of taking undue, possibly prime or sole, authority to oneself. Since the principle of Christian ministry is service rather than domination (cf. Mark 10:42–45), many now believe that whatever the verb means, it should not prevent women from being active in Christian ministry in its biblical sense.

What Paul meant by “teaching” also requires careful consideration. It meant more than providing instruction for edification, which the prophets also did. First Corinthians 14:31 says the purpose of prophesying is that “everyone may be instructed and encouraged.” Teachers were highly honored, especially in Judaism. In ancient Greece women were considered fit for prophesying but not for teaching.⁷⁹ Prior to the completion and accessibility of the New Testament, Christian teachers conveyed the apostolic tradition of the teachings of Jesus. They were considered witnesses to the truth, and it should be kept in mind that women were not accepted as witnesses.

The story of Eve’s deception was widely used against women’s trustworthiness. Some hold that Paul cited it as an explanation of his position. Others hold that Paul’s reference to Genesis implies that his withholding of permission in this passage was timeless and universal. Teachers were very important in the early days of the church, but as time went on, and as the number of converts increased and the Scriptures became more readily available, one reads more of the catechists than of the teachers.

There are, therefore, several approaches that can be taken to 1 Timothy 2:12. One is to take the verbs about teaching and authority simply in their modern sense. Another is to press research further into the first-century meaning of these two key verbs that describe what women were not to do. A third (not mutually exclusive of the others) is to ask what it was about women that made them unsuitable for doing whatever the verbs signified.

One fact is clear: Christian women at the time Paul wrote were in a spiritual transition. Formerly in Judaism or paganism, and formerly under the “curse” that followed the sin of Adam, women were not only dominated by their husbands (as Genesis 3:16 said would happen) but also stamped with the deception of Eve; they were hardly ready to be teachers in the church. If, as appears from 2 Timothy 3:6, some of the women were not only learning error but were “weak-willed,” “loaded down with sins,” and “swayed by all kinds of evil desires”—victimized by the false teachers—it is not surprising if extreme caution was needed in dealing with the question of allowing women to teach.

Aída Besançon Spencer has suggested that the Christian women were only beginning to emerge from the bondage of the “curse” and required time to mature and to prove their “faith, love and holiness with propriety” (1 Tim. 2:15).⁸⁰ This was therefore a major transition for women, the significance of which must not be underestimated. The coming of the Spirit and the dawn of the new age of the church meant a new spiritual ministry for women. Spencer’s view, if it is correct, means that as the apostolic age drew to a close, Christian women were only beginning to be ready for ministry in the church. This is a thought-provoking interpretation that, along with other views, including the matter of Eve’s deception, will be discussed in appendix B.

Widows

Less attention is usually given to Paul’s instructions about widows in 1 Timothy 5 than to the matter of women’s teaching in chapter 2. Yet these instructions were of great importance, especially as widows became increasingly recognized in the early church as an order of ministering women. As for widows in the New Testament period, Kelly says, “Such glimpses as we obtain from Acts (vi.1; ix.39ff.) reveal that at the earliest stage the community treated the widows in its midst as an important responsibility, and that they for their part were grouped together as a body occupied in deeds of kindness to the poor.”⁸¹ He goes on to note that in this “surprisingly long section” in 1 Timothy there are “definite conditions of entry” and also “definite duties” for the widows to perform. In the following chapter we will discuss the development of this body of ministering women.

Deaconesses

Did Paul refer to deaconesses in 1 Timothy 3:11? After listing the qualifications for elders, Paul says, “Deacons likewise…” and then “Women likewise…” The question is which of the two meanings of the word gynē, “woman” or “wife,” was in Paul’s mind. Because the statement concerning women immediately follows the instructions to deacons, some take it to refer to the deacons’ wives. One problem with this assumption is that there is no parallel instruction for wives of the elders. Hanson’s argument that the elders’ wives would be older and better known seems weak.⁸² Another problem is that there is no definite article before the word, as one would have expected if it referred to the wives of the men who were just mentioned.⁸³ In favor of its referring to a distinct group of serving women is the verbal structure seen in the phrases quoted above, “likewise…,” “likewise…” This seems to introduce a certain group of women in parallel with the deacons.

As Hanson notes, most modern commentators think it means “women” rather than “wives.”⁸⁴ This judgment seems sound, though Hanson himself disagrees, as do many others. But one other factor should be introduced: there was no special Greek word for “deaconess.” A separate order known as deaconesses developed toward the third century in the Eastern church. In the meantime, however, women were serving in that capacity. In a great number of instances, women deacons were the wives of male deacons. It could well be that this was the situation in Paul’s day. If this is true, the ambiguities are fully understandable. The women were serving as deacons, but most, if not all of them, were the wives of deacons.

Summary

The significance of the events in the apostolic era, including the coexistence of prophesying daughters and silenced wives, can be understood more clearly in the context of the six types of transition: political, religious, spiritual, geographical, ideological, and chronological. Interpreters sometimes treat the biblical texts as though they were written in isolation from the momentous events and ideas that were swirling around them. Others appear to seize on cultural factors and make Scripture relative. But Scripture is not culturally relative—it is culturally relevant. It speaks to culture. The transitions described here were powerful and affected both the lives of women and others’ perceptions of them. Through it all, Jesus demonstrated a pure, noble, and consistent attitude toward women, not moved by the opinions of others. Paul steered a careful course through the changing cultural seas. And all the while, women were taking their place in the young church. Paul, in spite of the restrictions he felt were necessary, gave these women important opportunities to minister. Whether the developments of the next several centuries constituted an advance or a decline in this respect is a question to keep in mind in moving now into the next period.

↑ Back to top