Rex Banks.
Part 5: Miscellaneous Arguments
Typically discussions about the role of women in the public assembly involve more than just those passages of scripture which specifically mention gender distinctive roles in assembly. (1 Tim. 2; 1 Cor. 11; 1 Cor. 14) In the following paragraphs we will consider a few liberationist arguments which usually feature prominently in such discussions.
Galatians 3:28
Characterized by one leading egalitarian as the "Magna Carta of humanity", Galatians 3:28 has become a focal point in virtually every discussion of the role of women in the church, and this verse is invariably cited in support of the contention that there is no place for gender specific roles in Christ. It reads:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Although our liberationist friends do not agree on all particulars, the thrust of the argument from Galatians 3:28 is as follows:
• The first man and woman possessed total equality, and female subordination was a negative consequence of the Fall. In Gal. 3:28, Paul teaches that in Christ all inequalities resulting from racial, social and gender differences are erased. This being the case, there are no gender specific limitations upon Christians. All church ministries are open to women.
• Galatians 3:28 is the theological sieve through which all other passages dealing with gender specific roles must pass. Verses in 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14 which relate to the role of women in the church must not contradict Gal. 3:28. (Usually such verses are treated as examples of temporary legislation designed to accommodate a particular cultural situation.)
• Since everyone accepts Paul's statement in Gal. 3:28 that in Christ there are no distinctions between Jew and Greek and slave and freeman, consistency demands that we acknowledge that there are no gender distinctions in Christ either.
Now, the fact that this interpretation of Gal. 3:28 surfaced for the first time just decades ago and that it represents a radical departure from the traditional understanding of this verse is significant. It simply never occurred to the apostolic fathers, the patristic writers, the reformers or anyone else that this verse had anything to say about gender specific roles, and for good reason. It is clear that the whole thrust of the Galatian epistle (especially chapter 3) is that access to God is through faith, and the point of Gal. 3:26-29 is that all human beings who possess saving faith are equally "sons of God" (v. 26) and offspring of Abraham (v. 29). In context, Paul's point is that in Christ the individual's standing before God is not affected by such things as race, social status or sex.
Logic as well as context makes it clear that Paul is discussing the right to sonship rather than the obliteration of role distinctions. To my knowledge no one argues that because Christian parents and their believing children are "one in Christ" the latter need not obey their parents (Eph. 6:2) or that the former have no right to discipline their offspring. (Heb. 12:9) What's more, if all hierarchical functions are abolished in Christ, what do we do with those passages which speak of Christian leaders who "have charge over" members of the local church (1 Thess 5:12) and who are "exercising oversight" over those "allotted to (their)...charge"? (1 Pet. 5:2, 3) How do Christians obey their leaders and submit to them (Heb. 13:17) if all role distinctions are abolished in Christ? What's more, if there are no distinctions in Christ, there can be no objection to homosexual unions, and presumably fathers will take turns at bearing children along with mothers! Paul's statement in Gal. 3:28 must not be set adrift of context and logic.
Like Paul, the apostle Peter speaks of the spiritual equality of men and women when he describes the wife as "a fellow heir of the grace of life," (1 Pet. 3:7) but significantly in this same context Peter insists that wives and husbands fulfil different roles. Wives are to be "submissive" to their husbands (vs 1, 5) in the same way that Sarah was submissive to Abraham (v. 6) while husbands are to live with their wives in an understanding way "as with a weaker vessel". (v. 7) Like Paul, and unlike many modern scholars, Peter recognized that spiritual equality was compatible with role distinction, and Christ's submission to the Father is a good illustration of this truth.
Finally, as we have pointed out repeatedly (Parts 1 - 4) female subordination is based upon creation law and was not a result of the Fall. Thus the argument that in Christ we have a return to the pre-Fall situation in which role distinctions between the male and female did not exist, is fundamentally flawed. The first two pairs in Gal. 3:28 (Jews/Greeks and slave/free man) are indeed related to the Fall, but this is not true of the third (male/female). In fact the restoration of the pre-Fall situation would involve the restoration of the principle of male headship and female subordination.
Appeal to Old Testament Examples
Many liberationists find support for female leadership in the assembly in the examples of such Old Testament figures as Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, but in doing so they get far more out of the sacred text than it contains. In the third century Origen made the following comment concerning the Montanists, who evidently found justification for the activities of their "prophetesses" in the examples of Philip's daughters and the Old Testament prophetesses:
"They in no way fulfil this command (1 Cor. 14:34 [Rex]) those disciples of women, who chose as their master Priscilla and Maximilla, not Christ the Spouse of the Bride... The Evangelist Philip, they say, had four daughters, and all prophesied...If they prophesied, what is strange, they ask, if our own prophetesses - as they are called - also prophesy? Let us then resolve this difficulty. First, since you say: "Our women prophesied" show in them the signs of prophesy. Second, if the daughters of Philip prophesied, at least they did not speak in the assemblies; for we do not find this fact in the Acts of the Apostles much less in the Old Testament. It is said that Deborah was a prophetess...Mary, the sister of Aaron, tambourine in hand, led the choir of women...There is no evidence that Deborah delivered speeches to the people, as did Jeremias and Isaias. Hulda, who was a prophetess, did not speak to people, but only to a man, who consulted her at home...The Gospel itself mentions a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser;...but she did not speak publicly. Even if it is granted to a woman to prophesy and show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly." (Fragments on First Corinthians, from Roger Gryson's, The Ministry of Women)
Origen is quite correct as the following verses show: Ex. 15:20; Judges 4:5; 2 Kings 22:14ff; 2 Chron. 34:22. There is simply no indication that these godly women ever engaged in the public proclamation of God's word, and in Deborah's case it is abundantly clear that when public leadership is needed she gives priority to a man, namely Barak (Judges 4:6, 7). Barak is rebuked for his unwillingness to go into battle without Deborah (4:8) but the woman into whose hands Sisera is sold (4:9) is not Deborah at the head of an army, but Jael (4:17ff).
A Female Apostle?
In Romans 16:7, Paul writes, “Greet Andronicus and *Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who were also in Christ before me." (N.A.S.V.) The margin reads: *Or Junia (fem). Some translations have Junia (e.g. K.J.V.) and others Junias (e.g. N.I.V.). Thayer has: "a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoners." According to the Kroegers: "Junia is called a 'noteworthy apostle'...Efforts by translators to turn this common feminine name into a masculine one (Junias or Junianus) simply cannot be substantiated." (I Suffer Not a Woman) Allegedly Rom. 16:7 proves that a woman was referred to as an apostle, and allegedly this is proof that she held a position of great authority in the early church.
Now, while it is true that "the twelve" and Paul, who occupied positions of great authority in the church were designated "apostles", it is not true that all who are called "apostles" held such positions of authority. By way of illustrating the point, consider the word translated "church" in the New Testament (ekklesia). Among Greek speakers of the first century, ekklesia had the following general meanings:
"1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly. 1a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating. 1b) the assembly of the Israelites. 1c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously." (Thayer)
This is how the term is used, for example in Acts 19:39, 41. However the writers of the New Testament gave the following specialized meanings to this word as well:
"1d1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting. 1d2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake. 1d3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body. 1d4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth. 1d5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven." (Thayer)
This same process is also observed in connection with the word apostolos, which in the first century carried the general meaning: "1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders." (Thayer) The New Testament writers employed this term to refer "to the twelve apostles of Christ" (Thayer) and to Paul, but its more general meaning remains, and it "is used sometimes to designate 'messengers of churches; or those who were 'sent' from one church to another on some important business." (Adam Clarke) For example Paul describes Epaphroditus as the messenger (lit. apostle) of the Philippian church, (Phil. 2:25) and certain faithful brethren as messengers (lit apostles) of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23). Perhaps the individual in Rom. 16:7 was a woman, and perhaps she was an outstanding messenger, but this verse does not prove that she held a position of authority in the early church. Many are quick to point out that in his Homily Upon the Epistle to the Romans, Chrysostom (347 - 407) identifies Junia/Junias as a woman, exclaiming: "Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!" However they seldom cite the following comments which he makes concerning Mary in the previous verse (Rom. 16:6):
" 'Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.' How is this? A woman again is honoured and proclaimed victorious!...For he says, 'who bestowed much labour on us,' that is, not on herself only, nor upon her own advancement, (for this many women of the present day do, by fasting, and sleeping on the floor), but upon others also, so carrying on the race Apostles and Evangelists ran. In what sense then does he say, ' I suffer not a woman to teach?' (1 Tim. ii. 12) He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward (1 Cor. xiv. 35), and from the seat on the bema, not from the word of teaching. Since if this were the case, how would he have said to the woman that had an unbelieving husband, 'How knowest thou, O woman, if thou shalt save thy husband?' (ib. vii. 16) Or how came he to suffer her to admonish children, when he says, but 'she shall be saved by child-bearing if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety?' (1 Tim. ii. 15) How came Priscilla to instruct even Apollos? It was not then to cut in sunder private conversing for advantage that he said this, but that before all, and which it was the teacher's duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her."
Yes, Chrysostom did believe that the individual "counted worthy of the appellation of apostle" in Rom. 16:7 was a woman, but in light of his comments on Rom. 16:6, it is clear that Chrysostom did not mean to suggest in the next verse that Junia/Junias exercised apostolic authority in the church.
In light of the above, it is fruitless unravelling the various arguments which have arisen in connection with Paul's greeting to Junia/Junias in Rom. 16:7, but the following points are worth noting:
• Women were among the 120 people present when Judas' office was filled, (Acts 1:14) but when Peter declared that his replacement was to be from among "the men" who had accompanied them (Acts 1:21) he uses the word for male (aner).
• The expression "outstanding among the apostles" may simply mean that Andronicus and Junia/Junias were well-known to the apostles, not that they were numbered among the apostles.
• We cannot be sure that the individual under discussion was a woman. Chrysostom (above) thought so, but his contemporary Epiphanius used the masculine pronoun when speaking of this person. (Index of Disciples, 125:19, 20.
Deaconesses?
In 1 Timothy 3:1-13 the apostle Paul sets forth the qualifications for elders and deacons, and in his discussion of the latter (vs 8-13) he makes mention of certain "women" (N.A.S.V.) or "wives" (K.J.V.) who "likewise must be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things". (v. 11) Some take this as a reference to women in general, but since this verse occurs in a chapter dealing with special groups this is unlikely. Some find a reference to the wives of deacons here, others think that Paul is speaking of the wives of elders and deacons, while others believe that this verse sets forth the qualifications for a special group of women who functioned as deaconesses in the church, one of whom was Phoebe. (Rom. 16:1)
Among those who find a reference to deaconesses in 1 Tim. 3:11 are many students of scripture who are convinced that Christian women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the public assembly, and who are fully aware of the fact that leadership in the church is male. They are quick to remind us that the word translated "deacon" is also translated "servant," and that in general terms it speaks of "one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master, a servant, attendant, minister." (Thayer) They point out that nothing is said about the role of deacons as public teachers, and that scripture does not confer authority upon those who hold the office. This being the case, the appointment of a special group of women with particular qualifications to carry out certain directives of the elders, would not violate the principle of female subordination.
There is some evidence for the existence of a body of women with definite functions in the post apostolic period, but significantly those early writers who refer approvingly to this group of female servants, leave no doubt that they did not hold positions of authority over men in the church. For example Tertullian writes of "a seat to which...married women are at length elected" in order that:
"Their experimental training in all the affections may, on the one hand, have rendered them capable of readily aiding all others with counsel and comfort, and that, on the other, they may none the less have travelled down the whole course of probation whereby a female can be tested." (On the Veiling of Virgins 9)
Clearly Tertullian has in mind a particular group of women with particular functions (although he seems to invoke 1 Tim 5:9 rather than 1 Tim 3:11, since in this connection he makes reference to "single-husbanded" [women] and the age of "sixty years"). There may be some doubt as to the identity of these women about whom he speaks approvingly, but there is no suggestion that they occupy positions of authority, and in the same passage Tertullian says:
"It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office."
Elsewhere in his Prescription Against Heretics 41.5 Tertullian writes:
"The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures - it may be even to baptize."
Chrysostom comments on1 Tim 3:11:
"Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses." (Homilies on the First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy no. 11)
However as we have seen (A Female Apostle? above) Chrysostom is firmly opposed to female leadership in the church. In commenting on 1 Tim. 2:11-15 he says:
" 'But I suffer not a woman to teach.' 'I do not suffer,' he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence...
Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. 'Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.' (1 Cor. xi. 9) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way;
The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach..." (Homily 9)
The point is that regardless of whether 1 Tim. 3:11 speaks of deaconesses, women in general, or the wives of deacons, this verse is of no help to the liberationists. Those early Christians who mention a group of specially qualified women in the church make it clear that women did not hold positions of authority in the church, and are adamant that a woman must not 'claim to herself a lot in any manly function.' "
Phoebe the Patron
In Rom. 16:2 Paul tells the church at Rome to "receive (Phoebe) in a manner worthy of the saints" adding, "and you yourselves help her in whatever manner she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper (prostatis) of many, and of myself as well."
In her book Woman Be Free, Patricia Gundry has:
"This word prostatis occurs only once in the New Testament, so we have no other biblical usage with which to compare it. From classical Greek writings on through patristic writings it is used in its masculine form as chief, the leader of a party, one who stands before and protects, champion, defender, ruler, leader, supporter. The word is rare in its feminine form for obvious reasons: women did not often hold positions of power in Greek culture. Thayers Greek Lexicon gives the primary meaning for this word as 'a woman set over others'." (Woman Be Free)
What Gundry does not mention is that while Thayer gives as his primary meaning, "a woman set over others," he does not cite Rom. 16:2 as an example of this meaning. Instead he cites this verse as an example of the following meaning: "2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources." Similarly Arndt and Gingrich has "protectress, patroness, helper...she has been of great assistance to many, including myself Rom. 16:2." According (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol. 7) "prostatis "is the word for 'protectress' or 'patroness' in Rom. 16:2," while Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament has: "The masc. form of the word was used by the Romans for the legal representative of a foreigner. In Jewish circles it meant the legal representative or wealthy patron. Here (Rom. 16:2)...it indicates the personal help given to Paul."
It is also helpful to keep in mind that while the verbal form from which prostatis is derived (proistemi) can mean: "1) to set or place before; 1a) to set over; 1b) to be over, to superintend, preside over; 1c) to be a protector or guardian." (Thayer) It can also mean "1c1) to give aid; 1d) to care for; give attention to; 1d1) profess honest occupations." (ibid) Thus this verb may suggest the giving of aid, protection and care rather than oversight. Moulton and Milligan provide an example of the secular use of proistemi from a letter dating from the 3rd century B.C. in which a son says to his father: "There will be nothing of more importance for me than to look after you for the remainder of life, in a manner worthy of you, and worthy of me." Paul uses the verb eight times, and undoubtedly it carries the idea of protection and care twice in Titus 3 (vs 8 and 14) where Christians are told to engage in good deeds. It may also carry this meaning in Rom. 12:8, where Paul instructs the one who "leads" (N.A.S.V.) to do so with diligence. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology has the following comment on this verse under the heading Holy Spirit, Gifts of:
"The verb proistemi (Rom. 12:8) can refer to leadership or to giving practical aid. It may be the Romans equivalent to all of the gifts of leadership of Ephesians 4, though the immediate context (contributing, showing mercy) favours the latter. The cognate noun prostatis (prostavti") refers to a patron, so perhaps the best option explains this gift as the use of one's wealth to sponsor or support needy people within the body of Christ."
Thus Phoebe may have been a woman of substance and influence whose position in the community enabled her to offer protection and support to her more vulnerable brethren in the church, and who functioned as a "patron" of Paul and others. In fact the recently-published (2001) English Standard Version translates prostatis "patron." In this capacity Phoebe was following in the footsteps of those women who accompanied Jesus and the twelve and "who were contributing to their support out of their private means." (Lk 8:3) Paul argues that it is because Phoebe has been a prostatis to many, that the brethren in Rome are to "help (paristemi) her." The play on words is evident. In receiving help from the brethren, Phoebe is simply receiving back from them what she has so freely given to Paul and others: not leadership but help, assistance, benevolence.
If Phoebe functioned as a patron of many, including Paul, this does not imply that Paul and other male Christians were subject to her leadership in the spiritual realm.
Paul describes Phoebe as a prostais "of many and of myself as well " so if the term under discussion suggests leadership this means that Paul, an apostle of Jesus submitted to Phoebe's spiritual leadership! This is patently absurd. Too, consider a parallel situation. Socially prominent women were to be found in the Jewish synagogue, (Acts 13:50; 17:1-4) and the fact that the Jews enlisted the support of these women to expel Paul and Barnabas from the district (Acts 13:50) is evidence of their influence in the community - however women did not function as synagogue rulers. Evidently Phoebe was one of many women of prominence in the first century church, (e.g. Acts 12:12; 16:14; 17:4, 12; 1 Cor. 1:11; 16:15) but to conclude that she was a spiritual leader is to go far beyond the evidence.
Concluding Comment
Various other liberationist arguments could be mentioned, all of which involve the same contradictions, leaps of logic and novel methods of interpretation. For example, Ephesians 5 allegedly requires "mutual submission" of all Christians, a concept which is held to be irreconcilable with male headship and female subordination. (Is the notion of parental authority over believing, dependent children also irreconcilable with this concept?) Descriptions of certain sisters as "fellow workers" with Paul (Rom. 16:3) and laborers in the Lord (Rom. 16:12) are cited as proof of female leadership in the church, despite the fact that nothing is said in the text about the nature of the services rendered by these sisters. References to "older women" (Tit. 2:3) are taken to mean that the office of female elder existed in the early church, and so on.
Coupled with the refusal to take 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 at face value, these impoverished arguments represent the triumph of philosophy over exegesis. Unable to distinguish subordination from inferiority, and convinced that personal freedom is the ultimate good, many today are determined to rid the Bible of "sexism" and the church of "patriarchy," but they fail to realize that opposition to gender-specific roles in the church and family challenges the very design of creation. History demonstrates again and again that distortion of this divine order always brings heartache, pain and failure, and that's why the inconsistencies and absurdities of liberationism must be exposed.