Popular Arguments Against
Women's Ordination
Since writing that piece, I’ve had many great conversations
with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, many of whom disagree with my
contention that in Rom. 16:1-7, Paul commends Phoebe as an ordained deacon,
Junia as an Apostle, and Prisca as the pastor (with her husband) of a local
church. They contend that 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 demonstrate that
Paul forbade women to teach or speak in church, or to have any authority over
men in the churches.
Many go further to claim that due to a misplaced accent mark in Rom. 16:7,
Junia may actually be Junias (1) and that in any case, the above passages from
1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy preclude her from having the authority of an
apostle or Phoebe the office of deacon. In the case of Phoebe, they argue that
there is ample evidence of ancient orders of “deaconesses” and that Phoebe
likely belonged to one of these (2), or that she was a servant or even
hand-maid, as the Greek word for “deacon” can also mean one of these (3). And in
the case of Prisca, they argue that she and her husband led something akin to a
bible study in their home, and not an actual local church in the full sense of
the word.
As we will see, each of these contentions is based on either a misreading of
the text out of context, faulty manuscripts, or mistranslations of the Greek.
It is my hope that this piece amounts to a convincing defense of my belief that
not only should women be ordained today, but that God has always called women
to ordained ministry. The Church is just now waking up to that fact.
An Apostle, a Deacon, and a Pastor Walk
Into a Bar
First, though the Catholic Answers site cited above maintains it is unclear whether we should read Rom. 16:7 as referring to the female name Junia or the male name Junias, I disagree. The early papyrus P46 (from ca. 200 CE) as well as the early Coptic (3rd century), Vulgate (4th century), and Latin (5th century) all use the feminine name Julia; while the Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest complete copy of the Bible from the 3rd century calls her Junia (4).
First, though the Catholic Answers site cited above maintains it is unclear whether we should read Rom. 16:7 as referring to the female name Junia or the male name Junias, I disagree. The early papyrus P46 (from ca. 200 CE) as well as the early Coptic (3rd century), Vulgate (4th century), and Latin (5th century) all use the feminine name Julia; while the Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest complete copy of the Bible from the 3rd century calls her Junia (4).
Likewise, the early Fathers uniformly recognize that this
passage refers to a woman named Junia (5). As John Chrysostom writes,
"To be an Apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the Apostles - Just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great is the wisdom of this woman that she was even deemed worthy of the title of Apostle," (6).
It is clear that Paul doesn’t just intend to communicate that Junia (or Julia)
and Andronicus are missionaries “sent” (“apostolos” means “one who is sent”) to
minister in the general sense, as the only other Apostles he ever mentions by
name are the Twelve, himself, Barnabas, Silvanus, and Timothy (7). All the
others have been recognized as ordained clergy in the apostolic line of
succession by the later Church. It goes to follow that Junia and Andronicus are
as well.
Though some may contend that the fact that the Twelve were all men demonstrates
women were not apostles in the same sense, I argue this just reflects the
nature of Jesus’ earthly mission specifically to the Jews. After all, when
Jesus initially sends out the Twelve in Mat. 10:5, he gives them the
instructions, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the
Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and
in Mat. 15:24, where Jesus says his own mission, "I was sent only to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel." Paul affirms this in Rom. 15:8 when he
calls Jesus a “servant (8) to the circumcised,” (ESV). If we used the reasoning
that the Twelve were men, to prohibit the apostolic ministry of women; then we
must use the same reasoning, and say that since they were all Jewish men, we
must prohibit the apostolic ministry of Gentiles.
It seems to me that Jesus chose twelve male, Jewish apostles (and not twenty,
or four, or three) because he was restoring a new Israel from the old. Just as
the old Israel had twelve sons from which the nation sprang, so the new Israel
had twelve new sons from which would spring the Church. And just as the old
Israel expanded to include many sons (rather than remaining only twelve
always), so the new Israel would expand to have many apostles, but now with
both women and Gentiles equally among their number, among the first being
Junia. And if the bishops (used interchangeably with "elder" in
scripture) are the successors of the apostles, then surely there must be female
bishops and elders just as there were female apostles.
That Phoebe is a deacon and not a deaconness is clear from
the Greek, where Paul uses specifically the generic male noun "diakonon" rather than its female
form; the exact same noun he uses to describe his own office in Rom. 15. This
is also the first place where he uses "ekklesia",
which refers to the organized, local church at Cenchreae where she pastors with
the same authority with which Paul pastors to the Romans in ch. 15. That she
bears the authority to act as Paul’s representative in Rome is evidenced by
Paul's use of the Epistolatory formula "systemi de hymin" in Rom. 16:1 to commend her as “adelphe hymon” or “our sister,”(9).
Interestingly, even 1 Tim. 3:11 (which seems to envisage only male leadership) opens the possibility of ordination for women to the diaconate,
where it says, "Likewise the women..." contrary to most translations
which read "Their wives likewise..." (ESV) (10). This betrays a bias on the part of the translators who assume v. 12 restricts the office to men; but if we were to read it that way, we would then have to restrict the office to married men only.
Finally, that Prisca is a co-pastor along with her husband Aquila is clear from
the fact that where both are frequently mentioned together, Prisca is more often
than not mentioned first in precedence (11); and that both Aquila and Prisca (here
spelled Priscilla) correct Apollos’ teaching in Acts 18:26. That Paul considers
them equals in ministry is strongly suggested by his description of them as “fellow
workers” in Rom. 16:3 (ESV). And that their church is just that, an organized,
local congregation is evidenced by his second use of “ekklesia” in v. 5.
The arguments that these three women aren’t who Paul says they are must then
fall on other passages for their support. And it’s these passages that I’ll
address next.
Misreading 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1
Timothy 2:11-15
Moving on to 1 Cor. 14:33-35, we find that the passage must be read in the context of its surrounding verses, dealing with speaking in tongues and disorderly worship (vv. 26-32, 36-40). Here Paul is writing in response to a specific problem of women interrupting the service to ask questions. That women can indeed speak publicly, pray, and prophecy in the service is demonstrated by 1 Cor. 11:5, as long as they do so with their heads covered. This itself should be read within the context of Paul's philosophy of submitting to the Torah to avoid unnecessary offense (1 Cor. 9:20), a philosophy which informs the entire dialogue (12).
Moving on to 1 Cor. 14:33-35, we find that the passage must be read in the context of its surrounding verses, dealing with speaking in tongues and disorderly worship (vv. 26-32, 36-40). Here Paul is writing in response to a specific problem of women interrupting the service to ask questions. That women can indeed speak publicly, pray, and prophecy in the service is demonstrated by 1 Cor. 11:5, as long as they do so with their heads covered. This itself should be read within the context of Paul's philosophy of submitting to the Torah to avoid unnecessary offense (1 Cor. 9:20), a philosophy which informs the entire dialogue (12).
When taken in the context of the entire Epistle, it is clear that women
speaking in church isn’t shameful; but women speaking in the way Paul is
referring to – that is interrupting orderly service to ask questions is
shameful. The fact that the very people these women may be interrupting may
themselves actually be women is demonstrated by 1 Cor. 11:5. If this isn’t the
case, then 1 Cor. 11:5 must likewise become artificially generalized and all
women must wear head coverings in church and all men must keep their heads
uncovered.
Additionally, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart make the argument that this
passage is likely an interpolation or gloss, as it is the only passage of this
type which is found in two different places in the Greek manuscripts (13). Even
if genuine, in my previous article, I argued that the emphatic of v. 36 likely
means vv. 33-35 constitutes a quote or popular concept which Paul is correcting
(14)(15).
Finally, I'd like to address 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which if taken prima facie would
seem to be a universal prohibition against women preaching. But I do not think
Paul intends it to be taken as such. Paul bases his reasoning in this passage
on the fallen Eve, forced to submit to her husband as a result of the curse (16).
Elsewhere, Paul reasons that the same curse is lifted in the new creation in
which we are reconciled to God and each other (17).
If we are reconciled to God and each other in a new creation in Christ, then
relationally we are to be as we were in the Garden, in perfect communion with
God as when He walked with us there (18), and as equal reflections of God's
image (19) in unity with each other (20) whether male or female.
That Paul uses the reasoning of the curse in his injunction toward Timothy may
in fact be due to the church in Ephesus coming from a similar hedonistic
background as that in Corinth, who had its own Temple to Aphrodite and a
thousand "heteiras" or priestess-prostitutes (21). The Church
tradition that Timothy was beaten and stoned to death during the festival of
Artemis, and presence of her temple (one of the seven wonders of the ancient
world) tells me that Ephesus was still very much under the curse Paul alludes
to.
However, utilizing the general reasoning of the curse to justify the doctrine
that all women are forbidden from speaking in church (and by extension, from
ordained ministry) doesn't hold up when given the historical-cultural
context of Ephesus and Corinth, the textual/manuscript problems of the texts
cited, and in the context of Paul's teaching elsewhere (especially Rom. 16:1-7,
1 Cor. 11:5, and Gal. 3:28).
Conclusion: Women
Should Be Ordained
Given all of the evidence, it seems clear to me that (contrary to popular
belief) women not only can, but should speak in Church. Women not only can,
but should lead congregations. And women were definitely ordained during the Apostolic
era of the Church. Please understand, my position is not the result of
postmodern influences or attempts to make Christian leadership more socially acceptable.
After all, my denomination has affirmed women clergy since our founding,
decades before women could even vote. My position is an exegetical corrective
and not a social one. To maintain that women should not be ordained and should
not lead congregations is to ignore the evidence cited above, and frankly
stands in opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Footnotes
(1) Fr. Grondin, Charles. Was Junia a Female Apostle? Catholic Answers. Web. Written April
06, 2018.
(2) The Revised Standard Version’s translates Phoebe’s title
in Rom. 16:1 as “deaconess.”
(3) See Rom. 15:8, where in the English Standard Version,
Christ is referred to as “a servant to the circumcised.”
(4) Preato, Dennis J. “Junia, A Female Apostle: Resolving
the Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7”. God’s
Word to Women. Web. Retrieved Oct. 22, 2018.
(5) Thorley, John. “Junia, A Woman Apostle.” Novum Testamentum. Vol. 38, Fasc. 1
(Jan. 1996), 18.
(6) Chrysostom, John. In Epistolam ad Romanos,
Homilia 31, 2, in Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca, ed.
by J. P. Milne, cited by B. Brooten, 141.
(7) Thorley. “Junia, A Woman Apostle,” 18.
(8) Greek, “diakonos”.
(9) Greathouse, William M. and George Lyons. New Beacon Bible Commentary: Romans 9-16.
(Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2008), 264-265.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Acts 18:18, Rom. 6:3, 2 Tim. 4:19; cf. Acts 18:2-3; as
well as Acts 18:26 and 1 Cor. 16:19 where Aquila is mentioned first.
(12) Metz, Donald S. “1 Corinthians” Beacon Bible Commentary: Romans, I and II Corinthians. Vol. 8. Ed. By
A.F. Harper. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), 453-454.
(13) Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stewart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 88-89.
(14) Hyde, Ian. “A Part of Something Greater, Part I:
Apostolic Succession”. Theological
Discussions. Web. Written June 21, 2018.
(15) Verbrugge, Verlyn D. “1 Corinthians.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised
Edition. Vol. 11. Ed. By Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 387. Only here, the commentator argues against it
solely based on the passage’s length.
(16) Gen. 3:16.
(17) Cf. Gal. 3:28; 2 Cor. 2:17-18.
(18) Cf. Gen. 3:8.
(19) Gen. 1:27.
(20) Gen. 2:24.
(21) Strabo, Geographika,
Book VIII, 6:20.
*Edited for spelling and grammar.
*Edited for spelling and grammar.
#Apostles #Ordination #Women #OrdinationOfWomen #ApostolicSuccession #Nazarene #ChurchOfTheNazarene
