Women’s role, women’s ministry and God’splan

(A.Biblical examples)Colin M. Howells

Feminism as a set of revolutionary ideas and ideals burst in uponour society in the 1960’s. The cause was taken up by the media who,whilst denouncing narrow male chauvinism, caricatured the movementand all those women who paid serious attention to the issuesinvolved.Extreme views came into being on both sides of the spectrum butmainstream thinking absorbed many feminist assumptions and womenhave since succeeded in professions and careers from which they hadexplicitly or implicitly been barred. From the end of the 1980’suntil the present day, there has been a new awareness of the valueof women both within the family unit and in the wider environs ofsociety at large.Christians have often continued to accept the traditionalsituation, sometimes assuming it to be ‘God given’ without re-examining the Scriptures in depth to see whether traditionalinterpretations are, in fact, valid. Many have, however, been ledto ask questions about the woman’s role in the family, in societyand, perhaps more importantly, in the life of the Church.The present writer was part of a group of church leaders whowrestled with the Scriptures over a period of several months duringthe 1980’s. Though reading from a wide range of books on the issueavailable at that time, the main source of inspiration came fromdetailed exegesis of the Scriptures and a determined effort topursue sound hermeneutics.When considering a subject as complex as this there are at leasttwo dangers to avoid. The first is being so attached to ourtraditions and to ‘what we’ve always been taught’ that we areunwilling to re-examine the Biblical evidence. The second is beingtoo influenced by modern opinions that we try to force theScriptures to conform to contemporary trends.Some may think that I have, albeit unwittingly, plunged headlonginto the second trap. May I ask such people to bear with me andexamine the evidence before judging me: ‘ test everything, and hold on to thegood’ (1 Thess 5:21).A certain number of fundamental questions need to be asked so, ofnecessity, we propose dividing this study into different chapters. What was God’s original plan? In what way did the fall modify thatplan? What changes, if any, were brought about by the coming ofChrist? How does this impact on those who enter His kingdom? Inasking these questions and seeking the answers through the

1

Scriptures we need also bear in mind what the original hearers andreaders would have understood in their historical context. (Thesame principle applies in the realm of prophecy!). Not only must weexamine the statements and injunctions made but also scrutinize theactions of those who, apparently, pronounced them for, in thecontext of Scriptural teaching, it is inconceivable that theyshould have taught one thing and done the opposite!1. God’s original plan (Gen 1:26-28; 2:18-24)

Both Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:18-24 show clearly that both man andwoman were made in the image of God. Many books have been writtendown the ages concerning the terms “image” and “likeness”.Catholics and Protestants have adopted different approaches, somebelieving them to mean largely the same thing and to define whatit means to be authentically human. Many of the slants on “thedivine image” seem to concentrate on the capacity in humans to beor to do certain things, but surely the question of this image isnot a question of a certain quality in people but that of thepossibility of a relationship with God. In this, there is no doubtthat both man and woman were made in the image of God, bothpossess an eternal spirit capable of communion with theirCreator. Man, in the generic sense, the image of God, is bothmale and female. There is absolutely nothing in the text tosuggest that the male is the image and that the woman is a palereflection of this image.God then blesses the couple he has created and gives them jointresponsibility for managing the earth: “be fruitful and multiply and fi llthe earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fi sh of the sea, over the birds ofthe air and over every l iv ing thing that moves on the earth” (v.28). Both manand woman are thus called upon, jointly, to act as vice-regentsover God’s creation. The creational mandate to work is incumbenton both of them.Thus, this first passage concerning woman in the Bible indicatesthat she shares equally and fully in ‘man’s’ dominion overcreation, and is under the obligation, in a common endeavour withher husband, to exercise rule over all creation. Even if theremay be a legitimate division of labour, as is the case in alljoint endeavours, there is no suggestion of role stereotyping forthe male or the female, these terms being simply used to describethe physiological difference between them.The second passage is found towards the end of Genesis 2, (v18-24). Whilst some interpreters restrict the teaching of thispassage to marriage, it seems evident that its scope goes waybeyond this relationship. Its close proximity to Genesis 1:26-28leads us to believe that man was incomplete without someone tocomplement him in the task of filling, multiplying, and takingdominion over the earth. This reveals Adam’s inadequacy and notEve’s insufficiency. Man was made for fellowship with acomplementary social human being. To properly be made in God’s

2

image the male cannot feel ‘right’ surrounded only by othercreatures – he needed a counterpart. This is shown but hissatisfied sigh expressed in verse 23, “at last, ‘bone of my bones andfl esh of my fl esh. ’” Some have argued for the ‘subordination’ of womenon the basis that woman was created second or that she was takenfrom man, but this cannot be the case. Man was created after theanimals and he was taken from the dust of the ground!Raymond Ortlund affirms that because woman is created to be man’shelper and not the reverse this implies male headship. Thoughwoman is his spiritual equal, she was not his physical equal inthat she was his helper. He goes on to state that man, because ofhis manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtueof her womanhood, is called to help for God. This is simply badexegesis! The term “Ezer” translated “helper” is elsewhere used ofGod when he comes to the help of Israel (Ex 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26,29; Ps 33:20). When God is man’s helper it is not to “give him ahand” so that he may accomplish his plans. He delivers (Ex 18:4),strengthens (Deut 33:7) and saves (v.27, 29). Woman was given toman not as a “subordinate helper” who contributes to man’swellbeing, but as his counterpart, his equal partner, fit forhim. Whilst it is true that the expression, “bone of my bones and fl esh ofmy fl esh” is used in the Old Testament to describe a hierarchicalrelationship such as exists between father and son (see Gen29:14; Jud 9:2; II Sam 5:1; 19:12), the whole context militatesagainst such an interpretation in Genesis 2.Hurley argues that the fact that Adam ‘named’ his companion‘woman’ expresses his control over her in the same way as hisnaming of the animals. This will not do because ‘woman’ is not aname but a common noun which has been already used by God (seev.22) to designate man’s female counterpart. It was not untilafter the fall (3:20) that Adam actually gave her a name. Weconclude therefore that there is no support in Gen 2:23 for theidea of male superiority, nor indeed, authority within thecreation model. The man (Heb. ‘ ish’) calls her woman (Heb. ‘ isha’)because she had her source in him. Fellowship is symbolised in sexual union, “one flesh” but thereis no suggestion that this relationship is essential to acomplete experience of fellowship. The need for companionship notsex is the primary focus here. Moreover, since woman was createdprimarily as a helper and not a procreator, woman can help manwithout being married to him, thus, a woman is a person in herown right.Some have argued that since man and woman were made in the imageof God there can be no subordination since there is nosubordination in God. This ignores the fact that Jesus couldspeak of his Father as being greater than himself (John 14:28).It is unlikely that he is speaking of a comparison between his

3

human state and the Father’s eternal celestial being, but of aSon with reference to his Father. Thus, while there is noessential difference between the members of the Trinity, there isa differentiation of role in the light of which one is‘subordinate’ to the other within the bonds of divine love. Thosepeople who cannot conceive of voluntary subordination alongsidethe principle of equality must have a significant stumbling blockwhen considering the Trinity.

2. The Fall and its consequences (Gen 3) Several important questions surround this chapter. Varioustheories have been advanced to explain why Eve was tempted.Leupold suggests that the woman was tempted because she was theweaker whilst Morris submits that it was because she was alone.Kidner goes so far as to propose that she was usurping theleadership role of her husband. These propositions are purespeculation. There is no evidence in the Bible that physicalweakness implies moral or spiritual weakness. There may besomething to be said for Morris’ suggestion insofar as, as wehave already suggested, men and women had been given theresponsibility to exercise dominion together, this could be thatthis is the first time that one of them acted independently.If Genesis 3 introduces the biblical record of the fall, God’sprohibition goes back to 2:17, prior to the creation of Eve. Isit not therefore legitimate to suppose that her knowledge of theDivine command was not first-hand knowledge but information whichhad been passed on to her by Adam? If this is the case then,presumably, she was less prepared to face the seduction of thetempter. It follows therefore that, logically speaking, whenconfronted by Satan; she should have referred the matter to Adamas the person who had first-hand knowledge of God’s will. But allof this is pure supposition. Nowhere in Scripture is anyexplanation given concerning the temptation of Eve. What isclear, however, is that, after the sin of both Eve and Adam, Godcalls out to Adam to enquire as to his whereabouts (v.9), thenspeaks to Eve and asks her what she has done (v.13). Each of themis held individually and equally responsible for their actions.This contradicts the assertion of Hurley who maintains that Adamfunctioned as a priest and that his headship is reflected in thefact that he answered for both of them. God judges both of them(v.16-17) and the same word, ‘pain’ is used for both. Eachsuffers the consequences of his/her act, Eve in her role aschild-bearer and Adam in his role as provider for the family.So then, the fall has a number of consequences, not least in theon-going relationship between man and woman. Some commentatorsinterpret v.16 as suggesting that Eve would desire to usurpAdam’s authority but that he would dominate her and that this waspart of God’s judgment on them. It seems preferable to read thepassage as predicting what would happen as an inevitable

4

consequence of sin. In the words of Bilezikian: “the woman wants amate and she gets a master. She wants a lover and she gets a lord. She wants ahusband and she gets a hierarch.”

We should ask ourselves of what exactly was Adam guilty? In thelight of v.17, some have suggested that it was of having listenedto his wife and of abandoning his role and ‘head’ of the family!Those who interpret the first part of v.17 in this way are, alas,guilty of misinterpretation, of taking part of a verse out of itscontext! One only has to read the rest of the verse to see this.“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree ofwhich I commanded you, you shall not eat of it .” He was guilty oflistening to her insofar as what she said contradicted a clearcommandment from God. In other Scriptures and in othercircumstances, men are told to listen to their wives (cf. Gen21:12).We conclude therefore that the fall does not introduce a newcreation order but disorder where there was harmony – itoverthrew God’s creation order and brought about new cultural andsocial tensions which were not part of God’s creation plan.

3. Women under the Old CovenantReading through the Old Testament we discover how quickly maledomination became rife. Women were bought and sold as possessions(Ex 21:7-11; Deut 21:14) and concubines and polygamy weretolerated (Gen 22:24; Deut 21:15). It is important to underlinethe fact God intervenes in this situation in order to protectthese women. In no way should it be construed as reflecting God’swill for them. Passages such as Numbers 5:11-31; 30:4-17 show themeasures taken to test a woman’s fidelity and her equal right tomake a vow. Deut 24:1 protects her from callous repudiation andDeut 25:1-10 shows the respective rights regarding leviratemarriage.The fact that, generally speaking, in Old Testament times,certain cultural or civic functions were not occupied by womendoes not mean that they were inferior. Certain verses show thatthe women were included when speaking about the men. We know thatthey were part and parcel of the people as is shown by 2 Sam6:18-19. Women took part in festivals, either in her own right asan Israelite or as a partner of a married couple. Women are notincluded in the lists of “sons, daughters, male servants, femaleservants, Levites, sojourners, the fatherless and the widows” (Ex20:10; Deut 12:12; 16:14) because they were already part of thehousehold (Deut 12:7).Women participated in the sacrifices (Jud 13:20, 23), ministeredin the tabernacle (Ex 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22 [see also Luke 2:36-38]);sang in choirs with the Levites (Ezra 2:65) and consecratedthemselves to the Lord with Nazirite vows (Nu 6:2-21). On apurely social and cultural level they had the possibility ofaccepting or refusing an offer of marriage (Gen 24:39, 57-59) and

5

didn’t wear a veil in public – this is shown to be the case withthe examples of Sara in Egypt (Gen 12: 11, 14) of Rebecca (Gen24:16) of Rachel (Gen 29:11) and Hannah (1 Sam 1:13).It may be true that, under the terms of the Old Covenant, womenseem to remain in the background but, it must be said, when theydo appear in the spotlight, be it on the family, political orreligious level, nowhere do they meet with God’s disapproval. Infact, the opposite is the case! God tells Abraham to do whateverhis wife tells him to do (Gen 21:12). Miriam the prophetess ledthe women in song after the crossing of the Red Sea. Deborah, theprophetess, was also judge over Israel – people went to her foradvice and judgment and she summoned Barak to take up armsagainst Jabin and Sisera (Jud 4: 4-10). Having repaired thetemple and rediscovered the book of the law, godly king Josiahand his courtiers sought out Huldah, the prophetess, to enquirewhat the Lord was saying to them. A final example is that ofQueen Esther who, despite great personal risk, sought an audiencewith King Ahasuerus, and was God’s instrument in saving the Jewsfrom Haman’s plot.Sadly, after the exile in Babylon and right through to thedestruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70, the place of women in Jewishsociety deteriorated greatly. As we have seen, it was not thecustom for Jewish women to be veiled, nevertheless, at the dawnof the N.T. era, the wearing of veils had become widespread.Women were considered as inferior beings and the Pharisees, intheir prayers, thanked God for not having been born a woman. Awoman’s testimony was no longer considered as valid in a court oflaw and her position in society was similar to that of a slave oreven, an animal. No longer were women able to consult the Torah, their only accessto education. Rabbi Eliezer stated: “Whoever teaches his daughterTorah teaches her an obscenity.” In the Temple women wereseparated from men in the service and, in an unprecedented step,a special courtyard was constructed for them in Herod’s temple.This segregation continued later in synagogues and this practiceis continued today among Orthodox Jews. As we have seen, these religious limitations didn’t exist throughmost of the Old Testament. This is why Jesus reacted so stronglyto the traditions of the elders (see Mark 7). Jesus’ attitudetoward women in his ministry became a liberating factor againstthe types of religious practice that were accepted in his day.

4. Women in the GospelsWe have just stated that there is quite a marked differencebetween the teaching of the Rabbis and that of Jesus. Rabbinicaltradition seems to have followed the Babylonian and Assyrianteaching rather the more liberated approach prevalent in Greekand Roman societies. Philo, Jewish writer and thinker who triedto harmonize the teaching of the Old Testament and Greek

6

philosophy, wrote that men’s attitudes stem from the reasonwhereas women depend on their sensitivity. Josephus, the Jewishhistorian, taught that “women are inferior to men in everydomain!” The Jerusalem Talmud went so far as to say that it wouldbe better for the Torah to be burnt rather than be presented to awoman. Jesus’ attitude to women

It was thus, in this context that Jesus, the Son of man, thatis, representative of both man and woman in God’s new society,was born, grew up and taught. The most striking thing about therole of women in Jesus’ life and teaching was the fact thatthey were there! They had an entirely natural place in his lifeand ministry. It is clear that he believed unequivocally in theequality of the sexes: both were created in the image of God.He stated this clearly (Mat 19:4) in his discussion with thePharisees concerning divorce. His teaching shows that heregarded men and women as equal physically, emotionally,morally and spiritually. Once, when healing a woman on theSabbath day, he publically humiliated his critics by pointingout that she was ‘a daughter of Abraham’ in the same way asthey were ‘sons of Abraham’. She was thus equally an heir ofthe Abrahamic covenant.Jesus didn’t uphold the male establishment but rejected thepatriarchal power structure of his day, restoring women to theposition that they initially held at creation. Women, lepers,prostitutes, Samaritans and tax collectors were the outcasts ofrespectable Jewish society. Jesus had close contacts with allof these groups. The most outstanding example of this is his conversation withthe Samaritan social outcast. One cannot ignore the fact thatthe account of Jesus’ meeting with Nicodemus, the pious,erudite Pharisee who couldn’t grasp spiritual truth, and thissinful woman, to whom Jesus revealed himself as being theMessiah, are placed side by side in John’s gospel. Not only didhe disregard the accepted practices of his day by speaking tothe woman alone, he made himself ritually unclean by asking herfor a drink and revealing his identity to her.On another occasion, when the Pharisees dragged a woman who hadbeen caught in the act of adultery to Jesus, he didn’t condemnher to death as his enemies anticipated. Instead, he referredto the law In Deuteronomy 17:7 and called upon the person whohad never sinned to cast the first stone. As the Phariseesslunk away, Jesus spoke directly to the woman charging her togo away and to sin no more.To sum up then:

Jesus spoke to women (John 4)

7

Jesus listened to women and responded to their cries forhelp (Mat 15:22)

Jesus taught women who sat at his feet to learn (Luke10:38-42)

As we have seen with the Samaritan at the well, some womenseemed to understand better than the men. This is also true inthe episode when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44).

Women in Jesus’ teachingWomen were often presented in the contemporary literature ofthat day as being “pernicious influences”, leading one’sthoughts away from the essential. This is not what we find inthe gospels. In the gospels they become: Examples of faith .

We discover the faith of the woman who had suffered from ahaemorrhage for 12 years (Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48), faithwhich gave her the audacity to approach Jesus in the middleof the throng, probably surrounded by “important people”,not the least, the leader of the local synagogue for whomshe would have been ‘impure’. But Jesus healed her andcalled her “daughter”.We also find the case of the foreign woman who asked for“the crumbs that fall from the master’s table” (Mat 15:28).In this, she is not unlike that other foreigner, a man thistime, who had faith “like none other in Israel” (Luke 7:9).

An example of love .Luke 7:36-50 relates the story of a woman who “loved much”and who Jesus used as an illustration when the indignantPharisee, in whose house Jesus had eaten, criticised hislack of spiritual discernment.

Objects of particular grace .A widow who was on her way to bury her son (Luke 7:11-17)became one of those rare mothers to whom God returned herchild. Her “chance” meeting with Jesus is one of the mostpowerful passages which remind us that God knows and hearsthe “poor and needy” in society. Once again, as with theceremonially ‘impure’ woman who touched Jesus, the Masterrisked defilement by touching the bier. Jesus thus performsthe ultimate miracle that would certify him as the Messiah.Whilst giving back this son to his mother, Jesus used wordssimilar to those uttered centuries before by Elijah (see 1Kings 17:23). Small wonder therefore that the people, inglorifying God, describe Jesus as “a prophet” saying “Godhas visited his people”.Right at the beginning of his ministry in Nazareth, in theexposition of his reading from Isaiah 61:1, 2, he reminded

8

his hearers that Elijah, during the time of dreadful famine,had been sent, not to a widow of Israel, but to a foreignwoman from Sidon! This reminder provoked such an angryresponse that they tried to throw Jesus off the cliff.

Examples of perseverance .Jesus told his disciples a parable to illustrate the factthat they should pray and not give up. He speaks of a poorwidow who manifestly had right on her side; but, it shouldseem, could not obtain justice. She made personalapplication to the judge day after day at his own house,calling: “Give me justice against my adversary.” We know that, atthat time, widows were often victims of unscrupulous peoplewho barbarously took advantage of their weak and helplessstate, invading their rights, and defrauding them of whatlittle they had. Several passages in the Old Testamentcharged magistrates not only to refrain from doing violence tothe widow (Je. 21:3), but to judge the fatherless, and plead for thewidow (Isa.1:17). Jesus’ illustration concerns not so muchthe attitude of the judge but the perseverance of the poorwidow. She got the justice she deserved by continualbegging. Jesus teaches that if an unrighteous judge wouldgive in in such circumstances, how much more will God givejustice to his elect?Another example of such perseverance can be found in Mat15:21-28 where, in the region of Tyre and Sidon, a gentilewoman pleaded with Jesus to heal her daughter.

An example of generosity .The poor widow, who put two small coins in the offering box,(Mark 12:38-44; Luke 21:1-4) is typical of the person thatthe world ignores. But if she was invisible to man, Godcould see her. She knew how to give – not from what, to her,was superfluous because she had none; not with a calculatingspirit – “if I give this much, then he’ l l give me that much”, no, she gaveall that she had! The disciples were not sitting with Jesus;he thus called them to him (v.43) in order to teach them.Obviously it was important enough for them to witness thisepisode as well as to hear it. He underlines the fact thatthe woman’s offering was more “in proportion, and also inthe spirit in which she gave; it was in the latter that shewas richer than all of them…The means of the giver and themotive are the measure of true generosity” (Plummer).

“Daughters of Abraham ”The Jewish people were particularly proud of the fact thatthey were descendants of Abraham. Jesus warned them ofpresuming to claim such a heritage (Mat 3:9; Luke 3:8) yetwhen Jesus taught that the truth would set them free, theyreplied: “We are the off spring of Abraham and have never been enslavedto anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” (John 8:32,

9

33). [They were obviously selective in their analysis oftheir history!] Having established this fact, is it notsurprising that Jesus should affirm, categorically, that thedisabled woman who had been bent double for eighteen yearsand who Jesus healed on the Sabbath day, was “a daughter ofAbraham”? There was ample evidence for rabbinic precedentfor helping animals in emergencies on the Sabbath. So Jesususes a lesser-to-greater argument to move from helpinganimals to helping human beings (v.15). It will not do tostate that the expression “daughter of Abraham” simply meansa Jewess because, as we have seen, in contemporary life, notonly were women treated no better than animals, they werevirtually excluded from all forms of social life, especiallyif they were sick or infirm. No, our analysis is that Jesus,in contrast to his previous criticism of those who proudlystated that they were “the offspring of Abraham”, is hereraising this woman to her rightful status as a truedescendant of Abraham. The result was that Jesus’adversaries were put to shame and all the people gave gloryto God for what Jesus had done.

An illustration of the Father’s love .Our final illustration of how women figured in Jesus’ministry, we find in Luke 15 where, alongside the parable ofthe shepherd who seeks the one erring sheep and that of theprofligate son who wastes his inheritance, we discover thediligent woman who meticulously and methodically seeks tofind the lost coin. She called her friends and neighbourstogether to rejoice with her at the recovery of that whichwas lost. Jesus uses this as an illustration of the joy inheaven among the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

Women and Jesus’ ministryWomen were able to benefit from his ministry; they receivedhim, welcomed him and helped him. Women followed him asdisciples and were witnesses to his life, death andresurrection. Not only were they the first to learn of hiscoming birth (Mary and Elizabeth), women were also the firstwitnesses of his resurrection.

Women walked before (or with) Jesus.Several women are mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. This wasmost unusual at that time. We notice the presence of Tamar(victim in a case of incest); of Rahab (a prostitute); ofRuth (a Moabite – cursed race), and of Uriah’s wife,Bathsheba (implicated in adultery with David and the murderof her husband)!! Then, there was Mary, Joseph’s fiancée, whowas the first to receive the “good” news that she waspregnant and that she was going to give birth to the Saviour– God’s time had arrived!

10

In the Temple, one man and one woman praised God for the factthat he had, at last, sent the one who would redeem hispeople (Luke 2:29-38). During the three years of hisministry, several women, Mary, Joanna and Susanna, to namebut three, accompanied Jesus and his twelve disciples (Luke8:1-3). Other women waited on him and listened to histeaching (Luke 10:38-42). Thus, women, as well as men, werebeneficiaries of God’s grace as manifested by His Son who hadcome to seek and to save the lost, including prostitutes(Luke 7:36-50).

Jesus re-established the spirit of the marriage laws.Jesus re-introduced the protection afforded to women in orderto avoid the abuse of power that men had initiated with theirerroneous interpretation of Deut 24:1. The text itself wasdesigned to save women from neglect and to limit the numberof divorces – in no way was it intended to legalize thepractice. Having said that, at the time when Jesus spokethese words he was replying to two different interpretationsof Deut 24. The schools of Shammai and of Hillel went from aconservative interpretation to a really liberal one. Wherewould Jesus draw line; which side would he take? Instead ofentering into a polemical situation, Jesus took hisinterlocutors back to the creation texts to express God’swill as far as marriage was concerned. Man should hold fastto his wife and the two thus become “one flesh” (Mat 5:31-32;19:1-12). Moses only authorized divorce because of thehardness of men’s hearts.

Women received and women gave.We have already mentioned the example of the Samaritan woman(John 4) who received important teaching concerning theuniqueness of God and the fact that He is spirit and must beworshiped in spirit and in truth (v.24). He then went on toreveal himself as the Messiah (v.26). As she shared thismessage with other Samaritans from her home town, they cameto the conclusion, having heard him for themselves, that thiswas indeed “the Saviour of the world” (v.42).Other women also saw ample proof that Jesus was the messiah.We’ve already mentioned Elizabeth who saw, in Mary, “themother of her Lord” (Luke 1:43). Isn’t it significant thatthe episode concerning the resurrection of the widow’s son(Luke 7:11-17) is placed just before John the Baptist’squestion concerning the authenticity of Jesus’ ministry?It was a woman who invited the people to meet Jesus saying:“Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Could thisbe the Messiah?” (John 4:29; a Canaanite woman who cried out:“Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me” (Mat 15:22). It wasthe women of Jesus’ entourage who were not only present athis crucifixion (Mat 27:55-56) but who were also the first

11

witnesses of his resurrection and hurried to tell the elevenremaining disciples that the tomb was empty (Mat 28:1-8; Mark16:1-7; Luke 24:1-12). As the disciples didn’t believe thewomen, as their words seemed to be nonsense, Peter and Johnwent to check out the facts. The women were right! The tombwas empty, Jesus was alive!

What then can we conclude from this preliminary overview? It seemsobvious that, from the beginning, woman was created to be man’spartner in all walks of life. Though this complementary role wasmodified and spoilt after the fall, certain precautions were taken,within the framework of the Mosaic Law, to protect women from theabuse which would flow from the consequences of the fall. We havenoticed the difference which existed between Israel and thesurrounding nations. Having said that, during the “silent years”between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New(about 4 centuries), the situation, as far as women were concerned,had become progressively worse in Israel, even if it seems to haveimproved in the Greek and Roman Empires.Though the gospels say almost nothing about contemporary conditionsas far as women were concerned, the contrast is immediatelyapparent by the very fact of their presence, the testimony theygive and the message which is given to them.Jesus spoke to all, men, women, Pharisees, tax-collectors,religious authorities, prostitutes, rich, poor, those in goodhealth and those who were sick, both in mind and in body, invitingthem to “do the will of his Father in heaven” (Mat 12:50). It isclear that he sought to overturn the prejudices of his day and hedefinitely broke ranks with rabbinical tradition. He made nodistinction between race, social standing or sex. Women were there,drinking from the “living water”, listening to the Master andtelling others what they had found.This “place”, which is given to them, is surprising in view of thehistorical context. It is clearly down to the fact that, the Wordmade flesh, who was “in the beginning” came down to all of us, bothmen and women.Alphonse Maillot, in his book entitled: “Eve, my mother”, publishedin 1989, writes this: “so as not to become prisoners of tradit ion nor yield tothe itches of new ones…let us be attentive to what the text actually says, andcircumspect in our conclusions.”

Women in the Acts and early churchHaving traced the status of women through the Old Testament,noticed its decline during ‘the silent years’ between the end ofthe Old Testament and the beginning of the New; having also seenhow Jesus reinstated them in his life and ministry, it is time toconsider their place in the life and ministry of the early church.Before embarking on our journey, let us be clear from the outsetthat we start with the conviction that there must be harmony

12

between the practice and the teaching of the apostles. If we are tobe faithful to the principle of Biblical inspiration there can beno contradiction between practice and preaching. It is thereforeour duty to interpret the verbal and written teaching of theapostles in the light of their practices.It is clear, from the beginning, that the disciples had understoodthe implications of Jesus’ teaching about and attitude to women inthe first century. Whereas women were excluded from the main partof the Temple and separated from men in the synagogues (practicestill observed in orthodox synagogues today) they were present,with the men, in the Upper Room and, together with the men, tookpart in the early prayer meetings (Acts 1:14). There is nothing tosuggest that they were silent spectators, especially if we takeinto account Peter’s declaration, made several days later, thatJoel’s prophecy (Joel 2:27-28) had seen its accomplishment on theDay of Pentecost. According to Bilezikian, this was “the inauguraldeclaration of the new community.” Some may feel that this is anoverstatement but it is nevertheless clear how the apostlesunderstood and interpreted these OT prophecies and what theirimportance was for the fledgling community.With the arrival of the NT church (ecclesia), God’s purposes werebeing worked out and it is no exaggeration to affirm that Peter’swords represent a departure from Jewish structures and practices.This passage shows us that the new order was not only characterisedby the outpouring of the Holy Spirit but that this expressionembraced and equipped a broad spectrum of society without anydistinction being made between individuals, be they men or women,rich or poor, black or white. From now on, women would play asignificant role in the budding church – something which, as wehave seen, was unheard of in Judaism.Acts 5:1-11 jointly-responsible The first account of woman’s participation and responsibility isfound in the devious plans of Ananias and Sapphira. It is obviousthat this passage has absolutely nothing to do with women’sministry, but it does show to what extent Sapphira was held to bejust as guilty as her husband in this sordid affair. When onespeaks of responsibility the concept of freedom is never far away.When Peter summoned and questioned her, he gave her everyopportunity to disassociate herself from her husband, but shedidn’t seize the opportunity – head held high, she repeated herhusband’s lies. Peter therefore had absolutely no doubt concerningher fate – it was to be exactly the same as Ananias’ and he toldher so in no uncertain terms.It is interesting to note that it is in this passage that Luke usesthe term ‘ecclesia’ (v.11) for the first time, even if, in theWestern text, it is also found in 2:47 (see KJV). Other

13

translations, using better attested MSS, place its initial usehere.Acts 9:36-43discipleThe next passage concerns the events surrounding Dorcas or Tabithawho was “full of good works and acts of charity.” One is tempted toassume that such a passage doesn’t lend itself to much scrutiny.Don’t we have a classic example of the role which befits a woman inthe church – that of discreetly carrying out charitable acts behindthe scenes – sewing, dressmaking, looking after charity shops andso on?If we examine the text more closely however, we discover, that, inverse 36, we find the only mention of the term “mathetria” (thefeminine form of the Greek word ‘disciple’) in all the NewTestament. Once again, this is something which shows a radicaldeparture from Jewish tradition and gives a new status to women. Wemust not forget that rabbis only ever had male disciples.Dorcas was acting as Christ’s disciple. Her acceptance as Him asher redeemer wasn’t the end of her spiritual walk but thebeginning. Her faith took her beyond the stage of personalcommunion with God; she desired to serve others in His name and, asJames puts it, she showed her faith through her good works. By hersewing, Dorcas was meeting a real need and ministering to thosearound her. It was thus that the necessities of many women aroundher were met by this dressmaker, and the number of gratefulbeneficiaries grew day by day. We can only surmise, but perhaps,from her birth, this was the only real gift that she developed.Instead of bemoaning the fact that she wasn’t a prophetess likeMiriam or a forceful leader like Deborah, thereby coming to theconclusion that she was a ‘nobody’, she consecrated her gift toGod. When the Lord called Moses at the burning bush and told himthat he was sending him to deliver the Israelites out of Egypt,Moses tried to make excuses. One of the signs that the Lordgraciously gave him was to ask him what he had in his hand. “Astaff” replied Moses. The Lord then demonstrated his power and senthim to Egypt. If he had asked the same question of Dorcas, shemight have replied, “only a needle and thread Lord” – and the Lordshowed her how she could put these things to good use in hisservice.The combination of a holy life, her good works, her death andresurrection provide us with an eloquent testimony to the grace andpower of God and was mightily used: “this became known all aver Joppa, andmany people believed in the Lord” (Acts 9:42). The term used to describeher ministry, “diakonia” was also used of the Lord Jesus himself(Mat 20:28). It may have been discrete and, seemingly, hidden butit had repercussions which extended far beyond the confines of hertown – and even of her country. Indirectly, she became a greatevangelist.

14

Acts 12: 13-15witnessMany people remember Rhoda because of her apparent brainstorm whenshe recognized Peter’s voice. Leaving him standing outside, sherushed in to share the good news with the crowd assembled forprayer. The participants reacted with astonishment to this unseemlyinterruption to their gathering. Upon hearing Rhoda’s outburst,their immediate reaction was to exclaim: “You’re out of your mind!”Others had said the same thing about Jesus (John 10:20). Yet, shewas right!Let’s stop a moment to ask ourselves how she recognized Peter’svoice. Some interpreters think that it was because Peter was afrequent visitor to the house. Others, (like Matthew Henry),believe that she had often heard Peter preach. Any speculation isextremely hazardous but it is nevertheless true that, when Jesuswas arrested, the High Priest’s servant immediately recognized himbecause of his strong Galilean accent. Could it have been the samewith Rhoda? It’s possible.Barnes criticizes her insistence (v.15), saying that she shouldhave gone back to open the door instead of defending herself. Heobviously had never been in a similar situation and, in any case,it’s easy to be wise after the event. When your word is called intodoubt, isn’t the natural tendency to defend oneself?What seems to be the case here is that we’re witnessing the remainsof the old Jewish attitude which refused to accept a woman’stestimony despite the fact that Jesus himself had overthrown thisancient prejudice by making women the first witnesses of hisresurrection.Barnes comments, “All too often, Christians engage in sterilecontroversies instead of seizing upon these first indications ofGod’s favour and opening their arms to the proofs that God hadanswered their prayers!”Acts 16:14 churchfounder-memberJust like Dorcas, Lydia was an active member of the society inwhich she lived but her capacities and potential far outweighedthose of her Jewish counterpart. We find here and classic exampleof what can only be described as a successful business woman.Intelligent and discerning, Lydia worked with competence andenthusiasm. Her professional activities must have given hernumerous opportunities to create a significant network ofinteresting contacts and relationships. Being self-employedconstituted, especially in those days, an extraordinary career fora woman. Yet, despite her numerous professional obligations, Lydiadidn’t allow herself to be swallowed up by her profession; she madetime to seek the most important values in life.

15

In contrast to the vast majority of her fellow citizens, Apolloworship didn’t satisfy her. Back in Thyatira, her hometown, she haddiscovered Judaism and had become a “God-fearer”. She worshiped thetrue living God and kept aside time for him. We thus find her at “aplace of prayer”, down by the riverside, on the Sabbath day. Inthose days, no woman had the right to change her religion withoutprior permission from her husband which, according to JohnMacArthur, explains Paul’s teaching on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7and Peter’s recommendation (1 Peter 3:1) that women should seek towin over their husbands by their submissive and pure lifestyle.Lydia, the first European convert to Christianity, didn’t abandonher business but, together with her baptized household, opened herhome to be the meeting place for the first Christian church inEurope and, quite naturally, as an influential businesswoman andrespected member of society, she would have been one of itsleaders.Men were also present, of course. The Philippian jailor togetherwith his household and other brothers met there (see v.40).MacArthur points to Philippians 4 and the dispute between Euodiaand Syntyche to suggest that the loyal yoke-fellow ( loyal Syzygus), wasan elder as leadership in the church was reserved for men. But asHoward Marshall points out, “It would surely be unrealistic tosuggest that when a small group of Christian women like this werejoined by the first male convert, they were not allowed to teachhim and that he automatically took over the function ofleadership.” Even James Hurley admits that in the early church, thewomen did more than simply listen.Acts 18:1-3, 26catechist/Bible teacherThis passage, together with others, reveals a remarkable couple,Aquila and Prisca (or Priscilla, the diminutive form used by Luke).Both Luke and Paul give a certain importance to Prisca. Some peoplethink that this is because she either came from a higher socialclass than her husband or that she had a more important role in thechurch than he. Be that as it may, one thing is certain: in the twoother passages which mention them (Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19), Prisca isnamed first.According to verse 26, Priscilla and Aquila “invited Apollos to their homeand explained to him the way of God more adequately.” Hurley, rightly, speaksin glowing terms of the house which met in their home in Corinth(Rom 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19), but it is difficult to follow hisargument when he tries to establish a distinction between formaland informal teaching. How is it possible to maintain that such adifference existed when, as we have seen, the church met in theirhouse?Is it not clear, according to the texts that we have seen, and theclear implications of those passages, that Prisca played animportant role in the teaching of Apollos? It is out of the

16

question to assume that she played a subservient role whilst themen were engaged in theological debate!If the early church afforded opportunities of service to women ofsubstance such as Lydia, Prisca, Junia(s) [we’ll return to theidentity of this person]who were counted amongst Paul’s fellow-workers, just like Aquila, Timothy, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas andLuke (1 Thess.3:2; Philemon 24) do we, today, have the right torestrict their activities to overseas missionary work?Even Tertullian, who criticised women’s ministry, speaks of “thatholy woman Prisca who preached the gospel” and Hurley admits thatshe would have made “an outstanding elder”! He then goes on to saythat “her gifts were not wasted, but it is certain that she was notan elder in a Pauline church! The modern church must develop anduse the resources of all its members – and do so in a biblicalmanner.” That rather does beg the question – what does he mean by“a biblical manner”?I confess to not being as convinced as Hurley concerning theofficial status of Prisca in the church which, do we needreminding, met in her house? It is clear that both she and herhusband taught Apollos – everyone agrees on that. Harnack even goesas far as to suggest that Prisca was the author of the epistle tothe Hebrews, whereas Luther submits that the author was probablyApollos himself. Either way, and it is pure speculation, we are allindebted to Prisca! Acts 21:9prophetessThis verse teaches us, without going into any further detail, thatPhilip, the evangelist, had four unmarried daughters who had thegift of prophecy. If we take this verse, together with Acts 2:17,it is obvious that the gift of prophecy was given to both men andwomen. Women actively participated in God’s work as is manifestalso from Philippians 4:3. Hurley is prepared to admit thisactivity in the early church and even goes so far as to include 1Cor.11:5 in his analysis, saying that this proves that the case ofPhilip’s daughters was not an isolated incident. He maintainshowever that the role of prophet was not a formal institutional onebut a charismatic gift, suggesting that they were precluded fromany kind of formal teaching, especially in the presence of men. Marshall disagrees and states that, whilst in the majority of casesit was the men who carried out the functions of evangelism andministry in the churches described in Acts, there are cases ofwomen exercising various forms of service. Yes, they took part incharitable care, but there activities were certainly not confinedto this and included instruction and prophecy.We will shortly be considering a number of passages outside of theActs of the Apostles, indeed, we have already done so. Inconsidering these, we need to bear in mind one of the fundamental

17

principles of hermeneutics – the contextualisation of what is beingsaid or written. We have many examples of this in both Old and NewTestaments. For example, the prophets spoke to certain situationsas we are told that they spoke during the reign of this or thatking. Joel makes reference to an unprecedented plague of locusts inorder to ram home the implications of the coming judgment.In the New Testament, Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, told hishearers that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it,and then proceeded to correct the false teaching of the religiousleaders as it pertained to murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, publichumiliation and love for one’s enemies and so on.Now if we take notice of the historical situation and literarycontext when dealing with such passages isn’t it logical and normalwhen interpreting the teaching of the apostles in the churches towhich they wrote? Romans 16:1-2deaconIn these verses, Paul doesn’t hesitate to use the term “deacon”when speaking of Phoebe. Now it is true that this term can mean“servant” or “minister” but it is the same word that Paul uses forhis own ministry (1 Cor. 3:5),for spiritual leaders in the church(1 Tim 3:12-13), for governing civil and political authorities (Rom13:4, and even for Jesus himself (Rom 15:8). These verses broadenthe significance of this word and would seem to confirm the thesisof those who would deny Phoebe any official role in the church.Commentators are widely divided over the use of this word “deacon”(only masculine in Greek). A.H. Strong suggests that each church befree to interpret it according to its own circumstances. Hodge, onthe other hand, thinks that Phoebe had been given an “officialtitle” to enable her to more ably help the poor and needy of herown sex. Olyott is much more categorical: “this term cannot mean thatPhoebe was a deacon for this ministry, l ike that of an elder, was reserved for men!”Barclay adopts a similar point of view, but we must then ask thequestion: why did Paul choose to use this word and associate itwith a very official term, “prostatis” – “protector”, used todesignate a legal representative for those foreigners who had beendeprived of their rights. It is perhaps a big step to imagine thatPhoebe, as a woman, could have achieved such a high office but itis clear that she was held in high esteem and had been able tointervene in favour of a number of Christians. Vine points out thatit is a word which indicates a degree of dignity and, as such, hadbeen specifically chosen by Paul. Yes, Phoebe was an esteemedfellow-worker and Paul urges the church in Rome to receive her withrespect and honour, to bow to her judgment and accord her any helpthat she needed. Romans 16:7apostle

18

Paul asks the members of the church in Rome to greet Andronicus andJunia, “outstanding among the apostles…” or “respected among theapostles” which is the reading preferred by Hodge. On the otherhand, Sanday & Headlam, F.F.Bruce, Moule and other commentatorsmaintain that the first reading is more natural. Hurley remarksthat it would be very unlike Paul to make something likeacquaintance with the apostles a matter of praise. He statestherefore: “it is more likely that he intended to say that they were outstanding asapostles.” But what does that mean?The term “apostle” is used in several senses in the New Testament.The most obvious is the appointment of “the twelve”, Judas beingreplaced my Matthias (Acts 1:26). Paul uses it of himself whenspeaking of being “born out of season” but still an apostlealongside the others (1 Cor.15:7-9; 2 Cor.12:11-12; Gal 1:17, 19).The term was also used of people like Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14) andfor others who were sent out from the churches (2 Cor. 8:23), ofEpaphroditus (Phil 2:25) and for Paul, Silas and Timothy (1 Thess2:6).It is thus, in this more limited sense, that Andronicus and Juniawere recognized as outstanding apostles. Having said that, manyBible translations like the NIV, the Amplified Bible, Darby, J.B.Phillips and even “The Message” add an ‘s’ to Junia, making itmasculine. Hurley maintains that, grammatically speaking, it isimpossible to determine if Junia(s) is a man or a woman and F.F.Bruce follows this argument.Must we resign ourselves to this unsatisfactory state of affairs?Perhaps not. In a work on Romans, published by CEB Cranfield in the80’s, commenting on a previous book on Romans which stated: “Juniaswas an unusual masculine name” responds, “this Christian name wasso rare that the only place we find it is in Romans 16 and then,only if we have first decided, that it is a man’s!” On the otherhand, the name Junia was widespread throughout the Roman Empire.All the early church fathers, without exception, considered this tobe a feminine name. Chrysostom said of her “what a truly remarkablewoman, so much so that she was counted among the apostles!” Andagain: “Being an apostle is a great task…but these two were muchesteemed because of their works. How dedicated was this woman thatshe should be counted worthy of being named an apostle.”It should be noted that the Greek New Testament was written incapital letters and, as such, didn’t contain accented words for thefirst ten centuries. After that date however the New Testament textof Romans 16:7 did use an acute accent for this name. Thisindicated that it was considered to be a feminine Christian name.It was not until 1950 that the Bible Society changed the accentfrom acute to circumflex, suggesting that it was probably amasculine name. One thing is clear: for those whose mother-tongueis Greek there was no doubt. Junia was a woman – a woman apostle.

19

1 Timothy 5:1-2elderWe’ll deal with one other passage in this section before comparingthe evidence discovered thus far with an examination of thesupposed teaching of Paul in the epistles.If, as we have seen, women played an active role in the earlychurch, from deacons to prophetesses and even to that of apostle –that is, a messenger to the churches, what is to be said aboutteaching in the local church?In the passage before us, Paul gives instructions to Timothyconcerning his attitude to “older men” (NIV). In fact, the word heuses, (‘presbutero’), is the same word as that used for “elder”.According to Hendriksen, in other verses in the Pastoral Epistles,this term does, in fact, mean “elder” – a leader of the church.Here though, the context clearly shows that he is speaking ofTimothy’s attitude to seniors! Having said that, it is nevertheless legitimate to ask thefollowing question: if the masculine ‘presbutero’ can be used intwo ways – a senior citizen and an elder (leader) in the church –could not the same be said of the feminine of the same word? Whyshouldn’t the feminine, (‘presbutera’), be used of an elderly lady,but also of a lady elder? Some may argue that this is an argument based on pure speculationwithout the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. This is notthe case! It was not until the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD thatthe function of ‘presbutera’ was abolished. This would mean that,before that date, there were female elders in the churches. Thisfact has been proved by a discovery in the Roman catacombs where anillustration can be seen of a women officiating at a communionservice whilst the men look on. In another area, a woman can beseen teaching and blessing the congregation.So then, to sum up, since early times and throughout the centuries,women have played an important part in ministry. In the 12 th

century, the Waldensians or Vaudois shocked many people by havingwomen preachers. Martin Luther wrote to the radical wing of theHussite movement saying that the priesthood of all believers (1Peter 2:9) should apply to every member of the congregation. Manymembers of the Anabaptist movement, of the 16 th century, wereexecuted along with their wives because the latter, like theirhusbands, had engaged in a teaching ministry. Someone once saidthat Wesley was the most ardent feminist of the 18 th century and the19th century witnessed the sending of countless female missionaries(apostles) to different parts of the world, whereas, in England,William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, stated that his bestsoldiers were women.What should be our attitude today? As I’ve already pointed out, wehaven’t yet sought to expound the texts in the epistles which

20

appear to preclude women from any teaching ministry. The writer’sown mother though one-time president of the National Strict BaptistWomen’s Association refused to speak in ladies meetings if a manwas present. In coming to these texts, as we will in the following parts of thisexposé, we will seek to harmonize the evidence already presentedwith the apparent contradictions which we will inevitably discover.As has already been pointed out, many of these ambiguities can beovercome by a detailed examination of the historical and literarycontext. I am certain that not everyone will be convinced by the evidenceplaced before them. My own thinking has been radically changed asI’ve sought, humbly, to go forward and to reconcile that apparentirreconcilable. I have sought to advance with caution and to drawthe conclusions which seem to speak for themselves. May I ask myreaders to bear with me as, I hope, we continue this journeytogether?

21