When Phoebe, Pricilla and Junia Arrive at Ephesus Three Women who Defied Three Prohibitions

by Kristen Nicole Caldwell

Kristen Caldwell (M.Div., ATS) is a D.Min. student at ATS. and Ohio state director of the World Council of Independent Christian Churches.

Fictional Case Study

The whole controversy began when someone on the church staff passed around the John Piper and Wayne Grudem book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.[1] It was a staff size of about 10 people who served a megachurch in Ohio. Everyone was in awe. They were convinced that these scholars were right due to their high credentials and knowledge of the Greek language. Who were they to argue? For those who did not like to have any possible discussion of women in leadership, it was exactly what they had been waiting for. One said, “How can you change the phrase ‘husband of but one wife’? It is clear that all leaders have to be men by this phrase alone!” The case was now closed for this all male church staff. But then some people began to say that they had heard other views. Suddenly, it was as if a volcano had just erupted and everyone was in an uproar. In the next meeting, they seriously disagreed with one another. They looked at the pastor to bring some kind of guidance to the baffling discussion but he left the room dumbfounded. He was embarrassed by the fact that he himself did not know who to side with. He thought both sides had reasonable arguments. He called one of his colleagues saying, “My church staff is splitting over the issue as to whether or not women should lead in the church. Do you think that we should abide by what Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:12 or not? Can you help me? My church is going haywire.” There was a long sigh. “I am not completely sure. None of my training ever really tackled this issue. Even my classes on leadership failed to touch the topic.”

The Core Issues

The core problem that arose here is that the staff did not know what to believe when it came to the issue of women in leadership, especially in light of the work of biblical scholars. When confronted with a wealth of knowledge that far exceeded their understanding on the topic, they found themselves filled with questions. The credentials of Grudem and Piper made them sound so credible and convincing. Most on staff had no theological training, and the few who did were still befuddled as to what to believe since they received no guidance from professors. They remember getting into discussions with other men about it, but not fully coming to a conclusion. Furthermore, the pastor himself did not have any training, and when he consulted a pastor who did, he also had no words of wisdom to guide him through this ball of confusion. No one had any knowledge, wisdom, or information in the topic matter to intelligently speak and guide the staff to a healthy conclusion. As a result, there was a serious division brewing amongst the staff that was beginning to leak into the congregation. A church split was underway. In considering this issue that caused division in the church staff, there are two questions that should be asked: “What was the major problem here?” and secondly, “What biblical view should we have in regard to women in leadership?” Here is an exploration of various passages that shed light on addressing these two questions.

Suffering from a Lack of Knowledge

In the Old Testament, priests were expected to obtain an adequate knowledge of God. Malachi 2:7 states, “For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction- because he is the messenger of the Lord Almighty.”[2] Priests who rejected the knowledge of scripture found that they were disqualified in the eyes of God to continue ministering. Hosea 4:5–6 states, “You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you. So I will destroy your mother- my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests.” Without knowledge of God, one stumbles in ignorance and fails to live out the covenant of faithfulness to God. This kind of knowledge is described in its negation of acknowledgement, faithfulness and love by which people should have been operating (Hosea 4:1).[3] The priests’ lack of knowledge resulted in a lack of knowledge in the people. Consequently, both priests and people suffered the devastating effects of violence, deceitfulness, crime, and a dying ecology (Hosea 4:2–3). David Allan Hubbard explains, “The magnitude of the priestly sin of omission, the failure to teach the law, is seen in its staggering consequences: the collapse of the priesthood (vv. 4, 6c, e) and the destruction of the nation (vv. 5c–6a).”[4] Failing to teach the Israelites created chaos and disaster for the people who stumbled without guidance.

How does this relate? The two pastors who had no idea how to address the issue of women in leadership were suffering from a deficit of knowledge and training in the topic. Though they were not failing in teaching as a whole, in this particular area, people were suffering without clear guidance. Though the pastor of the megachurch did not intentionally mean to harm the staff, due to his lack of knowledge, the church was spinning in confusion. The issue was causing a deathblow to the unity of the church. Though knowledge does not guarantee unity, it was the missing ingredient among the staff, pastor, and colleagues. They could not settle on an answer to a question that is crucial to ecclesiology: Who should be leading the church? Perhaps part of the problem was that they had not received any guidance on this from their teachers in theological institutions. What were they to think? They were not given the body of knowledge or the exposition needed for these more difficult texts. Though a pastor should be able to provide instruction, in this instance, they found themselves incompetent.

Replacing False Teaching with Good Teaching

Addressing a lack of knowledge in people and their subsequent susceptibility to false teaching was the key problem in Timothy’s church in Ephesus. People were leaving the faith due to a false teaching that revolved around myths, genealogies, forbidding people to marry, and abstaining from certain foods (1 Tim. 1:4, 6–7, 19–20; 4:3). Apparently, some kinds of “godless myths” and “old wives tales” were circulating in Timothy’s church, causing unhealthy distractions (1 Tim. 4:7). The false teaching could have possibly had an enticement to gain money as well, for some people had wandered from the faith in pursuit of wealth (1 Tim. 6:10). In 2 Timothy, the false teaching included a belief that the resurrection had already taken place (2 Tim. 2:18). Stopping the influence of this teaching was Timothy’s task.

As a seasoned leader, Paul points out the fruit of the work of those who were teaching: people wandering from the faith (1 Tim. 1:6), two of whom were Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20). In 2 Timothy 2:17–18, a man called Philetus is added to this list. It was also producing controversies (1:4), meaningless talk (1:6), and godless chatter (6:20). Craig Keener suggests that, because women were uneducated in scripture, it was upon them that the false teachers preyed, and that it was largely through them that false teaching spread as well (2 Tim. 3:6–7).[5] Referring to young widows, Paul states, “Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (1 Tim. 5:13). Therefore, there is a strong emphasis on teaching in the letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, with a continual juxtaposition between commanding false teaching to end and putting adequate teachers in place. Here are examples of this fluctuation between false teaching and good teaching as seen in the first letter, demonstrating the thematic movement of 1 Timothy:

Commanding False Teaching to Stop	Commanding Qualified People to Teach
1:3–4 “As I urged you when I went to Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer …”	2:7 Before giving instructions, Paul calls himself, “… a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.”
1:13 Paul himself once was unqualified to teach because of his ignorance and unbelief.	3:2 Overseer must be “able to teach”
2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach …”	3:9 Deacons must “keep hold of the deep truths”
4:2 “Such teachings come through hypocritical liars …”	4:6 Timothy is to point out the false teaching to be a good minister of the “good teaching” he has followed.
4:16 “Watch your life and doctrine closely.”	4:11 “Command and teach these things.”
6:3 “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree with sound instruction …”	4:12 Timothy is to teach by setting an example in speech, life and love.
6:11 “But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness …”	4:13 “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of scripture, to preaching and to teaching.”
6:20b “Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge …”	6:2b “These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.”

 The tone of 1 Timothy is one that is charged with urgency, and the push for Timothy to act quickly to stop the false teaching that was spreading like gangrene (2 Tim. 2:17). He was the doctor who needed quickly to take the steps to stop the cancer from spreading before more cells in the body died. We have the example of Paul teaching Timothy in the letter, aiming to remind the pastor of the “good teaching” he himself has followed in the past. He asks him to follow the “instructions” he is writing (1 Tim. 1:18; 3:14; 6:13–14), reminds him not to neglect his call which he received through prophecies (1 Tim. 1:18, 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), and to continue to follow what his mother Eunice had taught him (2 Tim. 1:5). Paul’s teaching can also be seen in the repeated introductory phrase, “Here is a trustworthy saying …” which occurs at four different times in both letters to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:15, 3:1, 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11).[6] The word παραγγέλλω (parangello) which can be translated “command” or “instruct” appears in 1 Timothy more than any of Paul’s other letters (1 Tim. 1:3, 4:11, 5:7, 6:13, 17).[7]

The church staff and pastor were also beginning to wrestle with a kind of “gangrene” that had the potential to divide the church. A huge difference is that the false teachers were themselves believers who were teaching an interpretation that appeared on the surface to have biblical grounding. What makes this one more difficult is that these teachers are well-known theologians, making them less susceptible. However, this church underwent the same kind of division in quarrels and meaningless talk because teachers were not set in place. The books were not recognized as containing false teaching, and as a result, the pastors did not know how to point out the false teachings in the book, as Timothy was commanded to do by Paul (1 Tim. 4:6). By not pointing out their false claims, the people became deceived like Eve, due to a lack of good teaching.

What did Paul Mean in 1 Timothy 2:12?

If the greatest issue at stake in the church of Ephesus was a matter of false teaching, can we assume that Paul meant that all women should not be permitted to teach? It should be noted that Paul also urged Timothy to command certain men not to teach either (1 Tim. 1:3). Both genders in specific occasions are commanded not to teach. The reasons given are based on a lack competency and the presumption of that role which apparently was never given to them in the first place. If it is a matter of gender, why does Paul not say so? Instead, he mentions the issue of competence and ignorance, saying that people desire to be teachers though they lack the knowledge to do so (1 Tim. 1:7). This is precisely why Paul also uses himself as an example as one who once was a blasphemer who acted in “ignorance” but to whom God showed mercy (1 Tim. 1:13–14).[8] Paul seems to be making the point that, even though he misused the law and failed to use it properly (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8), God displayed his “unlimited patience” with his misunderstanding that drove him once to become a destroyer and persecutor of the church (1 Tim. 1:13, 16). He says he was shown mercy because “I acted in ignorance and unbelief” (1 Tim. 1:13), which highlights for us the key issue behind why he forbids certain people not to teach: They are ignorant and lack sufficient knowledge.

Some attention to the Greek is helpful. First, often translations do not reveal the nuance in Greek which reveals a slightly different meaning from the normal concept of having “authority.” The word for authority that Paul typically uses is ἐξουσία (exousia) but here he uses the word αὐθεντεῖν (authentein) which has the meaning, to “dominate: usurp authority over.”[9] The fact that this is the only occurrence of the word in the Bible suggests Paul is meaning something very specific.[10] Though some scholars claim that this merely means women were not to have any kind of authority, others have shown that the use of the word carried a much stronger tone, meaning to “seize authority.”[11] Perhaps women were trying to gain a hearing over others in the church, though some men as well did not know what they were so confidently claiming (1 Tim. 1:7). With this in view, Paul more accurately was forbidding women from taking control or dominating, rather than exercising proper ecclesial ἐξουσία (exousia). Also, though we place most emphasis on the prohibition, the emphasis in Greek is on the command to have the women learn.[12] The word that expresses that a woman should learn is a third person imperative. This sounds much softer because English does not have third person imperatives. Instead we must translate it “let a woman” or “she must” which does not display the force of the command. The imperative to have women learn in submissiveness in verse 11 and to be quiet in verse 12b implies that these two concepts are related. Students cannot learn unless they choose to be silent and submit themselves to a teacher. Paul does not want unlearned people teaching but instead to sit down and learn, so that in the future they could possibly teach as well.[13]

Secondly, the context of the passage ends with the strange statement, “But women will be saved through childbearing- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (v. 15). The word τεκνογονίας (teknogonias) refers to the physical act of giving birth to children or raising a family.[14] Luke Timothy Johnson aims to broaden the meaning to be fulfilling the domestic role of rearing children which he interprets to be the social and ecclesial role of women.[15] However, this action is related to salvation not to any kind of role. And how then can he exclude single women and those without children? Walter Liefeld tried to show that there is a correlation between the childbirth of women and that of Eve, but recognizes that this is still problematic since it presents a works-related type salvation.[16] The idea that all women must participate in the act of childbearing for salvation does not fit our understanding of redemption.

But if one understands that this passage is situational and corrective, the confusion is resolved. The teaching that was spreading at the church of Ephesus was one that taught people not to marry (1 Tim. 4:3). Rather than allowing people to be persuaded to be celibate through the false teaching, Paul is taking counteractive measures to bring the normalcy of marriage back into the picture.[17] Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 5:14 Paul is also encouraging young women to marry, and to stay busy managing their homes, because if they do, they can avoid the pitfalls of Satan (1 Tim. 5:15). It is not that they are saved due to the childbearing process itself, but that in the activity of choosing to “manage their homes” (1 Tim. 5:14) instead of listening to gossip, they would be “saved” from these harmful distractions that give the enemy an “opportunity” to influence them (1 Tim. 5:14). By counseling young women to marry, have children, and manage their homes, he is suggesting that this will keep them busy from these spiritually harmful distractions that have lured others around them to “follow Satan” (1 Tim. 5:15). This solution of being saved through childbearing is just as situational as the command not to dominate but to learn quietly instead.

However, some would still say that 1 Timothy 2:11–15 means that all women should be forbidden to teach, preach, or exercise any kind of leadership. Three kinds of interpretations that are used to substantiate this are: a) the priority to Adam due to creation order; b) the gullibility of women; c) the moral punishment of women through Eve.

a. Priority of Adam in Creation Interpretation: According to the first view, the reason why women cannot be teachers is that Adam was formed before Eve, giving priority to Adam. Douglass Moo states, “The woman’s being created after man, as his helper, shows the position of submission that God intended as inherent in the woman’s relation to the man, a submission that is violated if a woman teaches doctrine or exercises authority over a man.”[18] However, Moo ignores the fact that after creating male and female, God assigned them co-regent roles where both were ruling over creation side by side (Gen. 1:26, 1:28).[19] This demonstrates that a non-hierarchical partnership was God’s original intention for the relations of men and women. George Montague rejects the interpretation that Paul’s admonition is applicable only to a specific situation because of how Paul uses Adam and Eve as “prototypes.”[20] In other words, they are presented as the template examples for everyone to follow. However, aside from marriage, scripture does not hold them up as models for us to follow, but instead to learn from (cf. Rom. 5:12, 2 Cor. 11:3). After the fall, they are no longer presented as models. Guthrie eliminates the possibility of chronological order indicating priority to Adam as well because Adam was formed after the animals.[21] Furthermore, there is no indication in the Genesis account itself that implies that the order of creation is to create an order of priority.

b. Women are More Gullible Interpretation: So are all women more gullible than men, just as Eve was? Raymond Collins states that Paul must have believed Eve being deceived was “a sign of her weakness.”[22] Benjamin Fiore states that the deception of Eve “is taken to demonstrate woman’s innate gullibility” in line with the prevailing view of women in the Greco-Roman world.[23] However, the issue is a matter of timing in which Adam was formed first and received the command not to eat from the tree from God, not Eve.[24] Adam gave the information to Eve later, meaning that Eve had second-hand information. If she was taught more sufficiently, perhaps she would not have been deceived by her lack of knowledge.[25] Furthermore, this view must be eliminated by 2 Corinthians 11:3 which states, “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” Paul again uses Eve as an illustration here in reference to the whole church of Corinth consisting of both men and women.[26] Paul’s use of Eve as an illustration of gullibility for both genders eliminates this from being an exclusive characteristic of women. In both instances, Eve is used as an example of one who can be deceived due to a lack of teaching. Craig Keener states that the gist of Paul’s statement could be rephrased in this way: “Women in Ephesus, learn quietly and don’t teach (in some sense), for Eve was created after Adam and was deceived, and you could be like her.”[27] Both men and women can be susceptible to deception, requiring that they must sit in silent submission to learn. And both men and women can obtain the needed training to become competent teachers.

c. Moral Punishment of Women Interpretation: Raymond Collins also states that Genesis 3:16 indicates that Eve’s punishment for being deceived is that her husband is to rule over her.[28] In other words, the consequence of sin—in which men rule over women—is seen to be the divine will of God for all women. According to Miguel A. De La Torre, this is the same kind of reading that has justified patriarchy and has been used throughout history to keep women from advancing.[29] This interpretation believes that God has placed his approval on the subjugation of women and that it is their deserved place.[30] But as De La Torre aptly noted, why is it then that Adam must not also endure the consequences “prescribed” for him?[31] We have not sought out ways to keep the curse of hard labor for man in place. In connection with Eve, he asks the question, “Again, does this mean that it is the will of God for Adam and all of his descendants to work and labor in sorrow?”[32] In a comparison of moral failure, Guthrie notes that in Romans 5:12 Paul only acknowledges Adam as being responsible for the fall.[33] Therefore, to be consistent, one must accept the moral failure of both Adam and Eve and the implications of what we deserve. Or, we can choose to accept the redemptive work God has done to reverse the effects of the fall, and choose to seek out his original design at creation for men and women.

Different Responses to Women in Rome and Ephesus

The method of interpretation in reading the letters of Paul is critical when it comes to the issue of women in leadership. Primary orientation on the text without any consciousness of Paul’s overall perspective on women church leaders and the specific historical context, can lead one to reach a premature conclusion. Focusing on one or two texts as if they are conclusive also ignores the complexity of life circumstances and a pastor’s capability to have varied responses to differing situations. Consequently, those who take the view that Paul strictly forbids all women to teach and preach must intentionally invalidate the various verses where he does permit them to work in these ways. Instead of taking the general view of how Paul worked with women to inform one case, many mistakenly take one case as the summation of his entire perspective.

Secondly, to take prohibitions at face value without understanding the historical context will also color one’s interpretation. People who are only text-based readers can easily miss what was taking place in real life and time. In response to the tendency of someone to ignore the specific historical context, Keener states, “If Knight would object that some passages merely teach through concrete historical examples addressing specific situations (see 1 Cor. 10:11), we reply that this is also how Paul’s letters are to be read, for this is how they present themselves (e.g., Gal. 1:1–6; 1 Thess. 1:1–3).”[34] Rather than assuming to understand Paul’s view on women in leadership with one or two texts, we must allow other passages to inform how Paul understood women to operate as a whole within the life of the church. He himself likely underwent a change in his views of women. One indication of this could be the fact that when God gave him a vision of a man calling him to Macedonia, he discovered instead that God had sent him to a group of women.[35] Furthermore, just as he dealt with situations in Corinth very differently than in Galatia, we cannot assume Paul would treat the “issue of women in leadership” the same everywhere.

With this in mind, consider what would happen if the letter that was meant to arrive at Ephesus was sent to Rome, and the letter meant for Rome was sent to Ephesus? In Ephesus, Timothy is told by Paul that he is not to allow any woman to teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12) and that deacons are to be husbands of one wife (1 Tim. 3:12). But in Rome, Paul sends his greetings to women who do not operate by these instructions at all. How would Timothy have responded if he read Romans instead, where Paul publically sanctioned the ministries of women leaders? How would Junia have responded if Paul had sent 1 Timothy to her? Each side would have known they received the wrong letter and understood that the prohibitions were contextual to their locations and circumstances. We will briefly examine three women who Paul did not ask to sit down and be quiet: Phoebe, Pricilla, and Junia.

Phoebe, Deacon in Cenchrea

The letter of Romans itself was carried by a woman deacon called Phoebe (Rom. 16:1). Though some translations desire to translate διάκονος (diakonos) as “servant” (NIV, NASB, ASV) or “leader” (CEV) the word in Greek is identical with the plural form of the word translated as “deacons” in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:12. If the qualifications of deacons are to mirror the qualifications of overseers, it is expected in 1 Timothy that they be a “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). The emphasis likely is not upon overseers needing to be husbands, but that leaders are committed to only one person in marriage. It seems more like a limiting qualifier that one has sexual restraint, along with the other qualifications of self-control in regard to drinking and the pursuit of money (1 Tim. 3:3, 3:8). For, if a requirement for leadership was to be a husband, Paul himself would not qualify since he chose to embrace celibacy (1 Cor. 7:7, 32–33, 38; 9:5).[36] Its listing, though, does show Paul’s expectation that those who would be chosen to be overseers and deacons in Ephesus would indeed be men, specifically, husbands. This makes sense in light of recognizing that Paul asked the women to sit down and learn just prior to these verses. Nevertheless, a number of English translations misrepresent 1 Timothy 3:1–16 to be gender exclusive by their use of many male pronouns. It should be noted that 13 occurrences of “he” “his” and “men” in the NIV and the 13 occurrences of “man” “men” “he” and “himself” in the NASB are either non-existent or gender inclusive in Greek.[37] Unlike the reading of various English translations, there is no intentional use of the male pronoun a αὐτός (autos) to indicate that Paul was emphasizing that the overseer or deacon must be male.

Though women in Ephesus needed to learn, Paul freely calls Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1, referring to her as his “sister.” Phoebe must then exemplify these qualities for Paul to call her a διάκονος (diakonos) because this is the same word he used in 1 Timothy 3:8 in the context of his deacon qualifications. In order for Phoebe to receive Paul’s public commendation in this title, Paul demonstrates he is not concerned with gender as a qualification any more than requiring that all deacons be married. Rather, like the rest of the listing, he is concerned with her character, in which he quickly points to her quality of generosity (Rom. 16:1). In order to be received well, Paul insists that the church in Rome welcome her according to her ecclesial identity: a deacon.

Priscilla, Teacher in Ephesus

Priscilla, who is a pastor and teacher, is greeted in Romans 16:3. She guided Apollos to a greater understanding in the scriptures in the city of Ephesus, which happens to be the same location as Timothy’s church (Acts 18:19–20, 24–26). Ephesus also appears to be the place where Priscilla and Aquila’s church met in their home, though at one time they lived in Rome (Acts 18:26, 1 Cor. 16:8, 19; cf. Acts 18:2). Grudem and Piper say that because Priscilla taught Apollos, this should teach us that even educated women should be forbidden to lead men.[38] But if this is true, then why is it that Paul commends her publically, saying that she is a “fellow-worker” alongside him (Rom. 16:3)? The mention of their church is found in 1 Corinthians 16:19 where Paul states, “Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.” Why would Paul publically commend her ministry where she and Aquila pastored, if in fact he was against women leading? She did the exact opposite of what he commanded Timothy to stop: As a woman, she taught a man in Ephesus. The location of the teaching (their home) was also the same location where their church met. He does not treat her activity as being inconsistent with his teaching, but in congruence with it. Today, if men publically commend women teachers or preachers, we assume they do not abide by 1 Timothy 2:12 being for all women. Why then should we think differently when examining Paul’s actions? As he stated elsewhere, the issue is not contingent upon location or gender, but upon the competence and motives of the teacher (1 Tim. 1:7, 2 Tim. 3:6–8). Luke, as a companion of Paul, also wrote Acts 18:26 in a positive commentary. In addition to this, Stanley Grenz noted that in 4 out of 6 references to Priscilla and Aquila, the author breaks the usual custom to place the male name of the husband before the wife (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19), which points to her likely having a greater influence than does he as a leader of their church.[39]

Junia, Apostle in Rome

Junia, the apostle, is greeted by Paul in Romans 16:7. She is a woman who is senior to the apostle Paul in her time commitment to the faith, and a relative of Paul, though we do not know of what nature (Rom. 16:7). Describing Junia and Adronicus as “outstanding among the apostles” identifies them with other apostles outside the twelve. Though Luke only identifies a set group of twelve for the apostles in Acts 1:23–26, both Barnabas and Paul are identified as apostles outside of this group in Acts 14:1–4 and Acts 14:4.[40] The title ἀπόστολος (apostolos) also appears to have been used in reference to Apollos, if one connects 1 Corinthians 3:2, 4:6, and 4:9.[41] As an apostle, she must have at some point seen the Lord personally (1 Cor. 9:1) or been given a commission that sent her to proclaim the gospel (Gal. 1:1, 15–17), or both, considering she was in Christ before Paul.[42] For the first millennium of Christian history, it was the general consensus of both Greek and Latin commentators that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.[43] Among them is John Chrysostom of the fourth century, who stated, “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 the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.”[44] Others who identified her as an apostle include Origen, Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard, and Jerome, with a total of 16 discovered by Joseph A. Fitzmyer and 5 more discovered by Linda Belleville.[45] Despite this early attestation, her name has a long textual history in which it has been periodically changed to the masculine “Junias” without any explanation.[46] Piper and Grudem state that one should certainly not view Junia to be a common woman’s name because we have only 3 examples of its occurrence in Greek literature.[47] However, the name Junia has been found in 250 Greek and Latin inscriptions in Rome alone.[48] This is significant when considering this was the precise location that Junia must have been living, since Paul asks people to greet her there. The name “Junias” however, has never been found, either as a name in itself or as a contracted form of a longer masculine name.[49] In other words, the name Junias does not even exist to make a plausible case. Furthermore, all manuscripts have the feminine Junia with the only 5 variant manuscripts being “Julia,” which is still a female name.[50] The title ‘apostle’ designates her as one who has been given authority by God to lead the church (1 Cor. 12:28). She likely displayed her apostleship through her suffering for the gospel in prison alongside Paul (Rom. 16:7) and the characteristics that typically marked apostles: signs, wonders and miracles (2 Cor. 12:12).[51]

What Paul Prohibits in Ephesus He Sanctions in Rome

Three Prohibitions	Three Sanctions
Women prohibited from being deacons because they cannot be “a husband of one wife”. διάκονοι “deacons” (1 Tim. 3:8, 12)	Deacon: Phoebe’s service as deacon is sanctioned. διάκονον “deacon” (Rom. 16:1)
Women prohibited to teach.διδάσκειν “to teach” (1 Tim. 2:12)	Teacher: Priscilla’s ministry as teacher is sanctioned. ἐξέθεντο “explained” (Acts 18:26; cf. Rom. 16:3)
Women prohibited to have authority over men. αὐθεντεῖν “to usurp authority” (1 Tim. 2:12)	Apostle: Junia’s authority as apostle is sanctioned. ἀποστόλοις “apostles” (Rom. 16:7)

So, what do we make of Pricilla who is teaching men, Junia who has authority over men, and Phoebe who is an “unqualified” deacon? Why does Paul commend them instead of censure them? Why does he not ask them to be quiet instead of sanctioning what women were prohibited to do in Ephesus? Note that all three prohibitions mentioned in Ephesus work in direct correlation with the three activities that were being done in Rome. Since Paul prohibited these activities in Ephesus but encouraged them in Rome, the issue cannot revolve around the fact that they were women. Rather, as the letter itself demonstrates, the primary concern was that teachers were not ignorant or gullible. If Priscilla, Junia, and Phoebe were not qualified to teach, lead, and have authority, then Paul would not have commended them as highly as he did. He was confident that they met all of the requirements to function in these capacities.

Others include Lydia, who was a church planter (Acts 16:11–15), Chloe and Nympha, who were pastors (1 Cor. 1:11, Col. 4:15), Apphia, who worked with two others (Philem. 1–2), the elect Lady, who was a pastor (2 John 1–4; cf. 13), and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9), who prophesied according to the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel that is quoted in Acts 2:17.[52] Timothy would have already known and had modeled before him the fact that Paul had worked alongside women as co-workers in the gospel (Rom. 16:3, 7; Phil. 4:2–3).[53] As Paul’s pastor in training, he likely knew some of these women himself. Furthermore, what does one make of the fact that Paul reminds Timothy of the faith of his grandmother Lois and mother Eunice (2 Tim. 1:5)? They were likely women who taught Timothy the faith.

Conclusion

Sometimes out of enthusiasm, preference, or a shortage of ministers, young men who are not yet ready to lead are placed in positions of authority. Though capable and mature teachers and preachers of the Bible are in their midst, they are often overlooked because they are women. This can lead to the exact reversal of the original intent of 1 Timothy 2:12, in which incompetent teachers are teaching and competent teachers are sitting. Not expecting a strange response, I will never forget telling a pastor about the call to preach I had received while interning at his church. He looked at me with a blank look. He was speechless and dumbfounded, as if that was not supposed to happen. The other two male interns who were with me were asked to preach in the main service of his large church. I was sent to a handful of youth to fulfill my “preaching” practicum requirement. Despite his Bible degree, I doubt this pastor ever received any kind of teaching that there is biblical grounding for women to operate as teachers and pastors. I am afraid that he has been easily deceived due to a lack of solid teaching, just as Eve was (1 Tim. 2:14). Like the church staff which was gullible to the teaching of Grudem and Piper, he is one of many pastors today who are in the pulpit every week without any clear guidance as to what to do with women who are called to teach, preach, and exercise ecclesial authority. A lack of teaching on this topic has left many in a fog of confusion. We are in desperate need of replacing false teaching with good teaching in our churches, Bible colleges, and seminaries. For if pastors and church staffs are not prepared, one day they will have a Junia or Pricilla hand them their resume, and they will still be inclined to say that they are in Ephesus.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
• Crabtree, Daniel. “Women in Ministry.” Class lecture, Central Bible College, Springfield Missouri, 2005.
• Dearman, Andrew J. The Book of Hosea. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.
• De La Torre, Miguel A. Reading the Bible from the Margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.
• Epp, Eldon Jay. Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2005.
• Fiore, Benjamin S.J. The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007.
• Grenz, Stanley J. and Denise Muir Kjesbo. Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
• Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. Vol. 14 of Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
• Hubbard, David Allan. Edited by Donald J. Wiseman. Hosea. Vol. 24 of Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.
• Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. Anchor Bible Series. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
• Keener, Craig. Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.
• ———. “Man and Woman.” In The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 583–592. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
• Liefeld, Walter L. The 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.
• Montague, George T. First and Second Timothy, Titus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.
• Moo, Douglass. “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?: 1 Timothy 2:11–15.” In Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, 179–193. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
• Mounce, William D. and Robert H. Mounce, The Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
• Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
• Strong, James. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990.

Notes

1. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991).
2. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations are from the New International Version, 1984.
3. J. Andrew Dearman, The Book of Hosea, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 148.
4. David Allan Hubbard, Hosea, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 110.
5. Craig Keener, Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 110–112.
6. Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 41.
7. Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 137.
8. Daniel Crabtree, “Women in Ministry” (class lecture, Central Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, 2005).
9. James Strong, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), Greek appendix, 15.
10. William D. Mounce and Robert H. Mounce, The Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 1025.
11. C.S. Keener, “Man and Woman” in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 591.
12. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 91.
13. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 112.
14. Mounce, Greek and English Interlinear, 1177.
15. Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 205.
16. Walter L. Liefeld, The 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 102–103.
17. Crabtree, “Women in Ministry.”
18. Douglass Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach of Have Authority Over Men?: 1 Timothy 2:11–15” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds., John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), 190.
19. Crabtree, “Women in Ministry.”
20. George T. Montague, First and Second Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 64.
21. Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 91–92.
22. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 71.
23. Benjamin Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 68.
24. Crabtree, “Women in Ministry.”
25. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 116.
26. Crabtree, “Women in Ministry.”
27. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 115.
28. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 71.
29. Miguel A. De La Torre, Reading the Bible from the Margins (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 83.
30. Ibid., 84.
31. Ibid., 84.
32. Ibid., 84.
33. Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 91–92.
34. Ibid., 111.
35. De La Torre, Reading the Bible from the Margins, 167.
36. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 110.
37. New American Standard Bible (NASB), 1995. The CEV translation takes this into account and replaces it with the pronoun “they” instead. In 3:1 the NASB says, “It is a trustworthy statement: If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.” But it is more appropriately translated, “This is a trustworthy saying: If anyone seeks the office of an overseer, this person desires a good work.” The 2011 NIV translation makes this change for verse 1, but not in succeeding verses. Furthermore, the word ίδίο?, which is used in reference to the three phrases of managing the household in verses 4, 5 and 12, is a personal possessive meaning “one’s own” or “their own” (household) not specifically “his own” (household). Therefore, the only masculine sounding qualifier is the simple expectation that the leaders operate as a “husband of one wife” or as a “one-woman-man.”
38. Ibid., 110.
39. Stanley J. Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 82.
40. Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 69. See Epp for an extensive treatment of the intentional textual changes made in numerous translations that persisted for a number of decades. Chart is on page 66.
41. Ibid., 69.
42. Ibid., 70.
43. Ibid., 32.
44. Ibid., 32.
45. Ibid., 32. Strangely, after finding only 3 occurrences of the name in their research (two of which identify the name as feminine), Piper and Grudem so easily concluded that the church fathers were divided on the issue, as if it was a matter of debate. In their words, “The Church Fathers were evidently divided as to whether Paul was using Junias that way, Epiphanius assuming it is masculine, Chrysostom assuming it is feminine” (Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 79–80).
46. Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, 66. On this page is a chart of many textual changes made from the Tyndale Bible (1525) to the New Living Translation (1996).
47. Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 80.
48. Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, 54. Translations that use the name “Junias” include the New International Version (1984 edition), American Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, the Message, and the Amplified Bible. The ASV and Amplified both use “kinsmen” to describe them. William D. Mounce and Robert H. Mounce also misconstrue the Greek by stating that they are “well-known to the apostles,” though the preposition of the ἐν + the dative cannot be translated “to” since this does not at all express the meaning of the Greek dative case (J. Gresham Machen and Dan G. McCartney, New Testament Greek: For Beginners, 2nd ed., [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004], 353). Furthermore, as Piper and Grudem acknowledge, it doesn’t make sense that Paul would speak of the apostles in third person, since he is one himself (Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 80). Rather, he was pointing out a couple who were distinguished among them, which also follows the natural reading of the dative case.
49. Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, 41. See Epp for the contraction name theory on page 40. The earliest manuscripts have no accents, and succeeding manuscripts that added accents did not add a circumflex (ibid., 45).
50. Ibid., 31.
51. Ibid., 70.
52. De La Torre, Reading the Bible from the Margins, 168–169.
53. Crabtree, “Women in Ministry.”