A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry, Part 1: “Neither…Male nor Female…in Christ Jesus”

By H. Wayne House

[Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary]

Until recently, the role of women in the church has been a “settled” matter. Except for a few outbreaks such as in Montanism and Gnosticism and among certain Christian groups given to ecstatic activities, generally the accepted position has been that women are not to occupy positions of leadership in the church, such as pastors, teachers of men, or elders, but that many other places of service are available.[1] In this day of social upheaval, however, such views are being questioned. The women’s liberation movement has not only affected the world in general but has also made significant inroads into the church. This impact is such that the issues it has raised cannot be avoided. Moreover, Christian leaders would be remiss in their commitment to Scripture not to explore the Word of God anew to see if women have been kept from functions in the church biblically open to them. The Scriptures should not be seen, in this writer’s opinion, as a great obstacle to women’s ministry. There are varied and important places for women to serve in the church and placing women in these positions of ministry is sorely needed. But this openness must not be at the expense of the teaching of Scripture that limits women’s roles of service. In His wisdom God has reserved certain areas for men.

This series of articles seeks to accomplish four things. First, the series will interact with contemporary attempts by interpreters to find in Paul’s teaching the permission or even encouragement for women to occupy teaching/leadership roles in the church. Second, the New Testament teaching on women in ministry will be set forth. Third, the ministerial role of women found in the ante-Nicene church will be presented; this information provides verification and examples of the role of women in the first three centuries of the church. Fourth, the author will suggest ways in which women can serve biblically and effectively in the work of the church.

Feminist Approaches to Paul’s Teaching on Women’s Role in the Church

Confusion reigns in recent attempts to classify Paul’s views on the role of women in the church. To some, Paul was a champion of human rights but to others he was an archenemy of equality. Many Christian theologians with a feminist disposition see Paul’s teaching as the only obstacle to a consistent New Testament egalitarian view of men and women. Christ is perceived as a great liberator of women. Other New Testament books rarely, if at all, speak of the role of women in the church. Yet some of Paul’s letters include major passages that cause trouble for the feminist view. The attempts to explain (or should one say explain away) these passages have brought about no little research and scholarly (and some not so scholarly) articles and books.

Paul As an Enemy of Women

Many feminists have agreed with the evaluation of George Bernard Shaw when he called Paul the “eternal enemy of women.”[2] Paul is considered to have been a misogynist, or one who hated women, or at the very least one who believed in the inferiority of women.[3] The source of Paul’s thinking, they say, is his rabbinical background. Since Paul lived in a misogynist society, it is only natural for this attitude to have strongly affected him.[4] This view is not widely accepted.

Paul As a Friend of Women

Generally, Christian feminists believe that Paul demonstrated a “liberationist” attitude toward women, as one who had high regard for women and valued them as fellow ministers. Many scholars, such as Robin Scroggs, have sought to redeem the image of the apostle from any taint of chauvinistic bias against women: “It is time, indeed past time, to say loudly and clearly that Paul is, so far from being a chauvinist, the only certain and consistent spokesman for the liberation and equality of women in the New Testament.”[5]

Obviously those holding this view must explain the passages in Pauline literature that seem to indicate a nonequal role for women in the church. The predominant ways in which this is done are (1) to deny the Pauline authorship of texts viewed as “antifeminist”;[6] (2) to consider that Paul intended the texts to be temporary in nature, either because of the cultural dimension of the setting or because of local church problems;[7] or (3) to say that the apostle struggled to overcome his chauvinistic background as he strove to express the Christian ideal.[8]

This series will evaluate the second method.[9]

Galatians 3:28: Separating Essence from Function

Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) is the foundation of those who advocate female leadership in the church today. Since this text[10] is so important to feminists in arguing for the leadership of women in teaching, preaching, and having traditionally male roles, it is incumbent on exegetes to examine this passage carefully.

Feminists consider Galatians 3:28 to be one of the most important passages in the New Testament on the functional equality of all persons in Christ. Jewett calls it the Magna Carta of Humanity,[11] and the last word on the subject, for Christ could say no more.[12] Such euphoric statements are exegetically difficult to support; subsequent analysis will demonstrate that Galatians 3:28 is not the tour de force for a Pauline argument that women are functionally interchangeable with men in the Christian community.

What Does “Neither Male Nor Female” Mean?

Feminists see in the phrase “neither male nor female” the obliteration of role distinctions between male and female for those persons who are part of the Christian community.[13] Stendahl, a leading exponent of male/female egalitarianism, argues that the apostle presents two major points in this passage: (1) Paul was reversing the order of creation, establishing the new redemptive order; and (2) the Jew/Gentile, slave/free, and male/female categories are functional, rather than only positional. “Just as Jews and Greeks remained what they were, so man and woman remain what they are; but in Christ, by baptism and hence in the church—not only in faith—something has happened which transcends the Law itself and thereby even the order of creation.”[14]

In Galatians 3:28 the words “male and female” (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ) may refer back to the Septuagint translation of Genesis 1:27, since they (Gal 3:28 and the Septuagint translation of Gen 1:27) both use καὶ rather than the disjunctive οὐδὲ of the other pairs in the listing. The Genesis text concerns the ontological nature of male and female, that both were made in the image of God. Paul could use this Creation text passage well, then, to emphasize the unity of male and female in their new creation in Christ.

The Background of Paul’s Teaching in the Creation and Fall Narrative

Paul developed his teaching on the authority roles for women from the Creation and Fall narratives of Genesis 1–3. These teachings are recorded in Galatians 3:26–28; 1 Corinthians 11:7–12; 1 Timothy 2:11–15; and 1 Corinthians 14:34 (if one considers the “law” to be a reference to Gen 3:16b).

Genesis 1:26–28 concerns the ontological nature of male and female. Both were made in God’s image. Stylistically verse 27 is synonymous parallelism, with בָּרָא (“created”) occurring in each of the cola for emphasis.[15] The first colon of verse 27 emphasizes that man is the creation of God. The second colon stresses that man is created in the divine image. The third colon portrays man, who is in God’s image, created as male and female. Each of these previously italicized phrases is stressed in the text by its occurrence at the beginning of the colon in which it appears.

This verse obviously teaches that male and female are the creation of God and bear the divine image. In the words of Eichrodt, “Because man and woman emerge at the same time from the hand of the Creator, and are created in the same way after God’s image, the difference between the sexes is no longer relevant to their position before God.”[16] Paul, in harmony with Moses, the author of Genesis, could emphasize in Galatians 3:28 the unity of male and female as created in the image of God while at the same time maintaining the distinction of the sexes.

An Interpretation of Galatians 3:26-28

The verses immediately preceding Galatians 3:28 pertain to the nature of justification and how a person may be included in the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul insisted that entrance into the covenant is by faith (v. 22), not works.[17] Sin is the great equalizer: all are prisoners of sin (v. 23). Faith is also an equalizer: all believers—Jew/Gentile, slave/free, male/female—are by faith included in the Abrahamic Covenant and are made heirs of the promise. Paul’s use of “sons of God” in verse 26 for all the pairs is instructive (Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Λησοῦ). The phrase “sons of God” extends beyond any physical dimension, for both women and men are included in the term. The use of “female” in verse 28 excludes a hardline patriarchy, or a Gnostic androgyny.[18] This general use of “son” or “sons” should not be surprising, since the masculine for Christians is common in the book (1:11; 3:15; 4:12; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18). Apparently for Paul, the term “son” simply implies heir (cf. 4:7, 31). In society these three pairs—none of which were ontologically unequal by creation—are unequally privileged, but in Christ’s offer of salvation, Paul argued, there is no distinction. So then in Galatians 3:26–28, Paul was saying that no kind[19] of person is excluded from the position of being a child of Abraham who has faith in Jesus Christ.

A further question relates to the issue posed by Scroggs,[20] namely, does this equality in heirship demand equality in role or function in the church? The answer is no; the apostle’s emphasis is on unity in the one man,[21] not social equality between the pairs. The interpretation of Stendahl and others who say Galatians 3:28 advocates interchangeability of roles between males and females in the church[22] is totally foreign to the type of meaning (genre statement, to use Hirsch’s term)[23] or intention of the Apostle Paul.

Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 refers to the position one has through faith in Christ. This is evidenced by the terms “sons of God,” “Abraham’s seed,” and “heirs according to the promise.” These elements in the context demonstrate the type of meaning intended by Paul.

Any implications drawn from the exegesis of the text should reflect the argument of the apostle pertaining to entrance into the Abrahamic Covenant, not functions within the church. The emphasis Stendahl sees in this verse is disparate from the apostle’s meaning. It is disparate because he draws implications of function in society and church from a context concerned with one’s position as an heir, by faith, of the promises to Abraham. In reality even the other pairs in verse 28 (Jew/Greek, slave/free) are in the same category. Therefore any implications on the roles of Gentiles in the church or on freedom from slavery must not be derived from this verse but must be substantiated from passages that specifically discuss the functions of these groups. If Stendahl had wanted to set forth implications based on the apostle’s meaning, he should have done so only in line with Paul’s intention.

A meaning may be different[24] from that mentioned or even envisioned by the apostle but it should not be disparate[25] or contrary to the meaning intended. For example the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant may extend beyond the pairs specifically mentioned by Paul but they must be in harmony with his intentions. Whether one is a child or an adult, rich or poor, black or white, he has equal access by faith to the Abrahamic Covenant. The genre expressed by these classes is still the same type meaning, namely, position. The factors of age, wealth, or color are immaterial to the inheritance since the position is based on faith, not on physical or social considerations. The meaning Stendahl posits is that since male and female are both equally sons of God they should have interchangeable roles. This is non sequitur reasoning. The question of roles for any group was not part of Paul’s concern, namely, one’s position before God. The subject of Galatians 3:1–4:7 further demonstrates the accuracy of this statement since it contrasts faith by the promise with works by the Law.

The equality of all people of faith in their inclusion in the Abrahamic Covenant and their being heirs of the grace of God is also taught by Paul in Romans 2:11 (where he said there is no human preference with God) and in Romans 10:13 (where he said everyone who calls on the Lord’s name will be saved). However, the question of egalitarianism in function is not Paul’s teaching, as can be demonstrated in his other letters when he addressed the subject of women in the church.

Notes

1. Unfortunately attention during much of church history has been on the limitation of women in leadership roles, but very little has been said about the various ways in which women can serve. Though the present series of articles is concerned primarily with the biblical passages that concern restriction, the author does touch briefly at the end of the series on the ministry roles biblically open to women.
2. G. B. Shaw, “The Monstrous Imposition upon Jesus,” reprinted in The Writings of St. Paul, ed. W. A. Meeks (New York: W. W. Norton, 1972), p. 299, cited in Elaine H. Pagels, “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42 (September 1974): 538. Pagels avers that Paul should not be seen as a chauvinist but neither should he be a focal point for the contemporary discussion. Conscious of the eschaton as he was, Paul could not envision a time like that of today. Pagels suggests that rather than look to Paul, one should look to contemporary scholars and theologians such as Robin Scroggs.
3. Mitchell dismisses Paul with contempt (Juliet Mitchell, Woman’s Estate, 1971, p. 112, cited in Gervase E. Duffield, “Feminism and the Church,” Why Not? Priesthood and the Ministry of the Church, ed. Michael Bruce and G. E. Duffield [Berkshire: Marcham Manor Press, n.d.], p. 22).
4. Virginia Mollenkott, “A Conversation with Virginia Mollenkott,” The Other Side, May-June 1976, 26. (Later argument from Mollenkott in her article reveals she also accepts another side to Paul’s perspective on women.) According to this position, then, Paul was affected by the rabbinical attitude toward women (supposedly) reflected in a passage from Tosefta Berakoth 8:18: “Blessed be He who has not made me a woman.” In reality this prayer does not have a misogynist background. See Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1980), pp. 145-46.
5. Robin Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40 (September 1972): 283. Eugenie Leonard, approvingly quoting Joseph Holzner, says, “St. Paul was the first person who saw the value of women as workers in the Church and used them extensively in the development of the missions” (Eugenie Andruss Leonard, “St. Paul on the Status of Women,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 [July 1950]: 317). Elizabeth Clark and Herbert Richardson consider such an evaluation of Paul to be dubious. They approvingly summarize Pagel’s response to Scroggs in this way: “Whatever theoretical ideas Paul may have had about women’s equality, he did nothing, as far as we know, to change the social structures which have contributed to their subordination” (Elizabeth Clark and Herbert Richardson, Women and Religion [New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1977], p. 279).
6. For this approach to Paul’s views on women see William O. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and Paul’s Views regarding Women,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (March 1975): 94-110 (Jerome Murphy-O’Connor has taken Walker to task in his article, “The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16?” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 [December 1976]: 615-21); Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” pp. 283-84 (such a forthright approach is recent but it has been discussed for several years: Lietzmann, An die Korinther I/II [Tübingen: Mohr, 1949], p. 75; J. Leipoldt, Die Frau in der antiken Welt und im Urchristentum [Gütersloh: Mohr, 1962], pp. 125-26); Robert Jewett, “The Sexual Liberation of the Apostle Paul,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Supplement (March 1979): B 55.
7. Some argue for cultural limitations on Paul’s teaching on women: Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1974), p. 65; D. R. Cartlidge, “1 Corinthians 7 as a Foundation for a Christian Sex Ethic,” pp. 4-5, cited in Pagels, “Paul and Women,” p. 546. Others argue that the passages should be limited by particular problems in the churches at Corinth and Ephesus: Veselin Kesich, “St Paul: Anti-Feminist or Liberator,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 21 (1977): 142; Nils A. Dahl, “Paul and the Church at Corinth in 1 Cor 1:10–4:21 ,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr (Cambridge: University Press, 1967), p. 332; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Interpreting Patriarchal Traditions,” in The Liberating Word: A Guide to Nonsexist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), p. 58; Aida Dina Besançon Spencer, “Eve at Ephesus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17 (Fall 1974): 219-20. A third way to limit the impact is to aver that females may function in normally male roles if they are under the authority of males in the congregation. This is discussed in R. T. Beckwith, “Recent New Testament Study,” in Why Not? Priesthood and the Ministry of Women, p. 151.
8. Christian feminists of this persuasion believe Paul accepted women as equals but that at times in his teaching he placed them in an inferior position. See Mollenkott, “A Conversation,” p. 22; Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, trans. Emilie T. Sander (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 32. For a view opposing Galatians 3:26–28 as a basis of equating union with Christ and identity of functions in the church, see Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962), p. 175, n. 4.
9. For a detailed development of options 1 and 3, as well as 2, see the writer’s dissertation, “An Investigation of Contemporary Feminist Arguments on Paul’s Teaching on the Role of Women in the Church” (ThD diss., Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1986). Copies are in the libraries of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; Dallas Theological Seminary; and Covenant Seminary, St. Louis. A shorter and more restricted treatment of these options may be found in the writer’s article, “Paul, Women, and Contemporary Evangelical Feminism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (January-March 1979): 40-53.
10. Form critical studies by Wayne A. Meeks (“The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” Harvard Review 13 [1973-74]: 180-83), Robin Scroggs (“Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” pp. 291-93), Heinrich Schlier (Der Brief an die Galater, pp. 174-75), and Jurgen Becker (Der Brief an die Galater [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1976], pp. 45-46) suggest that Galatians 3:26–28 may have been cited from a baptismal formula by the Apostle Paul. Two other Pauline passages, 1 Corinthians 12:12–13 and Colossians 3:9–11, contain a similar sequence of thought: baptism into one body, uniting pairs of opposites, and stress on unity in Christ. These three passages may reflect early baptismal formulas that Paul used to develop his unity theme. (See the writer’s “Investigation of Contemporary Feminist Arguments,” pp. 27-31, for further discussion of this). Whether Paul was quoting or adapting an earlier baptismal formula in no way affects the meaning or impact of his use of it in Galatians 3:28. He was clearly reflecting a matrix of relationships well recognized in the ancient world as being at opposite poles in the social context, one that for Paul in no way hinders union around the new Man, Christ Jesus. Cf. also Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), p. 62. For an example in Greek literature see Ben Witherington III, “Rite and Rights for Women,” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 594.
11. Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), p. 142.
12. Ibid. See also Robert Jewett, “The Sexual Liberation of the Apostle Paul” (paper presented at the 1978 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, November 1978), p. 13. Madeleine Boucher describes the significance of Galatians 3:28 in less optimistic terms (“Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11, 11–12 and Gal 3:28, the New Testament on the Role of Women,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 [January 1969]: 50-60).
13. Robin Scroggs, “Women in the NT,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, supplementary volume (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), p. 966.
14. Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, pp. 33-34. Regarding the first assumption he has argued that in Galatians 3:28 Paul has brought a destruction of the dichotomy between social order and coram Deo. He directs the theological statement of this passage against the former order of creation, in which he says woman is given a subordinate function in society and church. He believes that in Galatians 3:28 Paul went beyond the prevailing view and practice of the New Testament church. Concerning the second assumption Stendahl argues that all three of the pairs in Galatians 3:28 are to be equally implemented in the life and structure of the church. This biblical text, he says, is the key to this implementation of social equality for women today. Even as the idea found in this passage was instrumental in the release of slaves in the 19th century, so few today, he says, “would confine the implications of ‘neither slave nor free’ to an attitude of the heart, apart from social structure and legislation” (ibid.).
15. Umberto Cassuto gives the sense of the poetry in verse 27 : “At this point the text assumes a more exalted tone and becomes poetic” (Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I: From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961], p. 57). See this writer’s “Investigation of Contemporary Feminist Arguments,” pp. 41-55, for further discussion of Genesis 1:26–28 and various feminist arguments on the passage.
16. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), p. 126.
17. John J. Davis, “Some Reflections on Galatians 3:28, Sexual Roles, and Biblical Hermeneutics,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (Summer 1976): 202-3.
18. Robert Jewett, “The Sexual Liberation of the Apostle Paul,” p. 14.
19. The lack of the Greek article with each pair in verse 28 probably indicates character or quality.
20. Scroggs believes that the passage demonstrates the obliteration of role distinctions between male and female: “To enter the Christian community thus meant to join a society in which male-female roles and valuations based on such roles had been discarded. The community was powerless to alter role valuations in the outside culture, but within the church, behavior and inter-relationships were to be based on this affirmation of equality” (“Women in the NT,” p. 966).
21. Witherington makes an interesting observation that Paul’s use of εἶς rather than the neuter ἕν for unity in Christ (Gal 3:28) is a “reaffirmation of Paul’s view of male headship” (“Rite and Rights for Women,” p. 603, n. 22).
22. Paul Jewett, Mollenkott, Scanzoni, and Hardesty—some of the major contemporary “evangelical” feminists—seem to have borrowed their hermeneutical procedure from Stendahl and the new hermeneutic. For an interaction with Stendahl’s selectivity in using Galatians as his model over against other Pauline texts, see Hans C. Cavallin, “Demythologising the Liberal Illusion,” in Why Not? Priesthood and the Ministry of Women, p. 88.
23. The hermeneutical procedure and terminology of this section on Galatians 3:26–28 is based on the views expounded by E. D. Hirsch, Jr., in his two books, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967), pp. 24-126, 209–24, and Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 1-13.
24. “Different” refers to implications that are not stated by an author but are in keeping with the author’s intention.
25. “Disparate” refers to implications that are foreign to and outside the author’s intention.