What Did Paul Really Mean?

A Survey of Paul’s Teachings Regarding Gender Roles in the Home and in the Church

Steve Curtis, PhD

Introduction

The issue of the role of women in church leadership has become increasingly divisive in

modern evangelicalism and has seen strident propagation of polar opposite positions. Perhaps the

diversity of views can best be illustrated within the general body of Presbyterianism. Within the

Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example, women elders/pastors are not allowed.1 Within the

Evangelical Presbyterian Church, women leaders are allowed from a denominational standpoint,

yet nevertheless subject to each presbytery’s decision on the matter.2 At the other end of the

spectrum, the Presbyterian Church (USA) not only acknowledges the ordination of women but

insists upon it: “each congregation must have female representation in each year's contingent of

incoming elders.”3 Such disparate views can be seen throughout the larger Christian world.

While many arguments for or against women leadership in the church begin with Old

Testament narratives or with the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ interaction with women, all such

arguments must, eventually, interact with the writings of the apostle Paul in this regard. Some, of

course, dismiss the authenticity (and, therefore, the authority) of much of the Pauline corpus;

1
https://www.opc.org/GA/women_in_office.html. Accessed 28 April 2017.

2
https://www.epc.org/file/beliefs/positionpapers/PositionPaper-OrdinationOfWomen.pdf. Accessed 28
April 2017.

3
Bruce Barron, “Putting Women in their Place: 1 Timothy 2 and Evangelical Views of Women in Church
Leadership,” JETS 33, no. 4 (December 1990): 452.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 1

however, this article assumes an audience with an orthodox doctrine of the authority of the entire

Protestant canon. Consequently, this study will forego many of the other biblical texts often

brought to bear on this topic and will, rather, focus on the issue solely from Paul’s perspective.

Thus, this paper will examine the relevant passages in Paul’s theology and demonstrate that the

apostle understood gender roles to be inextricably connected to leadership: first in the home and

then in the church.

Key Pauline Passages Examined

Many of the Pauline texts related to gender and leadership have been hotly debated,

particularly in recent years. This debate is not without merit, as some of Paul’s writings are, as

Peter notes, “difficult to understand.”(2 Peter 3:16) Some, however, choose not to deal with the

difficult texts at all. For instance, Gretchen Gaebelein Hull has declared that the “hard passages”

about women and their roles in marriage and the church should not be unduly concerning. She

writes, “[W]e may legitimately put these Scripture portions aside for the very reason that they

remain “hard passages” -- hard exegetically, hard hermeneutically, and hard theologically.”4

Others, less inclined to dismiss portions of Scripture out of hand, have engaged in serious

investigation into grammatical usage, syntactical construction, and interpretive methodology.

Regarding the latter, Patricia Gundry claims that the traditional view “is falling before a superior

hermeneutic.”5 While there may well be a new hermeneutic at work in the recent study of the

4
Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve: Women and Men Working Together Revealing the Gospel (Old
Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 188-189.

5
Patricia Gundry, Neither Slaves Nor Free (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 93.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 2

role of women, it has yet to be determined if this is, in fact, a superior hermeneutic. A close

examination of the passages under dispute may aid in discovering the biblical resolution.

Neither Male nor Female (Galatians 3:28)

With the advent of feminism generally, and the subsequent rise of “Christian feminism”

in the more recent past, Paul is either utterly discounted as a misogynist (by secular feminists) or

as historically misunderstood (by egalitarians).6 While the secular feminists approach the topic

from an extrabiblical perspective, the Christian feminists seek to remain faithful to the text.

Frequently, Galatians 3:28 is interjected into the debate by Christian feminists as a

justification for seeing all hierarchical structures being dismantled in New Testament theology;

the verse is even called, by some, “the Magna Carta of women everywhere.”7 However,

complementarians argue, “Galatians 3:28 and the other so-called ‘equality texts’ actually have

less to do with ecclesiology than with soteriology and are in fact concerned to assert not equality

but salvific unity within the body of Christ.”8

For their part, egalitarians appear, at first blush, to make similar claims, as can be seen in

this comment by a popular egalitarian author:

6
For the purpose of this paper, the terms “egalitarian” and “Christian feminism” will be used
interchangeably, while the opposing view will be identified by the terms “traditionalist” and “complementarian.”
While some take the term “feminist” pejoratively, Gundry calls herself a “logical, practical feminist” (Gundry, 16).

7
Linda L. Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 15.

8
Gordon P. Hugenberger, “Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A Survey of Approaches
to 1 Tim 2:8-15,” JETS 35, no. 3 (September 1992): 347.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 3

 Paul’s words in Galatians are a fundamental acknowledgment that while men
should be masculine and women should be feminine, a person’s gender does not
limit him or her from enjoying the benefits of salvation . . .9

Yet despite this apparent hermeneutical continuity, this verse continues to be used in the

debate as if it were indeed the feminists’ Magna Carta. Aída Besançon Spencer goes so far as to

argue that, in “selectively eliminat[ing] ‘male and female’ from the basis of equality” in this

verse, one may conclude that the “same argumentative strategy could be used to exclude all

Gentiles from leadership.”10 Another egalitarian uses this verse to say, almost in passing, that

members of the new covenant community are “. . . to drop the barriers to ministry and religious

status that gender, race, and class posed in the old covenant.”11

While this verse does teach that there is no soteriological hierarchy in Christ, the weight

of the text is essentially limited to this interpretation and does little to refute that there remains a

creational hierarchy that Paul recognized as inherent in the providential design of God, which is

intended to work itself out in the home and in the church. In fact, Paul so closely connects the

leader/gender roles in the church to those in the home that no study of Paul’s view of the church

can be complete without a foundational study of his view of marriage. It is not unthinkable that

the feminist movement arose precisely because God’s principles of marriage and gender roles

were, sadly, neglected, distorted, or abused – even in the church.

9
J. Lee Grady, 10 Lies the Church Tells Women (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2000), 14.

10
Aída Besançon Spencer, “Jesus’ Treatment of Women in the Gospels,” in Discovering Biblical Equality,
ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothius, and Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005),
133.

11
R. K. McGregor Wright, “God, Metaphor, and Gender,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, ed. Ronald W.
Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothius, and Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 290 (emphasis
added).

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 4

Gender Roles in the Home

Wives, Submit to Your Husbands (Ephesians 5:22-33)

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul lays out the biblical framework of marriage by comparing it

to the mysterious union of the church to Christ, specifically saying to women: Wives, submit to

your own husbands, as to the Lord (v. 22) and to men: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ

loved the church and gave himself up for her (v. 25). In this teaching, Paul is delineating unique

roles for the husband and wife; that is, the husband is supposed to mirror the sacrificial love of

Christ for believers in his love for his wife, and the wife is to show submission and respect for

her husband as the church regards Christ. Of course the husband is not Christ, and thus this

comparison of relationships is merely analogous; however, Paul is clearly demonstrating that

there is, in fact, some degree of commonality between the two relationships, and this creates a

point of reference that can be useful as a guide in marriage. Far from denigrating women in this

passage, Paul is, in fact, elevating women to a treasured status hitherto unknown. As Ryrie notes:

Such a standard of love was not found in Greek society, and the comparing of the
love of a Christian husband and wife with the self-sacrificing love of Christ along
with the Christian insistence on monogamy surpasses the standards of Judaism.12

Likewise, Paul is clarifying the role of husbands in ways that stand in stark contrast to the

prevailing cultural model of his time. Giving no quarter to the chauvinistic ideals of male

dominance, Paul set before husbands the profoundly significant standard of the Lord of glory

humbling himself to the point of death as an act of love for his bride.

12
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Role of Women in the Church (Chicago: Moody, 1970), 66.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 5

The Head of the Wife Is Her Husband (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Paul addresses the marital roles again in First Corinthians 11, and in that passage as well

as in Ephesians 5, Paul expressly states that the husband is the “head” of the wife as Christ is the

“head” of the church. The interpretation of κεφαλή has been the subject of much discussion, with

some holding to the traditional interpretation of “authority” and others to the idea of “source” or

“preeminent.” Belleville, who prefers the latter definition, acknowledges the debate’s

considerable significance, noting the “profound impact” the answer to this question “has on that

most sacred of human institutions – the family.”13 She admits, at first, that the term denoted

privilege, prestige, and power in ancient writings (all of which are certainly compatible with

authority); however, she then muddles the discussion by implying that this very idea of authority

is being read into the term from a cultural bias, asking, “Can we distance ourselves from Western

culture long enough to be accurate to the Greek text?”14 On the one hand, then, egalitarians

(insofar as Belleville is representative of the view) readily admit the regular use of κεφαλή in the

ancient world to indicate “chief,” “prominent,” and “leader,” while arguing instead for “origin,”

source,” and “beginning.” With so many variants, their interpretation clearly becomes a matter of

hermeneutics, with the appeal to linguistics alone falling short of proving their conclusion.

On the other hand, a more refined study of the word’s usage would seem to supply its

most normative meaning: that of “authority,” in some sense. In fact, most arguments in favor of

“source” rely on but two ancient documents, both of which originate more than four hundred

13
Belleville, Women Leaders, 122.

14
Ibid., 122-123.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 6

years before Paul: Herodotus 4.91 and Orphic Fragments 21a.15 Conversely, the vast usage of

the word trends in a different direction. Grudem notes that “all major lexicons that specialize in

the New Testament period give [“authority”], whereas none give the meaning “source,” and adds

that a search of 2,336 uses of κεφαλή in Greek literature turns up forty-nine occurrences of some

variant of “ruler” and none of “source.”16 Finally, the use of “source” fails with a simple reading

of the biblical texts. Against those who argue for the use of “source,” Schreiner asks, “In what

meaningful sense can one say that a husband is the source of his wife? Wives do not derive their

existence from their husbands.”17

It must reasonably be concluded, therefore, that κεφαλή does indeed carry a general sense

of “rule” or “authority.” Yet the practical application of this idea, both in marriage as in the

church, must comport, not with the dictatorial models condemned by the egalitarians, but with

the model of Christ: both as the κεφαλή of the church and as functionally subordinate to the

Father. (1 Corinthians 15:8) God is a God of order, and order demands structure. This is wholly

consistent with the rendering of κεφαλή as “authority.”

15
Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of Kephalē (“Head”): A Response to Recent Studies,” in Rediscovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 425. Grudem
argues that even these two examples are not ironclad and can be proven to mean other than merely “source.”

16
Ibid., 426.

Thomas R. Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecy, and the Trinity,” in Rediscovering Biblical Manhood
17

and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 127.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 7

Gender Roles in the Church

First Timothy 2:11-15

Background. Undoubtedly the most controversial and debated passage on this subject is 1

Timothy 2:11-15. Egalitarians typically introduce this passage by purporting that Ephesus (the

city in which Timothy served when he received the epistle from Paul) was “an exotic feminist

social-religious culture”18 deeply affected by Gnostic philosophy. For instance, Barron suggests

that the 1 Timothy passage – and, indeed, the whole of the Pastoral Epistles – are chiefly

concerned with the Gnostic heresy. He writes:

Though often viewed primarily as handbooks for church government and order,
the pastoral epistles appear to be motivated by a more overarching purpose: to
give church leaders wisdom on how to keep heresy from derailing their
churches.19

Barron argues that the Gnostics in the churches had “reinterpreted the Genesis story so as

to make Eve a heroine” and that Paul is responding to this particular crisis:

We can suspect, then, that this is why Paul refers to Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy
2. It is not that he wishes to call upon some timeless principle of creation, as
traditionalists have argued. Rather, the heretical women in Ephesus have already
forced the issue . . . so as to claim Eve's chronological and intellectual superiority
to Adam as a precedent for their own self-appointed mission.20

18
S. M. Baugh, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh
Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1995), 15.

19
Barron, 453.

20
Ibid., 454.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 8

 However, this view demands that the passage be read through a prism that, while

possible, seems improbable. Moo observes, “If Paul were prohibiting women from teaching

because they were teaching falsely, nothing would have been easier than for him to have said

so.”21 This view also begs the question: if Paul’s focus was errant doctrine, why does he not

mention the men that are assuredly involved, but the women only? Yet again, if Paul had errant

doctrine in mind and was (for whatever reason) only addressing false-teaching women, it seems

odd that he would say that they should continue in faith, love, and holiness. (1 Timothy 2:15) In

fact, the general premise of Ephesus as a feminist bulwark is arguable. Baugh notes that, as a

Greek city, Ephesus was polytheistic, with temples and shrines for many gods and goddesses.

Yet the important office of priest – even for the female deities – was predominantly held by men.

This goes against the normal scenario whereby gods were served by priests and goddesses were

served by priestesses.22 One would think that “a bastion and bulwark of women’s rights would

have had as many priestesses in evidence as in contemporary cities – not fewer as we find at

Ephesus.”23 Thus, the very foundational premise of the egalitarian position vis-à-vis 1 Timothy

may well be seriously flawed.

Another common argument made to explain the background to this passage is the typical

lack of education among women in the first century – a problem that does not exist in

contemporary Western society. First-century women would likely not have been qualified to

teach. History bears out the fact that women of that time were repressed and, therefore, certainly

21
Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity Journal 2, no. 2 (Fall
1981): 203.

22
Baugh, 20.

23
Ibid., 21.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 9

less educated than men. It has been noted, in fact, that “not one Athenian woman ever attained to

the slightest distinction in any one department of literature, art, or science,” and, with respect to

Jewish women, “there is no record of any woman ever addressing the synagogue.”24 It is held,

therefore, that Paul’s admonition was culturally situated and not binding for modern churches.

However, this argument fails when one considers that egalitarians frequently use the examples of

biblical women (e.g., Lois, Eunice, and Pricilla) to make their case that first-century women

were, in fact, teaching. Barron admits that “the egalitarians seem forced into the implausible

claim that no woman in the Ephesian church was sufficiently orthodox and educated to teach.”25

He goes on to conclude:

[E]vangelicals’ understanding of the inspired nature of the NT precludes them

from saying Paul was wrong. Most evangelical egalitarians, therefore, have
affirmed that Paul was right but have attempted to deny that he was talking about
what traditionalist interpreters think he was talking about.26

Yet, in such attempts, egalitarians have failed to provide convincing arguments to support

any other feasible interpretation without doing some degree of violence to the text. If the passage

under consideration cannot be dismissed as irrelevant for the modern church on the basis of its

unique cultural parameters, the egalitarian must contend with the individual phrases that generate

contentious debate.

Let a woman learn in silence (1 Timothy 2:11). In this verse, the word, ἡσυχία, has been

the source of debate. The traditional interpretation has been “silence,” though the word can also

24
Ryrie, 12.

25
Barron, 456.

26
Ibid., 452.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 10

mean “quietness,” as in peaceable. The word is, in fact, used in 2 Thessalonians 3:12, where Paul

exhorts those who are idle or busybodies to rather go about their work “quietly.” In this sense,

Paul is doubtless not suggesting that they utter no words, but that they live peaceably. How, then,

should the word be understood in 1 Timothy 2:11?

Belleville argues against the notion that Paul is instructing women to “keep silent,”

saying, “Silence is not compatible with the Socratic dialogical approach to learning in Paul’s

day.”27 However, Paul uses ἡσυχία in apposition to teaching; that is, they are to learn and not

teach. If, as Belleville suggests, the Socratic model was the prevailing teaching method at the

time (a point conceded merely for the sake of argument), learners in such models are, in fact,

also teaching in some sense. As Paul is addressing a community of learning in an assembly (and

not, for instance, a private tutoring situation), Socratic dialog between the teacher and one

student has the ancillary effect of “teaching” all who are witness to both sides of the exchange.

Additionally, Paul takes care to reiterate the word in the very next verse, and both terms

appear to pivot on the intervening idea of submission. As Moo notes, “submission is the

appropriate response of Christians to those who are in authority over them.”28 He also suggests

that this may be a reference to marital submission, because of the common usage of this word

(ὑποταγή) in passages (Pauline and non-Pauline) which discuss the “appropriate response of

wives to their husbands.”29 At any rate, two points seem clear: Paul is indeed encouraging the

women to learn (albeit “in silence”) and he is prohibiting them from teaching.

27
Linda Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, ed. Ronald W.
Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothius, and Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 208.

28
Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority over Men?” in Rediscovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 183.

29
Ibid.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 11

 I do not permit a woman to teach. . . (1 Timothy 2:12a). If Paul was speaking in this

passage only of the relationship between a husband and wife, this passage would be denuded of

any consequence with regard to the role of women in the church. In fact, in these words to

Timothy, Paul does begin to connect the ideas of leadership in the home with leadership in the

church, by drawing on the account of Adam and Eve. However, the nature of the instruction (in

the assembly) makes clear that Paul’s subject is broader than the marital relationship. While

some have indeed argued that ἀνήρ and γυνή could mean “husband” and “wife” rather than

“man” and “woman,” Belleville concedes that context rules this out.30 Hugenberger rightly

points out that, “In a world where even the pagans rejected polyandry, clearly Paul could not

have meant ‘I permit no wife to teach or have authority over (her) husband.’”31 While this is a

sensible conclusion, Hugenberger then goes on to argue that the terms do, in fact, mean husband

and wife and are thus referring to marriage and not church leadership, claiming that his view

actually has an ancient pedigree and is not “merely an accommodation . . . in favor of women’s

liberation.”32 His sources for this pedigree, however, are few (specifically, two) and obscure.

Again, while there may be parallels between the two spheres of authority (home and church), this

text most plainly reveals instruction for the church.

Two questions arise at this point. Must women never teach under any circumstances?

Must women never teach men? The answers to both are related. While ἀνήρ is most reasonably

30
Belleville, Teaching, 208.

31
Hugenberger, 342 (though Hugenberger is merely playing “devil’s advocate” when he says this).

32
Ibid., 350, note 39.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 12

understood as the object of both διδασκειν and αυθεντειν,33 the subject matter of the teaching is

more significant than its object. As Hugenberger notes:

[I]t would appear unwarranted to insist that in v. 12 Paul forbids women from
teaching men how to cook, how to solve differential equations, and so on.
Certainly the subject matter most suitable to the posited ecclesiastical context
would seem to be of an ethical or theological nature.34

Indeed, Scripture clearly provides women with the duty to teach (e.g., Proverbs 1:8, Titus

2:3). This verse seems merely to restrict women from teaching men in matters of doctrine.

. . . or to exercise authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12b). In this phrase, the hapax

legomena, αυθεντειν, is the subject of debate. Egalitarians argue that it is best interpreted as

“domineer,” suggesting that Paul is reacting against women in Ephesus who were “lording it

over” their husbands. Belleville provides an impressive array of historical translations that

favored some variant of “domineer,” and notes that αυθεντειν “carried a nuance (other than

“rule” or “have authority”) that was particularly suited to the Ephesian situation.35 Further, some

egalitarians have suggested that this difficult sentence structure should be translated as a

hendiadys: “I do not permit a woman to teach in a domineering manner.”36 The sentence

structure, however, is not as significant as the definition of αυθεντειν; for if it does, in fact, mean

“authority,” then the hendiadys would not change the traditional interpretation, to wit: “I do not

33
Moo, “What Does It Mean,” 186.

34
Hugenberger, 343.

35
Belleville, Teaching, 211.

36
Andreas J. Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church:
A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 82.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 13

permit a woman to teach with authority.” As all biblical teaching is, by its very nature,

authoritative, this would prohibit women from teaching men concerning Scripture or doctrine.

For the other view, George Knight, a complementarian, has concluded: “(I) find that the

meaning ‘have authority over’ is the clear meaning and the alternative ‘domineer’ suggested by

Arndt and Gingrich seems to have no warrant in the literature.”37 In an exhaustive study that

includes every occurrence of αυθεντειν in ancient literature, Scott Baldwin ably demonstrates

that, for all of its permutations, “the root meaning involves the concept of authority.”38

Additionally, while Belleville draws extensively on Hellenistic sources, studies situated more

closely to the Sitz im Leben of 1 Timothy demonstrate quite convincingly that αυθεντειν, “during

the New Testament period, was coming to mean “exercise authority/power/rights.”39

If the idea under consideration is indeed authority, then Paul is clearly making reference

to the office of elder (cf. 1 Timothy 3:5; 5:17). His prohibition of a woman having authority over

a man in the context of the public assembly, then, would prohibit a woman from becoming an

elder.

37
Moo, Interpretation, 202. Baldwin notes the interesting fact that “domineer” “appeared somewhere
between Bauer’s fifth edition” of his German work and its English (BAGD) translation (H. Scott Baldwin, “A
Difficult Word: αυθεντειν in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, ed.
Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995], 67, note j).

38
Baldwin, 79.

39
Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton:
Crossway, 1991), 497, note 18.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 14

The Women Should Keep Silent in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34)

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul addresses the issue of women in the public assembly.

This passage is often challenged in light of Paul’s previous discussion on women who were not

silent in church (11:5). Some, such as Daniel Kirk, resolve the apparent problem by ascribing

this passage to someone other than Paul.40 This, then, mitigates the force of the argument.

Others, such as Keener, take Paul’s mention (in verse 35) of question-asking to imply that what

was being prohibited was women asking questions in the assembly.41 Still others, such as Roger

Nicole, argue that Paul should be understood here strictly in cultural terms (“Paul seems to be

forbidding an activity that carried cultural shame”), and concludes that the contemporary

relevance of the passage is in Paul’s “concern to avoid cultural disrepute.”42

Traditionally, these verses have been taken at face value and there has generally been a

consensus that Paul’s message to the Corinthians was unambiguous. How, then, to reconcile this

passage with 11:5? The important distinction here, perhaps, is between teaching and

prophesying. That is, in 11:5, Paul acknowledges that women may indeed pray and prophesy, but

he says nothing of teaching or exercising authority. To understand the distinction, Moo offers

helpful insight: “[T]he authority of the prophet, far more than that of the teacher, is a derived

40
http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/was-paul-a-misogynist. Accessed 10/10/2010.

41
Craig S. Keener, “Learning in the Assemblies,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, ed. Ronald W. Pierce,
Rebecca Merrill Groothius, and Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 165.

42
Roger Nicole, “Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic Principles and Questions of Gender,” in Discovering
Biblical Equality, ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothius, and Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2005), 362.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 15

authority.” That is, the revelations of the prophet are “subject to the scrutiny of the whole

congregation.”43 He goes on to explain:

[P]rophesying, as more directly ‘pneumatic’ than teaching, involves an authority

relationship between the prophet and his hearers less personal than is the case
with teachers. This greater personal authority of the teacher is the reason, I would
contend, why Paul allows women to prophesy with men present, but not to teach
them.44

While some would contend that the “prophesying” to which Paul refers in 11:5 is a “sign

gift” that ceased with the closing of the canon, the principle remains noteworthy. A true

prophecy carries with it the authority from the Holy Spirit, whereas a teacher, to some degree,

conveys a sense of his own authority; hence, a well-qualified teacher is considered an “authority”

in his field. Even if prophecy, as such, continues in the church today, Paul’s governing

comments about it do not obfuscate his clear position with regard to women teaching and

exercising authority over men in the church.

I Commend Phoebe; Greet Junia (Romans 16:1-2, 7)

Two final passages, from Paul’s personal greetings in Romans 16, are worthy of brief

consideration. First, Phoebe is called a patron (ESV) or succourer (KJV). Some point to the

description of Phoebe as a προστάτις and conclude from this that she was, in fact, a leader in the

church. Belleville says of Phoebe: “A careful reading of Romans 16:1-2 against the cultural

backdrop of that day shows that she served in at least four ministry roles.”45 The four roles are

43
Moo, Interpretation, 207. Moo draws on Grudem in understanding 1 Corinthians 14:32 to imply that
prophetic speech is the purview of the whole body of hearers (Ibid., note 15).

44
Moo, Interpretation, 207.

45
Belleville, Women Leaders, 68.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 16

then listed as deacon, letter carrier, patron, and “itinerant missionar[y].” While the passage

certainly identified Phoebe as a letter carrier and as a διακονον, neither of these violate Paul’s

injunction against women as teachers or as exercising authority over men. The idea of Phoebe as

a missionary is tenuous; Belleville notes only that Paul’s instructions for the church to

“welcome” and “help” Phoebe is reminiscent of his choice of words with missionaries (1

Corinthians 16:11; 2 Corinthians 7:15). Regarding the role of patron, προστάτις, Moo notes that

“it is best to follow the great majority of translations, lexicons and commentaries” and to reject

any connotation of leadership or authority in the term προστάτις in Romans 16:2.”46 Indeed, the

legitimate grammatical arguments against the majority have been historically rare.47

The second woman to consider is Junia.48 Of her, Paul says that she “of note among the

apostles” (16:7, KJV). This phrase is likely to be interpreted according to how one views the

matter generally, in light of all of the previously discussed texts. It could either be construed to

mean the Junia was an apostle of note, or that she was held in high regard by the apostles. The

grammar alone is inconclusive.

Finally, it would be remiss to discuss the exegetical considerations of these two women

without taking a moment to point out what is often missed in the debate; namely, that Paul is

gratefully acknowledging the ministry of women. His is not the voice of the misogynist who

46
Moo, Interpretation, 209.

47
After listing a considerable array of sources that understand Phoebe’s role to be that of “helper,”
“patroness,” “protector,” and the like, Moo declares, “I have found no translation, lexicon, or commentary which
defends a translation connoting authority for προστάτις on Romans 16:2.” Moo, Interpretation, 209 fn. 25.

That “Junia” was a woman is, in fact, not a settled issue. The name is found in Plutarch to refer to a man,
48

and Origen refers to this passage using masculine pronouns. (John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of
Central Concerns,” in Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem
[Wheaton: Crossway, 1991], 79-80.) For the sake of the argument, it will be assumed that this was a woman.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 17

seeks to repress women; his is not the voice of the dictatorial enforcer who cannot abide women

to engage in ministry in any context; rather, his is the voice of order in the administration of the

Body of Christ on earth. Paul approves of all believers – be they male or female – seeking to

serve God wholly and genuinely. His aim is the growth of the church and the maturity of her

members. He only insists, in keeping with the God of order, that a foot not try to hear nor an ear

to walk.

Conclusion

Egalitarians have become increasingly insistent upon changing the church’s perception of

Paul’s teaching regarding women in the church. In large measure, they have succeeded. This is,

perhaps, due to their passion for the subject more so than by sound exegetical and hermeneutical

principles. Gundry explains why she believes the egalitarian position is the right one: “You need

what you feel you need. You don’t need what you are supposed to need. . .”49 And, for Gundry,

what she “feels” that she “needs” is to be validated as a pastor. She argues that preaching is the

“symbolic realization” of the goal for women to “reach the unimpeded opportunity our full

personhood requires.”50 Some egalitarians admit that their arguments are derived more from

logic or desire than from any clear teaching in Scripture or in the first century church. Moo

notes, ““It is significant that Paul Jewitt, who strongly favors the ordination of women, can state

49
Gundry, 19 (emphasis in original).

50
Ibid., 135.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 18

as a “general consensus” that women were not admitted to the office of elder/overseer in the NT

period.”51 Still, the debate rages on. Moo sums up the matter well:

That women exercised important, indeed indispensable, ministries in the NT

church is indisputable. That Paul in no manner deprecated these ministries is
equally clear. But that Paul recognized women who engaged in ministries of
teaching men or ruling over men is a view which finds little support in Paul.52

There are scores of ministry opportunities to which is attached no gender debate. There

are countless ways for men and women to minister to the needs of those who are hurting, to

share the great story of Calvary with those who need to hear it. Both sides in this debate profess

to share the same passion for the Lord and for the lost. It is that upon which the church must fix

her gaze.

51
Moo, Interpretation, 212.

52
Ibid., 213-214.

“What Did Paul Really Mean? 19