As we approach the Bible, we see that there are many difficult passages and

sayings, especially as we relate to them within our own culture and time period. We

wrestle with many such issues as how the text came to be, how so many writers could

relay the same message across so great a span of time, and how seemingly conflicting

passages, as those that will be considered in this paper, may be reconciled for the integrity

of Christian thought and practice. All these issues mentioned above play into the issue of

women in church leadership in one way or another and will be discussed along with

theories and nuances that will lead to a conclusion on the topic. I will argue for an

egalitarian viewpoint that may be drawn out of all the supposed commands and

conflicting passages that will be discussed.

For most of the history of the church, women have been held in view of such

scriptures as 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:26-40 (esp. 34-35), and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (esp.

11-12), being seen as incapable of leadership because of the initial deception in the

Garden of Eden, disallowed from speaking, and prohibited from teaching or exerting any

kind of authority over any man. There is, however, significant evidence that this was, at

the very least, not inclusive of all women in all churches. I will begin this paper by

building a framework of Paul’s eschatological mindset for the church by his baptismal

statements found in Galatians 3:28. I will then proceed to describe in detail a few of the

major varying viewpoints on the passages in question. After this, I will argue for my

viewpoint by laying out what I believe Paul is saying in his passages and what the New

Testament teaches overall and how this might be applied in churches today.

When arguing for a stance on women’s roles in the church, particularly more

conservative traditions, many will go straight to the seemingly prohibitive texts in 1 Cor.

1
14:34-35 or 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in order to elicit their commands for women in their

particular congregations, then universalizing the “law” that Paul gave. Often taken for

granted is the baptismal statement Paul gave in Galatians 3:27-28 which reads, “For as

many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor

Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in

Christ Jesus.” This was quite the statement in the first century. In essence, it attempted to

break down all significant societal divisions because of one’s place in Christ. Philip B.

Payne argues that Paul believes in the equality of man and woman in Christ using this

verse and also 1 Cor. 11:11. George E. Wilson also sides with Payne on this, claiming

Paul’s theology of equality centers here in this passage and works to help the church

operate counter-culturally in a [Jewish] culture that frowned upon Gentiles (or barbarians

to the Greeks), slaves and women.

Consider this common Jewish prayer that was formulated and recited near this

time period: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast not

made me a Gentile…a slave…[or] a woman.” Also, as Eliezer Segar notes, “…ancient

Greek tradition ascribed variously to Thales, Socrates, or Plato. The sage in question was

allegedly in the habit of thanking God for three things: “that I was born a human and not a

beast; a man and not a woman; a Greek and not a Barbarian.” It does not seem to be far-

fetched to assume that the early church, especially the Corinthians, was influenced by

popular thoughts such as these by the surrounding culture. It would not at all be too

much to assume that new Gentile converts had a hard time adjusting to the radical change

in thought from their pagan culture to that of being in Christ, much as we see with new

converts today who have never known Christ. Nor does it seem by chance that Paul

2
would address these three common distinctions in the very same order that both Jewish

and Greek prayers addressed. Paul was likely combating a very common train of thought

that was brought into churches from surrounding culture and tried to put an end to it with

his eschatological view for those in Christ. With this in mind as the framework for Paul’s

possible overall eschatological view for the church, we will look at the varying

viewpoints on Paul’s other prohibitive statements.

There are five primary arguments that will be addressed in the following section,

each one dealing with different nuances in the two Corinthian passages, in chapters 11

and 14, with references to 1 Timothy. The first that will be discussed is the argument for

the order of creation or headship, followed by how the translation of the Greek word

kephalē as “head” or “source” affects our reading of the passage overall, then the

translation of anēr and gynē and its effect on our reading of the passages in chapter 11.

Then, moving to chapter 14, two different theories will be discussed, one with verses

34-35 as an interpolation and the other with the same verses as a Corinthian statement

that Paul is quoting.

Beginning with an argument that is generally posed by those who side with a

complementarian viewpoint, 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is a difficult passage to parse. For starters, it

is quite cryptic in its meaning already. It seems to be quite ambiguous and there is quite a

lot of difficulty with plain translation, as most scholars have displayed in their varying

statements. This is generally labeled as a passage that promotes headship via Paul’s

argument through the creation narrative, particularly the order of creation. Notable here

is the apparent significance that Paul places on Adam’s place in the order, being before

woman, where Paul says that he “is the image and glory of God.” Immediately after,

3
woman is described as simply “the glory of man.” It seems quite clear that Paul is

arguing for man having headship over woman already, for after this statement he says,

“For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for

the sake of woman, but woman for man” (1 Cor. 11:8-9). As Blomberg contends, this

simply goes to show that Galatians 3:28 does not allot for a full inclusion of women in

leadership positions, but does, however, allow for equal standing in Christ. This

argument takes the translation of kephalē as “head” in the metaphorical sense, taking for

granted that “head” was used as a term expressing authority, much like our usage today

(head of household, of the company, etc.). Hays takes a slightly different position on this

stating that it should actually be interpreted as “authority” but in the sense that the woman

has authority (control) over her own head.

If the interpretation of this passage does in fact infer that of headship, then this

also implies the subordination of the Son to the Father, which creates more tension as

well if Jesus’ statements are true, that He and the Father are one. This must imply the

Son incarnate referring to His time on earth, rather than the eternal resurrected Son, if this

distinction may be drawn. The hierarchical nature of this translation seems to go against

Paul’s other thoughts on organized church worship and function, especially in light of

Gal. 3:28 and the Genesis narrative. As Payne asserts, “Genesis presents gender equality,

rather than male leadership, as humanity’s created state...Male hierarchy over women is

not in God’s original design. The first mention of male rule is in Gen. 3:16, which

identifies it as a direct result of the fall: “He will rule over you.” Even prominent male

hierarchists agree that this “is not a prescription of what should be. Like every other result

of the fall, it is a negative change.” The curse that is spoken by God in the Genesis

4
narrative, by this train of thought, seems then to be primarily descriptive rather than

prescriptive. God describes the new condition of the relationship of man and woman to

one another and each to the earth. It does not appear that God was creating in a

hierarchical matter, but rather with the intent that all creation be in harmony, particularly

man and woman with God.

This leads naturally to the next argument on the egalitarian side: translating

kephalē as “source” rather than “head.” When describing Christ as head, Paul says that

“every man” has Christ as head. This is interesting, since not every man acknowledges

Christ, much less as his authority. It is for this reason that Payne believes kephalē should

be interpreted “source” rather than “authority.” If we take this to mean “source,” it seems

that the following interpretation would be suitable, that the Father is the source of the

Incarnation, Christ is the source of man, and Adam is the source of Eve, but as Blomberg

points out, “the vast majority of all church history has understood “head” as “authority.”

Hays also denies the translation of kephalē as “source” claiming that the patriarchal

implications of verse 3 are too heavily asserted to be avoided. But, he also acknowledges

the earlier statements made by Paul on behalf of women’s inclusion in the worship

service by providing that they were “free to pray and prophesy” as long as they did so

properly, per Paul’s request. If Preston T. Massey is correct in his assumptions about the

culture, this would have been Paul’s call to propriety of women in the assembly, rather

than being seen as promiscuous.

This particular argument did not seem as convincing as some of the others, but it

was interesting to see how this may possibly be interpreted. It is still a possible

translation, but seems less likely until further evidence may be found of the likelihood of

5
“source” as a credible interpretation of kephalē. Payne’s point for the validity of its

translation as “source” is most convincing of all points, arguing through the logic of

Paul’s statements regarding Christ as authority of all men, but still does not seem to

provide enough textual evidence to come to a determined conclusion as of yet.

Next to be addressed is how we might translate anēr and gynē. These two words

have given translators much trouble in this passage with many commentaries reading

them as “man and woman” and others as “husband and wife.” Complementarians and

egalitarians debate over this translation, each arguing for the translations respectively.

Complementarians argue, naturally from the perspective of a hierarchical view of church

leadership with regard to gender, “man and woman,” but, as Massey contends, it would

be better and more accurately translated “husband and wife, because of the fact that it is

much more often translated in the New Testament as such.

The church over the course of history, as stated above, has generally taken the

view of the complementarian perspective, which bears a lot of weight on how we might

translate the verse, but does not necessarily imply that “man and woman” is the absolute

translation and interpretation of these words. This passage has 1 Timothy 3:1-7 on its

side, as we look at what is typically titled “Qualification for Elders,” which describes the

qualities of a man in church leadership. Literally translated in 1 Tim. 3:2, instead of

“husband of one wife,” it says, “man of one woman.” Payne takes advantage of this

literal translation claiming that it is an idiom expressing, not literally a husband, but

rather a monogamous person to be considered for the position of elder. This is an

interesting point and Grenz and Kjesbo suggest a possible argument for one, and possibly

the only, female elder in the New Testament found in 2 John 1.

6
 Following these are the two remaining arguments in attempts to try and harmonize

the apparent conflicts in Paul’s letters. Moving to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 we see a

seemingly firm statement requiring that all women in Paul’s churches to be silent. As

Marshall Janzen points out, “Threefold repetition was a common technique used by Jews,

Greeks, and Hellenistic Romans to emphasize the absolute nature of a statement.” If this

is true, we have a complex issue here trying to make this statement jibe with what Paul

said earlier in chapter 11 with female prayer and prophesy, which is presupposed when he

makes the statement about it. In order to make this text coherent, many try to simply do

away with it. Suggested here is the idea that this is an interpolated text unoriginal to

Paul, some even say this about chapter 11:2-16 as well. There are some thoughts

presented that provide quite convincing cases, though, maintaining that 11:2-16 is in fact

in its proper place. While this text seems to agree with the passage in 1 Tim., Janzen

believes that it is much harsher than 1 Cor. 14:34-35.

In response to these theories, primarily in response to Gordon Fee, Curt Niccum

states simply and concisely in the conclusion to his article, “The Voice of the Manuscripts

on the Silence of Women,” “No extant MS offers evidence of an original omission of 1

Cor 14.34-5.” Other authors agree, but make some concessions in an effort to still

reconcile the passage, most often still suggesting that it is an interpolation, but was

simply a marginal note made by Paul that was very quickly included in the body of the

text after the first or second transmission and taken as original. These other authors try to

help the letter make sense by appealing to the greater majority of scholarship viewing this

as a post-Pauline gloss. This can only be speculation, of course, as Curt Niccum has

pointed out, because of the fact that there simply are no existing extant manuscripts that

7
provide us with enough information to assume that this is the case, that this particular

passage is an interpolation. This being the case results in believers today simply having

to wrestle with the fact that these difficult and controversial passages must be considered

and weighed and a conclusion must be drawn with them in mind. They may not be

dismissed as the interpolation theory implies might be done.

Finally, the last position that will be considered is that of the quotation theory.

This theory states that Paul is quoting a Corinthian position in response to a letter they

had written him prior to 1 Corinthians. Few actually provide much room for this theory,

but still work hard to use it to harmonize Paul’s thought, appearing to range from full

inclusion to absolute prohibition within the span of a few chapters. Janzen suggests, “If 1

Corinthians 14:34-35 quotes a Corinthian position, attempting to harmonize the verses

with the rest of the letter would undermine Paul’s own words by catering to the opinion

he is rebuking!” This is a helpful thought and proves to be quite calming, if one holds the

opinion that Paul was actually an egalitarian, because it allows his position on women

speaking or having authority to flourish as he denounces the Corinthian position of total

silence. Janzen continues a few pages later, “It is fitting that this is a quote since Paul

concludes his argument before the text under dispute and delivers a rebuke after it.” If

this is the case, then it would settle the issue quite well, but Blomberg denies it, using

evidence of this passage not matching Paul’s quotations in other places. This argument

would be quite convincing, and still may offer insight into the possibility of Paul’s actual

views regarding the issue. But, before drawing a definitive conclusion on this, we must

more fully examine any evidence we have inherent in Scripture and culture to understand

just what Paul meant when he wrote these controversial words.

8
 So, we examine the stance of the culture, which was briefly stated above, Paul’s

thought, and the practice of churches that we see in the New Testament. The culture

around the time of Paul was highly patristic, as we see throughout Scripture, evidenced by

both Old and New Testaments. We see the thought of the culture from both Jews and

Greeks toward women, being thankful that God had made them men and not the threefold

blunder of their day: a Gentile (or barbarian), slave, or woman. Again, it may be very

likely that Paul is addressing this very thought in Gal. 3:28, as it is in the same order and

Paul is discussing the “new creation” in the letter to the Galatians, redefining culture once

it finds its place in Christ. Again, keeping in mind Paul’s thoughts on new creation in

Christ, we move to the churches in the New Testament and examine their practices and

roles.

First we will look at the different offices mentioned in Paul’s letters, since it

seems that by the time he is writing, he seems to have written enough for us to see what

was generally practiced amongst churches. It appears that several roles have been

mentioned in his letters that may or may not have been considered an “office.” These

titles include: apostle, teacher, preacher, elder (episkopos), patron (prostatis), prophet,

deacon (diakonos), and co-worker. Now the question of who was given these titles must

be asked. Those who bore these titles included, but are not limited to: Phoebe, Prisca and

Aquila, Dorcas, the daughters of Simeon, Paul, Peter, Junia, Tryphena and Tryphosa,

Barnabas, Timothy, and Persis, with the possibility of Mary. Paul clearly had a higher

view of women than has been supposed by our interpretation and it is made clear by the

sheer number of women he considered his fellow workers, essentially equals.

Chrysostom even goes so far as to acknowledge Junia (1) as a woman and (2) as

9
praiseworthy and significant for her to be considered a prominent apostle. Paul praised

and lauded the women whom he considered his co-workers in the faith and did not show

disdain for their positions of authority in their various churches. It seems to be clear now

that his commands, should they be taken as such, do not mean exactly what they appear to

mean. With so many women in acknowledged leadership positions, this is a safe

assumption.

To briefly address the tension brought about by 1 Tim. 2:11-12, Paul seems to

appeal to Genesis 3 and the account of the fall. Many draw heavily from this and place

woman at the center of the issue, as Adam does, and places eternal blame on the second

gender of humanity. She was to be a “helper” to Adam, but instead caused the fall. First,

“helper” is the same term used of God and, to quote Payne, “Never in the Bible…does

‘ēzer suggest ‘helper’ as in ‘servant,’ but almost always describes God as his people’s

rescuer, strength, or might.” Therefore, this does not inherently make this word to mean

or imply subordination since it was taken to mean various and greater things for God in

early hearers’ ears. Second, Karen W. Hoover acknowledges the fault of the man, free to

make his own decision, he chooses to indulge and participate in the eating of the fruit.

“Both the man and the woman were called before God to account for their transgression.”

Though this text is not fully prohibitive, as 1 Cor. 14:34-35 appears to be, it is still not

inclusive and seems to go against Paul’s thought in Gal. 3:28.

With this in mind, we must look at the women who were allowed to speak. The

first of these is Priscilla. First mentioned in Acts 18:2, Priscilla (or Prisca) is mentioned

ahead of her husband, Aquila, suggesting that in these matters she was the one in charge

or played the dominant role. Being in a patristic society, one can imagine that this bore

10
significance in this writing. It may be inferred that there were issues between genders in

each of the letters, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, because of the subjects introduced

concerning male and female relationships and responsibilities in the formal worship

setting. Of the six times their names are mentioned in conjunction with one another

(Priscilla and Aquila) only once, in 1 Corinthians, does Paul mention Aquila first,

presumably to preserve peace for the sake of cultural sensibilities. This goes to show the

high esteem in which Priscilla was held by both Luke and Paul, reversing the traditional

order of names and placing hers first.

The writing of 1 Timothy is also placed in Ephesus, bearing some weight on the

argument that this was, at the very least, not a universal command for all time. Written

about 10 years after the letter to the Corinthians, Paul, or the author, rather, might not

have intended that Priscilla be silenced, since she would have been there at or near the

time of this letter. It is safe to assume, at least, that this was not a command that was to

stand the test of time, but was a temporary solution to an urgent issue: false doctrine.

This makes sense of the other part of the command, not only for women to be silent, but

to learn as well, possibly so that they may be able to teach sound doctrine.

Second to be acknowledged is Junia. As was mentioned above, Chrysostom made

special mention of Junia and the honor it would have been to be considered prominent

among the apostles. Junia (Gk. Iunias) has been argued to have been a man, but this is

simply not possible. There are no records that can be found of either a Greek or Latin

name that was common for males that would be transliterated Junias in English. One

cannot imagine a silent apostle who is recognized by Paul, especially as being prominent,

so it is highly unlikely that Paul’s injunctions applied to either woman named thus far.

11
 Phoebe was another woman named in Paul’s letter to the Romans. In the letter,

she is referred to as a diakonos, the Greek word for servant or deacon. Generally, this

word is translated as “servant” because of the connotation that it holds as such. But, it

may be argued that this word in this particular context may be accurately translated as

“deacon” in reference to Phoebe because of its connection to both her and in association

with a particular church, Cenchrea. Another word generally carrying the weight of

authority is used to describe her as well, prostatis, or patron. In 16:2 it is translated in

many English versions as “great help” or a similar term, but the Greek carries the weight

of a benefactor or patron, someone who is a financial supporter of another. None of these

few examples seem to support that Paul’s supposed universal commands were applied “in

all churches everywhere.”

So how many women actually kept silent during worship services, at least in

Corinth? In 1 Cor. 11:2-16 Paul does not command that women be silent, but rather that

they pray and prophesy in a proper manner. Paul here is not preventing women from

speaking, he’s encouraging proper and culturally-sensitive awareness of those who might

be outsiders coming in. This is in line with the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 that Peter quotes

in Acts 2:17-21, that both men and women would prophesy and appears to be fully

inclusive, not only of man and woman, but of slave and free, young and old, of all

humanity. The original prophecy of Joel was gender inclusive and not limited

specifically to men, but both “sons and daughters,” and was carried into the church on the

day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Paul is on the side of this prophecy in 1 Cor. 11:2-16, but

asking women to pray and prophesy, as the passage implies they are doing already, only

in a proper manner.

12
 Another question arises from this: would Paul encourage women to pray and

prophesy properly only to silence them absolutely (as Janzen noted above) a few chapters

later? Though there is not much evidence nor heavily weighed opinion for the quotation

theory, it seems to be the most coherent and allows for both passages to be inherent to the

text. If Paul is, in fact, quoting the Corinthians, then we see that this issue is one that is

not completely nor very easily resolved, but seems to keep in sync with Paul’s thought

and practice. It is, admittedly not without its own weaknesses as Blomberg pointed out

above. Most convincing of this thought is not the external evidence of the culture, an

original copy of the Corinthian letter to Paul, or an extant manuscript providing 1 Cor.

14:34-35 as a quote in the margins, but rather the power and pride which Paul asserted

the women had in their authority and ability to teach and lead in the various churches Paul

acknowledged. Women like Prisca and Phoebe especially play a significant role in

showing that women did have authority and did speak, sometimes even before or “over” a

man in teaching situations to another man.

This last example is powerful and effective when considering a cultural nuance of

marriage and propriety in public. Men and women were often expected to speak to and

associate with those of the same gender, otherwise generating suspicion of adultery or

promiscuity. Assuming this was the norm, Priscilla may not only have been the primary

teacher of Apollos, but possibly the only teacher of Apollos, simply having Aquila

present so as not to generate suspicion of inappropriate behavior. Women were seen as

being alluring and tempting to any man and men were to beware of this fact, taking care

to not so much as utter a word to a woman in public to avoid all suspicion.

Unfortunately there is no general consensus among scholars as to what

13
significance these passages hold for us today, nor what exactly they meant to those whom

they were written. A few things may be very well asserted, however. Baptism was a

practice that was universally, socioeconomically, racially, and gender-inclusive which

replaced the male-only practice of circumcision (as Paul argues in Galatians). There were

issues that the early church had to face concerning those newly converted from pagan

religions who had to adjust to Christianity, likely causing division in the church between

those who had been educated (most men) and those who had not (most women). We do

not face today many of the challenges the early church did as far as education is

concerned and have many more men and women who are readily available to serve and

teach in churches today. Most of our challenge comes from taking commands literally

and ignoring discrepancies that may be in the text as has been mentioned several times in

this paper. It is my personal belief and conviction after this study that Paul had in mind

an ultimate and eschatological view for the church that was egalitarian in practice and

appearance. I appreciate the comments by Blomberg considering a contextual argument

that applies to our circumstances today and by Hays who looks to the ultimate goal of

Paul’s vision of full inclusion of Christian followers in the Spirit.

As difficult as it is to land on any one particular theory to help come to a

conclusion on how Paul believed women should behave in worship and whether they

should serve as leaders with authority over both men and women, it is not the theories

themselves that matter. Ultimately, one must consider the “problem” texts as present in

the passages and as ones that must be dealt with responsibly. They are not easily

dismissed, and so will forever be deemed to be “handled with care.” The apostle Paul

most certainly never desired for there to be so much confusion and debate, but more than

14
any theory, his practice sheds the most light on how he believed women would be

included in their service to the body of Christ.

15
Baum, Armin D. “Paul’s Conflicting Statements on Public Speaking (1 Cor. 11:5) and
Silence (1 Cor. 14:34-35): A New Suggestion.” Tyndale Bulletin 65.2 (2014):
247-74.
Blomberg, Craig. The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians. Edited by Terry
Muck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Bowman, Ann L. “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.”
Bibliotheca Sacra 149.594 (1992). 193-213
Grenz, Stanley J. and Denise M. Kjesbo. Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of
Women in Ministry. Madison, WI: InterVarsity, 1995.
Hays, Richard B. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. First
Corinthians. Edited by James L. Mays. Louisville: John Knox, 1997.
Hoover, Karen W. “Creative Tension in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.” Brethren Life and Thought
22.3 (1977). 163-66.
Janzen, Marshall. “Orderly Participation or Silenced Women? Clashing Views on Decent
Worship in 1 Corinthians 14.” Direction 42.1 (2013). 55-70.
Johnson, Lee A. “Women and Glossolalia in Pauline Communities: The Relationship
between Pneumatic Gifts and Authority.” Biblical Interpretation 21-2 (2013):
196-214.
Massey, Preston T. “Gender Versus Marital Concerns: Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Address the Issues of Male/Female or Husband/Wife?” Tyndale Bulletin 64.2
(2013) 239-56.
Niccum, Curt. “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External
Evidence for 1 Cor. 14.34-5.” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 242-55.
Payne, Philip B. “The Bible Teaches the Equal Standing of Man and Woman.” Priscilla
Papers 29.1 (2015) 3-10.
Payne, Philip B. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study
of Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Reid, Barbara E. “Women and Paul: Was Paul an Egalitarian or a Chauvanist?” America
Magazine 199.15 (2008): 20-22.
Segal, Eliezer. “Who Has Not Made Me a Woman.” No Pages. Cited 31 March 2016.
Online: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-has-not-made-me-a-
woman/#
Talbert, Charles H. “Paul’s Understanding of the Holy Spirit: The Evidence of 1
Corinthians 12-14.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 11.4 (1984). 95-108.
Walker Jr. WM. O. “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul’s Views Regarding Women.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 94.1 (1975) 94-110.
Wilson, George E. “Preaching with Womanist Concerns.” The Covenant Quarterly 72.1
(2014). 39-53.

16