Day: May 10, 2020

Women in the Church: Summary and Conclusion

The conclusion to the study series Women in the Church, which has been posted here over the past week to commemorate Mother’s Day (May 10, 2020). The articles in this series are cited in the summary below.

Having examined the most relevant passages in the Scriptures—Old and New Testaments—as well as the evidence from early Christianity taken overall, through the notes and articles of this series, it remains to offer a summary of this evidence, so as to frame a useful concluding assessment of the issues at hand. During this series, I began with the specific passages in the Pauline Letters (Parts 1–6), moving back to examine the New Testament and (earlier) Old Testament as a whole (Parts 7–8). Here, in summary, I will reverse the process.

The Old Testament

When considering the Old Testament passages, it is most important to recognize the ancient Near Eastern cultural context. From the later Bronze and Iron Ages (c. 2000-500 B.C.), down through the Greek and Roman periods, society was predominantly patriarchal and patrilineal—that is, male-oriented, with emphasis given to the position of father, husband, and (eldest) son. The laws, government, and social conventions of Israel naturally reflect this, and we must be careful not to assume that such historical-cultural circumstances, as they are reflected in the Old Testament Law (Torah), are binding on later Jews and Christians. As a similar example, the acceptance of the institution of slavery in Israelite society certainly does not mean that it ought to be accepted by Christians today.

When we turn specifically to the religious side of things, there are three key points which, I believe, can be established with reasonably certainty (cf. the discussion in Part 8):

    1. With but few exceptions, in the Law and the practice of Israelite religion, men and women had more or less equal status. Apart from the priesthood, women were able to participate in the rituals and feasts alongside men, with little or no restriction. Similarly, access to the Tabernacle does not seem to have been limited; only in later Jewish tradition were portions of the Temple reserved for men. Perhaps more importantly, the sacrificial ritual—in terms of sin, cleansing, and redemption, etc—applied to men and women with little apparent distinction.
    2. The Priesthood was reserved for men—that is, for Aaron and his descendents, as well as the males from the tribe of Levi (the Levites).
    3. Men and women could serve equally as inspired/authoritative Prophets.

The New Testament

When we turn to the New Testament (Part 7), the evidence is similarly mixed. On the one hand, Jesus’ circle of close disciples, those specifically chosen by him to serve as his representatives (apostles), were all men. At the same time, there were women who followed him, and traveled/stayed together with him (alongside the men). The evidence for this is relatively slight (cf. Lk 8:1-3; Mk 15:40-41 par), but established well enough to be completely reliable (on objective grounds). Moreover, Jesus’ dealing with women (also well-established in Gospel tradition) were frequent and distinctive enough to cause comment and objection among observers (Lk 7:36-39; Jn 4:7-30, etc), indicating that he may have challenged the accepted social conventions, in certain respects, regarding the interaction of men and women. Martha and Mary, sisters of Lazarus, should be counted among Jesus’ close friends and followers (Lk 10:38-42; Jn 11:5, 19-27 ff; 12:1-3ff). Perhaps the most important Gospel tradition regarding women is the appearance of Mary Magdalene (along with other women) at the tomb; they were the first to see the empty tomb, encounter the resurrected Jesus, and to proclaim the good news of the Gospel (i.e., the resurrection). Mention should also be made of the role of Mary, mother of Jesus, especially within the Lukan narrative (Lk 1:26-56; 2:5-7, 16-38ff; 8:19-21; Acts 1:14).

In the book of Acts, there is a strong egalitarian character to the early Christian community, in which men and women are mentioned together as believers without any apparent distinction (1:14ff, etc). The Spirit comes upon them all as they are gathered together in one place (2:1-4ff), the gift and manifestation of the Spirit coming to men and women both, in fulfillment of the key prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 (Acts 2:17-21). Admittedly, those mentioned as apostles (a)po/stoloi) in Acts are all men, as well as the seven chosen as “servants/ministers” (“to serve”, diakone/w) in Acts 6. Indeed, throughout the entire New Testament, there is only one (possible) instance where a woman is referred to as an apostle (Junia in Rom 16:7, discussed in Part 4), but the interpretation of this reference is by no means certain. However, women do feature prominently throughout the book of Acts, and are mentioned among the notable early converts to the faith. Perhaps most significant is Priscilla who, with her husband Aquila, served as Christian leaders (ministers) in three different cities—Corinth, Ephesus and Rome. Priscilla (or Prisca) was a close companion and fellow-minister of Paul (Acts 18:3, 18; Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19), who appears in Acts 18. The role she plays (with her husband) in instructing Apollos (v. 26) is a key New Testament reference for our subject, though its import should not be exaggerated.

The Pauline Letters

Five primary passages in the letters—1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:33-36; Gal 3:28; Rom 16:1-2ff, and 1 Tim 2:11-15—were discussed in detail in Parts 1–5 (cf. also the overview study in Part 6). Here I will summarize the overall evidence, distilling it into a number of central points. I begin with the letters where Pauline authorship is more or less undisputed (esp. Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians):

  • When Paul refers to women who are his companions and fellow-workers, he does so without any special distinction to suggest that they serve a lesser or subordinate role. As I discussed in Part 4 (on Rom 16:1-2ff), he uses the terms dia/konoi (“servant/minister”) and sunergoi/ (“co-workers”), etc, equally of men and women, without any apparent qualification; and may even use a)po/stolo$ (apostle) of a women (Junia) in Rom 16:7.
  • Based on the references in 1 Corinthians and Romans, it would seem also that men and women receive the various spiritual “gifts” (charismata) equally, with little or no restriction (with the possible exception of the ‘highest’ gift, apostleship). As such, women would have been expected to exercise their gift (i.e. ministry) within the life of the Community.
  • Women could serve as “prophets” (the second ‘highest’) gift within the Community. This included speaking—delivering prophetic messages—within the congregational meeting (1 Cor 11:2-16). The only restriction Paul lays upon them is that they prophesy with their head covered (wearing a covering over their head/hair). Cf. the extensive discussion in Part 1, along with the notes on 1 Cor 11:10.
  • Paul does seem to accept some (hierarchical) distinction between men and women in the congregation which does effect their ministerial role and position in certain ways (cf. the discussion in Parts 1 and 2). The extent to which he restricts the role of women in this regard is based on two main factors: (1) observing accepted social custom, and (2) an interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis 1-3. The latter factor is most problematic from our standpoint today, and yet it cannot be ignored.
  • At the same time, we have the fundamental statement in Galatians 3:28c—”in (Christ) there is no male and female”—which would seem to abolish gender distinctions among believers, just as it does for religious-cultural (Jew/Gentile) and socio-economic (slave/free) distinctions (v. 28ab). While this is certainly true in terms of basic Christian identity (note the baptism context), Paul does not seem (or was not willing) to apply the principle absolutely in practice. I discuss the subject in Part 3, and in a set of supplemental notes on Gal 3:28. Interestingly, this statement (with the specific expression “male and female”) almost certainly ties back to the Creation narrative as well.

Mention should also be made of the Pauline tradition recorded in Acts 14:23 and again in 20:17ff, whereby Paul (and, presumably, other Apostles) appointed elders (presbu/teroi) to lead and guide the congregations established in the various cities. There may be an echo of this in Phil 1:1, but it becomes far more prominent in the Pastoral letters, which present a stronger and more distinctive picture of church organization and government than we see in the undisputed Pauline letters. I discuss this at length in Parts 5 (on 1 Tim 2:11-15) and 6. If the Pastoral letters are genuinely by Paul, and relatively early (c. 60-63 A.D.), then it is necessary to study them closely in comparison with the relevant passages in 1 Corinthians, etc. However, if they (esp. 1 Timothy) are pseudonymous, and a later product (c. 80-100?), then we must consider the traditions and instruction contained in them in a somewhat different light—as part of the subsequent ecclesiastical development in the early Church (cf. below). Folding the Pastorals into the overall evidence from the Pauline letters, we should distinguish several key terms which play an important part in understanding the roles of men and women in ministry in the New Testament period:

  • Apostle (a)po/stolo$)—as mentioned above, with one possible exception, this title is only applied to men. Traditionally, it goes back to the idea of those disciples (the Twelve, etc) whom Jesus appointed and “sent forth” as his representatives, to proclaim the Gospel, work miracles, and, ultimately, to establish congregations (churches) of believers around the world. Paul uses the term frequently (25 times in the undisputed letters), often in reference to himself and the ministry to which God has called him.
  • Servant/Minister (dia/kono$)—With one possible exception (Phil 1:1), Paul always uses the term in a general sense—applying it to himself and his co-workers (men and women alike)—as a minister (lit. “servant”) of Christ and the Gospel. In the Pastoral letters (1 Tim 3:8-13), the word seems to refer to a more distinct role or “office” in the Church, as it certainly came to be in later tradition (but note the general sense of the word still in 4:6). The context of 3:8ff seems to assume that these ministers are men, though, because of the ambiguity surrounding verse 11, we cannot be certain of this.
  • Elder (presbu/tero$)—According to the tradition(s) in Acts 14:23; 20:17ff, Paul established “elders” (presumably gender-specific, i.e. men) to “oversee” and guide/lead the congregations. However, Paul never once uses this term in any of the undisputed letters, which is indeed surprising. By contrast, it is used a number of times in the Pastoral letters (Titus 1:5; 1 Tim 5:17, 19, cf. also 4:14), where almost certainly it refers to men. In this context (5:9-16), widows functioned as a type of “female elder”.
  • Overseer (e)pi/skopo$)—This term is used in Phil 1:1, as parallel to, but distinct from, that of “minister” (dia/kono$). According to Acts 20:28, it would have referred to the elders appointed to guide and oversee the congregation(s) in a particular city or region. In early Christian parlance, it was essentially synonymous with the term “shepherd” (poimh/n), which was probably the older traditional term (cf. 1 Pet 2:25). As such, it corresponds generally with the English word “pastor”. The Pastoral letters (1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:7-9) provide instruction regarding overseers, who, according to the context, should be understood as elders who function in a leading role, though the distinction between overseer and elder was not as pronounced as it would subsequently become in the early Church, and the translation “bishop” should be avoided. Based on the example of the narrative setting of the Pastorals, Titus and Timothy functioned as overseers of all the churches in a particular region (Crete and the area around Ephesus, respectively).
  • Prophet (profh/th$)—This is the distinctive role in the earliest Christian congregations for which there is the best support for women serving. Going all the way back to the ancient (Old Testament) tradition of female prophets, the foundational use and interpretation of Joel 2:28-32 among early Christians established the acceptance of women functioning as prophets in the Churches, though the direct evidence for this is relatively slight (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor 11:2-16). Presumably, the majority of Christian prophets were men, but there would seem to be no restriction on women in this role, except for the cultural observance required by Paul in 1 Cor 11.
  • Teacher (dida/skalo$)—This may understood in terms of one who exercises the distinct (spiritual) gift of teaching, or as the specific role of the elder/overseer. The latter sense is emphasized in the Pastoral letters, in the context of transmitting and preserving the correct (Apostolic) tradition, passed down from men like Paul. Originally, it would have related more directly to the proclamation of the Gospel. In the charismatic context of the Pauline churches (e.g. in Corinth), it likely refers to special inspired instruction, under the guidance of the Spirit, closely related to the gifts of prophecy and the imparting of spiritual knowledge (revelation). Of considerable importance are the passages (1 Cor 14:33-35; 1 Tim 2:11-15) which seem to restrict women in functioning as teachers in the congregation; on this, cf. Parts 2 and 5, and the separate note on “teach/teaching” in the Pauline letters.

Early Christianity

The principles and points of Church organization contained in the Pastoral letters are continued and developed in the early Church, as can be seen by a survey of the evidence from the so-called Apostolic Fathers (writings c. 90-160 A.D., cf. Part 9). Over time, a distinct hierarchical structure with official positions (“offices”) developed, centered on the principle of episcopal (from e)pi/skopo$, cf. above) authority. Women came to be increasingly excluded from leading ministerial roles; at the same time, certain positions—Widows and Virgins—tied to the (ascetic) ideal of ministerial celibacy and virginity, gained in prominence. However, by the 5th century, women had been officially barred from any kind of priestly activity (i.e. approaching the altar, administering baptism, etc), from teaching doctrine, serving as deacons, and so forth. It is hard to say whether the Gnostic Christian groups were more accepting of the participation of women in leading roles, as might be assumed from the language and female characters/images featured in many of their texts. For more on this, cf. the article “Women in Gnosticism”.

It was in the Monastic movements, begun in the mid/late-3rd century, that women would find their place (and empowerment) as ministers within the Church. Female solitaries and communities (i.e. monasteries) spread alongside the male monks and houses, all throughout the ancient Near East (beginning in Egypt), then the entire Greco-Roman world, and, eventually, into Europe. The monastic community (monastery) functioned as a sub-culture, a separate society within the larger Christian community. As such, while women were still under the authority of (male) bishops and priests, they had the ability to govern themselves. At first, the majority of monks and nuns (the traditional title for female monks) came primarily from the upper classes, but, as the tradition expanded, women from lower segments of society had opportunity to join and participate in the communities.

The Medieval and Reformation Periods

For centuries, while there was relatively little change in the official position(s) of women, either in the Church or society at large, the opportunities for participation and expression within Monasticism were considerable indeed. A rich Monastic culture developed, for both men an women, maintaining centers of learning and art throughout the so-called “Dark Ages”. By the time of the high Middle Ages (12-14th centuries), a good number of women in the monasteries were highly educated and skilled in many areas (including art, music, medicine, and other sciences). Many beautiful and erudite examples of writings from female authors have survived, such as those of the “Rhineland Mystics” in Germany. Of the many notable names from the period, one could mention Elisabeth of Schönau, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Gertrude of Helfta, Hadewijch, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena and Julian of Norwich. The great abbess Hildegard of Bingen, at the peak of her career (c. 1150), was, along with Bernard of Clairvaux, perhaps the most influential Christian leader in all of Europe. Hildegard’s legacy, her writings, and the evidence of her vast learning and creativity, have made her an inspirational figure for many women today.

In the era of the Renaissance in western Europe (14th-15th centuries), humanist trends prompted a marked increase in the status (and education) of women, at least among the upper classes and members of the aristocracy. In England, Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII, was an important patron of learning and played a role in the growth of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Women such as Christine de Pizan, Cecilia Gonzaga, Isabella d’Este, Cassandra Fedele, Margaret of Navarre, and Margaret Roper (daughter of Sir Thomas More) could be counted among the most gifted and educated persons in Europe.

Sadly, the legacy of the Protestant Reformation with regard to the role and status of women is rather mixed. On the one hand, the closure of monasteries in the Protestant territories cut off those opportunities for women, effectively forcing them into the more traditional family roles of wife and mother. With very rare exceptions, women did not serve in any sort of leading ministerial position in the Protestant churches. This was true even among the Anabaptists, who were somewhat more tolerant and liberal-minded in certain respects. Only in the Spiritualist traditions, such as the Quakers of the 17th century, were women allowed more freedom to function as ministers in the congregation. At the same time, there can be little doubt that the Reformation, in the long run, was influential in helping to shape democratic and egalitarian ideals, emphasizing personal freedom and basic human rights, in Western society over the centuries to come.

The Situation Today

In more recent times, of course, ideals of liberty, equality and human rights have gained more prominence in society, aided both by religious and secular (humanistic) philosophical principles. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, there have been strong and widespread movements championing civil rights for (ethnic) minorities and for women. There has been much success in terms of women’s rights—i.e. to vote, pursue higher education, function in professional occupations previously reserved for men, and so on. To be sure, even today many of the ancient biases, prejudice and mistreatment of women remain, but the fundamental principle of the equality of men and women (including the ideal of equal opportunity) is emphasized today, in the United States and other nations, as never before. The Church can, and ought, to be at the forefront of the struggle for equality and empowerment. Yet it is just at this point that many Christians find themselves at a crossroads between two different viewpoints—the modern mindset stressing gender equality, and the ancient (male-dominated) worldview reflected in the Scriptures. In early Christianity this ancient outlook has been re-interpreted and modified by leaders such as Paul, but it is not quite the same the modern view. There remains considerable tension as to how, and to what extent, we may combine the perspectives and hold them in balance—respecting and remaining faithful to the teachings in the Scriptures without ignoring important areas of social progress.

Concluding Note

For those who wish to better understand the Scriptural evidence (and teaching) regarding the role of Women in the Church, I hope that this series as been helpful and inspiring. I have tried to be as faithful and objective as possible, without reading modern concerns into the various passages. However, if one wishes to apply the New Testament evidence overall to the situation of churches today, this perhaps could be done best by focusing on the two leading roles in early Christianity—that of apostle and prophet.

1. Apostle—According to the New Testament witness, the apostles (a)po/stoloi), the ones “sent out”, i.e. by Jesus, were, it would seem, all men. While this may simply reflect the patriarchal, male-oriented character of the society, it has to be admitted that it was fundamental to early church organization. The apostles and their own representatives (also “apostles”, in a sense), as missionaries throughout the Near Eastern and Greco-Roman world, in the establishment of churches, appointed elders to govern and oversee (i.e. the role of “overseer”) the congregation(s). As far as we can tell, these elders—persons mature and responsible in the faith—were all men, though there may have been corresponding female “elders” to oversee the younger women in the congregation. The role of elder/overseer more or less corresponds with the traditional figure of pastor in Protestant churches. This emphasis on male authority, according to the early Christian way of thinking, represents the vertical dimension of Church structure—i.e., a hierarchy of authority.

2. Prophet—As is clear from the foundational use of Joel 2:28-32 in Peter’s Pentecost speech in the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit comes upon men and women equally, and they all are to prophesy. The existence and acceptance of female prophets is reasonably well-established in early Christianity (cf. above). It is only in the second century, following the New Testament (Apostolic) period, that the role disappears, kept alive at the fringes by heterodox/charismatic movements such as Montanism (cf. the discussion in Part 9). This raises the question as to whether the role and function of prophet in the New Testament reflects a temporary gifting, limited to the New Testament period, or whether it relates to believers today. I discuss this question in the note on 1 Cor 13:8. On the whole, I find no evidence in the New Testament to suggest that this role of prophet/prophecy was not expected to last until the return of Christ. In traditional terms, the prophet was a spokesperson or representative (of God), who communicated the word and will of God to the people at large (i.e. the believers of the Community). As such, it corresponds generally to the role of preacher (and/or teacher) today. Using the same model as above, it also could be said to represent the horizontal dimension of the Church—believers sharing their (spiritual) gifts and instructing one another. According to this view, women could (and should) function as preachers and ministers as they have been gifted by God.

Whether, or to what extent, these two dimensions—hierarchical and egalitarian, vertical and horizontal—can be combined effectively in Church life and the organized Community today is a question that each believer, or group of believers, must address. There are no simple solutions. However, as a closing exhortation, and word of advice, I would return to the sentiment expressed by F. F. Bruce (commenting on Gal 3:28), which I have previously mentioned and with which I entirely agree, that the passages which seem to restrict the role of women (e.g., in the Pauline letters) “are to be read in relation to Gal 3:28, and not vice versa” (Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary [NIGTC], Paternoster Press / Eerdmans: 1982, p. 190).

Special Note on 1 Corinthians 13:8

(A concluding note for the series Women in the Church)

In discussing the role of Prophets in the early Church, I have mentioned the difficulty in relating it to the modern Age, and thus in applying passages such as 1 Cor 11:2-16 to the Church today. If Paul accepts the idea of women functioning as prophets, delivering messages in the congregational meeting, then this would certainly seem to support the idea that women may also do so (i.e. preach) today. However, according to one line of interpretation, the spiritual gifts (xarisma/ta, charismata) documented and described in 1 Corinthians (and elsewhere in the New Testament) are part of a unique set of phenomena, limited in time (more or less) to the age of the Apostles and the initial spread of Christianity. According to this view, Paul is essentially describing a situation which no longer applies today, contrary, of course, to the core belief of Pentecostal, Charismatic and Spiritualist traditions. But if, for example, 1 Cor 11:2-16 is taken as referring specifically to women exercising a (prophetic) gift which is no longer in effect, then it would not necessarily support the general idea of women preaching or delivering messages in the church meeting today. It is thus worth examining the main verse (also in 1 Corinthians) which refers to the gift of prophecy coming to an end.

1 Corinthians 13:8

This is part of the famous Love-chapter in 1 Corinthians, 12:31b-14:1a, which may be outlined as follows:

  • 12:31b: Introduction to the way of love
    • 13:1-3: The superiority of love—contrast with other spiritual gifts (Current time)
      —Such gifts without (being guided by) love are of little value
      • 13:4-7: The characteristics of Love
    • 13:8-13: The superiority of love—contrast with other gifts (Eschatological/teleological–in the End)
      —All such gifts will pass away, love is one of the only things which remain
  • 14:1a: Exhortation to the way of love

Love is contrasted with the spiritual “gifts”, in the parallel statements of vv. 1-3 and 8-13—the first referring to the current time (for believers in the Church), while the second refers to the end time. Verse 8 introduced this second section:

“Love does not ever fall; but if (there are thing)s foretold [i.e. prophecies], they will cease working; if (thing)s (spoken in other) tongues, they will stop; and if (there is) knowledge, it will cease working”

Paul does not refer here to knowledge generally, but to a special kind of spiritual knowledge or revelation, granted to believers by the Spirit. This idea of knowledge (gnw=si$) is given considerable emphasis in 1 Corinthians (cf. 1:5, 21ff; 8:1-3ff; 12:8; 14:6, etc), and especially here in chapter 13. The close connection between knowledge and prophecy is important (cf. 14:6), and is indicated by the parallel structure of the verse:

    • Prophecies will cease working [katarghqh/sontai]
      —Speaking with (other) tongues will stop
    • Knowledge will cease working [katarghqh/setai]

It is interesting that the phenomenon of speaking in other tongues occurs in between the references to prophecy and knowledge, since ‘speaking in tongues’ (glossolalia) was the central phenomenon marking the coming of the Spirit upon believers (in Acts 2). At the same time, prophecy and knowledge reflect two (higher) aspects of the Spirit’s work among believers as they participate in the Community. Though they can be separated as distinct “gifts”, they are really two sides of the same coin. In chapter 14, prophecy and messages in tongues are mentioned as specific ways that believers (men and women) may speak and minister within the meeting; Paul clearly gives priority to prophecy—delivering a message expressing the word and will of God in the ordinary language of the people—rather than similar messages in unknown languages (tongues) which require special interpretation. The close connection between prophecy and knowledge is reiterated in verse 9:

“For we know (only) out of a part [i.e. in part], and we foretell [i.e. prophesy] out of a part…”

The phrase e)k me/rou$ (“out of a part”) means that, even through the presence and work of the Spirit, believers only have a portion—that is, the knowledge and revelation we have of God, and from Him, is partial and limited. And it is this partial understanding, made available through the gifts of the Spirit, which will “cease working”:

“…but when the (thing which is) complete should come, (then) the (thing which is only) out of a part will cease working.” (verse 10)

It is the same verb (katarge/w), used twice in v. 8, and frequently elsewhere by Paul—of the 27 occurrences in the NT, all but two are found in the Pauline letters, including 9 times in 1 Corinthians. The basic meaning of the verb is to make something stop working, have no effect, etc. Paul uses it in a variety of contexts, but the essential idea is related to something new (e.g., the new covenant in Christ) replacing that which was in effect before (the old covenant). With the presence of the new, the old “ceases working”—i.e. is no longer valid or has no effect. In the current context of 1 Cor 13, the idea is that the old way (the spiritual gifts) is no longer needed or of any use. What is it that makes the prior working of the Spirit in believers obsolete? This is stated in v. 10a, and is the interpretive crux of the passage:

“when the (thing which is) complete should come”

Because of the importance of this clause, it will be helpful to look at each word in detail.

o%tan (“when[ever]”)—this is a combination of the temporal particle o%te (“when”) and the conditional a&n, indicating possibility or uncertainty, etc (“if, perhaps”). The simple o%te is used twice in verse 11 as part of the illustration of human development, marking two points in time—”when I was an infant” and “when I became a man”. This should be understood parallel to the use of the related to/te (“then”, i.e. at that time) in verse 12. The conditional o%tan here in verse 10 indicates some degree of uncertainty—i.e. whenever this should take place.

de/ (“but”)—a simple joining particle (conjunction), “and”, but which sometimes is used in a contrastive or adversative sense (“but”). Here Paul uses it to contrast v. 10a with the earlier statement in v. 9, as well as what follows in 10b. The point of contrast is between e)k me/rou$ (“[out] of a part”) and te/leio$ (“complete”).

e&lqh| (“[it] should come”)—this is an aorist subjunctive form of the verb e&rxomai (“come, go”), and is used here to indicate a specific point (in time) when something should take place, that is, when it will come. The subjunctive is related to the particle a&n embedded in the temporal o%tan (“when[ever]”, cf. above). Paul has no doubt this will occur, there is only some uncertainty just when it will take place.

to\ te/leion (“the [thing which is] complete”)—this adjective (te/leio$) is related to the noun te/lo$ and refers fundamentally to something being (or becoming) complete. It can be used in three different basic senses: (a) for the end of something, (b) for something which is full, perfect, whole, etc, and (c) for coming to fullness, maturity, etc. Paul uses the term in all three senses at various points in his letters. When applied to human beings (believers) it is often the third aspect (c) which is meant, as in 1 Cor 2:6 and 14:20 (the only other occurrences of the adjective in 1 Corinthians). The illustration of human growth and development in 13:11 might suggest that this is also the meaning of te/leio$ here—i.e. as believers come to greater maturity and understanding, there will increasingly be less need to rely upon the various spiritual gifts. There is no doubt that a number of the Corinthian believers were unduly enamored by the gifts of (spiritual) knowledge, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and so forth, which is the very reason why Paul was inspired to pen 12:31b-14:1a, to emphasize the priority (and superiority) of Christian love over all other manifestations (gifts) of the Spirit.

However, I do not believe that the adjective te/leio$ can be limited to only this sense. While it may relate to the idea of believers coming to completeness in Christ, it is primarily used in the more general (temporal) sense of something which is to come (in the future). This is the only occurrence in the New Testament of the neuter form te/leion, used as a substantive with the definite article—to\ te/leion, “the (thing which is) complete”. This should be compared with the plural substantive in 1 Cor 2:16: toi=$ telei/oi$, “[in] the (one)s (who are) complete”. In 13:11, Paul does not refer to “the (one)” [i.e. the believer], but to “the (thing)”—something which is going to happen or will appear. What is this “thing” which will come at some point in the future? The only answer Paul gives in the immediate context is found in verse 12, as he describes the transforming moment when we (believers) “will see face to(ward) face”. There can be little doubt that Paul’s orientation here is eschatological—that he has the end time (te/lo$) in mind, the completion of all things, which will follow upon the return of Christ, the resurrection, and the final Judgment. It is God himself we will see, face to face, far more perfectly than Moses did, through our union with Christ (2 Cor 3:7-18). We will know Him fully and intimately, even as we are known by Him. This is already experienced by believers through the course of our lives (2 Cor 3:18), as we grow in faith, wisdom and knowledge, but will only be realized completely at the end.

Given this basic outlook by Paul, it is unlikely that he envisioned a time, prior to the end, when the spiritual gifts would cease—least of all prophecy, which he regarded as one of the highest gifts. The situation is complicated by the fact that Paul, like most (if not all) believers of the time, more or less had an imminent expectation of the end-time—that the return of Christ and the final Judgement would soon take place, presumably in his/their own lifetime. In approaching Paul’s letters from our standpoint today, we are forced to factor in an intervening 2,000 or more years between his teaching and the end (which is yet to come). Still, if we are to give an accurate portrayal of what Paul said and wrote, we must recognize what his perspective was on the matter. It seems reasonably clear that he felt that the current working of the Spirit (the charismata, etc), and his instruction to believers regarding its manifestation, would be valid until the coming of the end, when we would experience and know God (and Christ), as well as each other, in new and perfect way.

Notes on Galatians 3:28, part 3

Galatians 3:28, continued

This is the last of three daily notes on Galatians 3:28 and the declaration that “in (Christ) there is no male and female” (v. 28c).

    1. The background and significance of the statement
    2. The logical consequences and possible interpretation(s), and
    3. Comparison with the Pauline teaching in 1 Cor 11:3ff; 14:34-35, etc

See the earlier notes on the first and second topics.

3. Comparison with the Pauline teaching in 1 Cor 11:3ff; 14:34-35, etc

There is an apparent contradiction between the ideal expressed in Gal 3:28c and the view(s) on gender distinction elsewhere in the Pauline letters (such as 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:11-15, and Eph 5:22-24). On the one hand, it is stated outright that there is no gender distinction (“no male and female”) for believers in Christ; on the other hand, 1 Cor 11:2ff etc teaches that essential distinctions (including a subordinate role/position for women) are to be preserved. Is Paul being inconsistent? My discussion on this topic will proceed by way of exploring several possibilities that could explain these differences and diverging points of emphasis. The order of presentation does not indicate any preference on my part, but generally moves from critical to tradition-conservative in approach.

a. Paul is inconsistent. In other words, he accepts the declaration of Gal 3:28 without reservation in the case of socio-religious distinction (Jew/Gentile), but really does not for gender distinction (male/female). His position regarding socio-economic distinction (slave/free) is perhaps more ambiguous. Yet there is no indication of any restriction on roles in the Church based on Jew/Gentile or slave/free, such as we find for male/female.

b. Paul changed his mind. This could be indicated by the fact that, in the passages parallel to Gal 3:27-28—namely, 1 Cor 12:13 and Col 3:9-11—there is no mention of “male and female”. According to at least one version of this view, Paul realized the implications and difficulties of Gal 3:28c and avoided including sexual/gender distinction as part of the old order that is eliminated for believers in Christ. However, all of this is based on the premise that Galatians was written well prior to 1 Corinthians, etc., enough so that it would allow Paul time to change his mind or qualify his teaching, and this is highly questionable. There is good reason to think that 1 Cor 11-14 may have been written before Galatians, and that the latter is only slightly earlier than 2 Corinthians and Romans.

A more traditional-conservative version of this overall view would allow Paul to have modified/clarified his position (or the way he expressed it) in the context of progressive revelation.

c. Gal 3:28c does not reflect Paul’s fundamental thinking on the subject. This is based on the theory that Gal 3:27-28 (and 1 Cor 12:13 / Col 3:9-11) reflects an earlier (baptismal) formula which Paul is citing and/or adapting. While the declaration regarding “Jew and Greek” generally corresponds with Paul’s theology and practical instruction, that involving “male and female” does not. There does seem to be a fundamental difference, especially in the way that Gal 3:28c echoes the creation narrative—compare this with 1 Cor 11:7-9 and 1 Tim 2:13-15, where the Genesis account (Gen 1-3) is interpreted and used to make almost the opposite point.

d. The declaration in Gal 3:28c is rhetorical and/or limited in scope. Similar in part to (b) and (c). Again, on the view that Paul is drawing upon an earlier baptismal formula, he does so for rhetorical or dramatic effect, to support his overall argument and teaching in the letter; however, the specific declaration is not meant as a fundamental doctrine.

e. Paul accepts the declaration in theory, but not in practical application. This would indicate a kind of inconsistency, perhaps, as with (a) above. Clearly Paul did not go as far as certain Gnostics and other early Christians in the ideal of eliminating sexuality and gender-based distinction from Christian identity and experience. On this, see the discussion in the prior note. It is fine to speak of us all being one in Christ, but this does not remove the practical reality of differences among individual believers (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-26). The main problem is that Paul seems much more willing to declare that ethnic and religious differences (Jew/Gentile, Gal 3:28a) do not apply to roles and positions in the Church—so why not for gender differences as well (Gal 3:28c)?

f. Gal 3:28c is meant as a declaration for all believers, while the other instruction is not. This is based on the interpretive principle which subordinates instruction, related to specific issues in the local congregations of the time, to doctrines and statements which clearly apply for all believers. While this may be acceptable as a general method for us today, there is little indication that Paul drew such a distinction in his actual letters. Even if we were to theorize, for example, that he allowed customs and practices (e.g. women speaking/preaching in the congregation) which he did not personally endorse (cp. 1 Cor 11:2-16 with 1 Tim 2:11ff), he always is careful to connect his teaching with basic Gospel/Christian principles and traditions. Paul had a much narrower geographical and chronological frame of reference—the establishment and (relatively brief) life-span of congregations, between the resurrection and (imminent) return of Christ—and could readily connect the local with the universal. It is exceedingly more difficult for us to do this today, with the wide gulf in time and culture between, say, mid-1st century Corinth and early 21st century America.

g. Paul sees a distinction between essential identity and practical application. In other words, Gal 3:28 relates to the spiritual identity of believers in Christ (as a theological doctrine), while the other instruction in the letters (1 Cor 11:2-16, et al) applies to the way our Christian life is acted out in practice within an organized community. Such a conceptual division is popular among commentators and theologians, but is altogether too neat and artificial. Why should being male or female have no significance for coming to faith in Christ, but then suddenly be of great importance for our daily life and relationships in Christ? Admittedly, Paul himself, as a minister and founder of churches, had a strong practical side—his vision of the Church involved functioning local communities embedded within the society at large; yet he rarely offers practical instruction which is not closely wedded to the Gospel message and the essential identity of the believer in Christ. This is part of what makes 1 Cor 11:2-16, for example, so problematic for Christians today.

h. The apparent restrictions only apply to role and do not affect essential unity/equality. This is an especially popular view for traditional-conservative commentators today, since it allows one to affirm both (i) equality of men and women in Christ, and (ii) distinct/subordinate roles and positions in the Church. Many today (women especially) consider the logic and terminology (“complementarian”, etc) employed to be rather disingenuous—how can men and women be both (truly) equal and yet (at the same time) in a subordinate position one to the other? Some traditional-conservative interpreters would downplay the idea of subordination—especially in the sense of being secondary or inferior. Yet it is hard to deny that Paul has something of this is in mind in 1 Cor 11:3-10 (cf. also 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:11-15 and Eph 5:22-24ff), especially the manner in which he ties it to the order and hierarchy of creation (vv. 3, 7-9). One very much wishes that Paul had expounded further upon what he presents in 1 Cor 11:2-16, as I suspect it would clarify considerably his actual view of the matter—i.e. how the old order of creation has been transformed for believers in Christ.

i. The apparent restrictions represent a compromise for the sake of peace and order. This takes a simpler, pragmatic view—while Paul accepts essential equality (and unity) for male and female believers in Christ, he also wishes to maintain a certain (customary) order for the Church within the larger society, both from a social and religious point of view. Along the same lines, on the basis of Christian unity itself, believers ought to subordinate their individual rights and privileges, etc, for the good of the community. In 1 Cor 7:2-4ff he describes this in egalitarian, reciprocal terms, for men and women (husbands and wives), while in other passages (cf. above) he uses a more traditional hierarchical relationship (man/husband as head of the wife/woman).

Summary

Arguments can be offered for and against each of the nine interpretative viewpoints presented above. I will comment on them only indirectly, by looking at four key points which much be considered and addressed if one hopes to find and accurate (and satisfactory) interpretation to the overall question.

Point #1—Paul, in his other letters and instruction, retains the gender distinction with regard to ministry roles, etc, in the congregation, but does not do the same for religious-cultural (Jew/Gentile) or socio-economic (slave/free) distinctions. It is easy to charge Paul with inconsistency here, but that is a rather superficial way of looking at the matter. I believe a better, and more thoughtful, explanation lies in a consideration of several important factors:

    • At the time Paul wrote Galatians (as well as 1-2 Corinthians and Romans), only the Jew-Gentile distinction was at issue with regard to Christian identity. This was natural enough, since the distinction is fundamentally religious, and defined the community in religious terms. It was for this reason that Paul fought so hard to eliminate the distinction among believers. Our identity in Christ was not to be defined by religious and cultural factors (such as ethnicity, the observance of the Torah, participation in festivals and holy days, etc), but by our faith and (spiritual) union with Christ. On the other hand, going all the way back to the time of Jesus, men and women were accepted as believers together, with little or no distinction (cf. the discussion in Part 7). Similarly, believers from the beginning were drawn from various social classes, and, while there were doubtless questions of status and prejudice which had to be addressed in the congregations, they do not seem to have been serious or widespread enough to affect one’s basic Christian identity within the community. Thus, these social and gender distinctions could be accepted or maintained without seriously affecting a correct understanding of the believer’s religious identity.
    • Paul’s letter to Philemon is instructive, as it expresses Paul’s understanding of the socio-economic distinction (slave/free) in the Church. Onesimus was a slave, with Philemon his master, and yet both men were Christians. Thus, they were brothers and equals in Christ, while at the same time, on the wider social level, they were in the hierarchical relationship of master and slave. While this situation is foreign to us today, and rather difficult to appreciate, it allows us a window into the thought of many early Christians, such as Paul. The social distinction could be maintained right alongside of the ideal of equality among believers.
    • It was the biological-gender (male/female) distinction which was most fundamental to Christian society, centered as it was on the family unit and marriage bond. Paul’s model for the Church seems to be as a community existing within the larger society. He may have encouraged believers to remain single and unmarried (1 Cor 7), but he recognized that husbands and wives (with their children) made up, and would make up, a large segment of the congregation. Thus, there was greater reason to maintain the man/woman and husband/wife distinction.

Point #2—In the places where Paul (or the Pauline tradition) mentions the male/female distinction, it is often connected with the Creation narrative of Genesis, as I have discussed extensively in earlier notes and articles in this series. Even in Gal 3:28, the phrase “male and female” almost certainly derives from the Genesis account. While Christians today may not always appreciate (or agree with) Paul’s interpretation and use of the Creation account to establish male-female relations and roles in the Church, this dependence on the Scriptural tradition must be recognized. It also means that his view of gender relations is not merely practical or customary, but reflects an essential aspect of the human condition as established by God.

Point #3—Gender distinction and roles in the Church are not simply based on the original created order, but, rather, I believe, in Paul’s mind are supposed to reflect the new creation among believers. Admittedly, he does not discuss this in detail, and the point must be inferred from the relevant passages in his letters, but I think it is reasonably clear, especially when one examines 1 Cor 11:2-16 (cf. Part 1 and the related notes). According to Paul’s thinking (and his theology), the new creation in Christ does not abolish the old order, but transforms it. The old order is eliminated only in terms of the fallen human condition—i.e. our bondage to sin (and the Law).

Point #4—When considering the portions of the undisputed letters (i.e. 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14:33-36) which seem to contradict Gal 3:28c, one must keep in mind the two fundamental (and interrelated) themes Paul emphasizes in 1 Corinthians:

    • That believers should fulfill in practice (that is, in the life of the Community) the ideal of unity—i.e. of our union in Christ, as the body of Christ. To this end, believers are to subordinate their individual concerns and interests to the (greater) good of the Community.
    • While the principal bond of unity is spiritual (that is, in and by the Spirit), it should be manifest in practice, and in daily life, according to a particular arrangement or order established by God. Paul makes this particular point numerous times, especially within the instruction regarding congregational life and worship in chapters 11-14. This arranged “order” is expressed and realized two ways:
      (i) horizontal—the reciprocal relation between believers, i.e. we are to subordinate ourselves to each other, as brothers and sisters, equally.
      (ii) vertical—a hierarchical chain of relation: God–Christ–Believers. Paul extends this by way of the Genesis account: God–Christ–Man–Woman.

Contrary to some the view of some commentators, Paul does not only emphasize the latter (vertical) aspect of the established order; rather, he has both aspects in view. Admittedly, Christians today often find it difficult to accept both aspects, and it is in the specific division of believers into male and female (based on the Genesis account) which is most problematic, as I have already discussed extensively in relation to 1 Tim 2:11-15 (cf. Part 5 and the notes on v. 12 and Gen 3:16). However, if we wish to be faithful students and interpreters of the Scriptures, we must grapple with the language and imagery which Paul (and the Pauline tradition) uses.