Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 7

Women in the Apostolic Church

In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles. In verse 14, Luke records that Peter stood up with the eleven and spoke to that assembly. He quoted Joel 2:28ff. He declared that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy.

Joel prophesied that God would pour out his spirit on all flesh, which would include Jew and Gentile, male and female, free man and bond man. "Your sons and your DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHESY (tell forth the mind and counsel of God). Yea and on my servants and my HANDMAIDENS (bond maidens) in those days will I pour forth my spirit and THEY SHALL PROPHESY." Joel did not limit the gifts of the Holy Spirit to men. Daughters and handmaidens were also to be prophets.

Some might say, "But all of the apostles were men; therefore, God only wanted men to be the public proclaimers of the word and take leadership roles in the church." One could also argue that those apostles were Jews; therefore God didn't want any Blacks or Indians to be proclaimers. And thus, Blacks and Indians should not preach publicly or take leadership roles in the church. Just because the first proclaimers were Jewish men, one would not, therefore, conclude that all proclaimers must be Jewish men.

Joel clearly states that God's gifts would fall upon both men and women. And Peter said that this outpouring was a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Peter also said, "According as each one hath received a gift," each was to minister it among themselves; whether speaking the oracles of God or ministering, it was to be done to God's glory. He points out that each Christian has gifts - not men only (I Peter 4:7-11).

In Acts 8:3-5 persecution came upon the church: "Both men and women" were dragged out and imprisoned. The church was scattered abroad and "went about preaching the word." Would anyone conclude from this text that the preaching and the teaching were done by men only, or that only men were really dragged out and imprisoned?

If we try to make all these scriptures to the contrary fit a preconceived notion about one scripture, I Corinthians 14:34-35, we are forced to dismiss the obvious conclusions from evidence contained in the above scriptures. We can't conclude that women couldn't preach and teach publicly because I Corinthians 14 forbids it. That is an easy way out of a clear dilemma, but it begs the question of what the above scriptures clearly suggest on the matter. And what is suggested in the following scriptures?

Acts 8:12 says, "Both men and women were baptized." Shortly afterwards, Peter and John arrived and prayed for the church that they might receive the Holy Spirit. In verse 17, they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. They all received the Holy Spirit! The church in Samaria did. Men and women made up the church - baptized men and women. We cannot be true to the text and make it read "and they laid their hands on the men only." I have not found one scholar who would so argue.

In Acts 9:2 Paul made no distinctions between men and women in the arresting and the imprisonment. They received equal treatment.

In Acts 9:36 Paul raised Tabitha, who was a woman full of good works and alms deeds. To the saints and the widows, he presented her alive. This event became known throughout Joppa and they believed on the Lord. Would anyone argue that the widows assembled that day were forbidden by God to go out and tell the story of God's power in raising Tabitha? This resulted in many conversions. Could these ladies testify publicly to both men and women? Certainly they could, and no one would doubt that they did.

In Acts 10:44, while Peter was addressing the household of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard. Would anyone dare to alter the scripture to read, "It fell on only the men who heard?" Verse 46 says, "They spoke with tongues and magnified God." Would anyone argue that the "men only" spoke in tongues and magnified God? Those who spoke in tongues were then baptized. They were not "men only." This was also in an assembly! It had apostolic approval. It is obvious that these gifts went to both men and women, and they both spoke in tongues and magnified God in this assembly. This conclusion is inescapable, unless one is trying to force a foregone assumption and conclusion from I Corinthians 14:34-35.

Verses 14 and 15 of chapter 11 say, "He spake to all the house words whereby they could be saved, and the Holy Spirit fell on them as on us in the beginning." Would anyone dare to change the scripture to read, "It fell on the men only, as it did on us in the beginning?"

Verse 17 says, "If God gave them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we also believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who as I, that I could withstand God?" Do we withstand God if we deny that the women in this household also received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that they exercised their gifts in that meeting? God would not give them gifts and then forbid their using them.

In Acts 12 Peter was imprisoned and was delivered by an angel. He went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark. There, many "gathered together and were praying." A maid by the name of Rhoda answered the knock on the door, and made the first recorded "announcement" by a woman in an assembly in the New Testament church. She announced in that prayer meeting, "Peter stands before the gate." They declared that she was mad, for they firmly believed that Peter was shackled and in jail. Rhoda affirmed more confidently that Peter was there. She had to make a "second announcement" in this assembly. No one thinks that she was acting improperly or unscripturally. Peter didn't rebuke her for exercising dominion over men, for taking a leadership role, or for speaking at a worship service. No one believes that the church there should have split because she made a public announcement. Instead, they received the announcement of Peter's release with amazement.

Here we have an approved example of a woman making an announcement in a prayer meeting. In fact, she made it twice. She also ran in to make it, so she must have done it standing up. The conclusion is obvious: The New Testament approves women making announcements in worship.

In Acts 13:52 the disciples, not male disciples only, were filled with the Holy Spirit and joy.

In Acts 15:22, after the Jerusalem conference, the apostles, the elders, with the "whole church," chose men to accompany Paul and Barnabas with delivering the decision. Women were a part of the whole church and, without question, participated in this business meeting. I know of no person who would be so presumptuous as to take away the words "whole church" and substitute "only men of the church."

In Acts 15:35, "Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, preaching and teaching with 'many others' also." The "many others," no doubt could have included and did include women. It would be presumptuous indeed to render this passage "many other men." We certainly could assume that by now many of those "daughters and hand maidens" were prophesying. They certainly could and, in all likelihood, did include Paul's women companions he classified as fellow workers in Romans 16. But some say, "Preaching and teaching are not the same as prophesying." One might wish to split hairs in order to maintain a tradition, by so arguing. Prophesying in the New Testament was speaking forth the mind and will or counsel of God in the exercise of a gift. Preaching and teaching are speaking forth the will of God, by either gift or preparation. Either way, it was, and can be, done by both men and women. On Pentecost, twelve men preached as a result of gifts poured out. They may also have been prophesying. They also spoke in tongues. Who is wise enough to draw a distinct absolute line between kinds of New Testament prophesying, preaching, and teaching?

In Acts 16:12 Paul, Silas, and Timothy met with women who were having a prayer service by the riverside in Philippi. Lydia, the businesswoman, was converted, along with her household. Paul and his companions stayed at her house. She was, no doubt, a devout Jew and knew the Old Testament well. She probably knew its history, poetry, and prophecy. Some time later, a jailor, probably a Gentile, was converted, along with his household. The next day Paul departed. Who would one believe was the most capable person to teach, pray, read, or lead in the next Lord's Day service? Would it be the newly converted Gentile, or the Jewish lady who had a background in the word of God and in the worship of Jehovah? Who could have best reflected upon God's written word and the new found faith in teaching those new Christians? Lydia would have obviously been one of the teachers and worship leaders because she was more mature, due to her previous understanding of the scripture, coupled with her faith in Jehovah. If I had been going to choose someone to teach in that service, from what the Bible teaches about the two, I would have chosen Lydia over the jailer.

Someone objects, "But verse 18 says Paul was there many days, so there could have been other men converted to do the teaching." Maybe so. The only problem one has for that argument is that the Bible doesn't say so. But it does mention women and women only. Someone else says, "But surely there were men in Lydia's household." That specious argument has been heard before, "Lydia's household was baptized, so there must have been some babies baptized, too," some would claim. It is worthy to note that Lydia persuaded Paul to stay on "many days" because of her influence, not of his own desires (verse 15).

It is reasonable that Lydia taught, and who could or would teach that in doing so Lydia would have violated I Corinthians 14:34-35 or I Timothy 2:12? No one believes that Lydia was instructed by Paul to give up her business and be a homemaker as "God from creation so intended." Which eldership, which preacher, which editor will demand that women leave jobs and businesses and go home "where they belong" and be submissive to men or be disfellowshiped? Who would argue that an illiterate, tongue-tied, or ignorant Christian man would have to lead in a service when there were informed, literate, and articulate Christian women present.

Why would God want an ignorant or illiterate man to conduct a worship service when literate, able Christian women were present? Moreover, even an ignorant or illiterate man could figure out why the literate Christian woman should be doing the teaching, preaching, leading, and reading. His wisdom would dictate the decision. Only a mistaken, grossly opinionated and misled person could convince him or us to the contrary. Who would lead the church toward maturity best? Who, in Philippi, could best help new Christians grow in the grace and knowledge? The answer seems obvious.

Furthermore, in Philippi, Euodia and Syntyche were quarreling. Paul exhorts them to be of "one mind in the Lord" (Philippians 4:2). No one would suggest that Paul wrote this to encourage them to agree on how much salt was to be added to baked beans. They must have had leading influence in the Philippian church. Paul says, "They labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life" (Philippians 4:2-3).

Does this sound like women who prepared communion on Sundays, or ones who "labored" with Paul, Clement and others in preaching and teaching the gospel? The conclusion seems obvious. These women weren't cooks or seamstresses. They were fellow workers in the gospel.

Yet able and learned church leaders have failed to recognize, or have refused to acknowledge, this clear and logical conclusion. It is amazing what we will do to both logic and scripture to uphold a tradition or a practice coming from a false or mistaken interpretation of scripture.

Let us suppose that Lydia moved to some part of the world where Christ was not known. Let us also suppose that she taught illiterate natives about the love of God in her home or place of business. What if, upon hearing the message of Christ, both men and women were baptized? Who would have conducted the first worship service? Could she have led the songs, done the teaching, waited on the table, led the prayers, or read the scripture in the presence of these newly baptized men? Or would she have had to cancel "services" until she taught the men privately to read and understand the scripture or until one of them decided he wanted to teach, preach, pray or lead? I know of no person who would argue that she would have had to remain silent and in submission because of I Corinthians 14 or I Timothy 2. Does anyone really believe God would be more pleased to have a worship service cancelled rather than having believers meet to commune, pray, sing, or study under a woman's leadership? If it is scriptural in the jungles of Africa or the Amazon, it is scriptural in the U.S.A. Likewise, if it is unscriptural in the U.S.A., it is unscriptural in the jungles of Africa or the upper Amazon.

In Acts 17:14, Luke tells of many chief women in Thessalonica who were persuaded by Paul's preaching. In verse 12, Greek women of honorable estate became believers in Berea. Some of the honorable and chief women, no doubt, were well educated and had teaching skills. Would God have prohibited them from teaching male and female servants, or their husbands, or their peers? I know of no one who would so argue. Would any intelligent, less informed man who wanted to serve God and know His will resent a more informed woman teaching him? Who would dare to so argue? Then no one should draw the line on women teaching boys up to age fourteen only. It would be illogical and without a Biblical basis.

In Acts 18:2, Paul met Aquila and his wife, Priscilla, in Corinth. They provided an abode for Paul. They later travelled with him to Ephesus.

At Ephesus, they heard Apollos, an eloquent man who was mighty in the scriptures, preach. But he knew only the baptism of John. Priscilla and Aquila took him unto them and taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly (Acts 18:26). It is interesting that Priscilla is mentioned first in this duo. Four out of the six times they are referred to in the scripture, Priscilla is mentioned first. Could it be that Priscilla was the more informed, the better teacher, or the better leader? Why did she teach if God prohibited women from teaching men? Aquila could surely have done the job by himself. Did he fail in his manly God-given duty? Was he less of a Christian because he let his wife also teach Apollos? Should all three have been disciplined by Paul?

Would anyone argue that Priscilla could have taught Apollos God's word until he understood and accepted the baptism of Christ, and then have been forbidden by God to teach him afterwards?

In Acts 21:8 Paul visited Philip's house. Philip had four daughters who prophesied. This was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Who did these daughters edify when they prophesied? Where did they prophesy? When did they prophesy? No one knows, but one should not conclude that they did not prophesy to the whole church. Nor should it be concluded that they prophesied to women only or to men only in "private" situations. What wrenched mental gymnastics one would have to go through to so conclude.

I have heard some argue that these women must have taught only women. Only if we try to force a traditional, pre-conceived notion about I Corinthians 14:34 on all other scriptures, could we so conclude. Who would dare argue that while Philip was down in Gaza or in Samaria preaching that his daughters were forbidden to tell forth the story of the cross to these lost men in Caesarea? Nor would we argue that the use of their gifts in his absence to the building up of the body of Christ there would be wrong. It would seem that God would want all five voices declaring his grace anywhere to all who would listen. Would God ask sinful men to wait for a male messenger? The answer seems obvious.

It is believed that Paul wrote the book of Romans in about 59 A.D., about thirty years after the church was established. During these three decades of history, the church had time for women to both enjoy and practice their freedom in Christ Jesus, and to serve in various ministries of the church. In Romans 16:1 Paul writes, "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a servant (deacon) of the church that is in Cenchreae; that you receive her in the Lord worthy of the Saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you; for she herself also hath been a helper of many, and of myself also." (Note: the word "servant" is translated "deacon" in some versions, and is listed in many marginal comments as "deacon." It is the same Greek word used in Philippians 1:1 and in I Timothy 3:8,12.) We usually think of deacons as "table waiters" - a group selected to care for physical needs. The apostles appointed seven men to do this in Acts 6:3-6. However, they were not called deacons, although their service as a "deacon", if they were, did not preclude them from preaching the word. Stephen died for preaching the word in Acts 7. Philip's sermons produced many believers in Samaria (Acts 8:5-8). Therefore, the work of these men was not limited to table serving. We would conclude the same about this deacon from Cenchreae. Was Phoebe just a dishwasher or a janitor? Did she only teach? If so, did she teach only women and children? Or, like Priscilla, could part of her service be that of teaching men? Paul instructed the Roman church to assist her in whatsoever matters she had need, because she had been his helper and the helper of many others. One must admit that "whatsoever" and "helper" have a broad range of possibilities, including teaching. 

Since she was a helper of many, and Paul too, what would have been the greatest help that she could render to others? Certainly being able to help others understand God's will would be paramount. An interest in God's word is what our Lord commended Mary for and chastised Martha for not emphasizing. Phoebe, no doubt, helped Paul "make known the manifold wisdom of God" as part of her service.

Was Phoebe a deacon? The Greek text calls her one. Why would we doubt or deny it? What difference would it make if she were? It is a scriptural designation.

Many church fathers and restoration scholars have believed that I Timothy 3:11 begins a list of qualifications for women deacons. They have also believed and taught that the church should have deaconesses. Paul does not list any particular qualifications of elders' wives, but in the middle of the "male deacons'" qualifications he says, "women, in like manner, must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things." This may very well refer to qualifications of female deacons. It may refer to wives of deacons. But it is safe to say that no one can preclude the interpretation that a deaconess like Phoebe was to have these qualities, or say with any certainty that there were no female deacons.

If the masculine form were used to refer to a female deacon in Romans 16:1, the women could also have been included in Philippians 1:1. But, to say the least, it is difficult to explain this insertion in I Timothy, unless some women or wives (the plural form of "gune" in the Greek is used here and could be translated wives or women) were also deacons, since he did not address qualifications of elders' wives.

There is one conclusion to which every student will agree. Phoebe's service is described by the same Greek word as those men whom Paul qualified in I Timothy 3:8-13. Early church literature lists "deaconesses, widows and virgins." One has to ask, "Why would Paul list special qualifications only for the wives of deacons in the midst of the qualifications for male deacons, when he did not list any qualifications for the wives of elders in the midst of his qualifications for elders?" Paul says, "in like manner" or "likewise"; just as male deacons must have these qualities, so should female deacons have these other qualities.

Others would argue that the first deacons appointed were men only, in Acts 6:1-6; thus concluding that it is clear that God wanted only men to serve as deacons. If this example is binding, one would have to so argue that a church could have only seven deacons, or that it had to limit a deacon's service only to daily ministrations. Incidentally, no New Testament writer calls the deacon's job an office!

 We should, at this point, touch on the expediency rule. "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient." (I Corinthians 6:12.) If some autonomous congregation chooses to appoint deaconesses, there is strong Biblical argument for it. There is sufficient Biblical evidence that would allow a congregation to do so if they chose to. No other congregation has the right to infringe upon another's autonomy in doing so. It is certainly not a decision which should affect fellowship. I heartily recommend a book by J. Stephen Sandifer, Deacons: Male and Female, for thorough study on this subject.

In Romans 16:3-5, Paul encourages the church to "greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life laid down their necks and for whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. And salute the church that is in their house." This couple played a major role in Paul's ministry. We have already alluded to the fact that he calls them fellow workers, just as he does Timothy in Romans 16:21. The term was used often to describe those doing the same kind of work. Some have argued that Paul claimed he and Apollos were fellow workers with God in I Corinthians 3:9 but that it did not mean they worked the same way God did. This proves nothing. God was in heaven, but Paul, Apollos, Priscilla, and Aquila were together on earth, building the Kingdom and spreading the message of God. They were fellow workers in it. No one can list their specific jobs.

Do we assume that this woman, who could assist in teaching a man, who was mighty in the scriptures, and who would lay down her neck for Paul, could not pray in the presence of either? Nor read God's word aloud in their presence? Nor do so in her husband's presence? Nor continue to teach other men?

Some erroneously claim, in order to maintain their traditional interpretation, that being fellow workers did not mean doing the same things as Paul. If Paul were busy preaching on the north side of Corinth and an able, informed woman were available to preach on the south side of Corinth, who believes God would say, "Let South Corinth go to hell, because I don't allow women to preach my truth."

Paul says Priscilla was a fellow worker in suffering and in building the church. They had one in their own house. He also says that all Gentile churches gave thanks for the couple.

In Romans 16:6 we read, "Salute Mary who bestowed much labor on you." The same Greek verb is used in Galatians 4:11, referring to Paul's labor in the gospel, and by Jesus in John 4:38, referring to sowing the gospel.

Would anyone assume that Mary's hard labor was simply washing dishes and cooking at Rome, or would she have had a broader task including prophesying, speaking in tongues, or interpreting tongues, as she bestowed much hard labor on the church at Rome? Few would believe she was silenced from declaring the whole counsel of God to a lost world. Why would anyone not want the gospel preached, by a woman or a man, if sinners were saved?

In Romans 16:7, Paul says, "Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who have also been in Christ before me." Junias is listed as Junia in the margin. Many scholars believe that this is another husband-and-wife team. They were not converted by Paul, and to be together after twenty-five years suggests strongly that this was a married couple. "Men" is not in the Greek, but was inserted by the translators. Would this be another case of male bias in the translation? There is excellent scholarship on the side of this being a husband-and-wife team.

She suffered imprisonment with Paul, was kin to him, and was of "note" among the apostles. Was she of note because she was silent and submissive? Was it because she washed and ironed clothes? Or was it because of the public work she also did? Or all of these?

Crysostom wrote of Junia, "Oh, how great is the devotion of the woman, that she could be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostles." This is cited by William Sandy and Arthur Headlan in their commentary on the epistle to the Romans. She obviously did some rather important things in the church. Junia is the preferred translation in view of these facts.

Paul says in Romans 16:12, "Salute Trayphaena and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord." These two Christian ladies also labored in the Lord, as did Mary, in verse 6. What their special work was, no one knows. But it certainly enhanced Paul's work, as did the work of Persis, another sister "who labored much in the Lord."

The mother of Rufus, in verse 13, and Julia, in verse 15, are two other ladies whose lives and work were worthy of mention in the Roman letter.

Paul certainly shows how important women were in the ministry of the church. Exactly what they did we are not sure, but we know that women were to prophesy, and they did prophesy. We know those who prophesied did so to the edification, exhortation, and consolation of the whole church (I Corinthians 14). We also know that God put teachers in the church (I Corinthians 12:28). Since these gifts were given to men and women alike, any of these ladies could have been prophetesses and teachers. Who would conclude that these women could not have been fellow laborers of Paul in the public proclamation of the gospel?

Perhaps as important as anything about these women traveling and working with Paul is that they were breaking every tradition of their culture in so doing. So, it should not surprise anyone that they took responsible and public roles in the work of evangelism and edification in the church, contrary to cultural norms.