Women of the Bible - The Bibliography

At times I have cited a few sources in these posts on Women of the Bible, and at time I should have but didn't. Here is a list of some of the more useful material:

1. Finally Feminist, John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 2005
2. Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume I, Edited By Carroll D. Osburn, PH. D., 1993
3. Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume II, Edited By Carroll D. Osburn, PH. D., 1995
4. Men and Women in the Church, Sarah Sumner, PH. D., 2003
5. Bobby Valentine’s class on Huldah from the 2003 ACU Lectureships (audio)
6. Bobby’s Blog: Huldah Who? The Forgotten Ministry of a Lady Prophet, June 27, 2006
7. “The Ethical Use of I Timothy 2”, Bobby Valentine
8. I permit not a woman...To Remain Shackled, Robert H. Rowland, 1991
   
9. Mike Cope’s Sermon “Women, Gifts and the Body of Christ”
10. “Women’s Service in the Church”, a sermon by N. T. Wright (transcript), 2004
11. Howard Bryan, The Role of Women Class Notes
12. Women of the Bible, Sue Poorman Richards and Lawrence O. Richards, 2003
13. The Christian Courier
14. The Logos Resource Pages
15. Brooks Ave Church of Christ
16. Minutes with Messiah

I think it is important to consider the best material from both sides of this debate. Unfortunately, I have not done enough of that myself. Sometimes I find it very difficult to listen to perspectives that are so contrary to my core values. I'm sure people on both sides of this fence feel this way at times, which is why we must approach this material with patience and love. It is not a salvation issue. It is a respect issue, a consistency issue, and a reaching-the-lost issue.

-Keith

Women of the Bible – The Matriarchs

Background
ECHAD MI YODEA – a Hebrew song sung during Passover contains this verse:

Who knows four?
I know four.
Four are the Matriarchs;
Three are the patriarchs;
Two are the tablets of the covenant;
One is our God, in heaven and on earth.

In Genesis 12-50 we read about the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (shown with wife Rachel in picture). Their wives are secondary not only in their culture, but also in the story found in Genesis. From 2,100 to 1,800 BC women are viewed as property: first of the fathers, then of the husbands. There were laws that protected women at the time (i.e. The Laws of Eshnunna, The Code of Hammurabi), but even then these laws had a patriarchal perspective. For example, rape was a crime against the father, not the woman, as it deprived him of his “bride price.” Marriage was legal document transferring ownership of the woman from the father to the husband. While these laws seem very sexist to us, many of them were intended to protect women.

Dinah
Nevertheless, women were taken for granted. In Genesis 34, we see that Dinah, the sister of the 12 sons of Jacob, is raped and taken to the home of a young man from a leading family. He then asks Jacob to marry her. Dinah’s brothers were angry because “Shechem had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter.” They viewed the crime in terms of how it reflected on their father and their family. Yet there is an interest in their sister as well, since only Dinah’s two full brothers take action against this young man and his family. Her brothers deceive the young man and his family saying they will approve the marriage if the family is circumcised. They agree and circumcise themselves. Dinah’s two brothers then enter their city, kill all the recovering men, and take their sister home. We are never told anything about how Dinah feels about what happened. Had she finally fallen in love with the young man only to have her brothers come and kill him? How was she treated when she returned home? The focus of the story just is not on her.

Tamar
Similarly, Tamar in Genesis 38 is treated with a noted lack of concern. She marries Judah’s son Er, but he is wicked so God kills him. Judah has his next son, Onan, sleep with her to produce a child for his dead brother. He intentionally sabotages the act (Genesis 38.9) so that she will not become pregnant and bear a child whom would get a share of the inheritance. Because of this, God kills him too. The next son, Shelah, is too young to marry, so Judah sends Tamar back to her father to wait for Shelah to grow up. However, when he does grow up, Judah does not give him Tamar. Therefore, Tamar dresses as a prostitute, sleeps with Judah, and steals his staff and seal. When Judah finds out Tamar is pregnant he condemns her to die. She produces his staff and seal and the gig is up.

Tamar is mistreated even by the standards of her society. Neither Onan nor Judah fulfills their obligations to her. She improvises to get the child she is entitled to and Judah is shamed for his actions. Note that while she dressed as a prostitute, she was entitled by the law to have a brother or male relative of her late husband produce a child with her. Judah, on the other hand, sleeps with a woman he think is a prostitute. In addition, she is a shrine prostitute of a pagan God! While he condemns Tamar to death for her alleged prostitution, he receives no such penalty. At the end, God rewards Tamar with twins, while Onan is dead and Judah is disgraced. Society saw her as a second-class citizen, and Judah and Onan took advantage of her low station. God, however, looked after Tamar and punished those who took advantage of her.

The Matriarchs
We find our matriarchs living in this social context. Yet we see something special about the relationship each has with her husband. Let us consider the interpersonal relationships of the Matriarchs and their husbands.

Sarah
Sarah is the wife of Abraham. In Genesis 16, after 10 years in the land, she tells Abraham to take her servant Hagar as produce a child with her. Abraham “listens” to her. The child would be considered the child of Sarah and Abraham. What is interesting is that Sarah takes the initiative and tells Abraham what to do, and he listens to her. Next, Hagar becomes pregnant and despises Sarah. Sarah blames Abraham and tells him to fix it. This time, though, he says it is her problem. Sarah abuses Hagar and she flees, but an Angel tells Hagar to return. She does and bears her son, Ishmael. Finally, Sarah bears Isaac (Gen. 21). She gets angry when Ishmael picks on Isaac and demands Abraham send Ishmael away. Abraham cared for his son Ishmael though and was very concerned. In addition, the customs demanded Ishmael be received as a son. God intervenes and tells Abraham to send Ishmael and Hagar away and that he would watch over Ishmael.
Whatever the culture restrictions on women, Sarah was free to urge, to complain, to initiate, and to insist that her husband take a certain course of action. Their personalities and interpersonal relationship was much more important than the customs of the day.

Rebekah
Rebekah was a relative of Abraham and God identified her to Abraham as the woman for his son Isaac (Gen 24). The servant negotiated with her brothers (her father was dead) on her coming back with him and becoming Isaac’s wife. Laban and Bethuel (her brothers) agreed to the marriage (24.50-51), but when the servant pressed them to let him leave with her immediately, they said:
Then they said, "Let's call the girl and ask her about it." So they called Rebekah and asked her, "Will you go with this man?" "I will go," she said. (verses 57-58)
Rebekah’s brothers respected her decision. If she had said no, we have every indication that her brothers would have honored her decision.

Rachel and Leah
Rachel and Leah married Jacob (the son of Isaac and Rebekah). They were the daughters of Laban, Rebekah’s brother, who tricked Jacob into marrying Leah first, even though he loved Rachel. They stay in their relatives land and spend 20 years working for Laban. When hostility arose between Laban’s sons and Jacob, God tells him to it is time to leave and return to the land he promised Abraham. What happens next is amazing, considering the culture. We would expect Jacob to gather his family and leave, but instead he calls a family meeting! He asks his two wives (even Leah) what they think.
Then Rachel and Leah replied, "Do we still have any share in the inheritance of our father's estate? Does he not regard us as foreigners? Not only has he sold us, but he has used up what was paid for us. Surely all the wealth that God took away from our father belongs to us and our children. So do whatever God has told you."
Then Jacob put his children and his wives on camels, and he drove all his livestock ahead of him, along with all the goods he had accumulated in Paddan Aram, to go to his father Isaac in the land of Canaan. (Genesis 31.14-18)
Jacob valued the input from his wives and they gave him a thoughtful and accurate response. Only after this exchange does Jacob do what God commanded him and leave for the Promised Land. Jacob, Leah and Rachel displayed mutual respect and cooperation, demonstrating more egalitarianism in their relationship than we might have expected.

Conclusion
Despite the restrictions of the day, women were respected and valued by God and the matriarchs were respected and valued by their husbands. The personal relationships involved in these stories transcend the cultural expectations of women and their place in the family.

Mighty Women

Starting in March I will teach a class called "Mighty Women" at church using the material I've been blogging here. The following is my synopsis of the class:

At a VBS last year my kids sang a song where the boys would sing, “I want to be like Daniel…for Daniel was a mighty man.” And the girls would sing, “I want to be like Ruth…for Ruth was oh so good and kind.” It made me wonder, “Are boys NOT supposed to be good and kind? Are girls NOT supposed to be mighty?” What about our little girls who want to be more like Deborah than Ruth?

This class will examine the leadership of mighty women throughout the Bible. We will focus on the biblical and historical context of these leading ladies as we develop a broad, biblical view of female leadership.

Here is a tentative outline:

1. Introduction
2. Eve
3. The Matriarchs & Miriam
4. Deborah
5. Huldah
6. Esther
7. Mary, Mary and Mary (Nazareth, Bethany, Magdalene)
8. Priscilla
9. Lydia (Euodias & Syntyche and Nympha)
10. Phoebe and Junia
11. Luke & Women
12. Jesus & Women
13. Paul & Women

This is part one of a two-part class. In part one we will attempt to establish a broad view by investigating the lives of specific women throughout the Bible followed by looking at how Luke, Jesus and Paul viewed women relative to their contemporaries. We will not study 1 Tim 2, 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14 or Gal 5. Those texts and others will be included in the second class as I don't think they can be understood properly without first getting the big picture.

-Keith

Women of the Bible – Junia

If you read the NIV your might be wonder who Junia is because this name does not appear in your Bible. Instead, the NIV translation of Romans 16.7 reads:

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Yet the NRSV renders this passage:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me. They are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Junias is considered by most to be a masculine name while Junia is feminine. Two questions are begging to be asked at this point.

1. Which name is correct and why is there a discrepancy?
2. Why does it matter either way?

Let’s answer the second question first; it is much simpler. Eldon Jay Epp in “Junia: The First Woman Apostle” answers this question well:

So was this Junias a man who was a prominent apostle, or Junia, a woman? If a woman, Junia’s apostleship opens the door to the highest office in the early church and thus to women’s church leadership of any kind in any age.

Do I have your attention now? A lot is riding on one single name!

And indeed it is. In our discussion on Phoebe I mentioned that whether Phoebe was a deacon or not wasn’t super important in the discussion. Not so here. Consider the position of apostles in 1 Corinthians 12:28:

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Also consider apostles mentioned in Ephesians 2:19-21 or in Acts 15 and other places where the apostles and elders met to decide on major church theology. If Junia is an apostle she is a major source of authority and leadership in the apostolic, first-century church.

One “end-around” argument is that Junia is not “prominent among” the apostles but “prominent in the eyes of” the apostles. The Greek grammar allows for either translation so context must determine the correct translation. First of all, scholarship is on the side of the “prominent among” translation. Most translations and commentaries translate the phrase this way. Furthermore, since when does Paul commend someone by referencing how other people felt about the person? He knew these two well and spent time in prison with them. His own recommendation, like all the others recommendations he gives in this chapter, is quite enough.

So we are back then, to question #1: Which name is correct and why is there a discrepancy? Dianne D. McDonnell in “Junia, A Woman Apostle” says:

Without exception the church fathers in late antiquity identified Andronicus' partner in Romans 16:7 as a woman as did minuscule 33 in the 9th century which records Iounia (Greek for Junia) with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Romans 17:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine name Iounias (Junias) with an s. This later name Junias did not exist in antiquity; its explanation as a Greek abbreviation of the Latin name 'Junianus' is unlikely.

So the NIV rendering of “Junias” was a name that did not even exist in the first century. Wow. I think we could stop at this point and ask for a decision from the jury, but there is more. The female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among ancient Roman inscriptions. All the earliest manuscripts (with accents) have Junia. Junias is not even a properly formed Latin name, but would be an irregular form if it did exist. The first know masculine translation of this name did not occur until the 13^th century (Aegidus of Rome, 1245-1316). John Chrysostrom (337-497) said, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).” Jerome (340-419), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108) and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) all wrote that Junia was a woman. The evidence is overwhelming.

Junia, a woman, was a prominent apostle. She and Andronicus (her husband or brother maybe?) were Christians longer than Paul was. They served jail time with Paul and were related to him (though this could be as distant as being from the same Tribe: Benjamin). Like Phoebe, we don’t have many details of what exactly Junia did, but Paul considers her an apostle. There is no higher authority other than Jesus in the first-century church.

Women of the Bible – Phoebe

Phoebe was a first-century Christian in Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth. We read about her only in Romans 16.1-2, where Paul gives her a comparatively lengthy introduction and accommodation. He goes on to greet 27 people in the chapter, 10 of which are women. Many of the terms he uses to describe the women are significant. He describes men and women as fellow-worker, apostle, first-fruit, fellow-countrymen, fellow-prisoner and beloved, but only women are called deacon, patron, hard-worker, sister and mother. Comparatively, only men are called genuine and chosen. Contrary to some perspectives, Paul highly values the women leaders in the early church.

But Paul’s comments about Phoebe are different from the rest of the chapter. First off, he is not greeting her, but recommending her. Some hypothesize that the reason for Phoebe’s special recommendation is that she was the deliverer of this letter to the Romans. This is supported by the fact that Paul says she is coming to Rome and he wants them to greet her well. While it seems likely that this is the case, we do not know for sure.

What we do know for sure is that Paul uses two words to describe Phoebe that are not used of any other men or women on this list. The first word is διάκονος (deacon) and Phoebe is the only deacon we know by name in the New Testament. This word is generally the center of the discuss about Phoebe. Was she a “deacon” or a “servant”? The second, and probably more informative, word is προστάτις (patron; masc. προστάτης) and its use here to describe Phoebe is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament. If you look for the word “patron” in your English translation though, you will not find it. Previously, most translators have considered that the typical role of a patron in the first century was outside the scope of women due to their social position. (An exception is the NRSV, which translates this word “benefactor.”) Recent scholarship demonstrates that women could and did fill this role in first century Greek and Roman societies.

Phoebe the Deacon

Some consider that Phoebe was a servant, but did not hold the office of deacon. They cite the following passage to demonstrate the “servant” translation: 1 Cor. 3.5, 2 Cor. 3.6; 6.4; 11.15 & 23, Gal. 2.17. It seems more likely that the word should be translated “deacon” (but not “office of deacon”) as it is in 1 Tim. 3.8-13. In addition, the phrase “of the church in Cenchrea” reads more like a title more than a generic description. James Walters (Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol 1: 181) argues that the form of διάκονος also indicates “a recognized ministry or position of responsibility, if not an office.” Another point in favor of this more technical translation is that early church tradition demonstrates that there were, in fact, female deacons.

While many debaters go round-and-round on how to translate the word διάκονος it is not an argument that would yield much fruit even if it were settled once and for all. Why? Because we have no idea what a deacon, whether male or female, actually did in the first century. There is no biblical explanation of the duties and responsibilities of deacons and early Christian writings do not help much either. We do have some second and third century writings referring to women deacons, but they are not very informative. Some referred to female deacons baptizing the women, which makes very good sense because some groups baptized people in the nude. But our verses in Romans 16 say that Phoebe was a “deacon/servant of the church in Cenchrea” not that she was the servant only of the women in the church there. In addition, she served Paul, who was, in fact, not a woman. Finally, translating the word “deaconess” is also incorrect. Phoebe is called διάκονος (masc.) just as those in 1 Tim 3 are called διάκονος.

When we start focusing on the office/non-office issue we loose sight of the Pauline teaching of personal responsibility and action-based giftedness. Paul repeatedly demands Christians to use whatever gifts they have in the service of the Lord. The issue is how to translate διάκονος to give us today the same idea that first century Christians had when they read this part of Paul’s letter. To translate this word “deacon” would lead to English readers seeing Phoebe as “clergy”, holding an official position or office in the church. To translate this word “servant” would be to lessen the role Phoebe actually played. Phoebe was a responsible and effective leader in the church in Cenchrea, but she likely did not hold an office. Whatever it was that deacons in the first century did, that is what Phoebe did at Cenchrea.

Phoebe the Patron

What seems to be left out of many discussions about Phoebe is that she was a patron. This seems to be a more important discussion, because we actually know what a patron is and what patrons did in the first century. Furthermore, we know that there were many female patrons at this time. So what does it mean to be a patron? Richard Saller (Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge: 1982:1) describes patronage as:

First, it involves the reciprocal exchange of goods and services. Secondly, to distinguish it from a commercial transaction in the marketplace, the relationship must be a personal one of some duration. Thirdly, it must be asymmetrical, in the sense that the two parties are of unequal status and offer different kinds of goods and services in the exchange – a quality which sets patronage off from friendship between equals.

A good example of this is found in Luke 7.2-5 where the centurion sent the Jewish Elders to Jesus on his behalf. The centurion had no authority to send Jewish elders to Jesus, but he and the Elders had a patron-client relationship. (He provided a synagogue for them. They petitioned Jesus for him.)

There are many Graeco-Roman inscriptions referring to women as patrons and even more inscriptions recounting the activities of patronage performed by women. This is especially common in Greek cities. Consider the inscriptions about Junia Theodora. This is not the Junia of Romans 16.7, but rather an influential patron in the city of Corinth. She was a benefactor (patron) of the Lycians there. Inscriptions about here were found on a stele by a French archaeological team in 1954. The script dates to the 1^st Century AD and one of the decrees on the stele dates to AD 43 or AD 57. All five inscriptions on the stele honor Junia. Here is the first:

In the fourth year, under the priest Dionysphanes, …the council and people of Telemessos decreed…since Iunia Theodora, a Roman, a benefactress of the greatest loyalty to the Lycian federation and our city has accomplished numerous benefits for the federation and our city … welcomes in her own house Lycian travelers and our citizens…supplying them with everything; displaying her patronage (prostasian) of those who are present…her own love of fame and assiduousness: it is decreed that our city in its turn testify to her according to her deserts; by good fortune it pleases the demos of Telmessos to give honour and praise for all the above reasons to the above-mentioned Iunia Theodora and to invite her, living with the same intentions, to always be the author of some benefit towards us, well knowing that in return our city recognizes and will acknowledge the evidence of her goodwill.
(The inscription is published in Pallas, Bulletin de correspondence hellenique (1959):496-508.)

Another inscription from the same stele shows her in the more wide-spread role of international diplomat:

[She] hasn’t ceased to show her zeal and generosity towards the nation and is full of goodwill to all travelers whether private individuals or ambassadors sent by the nation or by various cities; and has procured the gratitude of all of us by assuring the friendship of the authorities which she seeks to win by every means.

Junia Theodora was a success citizen of Corinth and acted independently of any male leadership. No where is there any indication that Junia Theodora acted as a patron under the authority of a male (father or husband). While Junia Theodora did not hold an “office,” she doubtlessly wielded power and authority and did so in a socially and politically acceptable way.

While we don’t get such a detailed description of Phoebe’s patronage, we can assume it to be very similar to Junia’s. They lived in the same place at the same time! Again, Cenchrea is the eastern port of Corinth. It is very likely that Phoebe and Junia knew each other, or at least knew of each other.

We must also consider that patron could have an even wider meaning. Patron could also mean “rules over” or “governs” or, in more general terms, the “leader” of a group. Could Paul have intended by his use of προστάτις that she was the “leader” or “governor” of the church at Cenchrea? It is possible.

Conclusion

Paul wanted to send a strong message to the Roman church about the quality of Phoebe. He did this by recommending her with two words that first century Christians equated with leadership, respect and trust. These two short verses leave us with many questions, but we see clearly that Phoebe was an important leader to Paul and to the church in Cenchrea. She would likely become so in Rome as well in the very near future.

Women of the Bible – The Women of Philippi

Lydia, Euodia and Syntyche all lived in Philippi during the first century and contributed significantly to the spreading of the gospel there.

Lydia

Lydia was a merchant from Thyatira in Asia. Thyatira was part of the ancient kingdom of Lydia before it was added to the Roman Province of Asia. Locals likely still referred to it as Lydia and that may be why she is called Lydia, or perhaps “the Lydian lady.” Some commentators suggest that this Lydian lady may have actually been Euodia or Syntyche (Philippians 4.3). Lydia was actually a very common name at the time, so there is no issue with the simplest explanation: that Lydia was simply Lydia.

She came to Philippi as a seller of purple, generally considered a lucrative trade since purple was expensive and a sign of wealth and station. (The purple dye was made from the secretion of a species of mollusk, just FYI.) Philippi was a Roman colony and one of the largest cities in eastern Macedonia along the great east-west Egnation Highway between Rome and Asia.

Lydia was a Gentile, but worshiped God. There was a synagogue in her native Thyatira, so she may have been a long-time seeker of God.

Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke came to Troas (#9) where the Holy Spirit redirected their route so that they went into Macedonia. When they came to Philippi (#12) they looked for the Synagogue and found Lydia and many women at “the place of prayer.” Lydia received their message about Jesus and she and her household believed and were baptized. (Even though Lydia was an Asian, she was the first convert in Europe to Christianity.) She then invited Paul and company to come stay with her, but they declined. She insisted so they accepted her invitation.

While staying with Lydia and continuing to meet at the “place of prayer,” Paul and Silas were arrested after they freed a slave woman from a demon that possessed her. The woman’s owners used her to make money as she predicted the future. They were upset that their source of income had been destroyed.

When the officials found out that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens (and that they had flogged and chained them illegally) they asked them politely to leave. Paul and Silas demanded they escort them to Lydia’s house before leaving town (Acts 16.40). This was likely to protect Lydia and the Christians that met in her home, giving them validity and recognition in the city. Paul shared what had happened with the gathered Christians at Lydia’s house before leaving town. Lydia’s house had become the home base for the Christians in Philippi.

Why did God choose Lydia to establish and lead his church in Philippi? Let us list a few of her characteristics:

1. she was a woman of prayer
2. she listened and was eager to learn
3. she was a worshipper
4. she opened her heart
5. she was obedient to baptism
6. she confessed that she was a believer
7. she influenced those around her to follow Christ
8. she wanted to serve
9. she opened her home
10. she was hospitable

It was Paul’s habit to seek out and speak in the synagogue when he entered a town. Here we see that he looked for the synagogue then found a “place of prayer.” Did he find what he was looking for or are the synagogue and the place of prayer different things?

W. Derek Thomas (in “The Place of Women in the Church at Philippi”) says:

There does not seem to have been a synagogue a Philippi which was a Roman colony and there were probably few Jews in the place… The absence of a synagogue is suggested by a careful reading of the account of Paul’s first visit to the town. … Generally, upon entering a new town Paul would find the synagogue and use his privilege to address the Jewish congregation. This he did not do at Philippi, presumably because there was no synagogue in the town. Had there been ten male Jews permanently resident there, the quorum required by Jewish law, it would have been enough to constitute a synagogue. It was left to a number of women, probably Jewesses and proselytes, to maintain a limited form of worship and prayer.

This argument hinges on two main points:
1. The use of προσευχή (place of prayer) instead of συναγωγή (synagogue)
2. That no men are present.

For the first point, we must consider what both history and archeology have to say about these Greek words. These inscriptions were found in Alexandria (Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity) and date to 246-221 BC and 37 BC, respectively:

“In honour of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike his sister and wife and their children, the Jews built the προσευχή.”

“For the queen and the king, to the great God who hears (prayers) Alypos made the προσευχή.”

Likewise, Josephus used προσευχή and συναγωγή interchangeably (Josephus, Against Apion 2.10; Antiquities 14.258; Philo, Life of Moses 2.216.). W. Bauer (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: 713) says, “[Among Jews προσευχή is] nearly always equivalent to συναγωγή.” Therefore, at least some scholars agree that the archeological and historical evidence suggests that these two terms are equivalent.

Now let us look to the issue of no men being present in Philippi. Women were not required to attend the synagogue, yet clearly many did attend.

1When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. 4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. (Acts 17.1-4)

He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Acts 18.26)

B. J. Brooten (“Inscriptional Evidence for Women as Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue”, Scholars Press, 1981) argues that women served as leaders in many synagogues during the Roman and Byzantine periods. He cites Greek and Latin inscriptions describing women as “leader,” “elder,” and “mother of the synagogue.” The popular idea that women sat in a side-room or gallery separated from the men in synagogue has no literary or archaeological evidence to support it.

We must remember that we are talking about a Greek city where some Jews live, not the other way around. The Jewish leadership in Palestine likely had little if any influence on these synagogues. For this reason, the lack of 10 men (or a minyan – a quorum of ten males, age thirteen or older, necessary for official synagogue services) was likely not an issue in Philippi. Furthermore, this “minyan” rule was found in the Mishna (part of the Talmud) that was not approved in its finalized form until well after the first century. Even if there was rabbinic influence from Jerusalem in Greek cities, it is very unlikely that they had any strong standardization or homogonous participation so far from Judea.

Lydia served the church and Paul specifically as a Patron. The Patron-Client relationship was fundamental to the spread of the Gospel. Even Jesus benefited from this type of relationship. He was the client of the women who supported his needs as patrons (Luke 8.3). The Patron-Client relationship was not a peer relationship. The Patron provided for the client something the client did not have. This could be a variety of things but often included protection, material support, legal aid, hospitality, opportunities for employment or places for assembly. Her wealth as a dealer of purple allowed her to house the first house church in Philippi and play host to Paul and his companions (at least 3 other men). It seems likely that Lydia would have much to do with the generous gifts given by the Philippian church.

Paul also serves as a patron to the church and to Lydia by returning to her house after his imprisonment. By having the authorities escort him and Silas to Lydia’s house they gave validation to the Christians that met there, protecting them from further attacks from the community. While the word patron is not used to describe Paul and Lydia’s interactions, it is clearly applied sometime in one direction and sometimes in the other. This is an excellent example of Christians taking care of one another’s needs. Given this meaningful relationship, it is odd that Lydia is not mentioned in Philippians. Perhaps this gives more credit to the argument that she was either Euodia or Syntyche.

Euodia and Syntyche

Euodia and Syntyche were also important women in Philippi and their relationship with each other had a large, and sometime negative, influence on the church there. Paul says in Philippians 4.3 that these two women “fought as my side in (spreading) the gospel.” What a mouthful that is. Some say that since they were women they were not ministers of the word in the same way Paul and other males were. This simply cannot be supported by the text and demonstrates forcing ones theology on the Bible rather than letting the Bible form one’s theology. Working “side by side” with someone implies doing the same job. This is not to imply that these two women were equivalent to Paul in every way. They simply engaged in the same ministry work as Paul did in Philippi and were respected, as much as the men, for their service.

Paul also refers to these women as “fellow workers.” Paul uses this phrase to describe several people in various letters. In Romans 16.3, he uses this term to describe Priscilla and Aquila who both served as teachers of the gospel (Acts 18.26). Euodia and Syntyche probably functioned in the same way as Priscilla and Aquila, teaching the gospel to men and women. 1 Corinthians 3:8-10 describes fellow workers as those who spread the message of Jesus (evangelism). In Colossians 4.10-15 Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus called Justus are all fellow workers and probably Epaphras (who is from Philippi), Luke and Demas as well by the context. No one would assume for an instant that these fellow workers would be limited to secondary, non-teaching roles. Note we also have mention here of another female house church leader, Nympha, and the church that meets in her house in Laodicea. Finally, Philemon 1.24 again mentions Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke as fellow workers.

C. E. Cerling (“Women Ministers in the New Testament Church?”) argues that “fellow worker” does not equate with “preacher.” I agree. The idea we have of preachers who standup before their congregations and preach each week is a concept that does not map to first century Christianity. There was no separation of clergy and laity. To the contrary, in the first century every Christian had a ministry of some sort. Therefore, we simply have to say that these women served in the same way Paul did, which is probably an even stronger statement of the leadership of these women.

Another argument is that the culture they lived in would not allow such female leadership. We have already discussed that women in Macedonia had many freedoms and this leadership would not have stepped on too many cultural toes.

The conflict between Euodia and Syntyche is of great importance to Paul. In fact, it seems likely that Paul wrote this letter primarily to address their conflict. Throughout the letter, Paul pleads for unity. Philippians is filled with phrases such as “stand firm in one spirit,” “contending as one man,” and make [Paul’s] joy complete by being ‘like-minded, having the same love,’ and being one in spirit and purpose.” Garland (NT 1985: 171) writes:

“Perhaps because Euodia and Syntyche were women, it has been tacitly assumed by many interpreters that they could be only minor players in the plot of Philippians. It is my contention that Paul carefully and covertly wove his argument to lead up to the impassioned summons in 4.2. He wrote primarily to defuse the dispute between these two women that was having disastrous repercussions for the unity of the church (173).”

These two women were of such high standing in the church that their conflict seems to have gathered followers, splitting the church about whatever issue is was. It is also possible that the church had outgrown a single home and perhaps there were house churches at each of these women’s homes; house-churches that were moving toward complete separation rather than cooperation.

Conclusion

As in the ministry of Jesus, women provided material assets to the church in Philippi (and elsewhere). Lydia was part of the merchant class and had the wealth and status that came along with that position. Her house became the center of Christian activity in this community. She was a patron to Paul (and he to her).

Euodia and Syntyche were important members of the church in Philippi. They were “fellow workers” with Paul. Their dispute was causing a major problem in the church in Philippi and Paul wrote this letter specifically to address these women and their conflict. Women in Philippi shared equal status with the men in spreading the gospel. Nothing prevented them from sharing the gospel with both men and women.

Women of the Bible – Priscilla

Priscilla (also known as Prisca) was a first century Christian woman who, like Lydia, hosted a house-church in her home. Unlike Lydia though, Priscilla is always mentioned with her husband Aquila. The team of Priscilla and Aquila (or Aquila and Priscilla) did great things for Christ, likely hosting house-churches in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, then again in Rome, and then again in Ephesus.

Luke introduces Priscilla and her husband to us in Acts 18. We learn that they came from Rome due to Emperor Claudius expelling “all the Jew” from Rome due to “their continual tumults instigated by Chrestus” (Claudius, 25). Chrestus was a common misspelling of Christ. Paul meets the couple in Corinth as they have a lot in common. Like Paul, they were tentmakers, Jewish Christians, and likely already leaders in the church. (There is no mention of their conversion and if Paul did convert them, they would be his “first fruits” in Greece, not the house of Stephanus, 1 Corinthians 16.15.) Paul stays with them until he leaves for Ephesus, at which time he takes them to Ephesus and leaves them there. Finally, Luke tells us that Apollos came to Ephesus and preached in the synagogue. When our couple hears him, they invite him to their house and “explain they way of God more adequately” to him. Luke does not focus on the subject of the teaching, instead he highlights the wisdom of Aquila and Priscilla in how they instruct Apollos and in the humility of Apollos by his willingness to be taught even though he was a “learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.”

Critics downplay Priscilla's participation and even point out the private nature of this teaching, away from the synagogue. Yet nowhere do we see Priscilla taking a backseat to her husband and this “private” setting of their home was where the church met in Ephesus! Perhaps this was Bible class at the Ephesus Church of Christ (grin).

Others overemphasize Priscilla’s involvement citing name order (Priscilla is mentioned ahead of her husband in this passage). This is an unreasonable position as well.

Which name is mentioned first? Aquila is mentioned first in Acts 18.2 and 1 Corinthians 16.19. Priscilla is mentioned first in Acts 18.18, Acts 18.19, Acts 18.26 Romans 16.3 and 2 Timothy 4.19. Much discussion revolves around Priscilla being mentioned first five times, but it is mostly speculation. What does seem significant is that she is mentioned at all. Other leading men, such as Peter and James (1 Corinthians 9.5) have wives who are not even mentioned at all in most cases, and never by name. The usual way to introduce a family would be to simply mention the husband by name. If emphasis was needed to show his wife was also present one would say, "...and his wife." Mentioning Priscilla, by name no less, is significant apart from the order. Furthermore, there are textual variants on 2 Timothy where Aquila’s name comes first.

It seems to me the balance of the naming order really tells the story here. Priscilla and Aquila were a team. They worked together in every aspect of their ministry in which we know about. This strikes me as very similar to Adam and Eve. Perhaps they were just too busy serving to worry much about who should be in charge or get the glory.

1 Corinthians 16.19 Paul sends warm greeting from Aquila and Priscilla when writing from Ephesus to Corinth. Apollos is also in Ephesus, but is not mentioned to the Corinthians even though he has been in Corinth before as well. Paul also mentions the church that meets in their house, perhaps to share the success the couple has had in Ephesus. House churches were the standard organizational structure for the early church. Priscilla and Aquila were experts at running such a church. They did so in Corinth and now in Ephesus and will soon do the same in Rome. Paul seems to send this couple to cities that require strong local leadership.

Romans 16.3-5 give some strong descriptions of our couple. Only Priscilla and Aquila receive the compliment of being Paul’s “fellow workers” in Acts 16. He uses this same term for Apollos (1 Cor. 3.9) and Luke and Mark (Phil. 1.24). It is likely a term that refers to those dedicated to Christ and leading others (believers and unbelievers) to him. Paul also mentions that they risked their lives for him. It is possible that this is a metaphor, but given the trouble Paul had in Ephesus it could just as likely been real physical danger. The larger influence of our couple is seen in this statement: “all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.” Finally, we find out that Aquila and Priscilla are now in Rome. They are likely running another house church here and reporting to Paul (which maybe why he is so informed on what is happening there, Romans 14 & 15 especially).

2 Timothy 4.19 tells us little more about our couple other than they seemed to have returned to Ephesus after their stay in Rome.

Priscilla and her husband worked closely with Paul, but were also independent church leaders in the 1^st century. Sometimes they followed Paul to a destination and sometimes they preceded him there. In both cases, they coordinated with Paul and received some of his highest compliments for their leadership. Witherington (Women in the Earliest Church, 1920, pg 114) summarizes their activities as follows:

One gets the impression they were two of Paul’s closest and most reliable workers, and it is likely they were involved in a wide range of activities from providing hospitality for Paul to church planting, to teaching and preaching (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; and Acts 18:1-3, 26-28). Clearly they were a major factor in the Gentile mission.