Who Says Women Can't Lead? The Bible Doesn't.
The biblical case for women in leadership is actually very clear.
In today’s post I want to continue exploring the biblical case for women in leadership with a survey of passages in both the New and Old Testaments that make it pretty clear women are equal to men.
Over and against these overwhelming number of passages supporting women in leadership and gender equality, there are really only two passages in the New Testament that complementarians can rely on to restrict leadership to men only: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Timothy 3:1-13. I talk about these two passages in my book, Jesus and Captain Kirk, showing how complementarians are badly misinterpreting them. (We’ll look at these in the next blog.)
For today, I’d like to present the wealth of biblical passages supporting gender equality. I decided to take a survey approach with little elaboration, because for the most part I think they speak plainly enough. My aim here is to introduce the topic of biblical equality, and at the end of this article I’ve listed some excellent books for those interested in diving deeper into the topic.
Here then are some of the key biblical passages supporting full gender equality. This list is by no means exhaustive, and it is in no particular order. I think it is sufficient to completely dismantle the complementarian viewpoint. Most of what follows is adapted from Jesus and Captain Kirk.
The Biblical Evidence for Full Gender Equality
Deborah, Judge and Leader of Israel (Judges 4 and 5). I still remember the ripples of nervous laughter through the congregation that Sunday morning. The pastor was preaching through the Book of Judges, and had just finished reading the story of Deborah.
I could see that the pastor, a firm hierarchicalists, was not happy with the obvious implications of the story. He concluded his sermon with a warning to the men: “You see men, that’s what happens when there’s no real men around. God couldn’t find a real man to lead the nation, so he was forced to use a woman.”
Before a monarchy was established in Israel, before King David, there was a 400-year span in early Jewish history referred to as the period of the judges. This period stretched from shortly after the Jews left Egypt and ran up until the first King. During this time Israel was ruled by a succession of Judges. Most of them were men, but one was a woman, named Deborah. You can read her story in Judges chapters 4 and 5.
The intellectual gymnastics of our pastor were impressive, because even from this story of Deborah he was still able to twist it to conform to his complementarian worldview. Except the text doesn’t allow for that. The biblical narrative of Deborah is extremely positive. She’s portrayed as a very successful and effective leader.
Deborah ruled over the nation, including male military commanders, with all the authority of any of her male counterparts. This is, as they say, the exception that proves the rule. There’s no restriction on women. In fact, a comparison of her story with the stories of her male counterparts in the same book shows that she was in many respects a more able leader than some of the other Judges – notably Samson, who as a national leader was a miserable failure.
The Prophetess Huldah. (2 Chronicles 34:22-28). Huldah was a prophetess who instructed the King – a male sovereign. Huldah had words of warning to the King that would not be particularly welcome. She was a woman who bravely spoke truth to power.
Queen Esther. When a plot to exterminate all the Jews in the Empire is revealed, Queen Esther moves boldly to save her people and avoid a holocaust. Esther was a heroic female leader of her nation. The stories of Deborah, Huldah and Esther alone completely pulls the rug out from underneath complementarians and everything they try to tell us the Bible says. These women taught and led not just men, but kings and other top national leaders. So much for the complementarian view of “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” in 1 Timothy 2:12.
Your daughters shall prophesy. Joel 2:28-32: “And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, your sons and your daughters shall prophesy[1] … Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my spirit.”
The Book of Joel is in the Old Testament. Here Joel is declaring that women are to be preachers and teachers in full equality with men, when the Spirit of God would be poured out on ‘all flesh’. And just so any patriarchal minded man doesn’t miss the point of ‘all flesh’, Joel spells it out for them: it includes “sons and daughters.” The daughters will prophesy, which includes public preaching and teaching.
The technical formulation of the phrase “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” makes no distinction between gender or gender-based roles, and levels the playing field. The full inclusion of women is in view with this passage. Sons and daughters, men and women, are portrayed in the same roles.
The significance of this passage for the spiritual life of the church should not be underestimated. Acts chapter 2 records the birth of the Christian church, the first public preaching and teaching by the followers of Christ, proclaiming for the first time the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
In his first public sermon on the day the church was born, Peter quoted this passage from Joel and specifically applied it to the birth of the Christian church. The Old and New Testaments clearly support women in public preaching and leadership.
Gal 3:28. This verse has been called the high-water mark of the New Testament, a magnificent declaration of freedom and equality for men and woman of all races: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.” (See also Col. 3:11).
Since Greek (pagan gentiles) and Jews were the major racial barrier at the time, this should be understood as a radical statement of full racial equality. Slaves and free people were the major class barrier at the time in Roman society, so this is a huge statement on the complete removal of class distinction. This verse is declaring full equality across the three major divisions between people: race, gender and social class. We cannot just apply this statement of equality to race and class, but not gender.
Col. 4:15. “Give my greetings to…Nympha, and the church in her house.” When Paul refers to the church in Nympha’s house, he is not commending her as just a “hostess with the mostess”, like someone who has just opened up her home to others. Having a church in your home typically meant you were a leader, and it would be very difficult to assume Paul expected her to “remain silent” or be subordinate in her own home.
The Apostle Junia. In Romans 16:7, Paul refers to a woman named Junia as notable or outstanding among the apostles. There has been some modern debate over the gender identity of ‘Junia’, and some English bibles translate Junia as Junias (a man), but for the first several centuries of church history Junia was understood to be a woman apostle.
The early church fathers all recognized Junia as a woman. Chrysostom, who was not in favour of women in leadership, wrote that Junia was a woman, and extolled her as “outstanding among the apostles – just think what a wonderful song of praise that is!”[2]
All early church commentators recognized her as a woman.[3] It’s not until the Middle Ages we find some commentators – for the most part following Luther’s lead, who did not believe it was possible for a woman to be an apostle – switching Junia (female) to Junias (male), but for the first ten centuries Junia was recognized as a woman.
The history of how Junia has been translated over the centuries is fascinating, and serves as an excellent example of how some men have tried to obscure or erase the roles of women in the Bible. In some cases even Greek New Testaments were intentionally edited to change Junia to Junias!
Modern scholarship on the subject is conclusive. New Testament scholar Eldon Jay Epp compiled tables of all the Greek New Testaments from Erasmus down to the 20th century. His research demonstrates that the Greek name Junia was almost always translated in its female form up until the 20th century. Then, translations suddenly switched over to the male form of the name, Junias.[4]
“Why?” asks historian Beth Barr, and then goes on to answer: “Epp makes it painfully, maddeningly clear that a major factor in twentieth century treatments of Romans 16:7 was the assumption that a woman could not have been an apostle. Junia became Junias because modern Christians assumed that only a man could be an apostle.” [5] The early church Fathers and translators made no such assumption. The mistranslation of Junia to Junias has been corrected in recent years, and scholars now accept that Junia in 16:7 is a woman.
Some complementarians, forced to concede that Junia was a woman, switched their strategy to claim that she was only “well known to the apostles,” not “outstanding among the apostles.” However, the entire time Junia was believed to be a man there was no doubt that “he” was an apostle – and not just an apostle, but a prominent apostle. As Peppiatt notes, “while translators believed Junia to be a man, there was no such ambiguity”[6] about Junia’s status as an outstanding apostle.
A careful examination of the Greek words involved show that 16:7 is more accurately translated as “prominent or outstanding among the apostles,” and not simply “well known to the apostles.”[7]
Despite some modern attempts to obscure the fact and erase Junia the woman from history, there is no serious doubt among scholars that the apostle Junia was a woman, and prominent among the apostles. For a detailed study, please see the following references.[8]
Phoebe. Ro. 16:1-2. “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church.” The Greek word here translated ‘deacon’, (or in some English translations ‘servant’) is the same word used elsewhere for male deacons, a church leadership role. In v.2 Phoebe is also referred to as a ‘patron’. The Greek word is prostatis, and means ‘ruler over many people’, including no doubt many men. Paul is perfectly comfortable commending this female leader to his readers.
While the meaning of some Greek words, such as authentein used in I Timothy 2, might be debatable, the Greek word used here is not. It means deacon and is translated everywhere else as deacon. It is only some complementarian leaning translations (ESV, NIV, KJV) that chose to translate it as ‘servant’ here, when referring to a woman’s position. Along with complementarian translations of 1 Timothy 3 which insert male pronouns that don’t exist in the Greek, this is one of the more striking examples of how biased English translations have misled people concerning the role of women in leadership.
Phoebe was a deacon. Therefore we know that the passage in 1 Timothy 3 could not have been intended to restrict the role of deacon, and likely elders, to men only.
Prisca. In Romans 16:3-4, Paul refers to “Prisca and Aquila”, fellow workers in Christ. (This couple and their work are also described in Acts 18:1-4, 26).
Nowhere is it suggested that Prisca is inferior to or under the authority of Aquila in ministry. She shares the same title; she is recognized as sharing equally in the ministry work as well as the risks (“they both risked their necks for my life,” says Paul). There is nothing suggesting a subordinate role for Prisca as one of the church leaders.
Euodia and Syntyche. Phil. 4:1-3: Referring to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, Paul says: “Yes, I ask you to help these women who labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” It is clear that these women were considered equals.
Note the striking language Paul used: he says that they labored side by side with me, together with other men and the rest of my fellow workers. These women worked next to Paul along with other men. There is nothing subordinate in this language.
Paul speaks of these women in equal terms along with himself and the other men he worked with. He wasn’t just saying these women were nice and served him food and drink while the men did the important work. I don’t think we can take this passage for anything else other than straightforward evidence that women worked at Paul’s side as fellow leaders.
1 Corinthians 11:5. This verse sits within a challenging passage discussing head coverings for women as well as men. Paul says that women who prophesy publicly with their heads uncovered dishonor their husbands. Hairstyles for women in first century Corinth were significant. They indicated whether a woman was single, married, a temple prostitute or a follower of one of the pagan mystery cults. Paul is not making a universal rule, but discussing cultural propriety.
The message here for the church at large is that we should dress ourselves appropriately for our culture when in public. All societies have their cultural baggage, but we shouldn’t let this discussion around women’s hairstyles distract us from the crucial point: Paul isn’t saying women can’t speak out in public, only that they should do so in a culturally appropriate manner. Verse 5 carries a very implicit endorsement of women ministering publicly. The issue here is cultural relevance and decorum, not gender.
1 Cor 12:1-14: Both men and women, “brothers and sisters”, are addressed at the beginning of this lengthy passage discussing the public exercise of spiritual gifts for the common good. We are all baptized by one Spirit into one Body, and we all drink from the same Spirit. There are no gender distinctions.[9]
Acts 21:8-9. Phillip, one of the earliest leaders of the church, had four daughters who were all prophets. We know from Paul’s letters that prophesying involved public speaking, the authoritative teaching and instruction to the entire assembled congregation. This would include men as well as women. (1 Corinthians 14:4,30,31). Prophecy was didactic, and there is nothing to suggest in 1 Corinthians 12-14 that any of the gifts, prophecy included, were gender specific.
Many women leaders are mentioned in the New Testament. Phoebe is the only 1st century deacon for whom we have a name. In Romans chapter 16 we are given a long list of names, and more women than men are identified by their ministry. “Whether as missionary ‘co-workers’ (Priscilla, Euodia, Syntyche), leaders of house churches (Priscilla, Nympha, Phoebe), fellow apostles before Paul (Junia and possibly Phoebe), or those who ‘labored hard in the Lord’ (Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis), these women are never portrayed in subordinate positions to Paul or to other men.”[10]
Jesus and Women
Jesus was a moral and social revolutionary, and his position on women was extremely progressive. Roman and Jewish society at the time had an overwhelmingly negative attitude towards women. In some circles, women couldn’t even leave the house without a male escort. Women were typically illiterate, not being allowed to read, write or study the scripture. Education was considered wasted on women, whose primary role was to get married and raise children (boys, preferably).
In this setting, it is significant that Jesus had women disciples[11] who made up a large contingent of his followers, something that was offensive to the culture at large. It is also significant, therefore, that the early church writers of the gospels made no attempt to disguise this fact.
In Luke 8:3 prominent women who followed Christ are named. The gospels record that large numbers of women were among his disciples and ‘ministered’ to him.[12] The Greek word for ‘ministering’ is diakonoun, the same basic word for ‘deacon’ used of men in a church leadership role. Complementarian leaning English Bibles, such as the ESV and NIV, translate this word ‘servant’ when it is describing women, and ‘deacon’ when describing male leaders.
“Most significantly, the prominence of women in the story of Jesus’ resurrection – this central event of the gospel narrative… is a strong statement about the role of women: Jesus disclosed himself first to women and entrusted them with the responsibility of telling the apostles.”[13]
In a society where women were not even allowed to testify in courts of law because they were not considered reliable, Jesus chose women, not men, to be his first witnesses. This is hugely significant and obviously intentional on Christ’s part. He’s making a point here, and it is also significant that the authors of the gospels recorded this fact, because the event was not something that would assist the early church with its message to the world or help with its credibility. In fact, it would only hinder its credibility in the eyes of the larger culture.
Leonard Swidler dryly notes: “The effort of Jesus to centrally connect these two points (his resurrection and the role of women) is so obvious that it is an overwhelming tribute to man’s intellectual myopia not to have discerned it effectively in two thousand years.”[14] Women were prominent in all four resurrection accounts. They were the first preachers of the gospel, the first to tell the disciples of the resurrection. These women taught and instructed the apostles; as some have pointed out, they were “preachers to the preachers”.
Christ’s treatment and attitude towards women was remarkable. In a world that considered women suitable for little more than their sexual function, He said: “Do not look upon a woman to lust after her.” (Mat.5:27-28). In other words, women are not to be viewed as sex objects, but as persons.
The stories of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50) and the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11) also confirm that Jesus did not regard women as inferior or as sex objects, but as persons with full equality.
In John 4 we have a long and detailed story of Christ’s interaction with a Samaritan woman who he met at a well. Jesus whole encounter with this woman broke social taboos on all kinds of levels between race and gender. Christ’s interaction with her, while appearing harmless to us today, was hugely offensive according to cultural convention of the time governing male-female interactions.
In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 15, Jesus tells the parable of the lost coin. It is notable that in this story, Jesus portrays God in the image of a woman.
The story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-41 is a fascinating study. Jesus visits the home of Mary and Martha, two sisters who followed Christ, along with his disciples. One evening the disciples and a large crowd gathered in their home. A houseful of men sat down to listen to Jesus teach, and Mary sat down with them, leaving Martha to do all the serving. Martha grew frustrated that all the work of preparing and serving food had been left to her, and that her sister Mary wasn’t “lifting a finger” to help with the kitchen duties.
Martha went to Jesus to complain and asked him to tell Mary to help her in the kitchen. Martha was of course following the social conventions of her time and was not asking anything that would be considered unconventional. In fact, Mary sitting down with the men to learn with them was unconventional, and she likely earned a few sideways glances from the men for her impertinence. Remember, in this society women were not educated with men, and were usually denied education altogether.
But Jesus responded to Martha that Mary “had chosen the better thing and it would not be taken from her.” He overturned custom, and reaffirmed Mary’s right to sit with the men and learn alongside them. In fact, he asserted that Mary had chosen the better thing. Here we have Jesus affirming that it is better for women to sit and be educated along with men, rather than participate in traditional gender-based duties.
Jesus did not support the traditional view that a woman’s primary place was in the kitchen. Instead he affirmed Mary’s place equally alongside men in intellectual and cerebral activities; and through Mary, all women. This presents a radically different view of women and women’s roles.
In Luke 11:27-28 a woman in the crowd called out to Jesus: “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you.” Jesus responds with: “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Again, Jesus does not reaffirm the traditional role for women. Instead, he said they would be more blessed in hearing and keeping the word of God. He affirmed their spiritual and intellectual identities as people, and the implicit equality with men in this statement is obvious and must not be brushed aside. “Women are called to the work of the kingdom rather than motherhood as the first priority in their lives”,[15] thus overturning traditional gender roles and the primary sexual function of women.
In his book Biblical Affirmations of Women, Leonard Swidler compiled an exhaustive collection of passages from the Gospels supporting an incredibly positive view of women. He covers in great detail these passages that I have briefly surveyed above. I like the way he sums it up: “From this evidence it should be clear that Jesus vigorously promoted the dignity and equality of women in the midst of a very male dominated society…Can his followers attempt to be anything else?”[16]
The Hermeneutics of Liberation
I’m going to borrow a page from the abolitionists’ playbook. Here’s why: many of the arguments used by the abolitionists to refute slavery can also be applied to the issue of hierarchy. And that should certainly arouse our suspicions.
Quakers in Philadelphia were early abolitionists, and one of their arguments was based on the words of Christ in Mat. 25: “I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!” (Mat. 25:40, NLT).
Quakers used this passage to argue that how we treat other people, including the lowliest of society, is how we treat Christ. When we enslave the Black man, they pointed out, we enslave Christ. It’s not much of a stretch at all to apply this argument to patriarchy and women. When we subjugate women in a hierarchy, we subjugate Christ.
Abolitionists also based arguments on the imago Dei. All humans are made in the image of God. How can anyone in the image of God be enslaved? We might well ask the same question of the subjugation of women in a male hierarchy. How can women, made in the image of God as fully as men, be subjugated? How can they be told that they cannot lead or teach, if they are gifted to do so? The subjugation of women in a hierarchy is a violation of their imago Dei.
In a similar vein, abolitionists argued that slavery violates the priesthood of all believers. I’d say the same for hierarchy. Through Christ, all believers come into a direct relationship with God. We no longer need a priest or someone else to approach God for us, or to act as God’s spokesperson for us. Through Christ we all come into direct personal contact with the Divine.
As Peter declares, believers are now part of a spiritual temple of “holy priests”, a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5,9). Readers at the time would have understood exactly what Peter was getting at. They were all very familiar with Old Testament regulations that required priests to approach God as intermediaries for them.
Under the Old Testament system people could not go to God themselves, a priest had to do that for them. But now in Christ, Peter was saying, they were all priests who could draw near to God directly. They no longer needed others to do that for them.
The significance of this must not be underestimated. It is really one of the key revolutionary concepts of the Christian gospel. This is something that complementarians and egalitarians agree on, and is a basic theme of the New Testament. Throughout the New Testament, again and again, we find this emphasis made: that in Christ we have a new and living way into the presence of God. The need for an intermediary between us and God has been swept away by the cross of Christ – His life, death and resurrection. We all, from the least to the greatest, have the privilege of approaching God directly through Christ, and seeking his will and guidance for our lives.
Christians do not contend this. Yet a complementarian reading of scripture is ultimately inconsistent with it. A hierarchy requiring women to submit to men, to follow and obey men, in which women are kept from leadership on the basis of their sex, effectively places the male in a priestly role for women. As such it reduces women to a secondary spiritual status. Intrinsic within this is an implicit assumption that men will know better, at least in spiritual matters and church governance. As Dr. Barr asks: “How can we apply a hermeneutic of liberation to the slavery debate to blacks, but not to women?”
We can know modern hierarchicalists are wrong for the same reasons we know advocates of slavery in the 19th century were wrong about the Bible. Their interpretation of the Bible does not line up with the rest of scripture and the freedom we all have in Christ. While appearing to be faithful to the words on the page, the so-called plain reading, of some verses, it takes them to a place that is inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament. They will argue for a contextual understanding of the slavery texts, but deny the same for the gender texts. This is an inconsistent application of their hermeneutic, and consistency is a key to correct interpretation.
This isn’t caving into political correctness, although the PC crowd isn’t always wrong, and they aren’t wrong about equality. Dr. Beth Barr has done extensive research into the history of patriarchy in the church, and traces it back to its origins.[17] She shows that through most of human history, from the dawn of the first cities in Sumer, male hierarchy was the safe, politically correct position to take. The Roman Empire was extremely patriarchal and the early churches radical position on equality for women and slaves was offensive to Roman culture.
As Barr points out, it was a craven capitulation by the church in later centuries to the surrounding culture that brought male hierarchy into the church. Historically, it is male headship that’s PC, not equality. It is only recently in the West that equality has become associated with political correctness.
“Come now, let us reason together”[18]
The biblical evidence endorsing women in leadership roles is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Over and against that, we have a limited handful of passages used by complementarians to keep women out of leadership.
There are a few other passages that sometimes come into the conversation, notably 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and Titus 2:5. Like Ephesians 5:22, the passage in Titus speaks only of wives submitting to their husbands and has no bearing on church leadership. Our conclusions from Ephesians will also apply to Titus. 1 Corinthians 11, with its extensive discussion on head coverings and hair, screams out for a cultural understanding. And again, while there is discussion of women submitting to husbands within their marriage relationship, nothing in this passage can be used to preclude women from church leadership and has nothing to say to unmarried women.
What’s striking here is the lack of passages that could even remotely be used by complementarians to bolster their position. Only two of them have any possible bearing on gender regarding authority and leadership in the Church. If male headship was as important to the Divine economy as complementarians seem to think, then we have to wonder why God did not include more passages on the subject.
Christianity teaches the full equality of men and women, going right back to the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2, in which men and women are created equal and given the same duties in the garden. We have a solid foundation for the full equality of all races and genders in the doctrine of creation. This is the basis for the historical Church teaching of imago Dei that all humans carry.
Gender based hierarchy is a pagan concept, not Christian. It existed in the world in virtually every pagan civilization prior to the coming of Christ. As far back as recorded history allows us to look, gender-based hierarchy was there – and almost always male.
When the church later adopted gender hierarchy it was compromising with pagan and non-Christian cultural attitudes. The Gospel of Jesus Christ subverts this, as it does slavery and all forms of private and institutional oppression. Isn’t it time that we fully embrace the freedom that Christ is trying to bring us through His gospel, rather than embracing an oppressive, rigid gender hierarchy that the Church originally adopted from pagan cultures?
For those interested in exploring the Christian message, and have been perhaps put-off by the unfortunate stand some churches take on women in leadership, I would encourage you to look into the central tenets of the faith: the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Through his resurrection, humanity is restored to a relationship with God. Through Christ you can be forgiven of your sins and come into a relationship with God who loves you. If you believe that full equality for women means that women should be allowed leadership roles just like men, then by all means hold on to that. There are many good churches out there that also believe that, and they have solid biblical support for it.
It is not necessary to accept gender roles to be a good Christian. In fact, I believe the best expression of the faith of Christ will only be found in Christian communities that fully accept women on equal grounds with men in the exercise of their gifts and calling. Many churches are also completely egalitarian, completely open to women in top leadership roles. Christianity worldwide is over 60% female and has been a haven for women from the days of the Roman Empire.
The debate is shifting, and the egalitarians have the weight of historical and biblical scholarship on their side, even if complementarians seem not to be paying attention to that. The day will soon arrive when the issue of equality for women will be no more a debatable subject than racism and slavery. It can’t arrive soon enough.
I believe the egalitarian view simply fits better within the overall meta-narrative of Scripture, and therefore must be the correct view. As Peppiatt says:
“I frame this with Paul’s theology of what it means to be ‘in Christ’ as a male and female, baptized into one faith, and one church, filled with the same Spirit who pours out gifts as he will regardless of race, sex, age, and status. For this reason I believe the onus is on the hierarchicalists to explain why and how they understand the impact of the Christian gospel on families, communities, churches, and societies to give rise to the exclusion, subordination, and silencing of women. There is no precedence for this in Scripture.”[19]
Exactly. There is no precedence in Scripture for the subordination of women. The freedom we have in Christ isn’t just for white men. The complementarian view of so-called ‘biblical womanhood’ is no more biblical than slavery.
Further Reading
Barr, Beth Allison, Dr. The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (2021).
Bessey, Sarah. Jesus Feminist: An Invitation to Revisit the Bible’s View of Women (2013).
Edwards, Bob. Let My People Go (2013).
Edwards, Bob & Helga. Equality Workbook: Freedom in Christ from the Oppression of Patriarchy (2016).
Jenkins, Phillip. The Next Christendom (2011).
Peppiatt, Lucy. Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women (2019).
_____. Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (2015).
Swidler, Leonard. Jesus Was a Feminist (2007).
_____. Biblical Affirmations of Women (1979).
Webb, William. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals (2001).
[1] i.e., preach and teach with authority.
[2] John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1889).
[3] Origen, 185-253 A.D.; Jerome 340-419; Hatto, 924-961; Theophylact, 1050-1108; Peter Abelard, 1079-1142.
[4] Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, p. 60-65.
[5] Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, p. 66-67.
[6] Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, p. 122.
[7] Bob and Helga Edwards, Equality Workbook (2016), p. 40-41.
[8] Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Augsburg Fortress, 2005); Rena Pederson, The Lost Apostle: Searching for the Truth About Junia (Jossey-Bass, 2006); Scott McKnight, Junia is Not Alone: Breaking the Silence About Women in the Bible and the Church Today (Patheos, 2011);
[9] See Lucy Peppiatt, Women and Worship at Corinth, for a thorough treatment of these passages about women.
[10] Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War & Women, p. 177
[11] By ‘disciple’, I am not of course restricting the term to ‘the 12’. In the Gospels, the term was also applied to many people who followed Jesus beyond the well-known 12, including women.
[12] Mark 15:40-42
[13] Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War & Women, p. 162
[14] Leonard Swidler, “Jesus Was a Feminist”, p. 181. Quoted in Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War & Women, p. 162
[15] Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War & Women, p. 163
[16] Leonard Swidler, Jesus Was a Feminist, p. 183
[17] See her book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth.
[18] Isaiah 1:18
[19] Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, p.141-2.