Eve's "Curse" and the Battle of the Sexes

Let's face it - Eve's gotten a bad rap throughout the years. And no wonder. The blame for that whole fruit-eating fiasco was shifted to her from the very beginning. What were the first words out of Adam's mouth when God asked why it was they knew they were naked and if they had eaten from the tree? "The woman whom you gave me to be with, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate." Adam is the first to immediately throw Eve under the bus (though, it might also be argued he put the blame upon God, too... "after all, God... it was YOU who gave me this woman, so had you not done that in the first place, this wouldn't have happened, God...") To be fair, of course, Eve then attempts to throw the blame upon the serpent. Playing the blame game apparently started very early on! And I suppose there's a lesson in that as well - it doesn't seem to matter who ultimately is to blame, all will suffer the consequences.

However, before moving onto the primary focus of this posting, I do want to note something. As much as Adam wants to blame Eve for what happened, don't miss that while Eve was engaged in this theological discussion about what God said and the meaning behind what God said (hmmmm... how familiar does that sound?) with the serpent, the story relates, "and Adam was with her." If anything, I would have to say Adam comes out of this whole mess looking quite a bit more the schmuck than Eve! At least Eve is arguing with the serpent before finally being convinced to take the fruit. Adam just sat by and watched, not saying a word, not contributing to the debate in any way. Kind of just a bump on a log that let his wife do the heavy-lifting when it came to theological debates. So what does that say about our dear friend Adam? Now to be fair, we are talking about a pre-sin environment where trust has not yet been broken, so perhaps Adam just so implicitly trusted his wife that he did whatever she told him to. My my, how that shall change!

To understand the curse that follows in regards to the relationship between men and women, we have to understand what actually occurred when Adam and Eve took a bite from the tree of knowledge. Prior to eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were concerned about caring for the garden, the animals, and one another. The moment they took that bite of knowledge, or as I like to call it, that moment of "self-awareness," the object of their concern immediately shifted. They neglected the garden and caring for each other and immediately the language went from "we" to "I." Walter Brueggeman notes in his Genesis commentary of the "Interpretation" series that the language is now: "I heard... I was afraid... I was naked... I hid... I ate..." I, I, I, I... suddenly, it's all about me! Because we now are self-aware, because we are turned in ourselves, our first instinct is to always do what's best for "me" first. The communal concern for well-being disappeared replaced by a concern for the self that overrode concern for the "other." Man and woman's concern now is about covering their nakedness, concerned about being shamed, concerned about how they might look to each other and to God. In other words, its become "all about appearances." And of course, concerned about the kind of trouble they're now going to get into.

Now for the curse itself that follows... Genesis 3 tells us how a woman shall "desire" her husband, and the husband shall rule over her. Traditionally, this has been seen as a woman wanting her husband romantically in some fashion, while the husband has now been placed in a position to rule over her. This understanding of the curse has been used to argue that since the fall, the woman has been put in a place of "subjugation" under her husband. That the husband rules his wife and that's the natural "order" of things.

However, I think more is going on here than a "curse" that God put upon the relationship between men and women, but is more a description of the reality of what has now happened to male/female relationships. For one thing, to suggest that a man does not also "desire" his wife is a patently untrue statement, as most married women know! If anything, who usually has the proverbial "headache" after a few years of marriage?

So I think we need to take a closer look at the word "desire" (tasuqah in Hebrew) The word "desire" is utilized again in the following chapter in the story of Cain and Abel. There, sin is described as "desiring" to overtake Cain and his response to this "desire" should be to "rule" over it, take control, don't let it do what wants, what it DESIRES to do. Given the phrasing is almost identical between Genesis 3 and Genesis 4, and that these are the only places the Hebrew word tasuqah appears in all of Genesis, I am going to venture there's a relationship between the two. So rather than a "sexual" desire for her husband, instead, Eve's "desire" is, like sin's desire, is to rule and control her husband, and Adam's response to this is to act like a tyrant to keep her subdued, to keep her from doing that which she "desires" to do... "and he shall rule over you." It is not necessarily a prescriptive curse, but a descriptive statement about the battle of the sexes that has now begun! Given that what happened at the fall was the turning in on oneself, the sudden "I" factor becoming far more important to both Adam and Eve rather than the "we" factor and tending to one another and tending to the garden, this makes sense. The fall turned us in our ourselves, and our desire is now to each be able to control everything around us - including other people, especially those we are closest to. We have now, as both God and the serpent noted, ceased to see ourselves as a creature of God but rather as autonomous beings separate from God. Each strives for control, and neither is living in the best interest of the other - the very nature of sin itself. This is exactly what Paul is getting at in Ephesians 5:21-33, the proper roles for men and women are to serve one another, not try and control one another.

Christ's coming has brought hope for a new balance between the sexes. Rather than attempting to control one another, Christ wishes for us to serve one another.

And for any who wish to use the argument that because Eve was created from man, and to be a helper to man, not equal to man, one should be reminded that to be a "helper" does not constitute subservience or somehow being "less" than the one you are helping. God himself is addressed as a "helper" in Psalm 46: "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble." And I don't think too many people of faith would say God, as a helper, is subservient to man. 

Watching for the Crocodiles

My recent approval interview was quite interesting. One of my professors warned me about the "crocodiles" out there waiting to get me because I was a woman in ministry. On the one hand, I've always been on the look out for the crocodiles--you don't survive a career in Hollywood without constantly watching your back for sharp teeth and knives. During my years in the Hollywood scene, I had learned how to quite deftly spot the onslaught and take the necessary action to avoid it hitting a vital organ. I learned first-hand how tenuous even a temp position can be within the realm of large movie studios, and nothing changed once I climbed my way into the higher echelons of movie studio life. However - that was Hollywood. I expected the onslaught. I knew people would be gunning for my job, that it was a merciless, cut-throat business where you had to grow a pretty thick skin and prepare for egos, and learn to play the game just as viciously as your opponent/co-worker. But going into the ministry? Wasn't the church supposed to be about loving your neighbor? Weren't grace, mercy, and love supposed to be our guiding principles? Not hatred, anger and petty jealousies?

Don't worry - I wasn't ever really that naive going into the ministry. In fact, I personally was quite well prepared. After all, my neighbor before I came to seminary was Missouri Synod and her brother-in-law, who I joined weekly for bible studies, was a Missouri Synod pastor. Don't get me wrong - they were very nice people, I loved them dearly, and they truly were trying to follow scripture as they interpreted it. But I could sense the disapproval and disdain the moment I announced my decision to go to seminary. However, I expected that disdain. After all, only a few months earlier I had sat through a discussion about how the woman's role was to stay home and tend to the family, not a parish. Well, even if I had agreed with that (which I didn't), that still left the door wide open for those of us perpetually single women. In my case, I had desperately tried to AVOID going to seminary, made excuse after excuse not to go, but God continually removed every obstacle and excuse I had. For my part, feeling the call, I knew I would have to defend what God was doing, so I turned to scripture and before I ever made the decision, I had to come to terms with the "problematic" texts that seem to explicitly forbid women from doing exactly what I was about to do.

However, once I got to seminary, I quickly discovered only a select few women had gone to the scriptural extremes I had, and in a few cases found people who were shocked and angry that someone might question their right to become a pastor. So I had to agree with this professor's comment that the seminary does not properly prepare women for what they will face out there in the "real world" where many people are not yet prepared to accept a female pastor. Although I took it a step further. Not only are women not being prepared for the potential criticism and ridicule they will undoubtedly face in some corners of the ELCA, especially when in dialogue with other denominations, but we are not properly equipping our women to scripturally defend their right to ordination. This is a travesty that drives me to deep sorrow within my denomination and serves only to further the criticism that we tend to play "fast and loose" with the Bible and are defying scripture.

What is truly sad about it is there really is a multitude of Biblical support for women performing the duties of a pastor. The problem is there are a couple of passages that are somewhat negative regarding women, and these are the passages that those who wish to oppress women in the patriarchal religious system grab hold of, pull out of context, and hold up as the "norm" for the church as a whole, when in reality, these few statements are anything but the norm and are in complete contradiction with the rest of scripture if taken as church-wide statements.

The failure on the part of the ELCA to properly explain why we ordain women lies squarely with the fact that we don't engage the argument from the same place as our brothers and sisters who still cling to texts like 1 Timothy as a prooftext for why a woman's proper place is silently at her husband's side. Instead, we say things like, "Well, you know, Paul probably didn't really write 1 Timothy anyway..." Such an argument falls upon deaf ears when dealing with those who wholly accept the traditional authorship, and quite frankly is too controversial and far too speculative even in "serious" scholarship to use as a valid argument. Bringing up the few "scribal inconsistencies" that exist throughout some of the earlier texts as well does not help the cause. No, instead, we need to be meeting this particular issue head on at the root of the argument. And for any who think such a mindset is waning, I suppose you've never been a single woman in the ELCA trying to date a "nice Christian boy." I have yet to meet a "nice Christian boy" who hasn't challenged or questioned my current career path simply because I was a woman.

So in order to talk about this, we have to start with this argument: that the Bible is the "infallible, inerrant word of God." For if this statement is true--then we have a major problem applying texts like 1 Timothy as church-wide mandates.

I suppose initially I should start by addressing the "problem" texts to begin with. The first of these anti-women in leadership roles texts comes from 1 Corinthians 14:33-35:

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Of course, our first little "warning" sign should be Paul's reference to the Law. He has spent an inordinate amount of time in books like Galatians, which pre-date 1 Corinthians, about how Christ has freed us from the Law and all people are now one in Christ. But I don't even need to go to those theological extremes. I can find Paul's own words in the same letter of 1 Corinthians completely contradicting this very statement.

"...but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil." - 1 Corinthians 11:4

To "prophesy" in Greek (propheseo) literally means, "to speak or preach the word of God." If women are being instructed on how they should dress when they are (GASP!) "propheseo-ing," or "PREACHING," why then are they being told to be silent a few chapters later? (And no, this is not meant for them to preach just to the women, because if they are to have their heads covered, it means they are in the presence of men, since a woman covering her head was seen as a sign of respect to her husband. Were she among only women, the stipulation would not be necessary) So is Paul schizophrenic? Or is there something else going on? I would argue the latter.

First, let’s take a look at what was going on in the city of Corinth at this time and the reason why Paul was writing this letter in the first place. Corinth was a strategically located city in the ancient world and controlled all traffic and trading going north and south on the land and had two major harbors controlling east-west sea routes. The location commanded wealth and influence and was the third most important city in the Roman Empire, following Rome and Alexandria. In other words, this church was in the heart of pagan central. Excess was the norm, and it had become a center of philosophy, many pagan temples, and much immorality in Corinth.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians regarding behavioral issues based on their extremely immoral and pagan surroundings. The problem was most of the converts in Corinth were ex-pagans rather than ex-Jews, and were having difficulty learning how to live as believers. They did not have the understanding of the Old Testament to base their behavior on. For them, the very real and immediate question was how much of one’s culture had to be abandoned to become a follower of Christ? This is the context in which we need to now approach Paul’s passages. There was great division in the Church at this time, and Paul needed to reconcile them to some form of unity and order. Paul dedicates the first 11 chapters to unifying the church regarding behavioral issues. The second part of Corinthians is dedicated to the issue of spiritual gifts. The Corinthian church had evidently written to Paul, requesting his ruling on certain matters specific to the Corinthian church.

So, in regards to how women should behave, it was necessary to separate how the Christian women behaved and how the nearby pagan women behaved so that there would be no confusion and order would remain within the church. In Corinth, and indeed, in most cities of the ancient world, prostitutes were the only women who did not wear veils. And many of the Vestal Virgins of the Roman cult would shave their heads. So to not wear a veil was to align oneself with the prostitutes of the day, and to shave one’s head was to show you were a pagan. By not wearing a veil, Paul is basically saying, "She is usurping the authority and moral laws of God, she might as well shave her head like the pagans!"

Additionally, the second portion of the book of 1 Corinthians is dedicated to the issue of spiritual gifts, and in particular, the abuse of the gift of speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues had been elevated to a much higher stature than it deserved. He chastises them, in fact, that they would do better to prophesy (preach!) rather than speak in tongues so that when unbelievers see them, they would not think they were crazy, but would hear and understand the Word of God and become a believer.

So it is in this context that Paul now addresses the women of the church, and he tells them they are not to speak in tongues. It was difficult enough keeping order, and Paul decided that by removing women from this act of speaking in tongues he could begin restoring order. Especially if she was doing it with her head uncovered like a prostitute! It would have been viewed as disgraceful and dishonoring both God and her husband. And since disorder seemed to be the major problem at hand, Paul was commanding they do things "decently and in order." Again, the theme of "headship" is utilized here to show the proper order of things. More than likely, the women were displaying disorderly conduct, speaking out of turn and were in general disruptive to the process of interpreting tongues. I think we can almost imagine, based on their pagan roots, the kind of flamboyant and ecstatic spirituality they were partial to.

In this context, we can begin to see the problems that Paul was faced with in regards to the Corinthian church, and we understand why he made these statements. And we must always remember—Paul says "I" do not allow, rather than “The Lord” does not allow.

That is not to say that a woman was not allowed to preach! For as we saw in the earlier portion of Corinthians when addressing the proper attire for a Christian women, it was stated: "any woman who prays or prophesies (preaches) with her head unveiled..." Obviously, this "silence" that the women were supposed to maintain did not go beyond the act of speaking in tongues. If it does, then Paul is contradicting himself within the same letter!

Given the context of the 1 Corinthians text, we must now turn to the 1 Timothy text, for obviously, in light of the "preaching" women in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy can only be seen as a direct contradiction of this, or something else is going on. The text itself states:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Again, similar circumstances are at play in the city of Ephesus, an extremely pagan city where many mystery and emperor cults were centered. False teachers were creating a considerable amount of turmoil in the secular town of Ephesus. Earlier parts of Timothy addresses the problem of these false teachers, and it is under this situation that Paul is speaking to regarding the church and its organizational structure. These false teachers were promoting such false doctrines as forbidding people to marry and that godliness was a means to financial gain (sound familiar?). They were proud, arrogant, argumentative and greedy. They used religion to make money and gain power. They connected their teachings with the Old Testament, as well as an aspect of self-denial and a strong Greek element. Certain women in the church were falling prey to these false teachers, who were then in turn, teaching the same false doctrines and drawing men away from the true teachings. This was creating a lot of disorder and dissension within the church, and Paul needed to establish some kind of rules to re-establish order in the church at Ephesus.

With this context in mind, his statement regarding Adam and Eve now makes a lot more sense. For it was Eve who was deceived; Adam was not deceived, he knew better—he sinned with his eyes wide open, but admittedly, it was her influence that caused him to knowingly disobey God’s instruction. In much the same way, these women were being deceived by these false teachers, and were turning around and leading the men, who supposedly knew better, astray. Plus, women were instrumental in leading many of the "mystery" religions and used their sex appeal to draw men away from the true teachings of Christ. Paul had to put a stop to that, so he issued the edict that women were not to teach, they were not to "dominate" or push their will on the men of the congregation. In fact, women should just stay silent.

It may seem harsh to us today, but given the circumstances of the first century church, Paul was left with very little choice.

So why does Paul say that women are saved through childbearing? Through childbirth, women could only bring sin into the world through the fall of Eve. However, if someone makes that statement, they must almost remember to say that women also brought salvation to the world through the birth of Christ through Mary.

At the end of the day, each individual woman is saved through faith, just like a man is. She is to grow in love and holiness, just like a man.

Let us now turn to the remaining problematic texts. Admittedly, while in Christ there is no male or female, in our sinful state, there is still a definite difference between men and women. One must be very careful here to understand I’m not talking about “equality.” We both relate equally to God through Christ. But the relationship between a man and a woman is still under the bondage of sin. It is not a matter of superiority, but a matter of what roles women and men were created to fulfill. Obviously, men cannot bear children, women can. Biologically speaking, we cannot deny that women are very different from men. Paul’s reference to the relationship between God and Christ is very important to understanding “headship” and the relationship between men and women. “Headship” was a necessary element in the early church in order to retain order. While the Father and Son are equal in essence, they have different roles. The Son “submits” to the headship and will of the Father, even though, in essence, they are one in the same. Paul is careful to point out that while men and women are different and have different roles to play, that men and women are interdependent upon one another. While God created man, and thus woman came from man, now man comes from woman. One cannot exist without the other. This is not to say that a woman must then do whatever her husband tells her, but it is for the sake of harmony within the marriage. If you have two people in any relationship, whether work, marriage, a church, etc., trying to fit into the same role, it simply doesn’t work. There’s resentment, arguing, and divisiveness as the two struggle to fulfill the same role.

God handed over all authority to the Son, just as the Son submitted to the Father’s will. This is not God telling Christ to do whatever his little whim might be, but a trusting, loving relationship between the two where Christ recognized the Father’s will to be right and good, and submitted to that will, and the Father giving Him all that was His. Within a marriage, it works much the same way. Not that a woman just automatically does whatever the husband tells her to do, but to recognize when there is good in what the husband asks of his wife, and for the husband to share with his wife all that is his. Unfortunately, sin is present within a marriage, unlike the relationship between Christ and the Father, and not every “will” of the husband is “good.” If the Father had ever asked Christ to do something that was not “good”, should he have submitted to it anyway? (One might argue dying on the cross was asking a lot, but the ultimate result Christ knew was good.) Within a relationship where abuse or mistreatment in any way goes on, then a woman does not blindly obey simply because he is her husband. The husband has violated the marital covenant through this abuse. Likewise, if a woman attempts to “usurp” or undermine her husband in some fashion, she too is violating the relationship. The two are to work together for the good of the relationship.

And if we really want to take the analogy of all this to the nth degree... God handed authority over to the Son as the Son in turn handed authority to the Church, His bride, to act with His authority. (The Keys of the Kingdom) So, if a male/female relationship is being drawn as an analogy for Christ/Church, men being Christ, the women, the Church... then men should be handing authority over to women as the natural conclusion.

The Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 texts speak further into this idea of “submission”. However, domination is not the goal of Paul’s statements. His primary appeal is to the example set by the heavenly Lord and his spouse, the church. We must recognize the literary and societal contexts of both these passages.

The Ephesians text is addressing Christian living as a whole. Paul states in the verse right before the "women be submissive" text that everyone should be "submissive" to one another. As Christ became a slave for us, so we also become servants to one another. It’s a continuation of the same thought: be submissive to one another, regardless of gender—women, "be submissive to your husbands just as you are submissive to the Lord." Women are to be submissive to one another, as well as to their husbands. What is usually forgotten, however, is that the following statements regarding the men’s role is equally as "submissive" oriented, and in fact Paul takes great pains to spell this out in far more detail then his exhortation to women because this was such a new and different way at looking at male and female relationships. Women were already accustomed to the "submissive" role, men, however, were not.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. — Ephesians 5:25-33

Husbands are to love their wives in the same way Christ loved the church—Christ “gave himself over”, or sacrificed himself for the sake of the church. So also are husbands to give themselves over to their wives in the same way. This, too, is a submissive statement! Christ became a servant for us, so men are to become servants to their wives. This all fits within the context of verse 21, "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Turn yourselves over to each other, work together, serve one another. This is not a statement of domination, but rather a statement of mutual submissiveness.

If we permit the understanding of "submit" to carry the full weight of Paul's understanding in relation to Christ and the church, a degrading servile interpretation is not only unwarranted, but completely contradictory to Paul’s point. Rather, submission characterizes the relationship between Christ and His Father. The point driven home here is that of a love characterized by self-surrender, sacrifice, holy design, and is given for the well-being of its beloved. We have already seen Paul talk about the church being the body of Christ, but here Paul goes beyond his understanding of the "body of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 12:27, in that a husband and wife actually become "one flesh," they are no longer two persons but one, "bonded together in a corporeal existence, nourished and sustained by this mutual relationship where each needs the other."

The Colossians text by contrast, while not as Christological or theological in nature, speaks more aptly to the social realities of Paul’s day. Colossians 3:18 follows Paul's exhortation regarding how the church as a whole is to function. Love, forgiveness and unity are the predominate themes running here. The familial relationship is an integral part to how the church body functions. If there is mistreatment and strife within the family, then the larger church community is affected. In fact, Paul parallels his Galatians statements of there is no longer male or female by stating there is also no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free. Yet, a few verses later, he talks about how slaves should behave in relationship to their masters. He’s addressing a reality of his current society and how to live in peace, unity and love within that reality. He is not saying that slavery is a good thing or even the proper way in which we relate to one another in Christ, but is the reality of the society at the time and how to act within the imperfection of that society. This goes for the societal role of women as well.

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. —Colossians 3:19-24

While Paul does not engage in the theological explanation here that he does in Ephesians, he applies the text to a broader understanding of society. In many ways, he is elevating the status of women, children and slaves that had been previously unknown in his culture. Children were regarded in low esteem in Greco-Roman society, and the mere fact that verse 21 addresses that children are not to be mistreated is opening the door to a new chapter in social history.

Paul is telling men to love their wives and not treat them as second class citizens like the rest of society. Likewise, slavery was a reality in Paul’s day—rather than calling for revolt, however, he tells the slaves to work hard and remain honest. A slave revolt would have been a suicidal endeavor as earlier slave uprisings had shown (ie: Spartacus in 73-71 BC). People are conditioned by the structures of their first century society, and while Christians in general were counter-cultural, Paul was not interested in starting uprisings that could bring them all to destruction. This is the context in which such passages must be taken. Wives were to keep their place within the social order, to honor marriage and act as Christian believers, and serve just as Christ served. Should the social order change, some of this would not be applicable, like the exhortation to slaves. In 21st century America, there is no "slave class" any longer. Likewise, women do not hold the same second-class status within society that they did in Paul’s day. However, we are still, both men and women, called to work in harmony with one another in the marital bond. Divisiveness and abuse within a marriage is just as abhorrent to Paul as divisiveness and abuse within the church. We are all, both men and women, called to serve one another out of reverence for Christ, just as Christ also served us.

In light of such exegesis of these texts, such interpretation is more consistent with other Pauline references to women, and his obvious high regard for their participation in the church.

In Romans 16:7, Paul states:

"Greet Andronicus and Junia (or some texts, Julia), my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

Here, Paul has equated a woman at the same level as an apostle—she is outstanding among the apostles." Interesting phrasing for someone who isn’t to teach or speak within the church! This passage is also part of larger text at the beginning of chapter 16 in which multiple women are lauded by Paul. Paul instructs the congregation to accept Phoebe in a manner fitting for the saints, that Priscilla has been working WITH him, and names several other women as fellow workers in the Lord and saints.

In Philippians, Paul also calls upon women as fellow workers in Christ:

"I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life."
—Philippians 4:2-3

“In the work of the gospel...” The gospel was the good news—something that was preached and spoken…thus, women were speaking, and were working with a man to achieve this, not separate from him. Struggled beside me—not below me, not behind me, not in silence, but next to me, at my side, as my equal. And of course, we cannot ignore his Galatians reference:

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:28

To return now back to our first text, 1 Corinthians, Paul actually introduces a new kind of equality between men and women that had to have been stunning to his Corinthian audience.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. —1 Corinthians 7:3-6

Women in ancient near-eastern society did not own their bodies. Prior to marriage, their father’s owned their bodies, after marriage, the husband, and hence why it was such an affront to a father or husband for a woman to either be raped or for her to have pre-marital sex. That was not for another man to take, nor was it for the woman to give away. Sexually, husbands were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their wives and the woman could not protest. Contrary to current popular belief, husbands did not just automatically take over what his wife owned, as many times, when the wife inherited property from her father, it would remain hers unless she handed it over to her husband – or if she inherited property or money from a deceased husband, it did not automatically become her new husband’s if she remarried. In the event of a divorce, she would retain her property and money. The dowry as well was part of the woman’s inheritance from her father – it was not something the husband could take and do with as he pleased. However, her “person” and body were something else entirely. It could be owned by her husband once it was relinquished by her father. For Paul to say that men did not have authority over his own body would have come as quite a shock, upending centuries of cultural understanding of sexual relationships between men and women.

It is obvious, then, that Paul was not expecting all women to remain silent, to just blindly do whatever their husbands told them, or to have a reduced role in the church next to the men.

Beyond Paul, however, what other clues are there within the New Testament regarding women’s roles? Naturally, we can look to Christ himself and how he interacted with women. In John 4, we see the rise of the first female evangelists. The Samaritan woman who, following her encounter with Christ, went back to her village and told everyone about this man Jesus. Through her testimony and witness, they all came to see this Jesus and believed in Him. Juxtapose this against the preceding chapter 3, where Nicodemus, the man and a “leader of the Jews”, was hindered in his faith. Likewise, Mary Magdalene was the first post-resurrection evangelist to go share the good news of Christ’s resurrection with the disciples. She was told by Christ specifically to go proclaim this truth to the men. Also, the Mary and Martha story--Martha was the one doing the traditional "duties" of the woman. Mary, on the other hand, was neglecting her duties so that she could sit at the feet of Christ along with the other disciples, to listen and learn. When Martha chastises her sister for neglecting her "role" as a woman within the household, Christ's response is that Mary is the one doing the better thing!

There were also several women who were instrumental in supporting and promoting Jesus’ ministry:

Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.
—Luke 8:2-3

One might wonder where Jesus and his apostles would have been without the support of these women!

Defying cultural norms, Christ also appeared first to a woman (or women) in each of the gospel accounts. In both Luke and John’s accounts, Mary (along with the other women according to Luke) is the one to tell the apostles of Jesus’ resurrection. Women are not only the first to see him, but are the first Christian witnesses, the first to proclaim the good news! Yet today, some hold that women are not worthy to preach, when Christ himself turned women into his FIRST witnesses and proclaimers of the good news of Christ’s resurrection—to men! What irony!

Acts as well gives us several instances of the roles women played in the early church. Acts 9:36 tells us of a female disciple, Tabitha (also called Dorcas). Now, the definition and purpose of a disciple was to learn and eventually become like the Rabbi they were learning from. This was the purpose of discipleship. If women were not to become teachers or ministers, then they would not have been allowed to be disciples, either.

In Acts 18:25-26, both Priscilla and her husband Aquila take Apollos aside to instruct him on the sacrament of baptism.

"He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately." —Acts 18:25-26

A woman, instructing on a sacrament like baptism? What’s going on here? Obviously, both Priscilla and her husband had the authority to teach and explain proper "church doctrine," including practice of the sacraments. Acts 21:9 also speaks specifically to the fact that women were given the gift of preaching right along with men. Philip, an evangelist, had four daughters, all of whom are described as having the gift of "prophecy," or preaching.

Ministering and spreading God’s word is quite obviously not relegated to that of men alone. In fact, at Pentecost, Peter quotes the prophet Joel, who states that "sons and DAUGHTERS shall prophecy," and that both men and women shall preach as well. The spirit does not limit itself to the gender barriers of our societies. In fact, it breaks them down - it breaks them down just as deftly as it managed to break through the language barriers at Pentecost as well.

This of course is only addressing women’s roles within the New Testament. There are a great many more instances within the Old Testament that speak of women’s roles. Miriam was called a prophet and led worship (Exodus 15:20); Deborah was a prophet and a judge who led Israel; Huldah was the prophet who recognized the importance of the book of Deuteronomy when it was found during King Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22)—makes one wonder where the Bible would have been without her; Moses’ wife Zipporah performs the priestly act of circumcision (Exodus 4:25); women served at the entrance of the tent of meeting (1 Samuel 2:22); it is because of a woman that the first piece of the promised land was purchased (Genesis 23); Eve entered into the very first theological debate...and these are just to name a few.

In the end, the only way to not make scripture contradict itself is to acknowledge that we are all one in Christ Jesus and are all called to be witnesses and proclaimers of the gospel. For those who grab hold of these texts in order to keep women out of ministry, they are doing a disservice not only to women, but to scripture itself—as well as to the church. The challenge for those who cling to the few texts that are used to keep women out of ministry roles must ask the following question: given the roles of women elsewhere in the Bible, is it scripturally sound to uphold two texts as the normative treatment of women, when the rest of scripture points to a decidedly different conclusion?