Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

Extracted text from Women__the_Church__and_Bible_Translation.docx:

WOMEN, THE CHURCH, AND BIBLE TRANSLATION Key Passages, Issues, and Interpretive Options Scott Munger Presented at SILs Bible Translation Conference, October 2013, Dallas. The views expressed here are personal. They have no official relation to any organization or translation, including the NIV, which is overseen by an independent group of scholars.

Scott Munger is a former atheist. He became a Christian at age 20, and went on to earn a BA (Biochemistry, summa cum laude), MA (Linguistics), and PhD (Bible Translation). He has pursued studies in apologetics, history, comparative religion, leadership and management, and has lived in the Philippines, Kazakhstan (USSR), Russia, Nepal, and India. Scott has checked portions of Bible translations in some 45 languages, taught in seminary, appeared on radio and national TV, and is the author of the book Rethinking God. An ordained minister, he is a staunch supporter of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible and traditional sexual morality. Scott is retired from SIL and currently serves as a jail chaplain and works as VP Translations, Biblica. He has been married to Jennifer for 35 years. They have two daughters, two sons-in-law, and four grandchildren.

1. Abstract Public debates continue and sometimes boil over concerning approaches to Bible translation. "Literal" is often trumpeted as the divine model. "Interpretive" approaches become those which invariably slide away from the ideal. The sacred texts teaching about womentheir role and the language used to describe itstands at the center of a factious debate in the Western Church. This paper presents some of the key passages cited to buttress or confound one side or the other, analyzing them to demonstrate what the author believes is Scriptures strong, if not always obvious, egalitarian position on the exercise of spiritual gifts in the Church. That teaching has often been obscured by literal renderings devoid of implicit but vital contextual information. The author attempts to explain and supply that information in succinct ways. Equivocate as we might about difficult passages and key terms, translators are sometimes forced to make interpretive choices which, one way or the other, are bound to stir debate, affect lives, and support or derail centuries of Church practice. We translators are not always free to leave such decisions to the reader. Because of that, we need to be honest: Our theology affects the nature of our workin this case, the daily life of half the audience and the world view of the whole. Page 1 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

2. Introduction By way of background, note below some key Old Testament selections, accounts of Jesus attitude toward women, and various New Testament events and teachings.

Old Testament Exodus 15:20-21 Joshua 2:1-24; 6:15-25 Judges 4:4ff Judges 4:17-23; 5:24-27 Ruth 1:1ff 1 Samuel 25:2-42 2 Kings 22:14ff (2 Chron 34:22ff) Esther 4:1ff Proverbs 31:10ff Miriam, a prophet Rahab Deborah, a prophet and leader Jael Ruth Abigail Hulda, a prophet Esther A noble wife

Jesus and women Matthew 9:20-22 (Lk 8:43-48) Matthew 15:21-28 Matthew 22:23-33 Matthew 26:6-13 (Mk 14:3-9; Lk 7:37-39; Jn 12:1-8) Luke 10:38-42; John 11:1ff Luke 23:49-24:11 John 4:28-30, 39-42 John 8:1-11 John 20:1-18 (Mt 28:1-10; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-2) The bleeding woman The Syrophoenician woman Marriage and heaven A woman anoints Jesus Mary and Martha Women from Galilee The woman at the well The woman caught in adultery The resurrection and Mary Magdalene

Additional passages from the New Testament Matthew 1:5-6; Hebrews 11:30-31; James 2:25 Luke 2:36-38 Acts 2:17-18 Acts 13:50; 17:4 Acts 18:18, 26; Romans 16:3-4 Acts 21:9 Romans 1:13 (etc.) Romans 16:1-15 1 Corinthians 1:11 1 Corinthians 11:11 Page 2 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

Rahab Anna, a prophet Women prophesy Socially influential women Priscilla, a teacher Four daughters of Philip, prophets Recipients of epistles (see below) Key women in the Church (see below) Chloe, a leader Interdependence of the sexes

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Galatians 3:28 Ephesians 5:22-33 (Col 3:18, 19) Philippians 4:2-3 Colossians 4:15 1 Timothy 1:5 1 Timothy 2:9-3:11 3. Some Key New Testament Terms and Passages

Women in the Church (see below) Equality in Christ (see below) Relationships on earth and in heaven Euodia and Syntyche, Pauls coworkers Nympha, church host Lois and Eunice, sincere believers Believing women (see below)

The following terms and passages raise major interpretative challenges concerning the place and role of women. Where we Christians stand can affect our psyche, family relations, earthly careers, interaction with other believers, participation in church, witness to the world, relationship with God, and expectations for eternity. Attempting to avoid the sometimes vehement debate about the issues, translators may wish to remain neutral and translate accordingly. But that is not always possible. 3a. Brothers or Brothers and Sisters? Many New Testament books are letters written to or about people called adelphoi, a word historically translated in English as brothers. Examples include Romans 1:13 (and so throughout the epistle); 1 Corinthians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 1:8; Galatians 1:2, 11; Ephesians 6:23; Philippians 1:12; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Timothy 4:6; 2 Timothy 4:21; Hebrews 2:11, 3:1; James 1:2; 2 Peter 1:10; 1 John 3:13; 3 John 1:3; Revelation 6:11. The meaning and translation of this term is important, a fact supported by public and scholarly discussion about it. The central points are these: 1) Many people claim that, since the Greek says brothers, it should be translated by the same word in English. Others disagree, and the dispute can be animated. 2) In fact, the Greek does not say brothers. Ancient Greeks did not speak English. The Greek says adelphoi. 3) In the passages listed above, the ESV includes an accurate footnote to its rendering brothers: The plural Greek word adelphoi refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in Gods family, the church . 4) The key question is simple yet profound: What does adelphoi mean in context? 5) In the verses above, some translations render the term brothers (ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV 1984, RSV). Others say brothers and sisters (GW, NCV, NET, NIV 2011, NLT, NRSV). A few, similar in terms of gender, read friends (CEV, REB, TEV) or fellow believers (TFT). 6) Translators cannot skirt the issue. We must determine if the New Testament epistles in view were written equally to male and female believers. If not, then the rendering

Page 3 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

should be simply brothers. But if women were included, then which is more precise in modern English, brothers or brothers and sisters? 7) As any dictionary proves, many words have multiple definitions. So the key question is the same with adelphoi as with other Greek or Hebrew terms and expressions: Which meaning best fits the context? Put another way, which meaning did the original author intend to convey? Whatever choice is made, translators interpret.1 3b. Additional gender-related terminology and grammatical constructions This section could be expanded into book form, and has been by others on both sides. The following limited but pithy examples point to the heart not only of linguistic details, but also to sociolinguistic issues which, rightly or wrongly, have been associated with them. Some claim that the Greek word anr, often translated as man, never means generic someone or person. See, for example, a televised debate between Wayne Grudem and myself where he noted James 1:12 as a case in point.2 However, at least four Greek lexicons/dictionariesArndt and Gingrich, Louw and Nida, Newman, and Thayertake tacit issue with Grudem by claiming that anr in some contexts means person, etc. (The NET Bible notes on Luke 11:31, 32 and James 1:12, 20 concur.) Those who take time to listen will find it hard to dismiss this quartet as out of tune with reality. Concerning pronouns, note the following quotation. It reflects a trend toward decreased usage of so-called generic he in modern English: Shaking a baby can cause brain damage that will affect them the rest of their lives. The words them and their obviously refer back to a single baby of either gender. Some people might phrase the above another way: Shaking will affect him the rest of his life. Either usage has a single baby in view. The grammar employed in the baby them form may not be everyones English, but it is certainly many peoples English, including that of James Dobson, the one who made the statement.3 More to the point, it parallels the rendering of Revelation 3:20 in the TNIV New Testament (2001) criticized by Dobson and others for this very thing.4

1

Properly speaking, translators interpret and make choices every inch of the way. But many choices are obvious and not controversial. 2 CNN American Morning with Paula Zahn, January 29, 2002. The full transcript is available at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/29/ltm.12.html. 3 James Dobson, Child Welfare and Parental Rights, CT284/24848, Focus on the Family, July 18, 2000. 4 My submission to Christianity Today concerning the debate about the TNIV, Revelation 3:20, and Dobsons quote about shaking a baby was included in the periodicals May 21, 2002 edition. It can be viewed here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/may21/23.7.html?start=2.

Page 4 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me. Either approach entails a trade-off. The first, a baby them, corresponds to anyone them in the TNIVs Revelation 3:20. Grammatical number is inconsistent, but in context them becomes a semantic singular and gender properly exits the stage as irrelevant. (Nothing about the anatomy of baby boys makes them more vulnerable to damage by shaking than baby girls, and the Greek of Revelation 3:20 implies that gender has nothing to do with a person hearing Christs voice.) In the second approach, a baby him his corresponds to the rendering of Revelation 3:20 as anyone him he . There, grammatical number is consistent, but to avoid wrong meaning readers must dismiss the gender of English him/he as extraneous. Some, attempting to keep their cake and eat it too, apparently believe in a mystical male core at the heart of reality. We all agree that Revelation 3:20s linguistically masculine Greek pronoun autos is, at a deeper level, often generic for either gender. But in the keep-and-eat world, beneath those two layers beats a masculine heart, supposedly reflecting male headship over creation. Only God knows if this supposed core is real. It certainly cannot be deduced from linguistics, and Jesus never taught about Greek grammar.5 As for English, apart from noting the limitations of each approach above, any claim that one form is somehow better than the other is mere illusion. The choice for translators is not a matter of right or wrong, but of natural Greek versus natural English. So-called literal translations6 adopting a singular-singular form (anyone he) reflect Greek pronominal convention. More meaning-based translations with the singular-plural form (anyone they) employ common English, especially important in more complicated passages. Neither approach is better or worse. They serve different functions, and ongoing quarrels about words (1 Tim 6:4) at this point more likely damage the Church than enlighten it. Note that even the most literal translations sometimes flatly reject Greek and Hebrew wording. A revealing case in point involves the Holy Spirit. The Greek of John 14:17 refers to that member of the Trinity as it. Of thirteen English translations consulted which employ pronouns at this point, all read him/he. Likewise, English translations do not reveal linguistic gender in Genesis 1:2. A literal translation would follow the Hebrew: the Spirit of God she was hovering. Turning once again to the New Testament, we see that though Jesus is called a child in English, the Greek uses a linguistically neuter term, paidion (Mt 2:9). Following grammatical rules (or, normal usage), the Greek then refers to him by the pronoun it (Mt 2:11, 13). Based on the above, we might send out a tongue-in-cheek call for research papers. First up will be the meaning of the Holy Spirits inter-testamental sex change from feminine Hebrew to neuter Greek, and from there to masculine in our English Bibles. Sequels should explain how the child Jesus was asexual or hermaphroditic until later in life. 5 6

NB: Many languages dont distinguish linguistic gender, but all people groups recognize biological gender. Literal" is used here instead of "formal equivalenceclose adherence to source language form. The second term is rare outside of linguistics, and multiple meanings of formal may give wrong implications.

Page 5 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

Jesting aside, lets be frank: No translation is literal. The reasons are numerous, and two are obvious. First, as we saw above, so-called linguistic gender is at odds with real life. Second, and more pervasive, words have multiple meanings.7 See Spot run is a sentence from the illustrated Dick and Jane childrens reader series popular decades ago. 8 Websters dictionary proudly presents over 30 definitions for English see, over 40 for spot, and over 175(!) for run. (Thus the use of pictures as added context in childrens books.) It may be unsettling, but interpretation is vital, and the original languages of Scripture are no different. Which words and expressions are used or rejected in a translation is, by necessity, a matter of choice. Translators, therefore, should strive to be Scripturally informed and eschew parochial theology. We may imitate Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek phraseology, but we should always remember that only meaning can truly be translated.9

3c. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Interpretive choices This important passage could mean at least two very different things. Some other positions implausible in my estimationhave been proposed.10 Presentation method: The 1995 NASBa very literal version and, therefore, often ambiguous or unclearis presented on the left margin in full-size italics. My comments are indented, within parenthesis (in smaller, regular font).

A literal position The women (I.e., all Christian women everywhere.)

are to keep silent in the churches; (Silence, without reference to context, is simple to understand. Women should not even sing. No words in church, ever. Of course, few if any people believe such things and at least allow women to sing. In so doing, they quietly reject a literal interpretation of a literal translation.)

for they are not permitted to speak, (in contradiction to Lk 2:36-48; 1 Cor 11:5; 14:3-5)

but are to subject themselves, (to male authority)

7 8

Some might prefer the term range of meaning. Even then, words may include more than one such range. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_and_Jane. 9 For more on this important topic, see my paper Bible, Babel and Babble: The Foundations of Bible Translation. It is available in English and Spanish at http://www.biblica.com/niv/translation-foundations. 10 D. A. Carson notes the weaknesses of several options (Silent in the Churches, in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, editors, Crossway, 1991, pp. 133-147).

Page 6 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

just as the Law also says. (I.e., Gen 2:20-24 and/or Gen 3:16, though not part of the Mosaic Law as strictly defined. Interpreted here this can only mean silence in a mixed group of believers. It would hold despite the fact that such silence is unknown elsewhere in the Bible, is contrary to Christs new wine and Pauls teaching elsewhere in this epistle, and is clearly contradictory to many NT examples.)

If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; (This, admittedly, contradicts the idea that learning is a major reason for church attendance. With that essential purpose lost, and given that women should not speak a word in church, it might be wisest and safest for all if they stayed at home.)

for it is improper (I.e., not sinful, but breaking some kind of Christian virtue not noted elsewhere.)

for a woman to speak in church. (I.e., despite Gal 3:28 and many other passages, it is more important that women be silent than that they speak truth in church. Put another way, better that an animal rebuke a wayward prophet like Balaam than that a gifted, Spirit-filled woman share or even sing with a mixed group of assembled Christians.)

A contextualized position The women (I.e., Corinthian women from that Greek-oriented society; cf. 1 Cor 5:1-2; 6:15 ff.)

are to keep silent (also; i.e., like people in vv. 26-33, helping set the context for this section, concluded by v. 40)

in the churches; (I.e., not universally, but when someone else is teaching, prophesying, etc. Note previous allowance for women to prophesy in 1 Cor 11:5; cf. 1 Cor 14:3-5; Lk 2:36-38.)

for they (like menthough not the focus here)

are not permitted to speak, (out of turn/contentiously, per vv. 27-30)

but are to subject themselves, (to the proper rules of order, per vv. 27, 29, 30, 33, 40)

just as the Law also says. (I.e., listening respectfully to the Law, prophecy, or to witnesses in turn, cf. Gen 49:1-2, Ex 24:3 Deut 4:1; 18:15; 19:15-19; 31:9-13, 28-30; 32:44-47; Josh 8:30-35; Neh 8:1-8; 1 Kg 3:16 ff.)

If they desire to learn anything, (in addition to that presented)

let them ask their own husbands at home; (about those things)

for it is improper for a woman (even as it is for a man; cf. Lk 18:39; Acts 12:17; 15:12-13)

to speak (when someone else is exercising a declarative gift)

Page 7 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

in church. (Such practices keep church meetings orderly and edifyingthe main topic introduced by verses 26, 27 and concluded by v. 40.)11

3d. 1 Timothy 2:9-3:11 Interpretive choices Presentation method: as above, with the NASB followed by comments. Women Instructed 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, (I.e., in public settings, including church. Paul was not, for example, instructing Greco-Roman women to wear street clothes when sleeping or bathing at home.)

not with (I.e., not with a focus upon, consistent with the NASBs addition of merely in 1 Peter 3:3, a similar passage: Your adornment must not be merely external.)

braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman (I.e., in church, per 3:15, not, for example, in public school classrooms.)

must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. (The main verb and primary focus in the Greek is clearly receive instruction; the manner, a secondary focus, is quietly with submissivenessan attitude all believers should maintain.)

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (Again, as in the 1 Corinthians passage, what is the context for this silence? Jewish boys became sons of the Law at age 12. If the context here is universal, meaning any woman in relation to any man, then many absurdities arise. For example, 12-year-old boys, quoting Paul, could tell their mothers to go take a hike, contra Jesus example in Lk 2:51. For this and other reasons, we rightly restrict the context here, as in verses 9 and 11, to a church teaching situation. The question then becomes, does v. 12 mean that all women at all times in all church circumstances 11

Carson (op. cit.) also dismisses a position similar to the contextualized approach presented here, for two reasons: 1) It focuses on women to the exclusion of men, and 2) He claims that the word hupotass in v. 34 (NASBs subject themselves) normally involves subordination of a person or persons to a person or persons, not to an order, procedure, or institution (p. 138). Carsons first objection can be addressed in several ways, some noted elsewhere in this paper. His second objection is misleading. In Romans 8:7 Paul teaches that the mind set on the flesh does not subject itself (hupotass) to the law of God (NASB), and in Romans 10:3 he grieves that his Jewish kin did not subject themselves (hupotass) to the righteousness of God (NASB). Such statements by Paul stand not only as important exceptions to Carsons claim about what is normal, they structurally and semantically parallel the use of hupotass in 1 Corinthians 14:34, the verse in question. Carson calls his own position An Interpretation Constrained by the Context. The label is good, but not the substance. He claims that v. 34 restricts women not from giving prophecies in church, but from evaluating them (pp. 142-144). Carson apparently missed the Orwellian, text-wrenching insertions his interpretation requires of vv. 29 and 32: Two or three [male or female] prophets should speak, and the others [males only] should weigh carefully what is said. The spirits of [male and female] prophets are subject to the control of [male] prophets.

Page 8 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

must never teach a man, or is it further restricted by the context of v. 11, i.e., that women should be quiet and submissive while being instructed? If we go with the 12-year-old boy scenario, we must conclude that Paul, and Scripture itself, is inconsistent, for in 1 Cor 11:5 clearly a church contextPaul allowed women to prophesy. Furthermore, in 1 Cor 14:1-5 and Eph 4:11 he ranks prophets/prophecy higher than teachers/teaching. Conclusion: The context in v. 12 is the same as v. 11 and 1 Cor 14:34-35, that is: But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over12 a man [when he is teaching in church], but to remain quiet.)

13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (In addition to the need for public etiquette as noted prior to verse 13, women should maintain respect for the original created order, albeit fading. That might include a measure of respect for males in general, and especially for ones husband [1 Cor 11:8-10; 1 Pet 3:1-7], but not silence in church. Conversely, in the Lord men are to respect women [1 Cor 11:11-12].)

15 But (I.e., despite the curse and consequences of Eves sin for women.)

women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (Self-restraint is especially noteworthy in church before male teachers. But it neednt exclude women from prophesying to men nor, necessarily, even teaching them. Indeed, speaking of the Fall, Adam played his own part. Though not first like Eve, he willfully sinned against God. If the nature of Eves deception militates against her daughters teaching men, then why not equally against teaching women and children [Tit 2:4-5]? And what of Adams role in relation to his sons teaching anyone? Adams sin was with eyes wide open, making his the greater wrong.)

Overseers and Deacons 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man (The Greek does not say man here. It has an indefinite pronoun meaning anyone.)

aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he (There is no he here in the Greek.)

desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (Clearly, Paul moves from v. 1 anyone to men in v. 2. The key question is whether verses 2-7 restrict women from being leaders. If understood that this section outlines requirements applying particularly to men leaders, then v. 11 simply adds further or unique requirements for women leaders. This view makes good sense of the structure and context.)

12

The terms teach and exercise authority, if not a hendiadys (saying the same thing in two different ways for emphasis or clarification) are closely related. The latter word is a NT hapax legomenonit occurs but once. Much ink has been spilled discussing the meaning of and relationship between these words. Understood in the context here, a woman who corrects a man during his public presentation does so by usurping his right to teach.

Page 9 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women (The 1984 NIV reads their wives, as do the KJV, TEV, NLT, GW, NET, and ESV. But the Greek has only one word, no their added by the above translations. The word means either: wives or women. The main text of the 2011 NIV now reads women, as do the NASB, CEV, NCV, NRSV, and the RSV, the source of the ESV. So, in this parenthetical sentence, is Paul referring to the wives of deacons, or to women deacons and possibly women elders? In an ironic twist, note that the rendering women is not only more inclusive than their wives, it is also more literal.)

must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those (Who are thosemen alone, or men and women? The Greek does not say males.)

who have served well as deacons (Since this concept of service clearly includes elders too, its not a stretch to say that Pauls statement here implies v. 11 can be taken likewise, i.e., women who serve as deacons or elders. Women are not elsewhere barred from eldership, any more than Deborah, the prophet over Israel [Judg 4:4ff], was barred from her role. The Church is not more restrictive than its predecessor. So, can women be deacons or elders? This passage does not exclude them.)

obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

3e. Summary and conclusions on 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, above 1) Unless we adopt a universal and absolute keep silent injunction binding upon all women in every mixed-gender church meeting, we have no choice but to interpret these passages in an early church context like Corinth or Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3). 2) If we see Paul in the 1 Corinthians passage as describing a new, quasi-prophetic spiritual gift designed exclusively for womenwomen who must restrict themselves to the authority of men with a full-fledged giftwe do injustice not only to the immediate and broader Scriptural contexts but also to the Church. It seems far more likely that instead of setting roadblocks, so to speak, in front of Spirit-gifted and Spirit-filled women drivers, Paul is simply providing them with instructions for navigating in a new age. Given that he ranks prophecys authority and/or significance ahead of teaching (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), the instructions would naturally and without mention apply to that gift as well. As we will see later, this realm of gender (male/female) and its role in the Church parallels Pauls teaching in Galatians 3:28 about two other earthly realms: the ethno-religious (Jew/Gentile) and the socio-economic (slave/free). 3) Either God frees Christian women in churchwhether ancient Greco-Roman or modernto speak in whatever roles a man does, or, when men are present, women in church are to be entirely silent. Which interpretation best fits the immediate and broader Scriptural contexts? Translators are not always free to ignore such questions.

Page 10 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

3f. Romans 16:1-15 Women mentioned by Paul Presentation method: as above, with the NASB followed by comments. I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; 2 that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. (The NASB here translates the word diakonos as servant. But in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:12 above, and also in Philippians 1:1, the NASB translates that word deacon. In view of Pauls application of diakonos to Christ [Rom 15:8], to the government [Rom 13:4], to himself and others called to preach and teach [1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25; 1 Tim 4:6, etc.], and finally to deacons as noted above, its very difficult to maintain that Paul uses the term here to describe a person who merely practiced hospitality and the like.)

3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, (Priscilla is mentioned first, and may have been more central, cf. Acts 18:18, 26)

my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, (Paul, as a worker in Christ, was obviously not a silent learner or submissive wife. So when he calls Priscilla his fellow worker, he can only mean she was involved in activities similar to his own.)

4 who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; (Priscilla taught Apollos, a powerful teacher, evangelist [Acts 18:24-28] and key figure in Corinth [Acts 19:1; 1 Cor passim]. We should not believe that the Gentile churches which Paul notes were thankful simply for Priscillas domestic service.)

5 also greet the church that is in their house. (Was she silent in her own house, never teaching a man anything?)

6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. (How? Only like Rhoda, the servant in Acts 12?)

7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, (By most accounts this Junias [Junia in ESV, KJV, NET, NIV 2011, NLT, etc.] refers to a woman.)

my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, (The word apostle is a transliteration of a Greek term occurring over 70 times in the NT. A noted interlinear only once renders it other than apostle. The word means sent one/emissary, but sent for whatto hostess church meetings? Some counter that the Greek outstanding among [NASB, NIV; cf. KJV, etc.] really means well known to the apostles [e.g., ESV, NET, and NET note]. Yet, both the latter translations happily use among for the same construction in a similar context [Mt 2:6]. Regardless, this prominent woman was a prisoner like Paul. The Romans could be brutal, but its doubtful they imprisoned Junia for her cooking.)

who also were in Christ before me. ... 12 Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, workers in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who has worked hard in the Lord. (Here are three more women workers. Paul cannot be talking about them raising children and keeping houseas admirable as that is. These women, like the others above, worked in the Lord like Paul.)

Page 11 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

13 Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, also his mother and mine. ... (Here is another great woman. In calling her his mother, Paul must have felt a tie that ranks her service to him far beyond that of a mere physical provider.)

15 Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. (Three more women, amounting to eleven mentioned in these few verses. All were important to Paul and other believers. Did they really teach nothing in church, except, possibly, when grown males were absent? Paul has been labeled a misogynist. The opposite is true.)

4. Some Theological Considerations 4a. Matthew 22:30 Angels and humans in heaven Some years ago, a well-known theologian, prior to releasing an intentionally controversial book hed written about Bible translation, asked me to review a prepublication draft. We met in a distant city. My overall evaluation was not favorable. Toward the end of the lengthy discussion, I cited Matthew 22:30, At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven (NIV 1984, 2011). Clearly, angels do not marry. If they have gender, the purpose for it is unknown. It seems fair to conclude that gender on earth will have a different, diminished or non-existent role in heaven. My theologian friend responded he believes we will retain our gender in heaven. I concluded with this: Your beliefs are up to you, but since at this point they are not clearly demonstrable from Scripture, they shouldnt be used to stir up factions in Gods Church. The listener might have wanted to respond again, but he said nothing. A few minutes later, we departed. Maybe my deductionsor worse, my demeanorwere flawed. But I have yet to see a reasoned explanation of Matthew 22:30 that points in an obviously different direction. By way of caution or rebuttal, its been noted that Adam was a male before Eve came along. On the other hand, his gender didnt mean much prior to Eve, something tacitly supported by Gods assessment that Adams single state was not good. He needed a helper.13 If angels have no such helpers, what might gender be to them? We simply dont know. Imagine ourselves in heaven looking back upon our previous existence. Many of our concerns for earthly comforts will appear weak and ignoble. Attempts to establish ourselves in society or a profession will seem fleeting, empty, or even selfish. Desires to vindicate ego and create selfworthfaithless. Hierarchies based upon perceived human worthempty imaginings. And any conscious turning from truthcraven or pagan. No matter how we view this thing we call

13

The Hebrew word translated helper in Genesis 2:18, 20 is zer, often used of military assistance (e.g., Ezek 30:8) and even of God himself, as in the Biblical name Azariah, YHWH helps (1 Kg 4:1).

Page 12 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

gender,14 we should acknowledge it as mysterious and our present perspective as entirely earth-bound. Let us approach it with care. The Pharisee Gamaliel, when considering how to deal with early followers of Jesus, gave wise counsel to his fellow Jewish leaders (Acts 5:33-39). Adapted below for those who reject or remain skeptical of the role of Christian women, it deserves consideration. in the present case I advise you: Leave [Christian women] alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop [them]; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

4b. Gender in relation to faith in Christ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28, NIV 2011). While in this life obvious differences existracial, social, and physicalPauls point here clearly goes beyond a mere affirmation of our value to and equality before God. Gods view of others should affect our own relations with them. The Church should not focus on distinctions that are not central to God. Though he created races (Jew/Greek), allows for social distinctions (slave/free), and divides humanity by gender, none of it obstructs the freedom of Gods Spirit in the human heart. In relation to exegesis and theology, the result is a hierarchy of principles. F. F. Bruce rightly states the following in his commentary on this verse: How Paul allowed the principle of no male or female to operate in practice may be seen, for example, in his appreciation of the Philippian women who laboured side by side with him in the gospel (Phil 4:3) or his recognition of the right of women to pray and prophesy in the church . Paul states the basic principle here; if restrictions on [this] are found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, as in 1 Cor 14:34f or 1 Tim 2:11f., they are to be understood in relation to Gal 3:28, and not vice versa (Galatians, NIGTC, 1982).

In the light of Galatians 3:28, note carefully the following passages: Acts 15:1-31; Romans 13:17; 1 Corinthians 8:1-10:33; 2 Corinthians 5:13-6:11; Ephesians 5:22-6:9; Colossians 3:18-22; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:3-5; 1 Peter 2:12-3:17. The details are diverse, but the outline is clear. In social settingsespecially among unbelieversslaves, Gentiles, and all Christians were instructed to observe rules of propriety. For the sake of the gospel, Paul even restricted his own freedom, sometimes severely. But the constraints of such earthbound relations did not exclude

14

To gender could be added the concept of sex, but thats for another discussion.

Page 13 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

slaves or Gentiles from exercising their spiritual gifts in church. Likewise, neither do they exclude women.15 Even if women are free to teach and lead, that does not imply that they are all adequately gifted and equipped. The same, of course, applies to men. On the other hand, lack of acceptance and opportunity for women undoubtedly impedes their path to competence. A similar situation in the U.S. social order has been obvious among African Americans, particularly in the past. And lack of social equality remains a major problem among low-caste peoples of India. The moral of the story for women might be this: When gifted by God to minister to his Church, they may need to become better equipped than men equally gifted. Cest la vie. From all the above, its clear that women may speak in church. But what about teaching or leading men? As if prophesying to them isnt proof enough, or that Deborah was wrong to lead Israel and Barak (Judges 4:4ff), someone might demand, Prove that women may lead or teach. To that might come the response, Prove that they may not. But some raise a red flag. They maintain that: error and confusion over sexual identity leads to: (1) marriage patterns that do not portray the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32); (2) parenting practices that do not train boys to be masculine or girls to be feminine; (3) homosexual tendencies and increasing attempts to justify homosexual alliances (4) patterns of unbiblical female leadership in the church .16 The sky may indeed be falling on Western, post-Christian civilization. But its hard to see how godly women leaders like Deborah, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis are in any way responsible. Attempting to reach a biblical perspective on manhood and womanhood, the four points above deserve careful scrutiny. (1) Regarding marriage patterns, any number may damage the image of Christ and the Church, and biblical examples of poor husbands surpass those of poor wives. (2) As for parenting practices, the New Testament twice warns fathers against a domineering approach (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21). No such warning is given to mothers. (3) In the clearest reference to the source of homosexuality, Paul traces it to rampant and willful idolatry, not to overbearing women (Rom 1:18-27). (4) Finally, and very sadly, patterns of unbiblical governance indeed bleed red throughout the history of Israel and the New Testament church. Almost invariably, however, it is jealous, power hungry men who are to blame, the male religious leaders of Jesus day taking first place (Mt 23:29-36). Hitching all these troubles to a runaway fear of men in skirts and women in pants can raise a dust storm. But those who squint through the debris might be surprised at what they see. Is that Barak, perched without Deborah atop the social rubble, wagging his finger at women?

15

Some people cite Jesus' appointment of twelve male apostles as support for the subordination of women within the Church. The deduction may appear logical, but it's self-destructive. For whatever reason (several come to mind, though all are irrelevant here), Jesus didn't appoint any Gentile apostles either. So, if the example of the twelve excludes women from leadership, then it does the same to Gentile men. 16 An Overview of Central Concerns, John Piper and Wayne Grudem in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, op. cit., p. 56.

Page 14 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

5. Concluding Remarks a. Its quite possible that these issues cannot be solved by the exegesis of a few verses, much less by the definition of a Greek word here or there. The whole context and tenor of Scripture is required. b. Our personaland often unacknowledgedattitudes, training, fears, weaknesses, upbringing, tendencies, and experiences can play a key role in determining where we each land on these questions. In other words, as we look at Scripture and draw conclusions from it, we must also look at ourselves. In my own case, it took many years to reach this point. Maybe Im stubborn or dull-witted. My opinions come with no guarantee. If you have insights, I need to hear them. c. Church history is of dubious help. Consider this. Even after years of living with Jesus, and after all the marvelous happenings described in Acts 1-9, the great Apostle Peter and the vast majority of Jewish believers were either opposed to or ignorant of a great truth. Until the events of Acts 10-15, they did not accept that: 1) Gentiles had equal rights to the blessings of the gospel, and 2) Gentiles were free from the Jewish law. d. We should be very careful as we study Gods plans for men and women, whether now or in the age to come. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror Now I know in part; then I shall know fully. No one has access to everything about this topic. As shocking as it might seem to somedespite the trend of the Church in this or that era, the number of theologians with these or those qualifications, and the preponderance of pastors from this or that denominationthe majority could be wrong. History shows that the consensus has often been wrong. Theological speculation, monomania, and a priori judgment play a central role in the chronicles of religion, but they deserve no place in the interpretation and translation of God's holy Word. e. Yes, there are complex passages, as those above in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. But an inclusive interpretation of them is at least as weighty as the exclusive position. Paul never taught slaves or Gentiles to leave their spiritual gifts at the door of the church. Do we have right to believe he required that of women? f. When considering anatomy and physiology, we all ought to be complementarians. Beyond genetics, many of us would add various psychological tendencies or social obligations. None of that is in view here. The question at hand is simply this: Does a Spirit-filled woman have the right to speak out in church (and then, if she is so fortunate, return home and bless her family with a fine, home-cooked meal)? g. When considering the biblical examples, our future state (Mt 22:30), and the Churchs mystical marriage to Christ (Eph 5:28-32), it seems both justifiable and wiser to respect the trend of Scripture and move with it (cf. Acts 5:39)away from a fixation on earthly gender. Otherwise, we may do little but deprive ourselves and others of Gods blessing. h. Despite a natural desire to avoid controversy and thereby reach the widest possible audience, translators and their work cannot always sidestep hotly-contested interpretive decisions. Forks in the road arise, and regardless how the holy text is rendered, it will move one way or another. Which fork is taken reflects a theology ideally, Scripture as a whole. The choice can have a dramatic impact on peoples lives. In Page 15 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation

the case of women, it will affect the daily life of half the audience and the world view of the whole.

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Acts 2:17-21, NIV 2011).

Page 16 | Women, the Church, and Bible Translation