What roles could a woman perform?

Introduction[1]

Our assumptions about biblical roles are often set within a masculine frame. We imagine priests as men, prophets as men, apostles as men. Yet just because we imagine something to be so, does not mean that it is so.

Standing in for a Gender columnist, in this column, I want to explore what the Bible actually has to say about gender restrictions on specific roles in both Old and New Testaments. The primary question is, are there explicit gender restrictions for these roles? The secondary question is, are there examples of women performing these roles? If the answer to the former question is “No” and to the latter “Yes” then this should challenge our assumptions about the gender breakdown of these roles and all roles.

Methodological Considerations

It is worth noting that this article will make no reference to 1 Tim 2:9-15.[2] For some this may seem like a critical methodological flaw. Surely, they will argue, if 1 Tim 2:9-15 prescribes certain roles for men and certain roles for women as a principle rooted in creation then case closed, no further examination needed. That may be so, but in response I would make three points. Firstly, I think it can be argued (and indeed, I have so argued) that on careful reading of the text 1 Tim 2:9-15 does no such thing. Secondly, it would be, at the very least, a little odd if the principle purported to be found in 1 Tim 2:9-15 was not echoed in role descriptions by explicit gender restrictions. Thirdly, if we find examples of women performing roles that according to this purported principle they should not be performing, and if they are commended rather than condemned for so doing, then that leaves us with an inconsistency. Inconsistencies are usually good indicators that we have made an interpretative misstep. For the purposes of this article, I am interested in what the Bible actually says about these roles, not what our presuppositions think it should say.

One of the key methodological issues for the question of gender roles in the Bible is the significance of the gender of the pronouns used. One might assume that a masculine pronoun is clear indication of a masculine role but this would be misleading. Take, for example, the Law of the Nazirite. Either a man or a woman could take such a vow (Num 6:2), but all the prescriptions relating to the vow are given with a masculine pronoun. This is indicative of the practice of defaulting to masculine in cases where both genders are in view. We find similar problems with plural nouns, where the masculine would be used for a group of mixed gender. Now, of course, the fact that a pronoun or plural noun might be used of groups including women is not, of itself, evidence that the word is being used in that way. This would be an argument from silence.

The silence of the text on certain issues is another methodological problem. Arguments from silence are generally inappropriate because the absence of evidence might be consistent with any number of scenarios. However, sometimes silence is telling. For instance, a prescription that is not explicitly stated is not a prescription at all. Therefore, when considering what was permissible under a given circumstance, silence can be very telling. Now, just because we can find no prescription against women performing a certain role, this is not evidence that any did perform such a role. Yet this is largely irrelevant, since the question at hand is not what women did do but what was it permissible for them to do (permissible in the eyes of God, not in the eyes of the society in which they were living). In patriarchal societies, like those of the ANE, that men did most of the prominent roles is historically trivial, yet this tells us nothing about God’s attitude towards such a gender split.

Could a woman be a priest?

The Levitical priesthood is mentioned as early as Exodus 19 (i.e. Israel at Mount Sinai), but most of the regulations for priests come in Leviticus. In describing the garments of the priesthood, Exodus 28 introduces the idea that it would be Aaron and his sons who would serve the Lord as priests (vv. 1, 3, 4, 41; cf. Exod 31:10; 35:19; 39:41) and this phrase, “Aaron and his sons”, is thereafter repeatedly used with reference to the priesthood and as synonym for priests (e.g. Lev 1:5). Deuteronomy does use the phrase “the sons of Levi” is reference to the priests (Deut 21:5) and elsewhere the uses the phrase “Levitical priests” (Deut 17:9; 24:8; 27:9) but this seems to refer to the same group of people. The use of the term “sons” might be taken to imply a male-only role but given that the same Hebrew term would be used to refer to mixed group of sons and daughters (i.e. the same word could be translated “children”), this term is not as decisive as it may first seem. Disambiguation is question of context.

In describing the consecration of the priests and his garments, Exodus 29 introduces the hereditary element of the priesthood (vv. 29-30; cf. Lev 6:22; 16:32). These verses seem to refer only to role of high priest, which was a monarchical role and seems to have passed from oldest son to oldest son, as with property rights.  We do have clear examples of the high priesthood passing from father to son (Aaron to Eleazar; Ahimelech to Abiathar) and no examples of the high priesthood passing from father to daughter. With regards to the inheritance of property, Numbers includes case law regarding the estate of Zelophehad, which passed to his daughters (Num 27:1-11). The ruling stipulates that daughters inherit before uncles (v. 9). It is unclear whether the same rule of inheritance would apply in other areas, such as the high priesthood, and there is no recorded case in the Old Testament where this was tested. In any case, whilst the high priesthood as a monarchical role, the priesthood in general was not, that is to say, the priests were descendants of Aaron in general, not a specific line.

The restrictions about who may not be a priest are given in Leviticus 21-22. Those restricted include those with physical defects (vv. 17-23). Those who have defiled the sanctuary by approaching it when unclean are thereafter forbidden (Lev 22:3). Though these chapters are written in the masculine gender, no explicit restriction is issued about the gender of the priests.

The only explicit gender restrictions given with regards to the priesthood were those relating to the consuming of certain offerings. For example, the grain offering was permitted to be eaten by “all the males (rkz) among the children of Aaron” (Lev 6:18). Translators give “children of Aaron” here, as opposed to “sons of Aaron”, though the Hebrew is the same, to avoid tautology. This illustrates the point that the phrase “Aaron and his sons” could have been used to include both genders and is not an explicit restriction on the gender of the role. Similarly, the sin offering was permitted to be eaten by “all the males among the priests” (Lev 6:29; cf. 7:6), implying that the term “priests” was often used to cover the whole priestly family and does not (in itself) imply just males. There are regulations about when a priest’s daughter may eat the holy offerings (Lev 22:12-13), which might be taken to indicate that daughters did not automatically qualify as priests but were treated as something distinct from the class of priests. However, these regulations pertain to a daughter marrying an outsider, under which circumstances she would no longer be part of the Aaronic inheritance. The fact that only males may eat certain offerings might imply some gender-based distinction in role/class/status, but this is never described or made explicit.

The Levites in general did perform an important symbolic function. God claims all the firstborn sons of Israel as his own because he spared the firstborn of Israel from the tenth plague (Num 3:12-13). However, rather than take the firstborn sons of all Israel, God dedicates the Levites to himself. For this purpose, every male of the Levites aged a month or older is counted (Num 3:15) and similarly every firstborn male of Israel aged a month or older is counted (Num 3:40). The males of Levi stand in the place of the firstborn males of Israel (cf. Num 26:62). The explicit gender specification with regards to these censuses might be an indication that those Levites who performed the service of the Tabernacle (Numbers 4) were exclusively male. There is no direct correlation between the two groups. In Numbers 3 every male is counted who is aged a month or older; in Numbers 4 the specification is those between thirty and fifty, with no explicit reference to gender (Num 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 47).  One might make an analogy between those counted from military service, who were specified as male (Num 1:2-3), and the Levities counted for service in the Tabernacle, since they were excluded from military service due to their dedication.

We do have two references to women engaged in the service of the Tabernacle. Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 refer to “the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting”. The word “served” is the Hebrew tsaba’, which is unhelpfully translated “assembled” in the KJV. Tsaba’ is most frequently used to refer to mustering for war (Num 31:7; Isa 29:7, 8; 31:4; Zech 14:12). It is also used of the service of the Levites in the Tabernacle (Num 4:23, 35, 39, 43; 8:24). The duties of the Levities described in Numbers 4 seems primarily transporting the Tabernacle and its articles (Num 4:15; 25-26; 31-32). This does not seem to fit the role described in Exod 38:8 or 1 Sam 2:22, which implies some sort of service whilst the Tabernacle was erect. If the service of the non-priestly Levites was reserved to carrying (and I don’t think this is certain) then the service performed by the women at the entrance to the Tabernacle would be specifically priestly service.

It is not obvious that the service performed by the women in Exod 38:8 and 1 Sam 2:22 was a gender specific role. In 1 Samuel 2:22 women are specified as those that Hophni and Phinehas lay with so the gender specification may indicate no more than the sexual preference of the sons of Eli. In Exod 38:8 women are specified as those who donated mirrors to be re-forged into the Basin; we have no indication whether women were more likely than men to have mirrors, only the statement of fact that in this case it was women who donated them. On the other hand, the fact that the location (i.e. the entrance to the tent of meeting) is the same in both instances might indicate a specific activity performed at this location that was more usually performed by women. The rituals undertaken at the entrance of the tent of meeting include the consecration of priests (Exod 29:4; 40:12), purification of priests (Lev 14:11, 23), a regular burnt offering (Exod 29:42), offerings for new-borns (Lev 12:6), offerings for uncleanness (Lev 15:14, 29), and many other offerings. For none of these roles, nor any other service of the Tabernacle, is it stipulated that they may only be performed by women. Were we to argue that the women mentioned in Exod 38:8 and 1 Sam 2:22 were performing a gender specific role, it would be an argument from silence.  The options therefore are either that these women performed an otherwise unmentioned role in the service of the Tabernacle, or that they performed one or more of the activities known to take place at the entrance of the Tabernacle. In either case, the explicit mention of women performing a ritual function at the entrance of the tent of meeting should challenge our assumptions about the gender of those conducted priestly service.

Having said all this, there were de facto restrictions on the service a woman could perform in the Tabernacle due to the regulations regarding ritual uncleanness. Specifically, due to the menstrual cycle, a woman would be ritually unclean one week out of four (Lev 15:19); anyone who touched her would also be unclean. This fact, regardless of any other consideration, would make it very difficult for a woman to be high priest, since there would be no way to guarantee that the Day of Atonement wouldn’t fall during her period. Furthermore, childbearing would also place practical restraints on the service a woman could perform. She would be ritually unclean for 7 days after bearing a male child (Lev 12:2) and then would undergo a period of purification for 33 days (Lev 12:4); in the case of a female child these periods were double (Lev 12:5). It is also a fair assumption that in the culture of ancient Israel the main responsibilities of raising and nurturing the child would fall to the mother, leaving little time for other roles. Therefore, even if de jure a woman could be a priest, de facto there would be less female priests than male.

Could a woman be a judge?

There are no prescriptions as to who could be a judge; they were “raised up” by God (Judg 2:16) and God was with them (Judg 2:19). There is no statement anywhere in the Old Testament that places a gender specification on the role of judge. If God called you to be a judge, then you were a judge. We have one explicit example of a female judge in the person of Deborah. She is described as judging Israel (Judg 4:4) and describes herself as arising (Judg 5:7; cf. 5:12). The implication is that Deborah was raised up by God as a judge, following the pattern of the other judges. No gender distinction applies.

Could a woman be a monarch?

The regulations for the king of Israel are found in Deut 17:14-20. The regulations are given from a male perspective (i.e. king, not queen) but this is unsurprising. The Old Testament often reverts to the masculine when both genders are in view (cf. Numbers 6). There are no specifications given about the gender of the monarch. The description of the king as “like all the nations” implies a hereditary monarchy, and following the principles of inheritance in the Law this would mean that the monarchy passes from eldest son to eldest son. The exception would be if there were no male heir.

The course of history shows that the monarchy of Israel and Judah was hereditary (saving the frequent coups in the history of Israel) and passed from father to son. We have only one example of a queen reigning in place of a king, when Athaliah ruled Judah after Ahaziah was slain and his son, Joash, was still too young to rule (2 Kgs 11:1-3). This is not a helpful test case, as Athaliah was not the only daughter of the previous king but the mother, and she was only able to take power after first slaying all the male heirs. Athaliah was not a good or godly queen, but is not explicitly condemned for being a woman in a monarchical role. We have no other examples by which to test whether an only daughter was entitled to inherit the monarchy of Israel or Judah. Nevertheless, given the laws of inheritance, it would be natural to assume that this would be case in the absence of other information.

Could a woman be a prophet?

The criteria for a true prophet are that what they prophesy should come to pass (Deut 18:15-22) and that they should not lead the people after other gods (Deut 13:1-3). The example of the calling of Isaiah is indicative that God will often use those who consider themselves to be unqualified (Isa 6:1-8). There are no explicit restrictions anywhere about the gender of prophets. We do have clear examples of female prophets in the Old Testament. These include Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14) and the wife of Isaiah (Isa 8:3). None of these women are condemned for being both female and a prophet, nor are they ever explicitly described as exceptional. Joel predicts a future outpouring of the Spirit when females will prophesy and receive visions (Joel 2:28); there is no indication that this is not be welcomed. God chooses on whom to send his Spirit.

Moving into the New Testament, we find likewise find no gender specifications made as to who can be a prophet. Many women were present in the upper room congregation (Acts 1:14) that received the holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Peter associates this outpouring the prediction of Joel (Acts 2:17-21), underscoring that both genders received the holy Spirit. Philip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9) and women, as well as men, were prophesying at the congregation as Corinth (1 Cor 11:4-5).

Could a woman be an apostle?

The term ‘apostle’ is primarily used of the Twelve (Matt 10:2; Mark 6:30; Luke 6:13), and though the number of the Twelve is important, it is not clear that the apostleship was limited to the Twelve. James, the brother of Jesus, and Barnabas are called apostles (Gal 1:19; 2:9; Acts 14:4, 14); possibly also Silas (1 Thess 2:6). The word for apostle can also be used in the sense of messenger, so may not always imply the same status as that of the Twelve or of Paul and Barnabus (cf. 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). As to the qualifications of an apostle (that is, a ‘sent-one’), the primary criterion is being divinely commissioned (i.e. sent). Paul seems to imply that other elements of apostleship include having seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor 9:1) and having preached the gospel (1 Cor 9:1-2). No gender specification is ever mentioned. Of course, the first people to see the risen Jesus and to be sent by him with that good news were women.

When choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot, Peter stipulates that the new apostle should be one of those who accompanied Jesus from the baptism of John till the ascension and could be a witness to the resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). Paul (nor James, the brother of Jesus) would not have met such a qualification, which perhaps reinforces the distinction between the Twelve and apostles in general. Here we do find gender specific language, when Peter says “of these men (aner)” the new apostle should be chosen. He does not explicitly exclude women and may be making a de facto, rather than de jure, statement (i.e. that only males had followed Jesus from the baptism of John till the ascension). It is the case that only males were every numbered amongst the Twelve, which may imply a gender specification.

As to whether a woman could be an apostle in the more general sense, much hangs on the question of whether Paul describes Junia as being an apostle or not, when he says “of note among the apostles”.  A number of translations render this to the effect that Junia is held in high esteem by the apostles, rather than being one herself (Amplified Bible; CEV; ESV; HCSB; NET), whereas other render this with the implication that she was an apostle (CEB; NASB; NCV; NIV; NRSV), and others still leave the question open. Paul says Junia was a Christian before he was, and that she was a relative, implying that she was a Jewish Christian, probably in Jerusalem, and within three years of the resurrection. There is therefore nothing implausible about her having been an apostle. However, if Junia, otherwise unmentioned, as a “notable apostle”, then it is not clear what description Paul would reserve for Peter, say. Since Paul’s phrase is ambiguous, we should not force the issue. All we can say is that the Lord Jesus will send whom he will.

Could a woman be an overseer/elder?

The term overseer is applied both to Christ (1 Pet 2:25) and the apostles (Acts 1:20), but also denotes a role of responsibility within local congregations (Phil 1:1). The term is likely to be synonymous with the term elder (cf. Acts 20:17,28). The exact nature of the role is not described but, as the name implies, it was to oversee the congregation, almost certainly in spiritual matters. The ability to teach was fundamental to this role (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:9). Peter describes elders/overseers as shepherds of a flock (1 Pet 5:1-4). There were multiple overseers at Philippi (Phil 1:1), which implies the role was not monarchical but collegiate.

The qualifications of overseers are given in masculine terms (e.g. “husband of one wife”; 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6). The specification that they rule over their own house (1 Tim 3:4) might also imply a male, but no explicit restriction is given against women being overseers. On the other hand, the qualifications of deacons are given in similar masculine terms (cf. 1 Tim 3:12) but we know of at least one female deacon (Rom 16:1-2).

We do not have any explicit mention of women taking the role of overseer. It is tempting to assume that Euodia and Syntyche were either overseers or deacons, given Paul singles them out by name to be reconciled (Phil 4:2-3). Similarly, one might conclude that Chloe, on whose report Paul bases his first letter to the congregation at Corinth, was also woman of a notable role (1 Cor 1:11). It is not clear what role the “elect lady” of 2 John 1:1 served; much depends on whether her “children” were literally or spiritually her offspring.

Conclusion

Let us sum up. Have we found explicit proscriptions against women performing any of the roles examined? The honest answer is No. We have found no case where there is law or stipulation saying that a woman could not perform those roles. This is not to say there were no restrictions. A woman was limited with regards the priesthood because of the laws relating to ritual uncleanness. More generally, women under the Law would have been restricted because of the primacy given to their father (before they were married) or husband (after they were married). The laws of inheritance, if they applied to hereditary roles, would mean that such roles defaulted to men in most instances. There were also general societal trends that would have restricted the roles women could take. Yet de facto restrictions should not be equated with de jure restrictions.

Have we found clear examples of women performing any of the roles examined? In the cases of prophets, judges, and deacons, the evidence is clear cut. Women performed these roles. Examples may be fewer but that, of itself, does not make these examples exceptional. The text itself does not describe them as exceptional. The question is more open as whether any women served in the Levitical priesthood, or whether they served as overseers in the early churches. Women were doing something at the entrance to the Tabernacle; to dissemble about whether that was a priestly role reveals more about our assumptions than about the text itself. Similarly, there were clearly many prominent women in the early churches; whether are open to those women having been regarded as overseers (or apostles) is largely dependent on issues other than what the text says.