The Watchtower Society maintains a very strict gender dichotomy in its organization. This is news to no one. Although men -- in many cases, unqualified men -- are expected to reach for advancement within local congregations (e.g. microphone handler < ministerial servant < elder < presiding overseer), qualified women are denied such responsibilities because of their gender. This follows the example set by many conservative Christian denominations which follow a strict interpretation of biblical passages pertaining to the issue. The Society summarizes their policy succintly below:
***g70 2/22 p. 3 How Does the National Council Stand with God? ***In the Christian congregation, men are to take the lead....women are not authorized by God to take over the men’s role of presiding and instructing in the Christian congregation.
In certain respects, the Society's position is stricter than that of other conservative denominations. Even more private roles such as secretary-treasurer, which involves neither teaching nor presiding, may be denied to women. Although women are encouraged to instruct and teach in the public ministry (along with everyone else, including children), within the congregation women are not permitted to give talks from the platform, lead the congregation in prayer, or even give announcements or handle microphones (which teenaged boys are encouraged to do).
As I said, none of this is news to anyone. However, what I would like to show is that the NT exhibits a dynamic rather than monolithic view on women's role in the church and clearly attests the widespread early teaching and presiding role of women in the church. Paul was also less the misogynist he has been made out to be. Women however were not always accepted in these roles, and were sometimes viewed with suspicion. The NT also indicates (at least in part) why women came to be shut out of teaching roles in the maturing church: they were believed to be especially susceptible to demons and vulnerable to deception and thus were thought by the male proto-orthodox Christians to be dangerous sources of heresy and false prophecy. The increased subordination of women in proto-orthodox churches was also fueled by a more fundamental theological controversy: whether the created order is inherently evil and designed by a demiurgical entity (the view of proto-gnostic Christians), or whether the universe is inherently good and designed by a beneficient God (the proto-orthodox view). Since gender and female subordination is part of the created order, gnostics sought to either minimize gender differences or promote females to positions of authority to subvert the evil demiurgical order. Proto-orthodox Christians, on the other hand, appealed to "nature's order" as a guide to gender roles and viewed it as against God's will as expressed through nature (e.g. natural law) for women to hold authority over men. Many of the misogynistic statements in the NT thus have a theological axe to grind, and do not necessarily agree with views expressed in other parts of the NT, and it would be a mistake to privilege a few polemical passages over more moderate texts in trying to assess whether women's roles have a biblical basis.
EVIDENCE OF EARLY FEMALE INVOLVEMENT IN CHURCH ORDER
The evidence clearly shows that women had a more prominent role in the church during the apostolic period (e.g. 45-70 AD), whereas the emergent proto-orthodox church of the sub-apostolic period (e.g. 70-140) curtailed their influence and involvement in pastoral duties. For the former, we have information from Acts (which is a product of the later period, but has some genuine information from the primitive phase of the church) and the authentic Pauline epistles (e.g. Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians, and probably Colossians). For the later period, we have the Pastoral epistles (e.g. Titus, 1-2 Timothy), 1 Peter, Revelation, interpolations in the authentic Pauline letters, the apostolic fathers (including 1 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.), and the earliest proto-gnostic and gnostic works (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas). It is crucial to understand that the Pastoral epistles, especially the "church order" materials, derive from a later date and were from the hand of a proto-orthodox Paulinist and do not represent what the Apostle Paul himself taught and believed. It is possible that the letters contain genuine Pauline fragments (particularly in the greetings and personal notes scattered throughout them), and some theories posit that they were written by Timothy on the basis of private correspondence he had with Paul (fleshed out with Timothy's own additions), but the evidence may well favor the theory that the epistles are thoroughly pseudonymous. The evidence cannot be discussed in detail here, but they concern the un-Pauline language and style used in the Pastorals, along with their un-Pauline theology and rhetoric, the numerous allusions to early gnosticism (which would have been anachronistic for the 60s), and the depiction of ecclesiastical order which falls between that of Paul and that of Ignatius in the 110s. The date of the Pastorals is unknown, though a date between 90 and 115 is most common. If the author was engaged with the full-blown gnosticism of Marcion, Basilides, or Valentinus, then their date could be as late as the 140s, but their clear use by Polycarp of Smyrna around c. 135 suggests either that Polycarp was the author of the Pastorals (cf. Campenhausen) or that they had been published for some time before he wrote.
Women rarely had fully equal status with men in the church, except in cases of especially prominent women. Thus, Paul refers to a certain Junia as "prominent among the apostles" (Romans 16:7). Apostle Junia is otherwise unknown to Christian history, but this is a clear instance of a female apostle. Mary Magdalene, if historical, may have also had apostolic status on the basis of her claims to have seen the risen Jesus (cf. the criteria of apostleship in 1 Corinthians 9:1). Junia's leadership role corresponds to female leadership roles within rabbinical Judaism, such as a head of the synagogue (cf. Leonard Swidler, "Women and Torah in Talmudic Judaism," Conservative Judaism, 1975:28-33). Thus, in contrast to the Watchtower statement quoted above, the Apostle Paul did recognize women as fellow apostles who had authority to preside in the congregation. Another important example of a female leader in the early church is Phoebe, identified by Paul as a diakonos "deacon" of the church of Cenchreae, located near Corinth (Romans 16:1-2). The status of diakonos (= "ministerial servant", as diakonos is rendered as an ecclesiastical term in the NWT) was thus open to women, tho the office was certainly less well-defined as it is in the Pastorals; in contrast, only men can be ministerial servants among the JWs. What is more, she is also described as prostatis "leader, presiding officer, patron" of many people, which conveys a sense of authority accorded to her in her role as "servant" (16:2). Paul mentions his own indebtedness to her (so that she is Paul's "patron") and he refers to her as "our sister" in v. 1, a phrase that conveys a sense that she is a fellow co-worker (cf. "our brother" in 1 Thessalonians 3:2). Prisca (referred to as "Priscilla" in Acts) was another important church leader in the early period. With her husband Aquila, she presided over a church that met at her house in Ephesus (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19). House churches were a basic feature of primitive Christianity (cf. also Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2), and the head of the house naturally assumed leadership over the group. In four out of six instances in the NT, Prisca was named before her husband -- an unusual practice that suggests that Prisca took more of an active role in church affairs. The NT mentions several other cases of wealthy female patrons of importance, and since the early congregations relied on wealthy benefactors to provide space for church meetings (cf. the story of Lydia of Thyatira in Acts 16:11-15), these women also likely took leadership roles in these congregations they hosted. Mary, the mother of John Mark, was depicted as the hostess of a house gathering in Jerusalem where believers had assembled for prayer and where Peter went when he was released from prison (Acts 12:12); such households often included slaves, such as the slave girl (paidiské) Rhoda at Mary's house (v. 13-15). Nympha, a member of the church of Laodicea, similarly hosted "the church in her house" (Colossians 4:15), and Acts 17:4 mentions elite and well-to-do women in Thessalonica who converted to Christianity. Thus, it is abundantly clear that some women held leadership positions in the early church, especially since some of the wealthy patrons were widows who alone would have been the head of household (cf. also Chloe, whose household of Christian believers is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:11 as "Chloe's people" or, literally, "(those) of Chloe"). The vast majority of female Christians however belonged to lower social classes and thus presumably would not have had the opportunity to host house churches of their own.
Instead, these women would have more often had teaching, ministering, and prophesying roles in the early church. Paul acknowledged that one's role in the congregation varied depending on one's talents and gifts: "There is a variety of gifts but always the same Spirit; there are all sorts of service to be done, but always to the same Lord, working in all sorts of different ways in different people" (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). In his later discussion of decorum in public worship, Paul endorsed women's rule as prophets in the church but sought to regulate their manner so as to respect the "natural" order:
"However, what I want you to understand is that Christ is the head of every man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ. For a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered is a sign of disrespect to his head. For a woman, however, it is a sign of disrespect if she prays or prophesies unveiled; she might as well have her hair shaved off....Man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man. That is the argument for women's covering their heads with [a symbol of] authority over them, because of the angels...Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:3-10, 14-15).
This notorious passage has been the subject of controvery for centuries, and Paul's argument in whatever interpretation we follow has certainly not been expressed clearly. The one thing that is certain from this passage is that women publically prayed and prophesied in the church, for the whole issue concerned women's relational place in the natural order....as being subject to man as Christ is subject to God, and thus Paul is addressing men's concerns who felt that the public role of women in the church threatened to disrupt this order. It may be the case that by uncovering their heads, they were declaring their equality with men. Paul therefore suggested a token measure of maintaining an appearance of this order, by having women keep their heads covered. Note that by demanding this simple act as a measure of decorum, rather than overtly curtailing women's responsibilities in the church, Paul was protecting their public role in congregational matters. This act of head-covering was also likely a practical matter as well, at least within Paul's supernatural belief system. The enigmatic reference to the "angels" most likely alludes to the role of angels as intercessors in prayer and prophecy (cf. angels as interpreters of visions in Daniel, Revelation, 4 Ezra, and angels as intercessors of prayer in Tobit, 1 Enoch). Paul viewed angels with a degree of suspicion; they will be judged by Christians (1 Corinthians 6:3), they mediated the old Law (Galatians 3:19), they are objects of worship by the fallen (Colossians 2:18), and could even be sent by Satan or Satan himself masquerading as an angel (2 Corinthians 11:14, 12:7). Paul also probably had in mind the Jewish legend of Genesis 6:1-4 developed in Jubilees and the "Book of Watchers" of 1 Enoch which described how the angels were tempted by women's beauty and fell from heaven to the earth in order to have intercourse with them (cf. Jude 6, which is dependent on 1 Enoch). Paul notes that in the very "nature" (phusis) of things, women were given long hair as their glory and in Hellenistic medicine of the era, it was commonly believed that women's long hair was a sex organ that cooperated with her internal organs in reproduction, and hair was also sexually attractive. Thus, the act of head-covering during prayer and prophecy (times during which women would have been especially accessible and visible to the angels of heaven), or head-shaving in general, was also likely thought to protect women from potential abuse by angels.
Paul had much respect for church prophets, holding them in higher esteem than those who spoke in tongues:
"Everyone who prophesies speaks to others for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies does so for the benefit of the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy, since the person who prophesies is of greater importance than the one with the gift of tongues, unless of course the latter offers an interpretation so that the church may get some benefit" (1 Corinthians 14:2-5).
Note again that prophecy was a public feature of church assemblies (which encouraged and comforted others, and offered teaching that can be interpreted by others) and thus prophetesses had a certain degree of authority in the church. Several examples of early female prophets are known from the NT and tradition. Acts 21:8-9 mentions the "four virgin daughters" of Philip the evangelist, "who were prophets" living in Caesarea. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.31.3-4) quotes the lost Dialogue of Caius as mentioning that "there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia", and bishop Papias of Hierapolis in his lost Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord also reportedly knew the daughters of Philip from whom "he heard an amazing story" about miracles in the early church (3.39.9). The apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla also concerns the fictional virgin Thecla of Iconium who is described as an independent woman living an ascetic life and instructing other women "in the oracles of God" (10:15); Tertullian later complained some Christians were using the example of Thecla to legitimize the role of women in public teaching and baptizing around AD 200 (De Baptismo, 17).
The role of women, particular virgin or unmarried women, as prophetesses in the church derives in part from the prophetic role of women in Hellenistic culture (e.g. the virgin prophetesses of Delphi, the Sibyl, the mysteries of Isis and Dionysius, etc.). Within early gnosticism, unmarried or celibate women also had prestige, for they demonstrate power over their fleshly nature. In her 1990 book The Corinthian Women Prophets, Antoinette Wire has reconstructed through Paul's rhetoric a plausible scenario of the schism in the Corinthian church: the adherents of Apollos (who had been instructed by Prisca and Aquila, according to Acts 18:26) were adherents of a Sophia (wisdom) theology echoed especially in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians and included female prophets who saw baptism in Christ as dissolving all distinctions based on the "old creation", resulting in a "new creation" where all may attain equal unity in Christ (in a realized eschatology, seeing the full blessing of the kingdom of God in the present). This concept clearly anticipates later more developed gnosticism. It is also a concept shared by some degree by Paul himself, for he quotes a baptismal formula that makes quite similar claims:
"You are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourselves in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28).
Paul however did not push this idea to its logical conclusion, as did the later gnostics. Although the Law and many of the former things had been dissolved through Christ, he still believed in the continuing existence of gender distinctions as reflecting the natural order and thus the will of God the Creator (cf. Romans 1:18, 26-27, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-9).
This survey of the biblical evidence indicates that Paul was not quite the misogynist later texts make him out to be. He respected women's right to prophesy in public church assemblies, he recognized that baptism to some extent dissolved gender distinctions, and he viewed female apostles, diakonos (= ministerial servants/deacons, as the term was understood in the later Pastorals), heads of house churches, and prophetesses as all having an important part in organizing and assisting the early church. He thanked them profusely in his epistles because he really needed their help. At the same time, he was not willing to grant women equal status in the church. He felt that women should still be subject to men, for that is the will of the Creator, and thus in cases when women had considerable authority, he sought to find a way to make them subject to men at least in appearance (such as wearing a veil or covering) without abrogating on their prophetic or teaching work which he valued highly.
WOMEN IN THE EARLY GNOSTIC MOVEMENT
Paul was himself somewhat of a proto-gnostic; his theology lay somewhere between later orthodoxy and later matured gnosticism. On the one hand, Paul believed that God the Father was the Creator (e.g. Romans 1:7, 24-25), that Jesus was involved in creation (Colossians 1:16), that Jesus had suffered (Romans 8:17; 2 Corinthians 1:5; Philippians 3:10), that there will be a resurrection of the body -- albeit not a fleshly body (1 Corinthians 15:35-50), that faith was central rather than wisdom or knowledge (Galatians 3:24-26, 5:5-6; Romans 3:36-30, 1 Corinthians 2:5, 13:2), that the OT prophets were inspired by God and foretold Christ (Romans 1:2, 16:26), and so forth. On the other hand, Paul approached Christ as a Heavenly Man (1 Corinthians 15:47-49), who descended to earth "in human likeness" and having "appearance as a man" (Philippians 2:7-8), who embodies the Pleroma and who fills Christians with his Spirit and draws them into his Pleroma (Romans 8:9-10; Colossians 1:19, 2:9-10), who has had hidden within him all wisdom and knowledge (1 Corinthians 2:7; Colossians 2:3), who sustains the universe and holds everything together (Colossians 1:17, 20), and who through his crucifixion defeated all Archons, Powers, Principalities, and Dominions and humiliated them (Philippians 2:8-10; Colossians 2:14-15; compare 1 Peter 3:22), and liberated all mankind from their power. Paul also viewed the world as evil (Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:27, 2:12, 3:19; Galatians 3:22, 4:3), enslaving humanity (Galatians 3:22, 4:3), and ruled by the "Archon of this Aeon" (1 Corinthians 2:6, 8; compare Ephesians 2:2, "the Archon of the kingdom of the air"); moreover, Paul was antinomian (against Torah observance), had a quasi-docetic conception of Jesus' resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44-45), and at times betrayed a more dualistic (e.g. Platonic) anthropology (e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:1-9, 12:2; Philippians 1:21-24). Though Paul's epistles have suffered orthodoxizing interpolations, I do not believe they would have originally expressed a fully gnostic theology though they were certainly palatable to such second century gnostics as Marcion (who treated them as Scripture and compiled them into the earliest known New Testament) and others. It makes intuitive sense that primitive Pauline Christianity embraced both proto-orthodox and proto-gnostic tendencies, which led post-apostolic gnostics and orthodox to both recruit Paul for their own purposes.
Second-century gnostics (which were themselves diverse and "gnosticism" is admittedly a fuzzy grouping) tended to believe that the world was created by an evil Demiurge, the Lord God of the OT, who rebelled against the Father and imprisoned divine sparks from the Pleroma into created matter. The goal of the gnostic was to realize one's own condition through learning secret gnosis revealed through divine or human revealers. The first revealer was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, who imparted knowledge to Adam and Eve who came to realize their own condition and who were punished by the tyrannical Demiurge for transgressing his laws. Adam and Eve passed on their knowledge to their son Seth. The Demiurge destroyed the world with a Flood and later oppressed Israel by forcing them to submit to his laws and enslaved the rest of humanity through appealing to their fleshly desires. To liberate mankind, the Redeemer descended from heaven to teach people how to recognize their true selves so that upon death their spirit leaves their physical bodies to return to the Pleroma and thereby live eternally unencumbered by the weaknesses of the flesh. People who attain gnosis realize that such things as gender, race, circumcision, infirmities, and so forth mean absolutely nothing because these are aspects of the false demiurgical body which must be shed if one is to attain rest.
One of the most primitive gnostic or proto-gnostic treaties is the Gospel of Thomas, which dates most likely to the late first century. It nowhere expresses an explicit Demiurge mythology or a Valentinian-style hierarchy of the Archons and Aeons, but it does have many other ingredients of later gnosticism. Thus, Jesus is represented as saying:
"If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty...Woe to the flesh that depends on the soul; woe to the soul that depends on the flesh" (Gospel of Thomas 29, 112; compare Romans 8:5-6; Galatians 5:16-19)
Jesus also compares the physical body to "clothes" that one should disrobe without feeling ashamed (since shame of one's naked body is a sign that one is still enslaved to matter) and trample upon (Gospel of Thomas 21, 37). This raises the issue of gender. How should women feel about their bodies and how should they live in them, realizing that their bodies imprison them in the material world? In many gnostic systems, the female body was especially pernicious because it had creative power and was the means through which the Demiurge continues to imprison divine sparks within bodies of flesh. Thus, childbearing was viewed as evil and women within the gnostic movement were not expected to marry (marriage being an arrangement established by the Demiurge) or have offspring. See the attitude expressed in Gospel of Thomas 79:3: "Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not given milk" (cf. Luke 23:29). With reference to the gnostic Saturninus, Irenaeus says that "he says that marriage and procreation are from Satan" (Adversus Haereses, 1.24.2), and the later Encratites "preached against marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God, and indirectly blaming him who made the male and female for the propagation of the human race" (1.28.1). Tertullian notes that Marcion and Apelles held this view as well (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 33). The Gospel of the Egyptians also records a conversation between Salome and Jesus:
"When Salome asked, 'How long will death have power?' the Lord answered, 'So long as you women bear children'...The Savior himself said, 'I have come to undo the works of the female' " (Gospel of the Egyptians, Fr. 1-2; quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.6.45.3, 3.9.63.1-2).
In another passage in the Gospel of the Egyptians, Jesus makes an allusion to garment-trampling in connection with gender: "When you have trampled on the garment of shame and when the two become one and the male with the female is neither male nor female" (Fr. 5; quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.12.92.1-93.1). Here is an explicit reference to the dissolution of gender distinctions which occurs through true gnosis. This phrasing is also strikingly similar to Paul in Galatians 3:26-28: "There are no more distinctions between ... male and female, all of you are one in Christ Jesus". Another similarity is the fact that Paul was here referring to baptism, and the practice of garment-trampling is thought to be associated with baptism (which was performed naked, at least according to Secret Mark). This passage in Gospel of the Egyptians is also paralleled in the Gospel of Thomas:
"When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female, and when you fashion eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness, then you will enter [the Kingdom]" (Gospel of Thomas 22:4).
Here the difference between Paul and the Thomasian proto-gnostics is quite plain. Although Paul accepted the fact that Christ will ultimately dissolve all social distinctions (so that all equally become "sons of God"), he did not view the final order of things as fully established yet. Not until the Parousia and the general resurrection will all experience full equality in heaven, their eternal home. Thus, Paul was able to appeal to the present natural order and maintain some measure of gender distinction between men and women. The Thomasian proto-gnostics however saw the future promise as fully realized in the present: "His disciples asked him, 'When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it' " (Gospel of Thomas 51). A similar realized eschatology is probably what lies behind the (erroneous) claims that "the Day of the Lord has already arrived" in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and that "the resurrection has already taken place" in 2 Timothy 2:18. Paul did have an inauguriated eschatology (cf. Galatians 2:19-20, 1 Thessalonians 5:4), so that the conditions of the age to come have already begun, but it was not fully realized.
Another important text on women in the gnostic movement is the following:
"Simon Peter said to them: 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said, 'I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Gospel of Thomas 114:1-2).
Rather than respecting the so-called natural order, Jesus is here recommending that women subvert their gender in order to wrest themselves of the role determined for them on the basis of their (evil) physical body. Similar statements by second-century gnostics have been quoted by the apologists: e.g. "It is necessary for them, when they have come here, to cast off their clothing and all become bridegrooms, having been made male through the virgin spirit" (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 5.8.44). Meanwhile, 2 Clement -- a quasi-orthodox source that draws on the noncanonical gospel tradition -- has a saying related to Gospel of Thomas 22 and Gospel of the Egyptians, Fr. 5 (e.g. "When the two will be one, and the outer like the inner, and the male with the female neither male nor female", 12:2), and interprets it with reference to social relations within the church: "And by the male with the female neither male nor female, he means this, that when a brother sees a sister he should think of her not at all as a female, nor should she think of him as a male" (2 Clement 12:5).
The ideal of androgeny also had a theological basis in certain forms of second-century gnosticism, which viewed God as a dyad of both male and female elements and the female principles of Thought, Intelligence, and Foresight were critical for attaining gnosis. In the gnostic myth of First Thought in Three Forms, the First Thought (Meirothea) declares herself to be "androgynous, [both mother and] father, [I copulate] by myself alone" (45:2-4). Similarly, in Thunder -- Perfect Mind, the principle of Afterthought declares: "It is I who am the first and the last, it is I who am the revered and the despised. It is I who am the harlot and the holy. It is I who am the wife and the virgin ... It is I who am the bride and the bridegroom, and I am my husband who has begotten me, it is I who am the mother of my father, and the sister of my husband, and I am he who is my offspring" (13:15-32). These late third-century gnostic tractates develop these ideas of androgyny in an increasingly theological direction.
These religious ideas had implications for social practice. Full egalitarianism was practiced in Valentinian churches, according to the apologists. Tertullian says with astonishment that "they all have access equally, they all listen equally, they all pray equally, even pagans if they happen to come.... They also share the kiss of peace to all who come" (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 41). He adds:
"The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to understake cures, and even baptize....Today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood" (Ibid.).
The Valentinian Gospel of Philip advises that Christians ignore distinctions based on physicality: "Bodily forms will not deceive them, rather they consider the condition of each person's soul and they speak to that person accordingly" (81:3). Irenaeus also describes how the gnostic Marcus regularly had women consecrate the Eucharistic wine (1.13.2) and induced women to become prophetesses:
"He devotes himself especially to women, and those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw after him, by addressing them in such seductive words as these: "I am eager to make thee a partaker of my charis (i.e. "grace")...Behold, charis has descended upon you; open your mouth and prophesy." The woman then replies, "I have never at any time prophesied, nor do I know how to prophesy". For a second time, he gives her certain invocations, so as to astound his deluded victim, and he says to her, "Open your mouth, speak whatever occurs to you, and you shall prophesy." She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently from emotion, reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens to occur to her, such as might be expected from one heated by an empty spirit....Since then, she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for having imparted to her of his own power" (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.13.3).
Finally, in the gnostic gospel tradition, Mary (Magdalene) was the archetype of female teachers in gnostic churches, and in the third-century Gospel of Mary she was entrusted with special gnosis from the Savior. It should be remembered that the situation described in these second and third century sources do not necessarily represent social practice in their ancestral first century proto-gnostic communities; there may have indeed been differences. Nevertheless, as Galatians 3:26-28 and the Gospel of Thomas demonstrates, such an egalitatian ideology does go back to the late first century at least and social practice would have likely followed suit.
THE PASTORALS: PROTO-ORTHODOX OPPOSITION TO EARLY GNOSTICISM
This brings us now to the Pastoral epistles written in Paul's name in the late first century or early second century. These contain some of the more extreme statements in the NT on women's involvement in church affairs:
" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be silent, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was deceived but the woman who was deceived and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing, provided she lives a modest life and is constant in faith and love and holiness" (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
This is the passage the Watchtower quotes most often in support of its policy on female subordination in the congregation, although of course women are still expected to take limited parts in the Theocratic Ministry School, Service Meeting, and comment on articles (hence, not entirely "silent"). However such a statement flatly contradicts the Paul we encountered earlier. How could Junia be "foremost among the apostles" if she did not have "authority over a man" (Romans 16:7)? The teaching activities of Prisca are mentioned in Acts 18:26, and she had authority as a "fellow worker" of Paul (Romans 16:3) and convened a house church with her husband (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19). In 1 Corinthians 11, rather than inhibit women's prophesying and other speaking roles in the church, Paul suggested that women show submission to men's headship in a token way. 1 Corinthians 14 shows that church prophets (which would have included women as ch. 11 indicates) played an important role in comforting and encouraging others at church gatherings, and their verbal activity offered new material that became the subject of public discussion and interpretation. If 1 Timothy was written by Paul, he would have here taken a dramatic about-face on the issue.
However, 1 Timothy was most likely not written by Paul, or at least these "church order" sections. Most scholars recognize that a primary aim of the Pastoral epistles is to define a proto-orthodoxy that rejects the practices and beliefs of the early gnostics (who arose as a movement after Paul's death) and Jewish-Christians. At the very outset, 1 Timothy 1:3-4 instructs Timothy to remain in Ephesus "to insist that certain people stop teaching strange things and taking notice of myths and endless genealogies"; Ephesus was the home of Cerinthus, one of the earliest gnostic leaders mentioned by the apologists (cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.3; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.28, 4.14; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 7.21), who flourished between 80 and 120 AD, and it was also the home of a female emancipation movement originated by the Artemis mystery cult. The troublemakers "teach differently" (heterodidaskalein, cf. 1 Timothy 6:3; Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp 3:1), and what they teach are vain "myths" (muthoi) and "geneologies" (genealogiai), and in a Jewish context these could refer to haggadaic legends and pseudepigrapha (compare the Ioudaikois muthois "Jewish myths" in Titus 1:14 and the allusion to "Jannes and Jambres" in 2 Timothy 3:8). But these same words were used by Valentinian gnostics to refer to the "myths" and the genealogies of the aeons (cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1.praef.1, 1.11.1; Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 33), and Valentinius derived his system partly from Basilides (who flourished c. 120-140) and other early myth-making gnostics (cf. Basilides' myth in Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.24.3-7, and later gnostic myths in the Revelation of Adam and the Apocryphon of John). Later, at the close of the epistle, the author rails against the "profane babblings and controversies over knowledge (gnosis) that is falsely so-called" (1 Timothy 6:20), and the Pastorals attack point by point various claims and practices of the gnostics (along with Law-observant Jewish-Christians also viewed as heretical):
- "We know that the Law is good if one uses it properly" (1 Timothy 1:8); cf. the view that the Law was invented by the Demiurge to enslave Israel.
- "They will say that marriage is forbidden" (1 Timothy 4:3); cf. the statements in the previous section which state the gnostic views on marriage as evil.
- "Everything created by God is good" (1 Timothy 4:4); cf. the gnostic claim that created matter is inherently evil.
- "They say the resurrection has already taken place" (2 Timothy 2:18); cf. the realized eschatology of the Gospel of Thomas.
- "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching" (2 Timothy 3:16); the gnostics explicitly rejected the OT as inspired by the evil Demiurge which distorts true gnosis.
The misogynist instructions given in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, which command women to be silent because Eve was deceived first and which make a seemingly irrelevant reference to child-bearing, are perfectly intelligible in a gnostic context. The modern reader may well wonder what Adam and Eve have to do with women's teaching role in the church. In various gnostic myths about Adam and Eve, Eve was the recipient of the original gnosis that revealed the truth about what "reality" really is, that one dies not through death, and that one shall open one's eyes with this realization and become like the gods, recognizing what is truly evil and what is good. The female spiritual principle of Life (Zoe) thus passed from the serpent to Eve, making her the "mother of all living" (The Reality of the Rulers, 90:1-16; cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 4.praef.4, and a similar view was likely expressed in the Gospel of Eve of the Ophite sect), including Adam himself who calls Eve his "mother". The notion that Eve imparted life to Adam as his Mother, and the fact that she taught her gnosis to Adam, places her -- and women who follow her example -- in a primary position. The Pastoralist however places Eve in a definite secondary position behind Adam: "Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards" (1 Timothy 2:13). He also says that women must be silent BECAUSE (gar) Adam was molded first and because Eve was deceived into transgression instead of Adam (v. 14). Rather than being taught truth, Eve was seduced and deceived by the serpent, and thus those who claim to be teaching what Eve originally taught Adam must also be similarly deceived and thus must be denied teaching responsibilities and remain silent in the church. In this sense, the author's allusion to Eve is quite appropriate. The reference to child-bearing is also somewhat pointless outside of a gnostic context: "Nevertheless, she will be saved by child-bearing" (1 Timothy 2:15). As may be recalled from above, gnostics commonly believed that child-bearing is evil and forces yet another life to be imprisoned within flesh. Within the gnostic version of Adam and Eve myth, child-bearing was the curse that the Demiurge inflicted on Eve for attaining truth. A woman who makes herself male or makes it so that the female is not female (as the Gospel of Thomas puts it) saves herself and enters the Kingdom of Heaven, while women who participate in reproduction and marriage are lost to the world of matter. 1 Timothy 4:3 similarly mentions that among such heretics "marriage is forbidden". The Pastoralist here argues for the exact opposite view, that women save themselves not through celibacy but through marriage and child-bearing. This view completely rejects the gnostic belief that created nature is inherently evil; child-bearing is instead a blessing given to women.
Indeed, influential women and women teachers appear to be among the primary offenders in the Pastorals. 1 Timothy 4:7 refers to the "profane stories told by old women", the young widows of 1 Timothy 5:13 are described as "meddlers in other people's affairs" who "chatter when they would be better keeping quiet", and 2 Timothy 3:6-7 most importantly refers to "silly women who are obsessed with their sins and follow one craze after another in the attempt to educate themselves but can never come to a knowledge of the truth (epignósen alétheias)". Since their learning is of "myths" and "knowledge falsely so-called", which inspire "controversies" (antitheseis) and public debate within the church (cf. 6:20), many scholars believe that the author is engaged in a polemic against an already-existing role of prophetesses and female teachers in the church. As Lucinda Brown notes: "Appealing to a rhetorical analysis of the rules, commentators such as Dewey argue that the author would not have spent so much time and effort instructing Christian women to remain silent unless the goal was to change already existing behavior. According to such an interpretation, the women in this church were active and vocal participants" (p. 488). A crucial word is authentein "have authority over, dominate" in 1 Timothy 3:12, which is something the Pastoralist wants to deny women. This is the only instance of this word in the NT and it is rare in the Greek of the period as well; the Attic grammarian Moeris and later writers indicated that it was a vulgar expression with negative connotations, e.g. tyrannical or self-claimed authority. This suggests that the women claimed some sort of authority (e.g. exousia, the usual expression for "authority"), which the Pastoralist characterized in vulgar language as imposed by the women themselves over men. This he viewed as a perversion of the natural order of things (1 Timothy 2:13-14), which for gnostics was the very point of their behavior.
Peering through the rhetoric, we can see that the situation in the post-apostolic period is a continuation of the earlier one: women continued to have teaching and prophesying roles in the church. It is not difficult to understand why female teachers and prophets would have preferred a proto-gnostic or gnostic worldview: it better legitimized their status, it gave a coherent explanation of why gender inequality is evil and has been abolished in Christ, and turned the myth of Eve's deception (which in earlier Judaism allowed men to blame women for the introduction of sin and death in the world, cf. Sirach 26:24), which had been used to justify women's subordination by men on the basis of Genesis 3:16, into a proto-feminist story. Proto-orthodox males, who saw the shunning of marriage, child-bearing, and the growing claim of authority by women as a perversion of the created order (and thus against God's will), believed that such women were weak-minded and susceptible to the demonic teachings of evil spirits, in a manner similar to how Eve fell victim to the serpent's deception. Since "silly women" were especially interested in acquiring gnosis, (2 Timothy 3:6-7), and since false gnosis was a matter for public "voicings" (kenophónias) and "controversies" (antitheseis, cf. the "Antitheses" of Marcion) as 1 Timothy 6:20 puts it, an important facet of quelling gnostic teaching was to silence female teachers and prophets. The exhortation that women remain silent in public assemblies and not teach would have likely had two goals: reducing the amount of discussion of gnostic ideas and reducing the status of women within the congregations.
However, the Pastoralist was not interested in banning all involvement by women in church affairs. He was mostly concerned with the teaching responsibilities that had introduced far too much empty speculation into public discourse than he would have liked. In his discussion on the qualifications of the overseers and servants of local congregations, he mentioned qualifications for "women" (gunaikas):
"Whoever strives for the office of bishop (episkopés) desires to take upon himself a good work. For the bishop should be without reproach, the husband of one wife (mias gunaikos andra), sober, prudent, moderate, hospitable, skillful in teaching, not given to wine nor brawling, but kind, peaceable, and not covetous, one who governs his own house well and keeps his children in respectful obedience, for whoever does not know how to govern his own house, how can he take care of the church of God? Nor should he be newly baptized, lest he become puffed up and fall into the condemnation of the Devil. He should also have a good reputation among those outside of the congregation, so that he may not fall into the Devil's snare, if something reproachful is said about him. Likewise (hósautós), the deacons (diakonous) should be honorable, not double-tongued, not given to immoderate enjoyment of wine, not greedy, cherish the mystery of faith with a pure conscience. They should first be tested, then they should execute their duty, if they are irreproachable. Likewise (hósautós), the women (gunaikas) should be honorable, not slanderous, sober, reliable in everything. The deacons should be the husband of one wife (mias gunaikos andres), and govern their children and their homes well. For those who perform their service well obtain for themselves a good position and real cheerfulness in Jesus Christ" (1 Timothy 3:1-13).
This is another difficult text that has elicited much comment. For the most part, the Pastoralist discusses two positions in the church: "bishops" (= overseers in the NWT) and "deacons" (= ministerial servants). For each, he gives a list of qualifications for the position. But he interrupts the list of qualifications for deacons with an aside about "the women", with qualifications of their own. So are these women deacons themselves, i.e. deaconesses (like Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2)? Or are they "wives" of the deacons -- as gunaikas means both "women" and "wives" in Greek. It is a difficult question to answer. The word diakonos is not explicitly applied to them. The fact that the requirements for the "women" are embedded inside the deacon list suggests that these are women associated with the deacons, either as assistants or wives. The use of the word hósautós "likewise" is also striking because it marks a contrast between "the women" and "deacons" in v. 11 in the same way that it marks the contrast between "bishops" and "deacons" in v. 8. This is pretty strong evidence that these women are not deacons. The "deacons" of v. 12 moreover are clearly male, as they are "the husband of one wife" which is the same requirement of bishops in v. 2. At the same time, the "women" do have a list of qualifications of their own (short tho it is), and the specific requirements parallel those demanded of deacons in the same order (e.g. semnas "honorable" = semnous, mé diabolous "not devils" = mé dilogous "not double-talking", néphalious "sober" = mé oinó polló prosekhontas "not having desire for much wine", pistis en pasi "faithful in all things" = mé aiskhrokerdeis ... suneidései "not greedy"). This strongly suggests that an ecclesiastical position is in view here, and one that resembles that of deacons in requirements. This leaves two main possibilities: (1) "the women" have essentially the same job as male deacons but the Pastoralist wanted to reserve the technical term diakonos for men, or (2) "the women" are wives of deacons but had similar responsibilities as their husbands in the church. In either case, gunaikas refers to women who had certain congregational responsibilities in the church. Possibility (2) is attractive because it would limit such responsibilities to married women and thus would automatically disqualify quasi-gnostic emancipated women whom the author likely viewed as a threat. In favor of possibility (1) is the symmetry between the qualification lists of v. 9 and 11; it gives the appearance that the Pastoralist first listed the general requirements for "deacons" (assumed to be male), then added a similar list for women who had the same responsibilities, and then at the very end mentioned a few additional requirements for male deacons that were not gender neutral: being husbands of one wife, and being fathers. I don't know which possibility should be preferred, so it should suffice to say that the Pastoralist recognized that women -- possibly those women married to deacons -- could have a measure of ecclesiastical responsibility in the church. Yet it is an "unnamed" position, and awkwardly stuck in the middle of a list of qualifications for male deacons. He acknowledges that such women exist but does not go to any lengths to flesh out their status as an official, fully-fledged pastoral position like that of bishops and deacons. But since this was within the emerging proto-orthodox structure of the church, it was certainly more legitimate than the questionable teaching and prophesying activities of unmarried women.
OTHER POST-APOSTOLIC ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE WOMEN'S ACTIVITY IN THE CHURCH
During the immediate post-apostolic period, women continued to have some form of legitimate "deacon" status. Pliny the Younger, governor of the province of Bithynia in the early second century mentioned such women in a letter to Emperor Trajan, written in AD 112: "I therefore judged it so much the more necessary to extract the truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses (ancillis quae ministrae dicebantur), but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition" (Epistle, 10.96). In fact, in the later church a named "deaconess" role is known to exist, which included such responsibilities as instructing and baptizing female neophytes, attending them at services, and delivering messages from the bishops (cf. Apostolic Constitutions 2.26, 3.15; and other sources). Public teaching however was not part of a deaconess' responsibilities. Nonetheless, for a few generations after the apostles, there were still female prophets and teachers in individual proto-orthodox churches, though they received much criticism. The most famous example is that of the woman John the Presbyter dubbed "Jezebel", a female prophet in the church of Thyatira:
"I have a complaint to make: you are encouraging that woman (gunaika) Jezebel who claims to be a prophetess (legousa heautén prophétin), and by her teaching (didaskei) she is luring my servants away to commit the adultery of eating food which has been sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to reform but she is not willing to change her adulterous life. Now I am consigning her to bed, and all her partners in adultery (i.e. idolatry) to troubles that will test them severely, unless they repent of their practices, and I will see that her children (i.e. those who follow her teaching) die....But on the rest of you in Thyatira, all of you who have not accepted this teaching (tén didakhén tautén) or learnt the deep things of Satan (egnósan ta bathea tou Satana), as they are called, I am not laying any special duty, but to hold firmly to what you already have" (Revelation 2:20-24).
Here is just the sort of woman that the Pastoralist was trying to silence. She was a prophetess, which had been a respectable position in the church for Paul (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, 14:2-5), and she publically expounded her "teaching" (didakhén) to others, leading them astray from the kind of Christianity that John endorsed. He uses sexual metaphors to characterize her purported idolatry, and the reference to her seducing her children to "eat food which has been sacrificed to idols" faintly echoes Eve's role in inducing Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. This might suggest that her teaching was syncretistic and sought to harmonize Christianity with local pagan cults, or it may merely suggest that she saw nothing wrong or idolatrous with eating food that had been sacrificed to idols (as did Paul, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12-13, 10:14-31). But since he had just referred to the teaching of the "Nicolaitans" in the city of Pergamum who "commit adultery by eating food that had been sacrificed to idols" (Revelation 2:14-15), it seems more likely that "Jezebel" was a member of this heterodox sect. In this respect, it is intriguing that Jezebel's teaching concerned "knowing the deep things of Satan" (Revelation 2:24), a wording that describes well the endeavor to attain secret gnosis and understanding of oneself. What is more, this phrase is something that "they are saying" (legousin) themselves, and indeed an almost identical phrase occurs in the proto-gnostic material (incorporated by Paul) in 1 Corinthians 2:10:
"The hidden wisdom (sophian ... apokekrummenén) of God which we teach in our mysteries (en musterió) is the wisdom that God predestined to be for our glory before the ages (aiónon, i.e. Aeons) began, which none of the rulers of this age (arkhontón tou aionós, i.e. Archons of this Aeon) knew....These are the very things that God has revealed (apekalupsen) to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the deep things of God (ta bathé tou theou)" (1 Corinthians 2:7-8, 10).
Second, there is a direct counterpart to this expression in the theology of Valentinius and Basilides, who identified bathos, or divine "depth" as a primary characteristic of God. Gnosis involved not only the steps of attaining the Pleroma, but also falling into the deep chasm of God's immeasurable depth (bathos) and finding the divine spark buried deep inside oneself. The Deep is the parent and prior source of divine emanations; in his poem Summer Harvest, Valentinius makes reference to "crops rushing forth from the deep" which Hippolytus interprets as "the complete emanation of the aeons from the parent" (Adversus Haereses, 6.37.8). Finally, Irenaeus characterizes the Nicolaitans as having gnostic tendencies, describing them as "an offshoot of that 'knowledge' falsely so called" (Adversus Haereses 3.11.1), tho it is unclear whether he had any information on them independent of Revelation. It is thus generally recognized that the prophetess Jezebel of Thyatira fell somewhere in the spectrum of gnostic speculation. She had teaching authority and a cachet of followers, and the author of Revelation saw her as a dangerous false prophet influenced by Satan.
Also from this period (tho likely from the first century) is the post-Pauline interpolation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, which bears striking similarity with the view of the Pastoralist, and which a majority of critics believe was added by a later hand:
"Women are to remain quiet (sigatósan) at meetings since they have no permission to speak (epitrepetai autais lalein); they must keep in the background as the Law itself says. If they have any questions to ask, they should ask their husbands at home. It does not seem right for a woman to raise her voice (lalein) at meetings" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
There are many reasons for doubting the authenticity of this text, which has been used for centuries to deny women's involvement in ecclesiastical leadership. The most obvious indicator is the contradiction with 11:2-16, where Paul had very different advice for women prophets. In one text he discusses their decorum while prophesying at meetings (his only concern is what they have on their heads), the next denies them the right to prophesy in the first place. Indeed, the problem is made worse by v. 31 which says that "you can all prophesy in turn, so that everybody will learn something and everybody will be encouraged". There is another contextual problem with this passage; it doesn't fit very well with the rest of the chpater. They interrupt the flow of the argument on Christian prophecy, since the immediate link between 14:32-33 and v. 36-37 is restored when this passage is excised: "Prophets can always control their prophetic spirits, since God is not a God of disorder but of peace. Do you think the word of God came out of yourselves? Or that is have come only to you?" Probably because of this ill-fit with the context, Western manuscripts D, G, 88 dislocate v. 34-35 from their canonical location to a position after v. 40. Also, the passage is closely related to another post-Pauline text, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which shares similar vocabulary and concept: guné "women", ouk epitrepó "I do not permit," andros "male person", sigatósan, hésukhia "be silent, quiet", lalein, didaskein "speaking, teaching", etc. The appeal to the Law in v. 34 is also strangely un-Pauline, considering Paul's antinomian stance throughout the epistles. If the passage is an interpolation, it has to be an early one, since 1 Clement (writing to the Corinthian church, c. AD 96) seems to be familiar with it (cf. 21:6-7,"Let us guide our women (gunaikas) toward that which is good ... let them demonstrate by their silence (sigés) their moderation of their tongue"). An alternative explanation has recently been made by Odell-Scott which treats the problematic v. 34-35 as an unattributed quotation Paul was making from the letter he was replying to (representing the position of one of the factions at Corinth, apparently one that was more Law-observant). A chief piece of evidence of this is the particle H (eta) that starts v. 36, which in Greek can function as an disjunctive adversative, expressing disagreement. That is to say, Paul would have been declaring his disgust at such a view expressed in v. 34-35. In either case, the misogynist view presented in these verses would not have been Paul's actual opinion.
Assuming the interpolation theory to be correct, it is striking that this Pastoralist-like passage was inserted into a discussion on how prophecy should be conducted in the churches! The inclination of unmarried female prophets to prefer quasi-gnostic ideas (which, as brought out earlier, claimed that gender distinctions were one of the enslaving aspects of matter, and that Christ has now made it possible to abandon such enslavement to the illusions of the body) was a big problem for orthodoxing Christians who rejected such theological views, and 11:4-5 in combination with 14:31 would appear to legitimize their right to expound on their beliefs in church meetings. The insertion of 14:34-35 would then bring Paul's letter closer in line with the needs of their own time.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul sought to unify the growing factions lest the church be split (cf. 1:10-16, 3:4-9, 22-23). The approach in later writings is quite different: heretics must be expelled lest they corrupt the church (cf. for instance, 2 John 7-10). This represents a more mature period, when theological development on all sides had reached such a point (defining what was truth and what was error) that unity was no longer possible between proto-gnostic and proto-orthodox streams that had flowed from the same Pauline source. The growing hierarchical ecclesiastical structure of the catholicizing proto-orthodox churches was in part a response to the continued presence of people in the church (e.g. female prophets) who did not teach what the leadership taught, as Revelation 2:20-24 clearly attests. The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch to the churches of Asia Minor, written around AD 115, shed much light on this situation in the early second century. Like Paul, Ignatius was a bit of a proto-gnostic himself, writing frequently about archons (e.g. Trallians 4:2, 5:2; Philadelphians 6:2; Smyrnaeans 6:1) and even indulging in a bit of quasi-gnostic mythology (e.g. Ephesians 19:1-3). Yet he vehemently rejected docetism and other beliefs popular in more mature gnosticism (e.g. Smyrnaeans 1-5). Ignatius addressed both quasi-gnostic teachings as well as Jewish-Christian influence (cf. Magnesians 8:1-2, 10:3; Philadelphians 6:1), like the Pastoralist and the author of Revelation (cf. the message to the church in Smyrna in 2:9 and the message to Philadelphia in 3:9). What is interesting about Ignatius is that he describes an ecclesiastical structure which is more advanced than that of the Pastorals (which themselves are more advanced than Paul). Instead of a body of bishops in each church (roughly synonymous with the body of presbuteroi "elders"), there is instead a single bishop at each church. And this bishop had full authority in authorizing all sorts of church activity:
"Flee from divisions, as the beginning of evils. You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and follow the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything apart from the bishop that has to do with the church. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the whole (katholiké) church. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop...And it is proper for men and women who marry to be united with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be in accordance with the Lord and not due to lustful passions" (Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 8:1-2, Polycarp 5:2).
This made it much easier to control what was taught in the churches and ensure that no one held authority who was believed by the bishop to be teaching false doctrine. If a female prophet expounded quasi-gnostic ideas, such as docetism (indeed, the above passage in Smyrnaeans directly follows a refutation of docetism), the bishop had the ability to remove such a person from the church or forbid her from speaking during church meetings. House churches, to the extent that they still existed (considering the increasing centralization of local churches), were also to be authorized by the male bishop. All other aspects of church life (love feasts, baptism, weddings, the Eucharist, etc.) were to have the oversight of the bishop. Interestingly, Smyrnaeans 6:1 indicates that the problem in Smyrna was due to someone who had a "position" (topos) in the church, most likely a presbyter, who held his own separate meetings without the consent of the bishop (cf. 6:2, which mentions that his followers abstained from the prayers and Eucharist observed by the rest of the church because they disagreed with eucharistic theology of its leaders). This indicates that the ideal expressed by Ignatius was not yet fully practiced, tho it was the wave of things to come, and Ignatius certainly parallels 2 John in recommending his readers "to avoid such people and to speak about them neither privately nor publically" (7:2).
Ignatius also gives a few indications about the status of women in Smyrna. In 13:1, he greets "the virgins who are called widows (tas parthenous tas legomenas khéras)," a phrase that has elicited much debate in the past and which most likely refers to unmarried women who have the social status of "widow" though they are not widowed themselves. The expression tas legomenas "called" especially indicates that the term khéras "widow" is being used "in an unusual or improper sense" (Schoedel, p. 252). Since "widows" received special financial support in the church (Acts 6:1; 1 Timothy 5:3-16; James 1:27; Polycarp, Philippians 6:1), these are most likely impoverished unmarried women who were given the status of "widow" so they may be given aid. Tertullian (De Virginibus Velandis, 9), Hippolytus, and other early church fathers mention that such an order of widows did exist (which included virgins as young as 20 years old, according to Tertullian), and they had congregational responsibilities which included prayer, instruction of younger women, and other services performed by deacons. There is a parallel in 1 Timothy 5:3-16, which listed qualifications for "real widows" (ontós khéras), such as a requirement that they be at least 60 years old (v. 9), to set them apart from "young widows" (neóteras kheras) who have joined the group to receive aid (v. 11). Only "real widows" are those that are "enlisted" (katalegesthó), e.g. given official status and church responsibilities as indicated by the list of qualifications paralleling those in ch. 3 for bishops and deacons. Presumably, "young widows" previously have had this status and thus widowhood was a means through which aspiring unmarried women attained responsibilities in the congregation. The Pastoralist viewed this as facilitating their slide into (probably quasi-gnostic) heresy:
"I think it is best for young women (neóteras) to marry and have children and a home to look after, and not give the enemy any chance to raise a scandal about them; there are already some who have left us to follow Satan. If a Christian woman has widowed relatives, she should support them and not make the church bear the expense but enable it to support those who are real widows (ontós kherais)" (1 Timothy 5:14-16).
Rather than aspiring for a career as an unmarried widow, the Pastoralist recommended instead that they "marry and have children" -- exactly the things that are repugnant to the gnostic worldview. Those who do not aspire to marriage and child-bearing thus make themselves vulnerable to opposers anxious to use slander to discredit the church (cf. especially 1 Timothy 3:7, 6:1; Titus 2:5, 8), and the Pastoralist affirms that some have indeed left the proto-orthodox church to follow false teachers (compare the wording in Acts 20:30). In light of the Pastoralist's earlier reference to the false teaching forbidding marriage (1 Timothy 4:3), the fact that "silly women" were pursuing gnostic teachings (1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 3:6), and his recommendation for female teachers to stop teaching and get married and have children instead (2:11-15), this discussion of widows in c. 5 appears to assume a situation involving young unmarried women who eschewed marriage and had gnostic tendencies. What is especially interesting is that the requirement for young widows to marry and bear children conflicts with the earlier rule that "real widows" could be married only once (v. 9). For young widows who have been genuinely widowed, getting married again would prevent them from becoming "real widows" should they become widowed again. Thus this is another measure of control the Pastoralist tried to assert over the lives of women in the church.
Ignatius detested the docetism preached by the schismatics in Smyrna, but he did not object to the existence of "so-called widows", greeting them courteously in Smyrnaeans 13:1. Since he greets only the so-called widows, and not "real widows" as well, Schoedel suggests that "virgins formed a distinct (and relatively large) subgroup in Smyrna and they have been given special responsibilities in connection with their visitor" (p. 252). Supporting evidence of this can be found in Ignatius' private letter to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. There he remarks on the unusual enthusiasm in Smyrna for celibacy, which had a theological basis of respecting "the flesh of the Lord (tés sarkos tou kuriou)" (Polycarp 5:2). Bear in mind that the docetic schismatics had refrained from the Eucharist because they did not believe the sacraments were literally "flesh", and that the Savior really had "flesh", considering the evil nature of flesh (Smyrnaeans 6:2). From Ignatius' wording, it would seem that the popularity of celibacy spanned both factions of the church and the theological rationale in both cases is that the virgin is wedded to Christ. This is the concept expressed at the end of the century by Tertullian regarding celibate virgins in the church, who (like the female prophets of 1 Corinthians) did not want to veil their heads:
"We turn to (the virgins) themselves, to induce them to accept these suggestions more willingly. Whether you are a mother, sister, or virgin-daughter (whatever is appropriate for your age), I pray that you veil your head. If you are a mother, it would be for your son's sake. If you are a sister, it would be for your brother's sake. If you are a daughter, it would be for your father's sake. It does not matter what the age....Wear the full wardrobe of women to preserve your position of virgin....Yet you do not belie yourself as appearing like a bride. For you are wedded to Christ; to him you have surrendered your flesh and to him you have espoused your maturity. Walk in accordance with the wishes of your bridegroom, for Christ himself wants both those espoused to him and the wives of others to veil themselves" (Tertullian, De Virginibus Velandis, 16.1-4).
This develops the earlier idea that the collective church is the bride of Christ (cf. Mark 2:18-20; Ephesians 5:27; Revelation 19:7-10; compare perhaps Ignatius, Polycarp 5:1, "Love your wives as the Lord loves the church"), and even in Paul there is a suggestion that physical union adulterates the purity of the church's relation with Christ (1 Corinthians 6:12-20). In gnosticism, those who attain gnosis are drawn into the "bridal chamber" (the Pleroma) where they will join with Christ and the emanations in unity:
"And none shall be able to escape the demonic powers, since they detain him if he does not receive a male power or a female power, the bridegroom and the bride. One receives them from the mirrored bridal chamber...If anyone becomes a son of the bridal chamber, he will receive the light. If anyone does not receive it while he is here, he will not be able to receive it in the other place....Those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated" (Gospel of Philip 65:7-12, 70:19-20, 85:32-86:18).
Irenaeus even described the rituals of certain gnostics in enacting such a marriage: "Some of them prepare a bridal chamber and perform a mystic rite, with certain invocations, for those who are being consecrated, and they claim that what they are effecting is a spiritual marriage, after the image of the conjunctions above" (Adversus Haereses, 1.21.3). Thus a range of different mystical ideas of spiritual marriage existed in both early gnosticism and orthodoxy, and celibate woman who refused to marry in the flesh could have belonged to both streams, tho with very different theological elaborations in the later second century. At the time of Ignatius in the early second century, the practice of celibacy in Smyrna posed a problem for the bishop in one main respect: people were publically boasting about their celibacy: "If anyone remains chaste to the honor of the flesh of the Lord, let him so remain without boasting. If he boasts, he is lost; and if it is made known to anyone other than the bishop, he is ruined" (Polycarp 5:2; compare 1 Clement 38:2). This translation, BTW, uses the masculine, but the original Greek contains no pronouns and thus applies to both men and women. It is impossible to know why certain people were boasting about their unmarried status, but in the case of women it could have been to assert their superior relationship with Christ or their right to be treated equally.
In summary, though the overall picture is unclear in many respects (such as the interpretation of problematic texts), it is clear that Paul was much more egalitarian about women's involvement in church affairs then he is usually given credit for. To be sure, his attitudes were as sexist as they were in the Judaism and Hellenistic culture of the time, and he believed that women must remain subjected to men in some fashion to respect God's arrangement through creation. Yet he acknowledged the work and status of female apostles, deacons, patrons, teachers, and he approved of female prophets as long as they abided by decorum that signalled their ultimate submission. However, Christians began to diverge philosophically along two trajectories, an increasingly orthodox stream and an increasingly gnostic one -- both defined in opposition to the other, and both consisting of a varying set of different beliefs and practices. The gnostic trajectory was likely more congenial to independent-minded women, promising greater equality and supplying a coherent explanation of why gender differences should no longer matter in the church. Already in Paul's time, some of these women prophets were declaring their equality by removing their head coverings. There is some evidence, albeit ambiguous, that some women prophets actively taught gnostic ideas in church meetings; this is most apparent from the reference to Jezebel of the church of Thyatira in Revelation, and such a situation could also be plausibly reconstructed through the rhetoric of the Pastorals. In response, the orthodoxizing Pastorals tried to delegitimize public speaking by women (cf. 1 Timothy 2), and a probable interpolation in 1 Corinthians 14 also attempted the same thing -- in contradiction to ch. 11. The Pastoralist also tried to lower the status of young unmarried women who identified themselves as "widows". By the time we reach the time of Ignatius, the bishop had the power to authorize who had the right to speak at church meetings and while many unmarried women continued to call themselves "widows", some were apparently boasting of their status to the annoyance of the bishop. The office of the deaconess continued in the later church, along with the order of the widows, but the rise of orthodoxy eliminated the role of women as prophets in the mainline churches and enhanced the power of bishops and presbyters.
In the end, I think the lesson is that the less organized, first-century church was a dynamic entity where the talents of women were better appreciated and utilized, and using a few isolated quotations from the Pastorals to limit the status of women in Christian churches today (as being God's will, as the Watchtower quote above states) would ignore not only the complexity and diversity of the early church but also statements elsewhere in the NT that attest the leadership and teaching status that some women did enjoy enjoy during the apostolic period.