Paul’s Brazen Statement on Gender & Ministry
10 women, 28 church leaders total
A few of y’all asked specifically that I share this work here, and your wish is my command. Lately I’ve been playing in Romans 16. And while this interaction is by no means exhaustive, I do hope it sheds some light on the current discourse re: women’s ordination and women in ministry.
The doctrinal debate surrounding women in ministry remains one of the most polarizing issues in American evangelical circles. And while powerful male leaders frequently dispute the limits of female authority and agency in the church, Romans 16 offers a response to the discourse that is both rooted in sound theological precedent and is deeply pastoral in nature. You see, a lot of the time when preachers do exegetical sermons on Romans they spend a lot of time focusing on the doctrine, yet they breeze through chapter 16, briefly quipping about the weird to us reference to a holy kiss while they seek to land the sermon series plane and move along. Now sometimes pastors do spend a little bit of time here and will note the ethnically diverse representations of names. But too often, especially in evangelical churches, they gloss over the stark fact that many of those names belong to women, and they belong there for a theological reason.
The reality is that the inclusion of ten diverse women, amongst a total of twenty-eight prominent church leaders in his benediction, speaks volumes. In Romans 16 Paul reveals how gender distinctions do not hinder the gospel mission but rather the multifaceted nature of an ecclesial body that embraces the leadership gifts of both men and women enhance shared flourishing for all. This is particularly noticeable when believers unite in hospitality, service, and mutual belonging. Through this examination of Romans 16, we will briefly explore how Paul’s benediction to the Roman churches presents a living picture of vibrant ministry as it was already being practiced in the early church. And while Paul explicitly addresses a variety of theological points throughout the letter, when it comes to gender, he chose to “show, not tell,” thereby communicating that the inclusion of women in ministry was not a matter of debate because it was already their lived reality. Romans 16 functions in part as a public confirmation of the full participation of women in ministry and leadership to its ancient recipients and can also function as an example for stubborn skeptics today.
Bearing in mind the theological weightiness of Romans as a whole, Romans 16 stands out not merely in its normalization of equality but in the way that all of those named share a desire to encourage the church—particularly the women. This becomes more evident when comparing the benediction to those in other New Testament epistles. According to Elisabeth Fiorenza, “the passages that directly mention women are not descriptive or comprehensive but indicative of the ‘submerged’ information…and therefore cannot be taken as providing all the information about women in early Christianity… but should be read as the ‘tip of the iceberg.”[1] She goes on to suggest that the references to them should not be smushed into an androcentric model of historical reconstruction, but must be appropriated with an understanding of early Christian beginnings that allows for the leadership of both men and women.[2]
Concerning Phoebe specifically, she was likely the leader of a local ecclesial community,[3] who modeled hospitality as part of her Christian ethic. Of this, Klauck argues that her ministry “was not of that of the later deaconesses limited to women”[4] but because the text does not explicitly refer to a home church, she was likely the diakonos of the whole church in Cenchreae.”[5] Furthermore, Phoebe is not merely referred to as diakonos, but also as “our (beloved) sister.” For New Testament authors, siblinghood was a sign of honor and belonging. And in regard to her title of protastatis, it is notable that while Phoebe led in Cenchreae, her patronage was widespread and liberal.
Phoebe took a system that was typically about power, favors, and status (the Greco-Roman patronage system) and reoriented it toward Christian values of equality and service. Instead of using her position as a patron to gain influence or enforce traditional divisions, she stewarded her role in a way that aligned with countercultural ethics, where distinctions like gender and social status didn’t matter. By doing this, she subverted the traditional system, emphasizing mutual support and unity rather than hierarchy and privilege. Similarly, sisters Trypheaena and Tryphosa whose names mean ‘delicate’ and ‘dainty,’ respectively “indicate the kind of life from which they had turned to the service of Christ.”[6]
Through the naming and acknowledging of women, Paul goes out of his way to affirm the work and belonging of women, notably without characterizing women like Prisca nor Junia as “wives.” Their patriarchal status in the household is of no significance, but rather he honors women because of their commitment to the gospel and ministerial accomplishments.[7] Similarly, Rufus’ mother has made her way onto the list and holds authority outside of her own household, despite not having the same financial benefaction credit as Phoebe and other leaders.[8] In fact, Paul’s invocation of motherhood whilst ignoring known kinship lines departs markedly from standard Roman practice.[9] Paul simultaneously refuses to conform to dominant societal gender norms women, and instead opting to subvert the system. Of this Beverly Gaventa asserts that “nothing in Paul’s comments justifies the conclusion that these women worked in ways that differed either in kind or in quality from the ways in which men worked.”[10] For Paul, women are not just vital because of their value or use, but because there is deep familial belonging regardless that stretches beyond their contributions and accomplishments. Simply put, women in leadership matter because women belong to the family of God, not the other way around and by including women of various marital statuses and life stages, Paul endorses their authority throughout the church as an extension of the practical theology outlined earlier in his letter.
Following the invocation of Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus’ mother, Julia, and Nereus’ sister, the list of twenty-six names concludes with a beatitude of sorts, harkening back to the matriarch of all the living through the reference to Genesis 3:15 in verse twenty. And I can’t help but wonder if this call back to Eve in the Garden is further proof of the subversive nature of this benediction which the Oxford Bible Commentary calls “a majestic crown to an extraordinary letter.”[11] Paul wasn’t merely making the presence and power of women within the letter an unavoidable fact. He explicitly chooses to use the voice of Phoebe delivering this letter to empower Roman believers with the ultimate feminist rallying cry: “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Rom 16:20)
The theological implications for Paul’s “show not tell” approach are reminiscent of the approach Paul takes in Philemon, in which he assumes his audience is intelligent enough to draw the correct conclusion without explicit language while resisting the urge to let the argument proper take precedence over the purpose of the letter. I believe the same is true here. The bookend to the theological treatise that Paul makes in his epistle to Roman believers is meant to be steeped in the context of their lived experience. This way, his audience can get a full picture of what living like the family of God looks like in action, through an artful refusal to even bother with debates on the matter. It’s almost as if the presence and authority of these women are so essential to the life of the early Christian communities, that he only wants to showcase the beauty of their social reality as a contrast to surrounding empirical context. And I describe this approach as pastoral because it’s the precise approach that Rich Villodas takes in our modern-day gender discourse. According to him, Rich used to argue with others who didn’t believe women could preach and pastor, but realized it was a waste of energy. Now he prioritizes training and providing opportunities for women to preach because when they do, hearts are transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, once again embodying this idea of “show not tell.”
Moving along, we’d be remiss if we failed to admit that an overarching theme of Romans 16 is this dominant idea of harmonious living in community that hinges on countercultural ethics of hospitality & welcome, and radical forms of inclusion. This closing chapter can’t be reduced to networking given the theological nature of the rest of the epistle, nor can its distinctiveness from other comparative epistles go ignored. The lengthiness of the benediction corresponds to the degree to which Paul wants to stretch the imaginations of his Roman recipients via a full paradigm shift. Anciently, critics like Lucian attempted to belittle believers by insulting their status as siblings and their voluntary self-devotion to one another while denying the gods of the ancient pantheon.[12] To live as believers in the Roman world was to prove that in a sexually charged pagan environment that was obsessed with hierarchy and status, worshipping the one true God looked like viewing men and women as siblings worthy of welcome and hospitality, a reality that was both noticeable and offensive to the systems that the Christian way of living subverted. The Christian ethic of providing generous hospitality and care for one another in the ancient world wasn’t gendered, it was equal parts expectation and honor for all. In this way, Roman’s 16 not only empowers the women, but challenges the men in regard to how they are to embody the gospel message with their sisters in the faith surrounding them and in full view.
Finally, our current debates that seek to devalue the roles of women in the church go to great lengths to poorly explain away portions of this passage. Folks that prefer to keep women small will attempt to minimize Phobe by trading her title of deacon for the label of “servant,” and even going as far as to change Junia’s to Junius, in an effort to make the name appear more masculine. Yet it is apparent that even the most blatant attempts to discredit Paul’s intentions fall short from a textual standpoint, and ultimately theologically. And while Paul regularly addresses specific contextual situations regarding women in ministry outright, the overwhelming nature of this benediction implores us to view this picture as Paul’s norm, not the exception. While some still argue that Paul's writings elsewhere suggest limitations on women's roles in ministry, Romans 16 challenges such interpretations by providing concrete examples of women actively leading and serving in the early church. Ultimately this whole passage illustrates rather than argues that the leadership of women was indispensable to the early church.
Ultimately, Romans 16 provides a pastoral and theological framework that speaks directly to the ongoing debate surrounding women in ministry. Through Paul’s deliberate inclusion of women as ministers of the gospel and leaders within the church, it becomes evident that gender distinctions do not hinder the mission of the church; rather, they enhance it. The practical theology outlined in Romans, which culminates in the benediction, is an artistic rendering of a church united in diversity—where siblings together embody the gospel through acts of hospitality, service, and radical belonging. This picture is important because it directly challenged conventional norms within the context of the Roman empire. By choosing to “show, not tell,” Paul communicates that the doctrinal fidelity he advocates for is contextualized by this specific ministerial background, so much so that he charges Deacon Phoebe with the hand delivery and oration of this letter to the Roman churches. This precedent set by Paul encourages the continued full participation of women in ministry today, affirming their integral role in the flourishing of the church.
As always, thanks for hanging here. I’d love to hear your thoughts/comments/questions and keep the conversation going below.
[1] Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. 1986. “Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers: Romans 16 and the Reconstruction of Women’s Early Christian History.” Word & World 6 (4): 423.
[2] Ibid., 422.
[3] Ibid., 425.
[4] H. J. Klauck, Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im fruhen Christentum (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981) 31.
[5] Ibid., 31.
[6] John Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans: Homily 31 Translated by J.B. Morris and W.H. Simcox. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 11, edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.
[7] Fiorenza, Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers, 431.
[8] Janelle Peters The Mother of Rufus and Paul in Romans 16 Journal for Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies ISSN 2633-0695 Vol 4.2 (2022) 111.
[9] Ibid., 109.
[10] Newsom, Carol A., and Sharon H. Ringe, eds. The Women’s Bible Commentary. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992) 320.
[11] John Barton and John Muddiman, eds. The Oxford Bible Commentary. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001) 1108.
[12] Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus, trans. A. M. Harmon (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936), 2.
Love that wink at Genesis 3:15 in verse 20 so much; thank you for pointing that out and giving me a fresh way of looking at this text. Thought provoking as always!