New Testament Prophecy and Its Implications for the Ministry of Women

Introduction

The Church is still divided over the matter of whether women can be ordained as Christian ministers, and particularly whether women should be permitted to teach and minister to men. The debate is unlikely to be resolved any time soon, but I would like to make a contribution to the discussion. Being a woman with ministry gifts of both teaching and prophecy, this discussion is of personal significance to me. There have been several approaches to the debate. Some focus on the injustices which have been done to women. Reflecting on her own experience, Bonnie Miller-McLemore observes:

My own ordination in 1984 did not come easily, not because my denomination prohibits it but because I had doubts. Around me whirled the storms sparked by a growing awareness that Christian views of women’s subordination had perpetuated violence in the home and exclusion in Church and society. What did ordination mean in a context made ambiguous by my gender and my awakening to the harm Christianity has done? Was Christianity irredeemably oppressive? Or did it hold within it the capacity to liberate itself? What about the Good News that such oppression has been challenged in Christ and will be overturned in the hope of God, including the injustices that have most strapped women? (Miller-McLemore, 2009: 46–47).

Others emphasize the role which women have played in the Church over the centuries (for example Wootton, 1995). While there may be some merit in these approaches, it is not my intention to address the issue from these perspectives.

Rather I am interested in entering into a theological discussion. The theological debate hinges on the exegesis of a few key New Testament passages: Gal. 3.26–29; 1 Cor. 14.33b–38 and 1 Tim. 2.11–14. The issues revolve around the nature of male headship and female subordination in marriage and Church. Those who oppose the ordination of women do so mainly on the basis of their understanding that the apostle Paul forbids women to teach or have authority over men in public worship, according to 1 Cor. 14.33b–38 and 1 Tim. 2.11–14 (Anonymous, 2005a; Anonymous, 2005b: 16, 21).

Peter Jensen, an evangelical who at the time of writing was principal of Moore College, Sydney, and is now a retired Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, rightly contends that exegesis of Scripture must take into account the unity of the Scriptures and the belief that Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In trying to understand the passages about women and ministry we must look to the message of the whole of Scripture (Jensen, 1990: 4). Although I would not agree with Dr Jensen’s exegesis of the contested passages above or his conclusions about the role of women in the Church, I agree that it is appropriate to look to the whole Bible in order to understand what God is saying to the Church about the ministry of women. I too would account myself as an evangelical in that I believe in the inspiration of the Bible and in its authority in the life of Christian disciples and the Church as a whole.

It is not my intention here to provide a new exegesis of the three disputed passages. I will, however, make some brief comments regarding the passages to position myself within the debate and then move on to what I intend to do in this discussion. I believe, contra some conservatives, that Gal. 3.28 has application to more than simply ‘salvation’. Readers of this statement would correctly conclude that I support the ministry of women in the Church, both in teaching and in leadership roles. The interpretation of 1 Tim. 2.11–14 is extremely contentious, particularly with regard to the meaning of the Greek word translated as ‘authority’, a word which is hapax legomenon in the New Testament. Of all the arguments put forward regarding the meaning of the passage I find the most consistent to be the idea that what Paul is forbidding here has to do with false teaching (Bullock, 2009–2010).

Rather than venturing a new exegesis of the above passages I intend to concentrate on discussing women and prophecy in the New Testament. ¹ I will begin by outlining the nature of New Testament prophecy and prophets. Prophecy involves revelation from the Spirit but is not necessarily spontaneous. The next matter of importance is the difference between teaching and prophecy. These two gifts are distinct, but are not as dissimilar as some have tried to make out. Both involve the use of Scripture. Women are mentioned as prophets in the Scripture, in both Old and New Testaments. Importantly the Scriptures provide examples of female prophets whose words are Scripture and therefore possess unalterable authority. Finally, in 1 Cor. 12.28 Paul ranks prophets as more important in the Church than teachers. This suggests that if women can prophesy they can also teach. On the basis of these observations I conclude that the reasons given as to why women can prophesy and yet not teach are lacking in foundation. There is no reason to restrict the teaching ministry of women in the Church.

What Prophecy Is and What Prophecy Is Not

My argument necessitates an understanding of what prophecy is and what it is not. I will begin with what is agreed upon by scholars and then progress to areas of disagreement. As in first century Judaism, the writer of Luke–Acts understands the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and focuses on the Spirit’s work of empowering prophecy and inspired speech (e.g. Lk. 1.15–17, 41–42, 67; 2.26; 12.12; Acts 1.2, 8; 2.4, 17; 4.31; 5.32; 6.10; 7.51; 11.28; 13.2, 4, 9; 20.23; 21.4, 11) (Keener, 1997: 190–91). Because of the outpouring of the Spirit on the entire Christian community in fulfilment of Joel 2.28–30 the gift of prophecy is a possibility for all believers (Acts 2.38; 19.1–7; 1 Cor. 12.3, 13) (Fee, 1987: 595). This, however, does not imply that every Christian believer is a prophet. Instead both Paul and Luke identify prophecy as a particular expression of the Spirit in some individuals (Acts 11.27–28; 13.1; 15.32; 21.9–11; 1 Cor. 12.29; 14.29) (Boring, 1991: 42). Some believers are specifically referred to as prophets, perhaps because they prophesied often (Fee, 1987: 595–96).

Gordon Fee argues in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, that for Paul the defining feature of prophecy in chapters 12–14 is that it is intelligible speech which edifies the community, as against speaking in tongues which fails to edify because it is not intelligible speech. Paul’s understanding of prophecy was strongly influenced by his Jewish heritage. Prophets are people who speak to the people of God through the Spirit of God. The revelation of the Spirit to the prophet results in inspired speech regarding either judgment or salvation. This inspired speech should not be connected with ecstatic utterance or enthusiasm or mania. Prophets may prophesy while remaining in control of their thoughts and speech (Fee, 1987: 569–71, 595).

Eugene Boring provides the following working definition of a Christian prophet:

The early Christian prophet was an immediately inspired spokesperson for the risen Jesus, who received intelligible messages that he or she felt impelled to deliver to the Christian community or, as a representative of the community, to the general public. … By “immediately inspired” I intend to indicate that the prophet claims that what he or she is saying or writing represents the present, immediate voice of the deity (Boring, 1991: 38).

Prophecy, then, is a kind of intelligible speech inspired by the Spirit, and a prophet is a person who speaks these particular kinds of intelligible messages to the church.

What is not agreed upon by scholars is whether or not New Testament prophecy must necessarily be a spontaneous, unprepared utterance. Resolving this argument will prove significant for the ministry of women, and therefore I will enter into the discussion. Several authors argue that prophecy is spontaneous and not a prepared message. Fee believes that 1 Cor. 14 implies that prophecies were spontaneous messages (Fee, 1987: 660). Wayne Grudem is also of this opinion, commenting: ‘prophecy [in 1 Cor.] does not seem to be a sermon or lesson which had been prepared beforehand; it is much more spontaneous than that’ (Grudem, 1999: 117). James D.G. Dunn comments:

For Paul, prophecy is a word of revelation. It does not denote the delivery of a previously prepared sermon; it is not a word that can be summoned up to order, or a skill that can be learned; it is a spontaneous utterance, a revelation given in words to the prophet to be delivered as it is given ([1 Cor.] 14.30). At this point Paul stands wholly within the (Hebraic) tradition of prophecy as inspired utterance (Dunn, 1997: 228).

On the other hand Boring, while not wanting to make the simple equation of identifying prophecy with preaching, does not agree that prophecy must be ‘spontaneous emotional outpourings’ (Boring, 1991: 140). He cites as evidence the fact that in Judaism many of the first century prophets were often interpreters of Scripture. Christian prophets followed the pattern of Jewish prophets in many respects, including as interpreters of Scripture. One key example is the book of Revelation, which is self-designated as Christian prophecy. The entire book is full of allusions to Old Testament Scripture, but at no point does John ever quote a passage from the Old Testament. Instead he saw the Scripture as a means of communicating the word of the risen Jesus to the Church. John, the prophet, acted as an inspired interpreter of Scripture. Boring suggests that this prophetic role as interpreter of Scripture was wider than just John. In the book of Acts the picture is slightly different. Although those whom Luke specifically titles prophets are not described as interpreting Scripture, other references in Luke and Acts to inspired speech show the same pattern as Revelation. In Lk. 1–2 prophets speak in words which are clearly allusions to the Old Testament, expressed as Spirit-inspired interpretations of Scripture. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 interprets Old Testament passages in an eschatological fashion, based on the facts of the incarnation. The disagreement in the Church described in Acts 15 is decided through a prophetic interpretation and application of Scripture (Boring, 1991: 43–44, 140–45).

Anthony Thiselton is also opposed to the idea that prophecy must be a spontaneous utterance, but on different grounds. Against prophecy as spontaneous speech, he writes:

Prophetic speech may include applied theological teaching, encouragement, and exhortation to build the church, not merely (if at all) ad hoc cries of an expressive, diagnostic, or tactical nature, delivered as “spontaneous” mini-messages. The latter debase and trivialise the great tradition of the term in the biblical writings as something altogether more serious, sustained, and reflective (Thiselton, 2000: 826). ²

He argues that it is unhelpful to stress the spontaneity of the gifts of 1 Cor. 12. The gifts are better if used in a thoughtful way rather than a spontaneous way. This is true of all the gifts, not just prophecy. Almsgiving, for instance will be more effective if carried out in a planned, purposeful way, rather than simply being spontaneous. Gifts like teaching and evaluating are not spontaneous, but require training and receiving from the Spirit over a period of time (Thiselton, 2000: 937). In Thiselton’s own words:

To claim that to be “gifted” to be a teacher as a charisma cannot involve sustained reflection and preparation is farfetched. Yet this “gift” appears in the same lists and terms as prophētai (Thiselton, 2000: 1092). ³

Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that prophecy is always something spontaneous and that it can never involve sustained reflection on texts of Scripture. If we associate prophecy with spontaneity and emotion, and teaching with sustained reflection and reason, then this can give a negative impression of the ministry of women. Women are often assumed to be predominantly emotional over rational and men assumed to be the opposite. If women are given permission to prophesy then this, according to this view of women, is because prophecy is suited to emotional response. Men are more suited accordingly to teaching, because of its rational elements. This kind of gender association should not be superimposed onto the gifts of prophecy and teaching. But unfortunately, the assumption that prophecy is always spontaneous lends itself to just this false imposition.

Teaching and Prophecy: How Different Are They?

Although the New Testament does not spell out the role of teachers as plainly as we may want (Fee, 1987: 621), there is nonetheless an implied difference between teachers and prophets in the New Testament. The difference between prophecy and teaching is important, but certainly not as great as has been assumed by those who are opposed to women teaching in public worship. The clear similarities between prophecy and teaching make it difficult to make clear dogmatic statements about why it is acceptable for women to prophesy and unacceptable for women to teach. I will first consider the difference between teaching and prophecy and only then consider how these two gifts are similar.

Thiselton defines the difference between prophecy and teaching in terms of speech-acts:

Rather, prophets perform speech-acts of announcement, proclamation, judgment, challenge, comfort, support, or encouragement, whereas teachers perform speech-acts of transmission, communicative explanation, interpretation of texts, establishment of creeds, exposition of meaning and implication, and, more cognitive, less temporally applied communicative acts (Thiselton, 2000: 1017). ⁴

What prophets do must presuppose what teachers do. Teachers must first explain what God has done through Christ before prophets can apply these facts in pastoral situations. The prophetic statement ‘Your sins are forgiven in Christ,’ for instance, is contingent on the truth that Christ is the one through whom forgiveness is possible. Teachers are the ones who establish the facts of the gospel and prophets are thereby able, on the basis of these facts, to encourage, exhort and console others. New Testament Christian teaching has as its source firstly the Old Testament Scripture and secondly early Christian creeds. This early Christian teaching developed into what we now know as the canonical New Testament Scripture (Thiselton, 2000: 1017–18).

Grudem goes further than this, claiming that teaching is based on Scripture, while prophecy is received by revelation. Teaching involves ‘conscious reflection and preparation’. Teaching was the principle source of the ‘doctrinal and ethical norms’ for the Church. Teaching came first from the apostles and was then passed on by teachers to local churches (Grudem, 1988: 14–141). So Grudem distinguishes teaching and prophecy like this:

So the distinction is quite clear: if a message is the result of a conscious reflection on the text of scripture, containing interpretation of the text and application to life, then it is (in New Testament terms) a teaching. But if a message is the report of something God brings suddenly to mind, then it is a prophecy (Grudem, 1988: 143). ⁵

Although there is a distinction between prophecy and teaching, Grudem’s claim that the distinction is between conscious reflection on Scripture and spontaneous revelation is not borne out by the biblical picture of prophecy in the New Testament. To begin with there are features which prophecy has in common with pastoral preaching, even though the two cannot be identified as the same thing. Thiselton argues that prophecy is intended to provide edification, exhortation and encouragement, all of which are intended features of pastoral preaching (Thiselton, 2000: 960). In fact the connection between prophecy and interpretation of Scripture cannot be ignored. More than one scholar has observed this connection.

Boring points out that first century Christian worship had some commonalities with worship in the Palestinian synagogue. The synagogue and the church gathering were both places in which the tradition of the community was proclaimed and interpreted. One result of this conception of Christian worship is, Boring believes, that Christian prophets were closely aligned with Christian tradition. Although there are many who have assumed that prophecy is unconnected to the Christian tradition, this is unsubstantiated. The connection between prophecy and tradition is evident in the Old Testament prophets. Joel is a case in point. He was a prophet who was involved in transmitting the traditions of Israel through using, although not directly quoting, the words of earlier prophets. The prophet reinterpreted the tradition. The Christian prophets also did this. The connection between tradition and Jewish apocalyptic is also clear, as the seer made use of tradition even in proclaiming his own visions. Jewish prophets were not seen as introducing something new but as those who presented the tradition in a new way and expanded upon it. We would expect Christian prophecy to follow this pattern of making clear use of tradition (Boring, 1991: 109–111).

Prophets and teachers are not as dissimilar as some scholars have presumed. Adolf von Harnack divided prophecy and teaching based on the characteristics of ‘charisma’ and ‘office’. Yet, in first century Judaism prophets and teachers existed together or in some instances were the same person. The Old Testament prophets had disciples to whom they taught their oracles, and in turn the disciples made use of these in their prophecies. Notably, John the Baptist and Jesus were both prophets who were also teachers. In some biblical passages teaching is regarded as a gift of the Holy Spirit rather than a natural talent (1 Cor. 12.28; Rom. 12.7; Eph. 4.11; 1 Jn 2.26–27; cf. 2 Tim. 1.11). This is not the case in all sources, but certainly true in some instances. Although prophecy is always considered a charisma, the distinction between charisma and office is not enough to tell prophecy from teaching. Teaching often involved interacting with tradition and making it relevant to a present situation (Boring, 1991: 117–18).

E. Earle Ellis also makes the observation that prophets were interpreters of Scripture. This is explicitly attributed to Daniel (9.2, 24). Other Old Testament prophets made use of earlier biblical prophecy. According to the Targum on Judg. 5.9, Deborah the prophet continually explained the Torah. Rabbis also saw themselves as following in the footsteps of the prophets in teaching Israel (Ellis, 1978: 132–33). He concludes, ‘With respect to the interpretation of Scripture, then, there was not a sharp division between the prophet and the teacher’ (Ellis, 1978: 134). Ellis goes on to say that in the early Church the distinction between the teaching of prophets and that of teachers is not clear- cut. Similarly, ‘the false prophets in the church teach (1 Jn 2.22, 26f.; 4.1ff.), and the false teachers in the church correspond to the false prophets of the old covenant (2 Pet. 2.1)’ (Ellis, 1978: 140–41).

New Testament prophecy should not be considered as something trivial (Thiselton, 2000: 965) or as necessarily spontaneous. Prophecy and teaching are distinct gifts and have distinct functions in the Church. Yet they are both linked strongly with Scripture, its interpretation and its application for the Church. The clear line, which Grudem would have us believe exists delineating one activity from the other, is not that clear. The consequences of this blurriness for the ministry of women will be explored later, but for now it is enough to show that the distinction cannot be made merely on the basis of careful contemplation and interpretation of Scripture.

Prophetic Women in Scripture

Having come to some conclusions about the nature of prophecy and the activities of prophets it is time to look at women as prophets in the Scripture. Women are mentioned as prophets in the Bible and given implicit permission to prophesy in church. The situation described in 1 Cor. 11.2–16 makes it clear that men and women participated in worship together. Women in the Corinthian church were publically praying and prophesying. Paul’s problem with these women was not that they prayed and prophesied in public worship, but that they did this without the customary head-covering which distinguished women from men in Corinthian society (Fee, 1987: 497). Paul does not question the right of women to pray and prophesy in public worship, as long as they respect gender norms by dressing appropriately (1 Cor. 11.4–6) (Garland, 2003: 510, 518).

It is not surprising that women were permitted to prophesy in Corinthian churches, because there are many examples in the Scripture of female prophets. Five female prophets are mentioned in the Old Testament: Miriam (Exod. 15.20), Deborah (Judg. 4.4), Huldah (2 Kgs 22.14; 2 Chron. 34.22), Noadiah (Neh. 6.14), and the prophet Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8.3). Jewish tradition also names Sarah, Hannah, Abigail and Esther (b. T. Megillah 14a) as prophets. The New Testament extends the mention of women prophets in its general statement that the Spirit is poured out on all flesh, including both men and women as prophets (Acts 2.16–18) (Boring, 1991: 120–21). The four virgin daughters of Philip the Evangelist are specified in Acts 21.8–9 as female prophets (Aune, 1983:191). Indeed, chronologically, the first person specifically designated as a prophet in the New Testament is a woman, Anna (Lk. 2.36) (Helyer, 2009: 5).

It is of interest that not only are there female prophets in the Old Testament and female prophets under the new covenant after Pentecost, but the Bible mentions some female prophets whose words have become Scripture. A prophet is a person who is anointed by the Holy Spirit and utters inspired speech. On the basis of this definition there are two women in the early chapters of Luke who qualify as prophets – Elizabeth and Mary. We cannot say that these women are Christian prophets in the sense of being a ‘spokesperson for the risen Jesus’, ⁶ because Jesus had not yet been born, let alone raised from the dead. However, these women qualify as prophets nonetheless. Their prophetic speech is spoken before the birth of Christ and so we can think of them as old covenant prophets. Their words are prophetic and their actions might also be considered prophetic, because, as Joel B. Green observes, the conception narratives are about more than these two women. It is the nation of Israel which is estranged and in need of a redeemer (Green, 1997: 84).

Let us consider the inspired speech of these two female prophets. Luke 1.39–45 records the visit of Mary to Elizabeth following the visit of the angel to Mary. When Mary greeted Elizabeth the unborn John the Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb jumped for joy (v. 41). At that point Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she was empowered by the Spirit to understand the significance of the baby’s action. She opened her mouth to speak inspired, that is, prophetic speech. As a result of this inspiration of the Spirit she declared what had happened to Mary (Marshall, 1978: 80; Green, 1997: 95).

[She] exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord” (Lk. 1.42–45 NRSV).

Mary is identified as a woman who will be overshadowed by the Holy Spirit so that she might bear the Son of God (Lk 1.35). The promise that the Holy Spirit would ‘come upon’ Mary is a foretaste of the Pentecost event when all the handmaidens of God will have the Spirit come upon them (Green, 1997: 90). Since the Spirit’s coming upon and overshadowing of Mary was not a punctiliar event but something which continued throughout at least the time in which Mary carried and gave birth to the Messiah, we can safely say that Mary was filled with the Spirit over a period of time. It was during this time of being anointed by the Spirit that Mary spoke the song of praise commonly known as the Magnificat (Lk. 1.46–55).

Luke recorded the Magnificat at that particular point in the narrative to make sure that the reader correctly understands the significance of the events which had unfolded up to that point, namely, the announcement of the angel regarding Mary’s impending pregnancy and the blessing pronounced upon Mary by Elizabeth. ‘That meaning is rooted in the covenantal purpose of God’ (Green, 1997: 98). In the Magnificat Mary draws on earlier scriptural hymns of praise for God’s intervention to rescue his people. These hymns include those sung by Moses (Exod. 15.1–18), Miriam (Exod. 15.19–21), Deborah (Judg. 5.1–31), Asaph (1 Chron. 16.8–36), Judith (Judith 16.1–17), and particularly Hannah (1 Sam. 2.1–10). The story of the Old Testament people of God is continued in the story of Mary. The stories of the past people of Israel are utilized by Mary to interpret the events of the present (Green, 1997: 101–102). Significantly for the purposes of my argument, Mary’s use of Scripture in her inspired speech is an example of prophetic transmission of the tradition of Israel through re-interpretation for a new situation.

It is extremely significant that these two prophetic women have had their words recorded as Scripture. Although Grudem has persuasively argued that New Testament prophecy cannot be considered as authoritative in the way that Old Testament prophecy is authoritative (Grudem, 1999: 43–112), this argument does not apply to these two women who prophesied under the old covenant. The prophetic words of Mary and Elizabeth are now permanently incorporated into the inspired Scriptures of the Church. Mary and Elizabeth are prophetic women whose words are Scripture. Therefore, the words of these two women have unalterable authority. Their words cannot be dismissed as only prophecy, that is, they cannot be downgraded to something which is not as authoritative as the teaching of the gospel. Their words are in fact part of the gospel message.

Prophecy is a gift of inspired speech, which is made available to both men and women under the new covenant. Although prophecy and teaching are different, there cannot be a definitive line drawn between the gifts on the basis of their use of the Scripture. Women are mentioned in Scripture as prophets and female prophets have uttered words which have become Scripture. All these considerations point to a need for revising our consideration of the ministry of women. But there is one more factor to be considered before coming to a conclusion about women and Christian ministry. The final factor is the significance the apostle Paul ascribes to prophecy and the place he gives it in relation to teaching.

Why Prophecy is Important

Prophecy is an important gift which should be used in churches and it is placed in a position of importance by the apostle Paul. There are two ways of considering its importance. First, the use of prophecy should be encouraged in the contemporary Church. Prophecy is not a gift which was marginalized in the early Church. On the contrary, prophecy was a gift which was encouraged and expected to be present within the churches. The ministry of prophets was considered foundational to the structure of the Church (Eph. 4.11–12; 2.19–20) (Boring, 1991: 93, 97). The early Church was strengthened by the use of prophecy to predict the future (Acts 11.27–28; 20.23; 21.10–11), to choose church leaders (Acts 13.1–3), to resolve matters at issue (Acts 15.28, 32), and to make decisions (Acts 16.6–10) (Aune, 1983: 192). Since prophecy is so valuable to the Church those who have this gift should be encouraged to use it.

Secondly, prophets are, in Paul’s estimation, second only to apostles and more important than teachers, or at the very least on a par with teachers in importance. The apostle Paul perceived people who prophesy as the equivalent of prophets (1 Cor. 14.29, 32, 37) (Aune, 1983: 196). Prophets are given a significant place in Paul’s list in 1 Cor. 12.28: ‘And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues’. Since the latter half of the list mentions gifts and actions rather than people, Fee concludes that the first three – apostles, prophets and teachers – are not offices in the local church, but rather ministries carried out by particular people. Gifts must be exercised by persons, but they are first of all to be seen as graciously given by the Spirit to persons for the edification of the Church (Fee, 1987: 619). Prophecy and teaching are ranked highly because theirs is a ministry of the word (Garland, 2003: 598) and, as Garland believes, ‘It is the ministry of the word that most benefits the church and strengthens its mission to the world’ (Garland, 2003: 581). Thiselton observes that the patristic writers, including Origen, Augustine and Chrysostom, saw a ranking of persons in 1 Cor. 12.28. Another list is found in Eph. 4.11 which puts the three in the same order (Thiselton, 2000: 1013–15).

The conclusion is that prophets are more significant in the Church than teachers, or at least they are equivalent in importance to teachers. We must, therefore, never trivialize prophecy and the role of prophets. The fact that Paul sees people who prophesy regularly as prophets strongly suggests that the women in Corinth who prophesied were considered to be prophets. As such their role in the Corinthian church was considered on a par with those who taught the word to the church. There is no subordination of women and the ministry of women suggested by this passage. On the contrary, the ranking of prophets above teachers in 1 Cor. 12.28 gives a place in the Church to women which should not be minimized.

Conclusions for the Ministry of Women

Now that I have all the pieces in place as it were, I am in a position to make some comments about the ministry of women based on the nature of prophecy and the freedom of women in the New Testament to prophesy and to occupy the role of prophet. In order to demonstrate the significance of my conclusions on this matter I will juxtapose these with the view of Wayne Grudem on the reasons why women can prophesy and cannot teach. I will take Grudem’s opinion on appropriate roles for women as representative of many conservative theologians. ⁷ I will quote Grudem directly rather than paraphrase his words, and then I will explain how the conclusions I have come to about prophecy in this essay nullify his argument.

Grudem explains the reason why women can prophesy but not teach in this way:

Teaching provided normative doctrinal and ethical guidance for the Church. Those who publicly taught in churches spoke not with authority equal to Scripture itself, but with authority that, in practical terms, provided the doctrinal and ethical summaries of Scriptural teachings and the practical applications of Scripture by which the Church was directed. Scripture was the final authority, but teachers – more than prophets or evangelists or those with any other gift – were the ones who regularly had the responsibility to show how Scripture, the Church’s absolute authority, was to be interpreted and applied in each local congregation. To teach in the Church was to exercise at least a de facto leadership and authority (and often a publicly recognised and acknowledged leadership and authority) which strongly influenced the doctrinal and ethical convictions of the Church.

But New Testament church prophecy had no such authority. Those who prophesied did not tell the Church how to interpret and apply Scripture to life. They did not proclaim the doctrinal and ethical standards by which the Church was guided, nor did they exercise governing authority in the Church (Grudem, 1988: 144–45).

Grudem’s argument hinges on the assumption that teaching has more authority than prophecy, because teaching is based on the Scripture, the ultimate authority, and prophecy is not the result of the interpretation of Scripture. In part this assumption is based on Grudem’s conviction that prophecy is spontaneous revelation that has little authority. The idea that prophecy must be spontaneous has been refuted. It is not to be understood as something trivial or the result of an emotional outburst. It can, and often does, involve sustained reflection on the Scripture. Although there is a difference between teaching and prophecy in the New Testament, it is simplistic to argue that the difference lies in the use of Scripture for the one and not the other. Prophecy in the early Church had much to do with the Scriptures and their application. Thus Grudem’s argument cannot be sustained from the evidence of the New Testament and the early Church.

Additionally, the authority of teaching does not rely on the exercise of a particular New Testament office but is based on the authority of the Scriptures. Since the Scriptures are the authority for the teacher, we must accept the fact that the words of the Scripture have higher authority than the teacher. But it has been demonstrated that female prophets are mentioned in Scripture and indeed have their words recorded in Scripture. The authority of these female prophets, by virtue of the fact that their words are part of the Scriptures is in fact greater than the authority of teachers who teach from the Scripture. The authority of these women therefore cannot be diminished.

Prophecy is vital to the wellbeing of the Church and given a place of importance as great if not greater than teaching in 1 Cor. 12.28. Because this passage falls within the discussion of prophecy in the Corinthian church, a context in which women were prophesying and occupying the role of prophet, we must conclude that women occupied a significant role in Corinth which was at least as important to the church as that of teachers there. Again we cannot assume that women in the early Church held secondary positions, which must always have been subordinate to the roles which men played. As the significance of prophecy is downplayed by interpreters of the New Testament the role of women within the Church is also downplayed.

The conclusion which I have arrived at through my exploration of New Testament prophecy and the role of women is simple. Women are not less significant than men in the New Testament. They are able to exercise the gift of prophecy and able to be called prophets. This role often involved reflection on Scripture and even interpretation of Scripture and application of Scripture for the life of the church. We cannot successfully argue that prophecy is so different from teaching that women can prophesy but cannot teach in church. If women can prophesy in public worship, there is no reason why they may not also teach in public worship.