Women In The West, Part III: Tomb Inscriptions

I’ve covered women presbyters in church canons and Episcopal letters. Now, we’ve arrived at the time of tomb inscriptions.

I have a confession to make: there are very few tomb inscriptions available to us from the West for women presbyters. We will find out why after we’ve seen all the evidence of women presbyters, both from the West and the East.

For now though, we’ll look at three tomb inscriptions and gather details from them.

First, there is Martia the Presbyteress. According to Madigan and Osiek, the inscription of Martia is “a graffito found near Poitiers in Gaul...evidence...including conciliar and epistolary writings considered...may place it in the sixth century” (Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women In The Early Church: A Documentary History.” Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, page 195).

Let’s read the inscription:

“Martia the presbyters (presbyteria) made (ferit) the offering (obblata) together with Olybrius and Nepos” (195).

Giorgio Otranto, as I mentioned in a previous post, views such inscriptions as a noun and a title. Madigan and Osiek write,

“We agree with Otranto. First of all, the Council of Tours (567) would use ‘presbyteria’ as a title at roughly the same time this graffito was made; the slightly later Council of Auxerre (578) would use ‘presbyteria’ as a title as well. All three pieces of evidence come from Gaul. We also agree with Otranto that ‘Olybrius and Nepos are almost certainly two presbyters who were officiating in the community to which Martia also belonged; and it is probable that this woman collaborated with them during the Eucharistic celebration...[according to Otranto] ‘the fact that there had been a desire to record an action performed by Martia during a liturgical celebration would seem to signify not the usual service of the faithful at the moment of the offertory, but rather an act habitually performed by a deacon or another member of the clergy.’ Otranto is right to interpret this letter in light of the letter of the three Gallic bishops. Both texts are found in roughly the same period; both refer to activities in Gaul; both refer to the participation by women in the Eucharistic celebration. In light of this roughly contemporary literary evidence, and of the existence of the graffito, it seems likely that Martia HAD AN IMPORTANT ROLE AS A MINISTER IN THE CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARISTIC SERVICE in Poitiers” (195-96).

Notice that Martia’s inscription says that she “made” the offering with the two other officials. This means then, that she had some role to play in the Eucharist that likely involved administering the eucharist to the congregation.

The next inscription concerns Flavia Vitalia. According to Madigan and Osiek, Vitalia’s inscription is dated around 425 and was found in modern-day Croatia. The tombstone was bought by a man named Theodosius. Let’s read the inscription:

“Under our Lord Theodosius, consul for the eleventh time, and Valentinian, most noble man of Caesar, I, Theodosius, bought [a burial tomb] from the matron (matrona) Flavia Vitalia, the holy presbyter[a] (presbytera sancta) for three golden solids” (196).

Madigan and Osiek write,

“What can we say with certainty about Flavia Vitalia? First of all, the description of her as matrona tells us she was free-born and married. Second, the title PRESBYTERA tells us, in all likelihood, that she OCCUPIED AN OFFICIAL AND RECOGNIZED PLACE AS A LEADER IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNITY OF SALONA...this piece of evidence emerges from a similar ecclesiastical-cultural milieu as the one reprehended by Pope Gelasius, and Flavia was functioning as ‘presbytera’ at about the same time as those whose activities so infuriated the people. In this light, it is EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to conclude that Flavia Vitalia was NOT a presbyter in the full and proper sense of the term, invested with the status and all the functions of the sacerdotal office” (196).

Look back at the inscription: Flavia Vitalia is called “the holy presbyter.”
Remember the Tertullian post on Prisca? He called her “the holy minister,” and certainly thought of her as an ecclesiastical authority. Well, Vitalia’s position is that of “the holy presbyter,” so she would not have just been a helper or someone without spiritual authority in the church. Therefore, we can infer from her inscription that she was a leader in her church. We are also told something else: that in the fourth and fifth centuries, church officials began to be in charge of selling burial plots (Madigan and Osiek, 196). Flavia Vitalia, then, must have been a church official of some rank to be appointed this task.

The last notable tomb inscription we have for women presbyters is “a sacerdota from Solin.” It reads:

“...of/to [?] a PRIESTESS...” (caps mine).

Madigan and Osiek supply the following information:

“The epigraph on this tombstone is fragmentary. It is the genitive or dative form of ‘sacerdota,’ ‘priestess.’ The only other bit of the epigraph remaining is a cross. This indicates the entombed was a Christian, not a pagan priestess. Obviously, as this tombstone comes from Solin, it has to be interpreted in light of the Flavia Vitalia inscription and vice versa. Taken together, they suggest a strong possibility, minimally, that women were functioning as presbyters in the community. Eisen even suggests that ‘it is possible that the epigraphically attested sacerdota was the bishop’ of the community. Eisen is correct. It IS possible. Such a possibility is strengthened, philologically, by the use of ‘sacerdota’ rather than ‘presbytera.’ This is clearly NOT THE WIFE OF A PRIEST, NOR IS IT MERELY A RESPECTED ELDERLY WOMAN IN THE COMMUNITY. She is a ‘priestess’ or ‘sacerdotess,’ a woman with high official status and some sort of important official function in the community of Solin. Here the fragment of a single word, when interpreted in conjunction with contemporaneous inscriptional evidence, CAN bear at least that much historical weight” (197).

These are the three major tomb inscriptions on women presbyters in the West. In my next post, I will cover women presbyters from the East.

Women Presbyters In The West, Part II-B: Episcopal Letters

There are three Episcopal letters I will tackle in this post: (1) Letter 14 (to bishops in southern Italy) by Pope Gelasius I (492-96), (2) Letter of Three Gallic Bishops, and (3) Letter of Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, to Ambrose the Priest.
First, Pope Gelasius’ letter:

“We have heard to our distress that contempt of divine things has reached such a state that WOMEN ARE ENCOURAGED (firmentur) TO SERVE AT THE SACRED ALTARS (ministrare sacris altaribus) AND TO PERFORM ALL THE OTHER TASKS (cunctaque) THAT ARE ASSIGNED ONLY TO THE SERVICE OF MEN (non visi virorum famulatui sexum), and for which they [women] are not appropriate (cui non competunt)” (186).

Madigan and Osiek tell us that there is much controversy surrounding this letter, and that most don’t believe this refers to sacerdotal ministry. However, Giorgio Otranto “reads the text as evidence for the argument that ‘at the end of the fifth century, some women, having been ordained by bishops, WERE EXERCISING A TRUE AND PROPER MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD IN A VAST AREA OF SOUTHERN ITALY, as well as perhaps in other unnamed regions of Italy” (186).

What makes Madigan and Osiek believe Giorgio Otranto?

“...the single Latin word with enclitic ‘cunctaque’: ‘and ALL THE OTHER THINGS’ (emphasis added) that male presbyters do and for which women, in Gelasius’ view, are not competent. Otranto captures the significance of ‘cuncta’ very well: this word, he correctly notes, implies ‘all the attributes of the male services: liturgical, juridical, and magisterial.’ When that piece of philological evidence is introduced, then we can agree with Otranto that: ‘The functions exercised by women at the altars, therefore, can refer only to the administration of the sacraments, to the liturgical service, and to the public and official announcement of the evangelical message, all of which comprise the duties of ministerial priesthood...Hence...Gelasius...intended to stigmatize and condemn not the exercise of a feminine liturgical service, but an abuse that appeared to him a great deal more serious: that of TRUE AND PROPER PRESBYTERS WHO WERE PERFORMING ALL THE DUTIES TRADITIONALLY RESERVED FOR MEN ALONE’” (187).

What we have here is Pope Gelasius writing against women who are serving in tasks that were “only to the service of men.” It is the idea of women acting as official presbyters of the church that offends Gelasius.

Madigan and Osiek point out another great detail of the text:

“...the letter itself states (albeit in the passive voice) that women are ‘encouraged’ (firmentur) to serve at the altars. Bu whom? The bishops? It is certainly possible but, on the basis of this text, far from certain, especially since Gelasius implies some of the bishops simply CONDONED this behavior rather than encouraged it. Be that as it may, this text, especially when put in context of contemporary inscriptional evidence, constitutes very strong evidence that some women in the south Italian dioceses were functioning as fully-fledged presbyters with the knowledge of their bishops. It is crucial to observe that these were not women in heretical sects but IN CHURCHES CLAIMING TO BE ‘CATHOLIC’ OR IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF ROME” (188).

The last sentence of Madigan and Osiek’s quote says it all: Gelasius’ letter shows us that women were ordained and active not in heretical sects (like the Priscillianists), but in the orthodox church (which, at the time, was the Roman Catholic Church). And this is the proof needed when someone comes up and tells you that only the heretical groups allowed women such activities. Point to this letter as evidence that the heretical sects were not alone in their permission of women.
The next letter is called “The Letter of the Three Gallic Bishops.” Madigan and Osiek provide this background:

“Written in 511 by three bishops from the northern Gallic dioceses of Tours, Rennes, and Angers, this letter is addressed to two Breton priests. All five clerics are named in the first sentence of the letter, which reprehends a situation (in their eyes an abomination) very like the one described by Gelasius less than two decades before” (188).

Here it is:

“Bishops Licinius, Melanius, and Eustochius to priests Lovocatus and Catihernius, our most blessed lords and brothers in Christ. We have learned through a report of the priest Speratus, a venerable man, that you have not desisted from carrying certain altars (tabulas) through the domiciles of several citizens and PRESUME TO SAY MASSES THERE WITH WOMEN, whom you call ‘conhospitae,’ whoo are EMPLOYED (adhibitis mulieribus) IN THE DIVINE SACRIFICE; so that, while you are distributing the eucharist, THEY HOLD THE CHALICES AND PRESUME TO ADMINISTER THE BLOOD OF CHRIST TO THE PEOPLE OF GOD. This novelty and UNHEARD-OF SUPERSTITION saddens us not a little, as such a horrendous sect, which by no means has ever existed in Gaul, SEEMS TO BE EMERGING IN OUR TIMES” (188).

Notice that the “conhospitae” here are holding the instruments of Holy Communion and also administering it to the believers. The letter calls the idea of women doing such things an “unheard-of superstition,” which is their attempt to label women serving the eucharist as an unholy act. And then, they go on to state that this act “by no means has ever existed in Gaul,” which implies that the idea of women serving and administering the eucharist is against tradition. Because it goes against the status quo, it is seen as something wicked.

The last Episcopal letter is from Atto, the Bishop of Vercelli, to Ambrose the Priest. According to Madigan and Osiek,

“Atto was an accomplished canon lawyer and bishop of Vercelli, a town in the Piedmont, in the early tenth century. Among his writings are a commentary on the epistles of Paul, collections of various canons, and several letters; the following is taken from his Letter 8, to an otherwise unknown priest named Ambrose, who had apparently written to him to inquire about the meaning of the terms ‘presbytera’ and ‘diacona’ in the ancient canons. Atto replies that the terms could refer to women who had married priests and deacons before their ordination. But he also says (and then the quote follows):

“Because your prudence has moved you to inquire how we should understand ‘female priest’ (presbyteram) or ‘female deacon’ (diaconam) in the canons: it seems to me that IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, according to the word of the Lord, ‘the harvest was great and laborers few’; RELIGIOUS WOMEN (religiosae mulieres) USED ALSO TO BE ORDAINED AS CARETAKERS (cultrices ordinabantur) IN THE HOLY CHURCH, as Blessed Paul shows in the “Letter” to the Romans, when he says, ‘I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrea.’ Here it is understood that not only men BUT ALSO WOMEN PRESIDED OVER THE CHURCHES (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) BECAUSE OF THEIR GREAT USEFULNESS. For women, long accustomed to the rites of the pagans and instructed also in philosophical teachings, were, for these reasons, converted more easily and taught more liberally in the worship of religion. This the eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea prohibits when it says it is not fitting for THOSE WOMEN WHO ARE CALLED FEMALE PRESBYTERS (presbyterae) OR PRESIDERS (praesidentes) TO BE ORDAINED IN THE CHURCHES. We believe female deacons truly to have been ministers of such things. FOR WE SAY THAT A MINISTER IS A DEACON (DIACONUM), FROM WHICH WE PERCEIVE FEMALE DEACON (diaconam) TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED. Finally, we read in the fifteenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon that a FEMALE DEACON is not to be ORDAINED BEFORE HER FORTIETH YEAR—AND THIS WAS THE HIGHEST GRAVITY. WE BELIEVE WOMEN WERE JOINED TO THE OFFICE OF BAPTIZING so that the bodies of other women might be handled by them without any deeply felt sense of shame…JUST AS THOSE WHO WERE CALLED FEMALE PRESBYTERS (presbyterae) ASSUMED THE OFFICE OF PREACHING, LEADING, AND TEACHING, so female deacons had taken up the office of ministry and of baptizing, a custom that NO LONGER IS EXPEDIENT” (192).

I wanna say to the readership, KEEP THIS LETTER QUOTE HANDY! You will need this one as well.

Now, let’s look at the details of the above quote. Atto (Bishop of Vercelli) writes Ambrose the priest, and tells him that in the “primitive” (early) church, women were ordained. Then, he quotes Romans 16:1-2, using the example of Phoebe and then mentions that “Here it is understood that not only men BUT ALSO WOMEN PRESIDED OVER THE CHURCHES (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) BECAUSE OF THEIR GREAT USEFULNESS.” So Phoebe, to Atto, was a “female presider” over the church at Cenchrea. “The eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea” prohibits women serving in such places of ordained leadership. And the fact that a church council had to issue a canon AGAINST this practice proves that such a practice existed in the early church. Finally, in his discussion of female presbyters, Atto states that “those who were called female presbyters assumed the office of preaching, leading, and teaching…”

And the female presbyters bring to mind the passage of 1 Timothy 5. I’ve covered 1 Timothy 5 here at the site regarding biblical eldership (read under the section labeled “biblical eldership”). However, until this quote, my views regarding 1 Timothy 5 were just pure speculation. But now, I’ve got proof…

The word regarding “older women” in 1 Tim. 5:2 is “presbuteras.” This word is very similar to “presbuterae.” Now someone may say, “Well, how do we know that these “older women” mentioned are official elders in the church? They could just be “older women,” women who are advanced in years.” That is very true: they very well could just be women who are old in age. However, this view, as impressive as it may be, doesn’t do justice to a little something we call CONTEXT!!

While chapter 5 may seem to start with just discussion of the elderly, it ends up being about the office of elder. Verse 17 states, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.” In this verse, Paul is telling Timothy that the elders that labor in the word and teaching are to be compensated (including financially) for their labor in God’s service. In verse 19, Timothy is told not to receive an accusation against an elder “except from two or three witnesses.” In verse 20, Timothy is told to “rebuke before all” those elders who are deliberately sinning in the church. In addition, we read that “widows” can be enrolled on the church list (v. 9), and these widows have certain qualifications to meet for list enrollment. As we can see, the context of chapter 5 is about church leadership and structure. Therefore, the “older men and women” of 1 Timothy 5 are not just people advanced in age; instead, they are the “eldership” of the church. This would make sense with the eldership being mentioned just a few verses prior to chapter 5 (4:14), the eldership that had laid their hands on Timothy.

1 Timothy 5 proves to us that women were part of the ordained leadership as well—and this Bishop of Vercelli, Atto, tells us that women were teaching, preaching, and leading (which matches 1 Timothy 5).

I have now covered the Episcopal letters. The next post will cover tomb inscriptions of women presbyters in the West. Keep reading...

Women Presbyters In The West, Part II-A: Church Canons

For those of you who read Part I on Tertullian, let me add something to it: I am still in shock myself regarding Tertullian’s comments regarding women, as well as his respect for Prisca (Priscilla), whom he calls a “prophetess” as well as “the holy minister.” For those of you who haven’t read the post I put up last night, go back and read it. Let’s just say it’ll fire you up more about defending women and their work in Christian ministry.

Tonight I’m back to cover canons and Episcopal letters regarding women presbyters in the West. Before I get started though, I want Madigan and Osiek to give us something to look forward to:

“From the late fourth century, a movement was stirring in the West toward greater leadership roles for women, spurred on in part by the movement of Priscillian. The letter of Gelasius at the end of the fifth century requires some context. Not only Gelasius but also the three bishops of Gaul a few years later, and Fulgentius Ferrandus in Africa half a century later, suggest that the practice of women serving at the altars had happened in certain times and places in the West. Fulgentius connects the office of women presbyters with the Greek East, whose influence was strong in southern Italy, the destination of Gelasius’ letter. Finally, we give a later, tenth-century opinion of Atto of Vercelli that in the early church, women were ordained presbyters” (Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women In The Early Church: A Documentary History.” Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, page 183).

As these canons and church documents will show, women did serve as presbyters in the early church.

First, we have the “First Synod of Saragossa”:

“According to Sulpicius Severus (363-420), a contemporary of Jerome and Augustine and hagiographer for Martin of Tours, a synod was held in 380 in Saragossa and was attended by bishops from Spain and Aquitaine...the synod was convoked mainly to combat the errors of Priscillianism. Priscillianism was a movement that began in Spain around 370 and spread rapidly throughout the entire country and from there to southern Gaul. Among the followers it attracted were Instantius and Salvianus, two bishops. A strictly ascetical group, the Priscillianists had pronounced similarities to the Manichaeans, with whom they may be confused in the canons here...the execution had the effect of making Priscillian a martyr and of radicalizing the movement that traced itself to his name. Indeed, it became immediately more heterodox, as the Synod of Toledo (c.398) noted to its horror. In any case, none of the heretics, though invited, appeared at Saragossa. Nonetheless, the synod condemned them and threatened to excommunicate any who communed with them” (183-184).

Because of the Priscillianists, the Synod of Saragossa issued the following statement:

“Let all believing women who belong to the Catholic Church absent themselves from lectures and conventicles of foreign men, and FROM WOMEN GIVING LECTURES, EITHER OUT OF ZEAL FOR TEACHING OR LEARNING, since this is what the Apostle commands. [1 Cor. 14:34-35; and 1 Tim. 2:12: ‘I permit no woman to teach...’]” (184).

Madigan and Osiek comment,

“Of perhaps greater importance is the implication that women themselves were organizing and giving lectures for the purpose of teaching and instruction” (184).

Notice too, that the Synod of Saragossa uses two famous Scriptures noted by complementarians today on the issue of women in ministry: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12. What this tells us though, is that women were teaching and instructing, and the councils were so against it that they began to organize and publicly condemn what the women were doing. Evidently, the Priscillians made such a stir before the councils with their meetings and “leading women” that the council saw no other way to address the issue. Still though, these women were considered to be “spiritual authority” in the eyes of many believers. If these women were not deemed spiritual authority, why would the Synod have even bothered to mention it?

Next we have the “Synod of Nimes, Canon 2.” According to Madigan and Osiek,

“...a Gallican National Synod occurred at Nimes in approximately 394...at least seventeen...Gallican bishops from seven provinces did. They produced only seven brief canons, most directed against the Manichaeans...and especially, the Priscillianists. Among the heterodox practices observed with alarm by the bishops assembled at Nimes, just a few years after the Synod of Toledo, was the elevation of women to clerical offices reserved, in their minds, for men” (184).

The Canon states as follows:

“The following was suggested by certain individuals, that contrary to apostolic teaching (apostolicum disciplinam), unbeknownst, WOMEN SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ASSUMED INTO LEVITICAL SERVICE (in ministerium...leuiticum videantur adsumptae) in some place or another (nescio quo loco). Ecclesiastical discipline does not permit this because IT IS INAPPROPRIATE (indecens), and such ORDINATION should be undone (distruatur) when it is effected CONTRARY TO REASON (contra rationem). It should be seen to that NO ONE SO PRESUME IN THE FUTURE” (185).

We learn some things from Madigan and Osiek regarding this document. First,
“In the West at the end of the fourth century, ‘levitical’ and ‘sacerdotal’ often could be, and often were, used synonymously. So there are philological grounds for believing that these Priscillianist women were functioning as presbyters” (185).

In addition,

“the Synod is quite UNANALYTICAL in its rejection of female priesthood, noting only that it is not traditional, because indecens, and that it is unreasonable. Finally, the forceful recommendation that such ordinations be undone ties into the debate, occurring at almost the same time in North Africa, over the permanence of priestly ordination and Episcopal consecration. The ‘orthodox’ position worked out by Augustine in his conflict with the Donatists is that such ordinations could not be undone. Medieval scholastics developed this position with more philosophical texture, as those theologians insisted that ordination effects a character on the soul of the ordinand that can be neither reversed nor erased. The bishops assembled here assume not only that it can be reversed but that it must” (185).

What I think is noteworthy about this canon is what Madigan and Osiek note: that “the Synod is quite unanalytical in its rejection of female priesthood…” For three and a half years now, I have heard people talk about the issue of women in ministry and was told that, for some of the women I’ve met, they grew up with nothing but male preachers, male deacons, male pastors, male elders, and male teachers—so that’s how it should be...nothing but MALE leaders! But all that statement says is, “I’ve grown up in a certain tradition, and I’m COMFORTABLE with that.” It’s funny how so many women have grown up in a complementarian atmosphere, and yet, have NEVER questioned why things are the way they are (complementarian). I find that fascinating to believe. And the sad thing is that most of the women I’ve talked to in the last three and a half years haven’t even desired to question the “status quo.” They are content and happy just the way they are.

And I think I would still be the exact same way if I hadn’t stepped out of my comfort zone and done a study of women all on my own. So I do sympathize with these women and understand their background; at the same time, however, I still have to challenge the traditional view that God cannot call women to such wonderful gifts in His church. I believe that God gifts women to serve in ways that He has gifted men, and for the church to not allow women to exercise those gifts is the church’s way of “rebelling” against God. Now there’s the problem: the church, as the bride, is not submitting to her Husband. And yet and still, they can toss around passages for women to submit to their husbands. Sounds like we haven’t practiced what we’ve preached...

I will continue with Episcopal letters in my next post.

Women Presbyters In The West, Part I: Tertullian

The time has come to begin our work on women presbyters in the church. Yes, it’s true—women did serve in this authoritative function in the church.
I will post on two writings of the church father Tertullian here, one called “Exhortation to Chastity,” and the other called “To His Wife” (Tertullian’s letter of instruction to his wife of what actions to take after his death).

Before I get ahead of myself, I will now give some introduction regarding Tertullian:

“Born in Carthage, North Africa, Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c. 160-225) was one of the most influential and brilliant of the Latin fathers. He could also be quite vituperative, especially on the subject of women, though most of all these abusive remarks need to be carefully contextualized and interpreted. A convert from paganism, Tertullian nonetheless became a prolific and effective apologist for Christianity. In his theological works, he did much (along with the Latin Bible, probably already available at the end of the second century) to augment and develop the theological vocabulary of the church, so much, in fact, that he is often designated ‘the father of Latin theology’” (Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History.” Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, page 174).

Now, on to the two documents of Tertullian’s. The first document is titled “Exhortation to Chastity.” Madigan and Osiek give us an introduction to the context of the letter:

“Tertullian urges his friend not to remarry and recommends to him a life of continence. In the tenth chapter of the treatise, he dwells on the advantages of widowhood. Drawing on examples from the Hebrew scriptures and Paul on the desirability of purity, Tertullian then turns to what was revealed in an oracle of the Montanist prophet Prisca” (179).

On with Tertullian’s words:

“Again through the holy prophetess (prophetidem) Prisca is the gospel PREACHED IN THIS WAY [i.e., THROUGH PROPHECY], that THE HOLY MINISTER knows to minister sanctity. ‘Purity,’ she says, ‘brings harmony, and they see visions and, turning their face to the ground, they also hear distinct voices, as salutary as they are mysterious’” (179).

Madigan and Osiek note,

“While Tertullian generally, and often vehemently, opposes women exercising a teaching role, he does recognize here (as he does in ‘On the Soul’ 9.4) THAT SOME WOMEN (LIKE PRISCA), UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, DO UTTER AUTHORITATIVE PROPHECIES. Tertullian PLACES PRISCA’S ORACLE AS AN AUTHORITY alongside the Hebrew scriptures and the Apostle. All are effected by the action of the Holy Spirit” (179).

First, I wanna say that even Wayne Grudem goes against church history. In Grudem’s book, “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth,” which we’ve covered in quite a lot of detail here at Men and Women, I’ve quoted Grudem as saying that prophecy is “non-authoritative.” However, Tertullian the great church father would blatantly disagree with him; here, Tertullian says that it is authoritative and even considers Priscilla (“Prisca” for short) as a spiritual authority. Grudem needs to get a little more acquainted with his church history.

Notice that Tertullian writes here that “the gospel preached…” is “through prophecy.” Isn’t it funny how today, when an egalitarian goes to Joel 2:28 and says, “When Joel says that ‘your…daughters will prophesy,’ he is saying that women will preach,” what is the response? “oh, you’re delusional.” However, EVEN TERTULLIAN, one of the most adamant voices against women teaching publicly, believed that women COULD PREACH IN THE CHURCH! He believed that to prophesy meant “to preach,” and this is why he refers to Prisca (Priscilla) as “the holy minister.”

Here’s what I want you, the readership, to do: go to people who don’t believe Joel 2:28 and show them the statement by Tertullian above. If they know their church history, then they’ll be stunned that Tertullian, against women teaching, would advocate them preaching! The reason, though, why I’ve been doing this historical/archaeological series is because most conservative evangelicals have grown up with this idea that women have NEVER had any positions of ecclesiastical authority; and, since the Bible “supposedly” claims that women can’t have those positions, then women have never held them. But this isn’t true; and the near 20 posts we’ve done on the historical evidence here at Men and Women show clearly that women did hold such positions in the early church. I pray that Tertullian’s statement above will be one of your favorite statements to “whip out” on complementarians when they come telling you that your view of women in the church is wrong and disagrees with history. Chances are, you’ll shock them…and this is exactly the hoped-for response.

The next document I will quote is Tertullian’s letter, “To His Wife,” in which he gives her instructions regarding life after his death:

“How harmful to faith, and what an impediment to sanctity, second marriages are, the discipline of the church and the restriction (praescriptio) of the Apostle declare, since he does not allow twice-married men to preside [1 Tim. 3.11], and when he would not allow a widow into the ORDER (in ordinem) unless she had been married to only one man (univiram)…indeed, it is fitting that THE ALTAR OF GOD be presented pure (mundam)” (181).

Madigan and Osiek:

“Tertullian used the term ORDO to describe an OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED SOCIAL CATEGORY within the church. In applying the use of the term here to women, Tertullian implies that WIDOWS ARE PART OF THE CHRISTIAN CLERGY, even if there is no explicit profession of widowhood. At the time of Tertullian’s writing, widows were in fact recognized by the entire Christian community as a special class of Christian, symbolized spatially in liturgical assembly by their occupying a place apart and by penitent sinners seeking reconciliation before them and the presbyters” (181).

Notice that Tertullian’s letter above to his wife discusses “widows,” and then goes on to discuss “the altar of God” being “pure.” Tertullian makes a connection between an order of widows and the altar. This tells us that women served at the altar—although we don’t know what functions they performed. Even in the time of Tertullian, and even with Tertullian’s bias against women teaching, he had no problem affirming women serving at the altar in this letter to his wife.

Although Tertullian was quite outspoken against women teaching publicly, we see that he did believe women had the Holy Spirit and that, being vessels of the Spirit, could possess the spiritual authority to prophesy (preach) and give words from God to God’s people. He certainly believed Priscilla had this spiritual authority and honors her as “the holy minister” (which means that she wasn’t just serving tables). I think Tertullian was right when he said,

“Those persons have but a poor knowledge of God, who suppose Him to be capable of doing only what comes within the boundaries of their own thoughts” (printed in “Quotable Quotes From The Early Christians” in “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed By The Early Church Fathers” by David W. Bercot, Editor. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998, page 548).

I think both of these Tertullian quotes are in the egalitarian’s favor that you should print them off, frame them, and keep them close. You never know when the day will come that you’ll need them…

Women Deacons In The East, Part V: Later Texts Bearing On Earlier Evidence

“The following discussions in the Eastern Church from the seventh century and later all shed light on further interpretation of some of the texts presented in the previous chapter. Several, for example, witness to the belief in their day that, though deaconesses no longer functioned liturgically, they were once FULLY ORDAINED MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY and even entrusted with some kind of altar ministry” (Madigan and Osiek, “Ordained Women In The Early Church: A Documentary History. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, page 133).

I promised you, my readership, that I would supply part five soon…and although it has taken me a while, I’m back to deliver as I promised. In this post, I will begin to tackle later documents that show the privileges women experienced in the church earlier in history—such as ordination.

The first document we will look at is the Trullan Synod, Canon 15. Madigan and Osiek tell us,

“The Trullan Council or Synod was held in 692 in the domed hall (trullus) of the imperial palace of Justinian II in Constantinople to complete the disciplinary work of two previous councils numbered fifth and sixth in 553 and 680-81, hence its secondary name of ‘Quinisext’ or ‘fifth-sixth.’ Its canons largely concerned questions of clerical life and were not accepted in the West” (134).

Let’s read what Canon 14 says:

“Let the canon of our holy God-bearing fathers be retained, namely, that a presbyter not be ordained before the age of thirty even though he be fully qualified, but let him be held back. For Our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized in the thirtieth year and began to preach. Likewise a deacon before the age of twenty-five, nor should a DEACONESS (diakonissa) BE ORDAINED (cheirotonein) before the age of forty” (134).

Notice that Canon 14 gives an age requirement for the ordination of women deacons. Notice too, that canon 14 does not “introduce” the idea of deaconess ordination, but instead, refines the position (with an age requirement). This means that the practice of ordaining women deacons had to have been a normal occurrence for quite some time prior to the publication of this canon.

The Council of Nicaea provides a reference to women’s diaconal ordination in Canon 19:

“This is what happens with deaconesses (diakonissai). Virgins were coming to the church and with encouragement from the bishop, they were maintained as dedicated to God, but in the dress of the laity. This is the way it was arranged. Having attained forty years of age, they were worthy of ORDINATION (cheirotonia) AS DEACONESSES, if they were found to be completely deserving. If any were found to be among the Paulinists, they would be dealt with the same as the men” (136).

There is an interesting point to bring out of Canon 19. In this case, unlike most, it is “virgins” who are being ordained. This is very much against the idea that a woman had to be a “wife” in order to become a deaconess. Perhaps this is why “Phoebe” is mentioned in Romans 16:1-2 as “just Phoebe”—because maybe she didn’t have a husband at all; maybe she was an unmarried woman.

Regarding Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea, Madigan and Osiek write:

“Balsamon adds more than the Canon of Nicaea, for he goes on to specify age of ordination, bringing in this information from Canon 15 of Chalcedon. HE IMPLIES THAT THE OFFICE OF DEACONESS BEGAN WITH CONSECRATED VIRGINS AND AROSE FROM THIS GROUP. As we will see with his further comments, HE ALSO ASSUMES AN ORIGINAL SACRAMENTAL MINISTRY FOR THEM. The final comment here relates to the integration of the followers of Paul of Samosata into the catholic church: their ordinations done before reconciliation and (re) baptism in the church were not considered valid (see Canon 19 of Nicaea)” (136).

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek mention “Canon 15 of Chalcedon” above in their comments on canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea. This canon will be dealt with next. For now, what is of note is that Balsamon assumes that the virgins have an actual “sacramental ministry.” In other words, these virgins are to perform services at the altar. This is something that church councils attempted to squelch at every turn.

Now, regarding Council 15 of the Council of Chalcedon:

“The issues concerning the present canon have received wide attention [or, are completely outdated; panteescholasan]. A deaconess (diakonissa) today is not ordained, EVEN IF SOME FEMALE ASCETICS ARE LOOSELY REFERRED TO AS DEACONESSES. For there is a canon that defines that women may not enter the sanctuary (bema). HOW COULD ONE WHO CANNOT APPROACH THE ALTAR (thysiasterion) PERFORM THE FUNCTION OF THE DEACONS? Read canons fourteen and fifteen of the Trullan Synod, which depose a DEACONESS ORDAINED before the age of forty. Doesn’t the present canon anathematize one who marries after ordination? It offends the grace of God” (136)

Madigan and Osiek write the most interesting note on this canon:

“Balsamon mixes two things here. The first comment CONFIRMS THAT ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES IS A THING OF THE PAST, though some monastic women may still bear the title in twelfth-century Constantinople, without ministerial function. The reason for women being excluded from the altar is given in his ‘Response to Mark’s Questions 35: ‘the monthly affliction.’ But the final comments refer to the Trullan Synod (692) and do presuppose the existence of deaconesses, remarking on the minimum age limit. The fifteenth canon in fact speaks only of subdeacons but then affirms that all the clergy mentioned above (presbyters, deacons, deaconesses, and subdeacons) should be deposed if ordained before the required age. Thus Balsamon witnesses to the interpretation that deaconesses were considered members of the clergy (see comment on the Trullan Synod)” (136).

First, we should ask ourselves, “Why would Canon 15 of Chalcedon even have to be produced IF women were not being ordained as deaconesses?" Notice that Balsamon then quotes the canon that forbids women at the altar, and then says, “How could one who cannot approach the altar perform the function of the deacons?” In other words, the function of the deacons, INCLUDING women, involved work at the altar. Women according to this canon cannot be deacons because they have been forbidden at the altar. The canon Balsamon quotes regarding women at the altar should make us ask the question, “If women have to be forbidden at the altar, then doesn’t this mean there was a time when they were ALLOWED at the altar?” Thus, we see that women were allowed at the altar and had sacramental ministries, something that is considered to never have even existed by many of today’s church leaders. I guess they’ve never read their history. And this is why I’m providing this information for my viewers: because they need to know that not everyone in the early church interpreted 1 Timothy 2 to mean what complementarians claim it does today.

What exactly does Balsamon’s “Response to Mark’s Questions” say? Let’s read Balsamon’s next work here:

“Question 35: the divine canons mention deaconesses (diakonissai). So we want to learn what were their liturgical roles (leitourgema).
Response: IN TIMES PAST, ORDERS (tagmata) OF DEACONESSES WERE RECOGNIZED, and THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE SANCTUARY (bema). BUT THE MONTHLY AFFLICTION BANISHED THEM FROM THE DIVINE AND HOLY SANCTUARY, In the holy church of the see of Constantinople, deaconesses were appointed to office, without any participation in the sanctuary, but attending to many church functions and directing the women’s assembly according to church procedures” (137).

According to Madigan and Osiek, “Again Balsamon implies that ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES WAS ONCE FULLY PRACTIED and that at one time THEY EXERCISED SOME KIND OF SACRAMENTAL MINISTRY, THE MEANING OF ACCESS TO THE SANCTUARY. He thinks, however, that once the liturgy was established in Constantinople in the fourth century this practice already had been terminated…Balsamon attributes the restriction of women from the sanctuary NOT TO ANY INHERENT INFERIORITY but to CULTIC PURITY CONCERNS” (137).

What kept women from performing work at the altar? It wasn’t their “inferiority” to men, or their need to “submit” or “not have authority”; instead, it was because of their monthly menstruation. However, if this becomes the reason to ban women, then there is a reason to ban certain men as well: for the Old Testament Mosaic Law is full of people who could not be serve as the priests, or in the tabernacle. Anyone who was unclean, or had any type of impurity (such as leprosy or a birth defect) could not serve in the tabernacle:

16 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 17 “Speak to Aaron, saying: ‘No man of your descendants in succeeding generations, who has any defect, may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, 19 a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, 20 or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. 21 No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the LORD. He has a defect; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy; 23 only he shall not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect, lest he profane My sanctuaries; for I the LORD sanctify them.’” (Leviticus 21:16-23, New King James Version)

So, if women were not allowed to serve, then men who had the above defects (such as skin diseases or broken bones, or unequal limbs) should not have been able to serve as well. If women are not to serve today, then the Levitical law should be in effect and all men with physical problems on the above list in Leviticus should be forbidden from serving at the altar. And yet, we all know that no church today will stop men with defects from teaching, preaching, pastoring, and serving Holy Communion. If you ask me, I smell a “discrimination” rat...

I have one more document to quote from, that being Matthew Blastares’s “Alphabetical Collection 11”:

“Women deacons then fulfilled a certain service AMONG THE CLERGY (kleroi), which is nearly unknown to everyone now. There are some who say that they baptized women because it was not proper for men to see undressed those being baptized who were of a certain age. Others say that THEY WERE ALLOWED TO APPROACH THE HOLY ALTAR AND PERFORM NEARLY ALL THE FUNCTIONS DONE BY MALE DEACONS. THEY WERE FORBIDDEN ACCESS AND PERFORMANCE OF THESE SERVICES BY LATER FATHERS BECAUSE OF THEIR MONTHLY FLOW THAT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED” (138).

Notice that women were allowed to work at the altar at a certain point in time, and that the only reason they were forbidden to do so involved their monthly menstruation. This should tell us, once again, that 1 Timothy 2 was not an excuse to prohibit women from serving. Even Blastares seemed puzzled that the churches disconnected women serving at the altar and 1 Timothy 2:

“But for a woman to be deacon of the holy and unbloody sacrifice does not seem plausible to me. It is not a safe policy [literally: a saving word] that those to whom it is not conceded to teach publicly should be allowed the rank of deacon, whose work is to cleanse by their teaching the unbelievers who approach for baptism” (138).

Notice that he links “teach publicly” with “rank of deacon, whose work is to cleanse by their teaching the unbelievers who approach for baptism.” Blastares didn’t understand how women couldn’t teach but yet, could baptize publicly. Evidently, the church itself didn’t make this connection. So, contrary to today’s thought about women and 1 Timothy 2 (and contra Blastares), women were still allowed to serve at the altar—even if they weren’t allowed to teach.

These later texts confirm what has already been stated—that, at one point in time, women were ordained and allowed to serve at the altar. In future posts, I will cover “women presbyters” in both the East and the West. Stay tuned…

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part IV

I am back to give the last three references to women deacons that I will mention in our series on Women Deacons in the East (from the book “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History” by Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek). These last three are a great bunch by which to end our archaeological study of tomb inscriptions with regard to women deacons.

First, there is Paula. The tombstone of her brother is from Laodicea Combustia, Phrygia. On the stone is written the following words:

“PAULA, DEACON MOST BLESSED OF CHRIST. SHE BUILT ME AS TOMB of her blessed brother Helladius, outside the homeland, constructed of stones as guardian of the body UNTIL THE TERRIBLE SOUND OF THE TRUMPET WAKES THE DEAD AS GOD HAS PROMISED” (OWEC, 87).

According to Madigan and Osiek, Paula is called a “diakonos” (masculine term for “deacon”) and “one can infer her high level of education and family loyalty, and her sufficient wealth to afford an expensive memorial” (87). In addition, the last words “until the terrible sound of the trumpet wakes the dead as God has promised” come from 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (87)—

“Listen! I am telling you a mystery:
We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMPET. FOR THE TRUMPET WILL SOUND, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed.” (HCSB)

We discover that Paula built a tomb for her brother and the tomb itself tells us she was a “diakonos.” But, aside from that, we find that believers of the early church had firm convictions regarding their eschatology. Paula really believed that the Lord would return and that the Scriptures told her so. And I think we should all look at death in this way: whenever someone who loves us leaves us, we should remember that God has promised to raise them from the dead—and not just them, but all of us who love Him!

This next tomb inscription concerns a woman named “Sophia” and comes from the fourth century. According to Madigan and Osiek,

“the stone was found by workers below the Tomb of the Prophets on THE MOUNT OF OLIVES in Jerusalem on December 8, 1903, in five pieces, with the bottom missing. It is now in the museum of St. Anne’s Church, Jerusalem” (OWEC, 90).

On the tomb are the words as follows:

“Here lies the slave and bride of Christ SOPHIA, DEACON, THE SECOND PHOEBE, who slept in peace the twenty-first of the month of March in the eleventh Indiction…the Lord God…” (90).

According to Madigan and Osiek,

“The most surprising part of the description is her [Sophia] appellation as ‘SECOND PHOEBE,’ a reference to Rom. 16:1-2, where Phoebe, bearer of Paul’s letter to Rome, is recommended to the recipients as ‘diakonos’—THE EARLIEST USE OF THAT TERM, with Phil. 1:1, for an officer of a particular church—and ‘prostatis,’ patron or benefactor (see Phoebe). The comparison to Phoebe is probably not only to her diaconate, which was common to many women of the period, but to her position as patron and benefactor” (OWEC, 91).

We also find that Sophia calls herself the “slave” and “bride of Christ,” which means that she knew her eschatology. According to Madigan and Osiek, “calling oneself the slave or servant of Christ or God was common early Christian language (see Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 4:5; Phil. 1:1; Gal. 1:10), and the use of bridal imagery…was also beginning at this period” (90).

The most important thing about Sophia’s tomb inscription is that she is labeled “the second Phoebe.” Since she is a “diakonos,” and the first Phoebe (Rom. 16) was a “diakonos,” we can infer that she believed she was following in the footsteps of the Phoebe Paul mentions in Scripture.

The fact that Sophia believed herself to be in line with the Phoebe of Romans 16 tells us that the church used this woman as an example for all women to follow and pattern themselves after. I’ve spent quite a bit of time here at the blog trying to rebut complementarians who attempt to remove this woman from having any importance in the early church at all—and make Phoebe out to be nothing but a “good assistant.” Phoebe was a woman of means, someone very active and trustworthy in the early church—and from now on, when complementarians attempt to discredit Phoebe, point to this evidence about a woman named “Sophia” who evidently believed that she was walking in the footsteps of the Phoebe who helped Paul! This is the goal of providing historical evidence at the site: so that you can inform others of the truth regarding women and their work in the early church.

The last reference I will make concerns a woman named “Zaortha”:

“Zaortha DEACONESS” (94).

Someone might be puzzled to see such a short tomb inscription and wonder, “Why is this here? Why would you even post this inscription?” That’s a good question, and I have a good answer: because she served as a deaconess in a Syriac-speaking church.

As Madigan and Osiek tell us,

“The word for deaconess that is transliterated into Greek as ‘samastha’ is Syriac ‘shamashta,’ not the usual Syriac word, which is ‘mshamshanita.’ The root meaning of the term is the same, ‘servant’ or ‘minister.’ Whether this is a regional or some other variation is not known. Nor is anything further known about the deaconess Zaorta. This is not a funerary commemoration but her dedication of a piece of the chancel screen as a pious offering to the church. She was therefore a person of means, PROBABLY A PATRON IN THE COMMUNITY. Together, with the deaconesses to whom Severus wrote, SHE IS EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF THE OFFICE IN THE SYRIAC-SPEAKING CHURCHES” (OWEC, 94).

This seems to be the only evidence of the existence of a female diaconate in Syriac churches. In any case, however small the evidence, the evidence still exists.

This will conclude our study of tomb inscriptions of Women Deacons in the East. We have one bit of business left—and that involves to show evidence of ecclesiastical texts that confirm the female diaconate as an ORDAINED office. Part Five is on its way…

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part III

Currently, I’ve been providing information regarding tomb inscriptions of female deacons in the West as well as the East. At the present time, we have covered women deacons in the West and are attempting to cover the presence of women deacons in the East. This is where Part III will resume.

Next on our list is a limestone inscription from Phrygia in Asia Minor. The limestone is broken into two pieces:

Left side: “Aurelius Antonius, son of Miros, together with his aunt ELAPHIA DEACONESS of the Encratites…[text is broken off]”

Right side: “I, ELAPHIA, DEACONESS OF THE ENCRATITES, have set up this monument as memorial to the presbyter Peter together with his brother Polychronios” (OWEC, 78).

Regarding the limestone:

“In the right inscription, she [Elaphia] alone makes the commemoration, to a presbyter and his brother, both of whose relationship to her is unknown. Since no relationship is stated, it is possible that SHE WAS ACTING AS A CHURCH OFFICIAL to commemorate two brothers, one a cleric, who had no surviving family to do it for them” (OWEC, 78).

What interests me, aside from Elaphia as a deaconess here, is that she is called a “deaconess of the ENCRATITES.” Madigan and Osiek provide information on this interesting group as well:

“The Encratites were a sect of ascetics known from the second century on in the East. Celibacy was an important part of their practice…” (OWEC, 78)

Another inscription comes from a marble sarcophagus near Nicomedia in Bithynia (Asia Minor):

“In memory of EUGENIA DEACON we, the poor people of Geragathis, restored the sarcophagus that we decorated” (OWEC, 81).

This is an interesting one because of those who describe themselves as “the poor people of Geragathis.” According to Madigan and Osiek, “The group could be of a particular place or belonging in some way to a person. Ute Eisen suggests the leader of a house for the poor where Eugenia had worked” (81).

A Nicopolis (Thrace) inscription dated from 538 CE tells of a woman who was patron of a memorial center:

“Here lies EUGENIA of praiseworthy memory, d…[stone broken off], WHO BUILT THE HOUSE (domo[n], i.e., shrine) OF THE GLORIOUS APOSTLE ANDREW in a holy manner, and ended life on June 12 in the first Indiction, in the reign of our godly and reverend ruler (despo[tou]) Flavius Justinianus, eternal Augustus and Emperor, in the twelfth year of the consulship (hypatia) of the noble Flavius John” (OWEC, 81).

Only the first letter of her title [d] is preserved (Madigan and Osiek, 81) so that we don’t know if she was a deacon or deaconess. We do know, however, that she played a role in the construction of a memorial center—so she must have had quite an influence in her community.

The next inscription concerns a woman named Maria of Archelais. The inscription itself was of grey marble stone, with a cross and ivy decoration in the center; the words themselves were written below the arms of the cross. It is a sixth century inscription:

“Here lies MARIA THE DEACON of pious and blessed memory who, according to the saying of the Apostle, raised children, exercised hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, and distributed her bread to the needy. Remember her, Lord, when she enters into your kingdom” (OWEC, 82-83).

Madigan’s and Osiek’s comments are fitting by themselves for Maria’s tomb inscription:

“The inscription contains biblical allusions to 1 Tim. 5:10 in the middle and Luke 23:42 at the end. The allusion to the work of widows in 1 Tim. 5:10 makes it almost certain that Maria was a widow at the time of her death. The title ‘the Apostle’ is frequently used of Paul by writers of this period. Everyone would know to whom it referred. Her title is ‘diakonos,’ and the total lack of mention of any relatives is unusual. It may mean that she had no surviving relatives, or it may indicate HER LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE TO HER CHURCH COMMUNITY. PERHAPS THE COMMUNITY ERECTED HER MEMORIAL” (83).

They also give us insight into Maria’s work as a deacon:

“the description given here from 1 Timothy lists typical works that would be theirs. Raising children may mean not only their own but the neglected or orphaned children of others. Hospitality involved the washing of feet as a sign of welcome and was not understood only as slaves’ work. Feeding the poor was a necessary work of charity that was expected of all. The mention of these specific activities is a biblical allusion and DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT MARIA EXCELLED ONLY AT THESE FUNCTIONS” (83).

Maria of Moab has something of historical note to show us:

“Here lies MARIA daughter of Valens, DEACON, who lived thirty-eight years and died in the year 538 [643-44 CE]” (OWEC, 83).

While Maria’s title was abbreviated (dk), leaving us in the dark as to whether she was a deacon or deaconess, we do know that her age is of note. According to the writers, “She was already a deacon at the age of THIRTY-EIGHT, DESPITE THE LOWER AGE LIMIT OF FORTY SET AT THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON for ordination of a woman deacon. These frequent discrepancies show that LEGISLATION MAY HAVE BEEN ENACTED, BUT WIDE OBSERVANCE WAS ANOTHER THING” (83).

Maria’s age was two years BELOW the age limit set by the church council, which shows us that rules, although set down in stone, were not implemented as such. And this will be seen also in our future posts regarding women presbyters. Although church councils attempted to undermine women in leadership positions, they couldn’t be at EVERY church to enforce those rules—and that is where churches took advantage of the councils’ lack of access and followed personal convictions. As Madigan and Osiek tell us, councils continued to decree and make their rules, but they couldn’t enforce observance. It seems then, that everyone exercised power in their own spheres.

This will conclude Part III of Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions. Having read over these inscriptions, I think what encourages me most is that these inscriptions teach us so much about the women whose names are engraved on them. We’ve learned that women deacons contributed to financial projects, worked in hospitals, took care of orphaned children, had ordinations, etc. What this shows us, however, is that women deacons were a COMMONLY-ACCEPTED thing in the church for quite some time. And this fact should make us pause and ask, “if the early church accepted women leaders, then why have we forgotten this?” It makes me realize more and more each day that “history is written by the victors.” Church councils wrote what they did; but the women, those who served in leadership positions, only have their tomb inscriptions left to tell their story. And, similar to Abel, though they are dead, their lives “still speak” (Hebrews 11:4).

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions, Part II

There are more tomb inscriptions than those presented in Part I.
This post will start with a mosaic inscription from Patras, Greece—that of Agrippiane:

“The DEACON AGRIPPIANE, most beloved of God, made the mosaic in fulfillment of her vow.” (Ordained Women in the Early Church, 70). [from this moment on, the book titled will be referenced by the acronym “OWEC”]

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek write:

“Agrippiane is a DIAKONOS who exercised her patronage by paying for a mosaic floor after having made some kind of promise to God, the details of which are unknown. The usual pattern, often practiced by believers of the early Church, is to promise to do something specific if a request has been granted by God. Both clergy and laity could make such vows and were bound to fulfill them. The appellation ‘most beloved of God’ (theophilestate) IS KNOWN IN OTHER CONTEXTS AS A DESCRIPTION OF CHURCH OFFICIALS” (OWEC, 70).

With Agrippiane, when she is called a “diakonos,” the title “most beloved of God” adds to our belief that Agrippiane was a deacon of a church in Greece.

The next tomb inscription is a funerary inscription from Apollonia, Pontus (Thrace):

“Alexandra subdeacon” (OWEC, 70).

According to Madigan and Osiek, the office of subdeacon existed for men, but we have no evidence regarding what the office meant for women. “The title HYPODIAKON on the Greek inscription is an abbreviation either for HYPODIAKONOS or HYPODIAKONISSA, so her actual title could have been either term” (OWEC, 70).

For those whose minds are curious as to what a subdeacon did, you’re in good luck. David Bercot, editor of the work “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” gives us the details of what the office would have required for men:

“In the early church, a subdeacon was an assistant to a deacon, and in some churches he performed similar functions to that of a deacon” (“A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” by David W. Bercot, Editor. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, page 635).

So a subdeacon for the deacon was an assistant to the deacon; assistants usually did whatever the deacons needed them to do. This is probably how it worked among the women. They possibly had assistants as well, who did whatever the women deacons needed them to do.

The next inscription concerns a fourth-century inscription found in 1910 in the Peloponnesus, a marble plaque:

“Here lies [________] only child, twenty-three years old, daughter of [________] and ALEXANDRA DEACON, raised and taken in by my father Erenianos in swaddling clothes, in distress and pleas, buried in hope by me. As God wished, I fulfilled this path for her in the fourteenth Indiction, September 13” (OWEC, 71).

We know that Alexandra, mentioned in the inscription, is the mother of the child who died at 23. Alexandra is considered to be a deacon of a church.

The next inscription concerns Anastasia of Palestine. The inscription itself is “a funerary inscription of the Byzantine Period, from the burial caves at the St. George Choziba Monastery, Deir el Qilt in Wadi Kilt, between Jerusalem and Jericho” (OWEC, 71).

“Here lies ANASTASIA DEACON, in the month of February 27, in the 11th Indiction” (OWEC, 71).

Madigan and Osiek tell us that in the place of “deacon” here in the inscription are really just four letters, an abbreviation of the title (DIAK); therefore, we can’t know whether Anastasia was a deacon or a deaconess (OWEC, 71).

The last tomb inscription in this post is from the fifth century, from Delphi (Greece):

“The devoted DEACONESS ATHANASIA, who lived a blameless life decorously, INSTALLED AS DEACONESS by the most holy bishop Pantamianos, set up this memorial. Here lie her mortal remains. If anyone else dares to open this monument where the deaconess has been placed, may he share the lot of Judas the [betrayer] of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (OWEC, 72)

Regarding this tomb inscription, Madigan and Osiek tell us that “this is the only inscription of a female deacon that speaks of her installation as deaconess (Katasthathisa)and gives the name of the installing bishop, probably because of his importance. This verb (kathistemi) is not normally used for ordination and is sometimes contrasted to ordination. It rather connotes official appointment to an office or function…” (OWEC, 73).

Despite Madigan and Osiek’s claim here, I’d have to say that the word “kathistemi” is used in the Greek New Testament for appointment to church office. It is especially used for the first deacons of the early church in Acts 6. When Peter says, “Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we can APPOINT to this duty” (Acts 6:4, HCSB), he is telling the church to pick seven men they can install to the office of deacon. In the early church, installment, appointment, and ordination meant the same thing; so I don’t see where the difference lies. At least in the Greek New Testament, “kathistemi” did mean ordination.

This means, then, that Athanasia, the deaconess, WAS ORDAINED to her position. What adds to this conclusion is the fact that we are told the name of the Bishop who ordained her: “installed as deaconess by THE MOST HOLY BISHOP PANTAMIANOS…” If Athanasia was just given a church office that held no significance of ordination, why would a bishop’s name be used here? As we will see throughout the study of tomb inscriptions, there were women who served as “deacons” and did good charitable things, but the name of a bishop was not given—nor were any of the details of their appointment.

This will conclude Part II of our study of tomb inscriptions. As we see, though, women did serve in leadership in the early church. As we progress through the study, I hope that you feel as I do: that much of this material, although true, remains hidden or undiscussed. Something must be done…

Women Deacons in the East: Tomb Inscriptions

It is now time to add a new section to that of our historical evidence: tomb inscriptions proving the existence of women deacons in the East.
Without further ado, I will now start with Aeria, from an inscription found in 1885 on a stone with a cross in the middle:

“Here rests the ever-remembered servant of Christ, AERIA, who was a DEACON of the holy ones, friend of all. She came to rest in the tenth Indiction in the month of January, being thirty years old, in the year 594. God-bearer [help?]” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 68).

Madigan and Osiek tell us that the label “friend of all” [panton phile] is a common label used in the fifth and sixth centuries.
We are told that Aeria was a “diakonos.”

Next, meet Agaliasis, whose name was inscribed on a tomb as part of a fourth-century family funerary inscription from the Island of Melos in the Aegean Sea:

“In the Lord: the presbyters worthy of every commemoration, Asclepis and Elpizon and Asklepiodotos and AGALIASIS THE DEACON and Eutychia and Klaudiane, virgins, and Eutychia their mother lie here. Since this tomb is full, I adjure you by the angel located before it that no one dare bury anyone else here. Jesus Christ, help the one who writes this and his entire household” (Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 68).

Regarding Agaliasis, Madigan and Osiek write:

“Though the deacon’s name is spelled with only one ‘l’ in the inscription, THE NAME IS A COMMON GREEK WORD, ‘agalliasis’ (see Luke 1:47)” (Ordained Women, page 69).

The next piece of evidence comes from a funerary inscription at Philippi in Macedonia:

“Distinguished resting place of AGATHE DEACON and John treasurer and linen-weaver” (OW, 69).

Madigan and Osiek believe that “this brief inscription probably records the burial of a wife and husband. Her title is DIAKONOS. The terms used to describe her husband are disputed. He may have been treasurer or custodian of the church (hypodektos) as well as a worker or merchant in line (othonetos)…HE SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN ORDAINED. This inscription is a rare indication that not all women deacons were virgins or widows” (69).

This inscription shows us that, in some cases, the woman was ordained—while the husband wasn’t! But that would NEVER happen today, according to most conservative evangelicals.

One more tomb inscription will be discussed in this post: that of Agathokleia. The inscription is only a few words:

“Memorial of Agathokleia, virgin and DEACON” (OW, 69).

This inscription comes from Macedonia in the fifth and sixth centuries. Here’s what Madigan and Osiek had to say about the unusual combination of “virgin” and a church office:

“The DIAKONOS Agathokleia is also called a virgin; she is undoubtedly a CONSECRATED VIRGIN…this inscription…shows that the two titles and thus the two functions, virgin and deacon, were considered DISTINCT, yet COULD BE COMBINED” (OW, 69-70).

I will pick up where I left off in our discovery of tomb inscriptions in my next post.

Women Deacons in the West: Church Documents

We have finished our coverage of women deacons in the west via tomb inscriptions and a letter between a Pope and Bishop. Now, we are gonna begin tracing women deacons in church texts. The first church document I will begin with is called the “Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi,” which is Latin for “the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek provide us with a fitting description of the document:

“The TD is an early Christian church order, depending literarily on some form of Hippolytus’ ‘Apostolic Tradition,’ as well as an apocalypse and other sources. IT PURPORTS TO INCLUDE THE INSTRUCTIONS CHRIST GAVE TO THE TWELVE AFTER THE RESURRECTION, on issues of ecclesiastical order, architecture, daily prayer, and other matters…probably written in Greek in the late fourth or (as Harnack suggested) the fifth century, it survives today in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 150).

The texts of the TD have all been translated from Latin to English, so I will only provide the English translation here at the blog site. The parts of the Testamentum that I will address here will be those rules of the TD that mention women deacons. There are other documents regarding church order. To find those, just do a google search.

Now to begin with, let’s look at Testamentum Domini 1.23:

“On the Sabbath let [the bishop] offer three breads as a symbol of the Trinity; on Sunday, four breads as an image of the Gospel.
When he offers the sacrifice, let the VEIL OF THE SANCTUARY be drawn closed, as a sign of the wandering of the ancient people, and let him offer it WITHIN THE VEIL WITH the presbyters, deacons, canonical widows (viduis canonicis), subdeacons, DEACONESSES (diaconissi), readers, [and] THOSE HAVING SPIRITUAL GIFTS (charismata).
Let the bishop stand first in the middle, and the presbyters immediately behind him on both sides; the widows (viduae) behind the presbyters who are on the left side; the deacons behind the presbyters who are on the right side; and behind these the readers; and behind the readers the subdeacons; and behind the subdeacons, the DEACONESSES (diaconissae).”

Regarding the placement of deaconesses behind the veil, Madigan and Osiek write the following:

“The deaconess, WHO HAS ALMOST NO ROLE BEYOND THAT OF GREETING WOMEN AT THE DOOR OF THE CHURCH, is brought within the veil and, though mentioned last, she experiences an ‘upward’ shift, so to speak, and is explicitly brought into the penumbra of the clergy. All are clearly separated from the laity” (152).

I desire to point out some things in rule 1.23 that we just examined. First, notice that the deaconesses are placed BEHIND THE VEIL with the bishop and presbyters. Then, as Madigan and Osiek tell us, the deaconesses are clearly separated from the laity itself. This tells us that deaconesses were considered to be part of the ordained clergy in those days. The fact that women were ordained clergy in those days attests to how women have shifted “downward” in the centuries since; in many conservative theological circles, women no longer have a place as ordained clergy.

Remember what I’ve been saying at the blog? It’s funny how most theological conservatives believe that women have NEVER been ordained; yet and still, we have not only tomb inscriptions but also church documents that tell us otherwise. It doesn’t take much to see that the Church of Christ has disintegrated from what it was in the early centuries following the ascension of Christ.

But I found something else interesting about rule 1.23: not only does it allow women behind the curtain, but also “those having spiritual gifts.” THOSE HAVING SPIRITUAL GIFTS! Did you notice that?

I point out those with spiritual gifts because today, in most churches, since we believe that everyone has a spiritual gift, we tend to let those with spiritual gifts remain among the congregation and sit out in the pews with the rest of the congregation: we don’t allow them behind the pulpit or anywhere near it. Well, in the early centuries of the church, those who had spiritual gifts, such as those of the five-fold ministry in Ephesians 4 (evangelists, teachers, pastors, prophets, apostles) were allowed to go behind the veil as ordained clergy. Teachers would have been included behind the veil, which means that, they were considered to be part of the clergy. It’s funny that many churches consider them to be part of the church staff, but not necessarily part of the ordained clergy. But I think the early church was onto something when they allowed teachers behind the veil—because teachers are the ones feeding God’s people the Word, helping them to understand what God is saying. In other words, teachers are performing a PASTORAL DUTY when they instruct from one Sunday to the next, whether they are teaching youth, men, women, toddlers, etc.!

The fact that the teachers were ordained clergy also tells us something else: that today’s women, including those of Southern Baptist circles who teach only women and children, would have been considered ORDAINED CLERGY in the days of the early church! Actually, as teachers, in some cases, women would have had a greater role as ordained clergy than that of the deaconess!

The Testamentum Domini 1.23 shows us that women were considered to be ordained clergy. The question is, if women of the third and fourth centuries were considered to be ordained, then why has the rule changed today? Why is it that women today are considered in conservative theological circles to be NON-ORDAINED by nature? To presuppose women should never be ordained then, is to go against the views of the early church.

Since we have covered all the material on women deacons in the West, we will continue our discussion of women deacons by looking at tomb inscriptions of women deacons in the East. Keep reading, and feel free to comment or ask questions.

A Revealing Letter

I am still going through the material that proves the existence of women deacons in the West—so today, I’m back with a letter from Pope Benedict VIII to Benedict, Bishop of Porto. The Pope confirmed a number of privileges and concessions for the Bishop, among them the issue of ordination of women deacons:

“In the same way, we concede and confirm to you and to your successors in perpetuity every episcopal ordination (ordinationem episcopalem), not only of presbyters but also of deacons OR DEACONESSES (diaconissis) or subdeacons.”

Regarding this letter, Madigan and Osiek write:

“IN SPITE OF ALL THE EARLIER EFFORTS OF WESTERN COUNCILS TO ELIMINATE DEACONESSES, it is remarkable to find a pope, early in the ELEVENTH CENTURY not only recognizing the office of deaconess but acknowledging that THE RITE OF INITIATION IS AN ORDINATION” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church,” page 148).

In addition, notice that the “deaconesses” are placed in the same group as “deacons” and “presbyters.” Deaconesses were considered to be part of the ordained leadership of the church.

But the attitude of many evangelical conservatives today has strayed from the attitude of their ancestors. John Hammett, author of “Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology,” lays out both sides of the issue regarding whether or not women should be deacons:

“The Interpreter’s Bible treatment of this verse helpfully summarizes the arguments on both sides. In favor of seeing the verse as referring to deaconesses are the following:
1. It appears in a context dealing specifically with church order.
2. The word ‘hosautos,’ [meaning] ‘in the same way,’ is used in verse 8 to introduce the qualifications for deacons; its usage in verse 11 indicates the introduction of a new category parallel to deacons.
3. The virtues required in verse 11 are similar to those required for deacons, arguing for a similar office.
4. If verse 11 refers to deacons’ wives, why is there no reference to the wives of elders?
5. If the writer meant to refer to wives, he would have added the pronoun ‘their,’ but it is missing.

In support of the view that ‘gynaikas’ refers to the wives of deacons are the following points:
1. If the writer meant deaconess, why use ‘gynaikas’?
2. The list of qualifications is much shorter than that for deacons or elders, too short for a new office.
3. There is an office for women, discussed at length in 1 Timothy 5:9-16.
4. Deacons’ wives fits the flow of thought in verses 8-13 (deacons, their wives, their marital and family life).
5. Deacons’ wives would inevitably be involved in their ministries to some extent and, therefore, needed to be women of character, not prone to gossiping or drunkenness.” (“Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology,” by John S. Hammett. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Kregel Publications, 2005, pages 199-200.)

After listing the arguments from both sides, Hammett gives his choice:

“Of the two sets of arguments the arguments in favor of deaconess appear to be the weaker…three of the arguments for seeing ‘gynaikas’ as wives (arguments 1,4, and 5) are quite strong and without convincing rebuttal from the opposing side. Therefore, it seems that 1 Timothy 3:11 is not a biblical basis for the office of deacon, but rather, adds another qualification for the office of deacon. To be qualified for the office of deacon, a man MUST HAVE A WIFE OF CHARACTER, who can be trusted to assist her husband in the diaconal ministry” (200).

I could attack all the arguments that Hammett lists for the other side, but I will invest my time in dealing with the three powerful arguments he thinks are the best against the idea of women deacons.
First, there is argument #1: “If the writer meant ‘deaconess,’ why use ‘gynaikas’? The term ‘deaconess’ did not come into existence until, at the earliest, the third century. Paul’s letter was written to Timothy in the first century AD; this means that the word ‘deaconess’ would not have been used here by Paul, since the term itself didn’t become a part of ordinary language until at least TWO-HUNDRED YEARS later.
Secondly, Paul uses the word ‘gynaikas’ to distinguish from the male deacons he has just mentioned in the text. The first deacons of the church were appointed in Acts 6, due to the need for servants to aid the everyday needs of the people (Gentile widows). The apostles said the following:

"It would not be right for us to give up preaching about God to wait on tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, (C) full of the Spirit (D) and wisdom, whom we can appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the preaching ministry." (Acts 6:2-4, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

The word for “men” here is “andras,” which means that only seven MALES were selected. Paul had to distinguish females (women) from males (men), so the word “women” is used instead of “deaconess.” The fact that Paul mentioned “women” in a section on deacons shows us that Paul was not as against women in church leadership as most conservatives believe.

The next response Hammett valued was that “the deacon’s wife” fits the logic of verses 8-13. However, what is the true context of verses 8-13? Is it family life? Or is a godly family life part of the requirement for those who would serve in the church? The context of 1 Timothy 3 is the church, NOT the home.

Next, notice that the requirements of the “gynaikas” are very similar to that of the male deacon’s.

First, look at verse 8: “Deacons, likewise, should be worthy of respect, not hypocritical…” (1 Tim. 3:8, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

Now, look at the requirements for women:

“Women, too, must be WORTHY OF RESPECT, NOT SLANDERERS…” (1 Tim. 3:11, HCSB).

In the same way the man is to be “worthy of respect,” so is the female deacon.
Next, the male deacon is not to be “hypocritical, not drinking a lot of wine, not greedy for money.” Notice how Paul sums up the character of the woman—“self-controlled” (1 Tim. 3:11). Paul’s mentioning of “self-control” reminds us of Paul’s words regarding the women at the church at Ephesus in 1 Timothy 2:15. The word there in the Greek is “sophrosune, which means “self-control.” The problem at the church among the women is that they don’t know how to control themselves. But the godly woman who serves in the church in 1 Timothy 3 is to demonstrate self-control, not slanderize someone’s name; she should not be a gossiper.

Finally, there are other things to consider regarding the women mentioned here. Why would Paul list characteristics for women IF they were not to serve in the church, but only to be good “aids” for their husbands? Everytime Paul mentions a list in the New Testament, the list was to serve as requirements for a church position. So, if Paul is listing the requirements of women to match the requirements of men, then this must mean that Paul considered women to have a place in church leadership.
Contra Hammett, I am in agreement with those from the Interpreter’s Bible who argue that the word “their” is not used—as an indication of women (generic), not “wives.” The word “gynaikas” in the New Testament has a dual meaning: it can mean either “women” or “wives.” The problem is, in other contexts, we have an indication that Paul is referring to “wives” (usually is marriage). In this case, although home life is discussed, it is discussed for the sole reason that the home life would serve as an indicator of church life. This, then, wouldn’t disqualify the woman—for she worked in the home as well. Surely then, she would qualify for work in the church!

Look at 1 Timothy 3:11. There is a word in the Greek, “hosautos,” which means “Likewise.” The women, like WHO? Who are the women of 1 Tim. 3:11 to be like? I’m glad you asked: they are to be like the men mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:8-10. And what are the requirements for the men mentioned in those three verses? They are to demonstrate a certain character; and then, they are to be examined, tested, APPROVED to walk in the church as deacons. Once approved, they are then to serve. So, if the women are to be LIKE the men (in the same manner), then, the women are to also demonstrate a certain character, and are also TO BE TESTED, EXAMINED, APPROVED as women of character; then, they too, like the men, are to serve as women deacons.
But there is also one more thing that Hammett and most conservatives miss when they study 1 Timothy 3: that is, verse 12:

“Deacons must be husbands of one wife, managing their children and their own households competently.”

Notice that this verse, verse 12, comes AFTER the discussion of women, not BEFORE! If Paul really wanted to make his point about women not being deacons, Paul would’ve wrapped up his discussion of deacons before the women (for, according to the skeptics, women would not have been deacons). But for Paul to write these words AFTER verse 11 shows us that women, like men, were considered to be potential servants of the church.

To make the point I’ve been making regarding 1 Timothy 3, go to 1 Timothy 5:

“Therefore, I want younger women to marry, have children, MANAGE THEIR HOUSEHOLDS, and give the adversary no opportunity to accuse us” (1 Tim. 5:14, HCSB).

Wait! Look at the words in capital letters. But, according to conservatives, only MEN manage their households. Surely, women can’t manage their households, can they?
According to Paul, they can; and they should. This is acceptable in the sight of God. So when Paul states that the deacons should be “managing their children and their own households competently” (1 Tim. 3:12), he is making the point that both male AND FEMALE deacons should manage their homes well. Paul isn’t excluding the female gender from leadership in the church.

Most conservatives, when telling women what they should do in church, go to 1 Tim. 2:11-15, or Titus 2:3-5. However, they fail to go to 1 Tim. 5 where women are to “manage their households.” I think the fact that the church doesn’t mention this passage is because we’re afraid to think of it. We’re afraid to imagine that Paul very well may have opened the door for women, and we shudder to think that we’ve been wrong all this time.

We see that Paul calls Phoebe from the church at Cenchrea a “diakonos" (Rom. 16:1), which is the term used in 1 Tim. 3 in the plural for “deacon” (diakonoi). Paul certainly didn’t have a problem using the term “diakonos” for a woman; and neither should we.

The Council of Orange

Dear readers, we will now start our discussion of canons and comments on church practices. We have seen from a few inscriptions that, although the evidence is scarce, women did serve as deacons and deaconesses.

Now, however, we are going to examine church councils and their attempts to stop the advancements of women in the early church. Our beginning council to start will be the Council of Orange. We are given the following information about the council by Madigan & Osiek:

“The Council of Orange was convoked in November 441…with seventeen bishops from three provinces in attendance, it produced thirty canons on a wide variety of matters. SEVERAL OF THESE deal with the STATUS AND CONDUCT OF WOMEN IN CONSECRATED OFFICE. For example, one decreed that widows should make a profession of chastity and wear the proper dress…finally, Canon 26 deals with deaconess, in particular the question of whether they should be ordained” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 145).

We are now gonna look at Council of Orange Canon 26:

“Female deacons (Diaconae) are BY NO MEANS (omnimodis) TO BE ORDAINED (ordinandae). If there are any WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ORDAINED (si quae iam sunt), let them submit their heads to the benediction (benediction…capita submittant) that is granted to the laity (quae populo impenditur).”

Notice that the council seems to be adamantly against women’s ordination: “female deacons are by no means to be ordained.” This says that women are not to be ordained for any reason whatsoever. Then, the canon presupposes some women have been ordained: “If there are any who have already been ordained…” The fact that the Council of Orange presupposes a thing tells us that women’s ordination did exist even as late as the fifth century. Last but not least, the “ordained” women are to be placed among the masses: “let them submit their heads to the benediction that is granted to the laity.” Here we find that these women were to be demoted, pulled down, from their places of ordained authority.

Madigan and Osiek write regarding Canon 26:

“It seems quite likely that the forbidden practice [ordaining women] had been occurring in the early fifth century in Gaul. That would account both for the canon having been promulgated at all and for its force…the recommendation to receive the blessing given to the laity is thus intended as a ritual act intended to UNDO THEIR [deaconesses] ELEVATION TO THE CLERGY AND TO RESITUATE THEM WITH THE PEOPLE, where they belong” (145, 146).

Although this canon tells us of the ordaining of women in Gaul, it suggests a bigger problem than just that of the council’s disagreement with a certain church practice:

“The forbidding of ordinations in this Western province is of special interest because it is unambiguously clear from several sources that, in the East, female deacons WERE BEING ORDAINED PUBLICLY AT THE SAME TIME BY IMPOSITION OF HANDS AND PRAYER OF THE BISHOP and using prayers similar to those used in other sorts of ordinations. In other words, in the East female deacons were considered wholly part of the clergy in the fifth century—probably the very understanding the fathers at Orange were at pains to avert in the West” (146).

The practice of ordaining women was making its way from the East, and this likely would have terrified the Council to write to the churches to stop this practice. The fact that the Council responded this way tells us that women’s ordination was a real thing in the West (and the East).

Funny, but, isn’t this different from what we’ve ALWAYS heard about women’s ordination? Isn’t it amazing that it’s been called a “liberal” practice, a “work of the feminists,” but, yet, it was also a practice of the early church? Most of you, my readers, have probably never even read of something like this before. It seems that conservative Christians are not very aware of their church history; for, if they were, they wouldn’t make such claims about the practice of ordaining women. The fact that conservative Christians know very little of this information does not mean that it does not exist, or that Madigan’s and Osiek’s information is wrong—rather, it demonstrates an attempt to suppress the information.

I’ll cover the issue of women’s ordination in more detail in the months to come; for now, though, I’d like to recommend a book for all to read: the book is called “The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination” by Gary Macy. I will cover this book in the days to come so stick around.

Women Deacons In the West: Inscriptions

It’s now time for what I promised: that’s right—we’re now going to dive into the study of women deacons in the west. According to Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek,

“The Western epigraphical evidence for female deacons is slim, probably because of the vagaries of inscriptional survival, IN VIEW OF THE EFFORTS OF COUNCILS OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES TO ELIMINATE THEM…that so much effort was given to suppression has to indicate more of a custom than the few inscriptions and literary references reveal” (Madigan & Osiek, “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 143).

We have evidence from church councils that reveal women serving at the altar, a practice that most would consider today as being the role of the Pastor, elders, and deacons. The only way we know such practices existed is because church councils constantly wrote to forbid such practices (although many churches continued and pushed the patience of councils even further).

The first inscription comes from Rukuma in Africa Proconsularis. It is carved into a slab of limestone:

“Accepta the deacon[ess].”

According to Madigan and Osiek:

“This tomb inscription dates from the late sixth or early seventh century. All we know of Accepta is her name and her title. This is the only female deacon attested to in Africa” (page 143).

We only have one female deacon in Africa—but it is enough to alert us that, even in Africa, women deacons were present.

The next inscription comes from Rome and tells of a woman who made a vow:

“By the gift of God and of the Blessed Apostle Paul, Dometius the deacon and controller of the monies of the holy, apostolic and papal chair, together with ANNA THE DEACON[ESS], his sister offered this vow (hoc votum) to the blessed Paul.” (144)

We are told that both Dometius and his sister had a Latin abbreviation, “DIAC.” We know that Dometius was a deacon, but we are not so sure that Anna was a deacon. The reason is because the inscription is dated from the sixth century; and from the fifth century onward, the female title of “deaconess” was also in operation.

The next inscription is a sixth-century inscription from Doclea, Dalmatia:

“AUSONIA THE DEACON[ESS] (diac) for her vow and that of her children (filiorum).”

We are not sure how to translate this title, but it does tell us that the office of deacon for women also existed.

The last inscription comes from Ticini in St. Trinitas (Gaul):

“Here in peace rests the deaconess (diaconissa) Theodora of blessed memory, who lived in the world for about 48 years. She was buried here on July 22, 539.”

Madigan and Osiek give us an interesting note here about Theodora’s tomb inscription:

“Along with the several synodal and conciliar decrees from the fourth through sixth centuries, also translated in this collection, this inscription gives evidence for the existence and activity in Gaul of deaconesses, DESPITE THE ATTEMPTS OF THE COUNCILS TO ERADICATE THEM, LIMIT THEIR ACTIVITIES, OR FORBID THEIR ORDINATION. As this inscription demonstrates, THESE DECREES REMAINED AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE A DEAD LETTER” (144, 145).

I find it fascinating to think about church synods and councils issuing decrees against the ordination of women. Today’s conservative churches conduct themselves as if they have always held the orthodox position. However, the churches of ancient times allowed women to serve in leadership positions—against the personal beliefs of church councils and leadership. I don’t know what you think of all this, but it should seem strange that we have to go to tomb inscriptions and church documents forbidding such practices to be able to find them. What this reveals is that the practices of the ancient churches have been hidden because today’s churches deem women’s ordination to be “a black mark of the past” and choose not to talk about it.

What I want you, my readers, to do is to start showing these types of evidence to people around you who believe that women’s ordination has been unorthodox and heretical. If the churches believed what the councils did, why do ANY grave and tomb inscriptions exist? And, what’s worse, is that those who served on such councils got to see these inscriptions during their own lifetimes. The fact that these memorials were “tangible rebellions” against councils should make us question what we believe orthodoxy to be.

In my next post, I’ll start tackling church canons and church councils.

The Church Fathers on 1 Timothy 5:3-13

I’m here to supply more information from Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek’s book, called “Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History.”
1 Timothy 5:3-13—

“Honor widows who are really widows. If any widow has children or grandchildren let them first learn to honor those of their own house and to repay the services of their parents, for this is pleasing before God. But the true widow who has been left alone has hoped in God and remains in prayer and supplication night and day. But the one who continues in self-indulgence, has died while still alive. Commend these things so that they might turn out to be above reproach. But if anyone does not provide for one’s own and especially a member of one’s household, that one has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, has been married only once, is seen to have done good works, has raised children, provided hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, helped those in distress, and pursued every good work. But refuse younger widows, for whenever they may feel the impulse that alienates them from Christ, they want to marry. They incur judgment because they set aside their first faith. But at the same time, they also learn to be idle, running around to houses, not only idle but even gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not say.”

Madigan and Osiek:

“It seems that two different practices about widows are spoken of here. First, widows who truly have no means of family support should be maintained by the Church. Second, there are qualifications for being accepted into this group that imply further services: a successful career as wife and mother and proven ability to provide hospitality. Probably this is an early reference to what later develops in many places as an ‘order of widows,’ which served as the service organization of the early church, especially for works of charity to needy women and hospitality to visitors. Given average life expectancy in antiquity, sixty was an advanced age. The sharp words about widows as wandering gossips reflect the informal female communication network that functions in most traditional cultures, which men typically disdain because they are excluded from it. It will be a repeated stereotype in later literature” (21, 22).

I. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:9

“Above all, the Apostle believed he had designated the age which those to be received into the order of widows (in ordinem viduarum) ought to have attained. Some people, however, not considering his reasons for wanting to indicate this age, have wondered whether it was fitting that deaconesses (diaconissas) be ordained (ordinari) before this age” (Theodore, 22).

Madigan and Osiek:

“One is frustrated by this being translation from the Greek. Nonetheless, from what we know about widows and deaconesses from other texts, we can draw certain conclusions. First of all, Theodore (unlike for Epiphanius of Salamis), widows seem to be part of an ‘order’ and thus PART OF THE CLERGY. The same might be said of deaconesses. Indeed, they are ordained so far as Theodore sees it; this in fact corresponds to what was happening in the Eastern church from the fourth century on” (22).

II. Pelagius, Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:9

“He wanted such deaconesses to be chosen so that they might be examples of living for all.”

Madigan and Osiek:

“Here Pelagius identifies widows and deaconesses and sees their role as an exemplary one in the community” (22).

It is now at this time that I will supply the conclusion to our study of commentary on passages regarding women:

CONCLUSION
“Generally, wherever female deacons are already known and accepted, the biblical texts are read to support the practice that is already done. John Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theodore know and accept women deacons. The possible exception here is Origen, for it has been argued that, other than this passage, there is a total lack of evidence for women deacons in Egypt, and so he could not have been writing about the church of Alexandria. There is much more possibility that he knew the rise of the female diaconate in Caesarea, however or other places in his extensive travels. Be that as it may, he is the strongest to claim ‘apostolic authority’ for the institution. Pelagius knows of it, but only in the East, and seems neutral to it. But he conflates widows with deacons in 1 Timothy. Ambrosiaster, never known as someone favorable to women, prefers to put Romans 16 in a general framework of ministry, and resists the reading of women deacons in 1 Tim. 3:11. But the biblical texts are only the first step” (22, 23).

In my next post, I will start to tackle Women Deacons in the West. For those of us who inhabit Western Civilization, the upcoming work will be of monumental significance.