God’s Fellow Worker and Apostleship

by Mary Ann Getty

from Women Priests, Arlene Swidler & Leonard Swidler (eds.), Paulist Press 1977, pp. 176-182.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions

Mary Ann Getty, RSM, taught at Carlow College, Pittsburgh, Pa., where she was at the time the chairperson of the Theology Department. She received her S.T.L. and S.T.D., with a specialization in New Testament, from the University of Louvain, has taught in women’s studies programs and lectured throughout the U.S. on the ordination of women and women in ministry.

Both the Vatican Declaration and the official Commentary on the Declaration refer to the fact that Paul includes women when he refers to the ministers of the gospel.(1) The Declaration concedes that Paul mentions the work of many women for whom he is particularly grateful; it further concurs that certain women “worked with the Apostle” and had “important influence on conversions.”(2) Scholars have studied the implications of Paul’s reference to women as disciples, deacons, prophets and even apostles.(3) Therefore it comes as a surprise that the Declaration and Commentary would single out the unusual phrases “God’s fellow worker” (synergos Theou) and “my fellow worker” (synergos moi), and postulate a highly significant but obscure and questionable distinction between these as providing the basis for “official” apostolic ministry;(4) it is a further widening of a credibility gap that this distinction would be given gospel value. The expression “God’s fellow worker” appears for certain only once, twice at the most.(5) Emphasizing Paul’s restriction of this phrase to men runs the risk of leading the reader to believe that a deliberate attempt is being made to exclude women from accepting their apostolic responsibility.

A variety of terms are used in the New Testament to describe the ministers of the gospel. The Declaration contends that Paul did not portray women as fulfilling a properly apostolic role, since he distinguishes between “God’s” and “my” fellow workers and in so doing refrains from extending women’s role to “the official and public proclamation of the [Resurrection] message, since this proclamation belongs exclusively to the apostolic mission.” Study of the term “fellow worker” modified by “God’s” or “my” does not support such a contention; certainly it does not seem to be Paul’s intent to make such a rigid distinction. Further, it is not at all clear how such a firm distinction can be made between “official and public proclamation” and the service of the gospel rendered by women such as Paul does explicitly describe.(6) This is particularly true in the early Church when there were no clear and distinct offices or ministries and where the concept of roles and functions was very fluid. Further, when Paul speaks of the Resurrection appearances in 1Cor 15:5-10, it is not certain that he excludes women; it is therefore questionable that women did not and cannot “officially” proclaim the Resurrection. We must therefore study the term “fellow worker” in order to ascertain what possible bearing this term could have on defining the apostolic mission, or what relationship this term has with the proclamation of the Resurrection. Further we will offer some reflections on Paul’s description of the much more important role of the apostle.

It is important to realize that our present form of priestly ministry seeks to find its origins in the Scriptures, especially the New Testament. One problem in doing this is that no one office or title in the New Testament subsumes all the forms we have traditionally connected with the, priesthood.(7) Only later did the Church try to collect all the functions described in the various New Testament terms under the general heading “Priest” (hierus). The term “priest” (hierus) is not used in the New Testament of any individual Christian, although it is used to describe the priesthood of all believers and the priesthood of Christ which replaces all human priesthoods.(8) This is not to say that the notion, practice and sacrament of priestly ministry are not present in the New Testament. It should, however, be emphasized that the notion of ministry and priesthood was expressed in a variety of terms, among which “God’s fellow worker” is hardly the most significant.

The term “fellow worker” (synergos) is unusual in both the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament and the New Testament. It appears in the Septuagint only in 2 Macc. 8:7 and 14:5, meaning “favorable opportunities.” In the New Testament, outside of Paul, the term occurs only in 3 Jn 8. In Paul it occurs ten times: with “God’s” (1Cor 3:9, but compare 1Thess 3:2), with “my” (Rom 16:3, 21; Philem 24; Phil 4:3) or “our” (Rom 16:9; Philem l; cf. 2 Cor 8:23) and with a thing (2 Cor 1:24; Col 4:11). The position adopted by the Declaration implies that Paul intended a substantial difference of function, office and authority by these different modifiers. It would not be possible to substantiate these differences, especially since the term itself is so rare.

The only certain instance of the use of “God’s fellow worker” is in 1Cor 3:9. The meaning of this phrase is best explained by its context. Paul is attacking the factions and party strife in Corinth. The community was being fragmented because some Christians were saying, “I belong to Paul,” while others retorted, “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas” or “I belong to Christ” (1:12). Jealousy and competition threatened to divide and destroy the community. In 3:1-15, Paul emphasizes the unity of purpose of his own and Apollos’ work. Paul makes a friendly gesture toward Apollos since it appears that rivalry among their respective followers has put the work and the fruits of the work of them both in a doubtful light. In effect, Paul wants to stress it is God who calls all Christian ministers and all are doing God’s, not human, works. The gospel is the power of God (1:8), and those entrusted to preach it are not to be thought of as competitors and rivals, but as bearers of a divine message charged with divine power. Paul uses the phrase “God’s fellow worker” in order to give more authority to the common ministry shared by Apollos and himself, since this commonality is the aspect of the ministry that is under attack. Paul is obviously not trying to specify a title applicable only to Apollos and himself as men.

The nearest parallel to this expression in 1Cor. 3:9 is found in 2 Cor. 6:1 where Paul refers to the whole Corinthian community who are “working together with God.”(9) It is clear from this passage that in so referring to the Christians at Corinth, Paul is not trying to exclude the women. The authors of the Declaration seem to be aware of the questionable reading of 1 Thess 3:2, since they do not refer to it as a strict parallel to 1 Cor 3:9 but as a verse to be compared.(10) There Timothy is called Paul’s brother and God’s “servant” or “fellow worker,” in a passage implying that, as Paul’s messenger to the community, Timothy had the same authority as Paul claimed for himself. The context explains the expression; especially in the light of the questionable reading of this verse, it is hard to demonstrate that Paul uses any more of a technical, exclusive phrase than he does in 2 Cor 6:1.

The Declaration’s distinction between “God’s fellow workers” and “my fellow workers” cannot be substantiated. It can be noted that the phrase “my fellow workers” appears most frequently in the context of the general community, which undoubtedly was made up of men and women; it sometimes refers only to men and sometimes includes women who are named. There is no legitimate conclusion that can be drawn along sexual lines as to the meaning of the phrase. The expression represents Paul’s more usual designation of his own and the community’s respective roles in the ministry; “my fellow worker(s)” appears wherever there is not a more fundamental problem of jealousy or competition such as we see in first Corinthians.

Further, it is difficult to accept a firm and distinct connection between the phrase “God’s fellow worker” and the “official and public proclamation” of the Resurrection, a connection suggested by the juxtaposition of sentences about these in the Declaration. Although Paul calls Apollos (1 Cor 3:9) and possibly Timothy (1 Thess 3:2) “God’s fellow workers,” he does not mention a Resurrection appearance to either of these men. In fact, if we are to assume that only those Paul designates as synergos theou bear the authority of the apostolic mission, then the ministers of the gospel are quite limited in numbers indeed.

It is true that Paul does not explicitly mention the Resurrection appearances to the women nor the important role the women played in announcing the Resurrection to the male disciples as all four gospels report. But we cannot conclude from this that Paul meant to exclude women’s testimony from the “official and public proclamation” and consider it non-official and private. Paul’s intention in 1 Cor 15:5-10 is not to give a narrative account nor an exhaustive listing of the Resurrection appearances. If it were, what could we say about John’s reliability in the account of Thomas’ absence (Jn 20:24) and Jesus’ return for his sake, for example? Paul’s concern in the very important chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 explains why he is selective in his references to the Lord’s appearances; Paul is defending his own authority. It is the fact that he has seen the Lord himself that grounds his mission to preach, however officially and publicly. Since he does not dispute the gospels’ testimony about the appearances to the women, but merely tries to justify his own right to proclaim the Resurrection, we have no basis for thinking that Paul meant to exclude the women’s testimony as less than official. When Paul says that the Lord appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to more than five hundred, to James, to all the apostles and finally to Paul himself, he is not excluding anyone but identifying the source of his own authority. Since even before the other apostles, Paul considers himself an apostle, it is not likely that he would put himself in a separate category in 15:8 if his own authority were not the matter in question. Perhaps the appearances to the women were taken for granted and therefore it was not necessary to mention them! In any case, why exclude them from the categories of the “more than five hundred” and “all the apostles,” since women count and one, at least, is called an apostle explicitly by Paul in Rom. 16:7?"

The term “apostle” is rightly considered one of the most significant New Testament terms that provides a basis and model for the Church’s concept of priestly ministry. (It is certainly far more important than “God’s fellow worker,” for instance.) While the Gospels often use the term “disciple” to describe the role of Christ’s followers, the epistles’ frequent use of “apostle” provides us with one of the earliest and broadest understandings of the Christian ministers of the Gospel. We must therefore examine briefly this term “apostle” in Paul, who originally used it and most aptly described it in reference to his own work in proclaiming the gospel, in order to ascertain if women were excluded from this office by its nature or whether women could have been or actually were included in the apostolic ministry. This will enable us to determine whether there is anything in the attitude or practice of Paul which would be normative for either excluding or including women in the apostolic ministry or in the vocation we know today as the priesthood.

According to Paul, who was, of course, the first to use the term “apostle” and to vehemently defend his own right to be called an apostle, the missionary connotation is key to its understanding. After the model of Christ, the apostle leads a life of service for others. Although the Gospels hint that the disciples were sent forth during Jesus’ earthly ministry (Mk 6:7ff.; Mt 10:17-18; Lk 9-10), the definitive “sending forth” that constituted apostleship came after the Resurrection.(12) The apostolic command is given after the Resurrection in the Gospels (Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47-48; Jn 20:21; Markan Appendix, 16:15). However, the New Testament is generally silent about the apostolate of the Twelve, and consequently the paradigm for the apostle is Paul, who was not one of the Twelve nor even a disciple of Jesus during his ministry. This distinction helps to show that the disciple, the Twelve and the apostle had separate roles in the early Church’s understanding.

The Pauline definition of apostle does not indicate that women were not given the apostolic charge. Three main ideas surface in studying Paul’s presentation of the role of the apostle: the apostle is called to preach, the apostle founds, forms and cares for the community, and the apostle is responsible for the church at large.(13)

The first characteristic of the apostle is service to Jesus Christ who sets the apostle apart to preach the gospel, especially the Resurrection. We have already tried to show that this function does not exclude women.

Secondly, the apostle is sent not to baptize but to establish, form and care for the local communities. In nurturing the communities and while describing himself as a “nurse” or a mother “feeding her young children milk” (1 Cor 3:lff.) and experiencing labor pains until “Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19), Paul points out some of the less obvious but perhaps more provocative aspects of his apostolic ministry. These include the service of ordinary work, the service of prayer and the service of suffering (14) none of these ministries is outside of women’s actual experience.

Thirdly, the apostle is responsible for the pastoral care and nurturing not only of the local community but also of the Church at large. Paul’s zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles did not put him out of touch with the Jewish Christian Church in Jerusalem. This is one of the more pertinent dimensions of the apostleship that can enlighten our own dilemma today, one which the official Commentary on the Declaration itself admits. We are involved in a controversy over a question analogous to the one that existed in the Pauline churches. The Jewish Christian leaders at Jerusalem wondered how and with what qualifications the Gentiles could receive Baptism. The Roman-Christian leaders at the Vatican now wonder how and with what qualifications women can receive Orders. The Gentiles’ entrance into the Church perhaps presented an even more serious dilemma and conflict in the early Church than the problem of the ordination of women does today. It threatened the very existence and life of the Church and of every single Christian. It went way beyond a discussion between Peter and Paul. Further, Peter’s followers could have claimed to have a “natural resemblance” to Jesus who was circumcized; the Gentiles were not. In fact, some of the major New Testament writings, especially Galatians and Romans, address this very question. Jesus had not, after all, given clear directions for the admission of the Gentiles; where did the Church receive its authority to interpret Jesus’ mind on this subject and admit Gentiles with a minimum of requirements (Acts 15:1-29)?

Both the Declaration and its Commentary testify to the timeliness of addressing this question of the ordination of women which has become “pressing” only in our day. These documents admit that until now the Vatican has not been forced to address this matter. The fact that the Vatican now feels required to face the question demonstrates that, in fact, women are exercising responsibility to and for the Church at large by bringing the question before the authorities, a responsibility that properly belongs to the apostolic charge.

Conclusion

Our conclusion may be simply summarized. No clear or significant distinction can be made between “God’s fellow workers” and “my fellow workers.” In fact, it might seem to many that the more significant term for the apostolate of the Church is the term “my” (or “our”) fellow workers, since this refers to the ministry of all the members rather than of a few individuals (three, to be exact).(15) In any case, the term had no longevity; it is not a significant one to represent ministry, and there is nothing to support the argument that only those who are designated “God’s fellow workers” have the authority to officially and publicly proclaim the gospel. Further, this term has little bearing on the properly apostolic ministry which women indeed seem to have performed in the early Church and which they continue to perform today as they contribute to and enrich our understanding of the far more important notion of apostleship as a model for priestly ministry.

Notes

1. Declaration, par. 16; Commentary, par. 23.

2. Declaration, par. 16; Commentary, par. 23.

3. For example, see E. Fiorenza, “Women Apostles: The Testament of Scripture,” in Women and Catholic Priesthood: An Expanded Vision. Proceedings of the Detroit Ordination Conference, ed. by A.M. Gardiner (New York: Paulist Press 1976), p. 96; A. Lemaire, “The Ministries in the New Testament, Recent Research,” Theological Bulletin. Vol. 3 (1973), pp. 133-166; D. Senior, Jesus, A Gospel Portrait (Dayton: Pflaum Publishing, 1975), pp. 51-82; R. Brown, “Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel,” Theological Studies, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 688-699; E. Carroll, “Women and Ministry,” Theological Studies Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 660-688.

4. This distinction of dubious significance and even validity, is made by I. De la Potterie, Titres missionaires du chretien dans le Nouveau Testament (Rapports de la XXXIeme semaine de Missiologie, Louvain, 1966), Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1966), pp. 44-45.

5. 1 Cor 3:9; cf. 1 Thess 3:2.

6. The Declaration mentions the ministries of Priscilla, Lydia and Phoebe, noting that these show “. . . a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women” (par. 16). It would be hard to determine for certain that, in fact, no ordination was conferred, and even more difficult to ascertain that the question was never even raised. The Statement of the Biblical Commission that “some women collaborated in the properly apostolic work” seems to be more honest and to the point. The Commission further says that in speaking about women, Paul “insists on specifying that they have tired themselves for the community, using a Greek verb (kopian) most often used for the work of evangelization properly so called” (Part III).

7. Cf. R. Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (New York: Paulist Press, 1970).

8. Ibid., p. 13.

9. Cf. A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1912), p. 58.

10. The reading of 1 Thess 3:2 is disputed: the main questions are whether synergon or diakonon should be read and whether tou theou should be dropped. Some substitute diakonon for synergon while others have the conflated reading kai diakonon tou theou kai synergon emon.

11. There is no reason to substitute a masculine form for the feminine name Junia in Rom 16:7, as E.Fiorenza points out. This is one instance where a woman is explicitly called an apostle. Fiorenza, op. cit., p. 96; see also the Statement of the Biblical Commission, Part 111; see also in this volume, pp. 141-144.

12. Brown, Priest and Bishop, p. 27.

13. Ibid., pp.26-34.

14. Ibid., pp. 29-34.

15. I.e., Paul, Apollos, Timothy.

Public Relations Officer

Administrational Assistant

Academic Project Manager

Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!