Responsive image
Nederlands/Vlaams Deutsch Francais English language Spanish language Portuguese language Catalan Chinese Czech Malayalam Finnish Igbo
Japanese Korean Romanian Malay language Norwegian Swedish Polish Swahili Chichewa Tagalog Urdu
Letter to Women


The Relation of Gender to Participation in Cult:

Biblical Imperatives and Models pp. 227 - 238

From The Female Experience and the Nature of The Divine
by Judith Ochshorn Published by theIndiana University Press 1981
and reproduced here with the usual permissions

Much of the recent controversy over the ordination of women has been grounded in differing interpretations of relevant sections of the Bible as well as later biblical commentaries and the historic practices ofjudaism and Christianity. With regard to the Bible, the same passages not infrequently serve as the basis for widely diver- gent conclusions depending, for example, on how much weight is given to the historical and sociological contexts out of which these passages emerged; the particular interpretations of the nature and order of creation in Genesis and what they might signify; the probable intention and meaning assigned to the Pauline statements on the silence of women in churches and the deference of women to their husbands; the various concepts of the term "ministry" itself; and the more general problem of determining precisely what represents divine law as different from human preference and tradition. Perhaps the salient impression yielded from these extensive discussions of Scripture is the inconclusiveness of the evidence for both supporters and opponents of the ordination of women.

It may be that part of the difficulty stems from those portions of the biblical narratives which exhibit the same profound ambivalence toward women as participants and leaders in cult as was apparent in some of the passages that describe divine-human interactions or that establish appropriate sex roles within those interactions in the reli- gious community. As has been seen, the greater responsibility of women for performing economically productive labor and providing for the very material care of the young and the greater preoccupation of men with moral and spiritual concerns—in the context of religions centered on those very concerns—in themselves established different positions for women and men in cult. In addition to those discussed earlier, there are still other biblical narratives that bear on the involvement and status of women in the ritual life of the commu- nity. Despite the many ways in which women are shown as essential to the fulfillment of the divine covenant, and despite the many roles they play in both testaments, as different from the outlook prevalent in polytheistic religions, women in the Bible are ultimately portrayed as less important than men in cult. But even their lesser importance is surrounded with ambiguities.

Some Sources of Ambivalence toward Women in Cult

There are three powerful indications that God intended women to participate fully in cult. In the Old Testament, women as well as men are subjected to divine punishments in this world for transgressions of divine commandments. In the New Testament, divine compassion and grace are extended, less differentially with regard to gender, to women as well as men. In both testaments, final judgment is a prospect faced by all people. At the same time, greater power, autonomy, and influence in the human community are linked with maleness rather than with femaleness. Above all, there is a linkage of negative and even sinful connotations with women's normal biological functioning, or of ritual impurity and "uncleanness" with female sexuality and its issue. And there is a strong suggestion that women are somehow viewed as dispensable to cultic life.

This ambivalence seems to derive, in part, from the representa- tion of the single deity as operantly male in some of the narratives. However, as argued earlier, its deeper source would appear to lie in the emergence of gender itself as a far more fundamental, value-laden epistemological category in biblical than in polytheistic texts, under- pinning many of the portrayals of the divine and the network of divine- human affiliations. In a literature whose doctrines rest so heavily on the moral and spiritual accountability of the individual and the community to the divine, distinctions drawn along sexual lines, in which women are shown as suffering somewhat lesser moral and spiritual capacities than men, would seem to have located women as a sex in a position of existential marginality and "otherness" in many of their interactions with divinity. In short, these kinds of descriptions of women's proper place in the community of believers would seem to imply not only a different but a diminished status for them in cult as com- pared to men.

Male Primacy in the Old Testament

In the Old Testament, the belief in the "naturalness" of greater male than female participation in cult was represented as sanctified by divine law and embodied in the secular community by the creation of a male priesthood. Descending through the sons of Aaron, it probably marked the symbolic consecration of the firstborn male children to God after they were spared in Egypt prior to the exodus, and it was reflected and reinforced by the male leadership of the tribes of Israel. The virtual monopoly of cultic leadership by men from the time of Moses on was accompanied by an attitude toward most women as not only subordinate to men but even sometimes dangerous to their dedication to righteousness, while there is no comparable portrayal of men's danger to women.

Indeed, the correlation of ritual uncleanness with female sexuality was seen as overridingly important. For instance, three months after Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt, God establishes a covenant with them, establishing them as a nation. He tells the Hebrews: "you shall be my own possession among all peoples" (Exod. 19:5) and designates them as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exod. 19:6). Before he gives Moses the Ten Commandments, God tells him that he will descend in a "thick cloud" and speak to him before all the people so they will believe in Moses and his divinely inspired laws forever. Moses sanctifies the Hebrews for this solemn and sacramental occasion and instructs them to wash their clothes, or purify themselves (Exod. 19:9-10). However, this message relayed from God is directed toward only the male Israelites. In preparation for the Lord's coming, Moses says to them: "Be ready by the third day: do not go near a woman " (Exod. 19:15—italics mine).

The rituals surrounding sacerdotal offices in ancient Israel most especially stressed the necessity for cleanness or purity, in people and even in every physical element involved in worship and sacrifice (Lev. 22:3, 6, 7, 9; Num. 19, 20). Therefore, from the time of Solomon until the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E., when holiness rested on purity, women, as already seen, were recurrently excluded from access to the sanctuary at regular intervals during their entire adulthood, since menstruation and childbirth rendered them unclean, or unsuitable for full participation in sacred rites, or "unholy."

In addition, women shared with men the intermittent states of uncleanness resulting from sexual activity or disease, which also barred them from worship (Lev. 22:3-7; Num. 19:20-22; Deut. 23:10). But these states were the result of choice, were sporadic or sometimes amenable to cure, and in any case were not as deeply rooted in the inevitable bodily processes of either sex. In other words, the normal physiological functions of only women made them unclean or unholy. They remained in that condition for a longer time than men, or were excluded from participation in cultic rites more often and for longer periods of time than men, and this exclusion was based solely on their sex.

In fact, as different from men, women were seen as threatening God's sanctuary with periodic defilement by their mere physical presence for about as long as they lived. The gravity of this threat, once holiness came to be centered in the temple at Jerusalem, may be gauged by the following assessment by Pedersen:

All depended on holiness, therefore an infringement of it was always so dangerous a transgression that the sinner must be exterminated. This applied not only to the person who desecrated Yahweh's name and made his holiness unclean by a non-Israelitish cult (Lev. 20, I ff.); but also to any one who entered the sanctuary or touched the sacred things in an unclean state (Lev. 22, 3:9; Num. 19, 20).(1)

From early times, the "maintainers" of the religious community of Israel were the priests, prophets, and chieftains, whose roles were sometimes interchangeable and overlapping. All of them were to be pervaded by holiness. For a considerable period, this latter requirement virtually closed off access to commanding positions in cult for women. If the power of the priest, as servant of the temple, resided in his ability to obtain guidance for Israel from Yahweh through oracles,(2) that power became automatically denied to all women, since they were regularly prohibited from entering the Sanctuary or handling the sacred objects because of their recurrent uncleanness (Lev. 23:3, 6, 7; Num. 19, 20).

Most frequently, women are not pictured as pure for their own sakes, but are almost objectified and used as points of reference to ascertain the purity of those men who played crucial roles in cultic life. For instance, there was a requirement of absolute purity for Israelite warriors, superseding that required for the community at large. One of the ways for them to attain this state of purity was to abstain from sexual intercourse with women, as when King David and his men kept away from women "as always" while on an expedition, and therefore were permitted by the priest to eat "holy" bread (1 Sam. 21:3-6).

In like fashion, in order to sustain his purity, a priest of Israel was forbidden to "take" a harlot, a "profaned" woman, or a divorced woman, "for he is holy unto his God" (Lev. 21:7), and those three states were typically dishonorable ones for women. Indeed, there are no really comparable states of purity for women that are defined by their abstinence from sexual intercourse with men or by prohibitions of marriages with promiscuous or divorced men. Promiscuity and divorce did not dishonor men, nor were women perceived as capable of "taking" a man, except to endanger his righteousness if she were betrothed or married. There is only slight reference to the holiness of women, and purity or holiness was possible for men only if they refrained from sexual contact either with all women or with "dishonored" women.

Male Primacy in the New Testament

In the New Testament, the restrictions placed on women by the law with respect to their participation in cult are, of course, not repeated. However, the New Testament's silence on the subject of ritual un- cleanness in women on account of their biology is not very promising when considered alongside the elimination of mandatory circumcision for men as a sign of special dedication to God. Moreover, if early Christian worship was accessible to women as well as men, its two basic rituals, Baptism and the Eucharist, are replete with masculine references.

Baptism was initially associated with John, and both the Eucharist and the Lord's Supper commemorate and celebrate stages in the life and redemptive mission of the son of God, whose paternity was under- stood by his followers as the source of Jesus' power and truth. Cer- tainly the main actors and authors of the New Testament are male, as are those who stand closest to Jesus as active agents of his ministry. Though women, as we have seen, do minister to Jesus in a physical way, and are shown as active in the episodes of his life and in the spread of his teachings after his death, he chooses his own closest disciples. And though women undoubtedly participated in early Christian cult, as in the Old Testament, the most significant leadership positions are occupied by men.

Though many women are named in the New Testament, with the exception of a handful like Dorcas and Priscilla, it is not entirely clear from the text what their roles were in the early church. Also, there are no individual portrayals of strong women like Deborah who assume positions of cultic leadership among the early Christians or initiate any really momentous doctrinal issues or ritual practices. While this is purely speculative to be sure, one sometimes suspects from the em- phasis placed on conversion, or the need for early Christianity to greatly multiply its followers if it were to survive as more than a small Jewish sect, that there may have been a hidden, if unconscious, agenda with regard to women.

If the appeals to follow the spiritual life seem to have been more consonant with the lives of men and older women, it may be that younger women were valued for quite other activities, namely their ability to bear Christian babies. Just as Jesus did not address the social inequalities of the sexes within marriage in his own time, so Paul's doctrine of equality for all persons in Christ in Gal. 3:28 did not seem necessarily applicable to this world. Indeed, the very next verse reiterates God's covenant with Abraham, not Sarah or Hagar. Hence, while the issue of women as leaders of the religious community is not raised, the model of leadership is predominantly male.

Unquestionably, there are great differences in content and outlook between the Old Testament and the New. However, there are a number of fundamental continuities and shared views as well. For example, there are many references in the New Testament back to the Old, to the writings of some of the prophets and the story of creation, and it seems anything but arbitrary that the New Testament opens with the tracing of Joseph's ancestry back to Abraham. Further, there is the same general concern in both testaments for the oppressed, although it seems to shift somewhat from the moral responsibility of the community to provide them with material support in the Old, to the mitigation of suffering by divine grace in the New. These shared views are substantial in yet another area, and that is the attitude toward men as far more irreplaceable and indispensable to the perpetuation of cult than women.

The Dispensability of Women in Cult: The Old Testament

In the Old Testament, actual human sacrifice as practiced by Hebrews is only rarely mentioned, though child-sacrifice is vigorously condemned by many of the prophets. If one compares the fate of Abraham's son, Isaac, and Jephthah's daughter, who is not even dignified by a name of her own but is described only as her father's daughter and a virgin (with no allusion to her mother), what becomes starkly evident is the depth of Old Testament distinctions based on sex, and how much more importance is attached to males than to females in ancient Israelite religion.

Both Isaac and Jephthah's daughter are demanded as human sacrifices by God, in the instance of Isaac because God was testing the strength of Abraham's faith, in the instance of Jephthah's daughter because her father wanted to win his war with the Ammonites and made a vow to God: "If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering" (Judg. 11:30).

Jephthah is victorious, and his daughter comes out to meet him "with timbrels and with dances" (judg. 11:34), obviously overjoyed to see him. He is greatly distressed, but is also almost accusatory in his first words to her, as if she were responsible for his awful oath and her impending death. He says: "Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me/ for I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow" (Judg. 11:35 —italics mine).

With fitting docility, and primary concern for Jephthah's triumph and welfare, his daughter replies: "My father, if you have opened your mouth to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone forth from your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites" (Judg. 11:36). Her only request is that she be permitted two months respite to wander in the mountains with her companions, not to mourn her imminent death, but to "bewail my virginity" (Judg. 11:37).

At the end of that time she returns to her father, "who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man" (Judg. 11:39). There is no mention of Jephthah's grief over her sacrifice, no mention of any possible conflict between his feelings for his daughter and his vow to God, but only: "And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year" (Judg. 11:39- 40).

Several things ought to be noted here. There are other accounts of Hebrew kings, for instance Ahaz and Manasseh, who burned their sons as offerings to God (2 Kings 16:3, 21:6). But they are both described as idolaters and abominable in the sight of God. While Jephthah is no Abraham, he is sought out by the male elders to lead the Gileadites in their war against the Ammonites (Judg. 11:4-11). Jephthah responds to their request when he speaks "all his words before the Lord at Mizpah" (Judg. 11:11). He is portrayed as wise and statesmanlike when he communicates with the Ammonites and attempts to avert a war by establishing the legitimacy of Gilead's claim to the land (Judg. 11:12-27). He is backed by God in his struggle—"the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah" (Judg. 11:29)—and he therefore fights a holy war. After his daughter's death, he judges Israel for six years, until his own (Judg. 12:7), and, at least by the time of Moses, the administration of justice apparently was regarded as a religious rather than a civil function.(3)

In sum, unlike Ahaz and Manasseh, Jephthah is not pictured as evil, defiling the Lord and the land or reverting to other religious practices, but is shown instead as a divinely sanctioned leader and judge of Israel, functioning in a cultic role. And his sacrifice of his daughter to God passes almost without comment, except from the other daughters and virgins of Israel.

Furthermore, Abraham's son is named, but Jephthah's daughter is identified only as a virgin. It goes without saying that the issue of Isaac's virginity, or lack of it, is not an issue and is irrelevant. Isaac questions his father about the nature of the sacrifice to be offered when he sees the fire and the wood (Gen. 22:7), but Jephthah's daughter never questions anything about the pact between God and her father, to be paid for with her life. While an animal is used as a surrogate sacrifice for Isaac at the very last moment, Jephthah's daughter is herself sacrificed, even though two months are available in which to locate (or plead for) a substitute.

In these episodes, Isaac was viewed as indispensable to God's intention to multiply greatly the seed of Abraham through the male line, but apparently Jephthah's daughter was seen as dispensable and replaceable in the light of that intention, since any virgin could fulfill that purpose. Well might the daughters of Israel have engaged in annual lamentations over her death, for her anonymity, virginity, and importance only as the instrument of sealing her father's vow to God may as easily have defined their own subordinate status in life and in cult.

Again, it should be pointed out that the book of Judges recounts the events of a chaotic time of instability and warfare, when Israel is often shown as sinning. But yet again, there is the portrayal of God's complicity in both the victory of Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter, and Jephthah was rewarded for his actions by becoming a judge of Israel. What emerges from these narratives, then, is the char­acterization of God as far more concerned about the survival of males like Abraham, Isaac, and Jephthah, and the retention of the land won from the Ammonites for the use of their religious community, than for the survival of females because of their importance in cult. For if women were in short supply to guarantee the proliferation of Abraham's seed, they could always be replenished by anonymous virgins captured by force, as in Jabeshgilead or Shiloh.

The Enigma of Mary in the New Testament

In the New Testament, despite much evidence for the inclusion of women as followers of Jesus, and the apparent sense of ease with which women as well as men were employed to spread his word after his death and resurrection, the same motif of women's marginal role in early cult reappears. The paramount example has to do with the lack of prominence of the mother ofjesus. Extending far beyond the surfeit of designations of Jesus as the Son of man (John 6:27), not woman, or the Son of His Father, or the Son of God, is his fairly consistent treatment of Mary as unimportant.

In one view, Jesus' transformation of water into wine during his attendance at the marriage at Cana had profound sacramental significance because it helped to establish the basis for the Eucharist.(4) But in this foreshadowing, symbolic setting, when Mary simply tells Jesus that the wine is gone, his response is: "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4). And typical of her passivity and belief in him, Mary tells the servants: "Do whatever he tells you" (John 2:5).

It has been maintained by some that the reason Jesus spoke to Mary in this way at that particular juncture in his life is that she did not yet understand the full meaning of what was happening. For instance, Oscar Cullmann writes:

Since Jesus' mother cannot yet grasp this sense of the miracle, he says to her . . . 'Woman what have I to do with thee.'(5) That would then mean: you still share the Jewish conception of glorification. My Messiahship is given me by God, my hour is not yet come, when water shall be turned into wine, namely the hour of my death, when on the Cross the foundation will be laid for the Eucharist. The wine is a pointer to the wine of the Lord's Supper, i.e., the blood, which Christ shed for the forgiveness of sins.(6)

All of this may be true. Perhaps Mary did not yet comprehend the true nature of his mission, or the connection of the miracle at Cana with the stages of his life in their full sacramental meaning. But it is frequently the case that neither did his apostles or many others he came into contact with, and Jesus responds to them in a variety of ways —with patience, anger, instruction, and allusions to events yet to come, of which they can have no foreknowledge. It is rare that he tells anyone he has nothing to do with them, since his mission embraces all people. However, it is precisely the kind of language he uses to his mother, as different from other people, which is the crux of the matter, regardless of which translation is looked at, viz., "what have you to do with me?" or "what have I to do with thee?"

For what is finally so unsettling is that Mary, as his mother, is absolutely indispensable to his redemptive mission. While Jesus is identified by others, over and over, as the Son of his Father, it cannot be overemphasized that the accomplishment of his destiny as the saviour of humanity was made to depend upon his suffering, death, and resurrection in the flesh, or his filial relation to Mary. From the perspective of early Christian worship, his mission was seen as resting on the fact that, at one and the same time, he was to be the risen Christ present in a spiritual sense to his body, the Christian Church, during its celebration of the Lord's Supper and, projected backward, the mortal son of Mary as well, who was to be crucified and resurrected in the body. Indeed, the magnitude of the sacramental ramifications of his mortality, or his "coming" as the son of Mary, is consistent with the internal evidence in Scripture as well as later interpretations.

The centrality of Mary's role is attested in later times under a wide variety of historical circumstances. She quickly attained great prominence in Eastern Christian worship. Indeed, some of the most misogy- nistic of the early Church Fathers attached such importance to her act of maternity that they not only exalted her as an ideal but actually believed that by her Virgin Birth alone she enabled the redemption of all other women, in their views, all the daughters of Eve. Some claim that she was used as a bridge in the conversion of the Northern European polytheistic tribes to Christianity, by an association of Mary with their own goddesses, at a time when the notion of a masculinized deity that excluded the feminine was too alien. By the late Middle Ages, people in Western Europe built magnificent cathedrals and sanctuaries in her honor, and medieval troops went into battle and faced death shouting, "In the name of Our Lady."

During this time, she was seen as the gentle intermediary for human sinners, who interceded on their behalf with what was seen as an essentially abstract and judgmental male God, and as a counter-force to the open corruption and worldliness rampant among male officials of the church, even in the highest places. For instance, Jacob Burckhardt tells us that during the Italian Renaissance, when disillusionment with this process of clerical secularization seems to have been widespread, every peasant hut in Italy was adorned with a picture of Mary, not Jesus. And in our own time, the Catholic church has promulgated the doctrine of the assumption of Mary to the side of God and Christ.

But in the New Testament itself, it is almost unaccountable how Mary fades into near-invisibility during the ministry of Jesus. In his public repudiation of her specifically as his earthly mother in favor of his heavenly father, her role seems to be reduced by him to utter insignificance. In such a climate of opinion, it is not surprising that, despite the fact that Joseph plays no part in the Virgin Birth, Philip identifies Jesus in the following manner: "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph " (John 1:45 - italics mine). And if even Mary was viewed by Jesus, his apostles, and disciples as fairly inconsequential, what does this say about the importance of all other women as participants in cult?

The Lesser Importance of Women in Cult:
Ambivalence toward Women

Throughout both testaments, men seem to appear in the foreground of the religious community as the more powerful authorities on divine law, more frequent judges of human behavior, and more authentic spokesmen for divinity. Women recede, either fixed forever by their periodic (and normal) "impurity" in the body to a position of lesser participation than men in cult, or seen as dispensable to cult, or discounted in their normal bodily functions even when their maternity was of utmost importance in the development of cult. By an emphasis on women's physical nature, and an assessment of them as either unclean or only minimally important, the biblical image of women's involvement in cultic rituals emerges as seemingly more trivial, restricted, and marginal than that of men.

This view of women as generally more dispensable and less important than men in assuring the continuity and victory of monotheism over competing religions in its environment is augmented by the relative absence of biblical women from positions of leadership in the ritual life of the community. While there is no absolute prohibition of the latter, even if the priests of Israel and the apostles of Jesus are male, there is also an overwhelming preponderance of men who serve both their God and their people as elders, judges, prophets, rulers, warriors, priests, apostles, proselytizers, and saviors, in short, as leaders in the many-faceted existence of the cult. Women like Deborah, Jael, Chuldah, Dorcas, and Priscilla may appear as possible female counterparts, but their rarity in comparison to the number of men in parallel roles, and the lack of evidence for female authorship of any part of the Bible, suggest the probability that women's contributions and influence in the development and maintenance of biblical doctrines and sacred rites were fairly scant.

It may be argued that there was, in fact, no male prophet like Moses who spoke "mouth to mouth" with God, just as there was no male savior like Jesus, and that both were unique. However, this contention does not speak to the fact that both were conceived of as male in the body, and therefore most likely acted on the imaginations of people in ways that were quite different from either the personification of Wisdom as female, or the portrayal of Mary's major importance in cult as the physical mother of Jesus.

Unlike Wisdom, both Moses and Jesus are incontestably mortal. They are born, struggle, suffer, get angry, show love, are wise, and die as men. Unlike Mary, the range of their activities and impact, either as judge and transmitter of the law, or as embodiment of divinity and transmitter of the New Covenant, extend far beyond the ramifications of physical fatherhood. There are many areas of possible identification with these two unique males available for men, and far fewer available for women. For example, when Moses is overburdened with his labor as a judge of Israel, he delegates much of this responsibility to other men (Exod. 18:13-26). Likewise, throughout the Gospels, Jesus is assisted primarily by male apostles in the dissemination of his message.

In terms of their involvement in the sacred rituals of the community, in the absence of many strong female role models in the Bible, the choices for women seem to have been different and more restricted than those for men. They might aspire to emulate Mary in her motherhood, for lack of any other particularly distinctive feature about her in the New Testament. They might proclaim themselves prophets like Chuldah and Noadiah, but the prophetic literature was all written by men. They might try to be as earthshakingly beautiful as Esther and Judith, or as devoted to their mothers-in-law as Ruth.

If Deborah and Jael were to serve as models, one would first have to be a wife, though the wife who was held in highest esteem was hardly considered virtuous because she was a judge or soldier of Israel. The most powerful female presence was Wisdom. But the very eternity of Wisdom, her function at the center of human righteousness, kingship, and history—and the fact that she was not depicted as a mortal woman but was rather an agent of God and a product of men's minds— removed her to an impassable distance from women's real lives, and rendered her a far less likely model for real women. Truly, there are few women immortalized as leaders in cult.

It would appear, then, that the same kind of ambivalence toward women expressed elsewhere in biblical literature is found in those passages which allude to their participation in cult. Particularly conspicuous in both testaments is the relative absence of women from leadership roles in the cultic life of the community. Since these roles were sometimes filled by men whose holiness and virtue were hardly unblemished—men like Aaron, David, Solomon, and Judas Iscariot— one can only conclude that the criterion used to exclude most women of possibly equal or greater righteousness from the most influential religious positions might have been their sex alone. Apparently those qualities seen as required for cultic leadership were viewed by early proponents of monotheism as not present in women to the same degree as they were in men, even as the former were an integral part of the community of believers.


1. Johs. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), vols. 3-4, p. 282.

3. H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua: Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 151.

4. See, for example, Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Steward Todd and James B. Torrance (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1969), pp. 66-71.

5. Note the variant translation in the R.S.V.

6. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, p. 69.

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic ResearchThis website is maintained by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.

The Institute is known for issuing academic reports and statements on relevant issues in the Church. These have included scholars' declarations on the need of collegiality in the exercise of church authority, on the ethics of using contraceptives in marriage and the urgency of re-instating the sacramental diaconate of women.

Visit also our websites:Women Deacons, The Body is Sacred and Mystery and Beyond.

You are welcome to use our material. However: maintaining this site costs money. We are a Charity and work mainly with volunteers, but we find it difficult to pay our overheads.

Visitors to our website since January 2014.
Pop-up names are online now.

The number is indicative, but incomplete. For full details click on cross icon at bottom right.

Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.