Why Can't Men Believe what the Scriptures Say?

[EricH]

I don't have to Firehill. You are using the argument that it was definately a woman to provide proof for your conclusions. I am saying you have no such proof because nobody knows for sure what sex this person was. In addition, the person who wrote the article in the web-site you gave first says it is a woman, and then says there is no proof it was a man. The author is deliberately misleading.

I'm convinced that the apostle was a woman two convincing reasons are:

1) The male name, 'junias' never even existed in antiquity.

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Great, glad we cleared that up. let's move on now.

Speaking of proving something Firehill, where is your evidence to support your that "Up until the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman?"

Firehill is correct that most of the pre-13th century commentators believed Junias to be a woman. On the other hand, most since the 13th century have believed otherwise. What is being appealed to in arguments like this is:

1. Numbers prove correctness

2. Older is better.

If I were to include the fact that most modern commentators see it as a male reference as proof, I would be on equally shakey ground. I would be saying:

1. Numbers prove correctness

2. Newer is better

Neither proves anything.

[EricH]

Romans 16:7 has several difficulties which make it un-wise to use it as a proof text:

1. The designation of Junias is difficult to prove

2. The phrase "among the apostles" can be translated numerous ways depending on how one reads the dative case.

3. Paul's use of the word apostle is unclear

[Mutzrein]

I believe what scripture says. This is in Timothy:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing

[firehill]

There is no question that God uses women, and that women have been used to preach. The woman at the well was an example of a woman who was used in the role of an evangelist. The question with me only comes in concerning the offices of Bishop and Deacon. It is obvious from the qualifications listed a woman is not able to fill these roles. I posted these lists in another thread, but will do so here as well.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 Qualifications for a bishop

1 Blameless

2 The husband of one wife

3 Vigilant

4 Sober

5 Of good behavior

6 Given to hospitality

7 Apt to teach

8 Not given to wine

9 No striker

10 Not greedy of filthy lucre

11 Paitent

12 Not a brawler

13 Not covetous

14 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity

15 Not a novice

16 Of a good report of them which are without

1 Timothy 3:8-12

1 Grave

2 Not doubletongued

3 Not given to much wine

4 Not greedy of filthy lucre

5 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience

6 Let these also first be proved

7 Blameless

8 The deacon's wives must be:

a Grave

b Not slanderers

c Sober

d Faithful in all things

9 Deacons must be the husband of one wife

10 Ruling their children and their own houses well.

It is obvious from the qualifications for these offices, it has to be referring strictly to a man. In both cases, they have to be the husband of one wife. The word translated to husband is aner which means a man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man, sir. It cannot be refering to a woman, and a woman cannot have a wife. Hazzard wants to know why people cannot accept what the Bible teaches, so I would ask him the same question. The Bible also tells us why these offices are to be held by a married man.

1 Timothy 3:5 "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Before someone comes back and tries to de-sex the man, I will once again point out that regardless of the Greek word translated to man, which can mean a man or anybody, we know it has to be a male because of the other qualification that he be the husband (aner-man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man sir) of one wife.

My position, which I believe to be the Biblical one, is that women can be preachers, but not Bishops or Deacons.

According to your logic Karen, the reason for these guidelines was the people were from a heathen past. That would mean men and women alike. Then why temporarily exclude women from these offices, and later allow them to fill them? In addition, why not take the time to state these qualifications are only temporary? Next, why stop there? How about allowing a drunkard to serve, even though one qualification is not given to much wine? Back then, they used to think of being a drunkard as a sin, but in today's enlightened society, we know better than God and think of it as merely a sickness. It is judgemental and unfair to exclude a sick person from the offices as well, don't you think? Do you see the slippery slope you are going down?

Right Butaro and we have the proof that this is EXACTLY the slope which those major denominations which began ordaining women 40 years ago have gone down, almost without exception.

I want to make another point, this is NOT just a couple of versus it is in several Epistles of Paul, not just Timothy. Beyond that this theme of male leadership is in 1 Peter, with Peter supporting these positions. So the theme of the WHOLE Word IS indeed that women are not called to be Deacons, Elders or Bishops (pastors), and that they should not have authority over men in a Christian Congregation. In fact if all we had was that one passage in Timothy in which Paul says I do not let a women be in authority over a man, I would indeed take a harder look at cultural context. But we don't, we have numerous passages in numerous epistles by several authors, Peter and Paul being the foremost describing the qualifications for congregational leadership.

Another problem with your view of the Timothy passage is that 'a woman' who Paul says to 'let learn' vs. 'women' is said to not 'usurp authority' or 'domineer'. The thing is that men shouldn't do such a thing either! it's simply bad behavior in the least to domineer ANYONE.

[firehill]

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Do you consistently apply this rule to all the doctrines you hold. In other words is that your default, what the early church believed is always correct and the most biblical??

No I do not apply this rule to all sound doctrines. In other words I do not apply this rule as a means to formulate sound doctrine as a default. It's just a fact that added to others...makes the case for the female apostle convincing. It is not a default I use.

So, really it is not a part of your argument. If you are willing to admit that the early church fathers did not always know best, stating that they believed Junias to be a woman does not carry weight. In other words, it does not follow that because the early church fathers believed it, they were correct.

And the same thing goes for the 'traditional view' of women. So what? So what of the 'traditional' view? Hum?

So your argument seems to hinge on the fact that that exact name is never found referring to a woman, is that correct?

Junias is never found to even exist as a male name in antiquity wheres Junia existed all over the place.

[EricH]

There is no question that God uses women, and that women have been used to preach. The woman at the well was an example of a woman who was used in the role of an evangelist. The question with me only comes in concerning the offices of Bishop and Deacon. It is obvious from the qualifications listed a woman is not able to fill these roles. I posted these lists in another thread, but will do so here as well.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 Qualifications for a bishop

1 Blameless

2 The husband of one wife

3 Vigilant

4 Sober

5 Of good behavior

6 Given to hospitality

7 Apt to teach

8 Not given to wine

9 No striker

10 Not greedy of filthy lucre

11 Paitent

12 Not a brawler

13 Not covetous

14 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity

15 Not a novice

16 Of a good report of them which are without

1 Timothy 3:8-12

1 Grave

2 Not doubletongued

3 Not given to much wine

4 Not greedy of filthy lucre

5 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience

6 Let these also first be proved

7 Blameless

8 The deacon's wives must be:

a Grave

b Not slanderers

c Sober

d Faithful in all things

9 Deacons must be the husband of one wife

10 Ruling their children and their own houses well.

It is obvious from the qualifications for these offices, it has to be referring strictly to a man. In both cases, they have to be the husband of one wife. The word translated to husband is aner which means a man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man, sir. It cannot be refering to a woman, and a woman cannot have a wife. Hazzard wants to know why people cannot accept what the Bible teaches, so I would ask him the same question. The Bible also tells us why these offices are to be held by a married man.

1 Timothy 3:5 "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Before someone comes back and tries to de-sex the man, I will once again point out that regardless of the Greek word translated to man, which can mean a man or anybody, we know it has to be a male because of the other qualification that he be the husband (aner-man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man sir) of one wife.

My position, which I believe to be the Biblical one, is that women can be preachers, but not Bishops or Deacons.

According to your logic Karen, the reason for these guidelines was the people were from a heathen past. That would mean men and women alike. Then why temporarily exclude women from these offices, and later allow them to fill them? In addition, why not take the time to state these qualifications are only temporary? Next, why stop there? How about allowing a drunkard to serve, even though one qualification is not given to much wine? Back then, they used to think of being a drunkard as a sin, but in today's enlightened society, we know better than God and think of it as merely a sickness. It is judgemental and unfair to exclude a sick person from the offices as well, don't you think? Do you see the slippery slope you are going down?

Right Butaro and we have the proof that this is EXACTLY the slope which those major denominations which began ordaining women 40 years ago have gone down, almost without exception.

I want to make another point, this is NOT just a couple of versus it is in several Epistles of Paul, not just Timothy. Beyond that this theme of male leadership is in 1 Peter, with Peter supporting these positions. So the theme of the WHOLE Word IS indeed that women are not called to be Deacons, Elders or Bishops (pastors), and that they should not have authority over men in a Christian Congregation. In fact if all we had was that one passage in Timothy in which Paul says I do not let a women be in authority over a man, I would indeed take a harder look at cultural context. But we don't, we have numerous passages in numerous epistles by several authors, Peter and Paul being the foremost describing the qualifications for congregational leadership.

Another problem with your view of the Timothy passage is that 'a woman' who Paul says to 'let learn' vs. 'women' is said to not 'usurp authority' or 'domineer'. The thing is that men shouldn't do such a thing either! it's simply bad behavior in the least to domineer ANYONE.

Actually the word used in 1 Timothy 2:12 is authenteo. It is in the present indicative active. It does not speak of "ursurping" authority. It rather speaks to the level of authority (being in absolute authority). This is in no place fobidden in scripture. The bible makes it clear that that there are authority structures and relationships that should be honored.

[firehill]

I don't have to Firehill. You are using the argument that it was definately a woman to provide proof for your conclusions. I am saying you have no such proof because nobody knows for sure what sex this person was. In addition, the person who wrote the article in the web-site you gave first says it is a woman, and then says there is no proof it was a man. The author is deliberately misleading.

I'm convinced that the apostle was a woman two convincing reasons are:

1) The male name, 'junias' never even existed in antiquity.

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Great, glad we cleared that up. let's move on now.

Speaking of proving something Firehill, where is your evidence to support your that "Up until the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman?"

Actualy I've read this everywhere in all kinds of texts. Any can easily dig up this info on the internet. I believe it is commonn knowledge for those concerned in the man-woman debate.

[Guest shiloh357]

As far as the apostleship and eldership are concerned, since they include authority, teaching and the establishment of doctrinal orthodoxy, only a man is permitted to hold these offices.

Only men eh?

Junia was an apostle, Phoebe a deacon, and 1 Timothy and many other passages seem to be speaking of female elders...

If Paul believed that only men should be entrusted with his principles, doctrines and teachings then he wouldn't have used a gender neutral term, 'people' in 2 Timothy 2:2.

2 Tim 2:2, "And entrust what you heard me say in the presence of many others

as witnesses to faithful people who will be competent to teach others as well." NET

2 Timothy 2:2

2 You have heard me teach things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses. Now teach these truths to other trustworthy people who will be able to pass them on to others. NLT

Junia was a man.

'Now early in this century a very famous German scholar, Hans Lietzmann, who was a superb philologian, made an investigation into all surviving names of antiquity and came to the conclusion that the name Junias did not exist -- that the name Junianus existed and that the name Junias is possible as a short form for the name Junianus, but there was no evidence that it was ever used. So he says philologically you cannot bring evidence that this was a man Junias rather than a woman Junia, but he says that since it's not thinkable that a woman was an apostle, we have to read the male name Junias. And later commentaries say we have to read the male name Junias, because Hans Lietzmann has brought the philological evidence. Well,... he has done the evidence. He has done the opposite! So, no question -- scholars agree today that indeed Romans 16 contains reference to a female apostle named Junia, whom Paul recognized as an apostle before him. '

There is alot of other info regarding Junia, in a commentary here:

http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/rom16.htm

This is hardly proof of anything. Here is all the Bible says about this person. Romans 16:7 "Salute Adronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." At best, one can make the case that nobody knows what sex this person was, but there is no way you can claim to know it was a woman.

The arguments made for the apostle being a woman are convincing. The lack of ANY evidence that the name Junianus even existed in antiquity is further compelling and actualy even embarrasing.

Since it calls Andronicus and Junia kinsmen, I believe it was a man, but won't bother to argue something I can't prove.

3 Give my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in the ministry of Christ Jesus. 4 In fact, they once risked their lives for me. I am thankful to them, and so are all the Gentile churches. 5 Also give my greetings to the church that meets in their home.

You mean 'co-workers'? The Greek word here is also gender neutral.

My point is that you are calling Junia a woman when you can't prove it is the case, just to strengthen your position for women apostles. In reality, it doesn't matter anyway because I believe it is fine for women to work as missionaries, and that is what an apostle was.

Paul lists apostles first, prophets second, etc in a hierachy. They were more than missionaries. Apostles and prophets are the VERY two foundational ministries in the body of Christ!

1 Corinthians 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

First of all, you can't prove Junia was a woman. Secondly, an apostle is still not a bishop or deacon, regardless of any human logic you may want to try to apply in claiming if a woman can be one, she can be both. My position that an apostle is a missionary is based on the work they did. There were people like Silas, and I mentioned John Mark. They helped Paul on his missionary journeys, so to me they are apostles. Some believe that apostle is a term given to only a handful of men in the early church, and that office no longer exists. I just happen to think based on what I have read, they are missionaries, a word never found in the Bible by the way.

I would have to stand with Butero on this one. The deacons in 1st century church cannot be understood as having the same position as modern deacons in most Protestant churches today. The deacons were created to serve so that the Pastors, Apostles and Prophets could proclaim the Word of God unhindered. The deacons were not positions of leadership, so even Phoebe being a deacon was not a teacher or leader or a Pastor and anything of the such.

Today, churches have gotten away from the original role of deacon. Deacons should be seeing to the needs of the poor, widowed, sick and orphaned in the church. Male deacons should look after the needs of men, and female deacons should look after the needs of women. That is only appropriate and in keeping with proper decorum.

Unfortunately, deacons in today's churches, are seen as church leaders, almost as if they are elders or "sub-bishops" and this should not be so, as it is not in keeping with the biblical model.

[firehill]

I don't have to Firehill. You are using the argument that it was definately a woman to provide proof for your conclusions. I am saying you have no such proof because nobody knows for sure what sex this person was. In addition, the person who wrote the article in the web-site you gave first says it is a woman, and then says there is no proof it was a man. The author is deliberately misleading.

I'm convinced that the apostle was a woman two convincing reasons are:

1) The male name, 'junias' never even existed in antiquity.

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Great, glad we cleared that up. let's move on now.

Speaking of proving something Firehill, where is your evidence to support your that "Up until the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman?"

Firehill is correct that most of the pre-13th century commentators believed Junias to be a woman. On the other hand, most since the 13th century have believed otherwise. What is being appealed to in arguments like this is:

1. Numbers prove correctness

2. Older is better.

If I were to include the fact that most modern commentators see it as a male reference as proof, I would be on equally shakey ground. I would be saying:

1. Numbers prove correctness

2. Newer is better

Neither proves anything.

Which is why the 'traditional view' of women doesn't hold water based on the argument that it is so-called 'traditional'.

[firehill]

Romans 16:7 has several difficulties which make it un-wise to use it as a proof text:

1. The designation of Junias is difficult to prove

2. The phrase "among the apostles" can be translated numerous ways depending on how one reads the dative case.

3. Paul's use of the word apostle is unclear

The designation of 'Junias' (as a male name) is difficult to prove because it existed nowhere in antiquity according to studies.

I donno what i think about your point 3 but I agree with the rest most definately.