Jesus Changed Everything for Women

Clare73 said:

Likewise with Priscilla and Aquila, but we have no basis for saying Priscilla preached.
Scripture?

Click to expand...

Well, we can at least firmly surmise that Apollos heard an earful of teaching from Priscilla, don't ya think?

3 Resurrections said:

Actually, God did make promises to both Paul and Barnabas, but I digress...

Click to expand...

Neither of whom missed anything promised to them.

I don't understand your reason for trying to exclude Barnabas from the "apostle" category. He was clearly called an "apostle", along with Paul in Acts 14:14. Different task given to each man, but both sent on a mission for God. Barnabas and Paul were not the only example of apostles besides "The Twelve". There were many, many more in those first-century years, with the Holy Spirit being "poured out on all people", according to the prophet Joel.

Click to expand...

If the apostleship was only promised to a mere 12 individuals, that hardly equates to a "pouring out on all people", now does it?

Click to expand...

The apostles were those
whom Jesus chose (Acts 1:2),
who exercised apostolic authority (Acts 5:2; Acts 8:18),
those on whom the church was founded (Ephesians 2:20),
those whose names are on the 12 foundations of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:14),
those sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28),
the 12 apostles of the Lamb (Revelation 21:14).

Others, including Jesus himself (Hebrews 3:1), are referred to as "apostles" in the sense of "one who is sent," not in the sense of the authoritative 12 and Paul who were chosen by Jesus.
Elsewhere they are referred to as disciples, from whom Jesus chose 12 and designated as "apostles" (Luke 6:13).
Jesus delegated apostolic authority to no other outside the 12 but Paul, making him an apostle as well (Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1).

It seems that you are attempting to limit the "apostle" term solely to "The Twelve". Is it your intended motive to avoid the prospect of anyone today claiming the "apostle" title?

Click to expand...

No, but that is a good question.
I am distinguishing for the sake of their authority as the foundation of the church. The church has only one foundation, and it's the 12.
They are in a class apart, founders and leaders, personally taught and trained by Jesus himself, not just part of the disciples.

This lumping them all together as one group, on the same footing, is not the Biblical view nor purpose of the 12.

Well, I also limit the "lay apostles" category to that first century, when those sign gifts of apostleship were given to establish and confirm the New Covenant. There is no need for these sign gifts of "apostleship" to keep confirming the inauguration of the New Covenant today, and therefore, the miraculous sign gifts of apostleship were phased out when the "shaking" process in the AD 70 era had done its work in getting rid of all the Old Covenant elements, leaving the unshaken New Covenant to stand alone.

Click to expand...

That sounds quite plausible.

I would agree with you that "prophesying" or speaking a message in the assembly is not exercising authority over men. This would apply to both men and women doing this. CHRIST IS THE "HEAD OF ALL THINGS TO THE CHURCH" (Ephesians 1:22), not any man or woman in ministry, if you want to concentrate on who gets the "authority" in the church.

Click to expand...

Yes, Christ is over all things, but he has appointed shepherds (evangelists, pastors and teachers) for the building up of the body of Christ.
You don't run all the daily operations from the Home Office.

It's been nice conversing with you on this. . .

2PhiloVoid said:

Well, we can at least firmly surmise that Apollos heard an earful of teaching from Priscilla, don't ya think?

Click to expand...

I'd say!

Clare73 said:

Women were forbidden to have authority over men in the assembly.

Itinerant preaching is not in the assembly.

Click to expand...

Actually, generally, it was. An itinerant preacher - such as Paul - would move from place to place, and then in each place address the people where they gathered, whether that was the synagogue or a church gathering in someone's home, or a place of prayer by the river (Acts 16:13).

And I think behind this discussion we probably also need to unpack the dynamics of authority in the act of preaching; because if the preaching is authorised by the congregation/assembly, it is not as straightforward as saying the preacher has authority over the assembly. In fact authority is more reciprocal in that situation. (As I unpack here: By whose authority? ).

Clare73 said:

I am distinguishing for the sake of their authority as the foundation of the church. The church has only one foundation, and it's the 12.
They are in a class apart, founders and leaders, personally taught and trained by Jesus himself, not just part of the disciples.

This lumping them all together as one group, on the same footing, is not the Biblical view nor purpose of the 12.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, I have not written anything so far about the group of "The Twelve" being "lumped together" with the other separate group called "all the apostles", found in 1 Cor. 15:7. I have tried to emphasize the point of "The Twelve" sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in those days of the early church, just as you have done above. The "Apostle's doctrine" taught to them personally by Christ truly was the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

But I am not seeing where you have addressed Barnabas' separate apostle status in Acts 14:14. "...the apostles, Barnabas and Paul..." Where does the apostle Barnabas fit into your paradigm, if "The Twelve" actually were the only ones ever given the title of "apostle"? Where, even, does Jesus the Apostle fit into your paradigm? You mentioned the verse about "...consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus..." I suppose you would emphasize, as I do, that Christ was the critical "chief cornerstone", the "stone which the builders rejected", as the first foundation stone of the New Jerusalem that determined its dimensions.

As for the apostle Barnabas, I believe the nickname for "Our beloved Barnabas" was only one of several aliases that Lazarus adopted (the one whom Jesus loved) in order to safeguard Mary from being targeted for persecution by the Jews after Christ had entrusted His mother's care to the hands of that "beloved disciple".

Since both Barnabas and Paul were called "apostles", apart from "The Twelve", then it stands to reason there was a separate category of apostles apart from "The Twelve" in those days that were also given certain sign gifts for the purpose of confirming the New Covenant.

Paidiske said:

Actually, generally, it was. An itinerant preacher - such as Paul - would move from place to place, and then in each place address the people where they gathered, whether that was the synagogue or a church gathering in someone's home, or a place of prayer by the river (Acts 16:13).

Click to expand...

Well, if you're founding/planting churches, there are no "assemblies," which by definition are "churches."

Clare73 said:

Well, if you're founding/planting churches, there are no "assemblies," which by definition are "churches."

Click to expand...

The minute you've got two or more gathered, you've got an assembly. I don't really see why there would be any distinction; unless you want to argue that women may plant churches but then not lead them once established?

3 Resurrections said:

To my knowledge, I have not written anything so far about the group of "The Twelve" being "lumped together" with the other separate group called "all the apostles", found in 1 Cor. 15:7. I have tried to emphasize the point of "The Twelve" sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in those days of the early church, just as you have done above. The "Apostle's doctrine" taught to them personally by Christ truly was the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

But I am not seeing where you have addressed Barnabas' separate apostle status in Acts 14:14. "...the apostles, Barnabas and Paul..."

Click to expand...

Where does the apostle Barnabas fit into your paradigm,

Click to expand...

if "The Twelve" actually were the only ones ever given the title of "apostle"?

Click to expand...

"Apostle" was used of some who were not the 12 whom Jesus chose, but it does not denote the same office as the 12.

Where, even, does Jesus the Apostle fit into your paradigm?

Click to expand...

He is the supreme apostle, the one from whom all other apostleship flows, the sent sending the sent (John 20:21).

Paidiske said:

The minute you've got two or more gathered, you've got an assembly. I don't really see why there would be any distinction; unless you want to argue that women may plant churches but then not lead them once established?

Click to expand...

ek-klesia = called-out assembly (see Acts 7:38)

Clare73 said:

ek-klesia = called-out assembly (see Acts 7:38)

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can make a distinction of a gathering only of those who are already believers, and a mixed gathering of some believers and some others in various stages of conversion, but if so, most churches today would be the latter.

Clare73 said:

Apples and oranges. . .

Nor did the apostles, who had their own set of requirements, choose Paul.

Oranges were never the goal post.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. You're saying your stated rules for all apostles don't apply to Paul, because he's an apple, but they apply to everyone else, because they're oranges. You're making a distinction without a difference, unless you can explain otherwise with a logical and coherent explanation.

Gregorikos said:

That makes no sense at all. You're saying your stated rules for all apostles don't apply to Paul, because he's an apple, but they apply to everyone else, because they're oranges. You're making a distinction without a difference, unless you can explain otherwise with a logical and coherent explanation.

Click to expand...

Nope, I'm saying the rules the apostles used to select an apostle do not apply to Paul because the apostles were not responsible for, nor did they select Paul.

And then I'm saying that Paul was personally appointed and taught by Jesus as the 12 were, but he did not meet the requirement of being with Jesus during his earthly ministry.

Apostles' rules = apples = Matthias
Jesus' rules = oranges (no earthly ministry time) = Paul

Clare73 said:

Nope, I'm saying the rules the apostles used to select an apostle do not apply to Paul because the apostles were not responsible for, nor did they select Paul.

And then I'm saying that Paul was personally appointed and taught by Jesus as the 12 were, but he did not meet the requirement of being with Jesus during his earthly ministry.

Apostles' rules = apples = Matthias
Jesus' rules = oranges (no earthly ministry time) = Paul

Click to expand...

Barnabas was an apostle too. (Acts 14:14) How does that fit your rule?

Gregorikos said:

Barnabas was an apostle too. (Acts 14:14) How does that fit your rule?

Click to expand...

See post #48.

Clare73 said:

See post #48.

Click to expand...

So you're saying there were two groups of leaders in the New Testament church, both groups called apostles, but they were entirely different offices. And Paul was in one group (with the 12) and Barnabas was in the other group, even though Acts 14:14 puts Paul and Barnabas in the same group.

Well that's one way to make your doctrine fit.

Seems like Clare73's goal posts are just scrambling themselves all over the place now.

I never seem to stop being amazed at the lengths people will go in order to scripturally "prove" that women are sub-human and/or less than men in some way.

Gregorikos said:

So you're saying there were two groups of leaders in the New Testament church, both groups called apostles, but they were entirely different offices. And Paul was in one group (with the 12) and Barnabas was in the other group, even though Acts 14:14 puts Paul and Barnabas in the same group.

Click to expand...

Acts 14:14 does no such thing in showing them working together in ministry.

Yes, only the 12 (and Paul) had the authority of the office of apostleship conferred by Jesus, and were the foundation of the church, the New Jerusalem and the bride of Christ (Revelation 21:9-14). Barnabas, etc. were not.

Acts 14:14 (NRSV)
When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting, “Friends, why are you doing this?'

Right there, one and the same word describes the office of both men. Your claim that Paul was in one office, and Barnabas in some other kind of office, flies in the face of the plain reading of Scripture.

And you do all this because you are so locked in to Acts 1:21-22 as some kind of rule necessary for all apostles at all times that you can't accept what the Bible plainly says elsewhere.

I'm going to propose that Acts 1:21-22 doesn't establish such a rule. Peter said it, it was sound logic in the week immediately following Christ's ascension, but Peter never did say, "and any apostle after this one, henceforth and forevermore, has to follow that same rule.

The choice of later apostles, Paul, Barnabas, Junia, (Rom 16:7) James the Lord's brother (Gal 1:19),Timothy and Silvanus, (1 Thes 2:6, cf 1:1) Apollos, (1 Cor 4:6-9) Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25 greek) and two more unnamed Apostles in 2 Cor 8:23- none of these fully fit the alleged pattern Peter gave in Acts. From the simple facts of Scripture we can see that Peter's "rule" in Acts 1:21-22 applied to Matthias, and no other apostle, ever

Gregorikos said:

Acts 14:14 (NRSV)
When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting, “Friends, why are you doing this?'
Right there, one and the same word describes the office of both men. Your claim that Paul was in one office, and Barnabas in some other kind of office, flies in the face of the plain reading of Scripture.

And you do all this because you are so locked in to Acts 1:21-22 as some kind of rule necessary for all apostles at all times that you can't accept what the Bible plainly says elsewhere.

I'm going to propose that Acts 1:21-22 doesn't establish such a rule. Peter said it, it was sound logic in the week immediately following Christ's ascension, but Peter never did say, "and any apostle after this one, henceforth and forevermore, has to follow that same rule.

The choice of later apostles, Paul, Barnabas, Junia, (Rom 16:7) James the Lord's brother (Gal 1:19),Timothy and Silvanus, (1 Thes 2:6, cf 1:1) Apollos, (1 Cor 4:6-9) Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25 greek) and two more unnamed Apostles in 2 Cor 8:23- none of these fully fit the alleged pattern Peter gave in Acts. From the simple facts of Scripture we can see that Peter's "rule" in Acts 1:21-22 applied to Matthias, and no other apostle, ever

Click to expand...

Matthias was the only one given the authority of the office of aposteship as the other 11 had.

Only the 12 are the foundation of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-14), the church (Ephesians 2:20).

The other apostles did not and were not.

It's not complicated.

bekkilyn said:

Seems like Clare73's goal posts are just scrambling themselves all over the place now.

Click to expand...

Poor ole' Clare has maintained the same thing from the beginning:

Matthias was the only one given the authority of the office of aposteship as the other 11 had.

Only the 12, including Matthias, are the foundation of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-14), the church (Ephesians 2:20).

The other apostles did not and were not.

It's not complicated.

I never seem to stop being amazed at the lengths people will go in order to scripturally "prove" that women are sub-human and/or less than men in some way.

Click to expand...

Don't blame it on poor ole Clare.

Neither Jesus nor the apostles appointed a woman to be the foundation of the church.

And the apostle Paul forbid women pastor/teachers (1 Timothy 2:12), based on God's creation order (1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9).