Women In Authority – Teaching Mixed Assemblies in Church

[Crankitup]

Focus Text – I Tim 2:11-14

Many argue that Paul lived in different times and was constrained by his culture but by going back to Adam and Eve who existed thousands of years before him, Paul wasn't using reasons contemporaneous with his own culture, he was transcending his own culture. This automatically rules out all modern day liberal appeals to local conditions, customs or a context peculiar to Ephesus. Paul feels it necessary to explain his admonition against women teaching or being in authority over men by referring to Eve's being DECEIVED in contrast with Adam NOT being deceived. Furthermore Jesus had no problem breaking social conventions where He felt it would be good to do so. He didn't do so in the area of picking a female to be one of his disciples.

Paul gave the reason for his admonition against women teaching as Eve having been deceived (I Tim 2:14), although that wasn't the only reason he gave (v 13 was the other). Many can't understand this or think it unfair in light of Adam having deliberately sinned despite not being deceived. Whether they care to admit it or not they flat out think Paul was wrong or illogical.

I Timothy 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (KJV)

In Revelation we see Jesus speaking to a situation where the church DID suffer (allow) a woman to teach, with dire consequences;

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (KJV)

I'm not saying that Rev 2:20 is prescriptive in any way in and of itself, it's just as interesting aside. It's not saying a woman can't be a prophet(ess), just that in at least one instance, allowing a woman calling herself thus to TEACH, ended badly.

Something inherent in the makeup or nature of women is different from men. Hardly surprising considering Eve was designed to be a helper to Adam, not his leader. On the one hand we are all equal in Christ, but on the other, the NT refers to women as 'weaker vessels'. Becoming someone who preaches, teaches & shepherds the flock is akin to entering a spiritual battleground. Not a place to send weaker vessels.

Scripture is quite clear in ruling out women from certain positions within the church, just as it is equally clear about ruling out many MEN from those same positions.

It's plainly obvious what Paul is saying, except to those who for one reason or another don't LIKE what he's saying and seek to dismiss it. He's allowing something & prohibiting something else. Basically, let them learn, but don't let them teach.

At this point many who hold the contrary position to my own on this issue would probably like to ask - In what way are women inherently different? It doesn't matter whether we're talking about 4500BC, 33 AD, or 2009 AD the fact is, men and women are different. VERY different. Physically, emotionally, psychologically and maybe even spiritually as well.

Here's a quote from one of the definitive books on I Tim 2:12;
Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, edited by Andreas Kstenberger, Thomas Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin.

Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity. Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth. Appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables.... This is not to say women are intellectually deficient or inferior to men... their gentler and kinder nature inhibits them from excluding people for doctrinal error.... The different inclinations of women (and men!) do not imply that they are inferior or superior to men. It simply demonstrates that men and women are profoundly different. Women have some strengths that men do not have, and men have some strengths that are generally lacking in women.... Women are prohibited from the teaching office not only because of the order of creation but also because they are less likely to preserve the apostolic tradition in inhabiting the teaching office (pp. 145-146).​

Another argument I've heard is along these lines “ .... Paul's teachings do not surprise me since they reflect the societal attitudes of an ancient civilization that was compromised on strict gender roles.” The implication being that Paul was influenced and constrained by these attitudes and as such his writings are affected by them. If this were indeed the case, it would mean Paul was a hypocrite when he said the following at Romans 12:2;

KJV And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Paul wasn't constrained by societal attitudes at all. Witness his confrontation with Peter who at the time WAS so constrained. No, Paul was about doing God's will whether it clashed with his culture or not.
Paul said when he wrote to the Corinthians;

I Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Where he gave commands, I take them to be from God. There is an instance where he gives guidance rather than issuing a command, because he said he'd received no command from the Lord;

I Cor 7:25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

Many like to harp on about how different things were in "bible days" but they fail to consider whether women were excluded from religious life before Paul.

Nehemiah 8:2 So on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand.We can see then they weren't excluded prior to Paul and they aren't excluded after him either. Paul just prohibits women from teaching men. He doesn't say this is from some innate adeptness at leading men astray. Adam wasn't deceived into sin. Paul says Eve was deceived. Not that she was deceptive and certainly not that she deceived Adam.

Eve is an example of a woman who fell under deception. The woman with the python spirit in Acts 16:16-18 who practised divination is another. There are plenty of other accounts in the bible of various mediums, witches and spiritists too. It seems that women are more sensitive/open to the spirit realm than men, but also more open to being deceived. Even in our present day how many male fortune tellers and mediums are there in comparison to women?

I know people are uncomfortable about saying it but it seems the enemy uses women in this realm more than men. Why? Many false religions also elevate females to the status of goddesses which is starkly in contrast with the order established by God. Why? I really have no idea why, I simply accept that Paul, using this reason (that Eve was deceived) and the order of creation, forbid all women from teaching or being in authority over men. Since all women take their lineage from this one woman maybe it's an inherited characteristic? But if it's an inherited characteristic, why wouldn't all men inherit it too? This is just pure speculation on my part but maybe it's one that is only carried on the X chromosome.

There are many questions we could have asked of Paul had we been present in one of his meetings. "Hey Paul, I know you told Timothy that women can't .... but what about ... and what about ..." or
“Hey Paul is your prohibition against women teaching or usurping authority from men part of your cultural conditioning, or in response to a context peculiar to Ephesus, or a command from God?”

I find the idea that Paul said these things because of his culture quite bewildering really. Paul was placing a constraint. If no woman had been teaching men (or attempting to) or trying to usurp authority, why would he have felt moved to make such a command? If women were doing so, then the argument about cultural conditioning rather falls by the wayside doesn't it?

 

[Goinheix]

Focus Text – I Tim 2:11-14

Many argue that Paul lived in different times and was constrained by his culture...

I find the idea that Paul said these things because of his culture ...

Todays Church, the late XX Century Church is constrained by our culture.
After WWII, and in direct consecuence of women activity during that war, women took more and more presence in the world life. Probably we can trace that situation back to tje XIX Century and the Industrial Revolution. Any how, women gained more protagonism and rights. For me it is OK and welcome.

The "pill" gave the women control over theyr sex life, make them free in a way. It was time for the women to be concider an equal to men. For to many centuryes and mileniums all across the globe, all civilizations almost slavished women.

Today, finally we are equals (not totally yet). Man and woman, boy and girl, husband and wife, side by side. Read the Bible (or the Coran); nowehre we were teach to do to women what we did. The Bible (and the Coran) talks about loving, caring and respecting women; but christians (and muslims) did not like that.

Only one problem: despite we are equals, men can not deliver babies; and women can not beat men in sports. We are equals, not identicals. When I was young I have many friend, but I choose a girl, not a boy, to me my companion for life. I took her as my equal, not my identical.

For the same reason a regular man have not a clue how to confort a crying baby, for the same reason a woman shall not be in authority over men. Not in politics, not in busynes, not in military and not in christianhood. It might sound not-political today...and that is the point: we are today (not Paul then) constrained by our culture.

 

[Crankitup]

......
Only one problem: despite we are equals, men can not deliver babies; and women can not beat men in sports. We are equals, not identicals. When I was young I have many friend, but I choose a girl, not a boy, to me my companion for life. I took her as my equal, not my identical. .....

I agree.

As I said in the OP;

.... On the one hand we are all equal in Christ, but on the other ....

It's a question of God-ordained roles not our equal standing in Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's a question of God-ordained roles not our equal standing in Christ.

That sums it up perfectly IMO.

 

[TheWingsOfWisdom]

I am glad that God created me a man.

That is one commandment

I cannot disobey.

 

[pointman7a]

Focus Text – I Tim 2:11-14




It seems that women are more sensitive/open to the spirit realm than men, but also more open to being deceived. Even in our present day how many male fortune tellers and mediums are there in comparison to women?

I feel the church is growing and evolving. We are better today than in Paul's time. Women have not been as free to teach or lead as before. They are new to this and learning as they go. I have hear amazing practical teaching from women ministers. They do have different insights and perspectives than men. Which can be good and also bad.
I have seen women easily swayed by charismatic preachers where men seem a little more skeptical.( Husbands keep your checkbook at home on guest-speaker nights bring pre-arranged set amount of cash) Being more open to the spirit realm, I doubt that....I think they are just more observant.

 

[hedrick]

What do we know about Paul?

1) We know that he acknowledged female deacons and apostle.
2) We know that he saw the husband as the head of the wife

Since the same Greek word means "wife" and "woman", the most reasonable reading of 1 Tim 2:11-14 is that it is speaking of wives teaching their husbands. That's consistent with everything we know of Paul's views. The translation "woman" is not, because of Paul's known acceptance of women as leaders.

The reference to Adam and Eve is consistent with that, since they were husband and wife.

In that reference I suppose Paul could have been claiming some kind of generic tendency to being deceived by women, but I don't think we need to make such an assumption. Rather, Adam didn't do his job. He shouldn't have accepted Eve's suggestion. Indeed the story suggests that Adam accepted the fruit without argument. I wouldn't think someone who would disobey God without any reason would make a better teacher than one who was deceived by a being who is in the traditional reading the second most powerful entity in the universe.

 

[Crankitup]

What do we know about Paul?

1) We know that he acknowledged female deacons and apostle.

We don't know this at all actually. It all hinges on which translation you decide to use, your interpretation of Rom 16:1 and finally your definition of 'deaconess' or 'deacon'. Very few translations render the crucial word in Romans 16:1 as deacon or deaconess, the majority rendering it as servant.

Originally Posted by John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Phoebe is praised as a "servant" or "deacon" of the church at Cenchreea who "has been a great help [or "patroness" ] to many people, including me" (Romans 16:1-2). Some have tried to argue that the Greek word behind "help" really means "leader." This is doubtful, since it is hard to imagine, on any count, what Paul would mean by saying that Phoebe became his leader. .... She was a very significant person and played a crucial role in the ministry. But to derive anything from this that is contrary to our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12, one would have to assume authority over men here since it cannot be shown.
​

As far as the idea there was a female apostle in the NT I assume you are referring to Junia.

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.​

The Greek word Iounian can been translated as "Junias" (male) and as "Junia" (female).

RSV - Rom 16:7 Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

KJV - "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen" ...

NKJV - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen"

and amongst others the ESV - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen".

That's four translations two of which have the Textus Receptus as their base and two that use the 'early manuscripts' or NU (minority) text.

Even if we were to accept a female rendering, what about the meaning of the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois? Andronicus and Junia were "either highly regarded by the apostles" or were apostles themselves. I would favour the former interpretation. If you insist on the latter I would have only one question for you. If Andronicus and Junia were well-known and highly regarded apostles, isn't it strange that scripture is otherwise completely silent about them?

...... because of Paul's known acceptance of women as leaders.

Once again we don't know that Paul accepted women as leaders at all. Most of the evidence in scripture is to the contrary.

 

[Crankitup]

The tradition and the oral law of Jesus' day said things like - "Let the words of the Law be burned rather than committed to women.... If a man teaches his daughter the Law, it is as though he taught her lewdness" (Sotah 3:4). "The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to man. Let her accordingly be submissive" (Apion 2:2 1 0). Praise be to God that he has not created me a gentile; praised be God that created me not a woman; praised be God that he has not created me an ignorant man. (Menahot 43b) It is well for those whose children are male, but ill for those whose children are female ... At the birth of a boy all are joyful, but at the birth of a girl all are sad ... When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world; when a girl comes, nothing comes . . . Even the most virtuous of women is a witch (Nidda 3 lb).

In the temple, women were limited to an outer part, the women's court, which was five steps below the court for the men.

Against this backdrop we witness how he dealt with the Samaritan woman, with whom culturally it would have been a no no for him to converse with. Not only was she a woman, she was a Samaritan, a people the Jews refrained from having anything to do with. So despite attempts to paint me otherwise I'm in no doubt that Jesus respected women, taught women and honoured women. What's at issue here is the problems that might eventuate if we allow women to teach in the assembly.

I Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Revelation 2:20 (Jesus speaking) Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

 

[Assyrian]

We don't know this at all actually. It all hinges on which translation you decide to use, your interpretation of Rom 16:1 and finally your definition of 'deaconess' or 'deacon'. Very few translations render the crucial word in Romans 16:1 as deacon or deaconess, the majority rendering it as servant.

Originally Posted by John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Phoebe is praised as a "servant" or "deacon" of the church at Cenchreea who "has been a great help [or "patroness" ] to many people, including me" (Romans 16:1-2). Some have tried to argue that the Greek word behind "help" really means "leader." This is doubtful, since it is hard to imagine, on any count, what Paul would mean by saying that Phoebe became his leader. .... She was a very significant person and played a crucial role in the ministry. But to derive anything from this that is contrary to our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12, one would have to assume authority over men here since it cannot be shown.

​

I think the way Piper and Grudem boggle at the thought of a woman having authority over Paul shows us just how powerful this description of Phoebe's role is.

There is a very simple way Paul could have come under Phoebe's authority and leadership. In Athens the prostates was an official position in the city in charge of all foreign visitors, in a port city like Cenchreae the church would have had many Christians passing through the city, it made a lot of sense for the church to put a rich and powerful women like Phoebe (and you could not be a protastes unless you were rich and powerful and had a lot of clout in your society) in charge of all the visitors looking after them and keeping them out of trouble with the authorities. When Paul visited the church in Cenchreae he came under the care and authority of this godly woman.

As far as the idea there was a female apostle in the NT I assume you are referring to Junia.

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.​

The Greek word Iounian can been translated as "Junias" (male) and as "Junia" (female).

RSV - Rom 16:7 Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

KJV - "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen" ...

NKJV - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen"

and amongst others the ESV - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen".

That's four translations two of which have the Textus Receptus as their base and two that use the 'early manuscripts' or NU (minority) text.

Even if we were to accept a female rendering, what about the meaning of the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois? Andronicus and Junia were "either highly regarded by the apostles" or were apostles themselves. I would favour the former interpretation. If you insist on the latter I would have only one question for you.

Junia being an apostles is the plain meaning of the text. Junia was actually a very common woman's name, while there isn't any evidence of a man's name Junias. If Paul wanted to write that Junia was highly regarded by the apostles, that is not the way to do it. I think the best evidence of the plain meaning of the verse comes from Chrysostom who spoke Greek and was not particularly famed as a feminist, who read in amazement of this woman Junia who was actually an apostle.

If Andronicus and Junia were well-known and highly regarded apostles, isn't it strange that scripture is otherwise completely silent about them?

Not in the least. We mainly know what went on around the missionary routes of Paul and Luke up from Jerusalem, through Asia Minor and into Greece and Italy. How many of the 12 apostles do we encounter as they went on their missionary journeys? Once they leave Jerusalem, there is absolute silence about them in the NT. All you have are accounts in church tradition about their work in North Africa into Mesopotamia and down into India. Jesus told his disciples to go into the whole world and preach the gospel, but we only hear about Peter and John.

Once again we don't know that Paul accepted women as leaders at all. Most of the evidence in scripture is to the contrary.

If our interpretation of Paul's teaching on women's roles is contradicted by the plain meaning of the practice in the NT of women teaching and having authority that we read from Paul's own letters, then it is a pretty good reason to go back to the passages where you think Paul forbids women leadership and see if you might have misunderstood them.​

 

[Crankitup]

...
There is a very simple way Paul could have come under Phoebe's authority and leadership. In Athens the prostates was an official position in the city in charge of all foreign visitors, in a port city like Cenchreae the church would have had many Christians passing through the city, it made a lot of sense for the church to put a rich and powerful women like Phoebe (and you could not be a protastes unless you were rich and powerful and had a lot of clout in your society) in charge of all the visitors looking after them and keeping them out of trouble with the authorities. When Paul visited the church in Cenchreae he came under the care and authority of this godly woman.

As soon as I read the words I've highlighted in blue, I thought it possible that what followed them would be a theory that would be stretchier than the mozzarella cheese I had on my pizza yesterday. It seems I was right. Pure speculation and clutching at straws.

.... Junia was actually a very common woman's name ....

Really?

Piper and Grudem searched ancient Greek writings looking for the name Junia. Based on their findings, they concluded that "no one should claim that Junia was a common woman's name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only three known examples in all of ancient Greek literature."

.... there isn't any evidence of a man's name Junias.

Well there is Junias, Bishop of Apameia of Syria. Others have come to the conclusion that Junias was a contracted form of Junianus, a much more common man's name, so it's not as clear cut as you might have hoped. The fact is that neither of us can prove it one way or the other definitively. The Greek word used can be translated either way depending on the accent used. This is why the ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NAB and others render it as Junias, whilst the KJV, NKJV and NCV render it as Junia.

The more important issue is whether Paul's statement about these two being well known among the apostles was an inclusive statement or exclusive. Consider the following excerpt from ancient Greek literature about the godess Aphrodite - Euripides’ Hippolytus 103: “Yet she (Aphrodite) is revered and famous among mortals”. Obviously an exclusive statement since it's clear in Greek mythology that Aphrodite was not a mortal. MSG is well known among dieticians. It's clear MSG isn't a dietician. Consider also that Paul referred to Andronicus and Junia(s) as fellow Jews. If they were indeed apostles why not also refer to them as fellow apostles?

Romans 16:7 (Amplified Bible)

Remember me to Andronicus and Junias, my tribal kinsmen and once my fellow prisoners. They are men held in high esteem among the apostles, who also were in Christ before I was.
​

​

 

[Assyrian]

As soon as I read the words I've highlighted in blue, I thought it possible that what followed them would be a theory that would be stretchier than the mozzarella cheese I had on my pizza yesterday. It seems I was right. Pure speculation and clutching at straws.

Thing is, plausible speculation beats an argument from incredulity any day. Which is what Piper and Grudem's argument was. Why Pheobe was prostatis in Cenchreae may be speculation but it fits a role in a busy port like Cenchreae. At the same time, whatever the reason for the church having a prostates, we do know what the role of prostates in ancient society was. We have little concept in modern society what a patron was. Today it means a regular customer in a restaurant, or maybe someone who makes a large donation to a museum and can sometimes throw their weight around. The only remnant of this ancient culture is now seen outside the law in the mafia. If they protect you and help you, then you owe them you loyalty and do what they tell you. In the classical world such patronage was a normal and respectable part of mainstream culture, and it is this role Paul describes his relationship to Phoebe. He was not only under her authority as prostatis he was under her authority as prostatis of the church.

Really?

Piper and Grudem searched ancient Greek writings looking for the name Junia. Based on their findings, they concluded that "no one should claim that Junia was a common woman's name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only three known examples in all of ancient Greek literature."

I take it that means they didn't find any examples of Junias However, other scholars seem to have had more success with Junia and have found 250 citation of the name in ancient literature, (The Word Bible Commentary Vol 38B on Romans p 894 by James Dunn)

Well there is Junias, Bishop of Apameia of Syria.

The problem with Junias here is not some other man who had the male form of the name, but our Junia from Roman 16 who Epiphanius says became Bishop of Apameia of Syria. Epiphanius writing in the fourth century apparently thought Junia must have been a man, but apparently he thought Priscilla was a man too. This isn't evidence of the use of the man's name Junias, but of a writer in the fourth century thinking Junia an apostle and a bishop must have been a man.

Others have come to the conclusion that Junias was a contracted form of Junianus, a much more common man's name, so it's not as clear cut as you might have hoped. The fact is that neither of us can prove it one way or the other definitively. The Greek word used can be translated either way depending on the accent used. This is why the ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NAB and others render it as Junias, whilst the KJV, NKJV and NCV render it as Junia.

The problem is, if there was evidence Junianus being contracted to Junias this would be attested by the use of Junias as a man's name which it is not. Certainly Junianus was a man's name back then, and we know they contracted names, there just isn't any evidence of Junianus being contracted that way. And would a man would want to contract is name to a common woman's name? If he did you would have to start asking other questions about this apostle and bishop.

The more important issue is whether Paul's statement about these two being well known among the apostles was an inclusive statement or exclusive. Consider the following excerpt from ancient Greek literature about the godess Aphrodite - Euripides’ Hippolytus 103: “Yet she (Aphrodite) is revered and famous among mortals”. Obviously an exclusive statement since it's clear in Greek mythology that Aphrodite was not a mortal. MSG is well known among dieticians. It's clear MSG isn't a dietician. [/COLOR]

Euripedes in the 5th century BC is an awfully long way back to go for a use of ev + dative. Isn't it better to take the plain meaning that they really were among the apostles?

Consider also that Paul referred to Andronicus and Junia(s) as fellow Jews. If they were indeed apostles why not also refer to them as fellow apostles?
Romans 16:7 (Amplified Bible) Remember me to Andronicus and Junias, my tribal kinsmen and once my fellow prisoners. They are men held in high esteem among the apostles, who also were in Christ before I was.

Isn't the ordinary meaning of suggenēs a relative? As in Elizabeth being Mary's relative? Andronicus and Junia were Paul's relative obviously a significant point to make. But why would he think he needed to describe them as apostles twice?

 

[Crankitup]

However, other scholars seem to have had more success with Junia and have found 250 citation of the name in ancient literature, (The Word Bible Commentary Vol 38B on Romans p 894 by James Dunn)

As I said, they found only 3 instances in the entirety of ancient Greek literature. Where did Dunn's friends find their '250 occurrences' specifically?

Euripedes in the 5th century BC is an awfully long way back to go for a use of ev + dative. Isn't it better to take the plain meaning that they really were among the apostles?

It's one example. If you want more I can certainly provide them but I can't believe you're baulking at a mere few hundred years extra when the period we're talking about in the first instance is ~2000 years ago.

Isn't the ordinary meaning of suggenēs a relative? As in Elizabeth being Mary's relative? Andronicus and Junia were Paul's relative obviously a significant point to make. But why would he think he needed to describe them as apostles twice?

As well as taking the meaning 'extended family' the word can just as easily be translated as 'belonging to the same people group, compatriot or kin.'

As a footnote, I think it's rather ironic you repeatedly urge us to follow the plain meaning of certain words (as strictly defined by yourself of course) whilst at the same time being opposed to the plain meaning of certain passages (like 1 Tim 2:11-12 for instance).

 

[Assyrian]

As I said, they found only 3 instances in the entirety of ancient Greek literature. Where did Dunn's friends find their '250 occurrences' specifically?

Dunn quotes Lampe, P. “Iunia/Iunias: Sklavenherkunft im Kreise der vorpaulinischen Apostle (Röm 16:7)”ZNW 76 (1985) 132-134

It's one example. If you want more I can certainly provide them but I can't believe you're baulking at a mere few hundred years extra when the period we're talking about in the first instance is ~2000 years ago.

Don't see the relevance of the NT being written 2000 years ago, it is in a different language which is why we use translations, but 500 years is a long time for a language.

As well as taking the meaning 'extended family' the word can just as easily be translated as 'belonging to the same people group, compatriot or kin.'

Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household."
Did Jesus mean no Jews honoured him, or just his family? There were crowds following him around everywhere he went at this stage.
Luke 1:36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.
Again Elizabeth was hardly some unknown Jewish woman who has Mary turning up on her doorstep.
Luke 2:44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances,
It made a lot more sense to look for Jesus among the the people they knew and close relatives a young lad would probably have ended up with than immediately starting a nationwide search.
Luke 14:12 He said also to the man who had invited him, "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
Presumably the poor were fellow Jews too
Luke 21:16 You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. Why put relatives between brothers and friends if it simply meant fellow Jews they may not even know?
John 18:26 One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"
Surely this means more than simply telling us Malchus and the servant were both Jews.
Acts 10:24 And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends.
Does that mean his extended family, or all the Romans in the region?
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption...
It is clear from the passage Paul is using kinsmen and brothers in the much wider sense of fellow Israelites.
You have three groups of people referred to as relative in Romans 16, but there are other Jews Paul does not refer to that way. Unless it is clear Paul is using relative in the much broader sense of all Israel the normal use to refer to his extended family makes more sense.

As a footnote, I think it's rather ironic you repeatedly urge us to follow the plain meaning of certain words (as strictly defined by yourself of course) whilst at the same time being opposed to the plain meaning of certain passages (like 1 Tim 2:11-12 for instance).

Good point But it raises the question, what is the plain meaning of authentien, to usurp authority as the AV puts it? It isn't the normal word used in the NT for authority in fact it isn't used anywhere else in the NT. If we look at how it was used outside the NT we find a wide range of meanings changing over the centuries, the one thing in common was none of them were good. Yet it is this word that sets the context for Paul's concerns and the prohibition he gives. Then we have the command to keep silent, the other time Paul says that is in 1 Corinthians. Yet in the same letter he gives instruction for woman praying and prophesying.

I do agree a big problem in interpreting the bible is people take one or two proof texts and force all the other passages to fit, while other people take a different set of texts and force the first lot of texts to line up with those.

 

[Brother Chris]

God is never called the God of Sarah, the God of Rachel or the God of [insert woman's name here]. It is always the God of Jacob, the God of Issac or the God of Abraham. All male names. It has nothing to do with sexism or chauvinism, it is only what God has instituted. No female apostles, no female pastors.

 

[Assyrian]

God is never called the God of Sarah, the God of Rachel or the God of [insert woman's name here]. It is always the God of Jacob, the God of Issac or the God of Abraham. All male names. It has nothing to do with sexism or chauvinism, it is only what God has instituted. No female apostles, no female pastors.

How about Ruth 1:16 But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God."

With 'the God of Abraham', 'the God of Isaac', 'the God of Jacob', do you think I could get away with saying it reflects the patriarchal nature of society back then? You see, the New Covenant is one God has established with individuals that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. The Old Covenant was a national one, you were a member by being an Israelite and being circumcised. And how did a tribe or nation make a covenant with another nation or king? It was the leader of the tribe who made the covenant. And who were the leaders of the Hebrews who made that covenant with God for the whole tribe? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the umm, patriarchs.

God made a covenant with male leaders because society had male leadership, but if you want to know if God himself was committed to Israel being led by only by men, ask Deborah.

 

[Slaol121]

John Piper gives an interesting answer to the question of Women Pastors:

Should women become pastors? - Desiring God

The following is an edited transcript of the audio.

Should women become pastors?


"The Bible draws a connection between the home and the church. Just as there is a role distinction at home—where the husband is called to lead the family—there is also one at church.


At home men are proving their fitness to be elders (pastors), and at church they are the ones who are given that role. Paul says explicitly, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12). And those two functions—teaching and exercising authority—are the functions of the elder.


It's not a problem for a woman to minister in hundreds of ways in the church, but the office of leadership and teaching of men is preserved for spiritual and godly men.

Why didn't Jesus choose women as some of his apostles?


The Twelve are all men. That was intentional, because they are all given incredible authority to found the church. They are like pastors, only they have more authority than pastors.


But Jesus did call women, and he called them into significant ministry. Read the beginning of Luke 8 or see the role of women at the Resurrection. Jesus broke significant taboos in the way that he elevated the role of women. It was counter-cultural to have Mary sitting at his feet learning like a rabbinic student at the feet of his teacher. And it was counter-cultural for him to have women so closely attending him, providing for his needs, and for him to be so merciful to the women of the street.


Jesus was pro-woman to the max. But he did not choose women to be apostles. That wasn't because he was enslaved to his times. It was because, in coherence with the rest of the Bible (Genesis 1-2, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11, and 1 Timothy 2), he believed that it would be healthy for the church and the family if men assumed the role of Christ-like, humble, caring, servant-leaders, and if the women came in alongside with their respective gifts to help carry his leadership through according to those gifts.



So I sympathize with any confusion on this matter, and I pray that the Lord would give you light to see that it's really not very complicated: God has ordained that in the home and in the church men assume a special role of responsible leadership and teaching."
​

 

[Crankitup]

Dunn quotes Lampe, P. “Iunia/Iunias: Sklavenherkunft im Kreise der vorpaulinischen Apostle (Röm 16:7)”ZNW 76 (1985) 132-134

Unfortunately I don't speak German so could you tell me which collection of literature they sourced those 250 references from? Piper & Grudem found only 3 in all of the ancient GREEK literature.

I can't see the relevance of the NT being written 2000 years ago, it is in a different language which is why we use translations, but 500 years is a long time for a language.

That's a bit contradictory isn't it? 2000 years is OK but another 500 years makes it irrelevant?? I think you'll find the pace of change in the languages in question wasn't very great in that time frame whereas I'd concede that the English language of 1511 is markedly different to 2011.

You have three groups of people referred to as relative in Romans 16, but there are other Jews Paul does not refer to that way. Unless it is clear Paul is using relative in the much broader sense of all Israel the normal use to refer to his extended family makes more sense.

What about in Romans 16:11 or 16:21? AT Robertson (Word Pictures in the NT) along with many others appears to disagree with you. Maybe you should submit a paper to a Christian Journal and see what the peer review system makes of your novel ideas.

... Then we have the command to keep silent, the other time Paul says that is in 1 Corinthians. Yet in the same letter he gives instruction for woman praying and prophesying.

There's no discrepancy here at all. I'm frankly surprised that for someone so keen on sticking to the 'plain' or 'ordinary' meaning of things you would fail to see this. It's precisely because Paul made it clear that women could pray and prophesy in the very same letter that he talks about them being 'silent' that we can understand he didn't mean absolute silence at all times. He was basically asking them to keep quiet in the sense of not yelling out questions in the meeting.

 

[Crankitup]

God made a covenant with male leaders because society had male leadership, but if you want to know if God himself was committed to Israel being led by only by men, ask Deborah.

Ask yourself, has God provided for us in Deborah, a model for how He would have women to act today?

This is a question answered comprehensively in this article - Deborah & Barak: Example for Women or Embarrassment for Men?

It's also an interesting side note that Judges 4 names her as 'wife of Lapidoth'. How many male prophets were referred to as Prophet so and so, husband of so and so?

Anyway here is the relevant portion of the article;

CONCLUSION FOR DEBORAH'S DAY

In relation to Deborah we need to conclude the following:

That there were no men in Israel willing to take on a role of leadership as per God's commands in Deuteronomy 16:18 and 17:8f is tragic. The men in Israel were reneging on the duty that God gave to them. That the Lord raised up a leader in this particular leadership vacuum is evidence of God's grace in that He gave a leader to the unworthy. However, that this leader is a woman is evidence of God's judgment in that He embarrassed and put to shame those who should have been leaders, by turning to the helpers.

Deborah's attitude, as noted above, was very much in keeping with God's revelation to Israel about the place and function of the woman in relation to the man. Deborah was a woman who knew her God-given place as a help to the man. So, when the man did not rise up to lead, she did, in order to encourage Barak to get out there and do what he had to do. Deborah used her position to 'help' the men be the 'leaders' they were supposed to be. In Judges 4 we see how Deborah was not just a help in relation to her husband Lapidoth, but to man in general. Even in her position as judge in Israel, she acknowledged the man as head, and we understand that this was in agreement with God's instruction in Genesis 2. As stated earlier, Deborah is mentioned in Judges 4 as the wife of Lapidoth, because she knew her God-given place and she accepted it. Deborah was a woman of faith.


CONCLUSION FOR OUR DAY

Should we encourage our daughters to aspire to the sort of position that comes up in our mind when we hear that Deborah was a judge? Should we encourage our sons to be "the Baraks, Lapidoths, and 10,000 men who will allow God to use His Deborahs"? The answer is distinctly No! Instead, women need to encourage in themselves and in their daughters a spirit of being the helper, recognising that God has given authority and responsibility to the man. Equally, it is for the women to encourage their men and their sons to be leaders in marriage and family, in church, and in society.
This is not to say that women or their daughters may never end up with a position of leadership; sovereign God may give it as He did in Judges 4. But to find yourself having such a position is rather different than aspiring to, or setting your sights on, that position.
At bottom, it is a question of faith. God's revelation is clear on the place He has given to the woman in relation to the man. Important is not whether this revelation sits well with us, sinful as we are. Important is what the Lord says. Faith prompts humble acceptance of God's revelation. That there is an unhappiness with the positions received for man and for woman has been prophesied (cf Gen 3:16b). It's for us, though, humbly to accept the position that God gives.

 

[Assyrian]

Ask yourself, has God provided for us in Deborah, a model for how He would have women to act today?

With or without tent pegs?

The fact is God raised this women up gave her a prophetic gift, gave her a ministry where people trusted her wisdom and came to her to judge their disputes, raised her into the position of judge of Israel and made her the leader of the whole nation. Not only did God give a woman the role of leadership of his people, God clearly didn't see a problem with a woman leading.

This is a question answered comprehensively in this article - Deborah & Barak: Example for Women or Embarrassment for Men?

It's also an interesting side note that Judges 4 names her as 'wife of Lapidoth'. How many male prophets were referred to as Prophet so and so, husband of so and so?

What we have instead is male prophets and judges being referred to as so and so, son of so and so. Othniel the son of Kenaz, Ehud the son of Gera, Shamgar the son of Anath. Why say who the father was? So the readers would know what Othniel or what Ehud they were talking about. Here in Wales if you talk about how terrible Maggie was people know exactly who you are talking about but if you are writing a history book you would call her by her husband’s name Thatcher. Same with Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi. For better or worse (hah!) women are usually known by their husband’s names, just a George W Bush has his father's name. Other than that, the husband plays no part in the story.

Anyway here is the relevant portion of the article;

That there were no men in Israel willing to take on a role of leadership as per God's commands in Deuteronomy 16:18 and 17:8f is tragic. The men in Israel were reneging on the duty that God gave to them. That the Lord raised up a leader in this particular leadership vacuum is evidence of God's grace in that He gave a leader to the unworthy. However, that this leader is a woman is evidence of God's judgment in that He embarrassed and put to shame those who should have been leaders, by turning to the helpers.

Deborah's attitude, as noted above, was very much in keeping with God's revelation to Israel about the place and function of the woman in relation to the man. Deborah was a woman who knew her God-given place as a help to the man. So, when the man did not rise up to lead, she did, in order to encourage Barak to get out there and do what he had to do. Deborah used her position to 'help' the men be the 'leaders' they were supposed to be. In Judges 4 we see how Deborah was not just a help in relation to her husband Lapidoth, but to man in general. Even in her position as judge in Israel, she acknowledged the man as head, and we understand that this was in agreement with God's instruction in Genesis 2. As stated earlier, Deborah is mentioned in Judges 4 as the wife of Lapidoth, because she knew her God-given place and she accepted it. Deborah was a woman of faith.

Judges 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment.
Doesn't sound as if she was 'helping' her husband that much sitting under a palm tree. She may have owned her own palm tree so we could be looking at the entrepreneurial Proverbs 31 woman who husband has full trust in her.
but we really don't know anything about her domestic arrangements, however much Bouwman want to read into it.

You cannot say there were no men willing to take the role, being a judge in your own town did not make you the leader of all Israel, and the judges we read about were raised up by God, they did not take the role on themselves. There was effective leadership too on the tribal level, which we see in some tribe responding to the call to arms en mass and others refusing. God was quite capable of calling a young man hiding in a wine press. A supposed lack of men willing to be leaders sounds more like an excuse to explain away the fact God called a woman.

I do agree Deborah encouraged Barak to take up his role as commander of the army, now while you might get some feminists who are anti men, I cannot imagine women leaders in the church who would not encourage men to take up their roles in leadership too. But remember while Barak was the commander of the army, Deborah was the leader of all Israel, She sent and summoned Barak Judges 4:6.

CONCLUSION FOR OUR DAY

Should we encourage our daughters to aspire to the sort of position that comes up in our mind when we hear that Deborah was a judge? Should we encourage our sons to be "the Baraks, Lapidoths, and 10,000 men who will allow God to use His Deborahs"? The answer is distinctly No! Instead, women need to encourage in themselves and in their daughters a spirit of being the helper, recognising that God has given authority and responsibility to the man. Equally, it is for the women to encourage their men and their sons to be leaders in marriage and family, in church, and in society.
This is not to say that women or their daughters may never end up with a position of leadership; sovereign God may give it as He did in Judges 4. But to find yourself having such a position is rather different than aspiring to, or setting your sights on, that position.
At bottom, it is a question of faith. God's revelation is clear on the place He has given to the woman in relation to the man. Important is not whether this revelation sits well with us, sinful as we are. Important is what the Lord says. Faith prompts humble acceptance of God's revelation. That there is an unhappiness with the positions received for man and for woman has been prophesied (cf Gen 3:16b). It's for us, though, humbly to accept the position that God gives.

Deborah used the gifts God gave her, prophecy and wisdom, and as she did, the Lord made her ministry grow and grow until she led all Israel. I would encourage any woman of God to do the same. Bouwman seems to see some sort of competition between Barak and Lappidoth, and Deborah. That if we have Deborahs it turns men into Baraks and Lappidoths. This probably says more about Bouwman than it does Deborah. Deborah was encouraging Barak into full the leadership of the army instead he insisted she come with him. Barak's problem was not woman leadership, but not doing what the woman of God told him. Nevertheless God used them both mightily and freed Israel from oppression.