Women in Mininstry: A Debate

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
18th February 2003 at 04:56 AM undead said this in Post #34 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=660246#post660246)

"Culture" is the favourite word of people without an argument.

The bible knows no culture, but the culture of the people of God, who have their own culture.

And what reasons do you have for believing this? It seems to me quite clear that the Bible is full of statements, references, and thoughts that clearly show the influence of a specific culture on it.
 
Upvote 0

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
Okay - next passage.

I maintain that this passage in I Timothy moves from speaking to and about different groups. I Timothy 2:1-7 speaks to all believes. Verse 8 is for the men. 8-10 are to the women. 11-15a is to a woman (note the change from the plural to the singular), and 15b goes back to the plural, so it is meant for all the women.

I want to deal with this crazy logic you have got going on here. Just as a side note you cant prove anything with Rom 16:7 that you could use  as proof for a Junias being a women or an apostle. You can come up with all the theories you want but there just isnt enough evidence to boldly make your claim. Now I disagree with your break down above. I am sure its a typo but you state that vrs 8 is for them men then you include verse 8 as talking to the women. I certainly dont agree with your 11-15 analogy. I will talk about that more.
First, we have to understand what the previous words says. Ephesus was a moral wasteland. The church was in serious trouble. Paul says that this was a time of great opportunity - a time to pray. He gives them four different words for prayer in verse 2:2. No one is excuded from making such prayers. Of interest is Paul's use of the word for quiet - "hesuchios" which we will see again. Paul urged prayer not just so that believers could live peacable lives, but becayse they should feel what God feels and want what He wants.

Next thing to note: Paul uses the word anthropos (the gender-inclusive word meaning "person" or "human" for the first seven verses. As someone who I assume is an Arminian, I am sure Cougan would agree that God wants all people to be saved - this is the core of the gospel message.

In verse 8, Timothy uses aner, so this is specific. They were to pray without anger or disputing.

The next two verses deal with the entire woman population: Paul wanted them to dress modestly, with decency and propriaty, but with good deeds. (This brings up the question - do people wear jewelry in your church? Is this not wrong according to this passage?) He connects the two sentences with the word "likewise" (hosautos ), showing not that they are different, but that they are the same. Paul wanted both of them to pray and live lives that were separate from the rest of the culture.

I agree with what you have said in this part. This affirms that men are to lead prayer in church and not the women. The women are to pray as well as they pray with the man that is leading the prayer. In commenting up on vrs 8 THe Expositors Greek Testment observes: "The ministers of public prayer must be men of the congregation, not the women" (IV, P. 106)
Next, we come to the passage in question. Paul specifically states this:

The woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit the woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 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 she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Note that verse 15, especially says "she" and not "they!" The context suggests strongly that Paul had a certain person in mind! Paul did this in Titus as well - calls out an unnamed person causing dissention.

In fact, reading the passage, we do not see any command of this being applied to all women - only this one, singular woman, who was spreading heresy in the church!

And read again what I wrote about that. Paul shifts his case, from plural to singular - from dealing with all of the women to dealing with "the" woman. What Strongs has to say is irrelevant. What you are not considering is the case of the word and its relevance. That is why your use of this Scripture is invalid. It ignores Paul's specific use of the singular and plural uses of the word for woman.

Here is where you try and do you little dance and try add your own little twist to these verses because you have to. If these verses 11-15 are talking about women in general and not a specific women then your whole arguement crumbles. Verses 8-15 are discussing the different roles of men and women in the church. Your arguement is almost laughable yet very sad at the same time. You claim that that because the word "women" in vrs 11 and 12 is singular that somehow is stateing that ONE PATICULAR WOMEN in that church was being refered to. This view of yours is so filled with errors.

First of all there is nothing in the context here that would justify the topic being changed from women to a paticular women.
2nd If a paticuar women was in mind it seems to me she would of been named.
3rd lets take a look at a few verses where "a women" is singular and lets see if it has in mind that its only talking about ONE PATICULAR WOMEN.

Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman (singular) to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

What women? Which women?

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman(singular).

Touch what women? Which women?

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a
woman (singular)
to pray to God with her head uncovered?


What women? Which women?

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman(singular) is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman (singular) to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

What women? Which women?

All of these are in the singular and they do not have a specific women in mind but it applies to all women just like it does in 1 tim 2:11-12.

4th The bible confirms without a doubt that this is not talking about a partiuclar women. First lets look at the text under question.

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.
 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority
over a man, but to be in silence.
 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived, fell into transgression.
 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they
continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.


In vrs 11 what women? Any women. vrs 12 What women? Any women. Now verse 13 gives us an idea that it is not speaking about just one women. Does it really make sense that if this was just one women that he would say I want this one women to learn in silence and not to teach or have authorty of man. HOW COME PAUL? Because Adam was formed first then EVE AND Adam was not deceived but the women was.... This is some explanation for why the ONE little lady could not teach have authorty over a man now isnt it. Your view on this is just does'nt work. Paul goes back to the Adam and Eve and points out that Man was made first and that Eve was the first to sin. Do you not remember what God told the women in Gen.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

But probably the biggest blow to your whole arguement is the fact that the following verses support and agree with the verses in 1Tim.

1cor 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as thelaw also says.
 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their
own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak
in church.


I love how the bible clearly interprets itself. Scott I will deal with your other statements you have made latter. But this post on this verse  brings the walls down of all your arguements. Surely even you can clearly see this.

Cougan
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Today at 05:54 PM cougan said this in Post #42 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668933#post668933)

But probably the biggest blow to your whole arguement is the fact that the following verses support and agree with the verses in 1Tim.

1cor 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as thelaw also says.
 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their
own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak
in church.


I love how the bible clearly interprets itself. Scott I will deal with your other statements you have made latter. But this post on this verse  brings the walls down of all your arguements. Surely even you can clearly see this.
Cougan
Actually Cougan this first sentence is a vast overstatement, which ignores several things about the verses you have posted.

First the word translated "women" in these verses is "gune." Since you are presenting yourself as a knowledgeable Bible scholar, you should know that Greek had one word for both woman and wife, "gune". And the context will inform us which it should be. For example the "women" in vss, 34 and 35 are the same, note the "AND" which begins vs. 35. And, it continues, if they (the women in vs, 34) will learn anything let (a permissive imperative , NOT a command) them ask their "HUSBANDS" at home. Who? Their husbands!

What about widows and unmarried women, do they also ask their husbands at home? Also what "law" is Paul talking about? This is quite clearly guidance for husbands and wives. The husband is the spiritual head of the home. He is responsible for his wife's spiritual welfare, thus if she has a spiritual question, she is to ask her husband, so that they are of one mind, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the church. BUT this says absolutely nothing about making all men the head of ALL women. For example, as I just stated, e.g. I, NOT every man in the church, am the spiritual leader of my wife.

And OBTW the law that Paul was referring to was Numbers 30:3-13. I discuss it, 1 Cor 14:34-35, and other male supremacist "proof texts" at these links. You will note that the "law" makes a distinction between young women at home, married women, and widows and unmarried women. The latter being responsible for themselves. Therefore we can conclude since Paul cited the law as his authority, he also makes a distinction between these groups.


18th February 2003 at 08:24 PM OldShepherd said this in Post #75 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=660269#post660269)

Post 65 and 67 at this link

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/35280-7.html

Post 74 at this link

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/35280-8.html
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Today at 05:54 PM cougan said this in Post #42 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668933#post668933)

Here is where you try and do you little dance and try add your own little twist to these verses because you have to.

Oh, I like this little jab. But let us read Cougan's post and observe where he is the one doing the dance.
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.
 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority
over a man, but to be in silence.
 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived, fell into transgression.
 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Note that Cougan has chosen a translation which fits his preconception here. The word translated "have authority" is the Greek "authenteuo" which is correctly translated "usurp" in the KJV (NO I am not a KJV Onlyist). Both the Greek, "authenteuo" and "usurp" mean, "to take authority for one's self, as an autocrat or dictator." And that is a pretty good rule for either men or women. But this verse says absolutely nothing about a church appointing a woman pastor and GIVING her the authority that goes with that office, as with any man.

Next note that Paul uses the personal pronoun, "I do not permit." Is Paul speaking for himself or the Lord? In other places Paul states that he is speaking for himself not as a commandment of the Lord.

Was Adam's sin any less because he was created first? Did Adam sin or didn't he? How did death enter the world, because Adam sinned or because the woman sinned?

  • Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
I love how the bible clearly interprets itself.
I also love how the Bible interprets itself, when you refer to the WHOLE Bible and not just a handful of "proof texts." Your argument starts in the writings of Paul, with the presupposition that women are somehow just a little inferior to men and then you bring in your other isolated out of context Pauline proof texts.

Whereas I start with the first book of the Bible Genesis and interpret Pauls writings to harmonize with God speaking, in Gen 1:27 for example, where God says,

  • 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Woman, as are men, are created in the exact image of God. Exact, NOT a little less, or a little inferior. And since woman is in the image of God then they are equal, before God, to men in every way, every circumstance, and every situation. And long before I get to Paul's writing I read many times in the O.T. that God is NOT a respector of persons. And then I read where Paul says that in Christ Jesus there is NO male or female.

I did see a reference to Phoebe in Romans 16:1, I don't know what has been said, to this point, but here is my view. Let us ignore, for the moment, how the word diakonoV is translated differently, deacon, servant, etc. That is totally irrelevant. If Paul had said in 1 Tim that a diakonon must be a man, then he could NOT have said in Rom 16:1, our sister Phoebe was a diakonon, the exact same word, without contradicting himself. If Paul had simply meant servant he had three other Greek words to choose from, "doulos, oiketes, and pais."
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 03:54 AM cougan said this in Post #42

I want to deal with this crazy logic you have got going on here. Just as a side note you cant prove anything with Rom 16:7 that you could use  as proof for a Junias being a women or an apostle. You can come up with all the theories you want but there just isnt enough evidence to boldly make your claim.


It's not a matter of having evidence to support that Junias is a woman, although church history and Greek history does strongly support that. It is a matter of having no evidence to support the idea that Junias was a man. Point blank: There has never been, in any writing, a man with a name such a Junias. Even sources that try to show that he was, indeed, a man agree with this. Unless there is enough strong evidence that Junias was a man, we have to "keep" her a woman. Enough church fathers (all of them that I've seen reference to) have said Junias was a woman. It wasn't until the 12th century that people started trying to make Junias a man.

Now I disagree with your break down above. I am sure its a typo but you state that vrs 8 is for them men then you include verse 8 as talking to the women. I certainly dont agree with your 11-15 analogy. I will talk about that more.

Yes - verse 9-10 are for the women.

I agree with what you have said in this part. This affirms that men are to lead prayer in church and not the women. The women are to pray as well as they pray with the man that is leading the prayer. In commenting up on vrs 8 THe Expositors Greek Testment observes: "The ministers of public prayer must be men of the congregation, not the women" (IV, P. 106)

So you are saying that this verse says that men are to lead prayer? That's placing a huge supposition on the text. Here is what verse 8 says: 

"I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. "

There is nothing about leading here - there is nothing specifically mentioned at church.

Unanswered questions that must be answered for you to agree with this:

1. Are ALL men the leaders of the church? Are there any men who are to be followers?

2. Do you always life up your hands when you pray? If not, are you breaking the rules?

Here is where you try and do you little dance and try add your own little twist to these verses because you have to. If these verses 11-15 are talking about women in general and not a specific women then your whole arguement crumbles. Verses 8-15 are discussing the different roles of men and women in the church. Your arguement is almost laughable yet very sad at the same time. You claim that that because the word "women" in vrs 11 and 12 is singular that somehow is stateing that ONE PATICULAR WOMEN in that church was being refered to. This view of yours is so filled with errors.

Then let us see them. Do you agree that, all of a sudden, the word changes tenses? 

First of all there is nothing in the context here that would justify the topic being changed from women to a paticular women.

Sure there is. There is precedence for this. Titus was left to "straighten out what was left unfinished" and confront a group of false teachers, who, according to Paul, "must be silenced." The "divisive person" was the ringleader of those who were "teaching things they ought not to teach." Paul didn't need to mention him by name because both he and Titus knew exactly who was at the heart of the problem at Crete. He also does this when he is talking about a man committing incest in the book of I Corinthians. From the context of how Paul writes letters, this makes perfect sense. Paul writes purposely from plural to singular, back to plural.

 
2nd If a paticuar women was in mind it seems to me she would of been named.

See above. This was fairly common for Paul.

3rd lets take a look at a few verses where "a women" is singular and lets see if it has in mind that its only talking about ONE PATICULAR WOMEN.

Okay, lets. 

Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman (singular) to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

What women? Which women?

The specific woman that the man is looking at.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman(singular).

Touch what women? Which women?

This would seem to both be speaking of a specific man and a specific woman. How do we know? For one, marriage is a gift from God. If this was universal, then paul would be contradicting that. Someone has asked a specific question to Paul, probably about two people who are physically doing things they are not supposed to do. Paul answers specifically - "It is good for the man not to touch the woman." If this were universal, then the next few verses would be blantantly contradicting it.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a
woman (singular)
to pray to God with her head uncovered?


What women? Which women?

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman(singular) is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman (singular) to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

What women? Which women?

These passages are universal, becaues Paul clearly states they are universal. (Verse 8 and 9 show us this.) There is no such universal statement found in the letter to Timothy.

All of these are in the singular and they do not have a specific women in mind but it applies to all women just like it does in 1 tim 2:11-12.

The first two passages did. The third and fourth one show Paul specifically saying that the use of "man" and "woman" are archetypes for all men and women.

4th The bible confirms without a doubt that this is not talking about a partiuclar women. First lets look at the text under question.

In vrs 11 what women? Any women. vrs 12 What women? Any women.

I'm assuming that last bit is your assumption, since that is not what the text says: "The woman should learn in quiteness and full submission. I do not permit the woman to teach or to have authority over men; she must be silent." That's the literal translation of it.

Now verse 13 gives us an idea that it is not speaking about just one women. Does it really make sense that if this was just one women that he would say I want this one women to learn in silence and not to teach or have authorty of man. HOW COME PAUL? Because Adam was formed first then EVE AND Adam was not deceived but the women was.... This is some explanation for why the ONE little lady could not teach have authorty over a man now isnt it.

The reason that Paul does this is simple. He states that the woman should be silent by immediately pointing to another deceived woman - Eve. Paul explained to Timothy what to do with this deceived woman. Then, just to make it clear to him, Paul used the word "for' or "because" to compare her situation to that of Eve in the Garden. He reminded Timothy that Adam sinned with his eyes open, but Eve did so because she was decived. Paul held Adam more accountable for his sin, because Adam wasn't deceived when he decided to obey God. (Romans 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:22) However, Eve's sin was the fruit, not of knowing disobedience, but deception. One of the major themes of the entire letter was stopping the deception in the Ephesian church. Eve was deceived, and so was this woman who was to be silenced. Both were acting on false beliefs.

What these two women had in common was that they have both believed a lie. As a result, both had sinned. The sin of both affected the lives of a large number of people in a very negative way. Paul wanted to put an end to this: an end to the sin, and an end to the deception, and an end to the condition that made deception possible. He realized that the women of his day were more prone to being deceived because they had been excluded from educational opportunities. Paul intended to put an end to this deception. This was the first step in restoring not only the deceived woman but also the entire church of Ephesus.

Your view on this is just does'nt work. Paul goes back to the Adam and Eve and points out that Man was made first and that Eve was the first to sin. Do you not remember what God told the women in Gen.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

So can you not see that man ruling over woman is a result of a sinful nature? Can you not see from reading the NT that God had a better way - a more godly way - for man and woman to relate to each other? If Adam and Eve's sin were identical, then why does Paul say over and over again that by one "man" came death, and not one "woman?" Why? Because Eve was deceived, just as that woman was in Ephesus.


But probably the biggest blow to your whole arguement is the fact that the following verses support and agree with the verses in 1Tim.

And I believe I've addressed this before, so why not work with that before using a questionable text to prove a questionable text. Especially read what seebs wrote - he has a great point! (It is clear from the context that Paul is containing chaos in the church, and is done very specifically)

1cor 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as thelaw also says.
 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their
own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak
in church.

If we take this literally, then we must apply it literally.

Some more unanswered questions for you:

1. Can women speak at all in your church, or once they enter the building they have to hush, "for it is shameful for women to speak in church?"

2. Do any of your women wear jewerly or braid their hair? Even a wedding ring is taboo according to a literal reading of the text.

3. Are all men required to lead in prayer, as you say Timothy reads?

4. Do women teach children, since this is not even allowed by Timothy?

5. Are single men and widowers allowed to be ministers in your church? Since they do not have one wife, they are not Biblically qualified, taking a strict literal view.

(Anyone else can answer these questions, too, if they would like. I think the answers to this show that cougan picks and chooses what he wants to read literally and which ones are not.)
 
Upvote 0
I don't think I can really add anything to this debate since it looks as though both sides are being debated admirably. I did find an article in a book by Edith Deen, "All of The Women of The Bible," Harper & Row, Publishers, N.Y., Hagerstown, San Francisco, London, 1955 and she does raise the point that when Paul calls Phebe "a servant of the church," the word "servant" comes from the Greek diaconos, from which our word "deacon" is derived and many commentators, becuase of this have inferred that Phebe was a deaconess. In the early Church much was made of service, little of office, and it was more of an honor to be referred to as a servant than as a deaconess.

Curiously enough she does not list a "Junia". Unger's Bible Dictionary says of the name:
A Christian at Rome to whom Paul sent a salutation in connection with Adronicus as "my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before" himself (Rom.16:7), A.D. 60. From his calling them kinsmen it is supposed that they were of Jewish extraction.
Paul does refer to Phoebe or Phebe as a "sister" whereas he does not with Junias. Who even knows what the name "Junias" may have originally been since "J" is the most recent letter added to our English alphabet.

The Encyclopedia of Americana says:<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>
The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol J,I used initally generally had the consonant sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J,I were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.

Likewise Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary confirms how the J developed from I and became a consonant only a few centuries ago:
"J, j(ja), n. 1. The tenth letter of the English aplhabet: formerly a variant of I, i, in the seventeenth century it became established as a consonant only, as in Julius, originally spelled Iulius."

The letter J was often used of the letter I, especially at the beginning of a word. This beame common in the 1600s (World Book Encyclopedia, Vol, 2, 1995 ed). Medieval scribes added a tail to the second I when two I's appeared together. Because a beginning I almost always has a consonant sound, the long form, J, came to be used generally for the consonant sound of the letter (New Book of Knowledge).

It became necessary to distinguish between the J and the I when the dictionary came into being. In the seventeenth century, the dictionary's appearance forced a consistent spelling. Using either I or J became mandatory to ensure proper alphabetical positioning. Owing to this close kinship with I, J was inserted immediately following I in our English alphabet.


Encyclopedia Americana:
"It is oneof the few permanent additions to those alphabets, made in medival or modern times: More exactly, it was not an addition, but a differentiation from an existing letter, I, which in Latin, besides being a vowel (as in index), had also the consonantal value of Y (as in maior, pronounced 'mayor'). "At a later state, the sumbol 'J' was used for the distinctive purpose, particularly when the I had to be written initially (or in&nbsp;conjunction with another I). Either symbol used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y (as in year) so that the&nbsp;Latin pronunciation of wither Ianuarious or Januarius was though&nbsp;the spelling was 'Yanuarius.' While in some words of Hebrew and other origin (such as Hallelujah or Junker), J has the phonetic value of Y.

We discover, then that the letter J derived from the vowel letter I and originally had the same sound as the vowel I. That is why the lower case j still has a dot over it. The letter&nbsp;I represents the Greek iota (I), which usually corresponds to the Hebrew yothe&nbsp;(Y as in yes). The letter J has a Y sound (as in hallelujah) in Latin, German, and Scandinavian languages. In Spanish, J ia an aspirate, having the sound of H.

The J was first pronounced as the I at the time&nbsp;of the introduction of the printing press. Dutch printers fostered utilizing the J,&nbsp;especially at the begnning of a word. The letter J eventually acquired&nbsp;its own sound. It was the French who gave the letter J the present sound of the soft letter g as in "large" or&nbsp;"purge." In Latin, German, and other languages the J is pronounced more like Y with an "ee" sound. The Spanish J is more like an aspirant as San Jose. Some old European maps still show the spelling of countires like Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia) or Sowjet (Soviet) Russia. It is only in the last century that he letter&nbsp;J has firmly taken the French pronunciation as in joy and journal.&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 01:21 PM 4Jesus said this in Post #46


Curiously enough she does not list a "Junia". Unger's Bible Dictionary says of the name: Paul does refer to Phoebe or Phebe as a "sister" whereas he does not with Junias. Who even knows what the name "Junias"&nbsp;may have originally been since "J" is the most recent letter added to our English alphabet.




The Greek is the same, which is what we are working off of - and the first letter in Junias name is the Greek letter (iota). However, this is also the first letter of Jesus, Joshua, John and Jordan, and so on. There is still no evidence of a male Junia in Greek, Latin, nor English sources.
 
Upvote 0

cougan

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
766
7
51
Visit site
✟8,856.00
Faith
Christian
Old Shepard thanks for your input. First of all I do not claim to be a Greek Scholar nor a bibical Scholar. I am just student of the bible trying my best to learn and how to teach what I have learned to others. I love studying the word of God to see what it is that is pleasing to him and not what man thinks or does. All though my knowledge may be greater that some I feel I still have a very long way to go and I will still have plenty of room for growth up to the day I die. I do know that wife and women are from the same greek word.

I am a bit surprized by your response because I thought that I had read earlier where you belived that the men are the ones to lead prayer and be elders, deacons basical the leaders of the church. So correct me if I am wrong it seems to me that you are saying that if a women gets married then she loses her right to have authority over a man. She can no longer be a deacon or elder or lead prayer in church. If its a widow or a single women then she do all these things because she is not a wife. This is what you seem to imply to me.

I have not went and read your links you posted as of yet I am just making a quick comment off the top of my head. I would agree with you that a husband should be his wifes spiritual leader. But others in the church can help in this role. The elders are to watch over the whole flock and they are spiritual leaders forever one. If a women is widow or single they look to the elders for spirtual leadership. I just don't see how you can say that wifes are to be silent but that widow and single women dont have to remain silent. This just does not make any sense to me.

I will add more latter when I have time.
 
Upvote 0
Today at 01:14 PM ScottEmerson said this in Post #47

The Greek is the same, which is what we are working off of - and the first letter in Junias name is the Greek letter (iota). However, this is also the first letter of Jesus, Joshua, John and Jordan, and so on. There is still no evidence of a male Junia in Greek, Latin, nor English sources.

There is no "J" in&nbsp;the Greek language.&nbsp;


Salute Adronicus and Junia, my kinsmen Ro.16:7

Kinsman in Hebrew is (go-el "redeemer). The go-el among the Hebrews was the nearest living "male" relative, and on him devolved certain duties to his next of kin, i.e. Blood Avenger, the son is enjoined to avenge the blood of his father; the brother is obliged to punish a crime committed against his sister. It was the duty of a kinsman to redeem the paternal estate that "his" nearest relative might have sold.

I feel quite sure that Paul was referring to men in Ro.16:7.
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 04:07 PM 4Jesus said this in Post #49

There is no "J" in&nbsp;the Greek language.&nbsp;


Which is why I said the letter was Iota. The "J" came in much later.

Kinsman in Hebrew is (go-el "redeemer). The go-el among the Hebrews was the nearest living "male" relative, and on him devolved certain duties to his next of kin, i.e. Blood Avenger, the son is enjoined to avenge the blood of his father; the brother is obliged to punish a crime committed against his sister. It was the duty of a kinsman to redeem the paternal estate that "his" nearest relative might have sold.

I feel quite sure that Paul was referring to men in Ro.16:7.

The greek word here is "suggenes." The word is actually feminine in ending, ironically enough - "suggeneis," but does not necessarily mean that the antecedents are feminine. The word in Greek has more of the implication of someone from the same nation or country - not so much as redeemer. There would be a huge burden on you to show that Paul was considering them as some sort of redeemer, especially since they were also fellow prisoners with him.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Today at 05:54 AM cougan said this in Post #48 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=669650#post669650)

All though my knowledge may be greater that some I feel I still have a very long way to go and I will still have plenty of room for growth up to the day I die. I do know that wife and women are from the same greek word.
I too trust that I will continue to learn until God calls me home. I would especially like to be able to do as some of my professors did, e.g. Clyde Francisco, and Dale Moody, reading directly from the Hebrew O.T. or Greek N.T. as they taught translating and exegeting as they went along.
I am a bit surprized by your response because I thought that I had read earlier where you belived that the men are the ones to lead prayer and be elders, deacons basical the leaders of the church. So correct me if I am wrong it seems to me that you are saying that if a women gets married then she loses her right to have authority over a man. She can no longer be a deacon or elder or lead prayer in church. If its a widow or a single women then she do all these things because she is not a wife. This is what you seem to imply to me.
Must have been some other Shepherd I have been staunchly advocating that women are created in the EXACT image of God, are equal before God and any qualified person created in the image of God can fill any church office(PERIOD)

I believe a wife can still fill any church office deacon, elder, pastor, etc., leading, guiding, shepherding the CHURCH and the husband is still the scriptural head of the HOME. See the difference?

I would agree with you that a husband should be his wifes spiritual leader. But others in the church can help in this role. The elders are to watch over the whole flock and they are spiritual leaders forever one.
The ususal way this gets is expressed is, "The man is the head of the woman." implying that ALL men are the head of ALL women. And that is dead wrong!
If a women is widow or single they look to the elders for spirtual leadership. I just don't see how you can say that wifes are to be silent but that widow and single women dont have to remain silent. This just does not make any sense to me.
And how pray tell do the widows and and single women elicit this help if they are to remain silent in the church? "In the church" does not mean only during the regular worship service!

Please reread my post. I explained, I think, very throughly why the wives, and 1 Cor 14:34-35 is talking about wives, "if they will learn anything to ask their husbands at home." Because the husband, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the church, is responsible for the wife's spiritual welfare. The wife is required to defer to her husband and ask her questions of him in private, so that the two are of one mind. The widows and unmarried women have no husband to ask privately, so they are free to ask their questions publicly. And as Paul said, "thus saith the law."

Another factor that has been overlooked in this discussion is what is the main subject of 1 Cor, chapter 14? Speaking in tongues! Verses 1-26 are describing problems with speaking in tongues. Verses 27-32 rules for speaking in tongues. Verse 33 the reason for the rule, because "God is not the author of confusion." And verses 34-35 continue on with the same theme speaking and many such as yourself would have us believe that suddenly in these two verses Paul inexplicably switches and suddenly starts laying down rules prohibiting women from speaking in church.

It would appear that Corinth had a problem with speaking in tongues, that some women may have been the cause of that problem and Paul was dealing with that local problem. Whatever the case this passage cannot reasonably be interpreted as establishing a rule that ALL women must be absolutely silent in the church, at all times. After all Paul also spoke of women prophesying and praying.
 
Upvote 0

OldShepherd

Zaqunraah
Mar 11, 2002
7,156
174
EST
✟21,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Cougan,

Here is part of another post in the Unorthodox Doctrine forum, listing O.T. and N.T. passages which impact directly on the topic of this thread.


<hr>

Long before Paul was born God said that He was NOT a respecter of persons. The word of God repeats that over and over again. I believe that. You do not. I believe that God does not respect persons in any way whatsoever. Every living human being is totally, completely, absolutely equal in His sight in every situation and every circumstance. Just as these many verses say. But you do NOT believe that. If you even believe that God does not respect persons, you want to limit it to certain situations and circumstances.

"Yes women are equal in fellowship, etc. BUT I have a couple of verses Paul wrote and I interpet those verses to mean that God does respect persons, because by a simple accident of birth one half of His creation is prohibited from any leadership in the church because of their gender."
  • Le 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

    De 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

    De 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

    2Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

    2 Sa 14:14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.

    Pr 24:23 These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.

    Pr 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for a piece of bread that man will transgress.

    Ro 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

    Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

    Jas 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

    Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

    1 Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
 
Upvote 0
Yesterday at 04:11 PM ScottEmerson said this in Post #50

There would be a huge burden on you to show that Paul was considering them as some sort of redeemer, especially since they were also fellow prisoners with him.

My point was not that Paul was using the word in the strictest sense of the word but the term "kinsmen" would&nbsp;not have been applied to a woman, since Adronicus is a male and as you claim Junias is a female, Paul would have probably referred to them as his brother and sister in Christ.

According to Vine's Expository Dictionary, the use of Sungenes in Ro.16:7, can carry the&nbsp;conotation of tribal or racial kinship or&nbsp;fellow-nationals and is used as an adjective. A late feminine form used as a&nbsp;noun is applied to Luke 1:36 for a "kinswoman".&nbsp;&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
In Luke 1:36, the construction of the word is exactly the same as the one used to describe Adronicus and Junias. The difference is the case (which is the dative) and the number (which is plural). Since this same word is used to describe Elizabeth (who was a woman), why could it not also describe Junias? You are making a weak case for proof that Junia was a male.
 
Upvote 0
Adonicus and Junia are "kinsmen" in Ro.16:7. Herodian which is derived from Herod is a "kinsman" in (v.11). Timothy, Lucias, Jason and Sosipater which are definitely male names are called "kinsmen" in (v.21).

You are the one who has a weak case for Junia being a woman.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary&nbsp;to the doctrine which we have learned; and avoid them Romans 16:17&nbsp;

&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
So if Elizabeth is called a kinsman, and Herod is a kinsman, and Timothy, Lucias, Jason, and Sosipater are all called "kinsmen," can we not conclude that to kinsman is in and of itself neutral and does not point either way to the gender of Junia?

WOuld you like me to say my case again?

1. The single, most irrefutable claim of evidence is that there has never been a male name of Junias on record in Greek, Latin, or English, while there have been a good number of women named Junia.

2. That Junia was a woman was accepted by all church fathers until 12th c. AD, when the perspective was changed for political reasons.

Because of the huge amounts of evidence, the burden of proof is on you to show that Junias was a man... and the "kinsman" evidence clearly does not pass the burden, as you yourself admitted that the word was used to describe Elizabeth.
 
Upvote 0
We're dealing with the 16th chapter of Romans and the overwhelming evidence is that the names that are referred to as kinsmen are male names.

And even if Junia is a woman, how would the reading of (v.7) even give the faintest hint that she is an apostle..."who are of note among the apostles"...would only mean that they were well known to the apostles.

Take care, I have nothing more to say.
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Junia is well known AMONG the apostles, not to the apostles. It is right there in the Greek. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture. Your hermeneutic is flawed, because we have nothing to compare the use of kinsmen to. It is like me saying this.

I want to say hello to John, Luke, and Mark, my doctors who helped me. I would also like to give a shout out to Christopher, who was another doctor who helped. Christina, who is well-known among the doctors, I owe a lot of thanks to.

Now, is the term doctors solely a male form of the word? Or course not, because we know of other contexts in which the word doctor appears. NExt, there is no male name of record that goes by the name of Christina, so we can be fairly sure that Christina is a female name (it is also very common.) And Christina is not well-known TO the doctors, she is well-known AMONG the doctors.

Your argument fails. It would appear that you are grasping at straws. That is sad. As a woman, I would have hoped that you would understand that such liberation for women to be all that God would want them to be would be empowering for you. Perhaps not.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yesterday at 03:48 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #52 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=670973#post670973)
Long before Paul was born God said that He was NOT a respecter of persons. The word of God repeats that over and over again. I believe that. You do not. I believe that God does not respect persons in any way whatsoever. Every living human being is totally, completely, absolutely equal in His sight in every situation and every circumstance. Just as these many verses say.


Amen!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In English, I could make a case for the "among" usage, but I can't say anything about Greek. e.g., Lena is well known among graphics programmers. Who's Lena? She's a Playmate, and someone scanned a picture of her in the 70's, and it has become one of the canonical standards used to test new image compression schemes; the exact same color image is used in thousands of test programs around the world... but Lena is not a graphics programmer, even though, among graphics programmers, she's fairly famous.

However, that usage is *unusual*. I think it's pretty clear that Junia was a female, and was one of the early church leaders, and indeed, the church was full of women, as it should have been.

Patriarchy was a Jewish thing. It went the way of the kosher laws.
 
Upvote 0