Of that I have no doubt. I have worked side by side with the women of the church for years. What a wonderful help they've been to the cause of Christ. Where does it say that Junia was an Apostle? I thought there were 12 Apostles, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddeus, Simon and Paul (Saul of Tarsus)... Judas was a devil from the get go.
Help. That makes it sound like the men do the work, and the women help out. Like some sort of "assistant to the" type of role. I'm pretty sure you don't mean it that way, but that's what it looks like to me. Can you elaborate on this a little.
Romans 16:7 (NIV) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. I checked KJV because I know you prefer that, and it's the same.
Good point. And who's to say Silas and Barnabas weren't Apostles either. They were all doing the same things with Paul.
I would guess that would be a subject for another thread brother. My first response would be that the Apostles took it on themselves to cast lots for Mathias. Whereas Paul, according to the words of the Savior was chosen by Him same as the others. But again, that's another subject. Same as in being called an Apostle or same as being a believer. Forgive me but that's a bit of a stretch. It wasn't meant that way Seeking. I promise. As a matter of fact there are a number of things I "ask" the women of the church to oversee. And I get out of the way.
Not sure what you mean here, or what the stretch is. Are you making a difference between Apostle and apostle?
No, not saying the difference between an Apostle or apostle. Neither was on my mind Teddy. To be in Christ is to be a believer. Everyone in Christ is a born again believer. That verse wasn't calling her an Apostle or apostle either one.
Romans 16:7 (the relevant bit): ἐπίσημος ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις The 'best' interpretation is of course under dispute: some argue that Junia was well known to the Apostles, while others that she herself was an Apostle. Some still insist on Junias (male). I've taken up residence in the 'Apostle' group. Judas was an Apostle whether we want to acknowledge it or not, so there were at least 13 total. Someone might also argue that 'Apostle' here isn't in the same sense as the '12 Apostles', but that's irrelevant to the question of her having authority over or teaching men. Edit: Of course, v13 is important as it contains the 'for this reason': 1) Adam was formed first, then Eve. 2) Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. What does Adam being formed first have to do with a woman's inability to teach men? It's not at all obvious, so he and his audience have something in mind that we don't. And Adam may not have been the one deceived, but he did willingly sin, and possibly also misconstrued God's command (about the fruit) to Eve. Neither argument strikes me as very good for what Paul is apparently saying. It's always made me think of 1 Corinthians 11:13-16 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. Err, 13 - Sure, why not? 14 - No, not really 15 - Uh, if you say so 16 - So that's me kicked out of the church then? So, yeah. I'm pretty convinced that Paul was addressing a cultural issue and was being clever in approaching it. Something's missing from 1 Timothy 12 (e.g. what Paul is responding it), so I'm not given to considering the command universal, but particular, like in 1 Corinthians 11.
So then why don't I find any written disputes over the subject until we hit the 20th century? Has the possibility of a female apostle sprung up because it wasn't intended for us to know until this last century? Not trying to be in the slightest bit obnoxious brother, but you'll note that many of these differences have only come to being over the past couple of centuries. But again, that's not at all the point I was trying to get across. The meat and taters of what I was intending to bring out later was in our earthly bodies, God has established roles in the church. Even gender roles for a particular reason. I won't get into it right away, but will after I answer those questions waiting for me on the main site.
I believe you sir. Just wanted to make sure in case someone else may have read it the same way I did. But didn't know you as well.
Paul was an apostle. Barnabas and Silas are also called apostles, along with others, including Junia. There were more apostles that just the 12,or 13, or 14. Been a while since I counted, but I believe the NT mentions somewhere between 18 and 21.
Disputes on Romans 16 specifically, or women 'in positions of authority' in general? If in general, then I'd initially think of 1 Corinthians 15 (v3-8), which has no mention of women in its summarizing of the resurrection account, while women are the first to discover the empty tomb in the Gospel accounts. Why aren't they mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15? It makes me think that there were a lot of issues surrounding the role and value of women in the early church, and it's only been recently (historically speaking) that those questions are being properly asked. Can't wait
Here's a list including potentials: - Peter - John - James - Andrew - Philip - Thomas - Bartholomew - Matthew - Judas - James (son of Alpheus) - Simon - Judas (son of James) - Matthias - James (brother of Jesus -- too many James') - Barnabas - Paul - Apollos - Timothy - Silus - Epaphroditus - Corinthians 8:23 (2x unnamed) - Andronicus - Junia - Jesus
I don't believe "Paul was referring to the women's role at the time", although I have believed that way in the past. I believe our God is completely outside of time, as we know time. "I change not", He said. I don't freak out at the idea of women leaders in the Church, and I love to listen to some female teachers. That being said, I believe we can't see the depth of depravity of this world, because the sun still shines, the flowers still bloom, and the season still come and go. Our God is faithful, even when we get sidetracked by accepted cultural deviations.
Honestly, rather than getting hung up on a verse or two, look at the actual live examples of good and decent leaders we find in Scripture. I'd say the two major qualifying biblical leadership criteria have zero to do with chromosome, but rather with: 1. proven character and 2. competence. If you're going to define church leadership criteria by its narrowest overlapping components and handpicking verses, then it's clear that even deacons supposedly had to be married men who had proven themselves by running their own households successfully, so any single guy in church leadership is automatically disqualified if you're going to go by that. However, in reality, Paul was a single guy and an apostle (and a leader of deacons), and he highly praised singlehood as being preferred to be most useful in ministry; so what do you make of that? Are we to assume it's okay to be single as an apostle and leader over deacons, but not okay to be single as a deacon? That's what happens when you take a verse or three and try to build doctrine around that, without checking everything against live examples of people God chose and approved of. I think the narrow scope is only going to lead down rabbit trails and circular thinking, and I think we're focusing on the wrong thing for the wrong reason, personally.
If you take that passage in a wooden, literal way, then you are not permitted to EVER speak in church. Period. Yet your experience and your practice seems to be at odds with that. It appears that you have been perhaps polluted and have been sidetracked by accepted cultural deviations, otherwise, you would freak out at the idea of women leaders and would not listen to female teachers in the church. There's an inconsistency that must be reconciled.
There is clearly neither male nor female in Christ; so why would we create an artificial separation and build the same barrier up again that Jesus died to destroy? I really don't understand it. ;.;.