Gender Roles, the home and the Local Church

[junobet]

I was pretty specific, so what is it exactly you didn't understand?
Acts 26:12 uses the Greek word ἐπιτροπή (epitropē), which is translated as commission, and as such is properly used in that context and connotation.

Erm, in Acts 26:12 Paul tells Agrippa about the commission he got from the High Priests to persecute Christians. Is it possible that you just got your concordance rolling for “commission” and picked a random verse to make a void point for the mere sake of disagreeing with me?
Because this is what this feels like to me. Why, StanJ? That we have radically different opinions in some points, doesn’t mean we have to disagree in everything, does it?
​

 

[StanJ]

Erm, in Acts 26:12 Paul tells Agrippa about the commission he got from the High Priests to persecute Christians. Is it possible that you just got your concordance rolling for “commission” and picked a random verse to make a void point for the mere sake of disagreeing with me?
Because this is what this feels like to me. Why, StanJ? That we have radically different opinions in some points, doesn’t mean we have to disagree in everything, does it?
​

Actually it is the only use of the Greek word ἐπιτροπή (epitropē) in the New Testament, which is why I showed it to you. It's not random at all but totally relevant to the issue I was dealing with.
You'll find that. I disagree with a lot of people about a lot of things but I would be disagreeing with your liberal perspective a lot more than I would be with a conservative one on the Bible.
I suggest you start by not inferring any kind of emotionalism into my posts. If you do believe we have radically different opinions than you obviously must suspect that we will disagree on most everything when it comes to the Bible, so why would that surprise you?

 

[junobet]

Actually it is the only use of the Greek word ἐπιτροπή (epitropē) in the New Testament, which is why I showed it to you. It's not random at all but totally relevant to the issue I was dealing with.

Following your ‘argument’ none of the Apostles were commissioned by Christ then.

 

[tommie]

I read" ebible" everyday. It automatically comes to my email and it is a question/ answer type site. Today, woman in leadership came up....... It answered ALL my questions and I hope it will answer yours also. https://ebible.com/questions/2146-can-a-woman-be-a-pastor-or-preacher

I hope it is ok to post another site on this site. If not, please delete. Thank you.

 

[StanJ]

Following your ‘argument’ none of the Apostles were commissioned by Christ then.

They were all commissioned by Christ except one. As I've already said the choosing of Matthias in Acts 1:26, in my opinion, was a mistake. They obviously didn't know what Jesus' intention was in calling Paul, but I'm sure it was not God's intention to cast lots in order to choose a replacement for Judas or even that Judas needed replacing.

 

[OzSpen]

Following your ‘argument’ none of the Apostles were commissioned by Christ then.

junobet,

You are making a leap of logic with that statement that is not necessary.

What did Acts 26:12 state? 'While doing this very thing, as I was going to Damascus with authority and complete power from the chief priests' (NET Bible). Paul not only had authority by a commission of complete power from the chief priests. 'With authority and complete power' is met' exousias kai epistropes, Epistrophe is from an old Greek word, used only this one time in the NT here. It is derived from the noun, epitrophos, meaning 'steward' and the verb, epitrepw, I turn over to, I commit (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament).

Now go to Jesus' calling some of his 12 disciples/apostles:

18 As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon (called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen). 19 He said to them, “Follow me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.” 20 They left their nets immediately and followed him. 21 Going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in a boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets. Then he called them. 22 They immediately left the boat and their father and followed him (Matt 4:18-22 NET Bible).

'Follow' (Matt 4:19 NET) is an exclamation, deute, meaning 'come' and it is followed by the adverb, hapisw, meaning behind, after, at one's back.

'He called' (Matt 4:21 NET) is the standard Greek verb, kalew, meaning 'I call', and can have a variety of meanings in regard to calling.

27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax booth. “Follow me,” he said to him. 28 And he got up and followed him, leaving everything behind (Luke 5:27-28 NET Bible).

As for Luke 5:27-29 (NET) and the use of 'follow', akolouthew, means 'to follow, follow as a disciple, imitate'.

Therefore the words used in Acts 26:12 are different to the words used when Jesus called his apostles.

I do wish you would do your homework on the exegesis of Acts 26:12 and comparison with the calling of the 12 to demonstrate that it is not in conflict with Jesus' calling of his apostles.

Oz

 

[junobet]

junobet,

You are making a leap of logic with that statement that is not necessary.

What did Acts 26:12 state? 'While doing this very thing, as I was going to Damascus with authority and complete power from the chief priests' (NET Bible). Paul not only had authority by a commission of complete power from the chief priests. 'With authority and complete power' is met' exousias kai epistropes, Epistrophe is from an old Greek word, used only this one time in the NT here. It is derived from the noun, epitrophos, meaning 'steward' and the verb, epitrepw, I turn over to, I commit (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament).

Now go to Jesus' calling some of his 12 disciples/apostles:

'Follow' (Matt 4:19 NET) is an exclamation, deute, meaning 'come' and it is followed by the adverb, hapisw, meaning behind, after, at one's back.

'He called' (Matt 4:21 NET) is the standard Greek verb, kalew, meaning 'I call', and can have a variety of meanings in regard to calling.


As for Luke 5:27-29 (NET) and the use of 'follow', akolouthew, means 'to follow, follow as a disciple, imitate'.

Therefore the words used in Acts 26:12 are different to the words used when Jesus called his apostles.

I do wish you would do your homework on the exegesis of Acts 26:12 and comparison with the calling of the 12 to demonstrate that it is not in conflict with Jesus' calling of his apostles.

Oz

Hi there Oz.
obviously you haven’t followed the conversation that led up to my comment that you commented on. Can’t blame you seeing that StanJ himself seems to have lost track of it.

To sum up:

StanJ and I agree on the definition of an apostle. In StanJ’s own words: “The Greek ἀπόστολος (apostolos), connotes one sent as a messenger or agent, the bearer of a commission, a messenger. Apostles were appointed by Jesus and as such had that personal commission. “

Whereupon I said that this is why Mary Magdalene is sometimes called “Apostle to the Apostles”: she got commissioned by the Risen Christ to go and tell the disciples about the resurrection, the very center of our faith, in John 20:17–18.

StanJ then tried to make an IMHO ludicrous semantic argument against this by doing a wild word search and claiming we can only speak of a “commission” when the word “ἐπιτροπή” from Acts 26:12 is involved. He overlooked that the only time this word comes up is indeed in Acts 26:12, where it refers not not to a commission from Christ to spread His gospel but to Saul’s commission from the High Priests to persecute Christians. Hence my comment. (Let’s forget you ever tried to make that silly argument, StanJ, forgotten and forgiven).

Going back to StanJ’s original definition: Who is an apostle then? How many are there?

The twelve apostles ( minus Judas, who got replaced by Matthew) spring to mind, but if we read our Bible with scrutiny there were clearly more than that:
One is Paul, to whom Christ appeared on the Road to Damaskus when he was still called Saul and persecuted Christians. Another person the Bible explicitly calls an apostle is Barnabas (Acts 14:14). How did Barnabas get this title? We don’t know, but he may have been among the “70 others” who Christ appointed to go out and spread His message in Luke 10:1-24. And yes, if we read Romans 16:7 (whose Greek original text is ambiguous) to say that Junia and Andronicus were well-known apostles, just like Barnabas they may have been among these 70 others. I have no idea whether Junia was an apostle or not, nor do I personally care too much, but it certainly is not a possibility we can rule out on the mere basis of our prejudice.

 

[StanJ]

@junobet
I haven't lost track of what we were discussing but I see no reason for you to write it all down again when it's already written down. In my opinion, all you're doing is wasting space. I made my points to which you failed to address and the fact that Oz recognized that and addressed it is his prerogative on this public forum. Yes part of this is called an apostle but I have no idea why Luke would do that seeing as though he was never designated as such anywhere else. In any event it doesn't change the issues that I was dealing with about Junia. I'm really not sure how or why you find that prejudicial, other than to support your own erroneous view of what the Bible does convey?
Everybody acknowledges that Paul was an apostle because he wrote it down himself and Jesus personally called him. In my opinion those who were personally called by Jesus were considered apostles which is why I don't believe that Matthias was indeed an apostle as per my previous explanation.

 

[junobet]

@junobet
I haven't lost track of what we were discussing but I see no reason for you to write it all down again when it's already written down. In my opinion, all you're doing is wasting space. I made my points to which you failed to address and the fact that Oz recognized that and addressed it is his prerogative on this public forum. Yes part of this is called an apostle but I have no idea why Luke would do that seeing as though he was never designated as such anywhere else. In any event it doesn't change the issues that I was dealing with about Junia. I'm really not sure how or why you find that prejudicial, other than to support your own erroneous view of what the Bible does convey?
Everybody acknowledges that Paul was an apostle because he wrote it down himself and Jesus personally called him. In my opinion those who were personally called by Jesus were considered apostles which is why I don't believe that Matthias was indeed an apostle as per my previous explanation.

May I suggest you read Oz's post again and give it some thought? He basically demolished your argument which he mistook for mine. Never mind.

 

[StanJ]

May I suggest you read Oz's post again and give it some thought? He basically demolished your argument which he mistook for mine. Never mind.

Which post #

 

[OzSpen]

Hi there Oz.
obviously you haven’t followed the conversation that led up to my comment that you commented on. Can’t blame you seeing that StanJ himself seems to have lost track of it.

To sum up:

StanJ and I agree on the definition of an apostle. In StanJ’s own words: “The Greek ἀπόστολος (apostolos), connotes one sent as a messenger or agent, the bearer of a commission, a messenger. Apostles were appointed by Jesus and as such had that personal commission. “

Whereupon I said that this is why Mary Magdalene is sometimes called “Apostle to the Apostles”: she got commissioned by the Risen Christ to go and tell the disciples about the resurrection, the very center of our faith, in John 20:17–18.

StanJ then tried to make an IMHO ludicrous semantic argument against this by doing a wild word search and claiming we can only speak of a “commission” when the word “ἐπιτροπή” from Acts 26:12 is involved. He overlooked that the only time this word comes up is indeed in Acts 26:12, where it refers not not to a commission from Christ to spread His gospel but to Saul’s commission from the High Priests to persecute Christians. Hence my comment. (Let’s forget you ever tried to make that silly argument, StanJ, forgotten and forgiven).

Going back to StanJ’s original definition: Who is an apostle then? How many are there?

The twelve apostles ( minus Judas, who got replaced by Matthew) spring to mind, but if we read our Bible with scrutiny there were clearly more than that:
One is Paul, to whom Christ appeared on the Road to Damaskus when he was still called Saul and persecuted Christians. Another person the Bible explicitly calls an apostle is Barnabas (Acts 14:14). How did Barnabas get this title? We don’t know, but he may have been among the “70 others” who Christ appointed to go out and spread His message in Luke 10:1-24. And yes, if we read Romans 16:7 (whose Greek original text is ambiguous) to say that Junia and Andronicus were well-known apostles, just like Barnabas they may have been among these 70 others. I have no idea whether Junia was an apostle or not, nor do I personally care too much, but it certainly is not a possibility we can rule out on the mere basis of our prejudice.

Thanks junobet. That helps me gain a better understanding of the discussion you have been having with Stan. By the way, Judas's replacement was not Matthew, but Matthias (Acts 1:12-26 ESV).

As for Rom 16:7, a fairly reasonable case can be made from the Greek text that it means,

• 'Greet Andronicus and Junia [a female], my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was' (Rom 16:7 NIV);
• 'Greet Andronicus and Junia,my fellow Jews,who were in prison with me. They are highly respected among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did' (Rom 16:7 NLT);
• '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' (Rom 16:7 NRSV).
• 'Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners, who are well known to [or, are outstanding among] the apostles, who were also in Christ before me' (Rom 16:7 LEX).
• 'Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who are in prison with me and are prominent among the apostles. They belonged to the Messiah before I did' (Rom 16:7 ISV).

Greek exegete, Douglas Moo, in his commentary on Romans states of Rom 16:7 that 'it is more natural to translate as esteemed among the apostles'. His footnote at this point is: 'With a plural object, en often means "among"; and if Paul had wanted to say that Andronicus and Junia were esteemed "by" the apostles, we would have expected him to use a singular dative or hupo with the genitive. The word epistemoi ("splendid," "prominent," "outstanding"; only here in the NT in this sense [cf. also Matt. 27:16]) also favors this rendering' (Moo1996:923, also n. 39).

So, these translations favour the feminine Junia and place her 'among the apostles', possibly as a husband-wife team of Andronicus and Junia.

Oz

Works consulted
Moo, D J 1996. The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[StanJ]

Thanks junobet. That helps me gain a better understanding of the discussion you have been having with Stan. By the way, Judas's replacement was not Matthew, but Matthias (Acts 1:12-26 ESV).

As for Rom 16:7, a fairly reasonable case can be made from the Greek text that it means,

• 'Greet Andronicus and Junia [a female], my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was' (Rom 16:7 NIV);
• 'Greet Andronicus and Junia,my fellow Jews,who were in prison with me. They are highly respected among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did' (Rom 16:7 NLT);
• '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' (Rom 16:7 NRSV).
• 'Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners, who are well known to [or, are outstanding among] the apostles, who were also in Christ before me' (Rom 16:7 LEX).
• 'Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who are in prison with me and are prominent among the apostles. They belonged to the Messiah before I did' (Rom 16:7 ISV).

Greek exegete, Douglas Moo, in his commentary on Romans states of Rom 16:7 that 'it is more natural to translate as esteemed among the apostles'. His footnote at this point is: 'With a plural object, en often means "among"; and if Paul had wanted to say that Andronicus and Junia were esteemed "by" the apostles, we would have expected him to use a singular dative or hupo with the genitive. The word epistemoi ("splendid," "prominent," "outstanding"; only here in the NT in this sense [cf. also Matt. 27:16]) also favors this rendering' (Moo1996:923, also n. 39).

So, these translations favour the feminine Junia and place her 'among the apostles', possibly as a husband-wife team of Andronicus and Junia.

Oz

Works consulted
Moo, D J 1996. The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Oz,
Here us a link to probably the five most recent English versions;
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2016%3A7&version=MOUNCE;NET;NIV;NLT;HCSB

Here is a link to it then Wallace has to say about the issue;
https://bible.org/article/junia-among-apostles-double-identification-problem-romans-167

I wasn't able to access Moo's work but it would seem apparent that Mounce and Wallace are in agreement as far as Junia not being an apostle.

 

[Wormwood]

I find it offensive that you would compare a God given gift to teach with sexual perversion. One comes from God the other does not. Or do you consider the gift of teaching to be a curse?

Lforrest, I think you misunderstand me. I was using hyperbole to make a point. The point is that just because someone is good at something doesn't mean they have carte Blanche authority to do that thing whenever and wherever. My point was that a homosexual could be really talented at something or have a God-given ability. That doesn't mean they should be a church leader because they have a strong talent. There are other circumstances preventing them from being a leader in the church that override their talent or ability. That was my basic point. Of course I am not comparing women to homosexuals or the gift of teaching to a perversion. My point was simply that the presence of a gift or talent does not override God's prohibitions. A child can have a strong leadership gift, but that does not mean the parents must obey their child because the child is a strong leader. The parents are the parents. Whether they have the "gift" of leadership or not, they hold the God-ordained position of leadership over their child by virtue of them being parents. Likewise, a woman being a talented or gifted speaker does not mandate she act as a pastor of the local church simply because she's good at teaching...if it can be shown that God has prohibited this in his Word. So, just as the child's gift does not override they fact that the parents are in charge of the home, and the homosexual talents does not negate God's qualifications for church leaders, so also a woman's ability or inability to speak well has is not the issue on whether or not she should be the pastor/bishop of the local church. That was my rationale. Does that make sense?

 

[junobet]

Lforrest, I think you misunderstand me. I was using hyperbole to make a point. The point is that just because someone is good at something doesn't mean they have carte Blanche authority to do that thing whenever and wherever. My point was that a homosexual could be really talented at something or have a God-given ability. That doesn't mean they should be a church leader because they have a strong talent. There are other circumstances preventing them from being a leader in the church that override their talent or ability. That was my basic point. Of course I am not comparing women to homosexuals or the gift of teaching to a perversion. My point was simply that the presence of a gift or talent does not override God's prohibitions. A child can have a strong leadership gift, but that does not mean the parents must obey their child because the child is a strong leader. The parents are the parents. Whether they have the "gift" of leadership or not, they hold the God-ordained position of leadership over their child by virtue of them being parents. Likewise, a woman being a talented or gifted speaker does not mandate she act as a pastor of the local church simply because she's good at teaching...if it can be shown that God has prohibited this in his Word. So, just as the child's gift does not override they fact that the parents are in charge of the home, and the homosexual talents does not negate God's qualifications for church leaders, so also a woman's ability or inability to speak well has is not the issue on whether or not she should be the pastor/bishop of the local church. That was my rationale. Does that make sense?

I’m not Lforrest, so sorry for butting in, but I fear from my point of view your comparisons aren’t getting any better. Comparing grown women to immature children, means you may as well want to strip them of the rights to vote, get a driving licence, travel unaccompanied, regulate their own financial affairs, be legally responsible in any way… In other words: Welcome to Saudi-Arabia!
How can you console this view of women with strong independent biblical figures such as Deborah, Jael, Hulda, the Queen of Sheba, Anna, Mary, Lydia, Phoebe, Lois … ?

 

[lforrest]

Lforrest, I think you misunderstand me. I was using hyperbole to make a point. The point is that just because someone is good at something doesn't mean they have carte Blanche authority to do that thing whenever and wherever. My point was that a homosexual could be really talented at something or have a God-given ability. That doesn't mean they should be a church leader because they have a strong talent. There are other circumstances preventing them from being a leader in the church that override their talent or ability. That was my basic point. Of course I am not comparing women to homosexuals or the gift of teaching to a perversion. My point was simply that the presence of a gift or talent does not override God's prohibitions. A child can have a strong leadership gift, but that does not mean the parents must obey their child because the child is a strong leader. The parents are the parents. Whether they have the "gift" of leadership or not, they hold the God-ordained position of leadership over their child by virtue of them being parents. Likewise, a woman being a talented or gifted speaker does not mandate she act as a pastor of the local church simply because she's good at teaching...if it can be shown that God has prohibited this in his Word. So, just as the child's gift does not override they fact that the parents are in charge of the home, and the homosexual talents does not negate God's qualifications for church leaders, so also a woman's ability or inability to speak well has is not the issue on whether or not she should be the pastor/bishop of the local church. That was my rationale. Does that make sense?

There is a requirement for leaders to be above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2). Indulging in a sin, such as homosexuality, should disqualify them for leadership. The prohibition there would be that they are not above reproach, Where the prohibition for women to teach or lead is that they are women.

I consider a spiritual gift as something greater than a talent. It is their anointing, and as such they are given power and authority in that area. You propose that is possible, but they should be limited to leading other women because of what the bible says. I don't see any biblical precedent for such restrictions.

Regarding the elephant in the room: They shouldn't have that spiritual gift, because God doesn't work contrary to scripture. But since they do have it then it is obliviously God's will that they use it. Either we place restrictions on the scope of their gift, or re-evaluate the scriptures that we see barring women pastors.

All the while there is a church out there desperate for God's word, and a woman with a gift and desire to teach. If you are wrong about God's will regarding women pastors then you stand in his way. That is why it is important to discern his will from the scriptures and not just blindly obey.