Women in Authority - scripturally defensible.

[Cow Poke]

Yes. Payne (Man and Woman -- One in Christ) and Bartlett (Men and Women in Christ) give evidence that the Greek expression (literally, "one-woman-man") is an idiom meaning "faithful spouse," and can refer to either sex, while the related expression in 1 Tim. 5:9 (literally, "one-man-woman") refers only to faithful wives (not husbands). IMO Bartlett gives a more readable and generally better presentation, explicitly explaining 1 Tim. 3 as continuing the discussion from 1 Tim. 2. Both (Payne and Bartlett) note that, assuming the claims about one-woman-man are correct, there are no other nouns or pronouns in 1 Tim. 3 (or Tit. 1) that specify gender (contrary to the implication of virtually all English translations apart from the CEB and CEV).

Agreed on the "one woman man" as part of the overall "faithful and trustworthy" nature that the elder should reflect.

[tabibito]

By the way - there's still much controversy about Junia....
Either that she was a woman
or that she was an apostle.

The Greek leaves it open that she was "noted among the Apostles", but not necessarily was "one of them".

Here's something from Bible.org
Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification Problem in Romans 16:7

I'm always careful when we find an apparent "exception to the rule" that's not really clear.

Τranslators of the Bible attempted for many years to make Junia a male despite Augustine's affirmation of the fact that she was female. While the concept that the name was that of a man held, there was no dispute about whether this man was an exemplary apostle. When it was demonstrated that the person could not have been a man, suddenly the phrase became "considered outstanding by the apostles," contradicting Augustine. The TDNT notes the disputed interpretations date to 1910 and 1928. None of the usage examples provided in the TDNT demonstrate confirmation of the alternative interpretations. BDAG affirms Augustine's interpretation, noting a similar phrase in Martyrdom of Polycarp 19:1, with "teachers" instead of "apostles." LSJ doesn't give any information for the phrase in question. Only one other use of noteworthy (επισημος) occurs in the Bible, a reference to Barabbas - naturally enough reflecting (but not stipulating) its negative connotation in the translation; "notorious."

Then there is the matter of a congregation allowing for a woman to be 2IC, but not in first position. Unless the woman is given authority in women's affairs and not in men's, that would still fly in the face of the Biblical instructions pointed to by those who would hold that women are not to be in leadership roles.

Following that, we have the apostles and prophets charged with the responsibility to maintain order in the congregations - a task that confers authority enough to discharge the responsibility; and whatever disputes may be raised with regard to women as apostles, no such disputes can even begin to gain traction with regard to prophets. (Apostles' authority 2Cor 10:7-8, 1Thess 2:6)

The "apostles cover a range of meanings" argument can be discounted - while technically correct, when applicable to persons, "apostle," translated is "commissioner." The duties undertaken by NT apostles alone show that they are commissioners, and Paul never provides a meaning that allows for an "apostle, second class." Moreover, Silas, Timothy, and Barnabas are never distinguished from Paul with regard to their designation as apostles.

[NorrinRadd]

That would be another worthwhile discussion -- when the word "prophet" is used in the sense of 'predicting (or warning against) future events' or simply "proclaiming the truth".
I consider myself a prophet, but only in the sense of proclaiming what the Word of God actually says about events, both past, present and future.

Like many words, "prophet" and "prophesy" seem to have a range of meanings in Scripture. In Acts 2, in that the events are the initial fulfillment of the Great Commission instructions in Luke 24 and Acts 1, "prophesy" seems to be an umbrella term for any sort of speaking in carrying out the Great Commission. In the immediate context it also seems to include praising God in unlearned languages. (In Acts 19, OTOH, it is clearly distinct from "tongues.") In Acts 21, predicting the future is at least on some occasions part of the NT prophetic ministry.

In 1 Cor. 11, "pray" and "prophesy" seem to umbrella terms for speaking "to" God (in prayer, praise, worship) and speaking "for" God in any form. Or perhaps they more narrowly refer to spontaneous Spirit-directed speech, as in speaking "to" God in unknown languages in prayer, praise, or worship, and speaking "for" God in edification, exhortation, consolation, revelation.

In 1 Cor. 12-14, the main purpose of prophecy is "edification, exhortation (or encouragement), and comfort (or consolation)" of the body of Christ. But it can also include "revelation" (14:30) and disclosing the secrets of people's (only unbelievers'?) hearts (14:25).

[NorrinRadd]

Ultimately, every institution should have ONE "head" --- in nature, anything without a head is dead, and anything with more than one head is a monster.

(I'm assuming we're having a friendly conversation here, so I'm being a bit reserved - not in "battle mode". )

I'll try to be nice as long as everyone else does.

As for the "group of elders", it still comes down to the qualification of an elder including that he be "the husband of one wife". Both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 state that rather clearly.
Again, in the Bible, we have the pattern - Christ (male) is the head of the Church, man (male) is the head of the home, and the elder is to be in charge of his own household (1 Tim 3:4-5, Titus 1:6-7)

I addressed the "one-woman-man" thing in another post.

I'm afraid I don't concur with the notion that "every institution should have ONE 'head,'" especially in the New Covenant, nor with the idea that "head" in Scripture necessarily entails authority or hierarchy.

[NorrinRadd]

Τranslators of the Bible attempted for many years to make Junia a male despite Augustine's affirmation of the fact that she was female. While the concept that the name was that of a man held, there was no dispute about whether this man was an exemplary apostle. When it was demonstrated that the person could not have been a man, suddenly the phrase became "considered outstanding by the apostles," contradicting Augustine. The TDNT notes the disputed interpretations date to 1910 and 1928. None of the usage examples provided in the TDNT demonstrate confirmation of the alternative interpretations. BDAG affirms Augustine's interpretation, noting a similar phrase in Martyrdom of Polycarp 19:1, with "teachers" instead of "apostles." LSJ doesn't give any information for the phrase in question. Only one other use of noteworthy (επισημος) occurs in the Bible, a reference to Barabbas - naturally enough reflecting (but not stipulating) its negative connotation in the translation; "notorious."

Isn't the situation with Nympha/Nymphas at least loosely and superficially similar?

Then there is the matter of a congregation allowing for a woman to be 2IC, but not in first position. Unless the woman is given authority in women's affairs and not in men's, that would still fly in the face of the Biblical instructions pointed to by those who would hold that women are not to be in leadership roles.

IMO, the verses usually adduced basically "prove too much." 1 Tim. 2:11-12 in most translations are so absolute that they would preclude Priscilla from even helping in instructing Apollos. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 are so absolute and emphatic that they would preclude even the praying and prophesying that women were *expected* to do in ch. 11 of the same epistle.

[tabibito]

そうよ ... Placing a person at the head would sort of produce one weird entity. If this seems a strange concept, look at the argument Israel had with God when they wanted a "head-man," aka "king." What was God's response again ... oh yeah ... "I am your king."

"Head" might mean "source" or the "one in higher (in relative terms) authority." If the latter, (as previously noted) Trinitarians subscribing to the co-equality of the members of the Trinity have a major problem.

[tabibito]

Isn't the situation with Nympha/Nymphas at least loosely and superficially similar?

Not really - Nympha's house is "hers" in the UBS5 texts, and "his" in the Byzantine majority texts. The problem arises at source, not in interpretation.

IMO, the verses usually adduced basically "prove too much." 1 Tim. 2:11-12 in most translations are so absolute that they would preclude Priscilla from even helping in instructing Apollos. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 are so absolute and emphatic that they would preclude even the praying and prophesying that women were *expected* to do in ch. 11 of the same epistle.

1Tim 2:12 not so much - that simply says that Paul won't permit it, not that God won't (and Paul makes a distinction between his own instructions and those of God that he passes on, elsewhere.) The letter was written in response to problems experienced by Timothy - it could easily be targetting specific women causing problems for Timothy. ie. not "all women" but "those women." (untestable therefore unprovable.)

I have spent a long time trying to trace this law that Paul speaks of in 1Cor 14:34 without success [not to mention, where does Paul require adherence to law], and again, this is written within a context of disruptive influences, and as you note, conflicts with Paul's comments in chapter 11.

[Cow Poke]

There seems, to me, to be a whole lot of work taking place to justify a woman being the head - or lead pastor - of a Church. In my experience, that's part and parcel of a whole package of other "let's do it this way instead of the Bible way", including same sex 'marriage', same sex 'clergy', etc...

The "big picture" of spiritual leadership is that the man is to be the head of the home, Christ is to be the Head of the Church, and a man is to be the pastor of a church. That we have to go to extremes to find exceptions or justifications for an alternative is, for me, a bit troubling.

There are plenty of 'churches' out there that will allow a woman to be 'pastor', as well as a whole range of other 'allowances'. (Even a BAPTIST Church that ordained a trans-gendered 'pastor' who left his family and 'came out' as a lesbian".

But fear not!!!! Dinosaurs like me will soon no longer be roaming the planet, and people will do what people will do!

But make no mistake about THIS ---- I have enjoyed the interchange.

[Cow Poke]

Just one more thought.... (for now)

That something has to be "spiritually defensible" is somewhat of a red flag for me --- as opposed to "spiritually ordained" or supported or indicated or commanded....

[tabibito]

The "big picture" of spiritual leadership is that the man is to be the head of the home, Christ is to be the Head of the Church, and a man is to be the pastor of a church. That we have to go to extremes to find exceptions or justifications for an alternative is, for me, a bit troubling.

Should I take it then that you believe Christ is subordinate to God? "The head of the woman is man," and "the head of Christ is God" are, after all, in the same sentence.

[Cow Poke]

Should I take it then that you believe Christ is subordinate to God?

Only in the sense that He subjected Himself, as Paul outlines in Philippians 2, but Christ is, indeed, God.

"The head of the woman is man," and "the head of Christ is God" are, after all, in the same sentence.

In WHAT sentence?

[NorrinRadd]

Only in the sense that He subjected Himself, as Paul outlines in Philippians 2, but Christ is, indeed, God.



In WHAT sentence?

1 Cor. 11:3

[Cow Poke]

1 Cor. 11:3

Thanks. Yes, I believe the Bible.

[Cow Poke]

そうよ ... Placing a person at the head would sort of produce one weird entity.

What about Moses? Abraham?

If this seems a strange concept, look at the argument Israel had with God when they wanted a "head-man," aka "king." What was God's response again ... oh yeah ... "I am your king."

The reason they wanted a king was clear - "to be like all other nations". God was King, but He had appointed individuals to be leaders.

"Head" might mean "source" or the "one in higher (in relative terms) authority." If the latter, (as previously noted) Trinitarians subscribing to the co-equality of the members of the Trinity have a major problem.

Especially when Jesus said He was here to do the works of the Father, and could do nothing apart from Him.

John 5:30 ³⁰By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

John 5:19 ¹⁹Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

John 6:38 ³⁸For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 8:28 ²⁸So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

[NorrinRadd]

Just one more thought.... (for now)

That something has to be "spiritually defensible" is somewhat of a red flag for me --- as opposed to "spiritually ordained" or supported or indicated or commanded....

I think you meant "Scripturally defensible," assuming you're referring to the thread title.

And I think tabito may have borrowed my usage from a post in the SBC thread.

It depends on the situation. For something like the deity of Christ, I don't believe the contrary view can be reasonably defended from Scripture. But on the topic at hand, I believe support can be marshaled on both sides. I find the egalitarian case stronger, but I would hesitate to declare it "the" Biblical view.