Women aren't second-class Baptists, Charles Stanley says

One thing that has been pointed out is that the identity of Junia is impossible to be certain about. However, what Paul says about Junia is not unclear.

It matters not wether Junia is a male or female. Paul said that Junia was "distinguished among the Apostles". That does not me that he was an apostle.

Further, if you could wrench this text from any serious meaning and say that he was indeed an apostle, that only means a "sent one". That doesn't fall in the same category as those who had authority over the churches. Missionaries have no authority over the churches.

Whew!

Now, if one follows the UBS4/NA27, Iouviav is masculine.

 

The majority of support for Junias as a male comes from numerous minuscule manuscripts from mostly the 13th-14th centuries. These later minuscules contain accent marks reflecting the writer's interpretation that Iounian was a masculine name. Note that even UBS4 and NA27 include Junia as a feminine name.

Iounian as a female name is attested to by Codexes Sinaiticus (a), A, B*,C, D*, F,G, P. The GNT also cites "Julia" as a variant reading. Support for this female name is evidenced by P46, 6, it, vg, cop, and Church Father, Jerome. P46, dated around 200 AD, is the earliest, and it has Junia as being a woman.

Would you care to answer the charge that not a single church father or commentator before Aegidus claimed that Junia was a man?

 

Do you also, then, interpret that verse to mean that single males cannot be pastors?

 

Quite clearly it means that they were not to be polygamists, which was also a bit of an issue in the Pastoral Letters. Next....

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

John:
When the Scripture says "the husband of one wife," I believe that it should understood that this would refer to pastors who are married. However, I personally believe that it is much better if a pastor is married. I would be very reluctant to join a church where there was an unmarried pastor, especially if this was the senior pastor.

 

There are so many places in the Scripture which seem to go against Paul's edict against women teaching/preaching/leading that some kind of balance must be reached.

Huldah and Deborah were called prophetesses by the Word of God.
Deborah also was signified as a Judge of Israel.

There have been exceptions shown from the NT concerning women "prophecying" (such as Philip's daughters, etc).

If we take Paul's statements of women being silent in the churches as exclusively literal and universal then they cannot even teach Sunday School or children's church!

If we make an exception for them teaching children then we open the proverbial "can of worms" of who decides how old, male or female children, etc..., do the women teachers or the men who let them teach the children in the first place make decisions and what kind of decisions.

SO,will the MALE volunteers please step forward or be quiet! (actually they have been keeping quiet all along).

My view: Male leadership is and always has been the norm in the Word of God. There have been exceptions because of apathetic and/or weak males. Each local church must decide (starting with the male pastor and deacons) the scope of Paul's statements compared with all the other Scripture concerning female leadership (Huldah, Deborah, etc) and other questions such as: are the men going to teach the little children?
May women pray out loud at prayer meeting? etc.

HankD

 

Hello; On Pentecost there were 120 in the apostleship,including Mary and the other women. They were together trying to remember through the power of the Comforter everything that had happened and said by Jesus. They were sorting it all out in relation to the Old Testament and the Law. And they were probably hung up on somethings.The virgin birth might have been hard to accept. But Mary opening her mouth and teaching the men must have convinced them. When they all came together in agreement with God and His work (they were automatically in one accord with each other) they were all 120 baptized with the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't take much to get 120 people to agree with each other. Just look at the many false religions. But when they came in one accord with God they were baptized with power to go out as though it was God Himself delivering the messages.

Why would God waste that power on Mary and the other women if they were not to be allowed to open their mouths?

By the way, one things about a "ship" is that all who are in it are associated with it. People with a member-ship are members of whatever that ship is. The same with a relation-ship. And these 120 including Mary and the other women were a part of the ship that was called, "apostle".

In case you might be thinking there were only 12 apostles, Paul is proof there were more.

I am new at posting. I posted a lengthy thing yesterday; but I think I somehow inserted it a few posts past where you have already read. Just wondering if I did put it in an incorrect place. Trying to figure out this board. Please excuse my fumbling.

For the woman to have her head covered is to be teaching with the blessing of "THE man" (her husband). For the woman is not to usurp authority over "the man", her husband. The thing about the word "the" is that it is a definite article. Making man singular and very specific. It does not mean men (plural). Much like the difference in, the book or books. The book is a very specific book.Books is plural and not specific. The man is specific. Her husband.

Why would God care if some ole rag was on a woman's head? The only time I know of that a woman covered her head was prostitutes who did not want to be identified in the market place and at the outside gate where they picked up business.

If a woman may not pray or prophesy (with and "s") if her head is not covered --- the flip side of that is ----- if her head IS covered, she may pray or prophesy. If her husband is in agreement for her to do so.

If in the last days your daughters shall propheSy --- they can't do it without speaking and teaching, even teaching men.

The word is SILENCE not silent. There is also scripture that says the same thing to men. If women can't speak and men can't speak, what is left?

I don't see that "modest covering" means to duplicate what they were wearing at the time that was written. Modest dressing allows for changes in fashions but keeps the women modest. I sort of wonder when God killed the animal and covered Adam and Eve with animal skins, it was not some long flowing garment made of hide. I don't think it is important to consider. Just as long as it is modest.
Have a nice day everyone.

 

It would be nice to see an argument made that actually deals with the Scriptures and what the various texts actually say.

Copen, what in the world does your post have to do with this issue?

Let us see, we have various examples of women in the Bible performing various roles. Women are capable, intelligent, God-honoring people. They have to deal with alot of junk in life. However, we have to look at people's lives and the testimony of Scripture as the final authority, not our sympathy.

Deborah - God appointed judge in Israel. She performed a role that the MEN had forsaken due to their cowardice. Her service as a judge was in obedience to God as a judgment to the men. Everyone agrees that the men were cowardly.

However, she did not teach in the assembly, perform the role of an elder, deacon, or teacher of men. Now, when will the liberals stop trying to make her an example of female church leadership? Nothing like making Scripture subject to predujice.

Mary, Mary, Martha, and other women who were near to Christ's earthly ministry - They were close to the Lord, faithful, honoring, and full of courage. Most likely they were all present in the upper room. They would have been baptized by the Spirit along with the men.

However, what Peter and the rest did was not conduct an assembly meeting. THEY WERE STREETPREACHING. That would be, um, evangelism. The Scriptures do not forbid evangelism, ever.

Phillip's daughters - 4 faithful believers in the one true God. They used their mouth well in communication of the Gospel. Let us not forget that the Spiritual gift of prophesy existed until the Word was canonized. There was a need for it.

However, NOWHERE does it say they conducted an assembly meeting, performed the role of elder, deacon, or teacher of men. For all we know, they were involved in evangelism.

Junia - The exact gender is unknowable. The evidence favors both views. There is NOT conclusive evidence for either side.

However, the gender is a moot point. Junia and Andronicus were noted among the apostles. They were exceptional missionaries. The text does not say anything else.

Until I see some solid exegesis and not bits and pieces of stories that are wrenched from their context, I will have to conclude that the egalitarians simply have no case.

What I do find amazing is the number of men who are so willing to forfeit their roles. Wasn't that part of Adam's curse in the garden? Hmmmm.

 

but your personal belief is that it is better. That doesn't mean it's required. The Bible doesn't say that it is a requirement to be married (and your opinion coincides with that). It also doesn't say that a pastor MUST be a male. It can be implied that it might be better that a pastor be a male, but it is not a biblical requirement.

As for your reluctance to join a church if the (male) pastor were unmarried, that is certainly your right. But remember that Paul himself was a single man, and he wasn't a young guy either.

 

What part of "husband of one wife" do you not understand?

Now if you can show me a way that a woman can be a pastor and still not violate the above command, maybe you will have a point. Since you cannot, your statement is false.

 

Daniel David, Copen's post was spot on - it had everything to do with the issue we are debating here. I'm not sure what your problem with it was - other than it presents an alternative to your POV.

Terry - I have already explained the reference to 'husband of but one wife' - it is not maleness which is the issue/ problem herein addressed, but polygamy

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt,
Polygamy makes sense too but if women were allowed to pastor the verse would have gone on to say "or wife of one husband".

 

Matt, it is obvious that those who hold to your position must believe that "husband of one wife" is talking solely about polygamy. I disagree.

What is comes down to is that each of us must come to our own conclusions. I have decided that, based on my understanding of the Scripture, women should not pastor churches or teach men. Therefore, I would not attend a church that does these things. As a matter of fact, we are in the process of leaving a Southern Baptist church now and are now attending a Independent Baptist church partly because of this issue.

 

While we were all reacting to Stanley's supposed change, news has come out that there was no change after all, and Stanley fully supports BFM 2000. See the Baptist Press story at

http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=16936

 

Just one more proof to show media "fallablity"---and not to take everything news media presents as "Bible truth!"

Measure twice--cut once!
Measure once--cut twice!!

Blackbird

 

The title of this thread being, “Women are not second class” and the posts stating that women should not be allowed to speak or teach in the church contradicts the scripture that women are to serve God in keeping the priesthood uncontaminated with worldly involvement and unscriptural teachings.

When the Tabernacle and Temples were made according to pattern of the heavenly example, there was an undefined borderless area in front of the door of the congregation going into the Holy Place in which women who had a vow to God served. She could only serve if she had the permission of her father if she was not married; or her husband if she was. God always has a chain of command. The man is the head If she was a widow, such as Anna, all rules were off. There is no formal name for this area in the scriptures; but the priests were well aware of it. They probably called it the Court of Women. And this is probably where Herod’s Temple came up with that name.

But God also knows that men with power need a counter balance to keep the powerhead from getting out of hand and exercising unscriptural personal desires. Therefore, husband’s prayers are not answered if they do not treat their women lovingly. To counter balance the priests, God placed women “serving who served” in front of this door to observe the priests. If they had any stain or corruption on them, (stain of the world and corruption of the word) the women could see it and declare it to the congregation. The women could not lay a hand on the priests. Lest the priest be contaminated with corruption by the very touch
At one point not only the priesthood became corrupt but the Court of Women, also. They began sleeping with Eli’s sons. These women will find no fault with their preachers. And never compare their teaching with scripture. They adore their spiritual leader unconditionally.

When Herod’s Temple was built he played up to the whim of the priests and put the Court of Women at the opposite end of the court. And put a middle wall of partition right slab in the middle. It was so high, the women could not even see over it while standing on the balcony to watch the priests. The priests must have loved it. Now, the women were seen but not heard. To keep the women busy and make them think they were not second class, there was all this activity in the Court of Women they could get involved in. Like the treasury, helping the lepers, making sure the wine and wood stayed supplied. Oh, they were busy doing things. But they weren’t doing the things that God ordained for His house of worship. Making sure the word and the priesthood were not corrupted.

The Tabernacle and the Temples had only one gate at the eastern end of the court. Everybody had to enter by this gate. Even the priests. The whole congregation could view them as they walked to the area they performed the rituals. Herod’s Temple opened up 4 gates on the north and 4 on the south. Only one on the north and one on the south opened into the Court of Women. Now the priests didn’t have to be bothered with anybody. They went directly into the Court of the Priests.

As Jesus hung on the cross, that middle wall of partition came tumbling down in an earthquake. Herod’s Court of Women and the hostility it caused was now broken down. Resurrected Jesus reinstated the Court of Women to its proper place and function. There is no reason Jesus had to wait around after He was resurrected to appear to Mary (not the mother of Jesus). He could have gone to the Father and been back showing His scars to doubting Thomas. But by walking before Mary saying, “Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to the Father.”; He was performing the duties of the high priest of being observed by a women serving who served in front of the door before going into the temple. Her TEACHING to the congregation was --- He is alive! He told the truth! There is no corruption on Him.

Now, there are no more Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, free or slave, male or female in the Lord Jesus. There are no more earthly high priests. We are all a priesthood of believers, men and women. Men can now serve in what was the Court of Women. And Martin Luther quite succinctly placed his 93 point theses on the outside door of the church. It is a doctrine straight out of Herod’s Temple that says a woman should be seen but not heard. And many a Christian church practice that doctrine in error.