"I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:43 am

It may seem "neutral" to you, Zarove, but I'd ask you to do the same thing you asked me-- turn it around and see how you'd feel if someone spoke this way to you.

Except inthis case peopel do speak to me this way all the time. Family, friends from bakc in the old COuntry, ect...


This is why we are two peopel divided by a common language.

The problem I had with the Testamony, though, wasn't a condecendign tone broguth abotu by standard Americans peech, btu by diliberate statements, such as labling others Patriarichal or questionign the validity of the disabled. With me it is just the manner and word choice that is beign discused.

To help on my end, perhaps you'd like a link to a Board of mostlry Brits I post on?

I do not mean offence but it'd be pretty hard for me to change how I talk, and I have turned it round, but peopel who know how we talk simply ignore this.

I cnanot, hwoever, ignroe the testamonial, since I am familiar wiht American spech, and the text was simply derogitory,not merey cold and styalised.


It is a bit irritating to explain to someone that you have extensive training in lit, and then have them think they need to explain authorial intent to you. It's like if I told you I was a scientist, and then you thought it necessary to tell me what the periodic table of elements was.

But thats the point. I am expressing the same sort of frustration with htose hwo seem to want ot conform the Scriptures to their own way of thinking, and I myself ama writer by trade.

Autherial intention is still the principle determenant, and it still remaisn to be seen that Pausl Autherial intent did not exclude women from Public Ministry wihtin the Church.

In fact, the reading of the text suggests otherwise.

It snto so much to call yuo into queasiton,as to call the position you take into queastion.


Rather than simply tell me you disagree with my arguments, you dismiss them out of hand with by telling me they are not "supportable"-- and in the form of a lofty question.

If they are supportable, then I'd have to see the support.As of right now, I fail to, ebcause what is presented is speclationand interpretaiton with no direct link to past understandign or a plain reading.


No, your tone is not neutral, however much you think it is.

It is neutral. I've seen worse, trust me.

Try goign to Anglican Mainstream, and read the threads. Any thread.

It has soem Americans,but mainlyits English, New Zealanders,and Aussies.


My tone was intended to be neutral earlier, yet when you told me I had offended, I apologized. I didn't say, "No, I wasn't offensive." I said, "I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend." Two different things, my friend. One is dismissive, the other takes into account the professed feelings of the other party.

True, but the offence did not comefrom mere word choice or approach, but form the implicaiton. I was offended by theuse of terms such a s"Patriarichal" and "Heirarichl" and the diivisive and innacurate way those of us who do nto suppot women in ministryare depicted. I wa snot offended by simply word choice and approach.


I also note that you mean tno offnece, but it was the intent behidn the word selection,not the word selection tiself, which determien dmy responce.

The reaosn I didnt apologise and try to be different is because Ive leared int eh apst that it doenst amtter hwo hard I try, I'll revert to this anyway because htis is my natural method of speech.

It woudl take ocncentrated effort notto.

Onthe other hand, the manner of pseech fgiven int he testamonial was never hwatoffended but rather his spacific treatment of he topic and how he demonised those hw did not agree whilst not presentign an accurate picture of them.


I apologise if you where offended by the remarks on Autherial intent, but the est is just how I talk.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:31 pm

Ok, Zarove, we can lay aside the issue of tone, and I'll simply address some more of your arguments.

First of all, I don't buy this:
ZAROVE wrote: The men, whom you say wheremen of their culture and hwo interpeted the Scriptueealon their own culturallines, where willign to die for CHrist JEsus. THis wasa time when being a CHristian coudl eaislyhave gotten you killed.Christians stiood out form the world they lived in,and developed thier own Culture and values,apart fromt he Roman world.

These men abandoend the striggle for pwoer, the worhsip of the Pantheon of ROme, and the idea of the mightiest to rule, aswell as a host of other cultural precepts and perceptions which ende dup hacign them labled ahtiests, and fools,and weak, and enslavable.

THey did not fllowtheir culture in all the things which they where told to, and yet you woudl have us beleive here that the men who sat int e counsils only forbade women from PReahcign because of their culture, the same culture they had rejected in Favour of Christ and the same culture they had abandined to their own peril at the risl fo their imediate eath at the hands of he ORmans or Jews.

No, I'm afraid the idea that they where merley produts of heir cultre and htus made such an interrpetation doesn't sit with me asaccurate.Not when I read hte lives of the Fathes who where for htier day so counter-cultural.
I have been doing some research, reading some of the actual writings of the early Fathers regarding women. The thing is that no matter how hard we may try to repudiate our culture, we all live in it like fish live in water, and for all of us there are aspects of it that are so basic we simply don't see them. The Church Fathers (as might be expected) vary in their attitudes towards women, and much of what they said was good-- but there are certain statements which read as startlingly misogynistic by today's standards. I don't blame them-- but neither am I going to take them as absolute authorities on a text in an area in which they were understandably influenced by the basic attitudes they were raised with.

As for this:
when spakign of Teahcing Paul must be speaking of the Church as that is where one learend. He said the women shoudl larn in silence or ask queasitosn they had at home from their husbands, which indicates they can speak at home.

It is thus the contention of myself andevery authority I have read in the ancient Churchthat this woudl mean preciclely this. Women do not take active teachign roles in the Church, which is where people went to learn.

Its not liek they had regular schooling at this point in time.
I see that you look to other letters of Paul (like the one where he says women should ask their husbands at home) to shed light on what he might have meant in this passage. However, you do not permit me to do so, when I look to Paul's use of the word "I" in other passages as an indication that the use of that word means he is speaking for himself as an Apostle and not as "the Lord." Yes, as an Apostle he had authority-- but it is apostolic authority, used in certain ways. I Cor 7 shows how he lays dowm policies and then gives reasons for them (see for instance I Cor 7:17-29), which have to do with existing circumstances. But it is not the same as when he makes an unequivical, from-the-Lord statement such as in Romans 2:1 -- "You, therefore, have no excuse. . ."

As for there not being schooling outside the church-- well, that cuts both ways, doesn't it? It may mean that Paul meant women were only not to teach in Church-- but if the Church was the only centralized place where learning was taking place, it could be argued that the interdiction should apply now, as it would have then, to all centers of learning!

What I cannot understand, Zarove, is why you insist the only possible "plain reading" of this verse is "women are never to teach men in the Church." If that was what Paul meant, why didn't he simply say that? But that's not what he said. He said "I do not suffer a woman to teach." Did Paul mean that universally and for all time-- that women were unequipped to teach, not only from their current ignorance, but because of their very natures? If so, why did he tie the injunction so closely to women learning?

(The fact is that even if Paul was only saying women were never to teach in church, this still says something about the nature of women, that they are fundamentally, spiritually incapable of imparting the truths of their religion without deception, in any organized setting! Except of course, to other women or to children. Sigh.)

So I searched for and found an Interlinear Greek-English translation. The relevant passage is on the second page of this link: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/1ti2.pdf

I also provide a link to the Introduction which states, in relevant part:

Most available interlinear translations vary their renderings to suit the translator's ideas, but in the sublinear of the Concordant Greek Text, a companion volume of the Concordant Version of the New Testament (Concordant Publishing Concern, 1931, 1975) , every translation and grammatical form is constant throughout, thus excluding the varying ideas of the translators.
In 1996, permission was granted from the publishers of the Concordant Greek Text, to digitalize this concordant interlinear for the ISA program. It was named CGTS (Concordant Greek Text Sublinear). As the words and grammar were translated uniformly, with exclusive renderings, it turned out to be quite exact, but (for most students) hardly readable. To make it so and still cling close to the Greek original, a more idiomatic, but still concordant, interlinear, the CGES (Concordant Greek English Sublinear) has been added to the CGTS in the ISA program.


As you can see, this version states that a more accurate Greek rendition would be something like: "Let a woman be learning in quietness and subjection," and the "but" there in "But I do not suffer" is better rendered "yet," so that it reads, "I am not yet letting a woman teach, nor to be domineering over a man."
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:32 pm

I don't mind people using other portions of scriptue to explain passages they are dealing with, but nothin in 1 Timothy expresses that it is just Pauls opinion. Irt is taken as an Apostolic letter written under the inspiration of God. This is not simply Paul, even though he says I suffer not.

The matter rests on the fact that in three seperate passages Paul makes it plaiun that it is a practice in all the Churches, and that it is outlined in the Scriptures, that women shall not teah in authority over men.

This is written in Corinthians as well as the Pastorals.


The real queasiton then becomes why I shoudl see it any other way? How mine isnt the only way to see it in a plain reaidngifnotaffectedby other thoughts?

Iwonder ifthere actually is HistoricalrpecedentsforWomen inminiserialrolesoutsideof the Heretical movements?

DOesPaul evermention aoman as aPreacherof the Gosple?Sure,their arewomen asfellow labourers,but no women in any position to teach the CHurhc as a Preacher.

I will ask again,on what groundsdo you drawyourconclusion?

Ifmine is not the simple,plain reading,andyouareright and women ought to be allwoedtoteach in the Churches, then shoudlit be irraitonalto askforevidencethat doens'trestonplayign with words?


Why shoudl Ir ead 1 Timothy,or2 Corinthians, any differently than I do now?

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:55 am

You might check out Metacrock's list of women in leadership in the Bible. Here's the link.

http://www.doxa.ws/social/Women/teach6.html Check out the links to the Bible scholars who believe these women had places of leadership, including teaching.

While you're there, click on some of the other links in his section on women. He has an interesting exegesis of I Tim 2:12 based on historical context, which is different than mine, which is based solely on the text itself. He also has some ideas about I Corinthians.

In any case, trying to understand the exact wording of a verse, both in the translated text and with reference to its original language, is hardly "playing with words." It is not hard to imagine that Bible translators over the years would tend to devolve to the status quo, rather than risking a reading that might make them unpopular among their contemporaries.

So, you have asked me a question, let me ask you one, Zarove.

Why, do you think, would God exclude women in the Church from teaching, not just for a season, but for all time?
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:33 pm

Thought I'd also post here a relevant section of the article Metacrock links to from ChristianityToday.com, about the apostle "Junias" mentioned in Romans 16:7:
Until about a hundred years ago, the consensus was universal. Junia was a woman. Every church father, without exception, thought so. Even John Chrysostom, not exactly famous for positive thoughts about the female sex, commented, "How great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle." However, in a curious twist of fate, the church a millennium and a half later concluded not that her wisdom was so great, but that, if she was indeed worthy of the title of apostle, then she wasn't a she at all. The very liberal vanguard that exalted the historical-critical study of the Bible found the leadership of a woman unthinkable, and so made Junia into Junias, a man—even though there is not a single record of the name Junias anywhere in ancient Rome.
The idea that an apostle-- not one of the Apostles, but someone in a position of responsibility for the spread of the faith and the planting and maintaining of churches, would never teach or exercise any church authority, is incredibly difficult to believe. And yet the Church Fathers did acknowledge that she was a woman, and an apostle.

See also this review of the book "The First Woman Apostle, by Eldon Epp:

http://www.fbs.org.au/reviews/epp54.html

As for 1 Cor. 14, about women not "speaking" in the churches, here is the Interlinear:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /1co14.pdf

The actual word is "talking," not "speaking," and "let them be hushing," not "silent." According to several books I have read, the issue here is cultural/historical. Greek women were kept in seclusion, not allowed to appear in public, and kept uneducated. In the Christian Church they were being permitted for the first time to be in a public setting and to learn-- but they had no idea how to behave, and were talking in church, asking their husbands questions in the middle of the service, and generally being disruptive. Paul is simply saying that the women need to hush during the service and not be talking in church.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:40 am

I distrust all books that get their titles wrong.

Julia could not have been a female Aposlte, for even if it whre a female name rendered male, the Apostles ended wih St. Paul, and we have their nuer fixed at 12. The Apostles where those personally chosen by our Lord Jesus to begin his work, and their successors where the Bishops of the Early Church. The Bishops, though, bore no title of Apostle, for they where not personally selected by Jesus.


If the book has listed her a s a female Apostle, I wonder how accurae it can be?

That said, do you not think that if someone has a desire to a conclusion, they will always find evidence to support it? I have read Metacrocks material before, though I admit it has been a long time since I had. I also note that for every book you have presented I can find others that disagree.

I trust soem soruces but hey must be as I am, and attemto only to see the truth of the matter, and not poursue a conclusion. Of coruse we all, myself included, fall pray to the desires of our minds and seekign justification for our ebelifs, but some have learned to look past those, even if not perfecltyl, and see only what s there.


I see no evidence for the Early Church allowiong owmen to take the positionss described here, as Presbyters or Bishops.

I see in the Scriptures whre the Apostle Paul said this shoudl not be done.

What can I say other than this?

As to why this may be so, understand that what I say on the topic woudl be only my view. I have what the scriptrues say but if I speak beyond them it is my word and not theirs. I will need to speak beyind them if I give a greater answer as to why, though the reaosn is given int he scriptures. The reaosn is light, and the rest is how I understand it. Thus I hesitate in offerign the why of this matter.

But if you ask and understand the above, that it is what I say, baed upon the scripture, this will I show.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:15 am

This puzzles me.

How do you interpret Romans 16:7, Zarove?
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
As has been stated, the Church Fathers interpreted this that it was referring to these two people as being apostles. If you follow the Church Fathers for interpretation of Scripture, then why not on this?

Ephesians 4:11 would seem to indicate that there can be more apostles than the 12 Apostles and Paul. (In any case, Paul would have to be the 13th Apostle; there is no doubt he is not one of the original 12, and the Apostles appointed Matthias as Judas' replacement in Acts 1.) Furthermore, Barnabus is clearly named as also being an apostle in Acts 14:14.



As for the woman issue-- I used to believe exactly as you do, and as my church taught me. And then my pastor came back from a mission trip in China. I'll never forget what he shared.

He said that many leaders of the underground church in China are young women. I pretty much remember his exact words. "I felt like Peter when God gave him the vision of the unclean animals and said, 'arise, Peter, kill and eat.' God told Peter not to call unclean what God has declared clean. I saw the clear anointing for ministry on these young women's lives; I saw their Christian character; I saw the success of their ministries. If God wants to raise up women into ministry, who am I to tell Him He can't?"

After that my pastor looked more closely into the Greek Scriptures and saw that they did not say what he had thought they did.

If you say I am seeking justification for what I want to believe, how do you know you are not? Is there some reason why you reject the Greek Interlinear version I linked to? If we are going to follow authorial intent, isn't it important to get as direct a look as possible at what Paul actually wrote in his own language?
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:02 pm

This puzzles me.

How do you interpret Romans 16:7, Zarove?
I think the problem rests less on how I interpet it and more on how it seems to be read on the end of some.

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

As has been stated, the Church Fathers interpreted this that it was referring to these two people as being apostles.

I have read the Church Fathers, and they do not say this.

Neither, in fact, does the above verse.

It merley says Andronicus and Junia are of note among the Apostles, it does not say they are Apostles. The sentence doesn't really even suggest this or imply it.

It is like me sayign that two men commissioned by Congress to survey a land where in good repute with the congress. It doens't make them COngressmen.


Ephesians 4:11 would seemd to indicate that there can be more apostles than the 12 Apostles and Paul. (In any case, Paul would have to be the 13th Apostle; there is no doubt he is not one of the original 12, and the Apostles appointed Matthias as Judas' replacement in Acts 1.) Furthermore, Barnabus is named as also being an apostle in Acts 14:14.

I made no mention of a number of Apostles, but to be an Apostle you had ot be personally selected for the role by Jesus himself. The successors to the Apostles where the Bishops, themselves not addressed as Apostle.

Except Metaphoriclaly.

That said, keep in mind the Apostles where largley alive at the time of Paul writing Epheians.


If you follow the Church Fathers for interpretation of Scripture, then why not on this?

I don't follow them slavishly, and when I use them as a rescource I use them in full.

The Fathers of the Church are, as I had said previously, not viewed as our guide tot he scriptues, we use only the Bible for that. They are merely a rescurse, but aren't relied upon.

This said, They never truly labled anyone but those appointed by Jesus as Apostles and where the firts to deny such to others.



I used to believe exactly as you do, and as my church taught me. And then my pastor came back from a mission trip in China. I'll never forget what he shared.

Oh, I don't think you beleived exaclty as I. I mean that not as an offence of ocuse, but the fact that you had a Pastor shoudl be a sign.


He said that many leaders of the underground church in China are young women. I specifically remember his words. "I felt like Peter when God gave him the vision of the unclean animals and said, 'arise, Peter, kill and eat.' God told Peter not to call unclean what God has declared clean. I saw the clear anointing for ministry on these young women's lives; I saw their Christian character; I saw the success of their ministries. If God wants to raise up women into ministry, who am I to tell Him He can't?"

I am not he who spoke those words. I have seen women preach. I have sat in Audience when this happened. I have even attended a womans Oridnation.

My oposiion stands.

I have heard praise for them. I cannot be moved.


Leadership, incedentlaly, is not the same as Ministry. The very word Minister means servant, and not leader.

So women, if made ministers, ar enot elevated, but subjugated.

This is the rule of the Church as well, and for those who woud lbe preachers of the Church,they must become servants instead of Masters.

Also, the concept of an Annointinfg for Ministry is alein to me.

None I know of who preach at the Churches of Christ say they have an annointing.

After that my pastor looked more closely into the Greek Scriptures and saw that they did not say what he had thought they did.

Or else he rationalised the texts to conform to his new view,which can also happen.

I must however standby the textas it is written.

If you say I am seeking justification for what I want to believe, how do you know you are not? Is there some reason why you reject the Greek Interlinear version I linked to?

I did not mention the Greek Interlienar,I simply reject the conclusions you present.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:08 pm

Zarove,

It is very odd to me that you insist there can only be the 12 Apostles and Paul, when Barnabus is also named one. This Theological Dictionary mentions that Paul used the word to refer to more than just the 12 Apostles and himself, though it assumes the name of one of them was "Junias" and referred to a man. The title "apostle" had more than one use in the New Testament, as this dictionary sets forth.

That Greek word "among" means "within." "Within the apostles," not just "by the apostles." There is little doubt that this is the intended meaning.

As for Chrysostom, do you deny that he said Junia was a woman and had the title of "apostle" (a direct quote), or do you deny that he was a Church Father?

That "ministry" means "service" is something I have never argued. However, it is completely beside the point. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant," Jesus said. (emphasis mine) You cannot honestly believe that the denial of this ministry to women is actually an honor to them? :shock:
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:51 pm

Zarove,

It is very odd to me that you insist there can only be the 12 Apostles and Paul, when Barnabus is also named one.
This is not odd. Remember the selection of the new Apostles?

In acts chapter 1, we see the lot fall on Mathias. History tell sus that Barnabas, considered for the role, was later added after another fell, or perhaops before.

But still, only those who knew personlly Jesus and where called direclty by him can be Apostles, with the term ebign fixed at the 12.


This Theological Dictionary mentions that Paul used the word to refer to more than just the 12 Apostles and himself, though it assumes the name of one of them was "Junias" and referred to a man. The title "apostle" had more than one use in the New Testament, as this dictionary sets forth.


Which dictionary?


That Greek word "among" means "within." "Within the apostles," not just "by the apostles." There is little doubt that this is the intended meaning.

The wording still doesn't assure you that the two referenced where Apostles, as the Greek would have onky that to convey how the gropup felt about the two. It doesn't say they themselves whre Apostles.


As for Chrysostom, do you deny that he said Junia was a woman and had the title of "apostle" (a direct quote), or do you deny that he was a Church Father?

Can you show me a reference?

That said, do you think the Fathers are final?

Remember, I have said they can be wrong, and I am still Church of Christ. We don't use them to guide us in our understaning except as we use other men. Their value lay in their closeness to the events.

This said, Chrystom lived some 600 years later I beleive, he was not a witness to the events himself.

And I'd still have to see the quote and it context.



That "ministry" means "service" is something I have never argued. However, it is completely beside the point. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant," Jesus said. (emphasis mine) You cannot honestly believe that the denial of this ministry to women is actually an honor to them?
Honour or not, I do not even see men as ebeing annointed to Ministry. They choose freely to serve, or not at all.


The concept of "The Annointing" is not a part pof my thoughts.

With this also said, it is still written that women should learn in silence, not to userp the authority of a man. This is clealry written. It is in the Greek written.

Women can act in many ries in life, but in this role, they are not to perform, but to learn.

I did not deny that women where in some important and vital roles for the early Church, but we have no record of thewm preaching sermons and holding services.

We have them instead delivering letters, helping in feeding the poor, orginising events in cities, but never do we see them in the role of the Preacher.

Is this not Piculiar to you?

It isnt to me as I'd say they never held such positions.

It is still a denial of Scripture to say otherwise.

Post Reply