Do We Also Have Bible-Based Doctrines That Are Wrong? Is There a Case for Women as Pastors?

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

19 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Some information concerning the Greek name "Iounian" (Junia) in Romans 16:7.  It is true that an "an" declension at the end of a Greek word commonly conveys that the Greek word is feminine.  However, such is NOT universally the case in the Greek language.  There are some Greek words that carry what appears to be a feminine declension (containing the "a" element), but are NOT feminine words.  To illustrate -- In Romans 16:8 the apostle Paul mentions "Amplian" (Amplias).  Herein we notice that the name "Amplian" does indeed carry the "an" declension at the end of the word.  However, in the Greek the descriptive phrase "my beloved in the Lord" clearly carries the masculine Greek declension, clearly revealing that "Amplian" is masculine, even though the Greek ending to his name is "an."  Actually, the so-called Greek grammar convention that Dr. Morley has employed in his above argumentation is that which is obscure, NOT the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (which is found within a broader context wherein the apostle Paul is providing instruction on how we ought to behave ourselves "in the house of God, which is the church of the living God").

The issue appears to be about accentuation or rather, the lack thereof:

CBMW - the accent itself . . . was not part of the original text . . . The original text would have had simply Iounian, which could be either the accusative masculine of Junias or the accusative feminine of Junia.

CBE International - the Greek form used in Rom 16:7, Iounian, depending on how it is accented, has been understood as referring either to a woman named Junia or to a man named Junias. More specifically, Iounian ends with an “n” because in Rom 16:7 it is a direct object and therefore in the accusative case, and no NT occurrence of the name gives us an example in a different case. As a result, accentuation is an important factor. But the oldest Greek NT manuscripts contained no accents (accents did not become common until the ninth century). Paul himself certainly did not include accents in his letters.

Church history shows favor for a feminine translation. Most translations too. Importantly for this forum, the KJV interpreters chose Junia.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
added the links

[Napsterdad]

2 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Btw, these three you cited were not so adamant. (Barnes, Clarke, Gill)

Which is why I noted in the same post that they either "specifically agree or lean toward my point of view".

The point of the matter is there are opposing views from viable sources. You accept yours; I'll accept mine.

What I also noted in a subsequent post is that denominations that began accepting women as pastors, were then more apt to begin accepting LGBTQ+ people, not only as members, but as leaders and pastors as well. 

That is not a path I want my church to follow. Those are results that are antithetical to God's word (KJV anyway, maybe not some of the versions you like). The bible says in Galatians 6:7-8 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. It seems the seed you want us to sow, "doctor", has a good chance of reaping corruption. I'll pass.

Christian women have a vital part in every church's ministry. Many have contributed significantly to my own spiritual growth. Those on this forum alone have helped me along in my scriptural understanding. But they are not to be in church leadership positions. Especially not the pastor. This is my position, and you are not going to change it. If I err, I err on the side of caution and I will let Jesus correct me when that time comes.

"Doc", you remind me of the snake oil salesmen we used to have in the US back in the 19th century. You initially came here to try and sell us your physical wares, and while that didn't work you have remained to try and sell us your spiritual laudanum. Well, doc, I'm not buying your opiates. As far as I am concerned you should pack up your wagon and head out of town; but that is not my call. 

Titus 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

The issue appears to be about accentuation or rather, the lack thereof:

CBMW - the accent itself . . . was not part of the original text . . . The original text would have had simply Iounian, which could be either the accusative masculine of Junias or the accusative feminine of Junia.

CBE International - the Greek form used in Rom 16:7, Iounian, depending on how it is accented, has been understood as referring either to a woman named Junia or to a man named Junias. More specifically, Iounian ends with an “n” because in Rom 16:7 it is a direct object and therefore in the accusative case, and no NT occurrence of the name gives us an example in a different case. As a result, accentuation is an important factor. But the oldest Greek NT manuscripts contained no accents (accents did not become common until the ninth century). Paul himself certainly did not include accents in his letters.

Church history shows favor for a feminine translation. Most translations too. Importantly for this forum, the KJV interpreters chose Junia.

Your repeatedly stating that the KJV interprets Junia as feminine sounds desperate. Don't you believe you can prove your point without using the same tactics that  the liberal media and Democrats in this country use? It's very clear that many here might not agree with your conclusions. I think what you've tried to say has already been established...don't you think you should move on? Just a suggestion, as I'm not an administrator or moderator here. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

20 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

1 Timothy 3:1-16 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, … 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)  8 Likewise must the deacons be … 11 Even so must their wives be grave, … 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Vs 1: “If a man” – the term “man” here is a gender neutral word, meaning anyone. It’s not too unlike the use of “man” in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Vs 2: “the husband of one wife” – this phrase shows the bishop is male. But it also shows that he is married. Is that a requirement?

Vs 4: “One that ruleth well his own house” – the verse continues, “having his children in subjection with all gravity.” This shows that he is a man with children. Is that necessary?

Vs 5: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house” – the word “man” here is again the gender neutral term tis and not anér (man).

Vs 12: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” – This passage shows that a deacon is a man, married, and with children. Note, this is a continuation of the previous passage, shown by verse 8 beginning with, “Likewise . . .”

Consequently, taken from verse 1, the implied logical meaning of the passage is

V1 If anyone . . .

V2 if a man . . .

V2 if married . . .

V4 and if with children . . .

V5 if he has a house (household) . . .

V8 Likewise, must the deacons . . .

V12 if married . . . if with children . . . and if with houses (households) . . .

Gender, marriage, and children are not prerequisites. The moral issues are. Paul simply used the typical candidate as a template rather than showing every variation.

20 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

Titus 1:5-12 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, …

Titus follows the same way:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

V6: “If any” – the word “any” is from the same gender neutral word tis that is translated “man” in 1 Timothy 3:1.

20 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Paul typically states what he wants to counter. Verse 34-35 is a belief held by some in the Corinthian church. In verse 36, he responds emphatically against this, saying, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” Here's an extract from a post of mine:

Now, someone may rightly ask, surely Paul would not advocate following God’s law only to immediately refuse the idea. But, was it God’s “law” that Paul was referring to that says women ought to keep silent? No! A careful search will reveal no such law in the Bible.

So what “law” was Paul referring to then? Paul was quoting the Jewish oral law (Talmud) in vs 34-35 that some in the church apparently still wanted to embrace. And, in vs 36, we see Paul reasoning against this restriction on women. Firstly, he is clearly flabbergasted by such a notion. Then, through rhetorical questions, he refutes their logic to keep such a custom.

Paul points out that the word did not come from men, but, by implication, that it is from God. And, that it also did not only go to men, but, by implication women too. The logic being that there was no reason to restrict women from speaking because they “learn” just fine directly from God and His word and don’t need to be instructed by their husbands at home in order to learn. This explains the grammar and obvious tone in verse 36.

TALMUDIC QUOTES:

Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)

No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1).

For a glimpse into the prevailing mindsets around that era, here is Adam Clarke's comment on Verse 34:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are ….” Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” Adam Clarke

20 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

1 Timothy 2:12-14 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-13:

At the beginning of the letter, Paul says that he had requested Timothy “to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul addresses one of these different doctrines, the idea of female religious superiority. It was the prevalent belief in Ephesian religion that man came from a woman deity and subsequently sinned. Consequently, men were to be subject to women teaching them. This idea had apparently infiltrated into the local church.

Paul’s instruction corrects this. He tells Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11). This correction, describes the proper demeanor in which both men and women should learn. Except, in this case, it was evidently the women who needed it.

“Let the woman learn” was huge progress in that women were often uneducated and relegated to the sidelines of life, including among the Jews. “[I]n silence” suggests an environment conducive to learning. And, “with all subjection” is a call to appropriate Christian behavior. This is not unlike Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Here Paul is addressing the cult religion in Ephesus that taught women were the source of truth. (See 1 Timothy 2: Why Does Paul Tell Women To Shut It?). Prohibiting the exercise of authority over one another is not foreign to Christianity. Consider Jesus’ prohibition on disciples having authority over one another in Matthew 20:25-27.

Scripture requires interpretation. And, difficult passages require all the more attention.

For example, why did Paul switch to using the singular "woman" from "women," and "the man" from "men"? After all, he had been addressing plural "men" and "women" in the prior verses. "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1 Tim. 2:8-10).

Note, the word translated as "woman" (gynē) is also used for "wife." Is he only talking about "a woman" in a married relationship to "the man" (andros), a term also used for "husband"?

What does "all" mean in, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"?

Does "be in silence" mean "a woman" cannot speak at all?

Why does Paul say, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"? Though she was the one "deceived," they were both in "the transgression."

What does he mean by, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"?

20 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

Isaiah puts shame on women ruling.

Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Was it a shame that Eve co-ruled with Adam? (Gen. 1:27-29).

Was it a shame that God appointed Deborah as a judge in Israel when He could have raised a man like Barak for the job? Except that he asked that she go with him into the battle, was it a shame that he was led by her? No.

Here is commentary regarding that passage in Isaiah:

Barnes – “This is not to be taken literally, but it means either that the rulers were under the influence of the "harem," or the females of the court; or that they were effeminate and destitute of vigor and manliness in counsel.”

Benson – “Weak and effeminate rulers. Or, perhaps he speaks of the wives and concubines of their kings and great men, who, by their arts, gaining an ascendency over their husbands, induced them to act as they desired, though frequently to the people’s prejudice, and in a manner contrary to all the laws.”

Pulpit – “There is no allusion to female sovereigns.”

20 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

The passages above are clear and plain. Read it. Stay on topic. The office of Apostle is not the same as the office of pastors.

It is no uncommon on forums for related issues to be brought up that speak to the topic. As I see it, Junia being an apostle challenges a false belief that excludes a woman from leadership roles with authority to teach men.

20 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

The idea that Junia was an apostle, is disputed by Wesley, John Trapp, Matthew Poole, Ellicott, Coke, Adam Clark, Albert Barnes, and John Calvin. Some of their comments are listed below.

These you quoted also said the following:

Barnes – “and ‘if’ this expression meant that they "were" apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business.”

Clarke – “Junia may probably be the name of a woman, the wife of Andronicus." “Whether this intimates that they were noted apostles or only highly reputed by the apostles, is not absolutely clear; but the latter appears to me the most probable.”

Poole – “but other teachers are sometimes called apostles”

Ellicott – disputes it, but also said: “An ambiguous expression, which might mean, and, judging by the word alone, would perhaps more naturally be taken to mean, “distinguished as Apostles themselves.” This sense is not to be disregarded as absolutely impossible, for the title “Apostles” does not appear to have been limited to the Twelve.”

Regarding the disputes, are commentators of equal status who think otherwise wrong? Because Ellicott chose one way he is an ally, but if he chose the other way that he thought quite plausible, would he be wrong?

20 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

Some of their comments are listed below.

Romans 16:7 … who are of note among the apostles; were well known by, and in great account with the twelve apostles, though not of their number; they might be converted by them, and be followers of them in Judea… John Gill

Who are of note among the apostles; i.e. they were well known to the apostles, and were in good esteem with them: not only the twelve, together with Paul and Barnabas, but other teachers are sometimes called apostles, or messengers; see 2Co 8:23; Php 2:25. Some have thought these two, Andronicus and Junia, were of the number of the seventy disciples, who are mentioned Lu 10:1. Others, that they were of the one hundred and twenty, who are mentioned in Ac 1:15; or of those that were converted by the first preaching of Peter, and the rest, Ac 2:41; 4:4. By what follows, it appeareth they were of considerable standing in Christianity. … Matthew Poole

Ver. 7. Andronicus and Junia— Or, Junias. Diodati thinks that by apostles in this verse are meant the evangelists; and that the meaning is, that these persons were noted messengers of the churches; but it is more probable that they were some early converts, who had been known and much esteemed by the apostles before the dispersion occasioned by the death of Stephen: and if so, St. Paul perhaps might once have been active in persecuting them, and have learned their names at first with an hostile intent of hunting them down to destruction. See Craddock's Apostol. Hist. Diodati, and Doddridge. … Coke … Adam Clarke

Who are of note. The word translated of note, (epishmoi) denotes, properly, those who are marked, designated, or distinguished in any way; used either in a good or bad sense. Comp. Mt 27:16. Here it is used in a good sense.

Among the apostles. This does not mean that they were apostles, as has been sometimes supposed. For,

(1.) there is no account of their having been appointed as such.

(2.) The expression is not one which would have been used if they had been. It would have been, "who were distinguished apostles." Comp. Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Col 1:1.

(3.) It by no means implies that they were apostles. All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before he was himself converted. They had been converted before he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honoured with the friendship of the other apostles.

(4.) The design of the office of apostles was to bear witness to the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and miracles of Christ. Comp. Mt 10; Ac 1:21; 22:15. As there is no evidence that they had been witnesses of these things, or appointed to it, it is improbable that they were set apart to the apostolic office,

(5.) The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23. Albert Barnes.

Here are my comments on extracts from the commentators' comments you posted:

• other teachers are sometimes called apostles  Matthew Poole

My comment: According to Poole, they are possibly designated as apostles by being teachers.

To you: What of 1 Tim. 11-12? How can Junia teach with authority?

• Diodati thinks that by apostles in this verse are meant the evangelists; and that the meaning is, that these persons were noted messengers of the churches;

My comment: A noted messenger has a message.

To you: How could Junia (KJV female) be a messenger and not be able to speak to a congregation (according to your understanding of 1 Cor. 14:3-35, etc.)?

• The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23. Albert Barnes.

My comment: Barnes concedes the possibility.

To you: Do you?

Besides the twelve and Paul, there were others who were called apostles. Those who are named are James, the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silvanus (Silas) and, possibly, Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1,2,:6), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7).

Edited June 9, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Clarified: Here are my comments on extracts from the commentators' comments you posted:

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Vs 1: “If a man” – the term “man” here is a gender neutral word, meaning anyone. It’s not too unlike the use of “man” in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Vs 2: “the husband of one wife” – this phrase shows the bishop is male. But it also shows that he is married. Is that a requirement?

Vs 4: “One that ruleth well his own house” – the verse continues, “having his children in subjection with all gravity.” This shows that he is a man with children. Is that necessary?

Vs 5: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house” – the word “man” here is again the gender neutral term tis and not anér (man).

Vs 12: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” – This passage shows that a deacon is a man, married, and with children. Note, this is a continuation of the previous passage, shown by verse 8 beginning with, “Likewise . . .”

Consequently, taken from verse 1, the implied logical meaning of the passage is

V1 If anyone . . .

V2 if a man . . .

V2 if married . . .

V4 and if with children . . .

V5 if he has a house (household) . . .

V8 Likewise, must the deacons . . .

V12 if married . . . if with children . . . and if with houses (households) . . .

Gender, marriage, and children are not prerequisites. The moral issues are. Paul simply used the typical candidate as a template rather than showing every variation.

Titus follows the same way:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

V6: “If any” – the word “any” is from the same gender neutral word tis that is translated “man” in 1 Timothy 3:1.

Paul typically states what he wants to counter. Verse 34-35 is a belief held by some in the Corinthian church. In verse 36, he responds emphatically against this, saying, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” Here's an extract from a post of mine:

Now, someone may rightly ask, surely Paul would not advocate following God’s law only to immediately refuse the idea. But, was it God’s “law” that Paul was referring to that says women ought to keep silent? No! A careful search will reveal no such law in the Bible.

So what “law” was Paul referring to then? Paul was quoting the Jewish oral law (Talmud) in vs 34-35 that some in the church apparently still wanted to embrace. And, in vs 36, we see Paul reasoning against this restriction on women. Firstly, he is clearly flabbergasted by such a notion. Then, through rhetorical questions, he refutes their logic to keep such a custom.

Paul points out that the word did not come from men, but, by implication, that it is from God. And, that it also did not only go to men, but, by implication women too. The logic being that there was no reason to restrict women from speaking because they “learn” just fine directly from God and His word and don’t need to be instructed by their husbands at home in order to learn. This explains the grammar and obvious tone in verse 36.

TALMUDIC QUOTES:

Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)

No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1).

For a glimpse into the prevailing mindsets around that era, here is Adam Clarke's comment on Verse 34:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are ….” Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” Adam Clarke

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-13:

At the beginning of the letter, Paul says that he had requested Timothy “to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul addresses one of these different doctrines, the idea of female religious superiority. It was the prevalent belief in Ephesian religion that man came from a woman deity and subsequently sinned. Consequently, men were to be subject to women teaching them. This idea had apparently infiltrated into the local church.

Paul’s instruction corrects this. He tells Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11). This correction, describes the proper demeanor in which both men and women should learn. Except, in this case, it was evidently the women who needed it.

“Let the woman learn” was huge progress in that women were often uneducated and relegated to the sidelines of life, including among the Jews. “[I]n silence” suggests an environment conducive to learning. And, “with all subjection” is a call to appropriate Christian behavior. This is not unlike Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Here Paul is addressing the cult religion in Ephesus that taught women were the source of truth. (See 1 Timothy 2: Why Does Paul Tell Women To Shut It?). Prohibiting the exercise of authority over one another is not foreign to Christianity. Consider Jesus’ prohibition on disciples having authority over one another in Matthew 20:25-27.

Scripture requires interpretation. And, difficult passages require all the more attention.

For example, why did Paul switch to using the singular "woman" from "women," and "the man" from "men"? After all, he had been addressing plural "men" and "women" in the prior verses. "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1 Tim. 2:8-10).

Note, the word translated as "woman" (gynē) is also used for "wife." Is he only talking about "a woman" in a married relationship to "the man" (andros), a term also used for "husband"?

What does "all" mean in, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"?

Does "be in silence" mean "a woman" cannot speak at all?

Why does Paul say, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"? Though she was the one "deceived," they were both in "the transgression."

What does he mean by, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"?

Was it a shame that Eve co-ruled with Adam? (Gen. 1:27-29).

Was it a shame that God appointed Deborah as a judge in Israel when He could have raised a man like Barak for the job? Except that he asked that she go with him into the battle, was it a shame that he was led by her? No.

Here is commentary regarding that passage in Isaiah:

Barnes – “This is not to be taken literally, but it means either that the rulers were under the influence of the "harem," or the females of the court; or that they were effeminate and destitute of vigor and manliness in counsel.”

Benson – “Weak and effeminate rulers. Or, perhaps he speaks of the wives and concubines of their kings and great men, who, by their arts, gaining an ascendency over their husbands, induced them to act as they desired, though frequently to the people’s prejudice, and in a manner contrary to all the laws.”

Pulpit – “There is no allusion to female sovereigns.”

It is no uncommon on forums for related issues to be brought up that speak to the topic. As I see it, Junia being an apostle challenges a false belief that excludes a woman from leadership roles with authority to teach men.

These you quoted also said the following:

Barnes – “and ‘if’ this expression meant that they "were" apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business.”

Clarke – “Junia may probably be the name of a woman, the wife of Andronicus." “Whether this intimates that they were noted apostles or only highly reputed by the apostles, is not absolutely clear; but the latter appears to me the most probable.”

Poole – “but other teachers are sometimes called apostles”

Ellicott – disputes it, but also said: “An ambiguous expression, which might mean, and, judging by the word alone, would perhaps more naturally be taken to mean, “distinguished as Apostles themselves.” This sense is not to be disregarded as absolutely impossible, for the title “Apostles” does not appear to have been limited to the Twelve.”

Regarding the disputes, are commentators of equal status who think otherwise wrong? Because Ellicott chose one way he is an ally, but if he chose the other way that he thought quite plausible, would he be wrong?

Here are my comments on extracts from the commentators' comments you posted:

• other teachers are sometimes called apostles  Matthew Poole

My comment: According to Poole, they are possibly designated as apostles by being teachers.

To you: What of 1 Tim. 11-12? How can Junia teach with authority?

• Diodati thinks that by apostles in this verse are meant the evangelists; and that the meaning is, that these persons were noted messengers of the churches;

My comment: A noted messenger has a message.

To you: How could Junia (KJV female) be a messenger and not be able to speak to a congregation (according to your understanding of 1 Cor. 14:3-35, etc.)?

• The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23. Albert Barnes.

My comment: Barnes concedes the possibility.

To you: Do you?

Besides the twelve and Paul, there were others who were called apostles. Those who are named are James, the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silvanus (Silas) and, possibly, Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1,2,:6), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7).

To be honest, Doc, this is almost like the answers ChatGPT gives. Is an AI program giving your answers? Just sayin'. If not I have to say that you seem to be twisting the meaning of certain verses to fit your own ideology. I see no "gender neutral" anywhere in those passages. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

21 hours ago, Napsterdad said:

It appeared to me that those denominations that began accepting women as pastors, were then more apt to begin accepting LGBTQ+ people; not only as members, but as leaders and pastors as well. I thought surely this would be a difficult thing to gather data on, but it appears that not only was I right, the data is right there at our fingertips.

Breaking Barriers: Women pastors may be paving way for gay, lesbian leaders.

Something to think about before you let someone try to lead you away from what most here have said the scripture clearly states. Women should not be pastors. There's no telling what it could lead to.

The slippery slope fallacy. That's like arguing "that those denominations that began accepting" slavery is a sin, "were then more apt to begin accepting LGBTQ+ people."

Btw, where again does Scripture clearly state women should not be pastors?

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

17 hours ago, TheGloryLand said:

Outstanding Dr. I like your kindness and smooth reproach to this topic. The Bible talks about believers selling out. I believe this is happening, especially as we approach the end of times, many religious Christian organizations are going to sell out, and as I mentioned in one of my posts. True believers Christians, pastors, and evangelists are in the minority. Dr. you are in the minority in this forum. 

Those that sold out you mentioned 

 

I enjoy hearing from you, TGL, but I don't understand this one. You appear to be saying two things. You begin by crediting my approach, then you say true believers are in the minority and follow that up by saying I'm in the minority, but then you discredit the denominations I put forward as examples of those who have embraced my approach.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

6 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Your repeatedly stating that the KJV interprets Junia as feminine sounds desperate. Don't you believe you can prove your point without using the same tactics that  the liberal media and Democrats in this country use? It's very clear that many here might not agree with your conclusions. I think what you've tried to say has already been established...don't you think you should move on? Just a suggestion, as I'm not an administrator or moderator here. 

I repeatedly did that when people brought interpretations that ignored the importance of the KJV to this site.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

The issue appears to be about accentuation or rather, the lack thereof:

CBMW - the accent itself . . . was not part of the original text . . . The original text would have had simply Iounian, which could be either the accusative masculine of Junias or the accusative feminine of Junia.

CBE International - the Greek form used in Rom 16:7, Iounian, depending on how it is accented, has been understood as referring either to a woman named Junia or to a man named Junias. More specifically, Iounian ends with an “n” because in Rom 16:7 it is a direct object and therefore in the accusative case, and no NT occurrence of the name gives us an example in a different case. As a result, accentuation is an important factor. But the oldest Greek NT manuscripts contained no accents (accents did not become common until the ninth century). Paul himself certainly did not include accents in his letters.

Church history shows favor for a feminine translation. Most translations too. Importantly for this forum, the KJV interpreters chose Junia.

Indeed.  I fully recognize the uncertainty within the Greek usage of "Iounian."  Even so, your above posting helps to establish my point -- that Romans 16:7 is the obscure (uncertain) passage, NOT the clear instructions of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.  

Edited June 9, 2023 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

To be honest, Doc, this is almost like the answers ChatGPT gives. Is an AI program giving your answers? Just sayin'. If not I have to say that you seem to be twisting the meaning of certain verses to fit your own ideology. I see no "gender neutral" anywhere in those passages. 

Here is another example of gender neutrality:

“I will make you to become fishers of men” (KJV). Were the disciples (are we) only to fish for men? No, because the term "men" here is from the gender-neutral term anthrōpōn.

[BrotherTony]

45 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

The slippery slope fallacy. That's like arguing "that those denominations that began accepting" slavery is a sin, "were then more apt to begin accepting LGBTQ+ people."

Btw, where again does Scripture clearly state women should not be pastors?

I think those scriptures have been clearly presented time and again. Just because you refuse to accept them in no way negates their validity.

23 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

I repeatedly did that when people brought interpretations that ignored the importance of the KJV to this site.

Hardly, friend. You've done your best to be disrespectful and disruptive here. You know this is Baptist site, and yet you've come here and consistently tried to introduce misinterpretation of scripture to fit your own ideology. 

[BrotherTony]

3 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Here is another example of gender neutrality:

“I will make you to become fishers of men” (KJV). Were the disciples (are we) only to fish for men? No, because the term "men" here is from the gender-neutral term anthrōpōn.

I thought this thread was about the validity of women pastors. You seem to keep introducing rabbit trails at every turn. Your "gender neutral" theory has been addressed by several here, yet you refuse to hear and accept those interpretations...yet we are supposed to WILLINGLY accept yours. No thanks, Doc. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by BrotherTony
misspelled word...correction

[Jim_Alaska]

3 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Vs 1: “If a man” – the term “man” here is a gender neutral word, meaning anyone. It’s not too unlike the use of “man” in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Vs 2: “the husband of one wife” – this phrase shows the bishop is male. But it also shows that he is married. Is that a requirement?

Vs 4: “One that ruleth well his own house” – the verse continues, “having his children in subjection with all gravity.” This shows that he is a man with children. Is that necessary?

Vs 5: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house” – the word “man” here is again the gender neutral term tis and not anér (man).

Vs 12: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” – This passage shows that a deacon is a man, married, and with children. Note, this is a continuation of the previous passage, shown by verse 8 beginning with, “Likewise . . .”

Consequently, taken from verse 1, the implied logical meaning of the passage is

V1 If anyone . . .

V2 if a man . . .

V2 if married . . .

V4 and if with children . . .

V5 if he has a house (household) . . .

V8 Likewise, must the deacons . . .

V12 if married . . . if with children . . . and if with houses (households) . . .

Gender, marriage, and children are not prerequisites. The moral issues are. Paul simply used the typical candidate as a template rather than showing every variation.

Titus follows the same way:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

V6: “If any” – the word “any” is from the same gender neutral word tis that is translated “man” in 1 Timothy 3:1.

Paul typically states what he wants to counter. Verse 34-35 is a belief held by some in the Corinthian church. In verse 36, he responds emphatically against this, saying, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” Here's an extract from a post of mine:

Now, someone may rightly ask, surely Paul would not advocate following God’s law only to immediately refuse the idea. But, was it God’s “law” that Paul was referring to that says women ought to keep silent? No! A careful search will reveal no such law in the Bible.

So what “law” was Paul referring to then? Paul was quoting the Jewish oral law (Talmud) in vs 34-35 that some in the church apparently still wanted to embrace. And, in vs 36, we see Paul reasoning against this restriction on women. Firstly, he is clearly flabbergasted by such a notion. Then, through rhetorical questions, he refutes their logic to keep such a custom.

Paul points out that the word did not come from men, but, by implication, that it is from God. And, that it also did not only go to men, but, by implication women too. The logic being that there was no reason to restrict women from speaking because they “learn” just fine directly from God and His word and don’t need to be instructed by their husbands at home in order to learn. This explains the grammar and obvious tone in verse 36.

TALMUDIC QUOTES:

Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)

No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1).

For a glimpse into the prevailing mindsets around that era, here is Adam Clarke's comment on Verse 34:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are ….” Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” Adam Clarke

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-13:

At the beginning of the letter, Paul says that he had requested Timothy “to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul addresses one of these different doctrines, the idea of female religious superiority. It was the prevalent belief in Ephesian religion that man came from a woman deity and subsequently sinned. Consequently, men were to be subject to women teaching them. This idea had apparently infiltrated into the local church.

Paul’s instruction corrects this. He tells Timothy, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Tim. 2:11). This correction, describes the proper demeanor in which both men and women should learn. Except, in this case, it was evidently the women who needed it.

“Let the woman learn” was huge progress in that women were often uneducated and relegated to the sidelines of life, including among the Jews. “[I]n silence” suggests an environment conducive to learning. And, “with all subjection” is a call to appropriate Christian behavior. This is not unlike Ephesians 5:21, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

“I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Here Paul is addressing the cult religion in Ephesus that taught women were the source of truth. (See 1 Timothy 2: Why Does Paul Tell Women To Shut It?). Prohibiting the exercise of authority over one another is not foreign to Christianity. Consider Jesus’ prohibition on disciples having authority over one another in Matthew 20:25-27.

Scripture requires interpretation. And, difficult passages require all the more attention.

For example, why did Paul switch to using the singular "woman" from "women," and "the man" from "men"? After all, he had been addressing plural "men" and "women" in the prior verses. "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1 Tim. 2:8-10).

Note, the word translated as "woman" (gynē) is also used for "wife." Is he only talking about "a woman" in a married relationship to "the man" (andros), a term also used for "husband"?

What does "all" mean in, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection"?

Does "be in silence" mean "a woman" cannot speak at all?

Why does Paul say, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"? Though she was the one "deceived," they were both in "the transgression."

What does he mean by, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"?

Was it a shame that Eve co-ruled with Adam? (Gen. 1:27-29).

Was it a shame that God appointed Deborah as a judge in Israel when He could have raised a man like Barak for the job? Except that he asked that she go with him into the battle, was it a shame that he was led by her? No.

Here is commentary regarding that passage in Isaiah:

Barnes – “This is not to be taken literally, but it means either that the rulers were under the influence of the "harem," or the females of the court; or that they were effeminate and destitute of vigor and manliness in counsel.”

Benson – “Weak and effeminate rulers. Or, perhaps he speaks of the wives and concubines of their kings and great men, who, by their arts, gaining an ascendency over their husbands, induced them to act as they desired, though frequently to the people’s prejudice, and in a manner contrary to all the laws.”

Pulpit – “There is no allusion to female sovereigns.”

It is no uncommon on forums for related issues to be brought up that speak to the topic. As I see it, Junia being an apostle challenges a false belief that excludes a woman from leadership roles with authority to teach men.

These you quoted also said the following:

Barnes – “and ‘if’ this expression meant that they "were" apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business.”

Clarke – “Junia may probably be the name of a woman, the wife of Andronicus." “Whether this intimates that they were noted apostles or only highly reputed by the apostles, is not absolutely clear; but the latter appears to me the most probable.”

Poole – “but other teachers are sometimes called apostles”

Ellicott – disputes it, but also said: “An ambiguous expression, which might mean, and, judging by the word alone, would perhaps more naturally be taken to mean, “distinguished as Apostles themselves.” This sense is not to be disregarded as absolutely impossible, for the title “Apostles” does not appear to have been limited to the Twelve.”

Regarding the disputes, are commentators of equal status who think otherwise wrong? Because Ellicott chose one way he is an ally, but if he chose the other way that he thought quite plausible, would he be wrong?

Here are my comments on extracts from the commentators' comments you posted:

• other teachers are sometimes called apostles  Matthew Poole

My comment: According to Poole, they are possibly designated as apostles by being teachers.

To you: What of 1 Tim. 11-12? How can Junia teach with authority?

• Diodati thinks that by apostles in this verse are meant the evangelists; and that the meaning is, that these persons were noted messengers of the churches;

My comment: A noted messenger has a message.

To you: How could Junia (KJV female) be a messenger and not be able to speak to a congregation (according to your understanding of 1 Cor. 14:3-35, etc.)?

• The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23. Albert Barnes.

My comment: Barnes concedes the possibility.

To you: Do you?

Besides the twelve and Paul, there were others who were called apostles. Those who are named are James, the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silvanus (Silas) and, possibly, Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1,2,:6), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7).

Dr. Morley, in spite of your voluminous copy and paste  techniques, it is easy to see through the many deflections you constantly post. This long winded reply is just one of many examples of this.

I am quite sure that Holy Spirit inspired scripture is able to communicate His exact meaning to those to whom He writes, those who also have the benefit of being indwelt by this very same Spirit. Scripture backs this up nicely with words easy to understand. John 16:13 (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Having said that, I copy and paste the following that you posted: “the husband of one wife” – this phrase shows the bishop is male. But it also shows that he is married. Is that a requirement?  Notice that you provide your own question at the end of the scripture, "is that a requirement?"

This question is a deflection regarding not only what someone else posted, but also a deflection of what scripture obviously means. It is also patently obtuse on your part, for the scripture rightly assumes that the reader understands that a PASTOR is a man and of the male gender, not gender neutral, which is a term you love to use and unscriptural.

This in no manner demands that a pastor be married; but it does demand that if he is married, he is to be the husband of one wife, as opposed to multiple wives.

Also interesting and contradictory in this verse is the fact that you acknowledge that the Bishop or husband is male, while at other times demanding that Bishop, husband, or man is "gender neutral."

This all proves to me that I, as well as others in this thread, are fully capable of understanding scripture without you interpreting it for us.

[Napsterdad]

2 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

The slippery slope fallacy. That's like arguing "that those denominations that began accepting" slavery is a sin, "were then more apt to begin accepting LGBTQ+ people."

Btw, where again does Scripture clearly state women should not be pastors?

Is your supposed doctorate in "How to be obtuse"? If so you probably graduated Summa Cum Laude.

The link provided in my post which you make reference to gave actual statistics of the progression from women as pastors to LGBTQ+ membership and leadership. No slippery slope there.

As to your "gender neutral" platform.

1 Timothy 3:2 clearly nails down that all of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is addressing men. It would be nonsensical to say a bishop must be the husband of one wife (obviously being a male) if verse one could then be understood as "she" desireth a good work. (Taking the female side of your gender-neutral argument.) 

That would be like a pastor addressing his congregation on Sunday saying:

Next Saturday will be a men's workday at the church. I need you to be here at 0900. We will likely finish by lunch which will be provided. Please bring your lawn tools if you have them. I appreciate your support.

This example is similar to 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The words "you", "we", and "your" are all gender-neutral words, but it is clear that from the first sentence only the men are being referred to. No woman would think they had to be at the church at 0900 the following Saturday. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 the second sentence makes it clear that it is men being referred to for the office of bishop. Stop the gender-neutral nonsense.

As to your other questions with regards to these and like verses, I personally have no problem with the pastor having to be either married or widowed, and being required to have children. I believe those two attributes add much to his ability to be a capable minister to the whole congregation. An exception would be a Youth Pastor that would likely not be dealing with marriage and child rearing issues. Again, that is me. I personally think it is wise.

The longer this discussion drags on the more I question the intent of you being on this forum. You say your motives are pure, but I'm not buying it.

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

 

 

 

[Pastor Matt]

Looks like someone's going to be getting a letter from John of Patmos