Let’s get the Bible references right. You’re FAR in the minority.
Phoebe is simply called a servant (diakonon) which can be rendered differently in different Bibles: “minister” (Darby, YLT), “servant” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV), “helper” (NCV), “deacon” (NLT, which is only a paraphrase, not a translation, NRSV), and “deaconess” (RSV).

And besides, as I pointed out, DEACONS are not PASTORS,and women deacons historically ministered to women. A deacon DOES NOT TEACH OR HAVE AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN THE CHURCH. PASTORS DO. Are you really this dense??

(Ab) A.T. Robertson says that diakonos as it’s used in Romans 16:1 is used in a technical sense the same as Philipians 1:1 and 1Timothy 3:8-13 because of Thv Ekklhsaiv (of the church).

To you, though, that is not a salient point. So, Instead of addressing it, you focus on writings that are not inspired, raising issues as to whether or not the Apostolic Constitution mentions a woman as “deacon.”

(GV) WRONG………AGAIN. The ISSUE is not the technical sense, since I have REPEATEDLY said that women served as ministers, servants to OTHER WOMEN in the church. WHERE DOES ROBINSON SAY THAT DEACONS HAD AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN THE CHURCH IN TEACHING??

Are you REALLY this obtuse?? Paul said he did not allow women to TEACH OR HAVE AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN THE CHURCH………deacons DON’T. They SERVE, they MINISTER, but they don’t TEACH OR HAVE AUTHORITY over men AS CHURCH HISTORY MAKES CLEAR.

(Ab)We’re talking about the Bible, friend, not historical writings.

(GV) You dolt………..church history is where we see the HOW the church FUNCTIONED in the early post Apostolic era. If there is a question in Scripture, you can see how it was understood by those THE APOSTLES TAUGHT by delving into HISTORY.

(Ab)Dr. Robertson also commented on 1Timothy 3:11:

Women (gunaikav).
Accusative with dei einai understood (osautwv, likewise) as in verse 8. Apparently “women as deacons” (Romans 16:1 about Phoebe) and not women in general or just “wives of deacons.” See Pliny (Ep. X. 97) ministrae. Let me see you twist your way out of that.

(GV) Again………..DID DEACONS TEACH AND HAVE AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN THE CHURCH?? ARE DEACONS (servants) PASTORS?? You’re being dishonest, because you stated that there were women PASTORS teaching MEN and having authority over them in the church, and trying to twist a deacon (nothing more than a servant, man OR woman) into that. You’re being purposely dishonest here.

(Ab)Is Dr. Robertson ” simply trying to ignore even the rudiments of Biblical interpretation and simple logic?”

Whose interpretation should be accepted–his or yours? Btw, do you understand Koine Greek?

(GV) I’m taking a course now, thanks. How about you??

(Ab)I must admit, brother, that you are quite adroit at reciting church history and equally adroit at sophistry.

(GV) And you’re completely and purposely dishonest. How does Phoebe being a servant, deacon,minister (SAME WORD) who MUST have ministered exclusively to women as history and Scripture makes clear MAKE HER ONE WHO TEACHES AND HAS AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN THE CHURCH??

Deacons and Pastors are DIFFERENT OFFICES, but you’re purposely correlating them when NOWHERE in the Bible is a DEACON a PASTOR………..NOWHERE.

But in an attempt to even mangle Scripture to try to deceive, you would have us believe that THEY HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY AND POSITION IN THE CHURCH.

(Ab)With verbal slight of hand that would make Houdini envious, you trumpet that there are no women pastors in the annals of church history. You trot out these men of antiquity, while uttering nary a word about women pastors in the Bible i.e., Priscilla and Nympha. Why is that?

(GV) You shameless liar……….NOW you’re ven going to insist that they were PASTORS based upon WHAT?? Cite your sources. Tell us where Robertson, whom you have abused, says that they were PASTORS now??

(Ab()Because if there is one Biblical female in authority, your misogynistic house of cards falls. You murdered Phoebe, did a vanishing act on Priscilla and Nympha and in effect, subordinated the Bible to the writings of Tertullian and others. It is not I twisting the scriptures, sir, but you.

(GV) Again, DEACONS HAD NO AUTHORITY TO TEACH IN THE CHURCH OR HOLD AUTHORITY. You sir, are clearly not too bright. Your mistake, among many, is equating the authority of a SERVANT in the church with the authority of a PASTOR. Where do you derive this nonsense from?? Robertson??Nope. Gruden?? Nope. Wuest?? Nope. Out of oyur own ignorance of the difference between the two. Please cite for us where in the Bible deacons or servants TAUGHT WITH AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH.

GOOD LUCK.

(AB)Why did the translators of the KJ Twist Acts 18:26? The same reason you are doing it now. Why was Nympha’s name changed from feminine to masculine by adding an s? Male bias and outright deceit. Check out these three versions of Colossians 4:15

Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. KJ

Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house. ASV

The NASV finally gets it right. “Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.” She was a pastor. The greeting was not addressed to her husband. Could you, sir, tell us which is the correct version and why?

Why such trickery among these translators and you? It is the height of wickedness to tamper with the scriptures. It appears that some of those ancient guys you so adroitly quoted tried to expunge the Bible of any reference of women as pastors or women in authority, but it’s no longer working

(GV) Again, you make assinine assertions you cannot support Biblically. Please tell us from the Bible or church history whereyou find your idiotic contention that the church met in the homes of the pastors??

The church met where there was AMPLE SPACE, period, But, as is you usual course, you ignorantly assume that deacons are pastors, that servants are always deacons, and that if folks gathered in any home,the owner must be the pastor.

Good grief, you’re abjectly clueless. Please cite your sources for this further layer of nonsense.

(Ab)If I may again use the ubiquitous Dr Robertson on Romans 16:7:

“Among the apostles (en toiv apostoloiv).
Naturally this means that they are counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas, James, the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense.”

(GV) Another outright distortion. You really are shameless. PLEASE READ THE LAST SENTENCE.

“But it can mean simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense.”
As I cited using a Greek source using that EXACT PHRASE, among does NOT mean they were Apostles any more than among meant the Jews were Gentiles.

Just so you’ll know, Koine Greek is an EVOLVING discipline in translation. We know MORE now than when Robertson wrote because we HAVE THOUSANDS MORE MANUSCRIPTS with which we can find examples such as I cited which clarify the language both in SECULAR and SACRED texts.

Robertson doesn’t help you.

(Ab)I have a modicum of intelligence, and Mr Robertson places them in the same category as Banabas and the other apostles.

(GV) See above.

(Ab)Plus, you err greatly in your definition of “noted.”

It does NOT mean “well known.” and those who translated it that way are as dishonest as you. Epishmoi/noted means “marked” or “stamped” as outstanding. The same word is use in Matthew 27:16 of Barabas, only in a bad sense. (Do you understand Koine Greek? I’m sorry; I already asked you that.) Perhaps instead of searching uninspired writings, you should search a Strongs Concordance.

(GV) Strong’s doesn’t give you SYNTAX. Definitions alone do not give you the proper translation. You must know how the words are fit into the language according to the participles, tenses, and accents used.

If I give you the English word “Train”, it can mean either a method of locomotion OR the veil trialing behind a bride. HOW the word is defined is determined by HOW the word is used in relation to the other words around it.

So please, keep your kindergarten understanding closer to the vest.

(Ab)Pauline scholar F.F. Bruce, author of “Romans,” says that Andronicus and Junia were not just “well known by the apostles” but “were notable members of the apostolic circle.”

Dr, Dennis Swift gave a long list of church fathers who accepted Junia as a female apostle among whom were Origin of Alexander (c 185-253 AD), Jerome (c 347-419 AD), Hatto of Vercelli (c 924-961 AD) and the list goes on. You only mentioned Chrysostolum. Another attempt of yours at hiding truth.

(GV) Wrong again, because you know nothing of the documentary transmission. These men did NOT have access to the manuscripts which did NOT have the accents points. They had the translations where the femal accents points were ADDED by scribes.

They also didn’t have the access to the tens of thousands of manuscripts we NOW have which CLARIFY the Greek text.

Go back and read Dr. Swift’s comments the facts he presents are unasailable.

(GV) Really?? Want to play “deuling scholars”?? Grudem agrees with me.Wuest too. So do the translators of the ASV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV.

(Ab)History, in which barrel you have placed all your marbles, says that she was an apostle.

(GV) Because of the reasons I cited………inferior scholarship, inferior manuscript transmission, and a dearth of Koine Greek contemporary manuscripts with which to determine its best translation.

(Ab)why else would some of your historical acolytes change her name from femine to masculine as they also did with Nympha? It’s called history revisionism Why was Junia in prison with Paul–for keeping silent in the church and baking cookies at home? Please!

(GV) Oh no………the JFK conspiracy all over again. Stick with the Text.

(Ab)99 percent of everything you’ve written has been the writings of church fathers and history. Are we all to fold up our tents and go home because you say women pastors are not found in history? Again, deal with Priscilla and Nymphia from the scriptures.

(GV)Ignoring history is for idiots. So please, let’s do stick with the Text to make you happy though. Where in the languages do you determine that these women were PASTORS with TEACHING AUTHORITY OVER MEN??

(Ab)Just to set the record strait, Diakonos is translated “minister” 8 times in the KJ. You conveniently failed to mention that, giving the impression that “deacon” and “servant” were the only rendering of diakonos–very slick. Why wasn’t the “default translation,” “servant,” used in 2Corinthians 6:4; 11:15, Ephesians 6:21, 1Corinthians 3:5?

(GV) Minister and servant are SYNONYMS…….if you had taken the time to LOOK at Scripture, minister is NOT USED EXCLUSIVELY of those who held church office, so how does that help you??

(Ab)Finally, in my initial response to you I only offered the ESV. That should have been enough to put to an end your assinine asssertion that diakonos cannot be translated deacon. The New Living Translation, The New Revised Translation, and Gods Word Translation render diakonos, deacon. The Revised Standard, Daniel Mace New Testament, and the Peshitta Lamsa Translation, render Diakonos, deaconess. “Or deaconess” is in the footnotes of many Bibles.

(GV) And I cited ASV, ESV, HCSB, ISV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV. You also DISHONESTLY as per your course some translations because they put deacon in the margins. Know why it’s in the margins rather than in the Text??

Please, you don’t even know enough to know how much you don’t know. It’s pathetic. You haven’t shown that ANY of the women you cited were pastors, or that Junia was an apostle from the Text.

You barrel out with assertions without backing any of them up.You have your scholars, I have mine. Fact is, what can you show from the Text?? Nothing.

(MN: Done. )

(MN: Yep. You did a fine job of presenting the case. If people are silly enough to fall for the bogus fluff Aubrey ended with while completely ignoring the fact that he failed to address anything you actually said, they are not interested in the truth.

Patience grasshopper. The Word will win out - when you are fast enough to take the stone from my hand. Or when you can stand on one of those pilings with one foot and pretend you’re a crane. Or…or maybe when you can lift the X-wing fighter out of the bog using only the Force. Or something like that. )

A.T. Robertson says that diakonos as it’s used in Romans 16:1 is used in a technical sense the same as Philipians 1:1 and 1Timothy 3:8-13 because of Thv Ekklhsaiv (of the church).

To you, though, that is not a salient point. So, Instead of addressing it, you focus on writings that are not inspired, raising issues as to whether or not the Apostolic Constitution mentions a woman as “deacon.”

We’re talking about the Bible, friend, not historical writings.

Dr. Robertson also commented on 1Timothy 3:11:

Women (gunaikav).
Accusative with dei einai understood (osautwv, likewise) as in verse 8. Apparently “women as deacons” (Romans 16:1 about Phoebe) and not women in general or just “wives of deacons.” See Pliny (Ep. X. 97) ministrae. Let me see you twist your way out of that.

Is Dr. Robertson ” simply trying to ignore even the rudiments of Biblical interpretation and simple logic?”

Whose interpretation should be accepted–his or yours? Btw, do you understand Koine Greek?

I must admit, brother, that you are quite adroit at reciting church history and equally adroit at sophistry.

With verbal slight of hand that would make Houdini envious, you trumpet that there are no women pastors in the annals of church history. You trot out these men of antiquity, while uttering nary a word about women pastors in the Bible i.e., Priscilla and Nympha. Why is that? Because if there is one Biblical female in authority, your misogynistic house of cards falls. You murdered Phoebe, did a vanishing act on Priscilla and Nympha and in effect, subordinated the Bible to the writings of Tertullian and others. It is not I twisting the scriptures, sir, but you.

Why did the translators of the KJ Twist Acts 18:26? The same reason you are doing it now. Why was Nympha’s name changed from feminine to masculine by adding an s? Male bias and outright deceit. Check out these three versions of Colossians 4:15

Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. KJ

Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house. ASV

The NASV finally gets it right. “Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.” She was a pastor. The greeting was not addressed to her husband. Could you, sir, tell us which is the correct version and why?

Why such trickery among these translators and you? It is the height of wickedness to tamper with the scriptures. It appears that some of those ancient guys you so adroitly quoted tried to expunge the Bible of any reference of women as pastors or women in authority, but it’s no longer working

If I may again use the ubiquitous Dr Robertson on Romans 16:7:

“Among the apostles (en toiv apostoloiv).
Naturally this means that they are counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas, James, the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense.”

I have a modicum of intelligence, and Mr Robertson places them in the same category as Banabas and the other apostles.

Plus, you err greatly in your definition of “noted.” It does NOT mean “well known.” and those who translated it that way are as dishonest as you. Epishmoi/noted means “marked” or “stamped” as outstanding. The same word is use in Matthew 27:16 of Barabas, only in a bad sense. (Do you understand Koine Greek? I’m sorry; I already asked you that.) Perhaps instead of searching uninspired writings, you should search a Strongs Concordance.

Pauline scholar F.F. Bruce, author of “Romans,” says that Andronicus and Junia were not just “well known by the apostles” but “were notable members of the apostolic circle.”

Dr, Dennis Swift gave a long list of church fathers who accepted Junia as a female apostle among whom were Origin of Alexander (c 185-253 AD), Jerome (c 347-419 AD), Hatto of Vercelli (c 924-961 AD) and the list goes on. You only mentioned Chrysostolum. Another attempt of yours at hiding truth. Go back and read Dr. Swift’s comments the facts he presents are unasailable.

History, in which barrel you have placed all your marbles, says that she was an apostle. why else would some of your historical acolytes change her name from femine to masculine as they also did with Nympha? It’s called history revisionism Why was Junia in prison with Paul–for keeping silent in the church and baking cookies at home? Please!

99 percent of everything you’ve written has been the writings of church fathers and history. Are we all to fold up our tents and go home because you say women pastors are not found in history? Again, deal with Priscilla and Nymphia from the scriptures.

Just to set the record strait, Diakonos is translated “minister” 8 times in the KJ. You conveniently failed to mention that, giving the impression that “deacon” and “servant” were the only rendering of diakonos–very slick. Why wasn’t the “default translation,” “servant,” used in 2Corinthians 6:4; 11:15, Ephesians 6:21, 1Corinthians 3:5?

Finally, in my initial response to you I only offered the ESV. That should have been enough to put to an end your assinine asssertion that diakonos cannot be translated deacon. The New Living Translation, The New Revised Translation, and Gods Word Translation render diakonos, deacon. The Revised Standard, Daniel Mace New Testament, and the Peshitta Lamsa Translation, render Diakonos, deaconess. “Or deaconess” is in the footnotes of many Bibles.

I rest my case.
In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas

(MN: And though I know GaryV is bouncing around in his cage, this is the last word on the topic. If the two wish to correspond by e-mail, I can provide the e-mail addresses. And if the discussion proves interesting, I can even post a bit of the exchange. )

I’m done on this topic Aubrey. Peace out.

Remember, Aubrey changed the focus from whether Phoebe was a deacon to a contention based upon that conjecture that women could be PASTORS. It’s women serving in the pastoral capacity I’m really addressing.

But since Aubrey hangs his case upon the contention that Phoebe was a deacon (NOT a deaconess as the early church called them, specifically limited to women’s ministry) and the conjecture that Junias was an apostle (which would certainly give authority to teach men), those points have to be addressed .

The early church and the Biblical/historical witness is that women did indeed serve in the church in teaching the younger women, as well as going with the male Elders when doing things such as ministering to sick women so the Elder did not have to lay hands inappropriately upon a woman, or in the case of the baptism of women for the same reason of modesty, the training and care of children, etc etc.

But there was always a STRICT separation toward ministering to women, and no case can be made credibly from Scripture or history that women routinely served as pastors over congregations, or held that authority over men.

So, all I’m doing is pointing out that women CAN serve in the church, but within the prescribed boundaries within which both Scripture and church history give testimony.

Also, I sought to make it clear that the claims that Junias was an apostle or that Phoebe was a deacon are not conclusions that are supported by either the Pauline Corpus, the rest of the New Testament witness, or the grammar or syntax of the Greek.

The fact is,before the turn of the last century (1900’s) women pastors were almost completely unknown in the church throughout history, and the ones who WERE mentioned in history were seen as aberrant and apostate (as the quotes I provided illustrate). It is no coincidence that the appearance of women pastors coincided with one of the largest influxes of heresies the church has seen since the Gnostic invasion of the Second Century.

The turn of that century brought us Azusa, and with Azusa came the push toward women pastors, along with such things as the Manifest Sons of God, false tongues, Word Of Faith, Seed Faith, Charismania, Laughing Revivals, Pentecostal Holiness works-based salvation, Oneness heresies, modern day “prophets” and “apostles”, etc etc etc.

It’s all one enormous grab bag of heresy and Biblical ignorance.

So,women serving in the church?? ABSOLUTELY. They always have been the church’s precious resource. I can’t begin to tell all I’ve learned and benefited from Godly women.

But trying to wrangle and distort the Scripture and history to say that not only DID women serve as pastors, but they are shown in the Bible and church history as such (but were repressed by some great patriarchal conspiracy) is nonsense.

So you are saying women can’t function as deacons in any capacity within the church (serving other women within the body?) Doesn’t it mean to serve. Deacon is not relgated to Christianity was used in a broad sense. I also stuggle with the structre of 1 Timothy 3. We see women hosting churches in their homes, serving Paul and the other Apostles to the point of being reconginzed for their service. Could the term “the women who serve” not be translated deacons for example in Phil 4 when Paul challenges both Euodia and Syntyche to have peace and how they “labored” or served along side with Paul.

I don’t see deacons as an authoratative office of the local church I believe that happened over time, but deacons were appointed to serve not to lead. Those who lead must be able to teach and to watch over the flock of God I don’t see any of this in the qualifications of deacons. This is just my opinion and wanted to know was there room for women deacon at any capacity. God bless and I am enjoying the discussion

Nope.

Did any church Father ever address a letter mentioning a woman pastor??

Nope.

Why didn’t you find the quotes I asked for?? because you can’t. Fact is, Chrysostem and is doing nothing more than you. Conjecturing on Scripture. This Junias stuff is old hat. I’m of note among the atheists on several Message Boards. That doesn’t make me an atheist.

In fact,there is one other place in the Bible where this exact grammatical construction is made, and it doesn’t help your case a bit.

Remember among the many points you simply don’t address, I mentioned the fact that you can’t provide any Scripture anywhere that has the descriptive for an undisputed deacon with “of the church” after it?? And remember that in order to prove your conjecture that “of the church” after DIAKONOS makes Phoebe a deacon could only be proved hermeneutically by finding that grammatical construction used of ANOTHER undisputed deacon (but it ain’t there)?? Otherwise you have exactly zero evidence that “of the church”after DIAKONOS means a deacon because it’s not found ANYWHERE else in Scripture about other deacons??

Well,you have the same problem here,because we DO have the construction “among” used elsewhere in an ancient Greek manuscript in exactly the same form, but it does NOT make the ones mentioned as AMONG part of the other group,as you claim “among” makes Junias an apostle.

In the Psalms of Solomon chapter 2 verse 6, the Jewish captives are described as “a spectacle among the Gentiles”. The Greek grammar for “among the Gentiles” is identical to the construction of “Among the apostles”,and the word translated “a spectacle” is precisely the same word translated “of note” when speaking of Junias.

Naturally though, the Greek author is NOT saying that the Jewish captives were Gentiles because ” of note among” the Gentiles is used, as you would have us believe that Junias was an apostle because “of note among the apostles” is used.

This is how ancient languages are properly interpreted…….by comparing and contrasting the grammatical construction using other sources with identical construction to discover their proper meaning.

If the identical phrase in Solomon, written in the same style of Greek from the same era, does NOT mean the Jews became Gentiles,then there is no reason to suggest that the same phrase in Romans means Junias becomes an apostle.

Rather, to be grammatically consistent, it CANNOT mean that, or else the Jews become Gentiles in Solomon, and that is obviously not the intent of the author.

Beyond that, the Aramaic Texts *the language of the Apostles* also state that they were “well known by the Apostles”, nothing more.

Now, I gave you several examples from the early church fathers of the prohibition of women in positions of authority in the church. You are supposed to provide us with examples that mention women pastors in any capacity, or that do anything but revile the very idea.

I know you looked because you tried to pull a fast one by substituting Chrysostom and others arguing about a Scripture rather than actually providing us with examples of women pastors they addressed or supported in the early church.

I went to the trouble to post the quotes from history that prove my points. I’m asking again for you to do likewise.

Also,you failed to discover that gender in Greek is determined by accent points,and there were no accent points used in the earliest manuscripts, so the gender of Junias is not some goofy JFK-type conspiracy, it’s simply scribes guessing about the gender by putting the feminine accents where no accents actually were.

We’re really getting nowhere here.Color me more convinced than ever that women are not to be pastors.

(MN: Aubrey, if you wish, you get one more response and we are done with this. )

7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

The phrase “Of note among the Apostles” simply means they are noted (well known) by the Apostles,NOT that they were Apostles.

Also, why did you ignore what I asked you to produce?? I asked you to produce writings of the Early church that were sent to or mention contemporaneous women pastors. Where are they??

Instead,you offer up a lame quote fro Chrysostem where he is doing what you are doing………speculating about a Biblical passage. He didn’t write that he KNEW any women pastors, did he??

Nope.

In fact, don’t limit yourself. Go beyond him through the fathers and show us where they ever accepted, mentioned, or wrote to women pastors.

What you wrote has nothing to do with proving your case. It’s just one man ruminating about Scripture, like you’re doing.

Use Scripture properly with a cogent hermeneutic, or produce documents from among the thousands that show us women pastors in the early church.

Tic Toc……..

http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/women-in-ministry/#comment-14498

I highly recommend it. It’s a facinating paper.

“…Junia (Romans 16:7): In this verse, Paul sends greetings to “Andronicus and Junia, his fellow prisoners” who are apostles. Without exception, in all Greek manuscripts, Junia is a woman’s name. It was a unanimous consensus of the early church Fathers, commentaries, and translations up until the 13th century that Junia was a woman apostle.11 John of Chrysostom writes high praise for Junia, the female apostle.

To be an apostle is something great, but to be outstanding among the apostles-just think what a wonderful song of praise. That is, they were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom
of this woman must have been that she was deemed worthy of the title of apostle.12

Chrysostom goes on to mention that Junia was a teacher of teachers. Origin of Alexandria (c 185-253 A.D.), who is considered one of the greatest of all Christian scholars, wrote about and accepted Junia as a female apostle. Jerome (347-419 A.D.), translator of the Latin Vulgate, identifies Junia as a female apostle and worthy of honor. Hatto of Vercelli (924-961 A.D.) was the Bishop of Vercelli. He wrote Capitulae, a series of instructions for the clergy and was a Greek scholar. He is in agreement with the other church Fathers that Junia was a female apostle. Theophylact (1050-1108 A.D.) had the highest reputation as a scholar. His commentary on the Pauline epistles is esteemed for “appositeness, sobriety, accuracy, and judiciousness”. He cites Junia as a female apostle. Peter Abelard (1079-1142 A.D.) was renowned as a French philosopher and theologian. He is considered the founder of the University of Paris and wrote extensively on Paul’s words naming Junia as a female apostle. A few of the other patristic exegetes (experts in critical interpretation of the bible) who were adamant that the second person mentioned in Romans 16:7 to be a woman included: Ambroiaster (339-397 A.D.), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-458 A.D.), Primasius (Sixth Century), John Damascene (675-749 A.D.), Hayamo (d. 1244 A.D.), Oecumenius (Sixth Century), Lanfranc of Bec (1005-1089 A.D.), Bruno the Carthusian (1032-1101 A.D.), and Peter Lombard (1100-1160 A.D.).

How did Junia get lost? How did her story disappear? Who changed Junia’s name in scripture? As mystery writers say, “Who dunnit?” In an astonishing litany of sexism, misogyny, and blatant tampering with the texts, she was expunged from scripture in an act of male chauvinism.

In the thirteenth century, Giles the Archbishop who was known as Giles of Rome, changed the text to a male’s name in his Agegidas Romanus13. Giles was deeply prejudiced against women. Part of the influence was Pope Boniface VIII, a famously corrupt Pope. Pope Boniface so opposed female leadership in the church that he ordered all nuns be confined to their convents. Giles’ “Politically correct” mistranslation of Junia appeared to flow from the papal prejudice that women were to be kept in their place. Giles along with Pope Boniface, started a trend to restrict the role of women in church, and Giles was one of the most influential thinkers of his time.

The great universities of Europe sprung up during this era. The new universities became the learning centers of western civilization: Paris (1150), Bolgna (1088), Oxford (1107), Cambridge (1207), Sorbonne (1257), Seville (1254), Prague (1348), Florence (1349), Heidelberg (1385), and Cologne (1388).

Women were not allowed in the universities, and the university teaching system in the Middle Ages meant that men became the sole purveyors of higher learning. Men wrote the philosophy texts and enshrined the ideas of male philosophies and constructed a male world view. They wrote the theology and that meant that the history of women in the churches was often deliberately left out…”
In Christ,
Aubrey

“To say that when the word is used of Phebe that it must mean “deacon” rather than the majority translation “servant” (especially in light of Paul’s other writings where he explicitly forbids as much) is simply trying to ignore even the rudiments of Biblical interpretation and simple logic.”

(GV) No,that is NOT all I said. I went to the trouble to validate my statements, thus the length.

(Aubrey) If I understand your argument, Phoebe was NOT a deacon, but a servant in the same manner as, say, Martha, Mary, or the servants who drew the water at the Wedding in Cana?

Of course diakonos is use in all of the references you mentioned and rightly translated “servant,” but nowhere in those references were they servants “of the church.” Phoebe holds that distinction.

(GV) Of course you don’t realize that what you just stated invalidates your contention that Phoebe was a deacon, right??

To be clear, in order for you to assume that Phoebe was a deacon, you must show from Scripture (and preferably from the Pauline Corpus) that DIAKONOS linked with the words “Of the church” means that Phoebe was a deacon. Of course, as you pointed out,even though deacons and the office of deacon (whom we KNOW are deacons) are mentioned many times in the New Testament, these indisputable references to deacons are NEVER followed by the words “of the church”.

So…….precisely HOW do you jump to the assertion that the words “of the church” makes one a deacon when preceded by DIAKONOS when those words are NEVER used when referencing deacons over which there is no dispute??

Once again, you use a faulty hermeneutic. You cannot validate that position by EVEN ONE corroborating Biblical reference. It’s pure, unfounded assumption. Show us from Scripture where ANY deacon is described with those words before you claim that those words make someone a deacon.

The fact that those words ONLY refer to Phoebe, and not A SINGLE undisputed deacon in the Bible is EVER described in those terms, is an argument AGAINST your contention, not for it.

(Ab)A.T. Robertson in “Word Pictures Of The New Testament” has this to say on the subject:

“Who is a servant of the church (ousan diakonon thv ekklhsiav).
The etymology of diakonov we have had repeatedly. The only question here is whether it is used in a general sense or in a technical sense as in Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13. In favour of the technical sense of “deacon” or “deaconess” is the addition of “thv ekklhsiav” (of the church). In some sense Phoebe was a servant or minister of the church in Cenchreae. Besides, right in the midst of the discussion in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 Paul has a discussion of gunaikav (verse Romans 16:11) either as women as deaconesses or as the wives of deacons (less likely though possible). The Apostolic Constitutions has numerous allusions to deaconesses (GV….But not ONE SINGLE reference to a woman DEACON). The strict separation of the sexes made something like deaconesses necessary for baptism, visiting the women, etc. Cenchreae, as the eastern port of Corinth, called for much service of this kind. Whether the deaconesses were a separate organization on a par with the deacons we do not know nor whether they were the widows alluded to in 1 Timothy 5:9.”

(GV) Ummmm,just in case you didn’t read all the quote above,let me point out the relevant passage.

“THE STRICT SEPARATION OF THE SEXES made something like deaconesses necessary for baptism (FOR MODESTY’S SAKE), visiting THE WOMEN (NOT serving among THE MEN as any cursory perusal of church history would inform you), etc. Cenchreae, as the eastern port of Corinth, called for much service of this kind. Whether the deaconesses were a separate organization on a par with the deacons we do not know nor whether they were the widows alluded to in 1 Timothy 5:9.”

Robertson makes several things clear that you seem to have missed. The early church was STRICTLY SEPARATED by the sexes. women ministered to WOMEN, NOT MEN.

Have you ever taken a course in church history of any sort?? Please avail yourself of the writings of the early church and let us know where women pastors are to be found.They are not, because of the STRICT separation expressed in the Bible and carried over into the early post Apostolic church.

Paul stated as much clearly when he directed women to teach OTHER WOMEN. (Titus 2)

What we cannot find is Paul ever suggesting that women teach men. The complete opposite, actually, (1 Tim 2:12) and Paul links this prohibition to the unchanging order of Creation. Anything in the Bible linked to the order of Creation is never rescinded before the end of the Age (seedtime and harvest, day and night, seeds and animals producing after their kind,etc).

While there are mentions of DEACONESSES, they are ALWAYS in the context of ministry to WOMEN ALONE.

(Ab)Another objection you raised to Phoebe being a deacon was this:

“Paul.

The same Paul who said he did not allow women to have authority over men in the church.”

I addressed this question in an earlier post. Check it out.

(GV) I did. I responded. Check it out.

(Ab)Last, The only gift that God gave to the world was His son. If the world is to partake of any of his benefits and provisions, they must be born again through His atoning sacrifice. The ministry gifts in Ephesians 4:11 are given to the CHURCH in the form of “some” (individuals) not the world or mankind as you say. The apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher are given for the perfecting of the SAINTS (Not Mankind), for building up the the BODY OF CHRIST (Not mankind). Ephesian 4:11,12,13.
Also, 1Corinthians 12:28,29,30

(GV) Again, I don’t know how I could have made this more plain,but I’ll try again. I didn’t say that the benefits of Christ were given to MANKIND as in ALL MEN or the WORLD. I said that ANTHROPOS means MANKIND as in men and women (both sexes) RECEIVING the benefits of Christ through the church Offices, it does NOT mean that men AND women are IN THOSE OFFICES. Men and women RECEIVE the gifts THROUGH the church offices.

(Ab)I really don’t know how to respond to the rest your diatribe about church fathers, whether or not a book was named after heather,etc. So until you put a specific question to me about Priscilla or address the scriptures I raised concerning her, I will have to remain silent about the rest of your comment.

(GV) Let me help you. It’s again very plain.

If, as you postulate, there were women pastors in the New Testament, we should see unambiguous evidence, plainly stated, that leads us to that conclusion.
We see nothing of the sort.

All we see are the contextual manglings you’ve demonstrated thusfar, claiming DIAKONOS means Phoebe was a deacon when Paul specifically precluded that, and when the default use of the word is over 90% “servant”,and that “of the church” supposedly means that Phoebe was a deacon too when there isn’t one single instance in the Bible where these words described UNDISPUTED deacons (giving you no textual basis for this conjecture, and actually disproving your point……..because if this phrase was supposed to define Phoebe as a deacon why isn’t it used to describe even ONE other deacon??).

As to the history, as I’ve just stated, not only can you find no evidence that women were pastors in Scripture, they cannot be found in early post Apostolic history ANYWHERE. Why is this,if it was the Biblical teaching??

You also fail to consider the fact that the EXTREMELY strict separation of women and men both in the Scripture AND in church history makes your contention that women mingled with men in ministry unsupportable.

I urge you to read church history. “Deaconesses” served WOMEN in the church, NEVER MEN. PERIOD. NEVER.

There were no women pastors among either the Ante Nicene Fathers who immediately followed the Apostles and sat at their feet (odd since you claim the Apostles TAUGHT we are to have women pastors) nor are there women pastors through the centuries except those who were excoriated by the Fathers for usurping the role of men in the church by taking that office.

Also,please locate in the writings of these men who sat at the feet of the Apostles or the next several generations any reference in their writings addressed to or mentioning this or that woman bishop, pastor,etc.

Hundreds and thousands of manuscripts, yet not a single mention of women pastors except to express revulsion at the very idea.

Irenaeus of Lyons (On an instance of a woman “handling the cup” of Communion and consecrating it, a role of pastors/priests (men) alone.

“Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, [Marcus the Gnostic heretic] contrives to give them a purple and reddish color. . . . [H]anding mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence.

“When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, and pouring from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: May that Charis who is before all things and who transcends all knowledge and speech fill your inner man and multiply in you her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in you as in good soil.

“Repeating certain other similar words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many and drawn them away after him” (Against Heresies 1:13:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“It is of no concern how diverse be their [the heretics] views, so long as they conspire to erase the one truth. They are puffed up; all offer knowledge. Before they have finished as catechumens, how thoroughly learned they are! And the heretical women themselves, how shameless are they! They make bold to teach, to debate, to work exorcisms, to undertake cures . . . ” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 41:45 [A.D. 200]).

(Women teaching, debating, ministering in the church = heresy)

“[A female heretic], lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. . . . But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icthus [Greek, “Fish”], Jesus Christ, are born in water . . . so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine (Women had no right to even teach SOUND doctrine), knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

“It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:3435], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office” (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]).

Hippolytus

“When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all” (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]).

The Didascalia

“For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us” (Didascalia 3:6:12 [A.D. 225]).

Firmilian

“[T]here suddenly arose among us a certain woman, who in a state of ecstasy announced herself as a prophetess and acted as if filled with the Holy Ghost. . . . Through the deceptions and illusions of the demon, this woman had previously set about deluding believers in a variety of ways. Among the means by which she had deluded many was daring to pretend that, through proper invocation, she consecrated bread and performed the Eucharist. She offered up the sacrifice to the Lord in a liturgical act that corresponds to the usual rites, and she baptized many, all the while misusing the customary and legitimate wording of the [baptismal] question. She carried all these things out in such a manner that nothing seemed to deviate from the norms of the Church” (collected in Cyprians Letters 74:10 [A.D. 253]).

Council of Nicaea I

“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

Council of Laodicea

“[T]he so-called presbyteresses or presidentesses are not to be ordained in the Church” (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians].
. . . In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony . . . ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit” (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

“It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess” (ibid.).

“From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses” (ibid.).

“If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good” (ibid., 79:3).

John Chrysostom

“[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature” (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

“A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but on account of leisure for piety” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:24 [A.D. 400]).

“Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them” (ibid., 3:16).

“[T]he man is the head of the woman [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, He shall rule over you [Gen. 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ” (ibid., 3:9).

“A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Annathose women of great reputationlet her be chosen into the order of widows” (ibid., 8:25).

“A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women” (ibid., 8:28).

Augustine

“[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two heretical Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman” (Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]).

(GV) In short, no Biblical evidence that can be derived from a solid hermeneutic, no historical evidence from the early church, no explanation as to how women ministered to men when they were strictly segregated in both Biblical and post Biblical times, no mention of women pastors except to rail against the idea in the church, no letter or greeting among the thousands of manuscripts that even mentions a woman as a pastor over ANY church.

Color me unconvinced.

“To say that when the word is used of Phebe that it must mean “deacon” rather than the majority translation “servant” (especially in light of Paul’s other writings where he explicitly forbids as much) is simply trying to ignore even the rudiments of Biblical interpretation and simple logic.”

If I understand your argument, Phoebe was NOT a deacon, but a servant in the same manner as, say, Martha, Mary, or the servants who drew the water at the Wedding in Cana?

Of course diakonos is use in all of the references you mentioned and rightly translated “servant,” but nowhere in those references were they servants “of the church.” Phoebe holds that distinction.

A.T. Robertson in “Word Pictures Of The New Testament” has this to say on the subject:

“Who is a servant of the church (ousan diakonon thv ekklhsiav).
The etymology of diakonov we have had repeatedly. The only question here is whether it is used in a general sense or in a technical sense as in Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13. In favour of the technical sense of “deacon” or “deaconess” is the addition of “thv ekklhsiav” (of the church). In some sense Phoebe was a servant or minister of the church in Cenchreae. Besides, right in the midst of the discussion in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 Paul has a discussion of gunaikav (verse Romans 16:11) either as women as deaconesses or as the wives of deacons (less likely though possible). The Apostolic Constitutions has numerous allusions to deaconesses. The strict separation of the sexes made something like deaconesses necessary for baptism, visiting the women, etc. Cenchreae, as the eastern port of Corinth, called for much service of this kind. Whether the deaconesses were a separate organization on a par with the deacons we do not know nor whether they were the widows alluded to in 1 Timothy 5:9.”

Another objection you raised to Phoebe being a deacon was this:

“Paul.

The same Paul who said he did not allow women to have authority over men in the church.”

I addressed this question in an earlier post. Check it out.

Last, The only gift that God gave to the world was His son. If the world is to partake of any of his benefits and provisions, they must be born again through His atoning sacrifice. The ministry gifts in Ephesians 4:11 are given to the CHURCH in the form of “some” (individuals) not the world or mankind as you say. The apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher are given for the perfecting of the SAINTS (Not Mankind), for building up the the BODY OF CHRIST (Not mankind). Ephesian 4:11,12,13.
Also, 1Corinthians 12:28,29,30

I really don’t know how to respond to the rest your diatribe about church fathers, whether or not a book was named after heather,etc. So until you put a specific question to me about Priscilla or address the scriptures I raised concerning her, I will have to remain silent about the rest of your comment.

I hope this answers your query, sir.
In Christ,
Aubrey

Now,isn’t it odd that with literally thousands of examples of these writings that the propriety of women pastors is never mentioned?? At LEAST of the dozens of early church leaders mentioned, shouldn’t ONE of them either BE a woman pastor, or shouldn’t the dozens of writers at least address or even MENTION a woman pastor now and again?? Or how about even ONCE??

From Scripture and history, the case for women pastors (as Abe Lincoln put it) is thinner than the stew made from boiling the shadow of a starving chicken.

If we had women pastors in the New Testament church as Aubrey claims, should we not find instances of them in the early church father’s writings?? One would think so. Yet we do not. We DO find all other manner of correlation, but oddly not one instance where it is demonstrated that there were ever women pastors in the early church.

So,we’re supposed to assume that there were women pastors in the New Testament (though Aubrey cannot bring forward even one indisputable and textually consistent example), and now we’re to assume that this practice of women pastors continued across the early church as well (though there isn’t a single mention of them there either).

How does one reconcile the complete silence in the New Testament along w