I want to throw this one out to anyone who will argue for women teaching and preaching. What do you think? What does the scripture say?

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Answers

My vote goes to.....Satan.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

I don't see anything in the Scriptures against women teaching or even preaching, per se (as such). What I do see is prohibitions against women teaching men in the church or being in authority over men in the church. But I also see admonitions to (older) women to teach (younger) women.

What would you do in my situation? I minister to a congregation in Hong Kong that is almost entirely made up of women from the Philippines. (People from other countries are only given visas to work in Hong Kong if they are not taking jobs away from local people. There is a big demand for people to do domestic jobs, i.e. to be maids, cooks, housekeepers, nannies, etc. -- all jobs that are usually considered "women's work". But there are very few jobs for foreign men here. So there are more than 160,000 people from the Philippines living and working in Hong Kong, and about 99% or more are women. Many Sundays I am the only man (out of an average attendance of around 120). There are seldom more than 2 or 3 other men present on any given Sunday.

I could do all the work myself and restrict the rest of the church to being merely spectators. Or I can put them to work too, even if it is at tasks that are reserved for men in most churches. So I serve as an elder (sometimes the only elder, though we have had other elders at times in the past when there was another man who was committed, willing, and qualified. I am assisted by around 10 to 12 deaconesses, each of them responsible for one or more areas of the work of the church. We have 4 "Bible School" classes. I teach one, and also serve as "Bible school superintendent", and the other three classes are taught by women. (And we encourage anyone willing to take a turn at trying to teach a class, both so that they can get experience and because the way to learn something the best is to have to teach it to someone else.)

I do most of the preaching, though I always encourage other men in the church to try it as well if they are willing, and I have helped train two Filipino men to preach, who are now serving in other places. But once a year, on Mothers' Day, we have the tradition (as of about 4 years ago) of inviting some older woman -- usually one of the missionary wives so far, though I'm hoping to get a Filipino woman to do it sometime -- to take the sermon time to give a challenge to the younger mothers.

We do explain that this is unusual, and WHY it is unusual (because the Bible puts limits on women teaching men in the church, and prohibits women having authority over men in the church), but that we feel it is justified to do this once a year since the congregation is almost entirely women and the Bible does admonish older women to teach younger women.

Unusual situations sometimes require unusual solutions, but that doesn't make them any less Scriptural than the traditional ways. Sometimes they may even be more so.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000

Why limit this to one day a year?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Chadrick,

I hope that I can give proper time to follow up on this thread as the discussion continues. As a matter of fact, myself and the elders have been attempting to deal with this very subject at the same time we post in this forum. They are involved in a study this very month and are to bring their results to the elder's meeting in May. We have so much fun!

The position that one takes on women preaching/teaching, etc., will depend upon your hermaneutic and your definition of terms. Let me throw out a couple of thoughts and terms and see what happens. HERMANEUTIC: ( I am sure that there are those of you who could state these better than I) 1. If the Bible says it plainly, do it! 2. If the Bible doesn't say it plainly, we are left to reason it out based upon Scriptural principal and/or applications found that apply to the subject at hand.

Terms to define: (Let thread choose them)

I. Women preachers (Evangelists) A. I have found no examples/commands/instructions in the Bible that tell of or give women this responsibility. (If you claim the prophetesses as per the function of a prophet to foretell the Word, I would argue that the examples given in the New Testament (I Cor. 11:5) would have been understood to also function as forthtellers as well. Both of which are miraculous in ability and function. This will be described later in this post.) B. Male preachers (Evangelists) - I think that most of the readers of this forum do realize that men as Evangelists is unnecessary to prove. However, let me give three primary examples of male Evangelists. Philip (Acts 21:8), Timothy (II Tim. 4:5), and Titus (although there are some hold outs who wish to argue against Titus)

II. Women Teachers A. There are examples of women teaching in the Bible. Again, I am sure an example is not necessary, but let me provide one just for the excersize. 1. Pricilla - hmmmmm, let me qualify this by recognizing that her husband was present and teaching as well. 2. Can you find any others? all of a sudden, I am at a loss... B. There is specific instruction given to older women to teach/instruct the younger women. (Titus 2:4) C. Is there anything in the Bible that would forbid women to teach men, or to even speak in the general assembly? 1. The Scripture specifically tells women that they are not to teach or usurp (steal) authority from the man. (I Tim. 2:12) 2. The Scripture specifically states that women were to be silent in the general assembly. (I Tim. 2:12) (you can argue that this is only the opinion of Paul, but would you have me accept your opinion over the Apostle Paul's? hmmmmm) D. That leaves us with men teaching.

III. Women Prophetesses A. The Bible names specifically women who were prophetesses. 1. As has been discussed in numerous threads before concerning whether there are prophets(essess), spiritual gifts, etc. in the church today being the same as in the first century, I would agree with those who see them as having completed thier work and rason for being and therefore not going on today in the same manner for the same purpose. B. Men Prophets: - I would say the same concerning men as prophets today. Mind you, I am speaking in regards to prophets(essess) who do both the foretelling and forthtelling of God's Word. ie: telling the truth in an inspired fashion straight from the mind of God to the heart of man. and telling the future in an inspired fashion)

IV. Women Elders and/or Deacons A. The Bible gives no possible justification for women elders. B. Some would claim that Romans 16:1 (KJV) justify women in a deacon's role. It seems a more consistent reasoning would be that she was simply a servant in the church. My reasoning is this: The Bible clearly defines men as fulfilling these responsibilites. Specific men are named in the Bible (Acts 6:5, this may be an assumption on my part, but seems a reasonable one.) Men, specifically, are qualified to fulfill these responsibilities. (I Timothy 3:8 ff.) The Bible does not give examples of or specifics in these roles by women.

This is not meant to be an end it all arguement for all time, who would be so arrogant to think that? However, these are (in brief) my conclusions in the subject. (Sorry for the outline form, but it was ingrained into me by my dad and Don Nash from Kentucky Christian College)

Next........

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Well, so much for the outline form. It posts differently than I wrote it... Oh well, I tried.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2000

Gavin,

I believe you are the person who started the "We have killed him" threads, are you not? I haven't been following those threads too closely, but my impression is that you would not accept the Bible as either inspired or authoritative. Since my reasoning, on both sides of the issue -- both on why I encourage all in the church, even the women, to be as active in the work of the church as their situations and the Bible will permit, and on why I believe there are some things the Bible does not permit for women -- are based firmly on the Scriptures, I'm not sure there is much point in discussing this matter with you. I'm prepared to discuss either side of it with someone who takes seriously the authority of the Bible; with someone who doesn't, there are other issues that have to come first.

Dave,

My congratulations to you and your elders for making a serious study of the matter. Too many church leaders and too many churches either stick firmly with tradition, backed up by a few "proof texts" on the one side of the issue, or decide to be "P.C.", again backed up by a few "proof texts" on the other side. Either way, a serious study of the subject from the Word of God gets short-changed.

It is an issue which I had studied and re-studied, for various reasons, even before beginning to work with the church I presently serve with, and one which, for reasons described above, I have restudied several times since. If you are interested, I might be able to find my notes from a series of lessons I taught a few years ago on the subject. (It was part of a larger series on "What the Bible says about Leadership and service in the church.")

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

Dave;

I have no problem with women in the deacon role. After all, a deacon is responsible for caring for the physical needs of those in the congregation. And women seem to be much better equipped with the "caring gene" than men much of the time.

As for Prisca/Priscilla (Priscilla being the diminutive, affectionate form, showing she was well loved and respected by Paul and his companions), true, her husband is almost always mentioned with her. That is a good point. It is also worth noting, however, that her name is almost always mentioned first. This is highly unusual for the time, which probably says that she was the person who was foremost of the team, the more powerful speaker. And I might point out that it was her and her husband together who taught Apollos.

Just some things to think about. I am convinced as you are that women should not be Elders, in leadership positions, so don't brand me a heretic just yet! :-^

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

John,

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your thoughts. I had considered those very things you mentioned each time I revisit this topic. Maybe it is my bias, but for the reasons previously mentioned, I still cannot find Biblical justification for "Deaconesses." The over-riding reasoning for me is that Paul specifically sites how to determine who the Named Servants ie. Deacons, are, and he only sites men. There are no examples or specific qualities or even reasons why there would be something like a Deaconess. (And if women were more genetically created to fulfill that role, then did God goof in the way He set up the church?)

Given the details offered in Scripture for Deacons, and the total lack of information about there even being Deaconesses, I would conclude that the New Testament Church of the 1st century did not have Deaconesses. One might say, well, if the Bible is silent about Deaconesses, don't we have to freedom to have them? I think the faultiness of that reasoning is obvious to anyone. We would then have to follow that reasoning consistently throughout our Biblical study. I think that there are few on this forum who would go to that extreme. Well maybe one or two.... HA

In the case of Pricilla being mentioned first in the listing... given the weight of evidence just stated, I consider the point that about order of listing is moot. In my study, I try to look at the evidence that can stand on its own without support. Find all of them and see how they best fit together. If they don't, then I have made a mistake in my reasoning somewhere along the way. IF they do, then I am on more firm interpretive ground when considering the other thoughts that cannot stand upon their own. I have tried to apply that thinking to this conclusion.

Give it a shot and see what you come up with...

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

John:

I do not believe there is much evidence to support this theory of a caring gene such that we can justly argue that women are better equipped to do the Job that God commanded Men to do as per 1 Timothy 3: 1-8. But I am willing to hear the evidence if any really exist. I am not sure that the deacons sole responsibility is to take care of the physical needs of those in the congregation. I would like to review the scriptural evidence to support that idea.

Then you speak of Priscilla as follows:

As for Prisca/Priscilla (Priscilla being the diminutive, affectionate form, showing she was well loved and respected by Paul and his companions), true, her husband is almost always mentioned with her. That is a good point. It is also worth noting, however, that her name is almost always mentioned first. This is highly unusual for the time, which probably says that she was the person who was foremost of the team, the more powerful speaker. And I might point out that it was her and her husband together who taught Apollos.

You make a special notice of your idea that Priscillas name is almost always mentioned first and draw the conclusion from this that she was foremost of the team who taught Apollos and others the way of the Lord more perfectly. These were your words:

It is also worth noting, however, that her name is almost always mentioned first. This is highly unusual for the time, which probably says that she was the person who was foremost of the team, the more powerful speaker.

Now you have drawn a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions from a completely false premise and I do not think that you intended to do so. I will therefore examine the Scriptures concerning Priscilla and Aquila to see if your premise and conclusion are correct.

Priscilla is found only six times in the New Testament though in one place she is called Prisca and in every place she is mentioned with her husband, Aquila. Aquila is found only six times and in every place he is mentioned with his wife Priscilla. In all of the places where the two are found mentioned together we find three occasions where Aquila is mentioned first, and we note that only one of these occasions are where they were teaching jointly in some way. We also find that Priscilla is mention first an equal amount of times, three to be exact, and none of these occasions where Priscilla is mention first by name do we find them jointly teaching anyone and we note that these are all occasions of greetings and salutations except the one place where she is merely listed along with her husband as a traveling compamion of Paul.

Now I will quote for your edification all of the verses in the Bible where this husband and wife are found together so that all can see that the above facts are true concerning this matter. They should also be able to clearly see that your statement that Priscillas name is almost always mentioned first is not true at all. The truth is that Aquila's name is listed first an equal number of times as Aquilas name is mentioned first. And Aquillas name is especially mentioned first when the two are described as jointly teaching some one the way of the Lord more perfectly. In no place do we find Priscillas name mentioned first where they are described as jointly teaching anyone. Would this not then justify the conclusion, based upon your manner of argument, that it was Aquila and not Priscilla that was considered, in fact, the foremost of the team when they were jointly teaching others? I think that it would if you are correct in arguing that because someones name is mentioned first we can conclude that thy are prominent in the list, though I do not believe that such is always the case. Please read all of these verses to verify that my statements concerning this matter are correct. I present them to you, brother John, because it is wise for us to begin thinking about these matters with accurate facts upon which we will base our premises and ultimately reach our conclusions. I am certain that you can understand and appreciate the importance of this fact. The following is all of the verses in the New Testament that mention Priscilla and Aquila:

And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. Acts 18:2

Notice that there is no joint teaching happening in this verse yet Aquila is mentioned first and then his wife Priscilla.

And Paul [after this] tarried [there] yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn [his] head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.Acts 18:18

Here the couple are merely listed as traveling companions of the Apostle Paul and there is no evidence of their jointly teaching anyone and Priscilla is mentioned first and we cannot draw any conclusions from this verse, or its context, concerning why she is mentioned first. For all we know it is nothing more than coincidental.

And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Acts 18:26

Here is the only verse in the entire New Testament where we see the couple jointly involved in teaching anyone. We cannot gather from this verse any reason to conclude that Priscilla was the primary spokes person and certainly cannot conclude therefore that she was the most powerful speaker as you have concluded. If anything can be derived concerning prominence among the two from the order in which they are mentioned- and I am not sure that anything can safely be deduced from that fact- it would be that Aquila and not Priscilla was the most powerful speaker and the foremost of the team because his name is mentioned first. But by no stretch of the imagination can we conclude that Priscilla was prominent in this teaching team from this verse.

Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Romans 16:3

Here the couple is mentioned in a greeting and there is no joint teaching in this verse. They both are simply referred to as the helpers of Paul and in what capacity they were helping him we are not told. To surmise much more than this is completely without just warrant.

The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. 1 Cor. 16:19

Here the couple is mentioned in a salutation and Aquila is mentioned first though there is no joint teaching happening.

As far as we can conclude from the New Testament information there is only one place that the two taught jointly and we can only say that it is likely that under similar circumstances as those found in this verse concerning their teaching Apollos they would teach jointly and even in that case it is also likely that Aquila would be listed first in any accounting of it and as the head of his wife (1 Cor. 11:3) he would in all such circumstances have the prominent or leading role. We have no idea that Priscilla even spoke for we are not told just how she was involved in this teaching of Apollos. Any conclusions about the role women are to play in teaching men must be gathered from other verses because there is nothing in this one that tells us anything concerning the actual role she played. She could have merely been assisting Aquila in some way other than being the spokes person or the most powerful speaker or the foremost of the team for this verse does not justify us in drawing the conclusion that she spoke anything at all. She could have been merely turning the pages of the Word of God, so to speak, as Aquila quoted verses for Apollos to read for all that we can gather from this verse. We just are not told what role she played and we therefore cannot draw any firm conclusions about the matter from this verse. We can however safely say that your assertion that she was the most powerful speaker and the foremost of the team is without any support from the facts at all.

"Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus." 2 Tim. 4:19

Now this verse is the third place where Priscilla is mentioned first and it is in a salutation where no joint teaching with her husband is described.

Now John, let me summarize the lessons we derive from these verses when placed in comparison to your assertions. You have said, It is also worth noting, however, that her name is almost always mentioned first. This we have learned is completely untrue. To be exact, of the six times the couple is mentioned together her name is mentioned first only thrice and the remaining three occasions Her husbands name is mentioned first. Therefore if neither of their names are most often mentioned first how can you claim that her "name is most often mentioned first?. That simply is not the truth.

Now I say all of this in response to your assertion to the contrary. I do not say it because I believe that we can draw any firm and useful conclusions from any one of their names being merely mentioned first.

However, they are only depicted as jointly teaching anyone only once and in the verse which tells us of their teaching Apollos jointly Aquila is given the prominent place if there is anything to the fact that Aquilas name is mentioned first in that place.

With all of this information we can safely say that your assumptions concerning Aquila and Priscilla are incorrect. Your assertion that Priscilla is most often mentioned first in the verses that speak of them together is not true. Therefore your conclusions, based upon this false assumption, that Priscilla was the most powerful voice and she was the foremost member of this teaching team are not true either.

Now whatever may be the outcome of this effort to answer Brother Benjamins excellent question it is my sincere hope that these arguments that you have presented will be corrected before they influence an erroneous conclusion upon those seeking to know the truth of this matter.

John, you know that I love you for your love for the truth and I admire your efforts to stand against the cults for you are diligent and effective in that work. I have seen you in action and I know that you are capable and concerned for truth as opposed to error. For that reason I have presented some things for you to think about rather than brand you as a heretic. I do think that you love truth enough to see why I have offered what I believe is a correction to your post and I believe if you will consider seriously what I have said you will agree with the conclusions I have drawn from these passages in the word of God.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

I stand corrected. I didn't have a Bible in front of me at the time. I still maintain, however, that it was highly unusual, in both Jewish and Roman society, to ever mention the wife first (if at all).

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

John,

You stated: "I still maintain, however, that it was highly unusual, in both Jewish and Roman society, to ever mention the wife first (if at all)."

Why do you maintain that it is highly unusual for the women to be mentioned first?

And, what implication can one draw from that - that in any way over turns what has already been given as Biblical evidence and reasoning? To what end does the order of names bring us to in our understanding of female teachers as per their place in teaching men?

Lee,

Thanks for the info... I hadn't followed up on that point. Mainly, because I see it as irrelevant to the discussion. However, it is extremely relevant the way you brought it forward. That being, to silence false thoughts and teachings about the Word. That is always relevant. Thanks!

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Bro. Lee Saffold,

I thought my memory of Acts 18:26 (the verse where A&P/P&A are described as teaching Apollos) differed from what you say above, so I looked it up, first in a volume that has 4 translations side-by-side, and then finally in ALL the different translations I have in the house. The following are my findings:

Of 17 or 18 English translations (I lost count), only ONE, the KJV, gives Aquila's name first. ALL the rest give Priscilla's name first. BTW, these cover a broad spectrum from old to new, and very literal to loose paraphrases. It includes several of the usual "standard" translations, plus even one Catholic translation (Knox) and the JW "New World" translation.

Of 6 Chinese translations, NONE give Aquila's name first; ALL give Priscilla's name first.

Of 2 Tagalog translations (the official dialect in the Philippines), one gives Aquila's name first, and one gives Priscilla's name first.

One translation (I think the only one) in Itawes, another dialect in the Philippines, lists Priscilla's name first.

Finally, the original Greek. The UBS text, based on a thorough comparison of all available manuscripts, but weighted towards those that are reckoned to be the earliest and best, gives Priscilla's name first, and does not even give an alternative reading with Aquila's name first. "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text", edited by Hodges and Farstad, on the other hand, gives Aquila's name first, but indicates that a large number of manuscripts support having Priscilla's name first, with only a slightly larger number supporting the reading they chose.

I haven't bothered with such thorough research on all the other passages where they are both named. As you said yourself, this is the most significant one. I did look them up in the NIV, however, and the results were of some interest.

I actually found SEVEN verses where the two of them are named. (They are named in Acts 18:19 as well as verse 18.) Of the seven, Aquila is named first in Acts 18:2, where the couple are first introduced, and in 1 Cor. 16:19 where Paul conveys their greetings to the Corinthian church. Of the others, most are merely references to them as travelling companions, or conveying greetings to or from them. But Romans 16:3-5 again MIGHT be significant.

The word translated "helpers" in the KJV is probably better translated "co-workers" or "fellow workers" as most other translations give it. The Greek word is "SUNERGOS" (pl. "SUNERGOUS"), which is a compound of "SUN", meaning "together" or "with", and "ERGOS", meaning "work." It seems to imply that they worked side by side with Paul in the same kind of work. H continues that THEY risked their lives for him, and that "all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to THEM." And, as I said, Priscilla's name is mentioned first. By itself it PROVES nothing, but it would seem to support the idea that she did something more significant than "turning pages" for her husband.

As you said, we don't know what Priscilla and Aquila each did when they taught Apollos, but I think it is surely significant that the verb "explained" is in the 3rd person PLURAL, rather than singular, indicating that they both participated in some way. And I think it MAY be significant that it appears that the best manuscript evidence supports having her name first in this verse.

I certainly do not support any way of doing things that would put women in the church in positions of AUTHORITY over men in the church -- either real authority or implied authority, which I think is why they are even told in one place not to teach, when it is clear in other places that they can teach in some circumstances. "Teacher" is a position of authority in most cultures. But I think an unbiassed study of what women did and didn't do in the early church (without the filters of either "women's lib" or our reaction to "women's lib") will show that women did do some significant things in the early church. And Priscilla may have been one who did.

BTW, as I often point out on the other side, even if Priscilla took the leading role in the conversation with Apollos, she didn't get up and contradict him before the assembly. Instead, after the meeting, she and her husband invited him to their home where they privately explained things to him. And IF she did take the leading role in the conversation, she was doing it in her husband's presence, with his consent, and with his authority behind her. When we have a woman give an "inspirational talk" in the "sermon time" on Mother's Day, she will be saying things, as a woman, speaking to other women, that would not mean as much to them if they came from me, as a man, but she will do it with my consent and authority, as elder, behind her. So she will not be "taking authority on herself."

I do believe that elders/supervisors/overseers/shepherds/pastors (many names for one position) MUST be men. However, I believe that deacons (also known as "deaconesses" when female) MAY be women, and I believe that Scripture supports this idea. Since one or two have questioned this, I'll address that issue another time, but must get on to other things for now.

So, for now, "JOI GIN" / "SAI JEN".

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

well said as always, benjamin

Dave - because as I understand it, in New Testament times Jewish women were generally regarded as little more than the male's property. And Roman women didn't fare much better, although there are a few examples of Roman women who were very successful businesswomen. (Usually single/widowed.) I may be wrong, but that's what I have always been taught.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Ben,

Thanks for your responses. I will let Lee defend his statements, for I know that he is more than capable. In the greek text that I keep on my shelf, I found that Pricilla's name is mentioned first in Acts 18: 26. However, I would direct your thoughts back to the hermaneutic first mentioned.

Let me restate it in other words, if I may. It is necessary, IMHO, to first understand those passages that are more clear, and allow them to influence the understanding of those that are less clear on a given subject. Paul insisted that he did not allow a woman to teach! In the context, I would understand this to be concerning the teaching of men in the general assembly. (I Tim, 2:12) This is said in the same phrase as usurp authority over a man. Now, you have stated that you believe firmly in that a woman is not to usurp authority over a man. However, your firmness in believing that a woman is not allowed to teach is not as strong. You do this in direct contrast with what the context would appear to allow. I would suggest that we give equal weight to both statements given the fact that they are linked with the term "oude" (nor) and are both controlled by the negated (not = "ouk") verb "epitrepo."

Back to my earlier reasoning, I would understand this to be extremely clear. This passage is then given more interpretive weight. Now lets apply this clear passage to the inference you have drawn with Aquila and Pricilla. In some cases, they are in the presence of Paul and some they are not. I wonder if Paul was consistent in his doctrine when it came to the subject of 'women teaching' with this delightful and helpful Christian couple? When reasoning from this perspective, it becomes less likely that the 'inference' you have drawn would follow. At least in my mind it seems less likely.

I might add, if Paul was consistent in his doctrine, and if she did take precidence in a teaching role, is it not more likely that Paul would have taken them aside (although not mentioned in the text) and taught her more correctly as to not repeat something that shouldn't be done. Now, I must admit, this paragraph is simply my opinion. But as you judge it my opinion, ask yourself... given the hermaneutic stated, which is the more reasonable assumption. For my opinion is assumption drawn from a clearly stated passage in Scripture. Your opinion is drawn in opposition to a clearly stated passage in Scripture. Makes ya want to go hmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,

I appreciate your thoughts based upon the principals, my friend.

John,

Thanks for your responses as well. I would endeavor to bend your ear toward what I have stated previously to brother Ben. Whether it is cultural to mention a man or a woman first, becomes moot as given the previous reasoning. BTW, is it not true that even within the Roman world, there were areas where women did have a more prominent place in culture. For example, there are commentaryies that claim that the northern part of Greece (that time Macedonia) around the cities of Philippi, Neopolis, Amphipolis, et al, is an area that women are much more prominent and carry many more direct and respected roles in the community. In other words, they are more than property, but rather well accepted and respected. You may be aware of this from your studies, if not, I can supply the needed commentaries. (As is the nature of such things, all those helpful books are in my office and not here at home where I need them,,,, ha ha) I would only state this from the stand point that the generality you make,,, may or may not have application to the inference that you draw.

All in all, we must return to the principals of Biblical interpretation. Do we agree that the clear passages of Scripture must be the weightier when it comes to drawing our inferences, opinions, et al? It is hard for me to depart from this most basic point. For if we do not clarify it, then we won't reach a consistent conclusion together.

Go back and read the other more clear passages about who deacons are and why they are to be men and what kind of men. Why is it that the Bible does not clearly state that women are to be the same? Why the absence? Seems clear to me, yet I would encourage you to reconsider.

May I conclude this post by reaffirming that in my agreement with Paul's doctine and practice, I, in no way, would want women to feel as though they are second class Christians. I am continually thankful for the extreme influence that Christian women have made upon my life. From my mother, to the college age woman that was my Bible School teacher when I was in grade school, to the prominent women in Scripture whose humble service to the King of Kings have taught me to always put others first and to care as unselfishly as possible the needs of others. May God continue to bless those humble and consistent laborers in His kingdom, may they be men or women.

God has placed all the members of the body together for His purpose. And, if we were all eyes, where would the hearing be??? If we were all deacons where would the other functions be??? Thanks for continueing to study with me guys/gals.... I am really enjoying this...

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

If we really want to get down to it, the word for deacon in the greek means literally "waiter of tables/ and/or servant." This may be a sexist remark, but do not all the women wait on the men during the fellowship meals? (Just adding a bit of humor in... bad humor I know but I try). But, in reality even the word for "minister" is deaconos the same for deacon and the same for servant. Do we all function in that role? Well if we are picking up chairs or scrubbing toilets we are all deacons in the generic and truer sense of the word; whether we are male or female. But, to be ordained and set aside in an offical capacity is an entirely different matter.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Brother Benjamin Rees:

I am thankful for your response to my post for a couple of reasons. First, it is among the very few responses to my words in this forum that even attempted to consider my arguments as I presented them. Second I appreciate how well they are written and the logical manner in which you present them. Now, in my opinion, this is the manner in which we should discuss our differences in any forum. It is indeed frustrating to discuss issues with those who ignore your arguments and present their own expecting a detailed reply and then they do not respond to your reply and they add to the frustration the evil of deliberate misrepresentation. Brother I sincerely appreciate the fact that you are not guilty in your response of any negative thing that I have just described. Your response is exactly as it should be.

However much I appreciate your response there are a few matters that I must first make clear before I respond to your excellent and well- written response to my words that were directed toward Brother Johns comments.

Now John did not, in his statement, refer to a different text nor did he say that his assertion that because Priscillas name is mentioned first more often than Aquilas she was the most powerful speaker and the prominent one of the team was based upon his having read all of the many different versions that are based upon an entirely different text as the ones to which you refer. In fact he had no particular text in mind as his own words indicate in his response to me which were as follows:

I stand corrected. I didn't have a Bible in front of me at the time. I still maintain, however, that it was highly unusual, in both Jewish and Roman society, to ever mention the wife first (if at all).

Now John did not make his original argument from his having read any text of the Bible for he did not have a bible in front of him at the time of making his argument. I took it for granted that he did have the same Bible in front of him that has been his consistent habit in all of our former discussions with each other and the one to which he refers most often is not the text to which you have referred. Therefore my response was based upon a text that he and I have been agreed upon as being the word of God. And all that I have said concerning that text to which I obviously referred is true unless we except the fact that you may have found one more instance of their being mentioned in that text than I found.

Having said all of this I also wish to clarify the simple fact that even if we were to grant, for the sake of the argument, that Aquilas name is mentioned first in every place, as you have correctly pointed out is the case in the Chinese version, his conclusions that Priscilla was therefore the most powerful speaker and the foremost of the team cannot be logically deduced. I do not think that you have attempted, as did brother John, to deduce such from these facts however in the interest of truth I wanted to make it clear that being the first mentioned in a list does not imply being dominate among those listed unless something in the context indicates to us that the order of the list is designed to be in the order of importance from first to last. Nothing in the context of these verses indicates anything concerning the reason why either Priscilla in the text to which you refer and or Aquila in the text to which I refer is mentioned first.

Next I wish to point out to all that you and I could not possibly settle our differences upon this subject unless and until we agree upon a text that we both accept to be the very word of God as reflected in the original text that we both know the textual critics have spent their entire lives attempting to reconstruct and have not yet done so beyond all controversy. If you wish to engage in a discussion of the most accurate text that we can all accept as the word of God as reflected in the original Greek text and decide upon the most accurate reading among the many variations that exist I believe we would have to do so in a different forum because this one is not very well set up for what would be a very lengthy and protracted discussion of matters not commonly understood among our readers. I do not doubt that we could profit from such a discussion with one of your obvious intellectual and logical acumen but I do doubt that either of us has the sufficient time and leisure to pursue the matter at any reasonable length.

Neither do I believe that we have available to us the appropriate resources to go about the arduous task of reconstructing the text which is done by reading many various families of manuscripts, researching the earliest versions of the New Testament, reading from the quotations of the early church fathers from the scriptures because they obviously quoted from text that most likely was far superior to our meager four fourth and fifth century manuscripts that while they may be considered by all to be the best and most reliable manuscripts available to us they are far from being proven to be the best and most reliable manuscripts quoted by anyone throughout the history of Christianity from the first century to the present.

And all of this does not even take into consideration the fact that I at least do not and I do doubt whether you have the knowledge of the languages of the early versions that would allow us to examine them properly if we had copies of them before us.

Now I am aware that this work has been done by men of great scholarship and intellectual and logical ability and that they have done some excellent work and have given to us the results of their lifelong labors to which we can read and decide for ourselves if we agree with them. But it is far from true that their results are completely harmonious. Therefore we must listen discriminately to what they have said and draw our conclusions from them as best we can.

Until everyone realizes that while it is true that these manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries are the best available to us today, they are not conclusive in themselves to settle all disputes concerning the actual reading of the original manuscripts we will continue to have people to doubt some very significant portions of scripture. Many such portions of scripture can be and have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be in the original text of the first century though they are not found in the best and most reliable manuscripts available to us today. However, because they are not found in these fourth and fifth century manuscripts they have been doubted by those who rely solely upon those manuscripts as evidence of the accuracy of a given text. But an accurate text is established not only by the manuscript evidence but also by reference to the sources that I have listed above which are older and refer to manuscripts that was older and less corrupted and therefore more reliable than our best and most reliable manuscripts. Now we might be tempted to at least engage in a discussion of the results that have been presented by the scholars if the point being made by claiming that Priscilla is mentioned first more often than Aquila were a significant and powerful argument that women can preach and be deacons etc. However, I believe that even you admit that such an argument is not significant for this purpose for even if we should prove that the original text did in fact refer to Priscilla first in every case, which I hasten to add has not even been remotely proven to be true, it would not convince any person experienced in logical reasoning that she was therefore dominant and is an example of a woman taking the leading role as a preacher of the gospel in the public proclamation of the word of God. For that reason it would be a terrible waste of time to attempt to decide at this point which text more correctly reflects the actual words of the original, either the text to which you refer or the one to which I referred.

Now I have said all of this also to clarify an important fact. My arguments, as you very well know, were based upon a different text than the one to which you refer. It is therefore unreasonable to claim that what I said concerning that text was wrong because your variant text and the versions based upon it is contrary to the things that I said. That only shows us that there is a different text being used than the one to which I referred. It does not prove that what I said concerning the passages that I quoted form the text of which I was discussing was wrong. I do not accept the text to which you refer as accurately reflecting the original Greek text and until you or anyone else is able to convince me otherwise I will not accept a text that I do not believe to be accurately reflecting the original Greek text because the words of the original are the word of God.

But I do not think that the argument being made from these verses concerning Aquila and Priscilla is significant enough for us to interrupt the discussion of the question of this thread to decide upon the text we will use.

However, we must at least realize that when one argues from a text that something is true it is extremely unfair and unreasonable to go to a different text to which he had no reference and attempt to prove from it that his statements concerning the text of which he was speaking are in error unless one intends to first prove beyond reasonable doubt that the text to which he referred does not reflect the true reading of the original. This you have failed to do. For you have done nothing more than make us all aware that there is a variant text and that some accept it as accurate while others of equal scholarship reject it. This is like the JWs that I argued with once who claimed that I was wrong in teaching that John 1:1 indicates that Christ is God simply because their version which they claimed to be based upon a more accurate text did not say that the word was God but rather that the word was a god. Now we could not get anywhere in that discussion until I showed them that their translation was not based upon any text at all but upon the prejudicial amending of the text by the authors of their erroneous version of the scriptures. Now in your case there is in fact much manuscript evidence for the reading that you have given but that does not mean that it is sufficient of itself to be conclusive that your variant reading genuinely reflects the original Greek text.

Now your reference to the many different versions is interesting and informative but far from conclusive that they are correctly reflecting the original Greek text. It would have been far more impressive upon me if you had quoted the reading of the early versions of the scriptures that date back to the second century and were translations of original manuscripts that had been in existence for a hundred years or less after they were written by the original authors. Those translations, if they give the reading of Priscillas name first in every or most cases it would have convinced me that the text to which I referred could be in error and I would admit that I need to examine the matter further. But the quoting of modern versions to indicate that a variant reading is more accurate than the text to which I referred is not sufficient to cause me to seriously question the matter. And if you succeeded in convincing me that Priscillas name were listed first in the original Greek I would have no problem accepting it as true for it certainly does not affect any doctrinal issue in any way. And least of all does it affect in the slightest our discussion of whether women can publicly preach the gospel of Christ and exercise authority over men in that matter. For if it were true that Priscillas name were mentioned first in every case where the two are found together we could not conclude anything from that fact that would decide for us the teaching of the word of God concerning this question that we are discussing in this thread.

It is sufficient just here to complete my discussion of the variant readings that you mention by simply stating that they do not change in the least my accurate correction of Johns contention that Priscilla was the most powerful speaker and the foremost of the team. For that contention is not supported by the facts even if Priscillas name were mentioned first most often in the original text. And it is definitely not true if one is reading the text to which I referred as most readers in this country continue to read and accept as the word of God and that remains to be the truth of the matter in either case.

Now that concludes my remarks concerning your reference to many modern translations that are based upon a text that I do not accept as being true to the original Greek text and even if I did accept it as true my correction of Johns arguments would remain valid because even your variant reading does not prove that Priscilla was the most powerful speaker and the foremost of the team comprised of Aquila and his wife Priscilla.

Please understand my following remarks are only a recommendation for reasonable discussions. If we are going to discuss any matter let us decide before we begin our discussion which text we will agree to use as the final arbiter in the matter. Because I have no objection to the use of a different text for most of them do in most cases accurately reflect the original text. But when we know in advance that variant readings are going to affect the discussion let use agree to which text is acceptable before the discussion begins so that we do not create confusion of arguing from two separate and diametrically opposed standards of authority. Now, I want to be clear that I do not mean that we should not make arguments from a different text I only complain that if we are going to do so let it be known in the beginning of the discussion that the standard of authority that we all will agree to accept is the variant text so that we will be discussing our differences by an honest appeal to a commonly accepted standard of authority. We are all agreed that it is the word of God that is our only rule of faith and practice in churches of Christ and that it is the standard to which we will appeal to support our contentions and derive our conclusions on any subject. Therefore it is only fair that we agree before discussing a certain issue which text we accept as the inspired word of God and will be the final arbiter of our disputes with each other or the wise counselor our misunderstandings.

But this shifting in the middle of the discussion to a completely different text than the one to which I referred and claiming that my arguments were not true because they were contrary to a text that I have not agreed is acceptable is completely unreasonable. Even though Johns conclusions are not supported by either text his comment that Priscillas name is mentioned more often first than Aquilas is supported by the variant readings of the versions that you speak of because they are all based upon a different text that I did not refer to and John did not have before him" when he made his comment and drew his conclusion. The things that I said to John were true if one accepts the text that I used as the standard and my correction of his conclusion is that Priscilla was the "most powerful speaker" and the "foremost of the team" is correct regardless of which text we use.

However, if one does not accept that text as the inspired word of God then the issue is no longer was Priscilla mentioned first more often than Aquila but rather which text is the more accurate representation of the word of God. Now we cannot have both of these discussions at the exact same time. It is wise that we settle the text to which we appeal first before we claim that an argument is wrong. You did not show by referring to the same text that I referred to that I was in error. Rather you referred to a different text that accepts variant readings that I do not accept and claimed that I was in error in reference to the text knowing all along that I was not referring to the same text that you describe. Now that does not convince anyone that what I said was wrong it only confuses everyone concerning what is really the word of God. While this is not always a bad thing it is important that such be settled before entering a discussion where that matter is an issue. Now I agree that this discussion is not such as requires that we settle the text because we can prove from either text that women are not to be public preachers and in positions of authority in the church. But this issue of whether Priscillas name is mentioned first cannot be settled without first settling upon the text. If you want to pursue this matter, since it is not significant to the discussion at hand, let us discuss the text privately via e-mail or publicly in a different thread but let us not confuse the issue by shifting from one text to another in discussing our differences without first settling upon the one text that will be our standard of authority or the final arbiter to which we will appeal to settle the issue. It is fine to argue from either text but if either of us argues from a certain text it is not reasonable for any response questioning the accuracy of those arguments to be based upon anything other than the text upon which the argument was based.

Now to take up some of the specifics of your excellent response you say the following:

I thought my memory of Acts 18:26 (the verse where A&P/P&A are described as teaching Apollos) differed from what you say above, so I looked it up, first in a volume that has 4 translations side-by-side, and then finally in ALL the different translations I have in the house. The following are my findings:

Of course your memory is different from what I had said because the original text upon which the many translations that you refer are based is different. Your memory of the text to which it was obvious that I referred could not have been different without being in error because I quoted it accurately in my response. Therefore all of your references to a large number of translations that put Priscilla first in Acts 18:26 does not prove that I was incorrect in stating that the Bible in Acts 18:26 and five other places puts Pricillas name first an equal number of times with Aquila which was completely contrary to the idea that John presented that she was referred to first more often than Aquila and therefore was the foremost of the team and the most powerful speaker which was the error that I was trying to correct and even you do not draw such a conclusion concerning her with the text that you use.

Then you give us a list of many translations that support your view that she is mentioned more often as follows:

Of 17 or 18 English translations (I lost count), only ONE, the KJV, gives Aquila's name first. ALL the rest give Priscilla's name first. BTW, these cover a broad spectrum from old to new, and very literal to loose paraphrases. It includes several of the usual "standard" translations, plus even one Catholic translation (Knox) and the JW "New World" translation.

Now none of this matters because these translations are based upon a different text than the one to which I referred therefore how could I have been wrong in what I said about the text to which I referred because translations based upon a text to which I had no reference is different.

Then you mention other versions as follows:

Of 6 Chinese translations, NONE give Aquila's name first; ALL give Priscilla's name first.

Of 2 Tagalog translations (the official dialect in the Philippines), one gives Aquila's name first, and one gives Priscilla's name first. One translation (I think the only one) in Itawes, another dialect in the Philippines, lists Priscilla's name first.

All of this is meaningless as I have stated above because the text that they translate is different from the one to which I referred. Now you get to the discussion of the original because it is clear that you sensed the need to establish that your text is the more accurate reading of the original. For I had referred to a text different from those to which you referred:

Finally, the original Greek. The UBS text, based on a thorough comparison of all available manuscripts, but weighted towards those that are reckoned to be the earliest and best, gives Priscilla's name first, and does not even give an alternative reading with Aquila's name first. "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text", edited by Hodges and Farstad, on the other hand, gives Aquila's name first, but indicates that a large number of manuscripts support having Priscilla's name first, with only a slightly larger number supporting the reading they chose.

Now here I cannot understand why you refer to various translations when you intended to appeal to the original Greek in the first place. For no argument from any translation is valid until we are agreed that the text upon which that translation is based is in fact the original Greek. You even mention two texts in this paragraph but do not give us any reason to accept any one of them over the other as being the word of God. Now you appear to think that we can accept them both as being the word of God and that we can just shift between them as necessary to find support for our views. If one text is against our view we can just run to the other text that seems to support it. Then when we discuss a different subject we can run back to the other text because our newest one that we have chosen as being more reliable does not support our view on that particular subject. Now we can be sure that God did not give us his word in variant forms so that we can use the variations to support our conflicting views of the truth. I am saying that we must settle upon the text and the text to which you refer is not better or at least you have not proven to us that it is better.

Now I also want to notice that these text do not take into serious consideration evidence from the versions of the scriptures translated in the second century such as the Peshito Syriac made in the second century and was therefore derived from a Greek text which had been transmitted not quite one hundred years from the pens of the original writers, The Old Latin, made in the second century, as is known from its being cited by Tertullian, who lived from about 150 to 220 A. D., The Egyptian or Coptic Versions consisting of the Memphitic and the Thebaic translated before the close of the second century. These represent four versions or translations of the of the Original text less than 100 years after it was written and therefore should carry significant weight in deciding the correct text of the New Testament. Merely comparing families of manuscripts without considering the evidence from such sources as these ancient versions is bound to construct a less than reliable text. This does not even mention the consideration of quotations of the text from ancient authors. Now I know that some assume that these have been consulted but not with the view that they could carry greater weight in some circumstances than our so- called most reliable manuscripts that in many places fragmentary where the versions are not. Do not misunderstand, the versions are fragmented but not in the same places as the manuscripts and therefore they can provide valuable insight into the actual reading of the text that few extant manuscripts are able to give us. The assumption therefore that these versions that you have quoted are based upon an accurate text is far from a safe one.

Then you take up, as I agree, the most significant passage in reference to Aquila and Priscilla as you say below:

I haven't bothered with such thorough research on all the other passages where they are both named. As you said yourself, this is the most significant one. I did look them up in the NIV, however, and the results were of some interest.

I actually found SEVEN verses where the two of them are named. (They are named in Acts 18:19 as well as verse 18.) Of the seven, Aquila is named first in Acts 18:2, where the couple are first introduced, and in 1 Cor. 16:19 where Paul conveys their greetings to the Corinthian church. Of the others, most are merely references to them as travelling companions, or conveying greetings to or from them. But Romans 16:3-5 again MIGHT be significant.

You are correct here that they are named in verse 19 as well as verse 18. I really should have said that they are found together in six places instead of six verses. If we use the word verses we would have seven as you correctly observe. But these two verses are in the same place and the same connection. If we view it in that light there are only six places where they are found listed together we would not find seven. However, I accept completely your count of the number of verses where they are found listed.

I also agree with you that 1 Cor. 16; 19 and others like it that are mere references to them in a greeting or references to their being traveling companions of Paul are of little significance.

Then you claim that Romans 16:3-5 might be significant and give the following as your reason for thinking such to possibly be the case:

The word translated "helpers" in the KJV is probably better translated "co-workers" or "fellow workers" as most other translations give it. The Greek word is "SUNERGOS" (pl. "SUNERGOUS"), which is a compound of "SUN", meaning "together" or "with", and "ERGOS", meaning, "work." It seems to imply that they worked side by side with Paul in the same kind of work. H continues that THEY risked their lives for him, and that "all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to THEM." And, as I said, Priscilla's name is mentioned first. By itself it PROVES nothing, but it would seem to support the idea that she did something more significant than "turning pages" for her husband.

Now this is interesting and I agree with your definition of the Greek word SUNERGOS (pl. SUNGERGOUS) which is, as you say, a compound of SUN meaning together or with and ERGOS meaning work. I agree that it not only implies that they were workers side by side with Paul in some kind of work but I also accept that it was the exact same kind of work that he was doing because they were helping him in it. You say again Priscillas name is mentioned first which you have proven to be true only if one accepts the text that you refer to as being an accurate representation of the original Greek. This you do not prove and I do not accept therefore I do not agree that her name is mentioned first in the original until it is proven to be true though I do agree with you that it is insignificant in either case. But here you say that while this is insignificant by itself when combined with the fact that they helped Paul in the same kind of work it proves that she did something more significant than turning the pages. I think this is correct but it does not indicate that she violated the principles stated by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:34 which said  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. (1Cor. 14:34). Now the fact is that she is working with and helping in the same work with the same apostle Paul that said by inspiration that women are to be silent in the church does not mean she did this same work in exactly the same way that he did it. She helped him to do it in ways that are not described and therefore we cannot conclude just how she helped but we can safely conclude that she did not help him in any way that would violate the commands given by the apostle concerning the fact that women we not PERMITTED TO SPEAK in the church. Now how this was done we do not know but we know that she could not have helped Paul teach women to keep silence in the church if she was standing up in the assembly and preaching as some would have us to believe she did while helping Paul do the same work. So we know that she would have been silent in compliance with the teaching of the great apostle that she was in some way completely unknown to us helping him in doing that same work that he was doing. We cannot conclude from this that she was the most powerful speaker and the foremost of the team neither can we conclude that she spoke publicly as a preacher would do in any case.

Then you tell us:

As you said, we don't know what Priscilla and Aquila each did when they taught Apollos, but I think it is surely significant that the verb "explained" is in the 3rd person PLURAL, rather than singular, indicating that they both participated in some way. And I think it MAY be significant that it appears that the best manuscript evidence supports having her name first in this verse.

I believe that you are correct in this argument and I think it is surely the truth of the meaning of the Greek in this place and I thank you for pointing to this for us. I think that this shows that she did participate in the explaining of things to Apollos. I do not however think that there is the slightest significance that the best manuscript evidence supports her name first in this place. As I have explained above the manuscript evidence is not conclusive in itself to decide upon the accurate reading of the original text. But even if it should be proven that her name is mentioned first in this place it does not follow that her name is mention first for any particular reason and you offer no evidence that such is in fact the case. The simple fact that she participated in explaining these things to Apollos does not indicate that such gives her any prominence in the matter nor would it conclusively prove that she was preeminent over her husband in this teaching. Especially in light of the fact that women are forbidden to teach or usurp authority over the man it is clear that she did not usurp authority over her husband in this case of the PRIVATE correction of Brother Apollos. And even should it be proven, which it most certainly has not, that her name mentioned first is conclusive evidence that she was dominate in this case it would far from prove that it was acceptable for her to be dominate nor would it prove that she therefore could publicly preach and be dominate over her husband and other men in the church in doing so. If we leave out dominance it would not prove that she could preach. All of this is interesting but far from proving the thing that it seems you would like to establish that women could publicly preach and be deacons in an official capacity in the church.

I am happy to notice that it is not your intent to support anything that would put women in positions of authority in the church. I know that the seven deacons that were appointed in Acts 6 were in positions of authority and it would have given them authority over men in the church yet you think women can be deacons in the same capacity as that described in the scriptures. I am sure that you have rationalized this in some way that women can be deacons so long as they have no authority over the men in the church. These are your words:

I certainly do not support any way of doing things that would put women in the church in positions of AUTHORITY over men in the church - - either real authority or implied authority, which I think is why they are even told in one place not to teach, when it is clear in other places that they can teach in some circumstances. "Teacher" is a position of authority in most cultures. But I think an unbiassed study of what women did and didn't do in the early church (without the filters of either "women's lib" or our reaction to "women's lib") will show that women did do some significant things in the early church. And Priscilla may have been one who did.

Now let me be clear that no one, least of all me, has ever said that women have not have done significant things in the early church nor do I believe that because the women among us where I worship have never been in the pulpit to preach that they have rendered anything less than significant service to the Lord. I know of a Gospel preacher who preached a protracted meeting in the early 1900s and converted only one young woman to Christ. She eventually married and had four boys whom she taught to love God and obey the Lord in all things. All four of them became gospel preachers and were responsible for literally thousands of precious souls learning of the great love of God in Christ our Lord and becoming obedient to the precious gospel. Now she never directly entered the pulpit but if anyone thinks that she did not preach Christ in a magnificent, effective and significant way trough her loving teaching and guidance of her four sons they just cannot comprehend the meaning of the word significant. I have little doubt that I am a Christian today because of her quiet labor for Christ in her home among her four sons! Now I do not say this just to make some emotional appeal. I say it simply because I want to be clear that public presence before men is not a measure of significant work for Christ. And I do not mean to imply that you think that it is but I wish to prevent anyone from drawing such a conclusion from this discussion. I agree with you that any study of any subject should be unbiased. This is true of this subject as well. I have no bias in reference to womens lib and I do not think that anyone involved in this discussion has said anything about it except you. And you mention it only to prevent us from being prejudiced by such.

Now Brother Benjamin let us read this passage that says women are not to teach and see exactly what it says so that we can accurately judge your words concerning it. Paul told Timothy, But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over the man, but to be in quietness. 1 Timothy 2:12. Then he gives the reason for this and it is different from the one that you have given in your words quoted above. He says,  For Adam was first formed then Eve; And Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 1 Timothy 2:13. It was not just because the position of teacher is a position of authority in most cultures but rather because Adam was not beguiled but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression. Now that is the reason Paul said what he said according to Paul himself. I will agree with Pauls inspired reasons.

Then you point to something significant from the other side to which I partially agree as follows:

BTW, as I often point out on the other side, even if Priscilla took the leading role in the conversation with Apollos, she didn't get up and contradict him before the assembly. Instead, after the meeting, she and her husband invited him to their home where they privately explained things to him. And IF she did take the leading role in the conversation, she was doing it in her husband's presence, with his consent, and with his authority behind her. When we have a woman give an "inspirational talk" in the "sermon time" on Mother's Day, she will be saying things, as a woman, speaking to other women, that would not mean as much to them if they came from me, as a man, but she will do it with my consent and authority, as elder, behind her. So she will not be "taking authority on herself."

I agree with this but I do doubt very seriously, because there is no evidence whatsoever to support it, that Priscilla took the leading role in this conversation with Apollos. I do want to agree with you that she did not contradict him publicly but I must add that she also did not teach him publicly. They took him aside and taught him the way of the lord more perfectly. To this you have accurately agreed with your words that they, including Priscilla, taught him privately therefore this passage cannot be used to justify the woman publicly preaching the gospel in any place. And it most certainly cannot justify a woman giving an inspirational talk in the sermon time on mothers day or any other day for that matter for no man, elder or preacher, has the authority to grant the woman under their authority to do anything that God through his inspired apostles forbade them to do. Paul said plainly by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, LET THE WOMEN KEEP SILENCE in the churches: for it is not PERMITTED unto them to speak but let them be in subjection as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Cor. 14:34,35. Now no man has the authority to grant any woman the right to disobey this direct command of the word of God revealed by the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul.

Then you express your belief that women can be deacons without explaining it very much. While I will wait for your more detailed explanation I must say a few things about what you have said here with these words:

I do believe that elders/supervisors/overseers/shepherds/pastors (many names for one position) MUST be men.

It would be interesting to hear your reasons for this statement to which I wholeheartedly agree. You may find that those reasons may apply with equal force to deacons as well. For the Greek term presbuterios has a primary reference to older people whether male or female but we both know that the post of oversight which the word elder was also used to describe is limited to men who were normally older because of the experience required to meet all of the qualifications described by Paul to Timothy and Titus in 1 Timothy 3:1-8; and Titus 1:5-11. But if one simply referred to the primary meaning and usage of the term presbuterios and nothing else they may be easily mislead into thinking anyone older whether male or female could be an elder in the church.

This is exactly what I believe you are doing with the term Diakonos which simply means servant as you state with these words:

However, I believe that deacons (also known as "deaconesses" when female) MAY be women, and I believe that Scripture supports this idea. Since one or two have questioned this, I'll address that issue another time, but must get on to other things for now.

Now just here I admit that you have not given your arguments and I do not want to answer them before they are given for I have no idea of exactly what your arguments might be. They may be good ones and I do wait to hear them. But I do want to point out that the general meaning of the word diakonos which has been translated deacon (and deaconesses in reference to women) can be applied in its general sense to every one in the church. Are we not all servants of Christ? It could even be applied to the elders because not only are they servants of Christ but they also serve the church in their watching for our souls. But we all know that elders are not deacons in the sense of the restricted use of the word by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:12 which says, let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their own houses well. For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Now this verse is clearly talking of deacons or servants in a more restricted and exclusive sense than the general meaning of simply a servant. It seems quite clearly that this verse is referring to a special class of servants that must have specific qualifications to serve that women cannot possess for I do not know of any woman that could ever be the husband of one wife" and no faithful Christian woman can rule her own house well for that is the duty of the man according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3 where he plainly states that the man is the head of the woman and in Ephesians 5: 22-24 where we are told,  Wives be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, AS CHRIST ALSO IS THE HEAD OF THE church, being himself the savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, SO LET THE WIVES BE SUBJECT TO THEIR HUSBANDS IN EVERYTHING. Therefore I do not believe that a woman can be a deacon in any sense other then the general sense in which we all, Elders, deacons, preachers teachers, and every other member of the church is a servant of Christ. But in this clearly restricted use of the word deacon in 1 Timothy 3 she cannot serve as a deacon for she can never qualify as being the "husband of one wife" and "RULING her own house well". For she is not to be the RULER of her house but rather she must be in subjection to her husband in everything. This subjection would also apply to the case of Priscilla assisting her husband in the teaching of Apollos.

I hope that you accept all that I have said, though lengthy, in the spirit of love, and respect for you and in a greater love and respect for the truth of God, which will save our poor souls in which I offer it.

I am tired, my friend, because I am writing late after spending much of the day with my mother in law whom we just brought over from China this week. I have been very busy as I am sure you can imagine with this important family matter. We have spent the day doing Tai Chi Chuan and Mao Bi and shopping to get all of the things that she needs to live comfortably with us. Please forgive the delay in my response but I have many things to do these days. But the truth is extremely important to me and I will respond as often as I possibly can. But if you notice any spelling and grammatical errors please just mark them up to a touch of ignorance and a measure of weariness! Ha! I certainly hope that my reason has not been severely affected! Ha!

So, for now, I say to you,  ZAI JIAN WODE PENGYOU!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Brother Dave:

I say amen and amen to your words!

Brother Kelly:

I also want to say Amen and Ament to you as well.

I have more that I would like to say to the both of you but I will save it until next time because I must go to bed and get some rest!

May our blessed Lord bountifully bless you all and keep you by his grace until his triumphant return!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Fellas,

I don't mean to be rude with this question, but can anyone tell me why the order of names is relevant to the question? The order of names is purely assumption as to their significance. Why would we even discuss this in light of what the Scripture specifically says about the subject at hand.

Sorry, but I just don't get it.... :)

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Dave,

I don't think it is as significant as it seems to have become. I probably should not have said as much as I did previously -- and would not have if I had known how many pages of rhetoric Lee Saffold would use to convey the simple fact that he (apparently) believes that the reading of the KJV, putting Aquila's name first in Acts 18:26, is more likely to be the original than the other reading, putting Priscilla's name first. (He prefers this, even though the latter reading is preferred by the team that examined all the available evidence to put together the UBS Greek text, and by all the many translation teams, comprising thousands of scholars altogether, who made all these other translations.)

You ask, "Why would we even discuss this in light of what the Scripture specifically says about the subject at hand?" The trouble is that we seem to be coming up with different interpretations of "what the Scripture specifically says about the subject." You seem to have concluded that it is unscriptural to have deaconesses; I find very clear scriptural evidence for FEMALE DEACONS (the word "deaconess" not even having been invented until later). You seem to have concluded that it is unscriptural for women to EVER teach men or to EVER teach in the "general assembly." (I can't remember whether or not you personally used the term, "general assembly". I may have myself. But it's really not a scriptural term and using it may promote too stark a division between different areas of the "body life" of the church.) All this being the case, it is surely relevant to examine ALL the evidence about how "prominent" various women were in the early church and what specifically they did.

What about Priscilla and Aquila? First, what about their names? It appears that neither of them is mentioned alone; they are always only mentioned together. Their names are given in 7 SENTENCES in the N.T. In at least 4 of these (even by Lee Saffold's count), Priscilla's name is given first. What does this suggest? One book I read recently suggested that Priscilla must have been at least as well known in the Christian community that Luke and Paul were writing to as Aquila was. They may have been one of those couples that you never think of individually, but always only as a couple, or they may been equally well known for their individual good works, or she may even have been better known for hers than he was for his (given that her name is first more than half the time and at that time women had to be pretty outstanding in what they did to even get mentioned).

Now Dorcas too was well known for her good works. Could it be that Priscilla was well known for that kind of work -- making clothes and helping widows and orphans?

Perhaps, but if so those works are never mentioned. What things are mentioned? They were tentmakers (Acts 18:1-3), but I doubt if that's very relevant to this discussion. THEY later had a church that met in their home (Rom. 16:3-5; I Cor. 16:19). THEY were considered by Paul to be his "co-workers" (Gk. SUNERGOUS) and THEY risked their own lives for his sake (Rom. 16:3-5). (Note, the Romans 16 passage is one where Lee Saffold originally conceded that Priscilla WAS named first, but he seems to be denying that in his later posting after I pointed out that the passage contained more than just "greetings" and a reference to them as "helpers", but was much stronger than this.) THEY took Apollos aside and THEY explained the matter of baptism to him more accurately (Acts 18:26). (Although I'm willing to concede that there is SOME doubt which name was first in the original of Acts 18:26, I believe that the preponderance of evidence supports Priscilla's name having been first. The UBS text DOES consider ALL the evidence available, including ancient translations, plus lectionaries, plus citations by the "church fathers", etc., etc. However, EVEN IF Aquila's name was originally first, the verb, "explained", is in third person PLURAL, i.e. THEY explained it to him.)

From all this, I would assume that whatever good works Priscilla was will known for, it would have to be for her participation in the work for which he commends THEM (and Luke commends them) as a couple. I would say that even if his name were first in every case, but I think the fact that her name is given first in more than half of the places where they are named, including one (and probably both) of the most significant ones, is "highly suggestive", to say the least.

What does it all prove? In some ways, not a lot. But it does serve to show that women did do things in the New Testament church that went beyond making clothes for widows and orphans and "turning pages" for their husbands. If Priscilla participated, even alongside her husband, in "explaining" doctrine "more accurately" to a preacher (!!), then I think we have to concede that commandments to Christian women not to teach, or even not to teach men, were not absolute*. If they were not absolute, then the question becomes not "IS it permitted?" (it IS), but "WHEN is it permitted and when is it prohibited?"

*NOTE: Remember the basic hermeneutical principles (not "principals", BTW) that we must interpret all passages of scripture in the light of all other (relevant) scriptures, and that we must always consider the context. We rightly object when "Faith Only" advocates take verses about being saved by faith out of context to say that faith alone is all that is required. When faced with the verses that place restrictions on what women can do, we need to see what other N.T. passages have to say about it, and what the context shows about what the writer was specifically applying it to at the time.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Benjamin,

I am thankful that you said, "I don't think it is as significant as it seems to have become." We often get carried away with such things.

I think that you will agree that the order of names is, for the most part if not all, conjecture. How can conjecture be relevant until we understand more fully the more direct passages of Scripture? As you have said, "...we seem to be coming up with different interpretations of "what the Scripture specifically says about the subject." These specifics I have mentioned in my previous postings. Those specifics have gone by without discussion until your second to last paragraph.

Your paragraph: "What does it all prove? In some ways, not a lot. But it does serve to show that women did do things in the New Testament church that went beyond making clothes for widows and orphans and "turning pages" for their husbands. If Priscilla participated, even alongside her husband, in "explaining" doctrine "more accurately" to a preacher (!!), then I think we have to concede that commandments to Christian women not to teach, or even not to teach men, were not absolute*. If they were not absolute, then the question becomes not "IS it permitted?" (it IS), but "WHEN is it permitted and when is it prohibited?"

I can understand how you have reached this conclusion. And to some degree, I may concede that there MAY be times that it is more opportune that a woman (with the right attitude and at the right time) can be helpful in leading anyone, male or female, to a more right understanding of the Word of God. BTW, I can understand this more from the standpoint of expediency than from Scriptural Example. This would then and should be seen as an exception. However, I am unwilling to make this exception become the rule. That is exactly what happens when we take the Biblical responsibility of Deacon and hand it over to something that does not have Biblical support ie. Deaconess. You have said, "I find very clear scriptural evidence for FEMALE DEACONS." Then within the same sentence you say, "(the word "deaconess" not even having been invented until later)." I may be a bit picky, but that in itself is a contradiction in my mind.

Let me copy and paste what I posted earlier.

"I still cannot find Biblical justification for "Deaconesses." The over-riding reasoning for me is that Paul specifically sites how to determine who the Named Servants ie. Deacons, are, and he only sites men. There are no examples or specific qualities or even reasons why there would be something like a Deaconess. (And if women were more genetically created to fulfill that role, then did God goof in the way He set up the church?)

Given the details offered in Scripture for Deacons, and the total lack of information about there even being Deaconesses, I would conclude that the New Testament Church of the 1st century did not have Deaconesses."

Now, as you have conjectured, the order of names signifies evidence for both deaconesses and for women teaching men. Your own words realize that this is but conjecture. Yet, in face of the aforementioned statements concerning what God has directly said who the deacons are, there is only (seemingly) opinion offered as arguements for women. I don't mean to be arrogant here, I really want to see what real direct Scriptural evidence there is for Deaconessess (if there truely is some). Not to be redundant, but you said, "I find very clear scriptural evidence for FEMALE DEACONS..."

I want to see it. So far, we both have agreed that what has been presented is conjecture. At least that is the inference that I have drawn from what you have said. (I may be wrong there, but you said the following things, and I hope they are not out of context.) "I don't think it is as significant as it seems to have become." (From the first paragraph) "What does this suggest?" (third paragraph) "One book I read recently suggested..." (third paragraph) "They may have been...or they may been" (same sentence, third paragraph) You drew the conclusion in the 6th paragraph that Pricilla's name being first was, ""highly suggestive",".

Pertaining to hermaneutics: I would agree with you that we must look at all pertaining Scripture of a given subject in order to understand better the Word of God. However, I will repeat that we must look to the more clear passages first (these I have presented). Then we look to those that are not as clear. Now, you have said that you are in disagreement with the passages that I have presented as to their clarity. I hope that you will show how they are not clear.

I have shown that process in my previous posts, and I await the responses. So far, most of the discussion has been spent upon conjecture. I think both of us have already said that. So, we are back to my question.

Here, I will cut and paste it in.

"I don't mean to be rude with this question, but can anyone tell me why the order of names is relevant to the question? The order of names is purely assumption as to their significance. Why would we even discuss this in light of what the Scripture specifically says about the subject at hand."

I am only stating it again so that we can stay on task. Let us try again.

I have previously stated specific scriptures that are more clear.

Are they clear? Why or why not?

I have previously stated that the significance of Pricilla's name is conjecture. Is it, or is it not?

If it is conjecture, then what relevance does it have to this discussion at this point.

Hey guys and gals, I am still learning too. That is why I appreciate your corrections Benjamin. You know, I have always had trouble in spelling, especially with principal and principle. I always thought that the principal stood for the principle. :) Also, I concur that the term I used, "general assembly" is not specifically used in Scripture. I will refrain from using it in the future. I agree whole heartedly that we should use Scriptural words when discussing the Scripture. I appreciate the wise counsel or is it council... :)

I better stop now, I am starting to have way too much fun. Thanks for your considering these words.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Principal: First, highest or foremost in importance. (Said of a person ~ as well as of inanimate objects).

Principle: A basic truth, law or assumption. A tenet of moral or ethical standards.

Counsel: (What you meant). An exchanging of opinions, and ideas; a consultation; discussion.

Council: An assembly of persons called together for consultation, diliberation, or discussion.

The ones I get mixed up are: Capitol and Capital.

Capitol: Only the building.

Capital: A town or city that is the official seat of government in a state, nation, or or other political entity; First and foremost; Any form of material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth. (Money); Involving death (capital punishment).

Respectfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Dave said,

"I better stop now, I am starting to have way too much fun. Thanks for your considering these words."

-- Dave (thefunson@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

I'm glad you are having fun, but right now I am too swamped with genuine work to be playing games. If anyone is SERIOUSLY interested in looking at the New Testament and early church evidence for female deacons, I'll be happy to give a summary. (There is too much for me to copy here in full.) But if you are only asking for the sake of "stirring up a good argument" (among brethren!) and "having fun", I think I have better things to do with my time.

I will recommend a couple of books though.

The most relevant is called "Deacons: Male AND Female? A Study for Churches of Christ" by J. Stephen Sandifer, 1989. It is apparently self-published. It was printed by Brentwood Christian Press, Columbus, GA. I bought my copy a few years ago in the Harding University Bookstore. (Stephen Sandifer, BTW, holds BA and MA degrees from Abilene Christian University, and at the time he wrote the book was on the staff of the Southwest Central Church of Christ in Houston, TX.) The book started as a paper to present to the elders of the church regarding the responsibilities of deacons and also what women could and couldn't do (perhaps something like the study you said you are making yourself, Dave!). He examines all the N.T. and early church evidence and then continues on to tell how different church ages have interpreted the evidence and what they have done about female deacons. Particularly interesting for this forum might be the section about views and practices in the earlier days of the Restoration Movement.

The other book is "Restoration Ideas on Church Organization" by J. Ridley Stroop. It is a compilation of views on many aspects of church organisation -- including deaconesses (and the "rule" of elders and a lot of other related matters). They are mostly taken from articles published in the Gospel Advocate between 1855 and 1914, with a few also from other sources. If nothing else, it shows that even the strictest wing of the Restoration Movement has not always seen these issues in the same way. This book also was self-published. Once again I got my copy from the Harding U. Bookstore.

Getting back to where I started, if anyone is SERIOUSLY interested in knowing what I see as the clear evidence that female deacons are Biblical, let me know and I'll be happy to summarise the main strands of evidence -- but AFTER Sunday. Right now I have too much to do to get ready for my Sunday responsibilities.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2000

Benjamin,

I would gladly read your input about the possibility of female deacons in the church.... I have been following the thread with interest and would like to see it continue on....

I think, perhaps, you read too much into Dave's 'too much fun' comment.... I don't believe he at all intended it to mean that he was making light of the subject or picking an argument.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2000

Benjamin,

I am interested in the subject, SERIOUSLY. And Robin is right. Don't read into my 'fun' comments as though I am being irreverant. What I find the most fun in life with, is the study of God's Word. Sometimes these threads get so heavy into the personal stuff, that I am just trying to remain light and open. I want to deal with the real Biblical perspective of any subject. That is why I keep getting this thread back on track.

Lets get to it. If you want to do this via email, you are welcome to email me at thefunson@aol.com . I too am finding myself busy as are you. But, as I decided to get involved in this particular thread, I did so realizing that it would take time. I don't get too involved in various threads because I cannot devote the proper time that they require. Maybe that should be a rule..... ha.

And, lets both have fun with it, and with each other. After all, I believe that Christians can more fun than anyone. And fun you don't have to feel guilty about in the morning.

Thanks for the reply

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have not answered my response to you but I notice that you have referred to me in your response to Brother Dave as follows:

I don't think it is as significant as it seems to have become. I probably should not have said as much as I did previously -- and would not have if I had known how many pages of rhetoric Lee Saffold would use to convey the simple fact that he (apparently) believes that the reading of the KJV, putting Aquila's name first in Acts 18:26, is more likely to be the original than the other reading, putting Priscilla's name first. (He prefers this, even though the latter reading is preferred by the team that examined all the available evidence to put together the UBS Greek text, and by all the many translation teams, comprising thousands of scholars altogether, who made all these other translations.)

I said very plainly from the beginning of my initial response to John on this matter that whether Aquilas name is mentioned first or not does not prove anything and it remains to be a fact that it most certainly has not proven anything. You did make it appear that you thought that this matter was significant and all you have done in response to my words is complain that it was too long and that it was nothing more than mere rhetoric. You do not notice the reasons that I gave for my response and do not offer any evidence to prove that all of my words were just rhetoric. It is easier to make that statement than to actually involve yourself in a discussion of the text now isnt it?

You then say that you would not have made such arguments if you had known how I would respond. Now you cannot ever know exactly how anyone is going to respond to your words, Brother Ben. You cannot use me as an excuse for your attempts to make this insignificant matter concerning which name is mentioned first in Acts 18:26 appear to have at least some significance for your false contention that women can preach publicly. This passage, if it is significant to this discussion at all, would only prove that a woman can assist a man in teaching the gospel to others privately, for that is all we find in this passage. Nothing else can be made of it. There are other very significant passages that I mentioned in my response to you and those arguments from those passages were not mere rhetoric and you have thus far completely ignored them. I can assure everyone that you did not ignore those because they are nothing but rhetoric. I will mention them again. LET THE WOMEN KEEP SILENCE in the churches: for it is not PERMITTED unto them to speak but let them be in subjection as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Cor. 14:34,35. And as Paul said to Timothy, But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over the man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed then Eve; And Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 1 Timothy 2:12,13. Now the plain and easy to understand language of these two passages that are also found in the UBS text cannot be overcome by the insignificant mentioning of Priscillas name first in either text. Whatever is the case with Priscilla it most likely would harmonize with what Paul taught in these verses. Priscillas case is not discussing a situation wherein women are teaching anyone publicly but rather a private situation wherein she was assisting her husband in his work. I have also pointed to passages concerning the relationship of husband and wife which makes it clear that the woman cannot take the leading role in the family and its implications concerning Priscilla and Aquila as follows: 1 Corinthians 11:3 where he plainly states that the man is the head of the woman and in Ephesians 5: 22-24 where we are told,  Wives be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, AS CHRIST ALSO IS THE HEAD OF THE church, being himself the savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, SO LET THE WIVES BE SUBJECT TO THEIR HUSBANDS IN EVERYTHING.

You also said:

(Note, the Romans 16 passage is one where Lee Saffold originally conceded that Priscilla WAS named first, but he seems to be denying that in his later posting after I pointed out that the passage contained more than just "greetings" and a reference to them as "helpers", but was much stronger than this.)

I agree with you that Priscillas name is mentioned first in this verse even in the text that I quoted. I had intended to say that this does not have any significance and that you have not proven that her name is mentioned first in every text. I was tired when writing and made this mistake but I want clarify that her name in Romans 16 is mentioned first in both the text that I quoted and the UBS text. You did not notice however that I agreed with your argument but did not agree with your conclusion from that argument in this verse as follows:

I do agree with you that it is insignificant in either case. But here you say that while this is insignificant by itself when combined with the fact that they helped Paul in the same kind of work it proves that she did something more significant than turning the pages. I think this is correct but it does not indicate that she violated the principles stated by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:34 which said  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. (1Cor. 14:34). Now the fact is that she is working with and helping in the same work with the same apostle Paul that said by inspiration that women are to be silent in the church does not mean she did this same work in exactly the same way that he did it. She helped him to do it in ways that are not described and therefore we cannot conclude just how she helped but we can safely conclude that she did not help him in any way that would violate the commands given by the apostle concerning the fact that women we not PERMITTED TO SPEAK in the church. Now how this was done we do not know but we know that she could not have helped Paul teach women to keep silence in the church if she was standing up in the assembly and preaching as some would have us to believe she did while helping Paul do the same work. So we know that she would have been silent in compliance with the teaching of the great apostle that she was, in some way completely unknown to us, helping him in doing that same work that he was doing. We cannot conclude from this that she was the most powerful speaker and the foremost of the team neither can we conclude that she spoke publicly as a preacher would do in any case.

Then you claim that my words were written for no other purpose than to to convey the simple fact that he (apparently) believes that the reading of the KJV, putting Aquila's name first in Acts 18:26, is more likely to be the original than the other reading, putting Priscilla's name first.

Now anyone reading my response to you can see that I wrote to convey much more than my belief that the reading of the text which I had quoted was more close to the original than the versions that you quote which were from a different text. Now your effort to imply that the text, which I quoted, is used only by the KJV appears to be an effort to prejudice the case because you are aware that many in this forum just think that anyone who quotes the KJV believes that it is the only version that is correct. As an example, the American Standard Version uses the exact same text as the King James Version and gives the same reading as the KJV in this place and it is the version that I use mostly in my reading at home when I read an English version. So please do not attempt to make this appear that I am one who is merely holding on to a specific English version of the scriptures when I was discussing the matter of an accurate GREEK TEXT. I have no aversion whatsoever to other versions besides the KJV so long as they are based upon a text that is as accurate as possible. Now you knew, as did everyone else that can read, that I referred constantly to the TEXT and not to a specific version based upon that text in my response to you. While it is true that I quoted the KJV when I responded to John because I quoted from memory and the KJV is the text that I memorized a long time ago, it is not true that I wrote merely to support that one specific English version. I particularly like the Living Oracles version of the New Testament. However, in my response to you, I was discussing the text upon which that and other versions are based as opposed to the text that the versions that you quoted are based. Therefore your attempt to depict me as one that is merely defending the KJV despite all facts to the contrary is either a misunderstanding on your part or a deliberate misrepresentation. I would think that since it comes from you it is most likely a misunderstanding but I cannot rule out deliberate misrepresentation because you have not even attempted to respond directly to me but have responded indirectly through others. When one does this he is either avoiding the other completely or he is trying deliberately to confuse a difficult issue. Now the issue of a correct text is difficult but one cannot settle it by simply referring to thousands of Scholars that support his point of view as you have done with this comment of yours in parenthesis:

. (He prefers this, even though the latter reading is preferred by the team that examined all the available evidence to put together the UBS Greek text, and by all the many translation teams, comprising thousands of scholars altogether, who made all these other translations.)

Now if the number of scholars is the only reason that you can give for accepting the text upon which the versions that you quoted is based then you are in a pitiful situation indeed. For I can count thousands of equally scholarly men and some eminently more scholarly that do not accept UBS Greek text. But that is not the way we decide truth now is it? We do not determine the truth by counting the heads of eminent and scholarly men. We determine the truth by listening discriminately to the arguments made on both sides of an issue by such scholarly men and apply our own reason and good judgment to the credible information that we derive from them and draw the best conclusion possible based upon the information that we gather. We will not be able to look at God in the judgment and make the excuse that our scholarly men deceived us! God gave us minds and the ability to reason and we are not compelled to believe something just because thousands of men believe it while only hundreds disbelieve it. Now I do not disregard the words of any of the scholars that you number among the thousands but from what I have read of the few such scholars that I have been able to sample they do not make a convincing case for the UBS text. Now you might have evidence and arguments that would convince me but this rhetorical appeal to thousands of scholars is not very convincing to one who is willing to examine the evidence rather than the numbers of scholars on one side or the other. So your attempt to leave the impression that it is poor ole E. Lee Saffold standing out there in the dark all alone with his blinders on pretending that no other text exist but the one on which the KJV is based is unbecoming of one who pretends to be fair honorable and somewhat scholarly. I have challenged the UBS text and if you really wish to discuss these textual matters we may do so as I suggested in my response to you but you must first accept the possibility that one who questions the results obtained by a group of scholars, no matter how many they number, has the right to do so and is not wrong simply because he challenges their results. I can assure you that anyone who enters this discussion with me will find that my reasons are far from mere love for the KJV. I have no special love for any version of the scriptures but I do love God and His word is my life and my soul depends upon its teaching and guidance and I will accept any accurate text that is in fact the very word of God. But I will reject any text that is an impostor pretending to be the word of God. Just as their were men in new testament times who claimed to be apostles and they were not so today there are those who claim to have produced an accurate text of the word of God and they have not. Now I know that you would like to make me appear to be just a poor ignorant soul too blinded by some great love for the KJV that I just will not accept a different text regardless. Your attempt to depict me as one who does not want to be confused by the facts is unjust. I have offered general reasons for my rejection of this text that you have ignored and failed to even attempt to respond. Is this the reason that you have sought to depict me as too ignorant to deserve a decent response? It is easier to do that than to prove what you say is true. You have told us thus far that the UBS text is the best and the only reason you can give is thousands of scholars think the same way you do. Now that is just as blind as the poor ignorant soul who contends that the KJV is good enough because it has been the source of truth for thousands of souls for more than 400 years. Neither of the two statements proves anything except that the persons making them are accepting conclusions derived by others without examining the facts upon which those conclusions are based. Now that, brother Ben, does not put you in a scholarly position does it?

Now I happen to know that it would take a great deal of time and effort to engage in an examination of these matters. I do not object if you do not have the time or inclination to pursue it just now with me. But I do strongly object to the implication that you have made that I am just denying the facts when neither of us has discussed them in relation to an accurate text. Now state the arguments and supportive evidence to support your UBS text or forget the matter. But do not imply that those of us who reject your UBS text have no good reasons for doing so when you have not yet heard the reasons presented and have not stated your opposing reasons. For that is simply not the truth.

Your opinion of me personally is meaningless but I was impressed by your response to my words directed toward Brother John and felt that you may be able to help us come to a better understanding of this matter concerning the text but it appears that you really do as so many other preachers. You point to thousands of scholars and tell us to just believe it rather than going through the details and convincing us from the evidence that we should accept only versions of the scripture that is based upon the UBS text by proving beyond reasonable doubt to us ordinary and ignorant souls that this text is superior to all others. I am truly disappointed because I thought that even if you decided that I am egregiously ignorant that you were kind and pious enough to be willing to step down from your scholarly high horse and lend a hand to those of us poor ignorant souls that just do not know any better than to demand evidence that something is true before accepting it as the truth. Instead you have done nothing more than point at all of the thousands of people riding on their exclusive scholarly high horses who also will not reach down to give a ride to a weary footman. What if you are wrong about the text? You think you are right but those of us ordinary people must decide what is right and are we to just accept what you say without examining the facts for ourselves? Is the Bible once again chained to the pulpit by the educated elite among us because we are now ridiculed for daring to question the results of thousands of Scholars? Must our souls depend upon the scholarly results obtained by those who have given us the USB text? Are we foolish to bring their results under scrutiny and question them? Are only the preachers among us who are trained in textual criticism going to be allowed to understand these matters and the rest of us in the pews are forever bound to depend upon what they decide is the most accurate text for us? Is there no possible way for us to make some decisions about these things ourselves? Brother Ben, I am not impressed with your reference to thousands of Scholars.

I would be more impressed with evidence offered by those scholars supporting their contention that the USB text is better.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2000

Brother Lee Saffold,

1) My apologies in advance if I fail to respond to some particular point or particular question in your lengthy (VERY lengthy) response to a brief off-hand comment I made about your previous posting. I have only skimmed what you said. That's all I have time for or will have time for. I've hesitated to say anything about the length of your messages because I know I tend to be wordy and long-winded myself. But I do not have time to read the whole thing, digest every nuance of what you have said, or give a full response to it. I would suggest, in fact, that you would have a better chance of having your messages understood, appreciated, and responded to seriously if you would condense most of them to about 1/5 or less of their usual length.

2) If you don't think it matters whether Priscilla's name came first or Aquila's, then why spend so much time in both of your postings defending the text that puts Aquila's name first against the one that puts Priscilla's name first? -- though with no more hard evidence offered so far by you than I gave from my side! Why criticise me for referring to "thousands of scholars" when you haven't done any better? The reason I did not offer more evidence to support the UBS text is that I don't think it's sufficiently important in the context of this discussion and didn't want to waste time over it. If you want to discuss which text is more reliable, the Textus Receptus or the UBS text, then start another thread for that purpose. Please don't ask me to waste any more time in this thread on something that is no more than a relatively unimportant side issue. (If you do start such a thread, I will NOT be one participating. Based on what reading and study I have done, and the opinions of scholars I trust who have studied the issues even more deeply, I am satisfied that the UBS text is as reliable as any, think it is likely that the UBS text is actually more reliable, and like the textual apparatus they give for noting and evaluating alternative reading. But I am no great expert in that field, so I will leave any further arguments on that subject to those who consider that they are.)

4) I do not think I was the one who described Priscilla as "the most powerful speaker" or "the foremost of the team", though including those phrases in a reply to me, and especially putting the phrases in quotation marks as you did, makes it seem as though you are attributing those descriptions to me.

I believe all I said was that (a) she had a part in explaining the gospel message more thoroughly to Apollos (the verb being in third person plural says that); and (b) that IF her name was first in the original, she MAY have been the one who took the lead in the discussion. I also quoted (roughly) someone else's comment that the fact that she is always named along with Aquila and that her name is first in more than half of the cases, shows that she was probably well known IN HER OWN RIGHT for some kind of Christian work. I admitted that this may have been nothing more than the kind of work that Dorcas was known for, but said that what little is said about her activities seems to suggest that she did more than this.

5) You also misquoted me in saying that I referred to what you said in your earlier message as "MERE rhetoric", "NOTHING BUT rhetoric", etc. (Emphasis mine.) I said no such thing. I called it "rhetoric". If you don't know what the word means, may I suggest a dictionary?

6) You said, "Now your effort to imply that the text, which I quoted, is used only by the KJV appears to be an effort to prejudice the case because you are aware that many in this forum just think that anyone who quotes the KJV believes that it is the only version that is correct. As an example, the American Standard Version uses the exact same text as the King James Version and gives the same reading as the KJV in this place and it is the version that I use mostly in my reading at home when I read an English version. So please do not attempt to make this appear that I am one who is merely holding on to a specific English version of the scriptures when I was discussing the matter of an accurate GREEK TEXT. I have no aversion whatsoever to other versions besides the KJV so long as they are based upon a text that is as accurate as possible."

The American Standard Version is one of the many I checked before I said what I did earlier. My copy of the ASV gives Priscilla's name first. Have you actually checked yours?

7) You said, further, "your attempt to depict me as one that is merely defending the 'KJV' despite all facts to the contrary is either a misunderstanding on your part or a deliberate misrepresentation. I would think that since it comes from you it is most likely a misunderstanding but I cannot rule out deliberate misrepresentation because you have not even attempted to respond directly to me but have responded indirectly through others."

I do not EVER deliberately misrepresent anyone. What you said was not a private communication just to me. It was part of what was said generally in the forum. Whether I choose to respond at all or not, or how I respond if I do, is my prerogative. I didn't think the amount of verbiage you spent on a peripheral issue was worth the time of a separate response. I would not have responded at all if the short comment I did make had not been relevant to what I said to Dave -- which was that this was a side issue and probably not worth the time being spent on it.

8) I have promised to show evidence that the New Testament church almost certainly had female deacons. I think that's more significant than arguing about which textual variant is more reliable -- the one with Aquila's name first or the one with Priscilla's name first. But I need time to write it up. That being the case, I will probably ignore anything else until I have time to do that.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2000

Psalm 64:1-10 NASB

1: Hear my voice, O God, in my complaint; Preserve my life from dread of the enemy. 2: Hide me from the secret counsel of evildoers, From the tumult of those who do iniquity, 3: Who have sharpened their tongues like a sword. They aimed bitter speech as their arrow, 4: To shoot from concealment at the blameless; Suddenly they shoot at him, and do not fear. 5: They hold fast to themselves an evil purpose; They talk of laying snares secretly; They say,"Who can see them?" 6: They devise injustices, saying, "We are ready with a well-conceived plot"; For the inward thought and the heart of a man are deep. 7: But God will shoot at them with an arrow; Suddenly they will be wounded. 8: So they will make him stumble; Their own tongue is against them; All who see them will shake the head. 9: Then all men will fear, And will declare the work of God, And will consider what He has done. 10: The righteous man will be glad in the Lord, And will take refuge in Him; And all the upright in heart will glory.

Matthew Chapter 5

Galatians Chapter 5

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

Merriam-Webster Collegiate. Dictionary
Main Entry: rhet7o7ric
Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English rethorik, from Middle French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak -- more at WORD
Date: 14th century
1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

Brother Benjamin,

I too am interested to see the evidence you have promised to show that the "New Testament church almost certainly had female deacons." I will eagerly await your response.

I would like to say something concerning your following words:

"Brother Lee Saffold, 1) My apologies in advance if I fail to respond to some particular point or particular question in your lengthy (VERY lengthy) response to a brief off-hand comment I made about your previous posting. I have only skimmed what you said. That's all I have time for or will have time for. I've hesitated to say anything about the length of your messages because I know I tend to be wordy and long-winded myself. But I do not have time to read the whole thing, digest every nuance of what you have said, or give a full response to it. I would suggest, in fact, that you would have a better chance of having your messages understood, appreciated, and responded to seriously if you would condense most of them to about 1/5 or less of their usual length."

I for one can tell you that I personally have no problem understanding or appreciating Lee's posts. Nor do I have a problem responding seriously to them because they are long. Actually, coming from my point of view as a lay-woman they appear to be very concise and precise, VERY clear. The length of his posts suggest to me that he is very serious about God, His Word, and the Truth. The length of his posts also suggest to me that he willing because of his love for that truth, to go to great lengths to discuss, defend, and share it with others.

I am interested as I have said above, in your scriptural proof. We do have women deacons in our local congregation. I am also interested in the proof Lee has to offer. I will check both with the WORD.

As you know, Lee has offered many times to consent to a formal debate on several different issues. So far NONE has consented to debate with him. I wonder why? Maybe this would be a chance to have a formal debate on this subject. That way the rest of us could watch, learn, study, and maybe ask a few questions also concerning this matter.

Anyone up for the challenge?

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

I am SERIOUSLY waiting as well. May I say to you, Benjamin, if you really want to discuss, debate... you choose the term, this subject, count the cost first. Are you willing to give it the time that it deserves? If so, then let us get busy... if not, that is ok, we will see each other another day.

I don't want to argue for arguements sake. Like you, I believe it is a waste of time. You are correct when you said, I have drawn the conclusion that there were no deaconesses in the Bible. You have drawn the opposite conclusion. Therein lies our delemna.

I would also go so far as to say, that as a teacher and evangelist of the Word, it is imperative that I teach and preach what is true according to the Word. If I am preaching or teaching something in error, then I will be judged accordingly. And, if that is true, I don't look forward to the judgment. However, if the opposite is true, and you are preaching and or teaching in error, than you have a day in store for you as well.

Either way, we have two brothers that are not one (as we ought to be.) Therefore, we must seek the truth together. WE MUST SEEK THE TRUTH, AND WE MUST, BOTH, BE IN AGREEMENT WITH GOD. With that as our singular purpose I say, "Lets look at the Bible honestly, throw out the inferences, personal opinions, agendas, traditions and reason together according to what is right and true in the Word of God.

We may wish to start another thread to do this. This one is very lengthy. We can set up the parameters via email between you and I. Once we get those set, we can enter into the discussion. It may take a few weeks or a month to set up the parameters. It may take only one or two emails. Whatever works, then we can agree on how to set up the thread and do it...

Consider the time that you want to put into this discussion. If you don't believe that it is important enough to pursue, then we will not. If you do, as I do, then we will. As much as I can tell by your posts, I consider you my Christian brother, and either way you respond will not change that consideration. Consider well, brother, and I await your response.

Your brother in Christ...

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

Brother Ben:

I appreciate your response to me and I understand what you have said though I do disagree with much of it. However, I must agree with your final words and because of it I will refrain from any further discussion related to the peripheral discussion of which textual variant is more accurate in this place concerning Priscilla and Aquila. Though I do believe that more ordinary people, such as myself, should spend some time reflecting upon the REASONS offered by scholars for their acceptance of the UBS Text and the reasons offered by opposing scholars for rejecting it. It is not an issue that has been settled for all time to come. I criticized your reference to scholars with no reference to their reasoning in the hopes that we could both engage in discussing the opposing arguments that I admitted neither of us had done. I do not complain concerning how you respond to me but only of the lack of evidence concerning the textual variance issue given by either of us up to this point. You however do not like the length of my post for you have said:

I would suggest, in fact, that you would have a better chance of having your messages understood, appreciated, and responded to seriously if you would condense most of them to about 1/5 or less of their usual length.

Now this may be true but I doubt it. However, as you have said, Whether I choose to respond at all or not, or how I respond if I do, is my prerogative. Now I certainly hope that you agree that I have the same prerogatives as you in this forum. So how I respond, and this includes how lengthy I wish to make my response, is surely my prerogative and if you wish to read it or not is your prerogative, dont you agree? Most people respond to me because they know that others do read these lengthy posts that I have written and they just cannot bear to allow my words just sitting there for people to read unchallenged. But they do not want to do the work of engaging in a formal debate with rules that require fair and equal responses. I do not think that you are one of these because I believe that you are working very hard for the Lord and do not have the time that you would like to spend engaging in these discussions. In fact, I did praise your being among the few that has even attempted to respond to my actual arguments and that you did a great job in your response to me concerning my post to John even though I disagreed with you still.

However, if you open up a discussion you should be willing to spend the time to discuss it as fairly as possible. In reference to your assertion that there were women deacons in the church it is my hope that you will show us any women that possesses the qualifications laid down by Paul in his letter to Timothy concerning those who would serve as deacons in the official sense of the office or post of a deacon. For if you are simply saying that because the word deacon simply means servant and women certainly did serve the Lord and the church in the New Testament that you can easily show us women who did significant things in their service and we must therefore conclude that they were deacons in the official sense as described by Paul in1Timothy 3: 8-13, I would certainly disagree. For of course everyone in the church who is a servant of Christ is a deacon including the elders, the apostles and every single person who serves Christ in any way. Why! In that sense of the word, even those who do

Contract work for the church, who are not even Christians could be called deacons for they are serving. So we would not be far away from someone claiming that one does not even have to be Christian to be appointed as a deacon to take care of some work. In fact, some of the janitors that are hired to clean the church buildings of some congregations are not Christians but they are servants in the sense of the primary meaning of the word diakonos yet we all know that they are not deacons in the church in an official sense. The elders are servants in the Primary meaning of the word diakonos. Are we to conclude that they are therefore deacons in an official capacity as well as elders? I do hope that you clearly define what you intend to prove so that we can avoid this confusion from the beginning.

Paul told Timothy, And let these also first be proved; THEN let them use the OFFICE OF A DEACON, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacon also be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1Timothy 3:10-12. Now here the word diakonos is being used in an official sense different from its primary meaning of simply a servant and the deacon must be the husband of one wife in order to be allowed to serve in the office of a deacon. Therefore I am eager to see you find a woman in the new testament that was the husband of one wife and was therefore qualified to serve in this office of a deacon that Paul told Timothy by inspiration that they must be in order to be deacons in the church. But if it is your intent to show us that women were deacons because they too were servants in the church your effort will be meaningless because it is not this general use of the term deacon that we are talking about. For in this sense all of us are deacons by virtue of the fact that we are servants of the Lord and one another. But we are not all qualified to serve in the specific office of a deacon as found in Timothy.

However, I await your post concerning that issue to see what you have to say. I only want to say just here that this is the reason that I believe that a formal discussion can sometimes be very helpful in such a discussion. For, in a formal debate we are required to formally state our propositions and CLEARLY define them so that we are sure form the very outset that we do in fact disagree with each other and exactly wherein the real disagreement between us lies. However, most have falsely concluded, when I urge that we have a debate or a formal discussion that I am doing so simply because I enjoy a good argument. Nothing could be further from the truth. I enjoy seeing us come to resolutions of our differences by ensuring from the beginning that we understand each other and deal fairly with all genuine arguments that are made. This is often not possible in the lose discussions that we have in this forum. We tend to start out with some shocking statement intended to arouse emotions and gain interest in the subject and then, before we actually understand each other, we proceed to half-heartedly discuss serious issues with mere sixty second sound bites which only further cause us to misunderstand one another and we frustrate matters even further by ignoring the arguments that require more words than a sixty secound sound bite can contain to answer them.

Now I am not accusing you of such. I am merely stating that this discussion concerning deacons and the one concerning women preachers deserves to be handled in a formal discussion as our good brother Dave has suggested. I sincerely hope that you will take his suggestion seriously. I know that you may not prefer to engage in such a discussion with me, though I am willing to do so if you wish, but I believe that brother Dave has asked you to engage in such a discussion and I am sure that you cannot find the same faults in him that you see in me. However, I do offer to engage you or anyone else wishing to do so to discuss this matter in a formal debate so that every word can be established and every argument can be tested by the word of God. You see in a formal discussion not only would we agree upon the propositions to be discussed and their definition and rules that all would abide by, but we would also agree upon the standard of authority that we will accept as the final arbiter to which we will appeal to in proving our propositions. Which would mean that you and I would have to agree upon the TEXT that we would accept as the word of God to which we both will appeal as the standard of proof. So then we would not be allowed to shift from one text to another as it suits us to make our case. So there is much value in a debate that prevents confusion and ensures fairness and demands responses so that no argument can just be deliberately ignored.

Now I know this is hard work and not everyone can find time for it. But it seems to me that we all have found the time to loosely discuss matters to the point of confusing others we should at least on some occasions be able to honorably debate matters in a way the prevents confusion. In fact, when you consider that a debate can be scheduled for a date in the future and both parties can agree to the guidelines and give themselves ample time to prepare for the discussion and can, if they so desire, exchange their arguments back and forth between each other before having them posted and refine their arguments and correct them so that we have a more reasoned and useful discussion without the mistakes that are made by our rushing in after a hard days work and staying awake until midnight or latter and responding the best we can to someone else who is equally sincere and tired and making similar mistakes that are taken often out of context and on and on and on. The justification for formal debate in the Internet age is very strong but so many continue to avoid it and I just cannot understand why.

But, as D. Lee has so ably and concisely pointed out, Maybe this would be a chance to have a formal debate on this subject. That way the rest of us could watch, learn, study, and maybe ask a few questions also concerning this matter.

You can see from her words, and she can hardly be accused of being one who just loves to argue for the sake of arguing(and these quotation marks do not refer to you only the fact that these words are not original to me), that she sees the value a formal debate for the edification and teaching of others.

As far as your use of the word rhetoric not only am I completely aware of its meaning via a good English dictionary but I am also aware of its current negative usage which is not given by all dictionaries but has been given by Brother John as skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech; also: insincere or grandiloquent language but the context in which we find you using the word you certainly did not mean to imply that my words were written according to the art of speaking and writing effectively for you were not trying to tell us how artful I was in writing effectively but rather complaining that I wrote too lengthy as you have even repeated in your response by stating that my post are too long for anyone to want to read what I say. Now either you were using the word in an ironic sense or you were attempting to be humorous or you were using it in its current negative usage to refer to words that were empty and insincere. Now you are welcome to tell us just exactly how you meant to use this word but you certainly did not appear to me to have used it in harmony with the primary meaning given in the dictionary. You certainly cannot say that it was impossible for anyone to draw the conclusion that you were being critical and negative in the way in which this word is used by you in context. If you do not understand what I have just said may I also suggest a good dictionary and some alert attention to how this word is used in current political circles to imply a negative view of someones words whether spoken or written? But I cannot see, in the context of your words that precede and follow your use of the word rhetoric, just how you could have meant that you thought my words were in fact presented according to the art of speaking and writing effectively nor do I really see that there was any value to your simply calling my words a discourse. This would be a very unusual use of the word rhetoric in my opinion. For it is rare indeed to see others use this word when they intend to imply simply that someone has written a discourse. So my problem is not that I have not read the dictionary. Rather I have read your words in context and see in them the possibility that you used the word in a negative sense, which the dictionary allows as well as the primary sense. If I have misunderstood you I will apologize for having criticized you in this matter.

Nevertheless, I do agree that we can go on now to discuss the matter of women deacons and I suspect that you will have no more evidence to support that view than you have shown us to support your apparent view that women can preach publicly even though Paul made it clear that they are to be silent in the church and that they are not permitted to speak. 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and that they are not allowed to teach nor usurp authority over the man with the reason being that the woman was first deceived. 1Tim 2:9-11. I doubt very seriously that you will find a woman in the New Testament who qualified to be the husband of one wife and was therefore allowed to serve in the office of a deacon as described by Paul to Timothy by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1Timothy 3:12.

However I do wait to hear you tell us just where you find a woman in the New Testament holding the office of a deacon because she possessed the qualifications listed by Paul to Timothy. But I must concur with Brother Dave that this matter should be discussed in the context of a formal debate with clearly stated and well defined propositions with rules of debate and details of the discussion arranged before you even get into it. I appeal to all of the brethren here to consider seriously the positive possibilities of formal debates concerning some of these matters that we bring up for discussion.

Having said all of the above, Brother Ben, I agree with your following words:

8) I have promised to show evidence that the New Testament church almost certainly had female deacons. I think that's more significant than arguing about which textual variant is more reliable -- the one with Aquila's name first or the one with Priscilla's name first. But I need time to write it up. That being the case, I will probably ignore anything else until I have time to do that.

I understand our need to discuss the more significant matters because we do invest our time in these discussions and ensuring that we discuss the important issues is vital to prevent us from wasting our time. And I might add that formal debating of these matters, as I have suggested often and as brother Dave has suggested concerning this subject, would further prevent us from investing our valuable time in fruitless discussions that seem to end with few positive resolutions. As Brother A. Campbell once said, A weeks debating is worth a years preaching. I think he was right and the rapid spread of the restoration movement in the early days could be attributed in great part to formal debates. I have seen it work with great effect in Alabama even to this very day. Now that I live in Georgia I intend to see it accomplish much here as well.

Anyway that you chose to discuss this matter, I am looking forward to reading your words concerning the subject and do not be afraid to be lengthy. I will have no trouble reading it regardless of its length. Besides, I surely owe it to you for you have read my posts and graciously refrained from complaining of their length until now. You were kind in that regard and I appreciate it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

I finally managed to put together a summary (it's long, but still only a summary) of my conclusions about the matter of female servants (AKA "deaconesses") in the church. But this thread is getting long, that "article" itself is long (perhaps as long as some of Lee Saffold's writing -- just kidding!), and it also has nothing DIRECTLY to do with the question of women teaching or preaching in the church. So I have started a new thread, called "Women helping in the church." Please go there if you are interested.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

According to I Cor. 14:3-5, the purpose of prophecy in N.T. times was to edify the church. This is impossible unless one "speaks forth" the prophecy. Paul continues, in 14:29-33, by discussing how they are to do this -- by taking turns, with the rest carefully weighing what is said, etc. In chapter 11, vss. 5-11, Paul talks about how WHEN women "pray OR PROPHESY", they must do so with their heads covered, because it is shameful for them to do so with uncovered heads. Prayer is something that can be done privately as well as publicly, but prophecy is meaningless if it is not done before others, because the purpose is to edify others. If Paul's commandment in 14:34-35 to women to "remain silent" in the churches, saying they are "not allowed to speak", is as absolute as it appears at face value, then WHY talk in earlier verses about how women should dress WHEN they prophesy?

In I Tim. 2:11-12, Paul says that "a woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." But in Titus 2:2, he says that Titus is to teach the older women to live a certain way, including "to be teachers of the good" ("teachers of the good" being a single word in Greek), so that they can in turn train the younger women in the way they should live. So it is obvious that the "I do not permit a woman to teach" is not absolute.

It is possible that the "man" refers to both verbs, so that the meaning is "I do not permit a woman to teach (a man) or to have authority over a man". But we see Priscilla participating in some way in the corrective teaching of Apollos, and there is nothing to indicate that this was frowned on, so I conclude that this is as much "approved Apostolic precedent" as some of the other things we insist are all right or even required in churches. So it appears that even if we take it to mean "I do not permit women to teach men", it is not absolute. Apparently even women teaching men is allowable in some circumstances.

Since authority and submission are mentioned in both passages, since the reasons he gives for requiring this (order in creation and order in sinning) would seem to apply more to submission versus ruling than to teaching in and of itself, and since teaching is something that may convey ideas of superiority and submission in some circumstances and not in others, my personal opinion is that women may speak, and may teach (even possibly teaching men in some circumstances), as long as it is not done in circumstances that would give an appearance of them having authority over men in the church.

As for making a distinction between preaching and teaching, preaching is a particular form of discourse. There is nothing particularly sacred or holy about a pulpit or about a particular hour on Sunday morning or Sunday night (or Sunday afternoon for my congregation) -- except in the minds of those who witness it. Most of the Bible studies in the congregation I serve are led by women -- but because of our unique situation, as I explained in the very first response in this thread -- it is very rare for any of the classes to have a man in it. We normally do not have a woman have the "sermon time" because of the prestige that is normally given to that time slot and the person using it. If a woman gave the "sermon" very often, she would be seen as having authority. But once a year, on Mother's day, we invite an older woman to speak to the younger women during this time period (when the attendance is larger than in the Bible study time), in keeping with the commandment in Titus that the older women should train the younger women. In a expected attendance of more than 120, I doubt if there will be more than 2 other men there besides myself, and the speaker won't really be addressing us men, but rather the younger women. So I don't see any way that this violates Scripture. Instead we will be taking seriously and obeying the Titus passage that is ignored by most churches.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I assume that from the question the questioner wants a bible answer, not just heresay or opinion! 1 Corinthians 14 uses the word "silent" 3 times 1 Cor 14:26-35 26How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28But if there is no interpreter, let him keep "SILENT"in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep "SILENT". 31For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34Let your women keep "SILENT" in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. NKJV

In each of these usages of the word there is specific reference to addressing the public assemblies of God's people. If there were no interpreter, the tongue-speaker could not address the assembly. If another got a prophecy the 1st was to quit addressing the assembly and in the case of women, they were prohibited from addressing the assembly (period)!!!

Now you can argue with God all you want to, but His word prohibits women from preaching publicly!

Women can be marvelous personal workers, teachers of children, etc. but if we are going to allow the Bible to be our authority, then we MUST abide by God's instructions and prohibitions

In His Service Doug Davidson

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2000

Copied from above:

I assume that from the question the questioner wants a bible answer, not just heresay or opinion! 1 Corinthians 14 uses the word "silent" 3 times 1 Cor 14:26-35 26How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28But if there is no interpreter, let him keep "SILENT"in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep "SILENT". 31For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Again:

28But if there is no interpreter, let him keep "SILENT"in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

Again:

'let HIM keep "SILENT"in church'

This is about exhibiting the 'gifts'. And it's talking about both men and women.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000