Dear Mike,

I apologize for the length of this letter, but I am having a major struggle over the different teachings on women and authority and 1Ti 2:11-15.

I cannot see what this promotes, other than sexism – I have been taught by many women, and fail to appreciate any negative effects, such as might occur when unclear authority threatens the peace of the home.

Many wives are far better leaders than are their husbands. They are better with the finances and better qualified in many ways to be the leader in the home. But does this fact in any way change the command of Eph 5:

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Notice the Godly balance in these verses: ‘Submit yourselves one to another… Husbands love your wives… ‘ and yet we are told “the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” And “Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord.”

This is surely a challenge for any wife who is more capable than her husband. Yet every Godly wife who finds herself in this situation should do all in her power to elevate and encourage her husband to be the leader in the home. She should do all in her power to encourage her husband to speak for the family and serve as the leader and example for the children. And the only reason she should do this is simply because it is the best for the family and because God’s Word has revealed this to be so.

Furthermore, there appear to a number of scriptural ambiguities in this regard. Priscilla was said to teach Apollo in Acts.

A very good ‘rule of thumb,’ for understanding God’s Word is to never, ever interpret clear straightforward verses with ambiguous verses. Always do just the opposite. Interpret the ambiguous with the clear and straight forward. Otherwise you will be pitting God’s Word against itself. And God’s Word never contradicts itself.

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

It is certainly never “broken,” by another verse of scripture.

Act 18:26 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.

In one of the replies in your archive it was pointed out that she did not do this ‘from the position of a bishop over a flock of God’s people.’ However this verse does not appear to make any distinction between teaching a man and teaching a man ‘as a leader’. Simply that ‘I do not permit a women to teach OR to have authority over a man.’

That is why “no prophecy of scripture is of its own interpretation…” That is why we are told “The sum of thy word is truth.”

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private [ Greek – idios – its own] interpretation.
Psa 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. (NASB)

So “I suffer not a woman to teach… must be put together with “Let the aged women teach the younger women.” And that is why:

1Co 14:34 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.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

… must be considered when you read about Priscilla and Aquilla teaching Apollos.

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

If you think of yourself as spiritual, then acknowledge these straight forward statements as the Truth and as “commandment of the Lord.”

You could just as easily pointed out to me that 1Ti 2:12 says “I suffer not a woman to teach.” It does not say “I suffer not a woman to teach other women.” That is pitting God’s Word against God’s Word. Truth is not ‘thy word’ meaning any verse by itself. Truth is “the sum of thy word.” Truth is God’s Word as a whole. And “It cannot be broken.”

I know of at least one essay that examines this verse in detail and highlights the ambiguity of the word for authority, authentein, that is used in the Greek, being different from the words usually used for authority or power, exousia, exousiazo, kyrieuo. Glen Miller draws out many points on this passage alone in an article at the Christian Thinktank.

Believe me, there are many such essays. I have read many of them. They one and all lack any fear of adding to or taking away from the Words of God.

‘Authenteo’ is what my e- Sword tells me is the word here, in 1 Timothy:

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

According to e- sword it means ‘to dominate.’ Paul contrasts ‘authenteo’ with “but to be in silence.” The word translated ‘silence’ should be ‘quiet’ as it is translated in 2 Thessalonians.

2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some [ men and women] which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

You also said in your letter to C___ that her best witness was as a wife, citing 1Pe 3:1-4. But why does this mean that women should be excluded from other types of witness, including teaching, and what of those who are unmarried?

For the same reason that a wife should not be in charge of her husband and an unmarried woman should not be leading men who should themselves be leaders of women.

All of your questions can be satisfied with this Godly admonition. This admonition allows for “women to prophecy with their head covered;” It allows for Phillip’s four daughters to “prophecy,” it allows for women to teach and at the same time it does not force God’s Word to contradict itself:

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Older women are told to be “teachers of good things.” But that statement is qualified by the scriptures themselves: “teach the young women.” They are never told ‘teach the church.’ They are specifically told “I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be quiet… in the church.”

You also quote the scriptures on requirements for overseers and deacons in 1Ti 3, emphasizing that it is directed at men – the husband of but one wife and must manage his children. But in Rom 16, Phoebe is identified as a deaconess! E- sword tells me that the word is indeed diakonos, as it is in the Timothy passages.

The very reason the office of deacon was created was so the apostles could give themselves to the ministry and not have to “serve tables:”

Act 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.[ taking care of the needs of the widows]
Act 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.[ of serving tables]
Act 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

A bishop is a “minister of the word.” A deacon’s role is contrasted with “ministering of the Word” and is more concerned with the physical needs of the church. Deacons are “appointed over this business [ of serving tables].”

Look at what is said of Peter’s mother- in- law:

Mat 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.
Mat 8:15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.

The word ‘ministered’ here in reference to Peter’s mother- in- law, is Strong’s #1247- diakoneo. It is the same word translated deacon elsewhere in the New Testament. It is the very root of the word Glenn Miller insists should be translated ‘deaconess’ in Rom 16, which you reference above.

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Rom 16:2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

“Whatever business?” Why doesn’t Paul just tells the Roman brothers to assist Phebe as she, as a deaconess, preaches the gospel? The reason is that Phebe’s business was not preaching the gospel. And the word ‘deaconess,’ is a very bad translation for this Greek word. Look at how this exact same word is used in Mat 20

Mat 20:24 And when the ten [ male apostles] heard it [ the request of James and John to be seated at Christ right and left hand], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them [ as do the ministers of orthodoxy to this day], and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; [ same Greek word used to describe Phebe in Rom 16:1]

Christ’s apostles were obviously not ‘deaconesses,’ as your Biblical scholar Mr. Miller insists of Phebe. But Phebe and all of the deacons, along with all of the apostles and Peter’s mother- in- law, the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene, Phillip’s four daughters who prophesied, Junias and all other New Testament women were one and all “servants of the church.:”

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

As I have said before in other e- mails; If you do indeed possess a degree from any institutional orthodox Christian seminary, then keep it a secret, because God is not the least bit impressed with degrees conferred by men who despise and twist His unpopular Words; degrees that are conferred by one hypocrite upon another hypocrite who claims to represent Him, while spreading the blasphemous doctrines of all of “historical orthodox Christianity.”

I have no doubt that the same people who twist ‘Junias is of note among the apostles’ into ‘Junias is a notable apostle,’ will tell you that Peter’s mother- in- law got up and preached a sermon to Christ and His apostles. She did no such thing. She got up from her sick bed and fixed a meal or washed their clothes or ‘ministered’ to them in some physical way which Joyce Myers and Paula White, Beth Moore and all of today’s orthodox Christian, female ‘ministers’ would find demeaning. If these so- called ‘women ministers’ would humble themselves to their Biblical roles of displaying the “meek and quiet spirit” which in a woman and in men “is of great price” to God, then and only then, would they have the witness that Priscilla and the woman at the well and Peter’s mother- in- law, and Phebe, and Junias and every other Godly woman in the New Testament displayed. These women, one and all, were overwhelmed that God has seen fit to give to them of His spirit and were more than willing to serve Him in “being teachers of good things… teaching the younger women to love their husbands and to love their children” and being “servants of the church” in whatever capacity was needed, “that the Word of God be not blasphemed.”

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine,teachers of good things; [ and what might that be?]
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Just try to adapt Tit 2:5 to any of today’s female ministers. Is Mr. Joyce Myers the president of Joyce Myers Ministries Inc.?

No, of course not. And this “blasphemes the Word of God.”

Priscilla and Aquila are always named together and the implication appears to be that they are leaders. I don’t know if it is at all significant that Priscilla is named before Aquila at times.

Yes, they are always mentioned together. Three out of five times Aquilla is mentioned first. This includes the first time and the last time. I wonder if that is significant. Priscilla being mentioned first in only two out of five times is significant in that it demonstrates that God puts the husband in a prominent position in the scriptures. This fact is detested by those who are looking to force upon God’s Word a message that is in direct contradiction to its plain, simple, straight forward, albeit unpopular and politically incorrect message:

There is also 1Co 16:15-16 which says “I urge you, brothers, to submit to such as these AND TO EVERYONE who joins in the work, and labours in it.”(sunergos and kopiao)
Priscilla is named as a fellow worker in Rom 16:3, as are Tryphena and Tryphosa in 16:12 as women who “work hard in the Lord”.(kopiao)
Andronicus and Junias are both said to be “outstanding among the apostles” in Rom 16:7. The Glen Miller article quotes the Anchor Bible Dictionary:

It is “the sum of Thy [ God’s] Words” that constitute Truth. The sum of Glenn Miller’s Words constitute a lie that is undermining the very integrity of God’s Word. Should Aquilla submit to Priscilla? Should Andronicus submit to Junias? Should Peter submit to his mother- in- law? No, of course not. The scriptures must be taken as a whole; a Truth that is detested by those who think that “the husband of one wife” is just another way of saying ‘the wife of one husband.’

Rom 3:4 Let God be true, but every man a liar;

JUNIAS (PERSON) [ Gk Iounia]. The only woman who is called an “apostle” in the NT (Rom 16:7).

That is a boldfaced lie anddeliberate twisting of God’s Word!

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [ from] the things which are written in this book.

All who are trying to justify women ministers, bishops, priests and preachers are the targets of these curses, because they force upon God’s Word a message which is in total contradiction of its plain, clear, obvious, straight forward and truthful instructions concerning the roles of women in the church and in the family; which family roles are really “spoken of concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:32).

She was born a Jew, and is closely associated to Andronicus. Her name was the Lat name of the gens Junia. Women were often called by the name of their gens without cognomen (similar examples are Mary [Rom 16:6] and Julia [Rom 16:15]). Two groups carried the name of the gens Junia: the noble members of the famous gens, and the freed (wo) men of the gens with their descendants. The second group outnumbered the first. The chances therefore are that the Christian Junia was a freed slave of the gens. Either way, she probably had Roman citizenship: slave masters with famous gens names like “Junius/ ia” possessed Roman citizenship and in most cases passed it on to their slaves on the occasion of their emancipation; the freed slaves bequeathed the gens name and the citizenship to their freeborn children. Without exception, the Church Fathers in late antiquity identified Andronicus’s partner in Rom 16:7 as a woman, as did minuscule 33 in the 9th century which records iounia with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Rom 16:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine name “Junias.” This latter name did not exist in antiquity; its explanation as a Greek abbreviation of the Latin name “Junianus” is unlikely.” [ Emphasis Glen Miller]
I’m not clear on what minuscules are, so I can’t judge how significant this is in the scriptural record. Also:
Iounivan has usually been taken in the modern period as Iounia` n= Junias, a contraction of Junianus (so rsv, neb, niv, njb). But the simple fact is that the masculine form has been found nowhere else, and the name is more naturally taken as Iounivan = Junia (Lampe 139–40, 147 indicates over 250 examples of “Junia,” none of Junias), as was taken for granted by the patristic commentators, and indeed up to the Middle Ages. The assumption that it must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity… We may firmly conclude, however, that one of the foundation apostles of Christianity was a woman and wife. [ James G. D. Dunn, WBC, in loc.]
Would it be too much to ask you to make a response to this article by Glen Miller, or at least the ‘introduction’ and the analysis of 1Ti 2:11-14 in the section Controversial Pauline Passages?
It asks a lot of your time, but this really is a major issue for me (and many others!), and that article appears to be making a strong case. Naturally I will try and study it out for myself and ask God to reveal his Word, but the simple truth is I have very little experience studying the Bible and find it difficult to devote a lot of time to it as a student – I could see it taking many months, (or more, if I have to figure out things like whether Junias should be recorded as feminine or not) during which time my faith will still be in strife over the matter.

It is feminine. She was not an apostle!

I realize that I possess a rebellious and carnal mind, and pray that God brings me into line with his purpose and truth. I would appreciate any insight you could offer in understanding this controversial area of scripture.

Sincerely,

R___

I will be glad to comment. I cannot help but comment that this man states as a fact the very opposite of everything that is stated as a simple fact in the scriptures. “I suffer not a woman to teach… Let your women keep silence in the church; A bishop must be the husband of one wife… ” etc. etc.

It was not the medieval copyists:

Only later medieval copyists of Rom 16:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle.

It was Jesus Christ Himself who inspired Paul and Peter to write the words of scripture on this subject. It is Jesus Christ and Paul and Peter who “could not imagine a woman being an apostle” any more than they could imagine a woman being a husband. It simply is not her God- given role in the church which is symbolized by the family with its roles and their functions:

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body [ the church], of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

You yourself said:

I know that our hearts are not any authority on what is and is not spiritual, but I have a hard time accepting what seems like such an oppressive command that bans half the race from a certain life despite any talent, aptitude or desire they may have for it. While submission within the context of marriage makes sense to me, to avoid conflict and strife, what is negative about women teaching or having authority in the Church?

You are facing a trial to see how much God’s Word dominates your “deceitful above all things’ heart (Jer 17:9) Here again are Paul’s own words as to what he really meant when he was talking about “submission in the context of marriage:”

If indeed you can see the need for a husband to be in charge of the family, then you scripturally speaking, are confessing to the need for husbands and bishops to be “the husband of one wife.” It really undermines the entirety of God’s Word on this subject to make this verse to mean ‘the wife of one husband.” If ‘husband’ can be made to include ‘wife,’ then ‘one’ can easily be made to include ‘two or more.’

Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: [ It is never vice- versa as the Babylonish harlot would have you believe]
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body [“Which is the church”-Col 1:24], of his flesh, and of his
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

If “submission in the context of marriage” is good for that marriage, then that is especially true in the church. You make this observation:

I cannot see what this promotes, other than sexism. I have been taught by many women, and fail to appreciate any negative effects, such as might occur when unclear authority threatens the peace of the home.

Why is “I suffer not a woman to teach” a “sexist statement,” but “Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto Christ” not a sexist statement? You cannot scripturally say that it is good in a marriage that a wife force herself to submit to her husband, but when she gets into a church setting, then Mr. Myers is now in a position to become vice- president and submit to the president, Mrs. Joyce Myers. To borrow God’s own Words, it “blasphemes the Word of God.” If the fractured denominational “historical orthodox Christian” condition does not testify to the “negative effects’ of ignoring God’s plain straight forward words and using what you admit are ambiguous verses to “transgress the commandment of God by our tradition,” of allowing women to fill roles God has ordained for men to fill, then we will continue to see a church filled with modern day Baraks refusing to stand in the forefront of the battle without a Deborah interceding with God for these spineless men.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

And as a result “a woman will receive your honor.” That is not a positive statement. It is rather a rebuke of Barak for his lack of Godly courage and leadership. Today’s ministers are in the exact same spiritual condition as Barak. They all, in effect, tell today’s women ministers ‘I will not go out to deliver Israel unless you go with me’ And yet here are the “sexist” words of instruction from the Holy Spirit on this matter:

Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

You asked me for my help. I hope I have been just that for you as you struggle to remain faithful to God’s Word at a time when the darkness of the millions of lies coming from the bottomless pit obscure the light of God’s Word.

Rev 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

Almost all of “historical orthodox Christianity” allows this diabolical diversion from God’s straight forward Word on this subject. As God’s elect, we are promised to “be hated of all men for my name’s sake.” “My name’s sake” is just another way of saying “persecution because of the Word.”

Mat 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Mat 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

So what is the Biblical conclusion of how God expects a woman to conduct herself in His church? What are the qualities that God is looking for in His spiritual daughters?:

1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

If you go along with orthodoxy and allow this blasphemy, you will be politically correct, and you will suffer no “tribulation or persecution because of the Word” on this subject. But remain faithful to the Word because you have “Root (Christ ) within you,” and you will be persecuted and “hated of all men for my name’s sake.” Yet you will stand and grow in that Root.

Mike