Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[SivartM]

3.Ornithology. any of various starlings, esp. Sturnus roseus (rosy pastor) of Europe and Asia.

Since when did we start ordaining birds?

[John317]

I found this article from Mike Tucker....it's worth a read...

[color:#6600CC]

Women in Ministry (Second Response to Batchelor Sermon)

Posted March 24th, 2010 by mdtucker....

....These pioneering Adventist women had biblical precedent for their ministry as pastors and evangelists. Priscilla and her husband Aquila served together as pastors of a church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full gospel to Apollos. (Acts 18:2, 18 & 26; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19)

The references don't show that Priscilla was a pastor in the sense of being the minister or elder of a church. They show that the church met at their home and that Priscilla and her husband explained the gospel more fully to Apollos in their home. Priscilla and Aquila were certainly evangelists, but there's no evidence that Priscilla acted as the minister or elder of the local congregation.

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: In Ephesians 4:2-3, Paul called two women, Euodia and Syntche, "true yokefellow" in that they labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel.

Yes, this is true. But this is not the same as saying that these two women were the pastors, or the ministers or elders of the church.

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: In Romans 16:7, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles." Junia is a woman's name. No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

As I've mentioned before on this discussion in response to Mike Tucker's statement here, the earliest commentary on Romans 16: 7 says that Junias was a man. It was dated long before the Middle Ages. Origen also believed Junias to be male. As the SDA Bible Commentary says, there's insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion on whether Junias/Junia was male or female. We simply do not know.

If you need exact names and dates, I'll be happy to supply them.

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: Paul expected women to speak in the church. If he did not, why would he have given the following directive? "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." (1 Corinthians 11:5 NASV)

Why would Paul give instructions for how women should pray or prophesy in church if they were not permitted to do so?

Good points. The answer is that there's nothing wrong with women praying and prophecying in public, providing their behavior shows they are in submission to male leadership. That is Paul's message in 1 Cor. 11: 5. Paul's whole purpose is to preserve male leadership in the churches. He is not saying that women cannot speak at all.

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: And why did Paul commend women who served as pastors if they were not permitted to serve in that position of leadership?

Mike has yet to show valid evidence of a woman in the NT serving as the pastor or elder of the church. None of the verses he's referenced give such evidence.

Quote:

MICK TUCKER: With all this in mind, how are we to understand the passages that tell women to remain silent in church? First of all, we must interpret those verses in light of what we have just established - that there were women in leadership positions of the church. Obviously, Paul is addressing another issue entirely.

Where has Mike established it? He hasn't established any such interpretation; he's apparently merely assumed it, rather.

Quote:

In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul dealt with that church's chaotic worship services. Men were seated on one side of the church while the women and children were seated on the opposite side. The women of that day were generally uneducated, while men were more likely to have benefited from an education. Since women did not sit with their husbands, they would often shout across the room to ask their husbands to explain the sermon.

Where's the biblical or historical evidence that the women in the churches were shouting back and forth across the room to their husbands?

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: Paul was simply telling women to wait until they got home to ask about the sermon. Obviously, this issue does not exist everywhere, so His word to the first-century women of Corinth is to be viewed as a "local absolute" and not a "universal absolute."

James White gave a different interpretation of these verses. He said Paul was talking about business meetings.

What Paul was saying, he was saying to all the churches, and the reasons he gave for his directives show that they are for all time. The reasons given are universal.

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: When Paul wrote to Timothy, he gave a similar directive regarding women. In I Timothy, Paul was addressing heresies and false teachings that came from the worship of the pagan goddess, Diana, including the suggestion that women were authoritative over men and had higher access to spiritual knowledge than men did.

Where's the biblical evidence of this-- that Paul's directive in 1 Tim. 2: 8-15 was due to heresies being taught?

If it's true, why does Paul give as the reason for his directive the fact that Adam was formed first and Adam was not deceived but Eve was?

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: In both of these cases, we can see that Paul is dealing with specific incidents in local churches. Sound hermeneutics will not allow us to turn the counsel Paul shared for a particular place and time into a global "commandment".

If Paul is dealing with a specific incident in local churches, why does Paul say his directive is the same "in all the churches of the saints"? Paul gives no indication that his directive is due to some local incidents. On the contrary, he refers to what the Law says and what the Lord's commandments are. Notice in 1 Cor. 14: 36-38, Paul responds to people who disagreed with him or were not following what he had said to do.

Quote:

Hopefully, this brief treatment will help demonstrate that those of us who support women in ministry have not taken our position on the issue due to pressures from the feminist movement. Our position comes from a careful and prayerful examination of Scripture in context.

Let's hope this hasn't been an example of what he's called "careful and prayerful examination of Scripture in context."

Quote:

Obviously, neither Pastor Batchelor nor I have uttered the final, definitive word on this issue. I pray that as the discussions continue, they will at least be guided by sound hermeneutics.

I haven't seen Mike Tucker's sound hermeneutics so far, at least not in this article. I very much respected and loved his grandfather and father, L.E. Tucker. It was through L.E. Tucker's ministry that I came into the SDA church.

[Woody]

How about what I posted on the other thread...

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

I think the lack of an absolute "Thus saith the Lord" given to EGW or to the writers of Scripture begs the question of why would God make himself clear on this point. Why would God avoid the obvious question that the founders of our Church were vigorously debating from the very beginning? Why didn't he just show EGW the light on this by simply saying yes or no to WO? He certainly seemed to do so on other issues He deemed important. Surely an all knowing God could have seen the frustrating debate we have festering among us over this very issue for all these years!

Here is my spin on that question. It just isn't all that important to God. God is gender neutral. It is not an issue of theology if God has not given us clear and unequivocal evidence in Scripture. It is a matter of history and culture and tradition. Those who wish to advance, change and progress will see it one way. Those that don't will see it the other way.

There was a day when we could refer to this as the "Advent Movement". Movement strongly implies, progress, advancement, change. We are at extreme risk of no longer being a Movement. We are slowly grinding to a halt by those who prefer us to be the Advent Monument. Monuments are made of granite. They do not move, advance, change, or progress. They are memorials of things past that are no longer the reality of our current existence. What they stand for is etched and carved in stone. Change is not possible.

The only thing God etched in stone were ten simple principles to illustrate what loving God and loving one another looked like. All the rest is commentary.

I forget where I read this. Perhaps Philip Yancey but:

A man touched by the Lord ------- A Ministry is formed.

From Ministry --------- A Movement (It begins to spread. It is used to call people to God.)

The Movement grows -------- The machinery starts to get set up to facilitate the movement.

The MONUments come and get bigger.

Then the Mosoleums. ----- And Death.

[Woody]

Quote:

Neil D: Perhaps a clarification of PASTORIAL DUTIES needs to be brought to the for...

So, for the record, in order to be a pastor, a definition of "Pastor" needs to be posted....John, you want to bring out your definition of "pastor"?

Sure, good idea. I did write something earlier on this discussion about the use of "pastor" in her writings, but I'll be happy to write more about it.

Like the word 'minister' in the NT, the word 'pastor' in Ellen White's writings has a broad meaning. She uses it in the sense of "feeding the flock," which anyone can do by opening the word of God to people. One can "feed the flock" without being a gospel minister in the commonly-accepted sense of the term. It can be done in small groups in people's homes or when studying with a single person. Ellen White talks about ministers who were not "pastors." So she distinguishes between being a minister and being a pastor. It's in this sense that Ellen White refers to women as being "pastors."

William Fagal wrote on this very topic in "Ellen White and the Role of Women in the Church," pages 6-9. He says, "But such a work [of doing personal labor, visiting people in their homes] does not necessarily involve appointment to the headship role of a congregation or ordination to the gospel ministry." Ibid., page 7.

I'll add more to this post as I have time.

Let me know if this is helpful.

Did James White perform the duties of a pastor? IOWs did he baptize and perform weddings etc?

[Woody]

One more question.

Do you support the General Conference's decision to have a woman Vice President?

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D:

So, a minister can be a pastor, but a pastor can not be a minister...? is that what I am hearing?

Yes, in Ellen White's writings, a pastor and a minister may be one and the same person. But pastors are not necessarily ministers or elders, and someone doesn't need to be appointed to a leadership role in the church in order to do pastoral work.

Quote:

Neil D: I need a better definition of minister and pastor....

On the definition of "pastor," Ellen White said: "Responsibilities must be laid upon the members of the church. The missionary spirit should be awakened as never before, and workers should be appointed as needed, who will act as pastors of the flock, putting forth personal effort to bring the church up to that condition where spiritual life and activity will be seen in all her borders."

William Fagal's comment on the above quote is, "In each instance here the concept of 'pastor' is associated with personal work for the flock of God, even when it is done by 'members of the church" rather than the minister. One who visits families, teaching them and praying with them, showing personal care and interest, is doing pastoral work."

("Ellen White and the Role of Women In the Church," p. 7.

[Neil D]

I see some very distinct lapses in logic, mainly in how you framed your arguements...

And I am finding some evidence that contradicts your scholarship. For example, you said-

Quote:

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: In Romans 16:7, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles." Junia is a woman's name. No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

As I've mentioned before on this discussion in response to Mike Tucker's statement here, the earliest commentary on Romans 16: 7 says that Junias was a man. It was dated long before the Middle Ages. Origen also believed Junias to be male. As the SDA Bible Commentary says, there's insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion on whether Junias/Junia was male or female. We simply do not know.

and I find from Dianne D. McDonnell

Do early commentators record that Junia was a female apostle?

Dr. Leonard Swidler states, "To the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine."5 So until the late 13th century, historical references all agreed that Junia was female, as did the men below.

Origen, of Alexandria who lived toward the end of the second century (c. 185-253).

See Epistolam ad Romanos Commentariorum 10, 23; 29.

John Chrysostrom, 4th century, (337-497) wrote, "Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).

Jerome (340-419) wrote that Junia was a female. (Liver Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72, 15.) Also Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108), and Peter Abelard (1079-1142)

AND from Daniel B. Wallace-

Is “Junia(s)” Male or Female?

If jIounian should have the circumflex over the ultima ( jIounia'n) then it is a man’s name; if it should have the acute accent over the penult ( jIounivan) then it is a woman’s name. For help, we need to look in several places. First, we should consider the accents on the Greek manuscripts. This will be of limited value since they were not added until the ninth century to the NT manuscripts. Thus, their ability to reflect earlier opinions is questionable at best. Nevertheless, they are usually decent indicators as to the opinion in the ninth century. And what they reveal is that jIounian was largely considered a man’s name (for the bulk of the MSS have the circumflex over the ultima).1

Second, somewhat contradictory evidence is found in the church fathers: an almost universal sense that this was a woman’s name surfaces—at least through the twelfth century. Nevertheless, this must be couched tentatively because although at least seventeen fathers discuss the issue (see Fitzmyer’s commentary on Romans for the data), the majority of these are Latin fathers. The importance of that fact is related to the following point.

Third, another consideration has to do with the frequency of this word as a man’s or a woman’s name. On the one hand, no instances of Junias as a man’s name have surfaced to date in Greek literature, while at least three instances of Junia as a woman’s name have appeared in Greek. Further, Junia was a common enough Latin name and, since this was Paul’s letter to the Romans, one might expect to see a few Latin names on the list. But even the data on this score can be deceptive, for the man’s name Junianas was frequent enough in Latin and Greek writings (and, from my cursory examination of Latin materials, the nickname Iunias also occurred as a masculine name on occasion2). What still needs to be examined is the control group: that is, are the other nicknames found in the NT (such as Silas, Epaphras) all exampled in extra-biblical literature? I don’t know the answer to that; to my knowledge no one has done an exhaustive search of the data for all the names of people in the NT (though Lampe has done something fairly close to this, but I have not yet seen his work on “Roman Christians”). In the least, the data on whether jIounian is feminine or masculine are simply inadequate to make a decisive judgment, though what minimal data we do have suggests a feminine name. Although most modern translations regard the name as masculine, the data simply do not yield themselves in this direction. And although we are dealing with scanty material, it is always safest to base one’s views on actual evidence rather than mere opinion. Daniel Wallace

In another place, I found this-

Also consider apostles mentioned in Ephesians 2:19-21 or in Acts 15 and other places where the apostles and elders met to decide on major church theology. If Junia is an apostle she is a major source of authority and leadership in the apostolic, first-century church.

One “end-around” argument is that Junia is not “prominent among” the apostles but “prominent in the eyes of” the apostles. The Greek grammar allows for either translation so context must determine the correct translation. First of all, scholarship is on the side of the “prominent among” translation. Most translations and commentaries translate the phrase this way. Furthermore, since when does Paul commend someone by referencing how other people felt about the person? He knew these two well and spent time in prison with them. His own recommendation, like all the others recommendations he gives in this chapter, is quite enough.

So we are back then, to question #1: Which name is correct and why is there a discrepancy? Dianne D. McDonnell in “Junia, A Woman Apostle” says:

Without exception the church fathers in late antiquity identified Andronicus' partner in Romans 16:7 as a woman as did minuscule 33 in the 9th century which records Iounia (Greek for Junia) with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Romans 17:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine name Iounias (Junias) with an s. This later name Junias did not exist in antiquity; its explanation as a Greek abbreviation of the Latin name 'Junianus' is unlikely.

So the NIV rendering of “Junias” was a name that did not even exist in the first century. Wow. I think we could stop at this point and ask for a decision from the jury, but there is more. The female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among ancient Roman inscriptions. All the earliest manuscripts (with accents) have Junia. Junias is not even a properly formed Latin name, but would be an irregular form if it did exist. The first know masculine translation of this name did not occur until the 13th century (Aegidus of Rome, 1245-1316). John Chrysostrom (337-497) said, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).” Jerome (340-419), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108) and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) all wrote that Junia was a woman. The evidence is overwhelming

Granted, it is building upon one of the previous sources, but it broadens the reasoning as to why Jania is a female name....

John, if she is a female, and is considered an apostle, then all your arguements against women's ordination is seriously flawed.

[SivartM]

If only Junia was here to shed some light on this conversation...

[Neil D]

Also, a note from Wikipedia....on Junia

The problem of translating the name arises because, when the New Testament was composed, Greek was normally written without accents, although these already had been invented. If written with an acute accent on the penultimate syllable (removed to make post more readable), the name is "Junia" (a woman's name); if with a circumflex accent on the final syllable (removed), it is "Junias" (a man's). No conclusion can be drawn from the masculine gender of the associated words in the same verse, since they apply also to the male Andronicus. Accordingly, even if Junia(s) is a woman, the rules of Greek grammar put those words in the masculine form. The overwhelming choice of the male form, (removed), when in the 9th century accents were added in manuscripts, may have been influenced by the grammatical gender of these words, but it has also been attributed to a supposed bias on the part of scribes against the idea of a female apostle.[14]

Epp in his book Junia: The First Woman Apostle gives a textual critical evaluation of the history of Junia in the Greek text and also the search in non-Biblical Greek literature for "Junias" the alleged masculine form of the name which has not been found in writings from New Testament times and only rarely thereafter.[15] He points out that the earliest copies of the Greek texts for Romans 16:7 are majuscules (capital letters). There are no accent marks in them. The importance of this is that the gender of the name depends on the accentuation. Hence, the earliest texts are inconclusive and we are very dependent on Patristic interpretation for the gender of Junia. When the minuscules (using lower case Greek letters) appeared, Junia was accented with a character which indicates the feminine form of the name. The feminine form of the name appeared in Erasmus' critical Greek text in 1516 and continuously thereafter in all other critical Greek texts, with the exception of Alford's 1858 edition, until 1928 when Nestle inexplicably (read: he didn't explain it in the apparatus) went to the masculine form. This remained the case until the 1998, when the edition just as inexplicably went back the other way and the masculine is dropped as even an alternative (not in the apparatus). Hence, the textual weight is for the feminine name Junia, which most scholars accept.[15]

Very good information as to why Junia is a female, and not a male...and some of it, goes to John's sources...

[Neil D]

If only Junia was here to shed some light on this conversation...

....and I am sure that SHE would definitely shed some light on this...

[John317]

Quote:

Woody:

Did James White perform the duties of a pastor? IOWs did he baptize and perform weddings etc?

James White himself baptized the messenger of God soon after she accepted the Sabbath. And immediately after her baptism at his hands, Ellen White went off in vision.

Ellen White never baptized anyone.

[Guest]

Wow. I didn't know that.

[Neil D]

On the definition of "pastor," Ellen White said: "Responsibilities must be laid upon the members of the church. The missionary spirit should be awakened as never before, and workers should be appointed as needed, who will act as pastors of the flock, putting forth personal effort to bring the church up to that condition where spiritual life and activity will be seen in all her borders."

I read that the word Apostle means "one who is sent" to which the latin translated the word as "Misso"{?} where we get the word "Missionary". If this is the case, all our missionaries are Apostles.... And if "the missionary spirit" is to be awakened, then perhaps we need to label some as the bible labels them, ie women are apostles, women can be ordained..?

[Neil D]

And John,

Just to show you that I am open minded about this subject, here are some sources that support your views....

According to Epp (p. 66), the following versions have adopted the feminine (Junia) reading:

Tyndale, Cranmer, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops Bible, Rheims (“Julia”), King James Version, Weymouth, Lamsa (NT), New American Bible, New King James Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Century Bible, New American Bible, Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Oxford Inclusive Version, New Living Translation.

In addition, other English versions not included by Epp which translate the name as feminine include the Bible in Basic English, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, Today’s New English Version, and the Webster Bible.

According to Epp (p. 66), the following versions have adopted the masculine (Junias) reading:

Dickinson, Emphasized Bible, Revised Version (1881), Rheims (American Edition), American Standard Version (ASV), Goodspeed, Complete Bible (1903), Modern Reader’s Bible, Moffatt,

Ronald Knox, Revised Standard Version (RSV), Phillips, Amplified New Testament, New English Bible, New American Standard Bible (NASB), Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible,

Living Bible, New International Version (NIV), The Message, Contemporary English Version.

In addition, other English versions not included by Epp that translate the name as masculine include the Darby Bible, the English Standard Version, God’s Word to the Nation Version, New English Translation (NET), and the Young Literal Translation.

Bruce K. Waltke, in his book, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), p. 241 said: “Al Wolters of Redeemer College (Hamilton, Ontario) in personal communication makes a convincing philological argument that Junia (Gr. Iounia) in Rom. 16:7 is a Jewish name; Yehunniah (“Yah is gracious”). If so, the name is masculine, not feminine.”

The basis by which Wolters and Waltke claim that the Jewish name Junia is masculine is not made explicit. The implication of their statement is that since the Jewish name Yehunniah is a theophoric name, that is, a name that includes the name of a god, then, the bearer of the name must be a man.

Dr. Claude Mariottini

[John317]

Quote:

MIKE TUCKER: In Romans 16:7, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles." Junia is a woman's name. No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: As I've mentioned before on this discussion in response to Mike Tucker's statement here, the earliest commentary on Romans 16: 7 says that Junias was a man. It was dated long before the Middle Ages. Origen also believed Junias to be male. As the SDA Bible Commentary says, there's insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion on whether Junias/Junia was male or female. We simply do not know.

Quote:

Neil D: and I find from Dianne D. McDonnell

Do early commentators record that Junia was a female apostle?

Dr. Leonard Swidler states, "To the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine."5 So until the late 13th century, historical references all agreed that Junia was female, as did the men below.

Dr. Leonard Swindler evidently didn't have good knowledge of this subject, Neil. He didn't know about Epiphanius, a very early Christian bishop.

I wrote this information earlier on this thread.

Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he includes this line: "Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria" (Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase "of whom" is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) and shows that Epiphanius thought Iounias was a man.

In my previous posts, I included information about Chrysostom.

Origen, who died in 252 A.D., thought Iounias was a man. He wrote this in the oldest commentary on Romans and preserved in the Latin translation by Rufinus.

Quote:

Neil D: ...Granted, it is building upon one of the previous sources, but it broadens the reasoning as to why Jania is a female name....

The problem is, Neil, as I said on my previous post, the evidence is indecisive. Most translations show it was a male name. The SDA Bible Commentary says the name could be either Junia or Junias. Almost all translations and commentaries aknowledge this.

Quote:

Neil D: if she is a female, and is considered an apostle, then all your arguements against women's ordination is seriously flawed.

We've already covered this information. Grammatically, "of note among the apostles," could mean that the apostles held Andronicus and Junias in high regard. Thus they would not be themselves apostles.

[John317]

Neil D,

You're bringing up things that I already wrote about on this thread in previous posts. That's OK but I would appreciate it if you would read the posts so I don't have to rewrite and repost everything.

[Neil D]

Quote:

You're bringing up things that I already wrote about on this thread in previous posts. That's OK but I would appreciate it if you would read the posts so I don't have to rewrite and repost everything.

Granted, you did...

And you did throw a lot of stuff at us...and now we are looking at some of it, as we have time to review it and do our own searching...So, please excuse the review....I hope you don't mind repeating yourself....

Quote:

Dr. Leonard Swindler doesn't have good knowledge, Neil. He didn't know about Epiphanius, a very early Christian bishop.

I would like that source where Epiphanius refers to this person as a male...

Concidering that many of the scholars state that the name in latin is Junia, and that it is a common FEMALE name, and that alone places Epiphanius' reference as suspect, and places some very strong doubts about the veracity of the gender. Also, most of the early fathers [and I have not come across a reference to Epiphanius...yet!] and other early commentators refer to this person as a woman. Only until the Middle Ages when women were looked upon as second class citizens, as Tom as stated, did the gender of this person change...In fact, one source on the net stated that this person was pretty much a female all the way until 1860 [or thereabouts], where she became a he, and stayed that way until 1960.

Quote:

The problem is, Neil, as I said on my previous post, the evidence is indecisive. Most translations show it was a male name. The SDA Bible Commentary says the name could be either Junia or Junias. Almost all translations and commentaries aknowledge this.

Generally speaking, the weight of evidence shows to me that Junia is a female, and most of that evidence is based upon extra biblical sources that show the name to be female, common to the era.

So far, most of the exceptions to that rule that I have encountered, are more along the lines of speculation and stretching of the argument. As I have posted, there are more bibles that side with a female gender than male...The feminine form of the name appeared in Erasmus' critical Greek text in 1516 and continuously thereafter in all other critical Greek texts, with the exception of Alford's 1858 edition, until 1928 when Nestle inexplicably (read: he didn't explain it in the apparatus) went to the masculine form. This remained the case until the 1998, when the edition just as inexplicably went back the other way and the masculine is dropped as even an alternative (not in the apparatus). Hence, the textual weight is for the feminine name Junia, which most scholars accept.

Quote:

Grammatically, "of note among the apostles," could mean that the apostles held Andronicus and Junias in high regard. Thus they would not be themselves apostles.

That is not necessarily true either. The scholarship tends to favor that she is a "she"..

John Chrysostrom (337-497) said, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! This is high praise coming from a man who is down on women in the bible.-nd (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).” Jerome (340-419), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108) and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) all wrote that Junia was a woman. The evidence is overwhelming.

[Woody]

Quote:

Woody:

Did James White perform the duties of a pastor? IOWs did he baptize and perform weddings etc?

James White himself baptized the messenger of God soon after she accepted the Sabbath. And immediately after her baptism at his hands, Ellen White went off in vision.

Was this witnessed and verified? What church did she become a member of? Was he an ordained minister of the Seventh day Adventist Church at that point? Did he ever baptize again? :)

[Woody]

Quote:

And immediately after her baptism at his hands, Ellen White went off in vision.

Do you have some documentation for this or is it just tradition?

[Woody]

Let me throw out one more question.

If a man is not ordained .... does he have the same restrictions as a women pastor who is not ordained?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: John317

James White himself baptized the messenger of God soon after she accepted the Sabbath. And immediately after her baptism at his hands, Ellen White went off in vision.

Was he an ordained minister of the Seventh day Adventist Church at that point?

Um...Concider this-

In the year 1840, Ellen, with her parents, attended a Methodist camp meeting at Buxton, Maine, and there, at the age of 12, she gave her heart to God.On June 26, 1842, at her request she was baptized by immersion in Casco Bay, Portland. That same day she was received as a member of the Methodist Church. Here is the source.

From what this says, she was about 14 when she was baptised. In Life Sketches, the book talks about her conversion and her baptism...See page 24-25...

Nothing noted about meeting James until she was 17.

[Woody]

Quote:

Was this witnessed and verified? What church did she become a member of? Was he an ordained minister of the Seventh day Adventist Church at that point? Did he ever baptize again?

Here's a copy of her baptismal record in 1842 but no mention of a James White instead it was "John Hobart" who baptized her:

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): Also, a note from Wikipedia....on Junia

The problem of translating the name arises because, when the New Testament was composed, Greek was normally written without accents, although these already had been invented. If written with an acute accent on the penultimate syllable (removed to make post more readable), the name is "Junia" (a woman's name); if with a circumflex accent on the final syllable (removed), it is "Junias" (a man's).

This is one reason the SDA Bible Commentary says that the name could be either male or female. An examination of translations and other commentaries reveals that this is in harmony with most scholars and sources. See last part of this post.

Quote:

No conclusion can be drawn from the masculine gender of the associated words in the same verse, since they apply also to the male Andronicus. Accordingly, even if Junia(s) is a woman, the rules of Greek grammar put those words in the masculine form.

"No conclusion can be drawn from the the masculine gender of the associated words in the same verse." It means it is inconclusive.

Quote:

The overwhelming choice of the male form, Junias, when in the 9th century accents were added in manuscripts, may have been influenced by the grammatical gender of these words, but it has also been attributed to a supposed bias on the part of scribes against the idea of a female apostle.

Notice "may have" and "has been attributed to a supposed bias." These do not lead to certainty.

Quote:

Epp in his book Junia: The First Woman Apostle gives a textual critical evaluation of the history of Junia in the Greek text and also the search in non-Biblical Greek literature for "Junias" the alleged masculine form of the name which has not been found in writings from New Testament times and only rarely thereafter.[15] He points out that the earliest copies of the Greek texts for Romans 16:7 are majuscules (capital letters). There are no accent marks in them. The importance of this is that the gender of the name depends on the accentuation.

In all of Greek literature from the time of Homer (9th century BC) to the 5th century AD, there are only 3 women with the name Junia. So it cannot have been a common name at that time in the Greek speaking world.

Quote:

Hence, the earliest texts are inconclusive and we are very dependent on Patristic interpretation for the gender of Junia. When the minuscules (using lower case Greek letters) appeared, Junia was accented with a character which indicates the feminine form of the name. The feminine form of the name appeared in Erasmus' critical Greek text in 1516 and continuously thereafter in all other critical Greek texts, with the exception of Alford's 1858 edition, until 1928 when Nestle inexplicably (read: he didn't explain it in the apparatus) went to the masculine form. This remained the case until the 1998, when the edition just as inexplicably went back the other way and the masculine is dropped as even an alternative (not in the apparatus). Hence, the textual weight is for the feminine name Junia, which most scholars accept.

Notice how the various Greek texts, and the opinions of NT scholars, have changed back and forth over the centuries in regard to Junia vs. Junias.

Quote:

Neil D: Very good information as to why Junia is a female, and not a male...and some of it, goes to John's sources...

The evidence is inconclusive. One might just as easily claim to show information as to why Junias is a male, and not a female. That's why the NIV, NEB, RSV and many others translate it as a man's name and NRSV and REB and others translate it as a woman's.

Notice that the New English Bible and Revised Standard Version both read "Junias," a man's name; but when those translations were revised, they were changed to "Junia," a female's name. Yet in the footnote of those translations, they read, "Or Junias," again indicating that the text could easily read either way. It reflects the indecision regarding this issue.

In the final analyssis, it doesn't really matter whether it's Junia or Junias. I can accept either name.

Even if it's the name of a woman, it's still a long ways from proving that this Junia was an apostle in the sense that Paul and Peter and James were apostles.

Why? Because the passage is unclear in 3 ways:

1) It cannot be definitely established that Junias was a woman. The name may be a contraction of a man's name, Junianus. Of course, if this is true, then the text is irrelevant for the question before us. (2)Even though some scholars claim confidently that the verse means that Andronicus and Junias are outstanding apostles, it is also possible that the text is saying that they are "outstanding in the eyes of the apostle." 3) Even if we grant that Paul is speaking of a woman and he designates her as a distinguished apostle, what does he mean by the word apostle here? It is by no means clear that he is assigning Junias the same position that he assignes to himself, the twelve, and James (1 Cor. 15: 7; Gal. 1: 19). The word "apostle" in Paul could be used in a non-technical way to refer to "messengers" or "representatives" (2 Cor. 8: 23; Phil. 2: 25). In any case, the verse is too ambiguous to be used to establish the notion that there were female apostles in the technical sense. So the fact remains that not one indisputable example of a female apostle can be given in the New Testament.

[Tom Wetmore]

As with so much else on this subject, it is inconclusive only if to draw a conclusion does not support your position. Very consistently, regardless of the evidence, if two alternative conclusions or interpretations can be reached you always reach the one that keeps opposition to and doubt about WO alive.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: Here's a copy of her baptismal record in 1842 but no mention of a James White instead it was "John Hobart" who baptized her:

What conclusion have you arrived at as a result of that information, Woody?

Have you read Arthur White's multi-volume biography of his grandmother, vol. 1, page 121?

Or the book Life Incidents? Try page 273.