A Conversation ~ About Being Born First and Authority

I am posting a conversation with a person who claims that he does not believe anyone can solidly prove that Junia was a woman. His mode of proving that she cannot be a woman is 1 Timothy 2:11-12. I've changed the quotes so as to make them generic.

Paul's statement and reasoning about not allowing a woman to teach a man OR TO USURP HIS AUTHORITY proves that Junia could not be a woman apostle. The reason? BECAUSE ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST...

OK let’s look at this reasoning. IF taking this piece of a sentence,” I do not permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man”, means what you think it means; and the reason you cite is what follows, then you have a problem. You have a few problems. Not only must vs. 13, be part of the reason, but verses 14 and 15 also are specifically linked and therefore must fit in with this idea.

1. you say that being born/created first gave the man authority over who came second, namely the woman. Yet, there is no Scriptural evidence to support a law or rule of the first born always legally being given “rulership”.
2. The woman being deceived and the man deliberately sinning would make an interesting rule for leadership. All who deliberately sin are better equipped for leadership and anyone who has ever been deceived is automatically disqualified. Ever seen a Biblical rule like that? I haven’t.
3. And how does verse 15 fit in with being a reason for women to be forbidden to teach men? Most theologians struggle with the significance of this verse in what it says and why it is being said.

Basically, this interpretation does not work, does not fit with the rest of what Paul is saying and does not fit anywhere else in Scripture. This interpretation is a result of helicopter theology, swooping down pulling out a piece of a sentence and reforming it into a predetermined bias.

AND we are still left with the problem of a silent rule that has never been put into effect for 4000 years. You want to say that God laid down a principle that would affect all men and women in their relationships, but God didn’t tell us about it at all. He let His people go on and live otherwise for 4000 years. I repeat – 4000 years. And still Christ didn’t even mention it in His ministry. In fact God never did tell us that He forbade women to teach or lead. You say that one sentence in a private letter to Timothy, where Paul was advising Timothy about a problem that Timothy was privy to, that God inspired Paul to IMPLY a principle that was supposed to have been instigated at creation, that no one ever knew anything about until just then. And you want to say that such implication upon implication implies that it would be sin for a woman to teach right doctrine to males or lead people in Godly ministry.

That is both preposterous and incredibly illogical.

Being born first does not grant one person authority over another person.

It is CLEAR from Scripture (and Paul testifies to this that ADAM WAS CREATED FIRST), that man ruled or reigned over creation.

The man did not rule over creation alone. Dominion over the creation was given to two, which in effect translated to the entire human race. It is humanity that has been given the dominion of the earth, not male humans.

Gen. 126 Then God said, “Let Us make man (humanity) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man (humanity) in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed THEM, and God said to THEM, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

As you can see God gave rule/dominion of the creation to THEM, THE MALE AND THE FEMALE HUMAN.

Thus far you have not been able to Scripturally prove that the man was entitled to dominion over the woman in the creation, neither from being created first nor by being given sole rulership of the creation.

Because you cannot establish this in Scripture, then we must conclude that you are incorrectly inserting assumptions into the 1 Tim. verses that pull this section away from Paul’s intentions. IOW you are incorrectly interpreting this section of Scripture.

Bottom line is that if you wish to prove that Junia cannot be a woman by this approach, you have failed.

Also, you need to prove that Miriam was not a leader in Israel of any kind, that God did not send her or choose her to stand before His people. You must prove that Deborah was not called of God, that she did not judge Israel for 40 years by God’s directions. You must prove that Huldah was not a prophet of God and did not lead the nation back to God by her instructions on the meanings of the discovered scrolls. You must prove that Priscilla did not actually teach Apollo. You must prove that Phoebe was not really a minister of the church of Cenchre, was not given authority, and certainly would not be entrusted with the epistle to the Romans since that responsibility carried a certain authority with it. And then you must actually prove that Junia was not a woman, rather than trying to say she just couldn’t be.

Submit or Obey ~ part 2

Ephesians 5:15 See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, 16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, (submit) to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[d] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

The main issue of upotassomenoi is voice. If I tell someone to submit, I am commanding they come under me (coming under, or yielding is the main meaning) , my authority, my desires, my wishes (the tone and part of the meaning of upotasso is respect, see verse 33). But the ending menoi or mai that is added to upotasso in the instances we are discussing (Ephe. 5:21) bring a whole new picture. Instead of men commanding women to come under their authority, or even one man commanding women to come under male authority, we have something else that changes the tone and the picture. We have Paul first telling all brethren, male and female of all ages, to yield themselves to one another. Specifically, the tone is that each person is to command themselves (that takes away the issue of others taking authority over) to take a respectful attitude toward each other. It becomes self telling self to mold oneself under instead of exalting oneself over. Then we have Paul turning to the wives and saying, 'and you too' toward your husband, as if to say, this attitude includes the arena of marriage.

So because Paul is saying to control self, there is no issue of anyone taking authority over anyone else.

There is also no mantle of leadership given to husbands as some like to read into this section. When Paul tells wives to respect their husbands in the same manner as they do the Lord, he also turns around and tells husbands to respect their wives as their own body, without which they would have no life. The body does not live without the head, and the head does not live without the body. The picture Paul is trying to paint is one of a unity of respect and honor, not only of the whole body, but of all our intimate relationships: marriage, children, slaves.

If one reads the entire chapter we can see that first Paul tells all to love one another sacrificially (including spouses to one another) in verses 1-2. (walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.) Then he bookends this in verse 21 by telling all to respect one another and yield, honor, make room for the other by telling them to submit one to another (including spouses). I use the term "book end" because those exact two issues Paul addresses to both parties in the three groups from various angles. Thus he has laid out the picture of loving and respecting, with the verses 1-2 and 21, and inbetween those verses he goes into some detail into how that is accomplished: staying in the light and the fruit of the Spirit, redeeming the days with wisdom, being filled with the Spirit, praising God, always giving thanks, etc. It is that entire picture that we are to carry over into each of those relationships and which EACH PARTY is to live toward the other.

This leaves no room for one having the attitude of taking authority over but rather changes the attitudes (especially of those culturally given authority) to one of how can I benefit my spouse, my parent, my child, my master, my slave. And how can I do this giving honor to Christ.
--

Is it Submit or is it Obey

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

The word submit put in here in this translation, does not exist in the original. It actually reads,

“Wives, unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”

The verb for verse 22 is borrowed from the preceeding verse 21, “submitting to one another” (not obeying one another), thus forcing the careful reader to carry over the tone and the context as well. So Paul in effect is saying that we are all to submit to one another and that includes wives to husbands. So what is the context? Can we “obey” one another? No, we cannot, because then no one gets to give the orders. The verb upotassomai is used in a form that calls the submitter to order himself into a proper attutude of respect, honor and support of the “one anothers” that he is to be submissive towards. It is this attitude that is to be carried over into the marriage relationship and actually ALL relationships though that will be worked out differently depending on the relationship.

While uptoasso CAN mean to order someone to subordinate themselves to them IF the CONTEXT is that "I am telling you to submit to me", but that is not its only meaning. All words have a range of meanings determined by context.

The word upotasso has different tenses in Greek. Upotasso is indeed often used as one commanding another and expecting them to comply to them.. However, that is not the tense or the manner that Paul used it. Every word has a range of meanings determined according to context and word tense and form.

The word used to mean “obey” throughout the N.T. is (h)upakouo. It is also used to mean “listen, heed” (Vines Expository Dict.). It’s a fairly precise word for the meanings: listen, heed, obey, obedience, obedient. The verb is derived from akouo and was very commonly and frequently used in secular Greek. And generally this obedience includes submission to authorities and leaders.

As a side note some might find it interesting, that in the Greek translation of the O.T. this was the word used when Abraham listened to Sarah and did what she asked of him. He listened and obeyed. ☺

The conclusion one cannot help but reach is that if Paul had meant obey or obedience in the places he used (h)upotasso or more specifically (h)upotassoMAI, then Paul would have used hupakouo instead. Fact is he did not.

The Greek words (h)upotasso and (h)upotassoMAI(menoi) are more complicated.

The base word upotasso means to arrange oneself under, more similar to our word subject, perhaps. It is usually used of one commanding another to “submit”, yield, come under them in some manner. However, in the N.T. Paul uses it almost extensively in the form of upotassoMAI(menoi) and in the sense of a humble attitude, support, and arranging in unity, comformity. Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Pe. 5:5 show it best.

Ephe. 5: 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

I Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Inserting the error of upotassomai meaning obey would make these two verses read that in Ephesians we are all to obey one another, and in Peter we are to first obey our elders and then obey everyone. Just doesn’t work does it. That is because upotassomai does not mean obey. Pure and simple.

The way Paul uses the word almost extensively throughout the N.T. is in that middle voice form. The middle voice is something we don’t have in English and thus have difficulty grasping. But it is when one orders oneself at ones own discretion. This way he is requesting that we all voluntarily, willingly, actively arrange ourselves to yield, support, and fit in to ONE ANOTHER at our own instigation. When Paul uses the verb in verse 21 and then omits the verb in verse 22 to the wives, he is effectively carrying over this attitude and saying of a sort , “wives you too”.

In addition, those who think it means submit to authority of another, there are much better and more precise words available that say exactly that, which Paul did NOT use. That would have been a form of archo (ruler) or despotes (master).

Equal in Being, Unequal in Role....

Rebecco Groothuis in Chapter 18, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role”, pg.303+ from Discovering Biblical Equality.

“although evangelical patriarchy is similar to traditional patriarchy in key respects it also trades heavily on the distinctive and historically novel claim that women are ‘equal in being but unequal in role’. In other words, women are the equals of men spiritually and in their ‘being’, but when it comes to living out the meaning and purpose of manhood and womanhood, women must submit to male rule. This distinction between being and function ——or ontology and role —— is fundamental to the doctrine of male leadership today. ------------
The ‘role’ relationship of woman’s subordination to man’s authority is typically presented as a matter of ‘complementarity’, mutual interdependence’ and ‘beneficial differences’ between the sexes, without any implication of woman’s inferiority. The carefully chosen terminology serves to make this position appear plausible and persuasive to modern ears…………..
But what if it is not logically possible for the same person to be at once spiritually and ontologically equal and permanently, comprehensively and necessarily subordinate? What if this sort of subordination cannot truthfully be described as merely a ‘role’ or ‘function’ that has no bearing on one’s inherent being or essence.
…………..
The purpose of these consideration will be to show that evangelical patriarchy neither respects women’s equality nor limits women’s subordination to a merely functional role. Instead, the nature of women's inequality in “function” implies by logical necessity women’s inequality in being”

The entire chapter can be found here:
http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/rebecca/archives/000364.php
==================================================

What many in the hierarchical camp of thinking do not realize is that when you put limits on a person's entire life that are considered permanent, by reason of unchangeable conditions such as gender or race, you are speaking of their essence and speaking in prejudicial terms, a preference for something other. Thus when we say that African Americans should not be ____(enter any denial of freedoms), BECAUSE they are African Americans, then we are prejudically determining them to be inferior by reason of their race.

Anyone who is functionally limited without exception because of their essence (race, gender, etc. which cannot be outgrown or changed) is not equal at all.