Good information. Thanks.

 

Now back to my original question that you sidestepped.

 

When God was setting up the original tribes, he chose the 12 males as head of the tribes and had 12 tribes of Israel, when he could have included Joseph's sisters and had more than 12 tribes.

 

Why do you think he did not?

 

I don't know, just throwing it out there as discussion.

 

I do agree with AL, they probably had very important roles as ALL Christians do.

 

And whether you are an elder or a deacon or not, is irrelevant as we all have very important roles.

 

 

God also chose Jacob over Esau. Why? Because God decided to choose him. I have no real answer beyond that. I can speculate but that would be it.

 

So if God chose the younger of the twins, does that mean that a pattern has been set and he is setting all the younger siblings as the recepients of promise rather than the older ones?

 

If we are looking for patterns to explain patriarchal approval, we might find there is not often a pattern, just a choice by God. An individual choice, at an individual time, on an individual in history. It might not be a precedent at all. :thumb:

Good information. Thanks.

 

Now back to my original question that you sidestepped.

 

When God was setting up the original tribes, he chose the 12 males as head of the tribes and had 12 tribes of Israel, when he could have included Joseph's sisters and had more than 12 tribes.

 

Why do you think he did not?

Perhaps Dinah did not have the gift of leadership as her brothers did. The scripture in Romans 12 seems directed to both male and female.

 

 

I don't know, just throwing it out there as discussion.

 

I do agree with AL, they probably had very important roles as ALL Christians do.

 

And whether you are an elder or a deacon or not, is irrelevant as we all have very important roles.

 

12:1 Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice – alive, holy, and pleasing to God – which is your reasonable service. 12:2 Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.

12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to every one of you not to think more highly of yourself than you ought to think, but to think with sober discernment, as God has distributed to each of you a measure of faith. 12:4 For just as in one body we have many members, and not all the members serve the same function, 12:5 so we who are many are one body in Christ, and individually we are members who belong to one another. 12:6 And we have different gifts according to the grace given to us. If the gift is prophecy, that individual must use it in proportion to his faith. 12:7 If it is service, he must serve; if it is teaching, he must teach; 12:8 if it is exhortation, he must exhort; if it is contributing, he must do so with sincerity; if it is leadership, he must do so with diligence; if it is showing mercy, he must do so with cheerfulness.

12:1 Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice – alive, holy, and pleasing to God – which is your reasonable service. 12:2 Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.

12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to every one of you not to think more highly of yourself than you ought to think, but to think with sober discernment, as God has distributed to each of you a measure of faith. 12:4 For just as in one body we have many members, and not all the members serve the same function, 12:5 so we who are many are one body in Christ, and individually we are members who belong to one another. 12:6 And we have different gifts according to the grace given to us. If the gift is prophecy, that individual must use it in proportion to his faith. 12:7 If it is service, he must serve; if it is teaching, he must teach; 12:8 if it is exhortation, he must exhort; if it is contributing, he must do so with sincerity; if it is leadership, he must do so with diligence; if it is showing mercy, he must do so with cheerfulness.

 

How come all of the pronouns are "he"???

 

Let us try this for fun.

 

We live in a fallen world, outside of the plan set up by God. Our world is a patriarchial one. If it is "fallen" perhaps God intended it to be a matriarchial one?

God also chose Jacob over Esau. Why? Because God decided to choose him. I have no real answer beyond that. I can speculate but that would be it.

 

So if God chose the younger of the twins, does that mean that a pattern has been set and he is setting all the younger siblings as the recepients of promise rather than the older ones?

 

If we are looking for patterns to explain patriarchal approval, we might find there is not often a pattern, just a choice by God. An individual choice, at an individual time, on an individual in history. It might not be a precedent at all. :thumb:

 

Good point.

 

His ways are not our ways seems very true throughout many Scriptures.

 

Let me add that almost every part of my being says that women should be leaders, preachers and the like.

 

I just don't see strong evidence in Scripture to support that point. We see, basically, ONE mention of a deaconess name Phoebe with no mention of really what her role was. And everywhere else in NT, the leaders are males.

 

And since this is Christianity and NOT LBBCanity, I have to go with what it seems to indicte in Scripture through Scripture and example.

Good point.

 

His ways are not our ways seems very true throughout many Scriptures.

 

Let me add that almost every part of my being says that women should be leaders, preachers and the like.

 

I just don't see strong evidence in Scripture to support that point. We see, basically, ONE mention of a deaconess name Phoebe with no mention of really what her role was. And everywhere else in NT, the leaders are males.

 

And since this is Christianity and NOT LBBCanity, I have to go with what it seems to indicte in Scripture through Scripture and example.

 

Or it might be that they were living in a male dominated society, so when they set up their "church" the culture had a huge influence. If we are to take the whole of the scripture, there are obvious contradictions from Galatians to Timothy. I am going with the all inclusive God.

Or it might be that they were living in a male dominated society, so when they set up their "church" the culture had a huge influence. If we are to take the whole of the scripture, there are obvious contradictions from Galatians to Timothy. I am going with the all inclusive God.

 

Are you saying Jesus did not pick the 12 Apostles? For reminder's sake was all males.

Are you saying Jesus did not pick the 12 Apostles? For reminder's sake was all males.

 

Actually Jesus picked the 12 Disciples. They were later known as the Apostles and there was one exception: Judas and Matthias.

 

Judas naturally did not become an Apostle in the early church. Matthias, his succesor, was called by the remaining apostles after Jesus had ascended.

 

I also think arguing Apostolic authority with pastoral or diaconate offices is apple and orange. My understanding is that the office of Apostle ended with the death of those 12 (13. 14 if you count Paul) and was not a succession for most faiths. (see Catholicism for different take)

 

The office of discussion (pastors and diaconate) are different than apostles.

I've done some more digging in the apostolic mentions in scripture and came up with something interesting.

 

In Romans 16:7, most translations say:

 

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles . . .

 

The name Junia is interesting. Professor Don Williams wrote and interesting note about this name in a book I was reading. I cross referenced and found such scholars as James D.G. Dunn (Word Biblical Commentary) and C.K. Barrett in Black's NT Commentary support it.

 

The Greek accusative Iounian in Romans 16:7 belongs more likely to the feminine "Junia" and not the contraction of the masculine "Junianus." Junia is a woman's name and Junias would be the male form of the name. It is usually accented to denote the two but there was unlikely and accent in the early and original manuscripts. So how can we say it's a feminine name?

 

Because in ancient Greek manuscripts there is no record anywhere (secular or religious documents) that there is a the masculine form of that name used. It does appear over 250 times (according to scholar Lampe) in the feminine reference to a woman in other writings.

 

So if this is a reference to a male person it is the only such known reference of that man and the masculine of that name in ancient Greek writings. In fact early church fathers such as: Origen (158-253 AD) and Jerome (340-419) understood the name as feminine. (See "Slavery, Sabbath and War and Women by Willard Swartley. Copyright 1983)

 

How did it get a male identification if it were actually female? Probably male assumption among the scholars of the centuries led by Luther in the 16th Century.

 

I don't put this out here to persuade anyone. I just think it's worth noting this discussion has been around for a while and there is pretty good biblical scholarship to support varying views. :thumb:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles . . .

Are you sure it doesn't read "out standing among the apostles?" :sssh:

Are you sure it doesn't read "out standing among the apostles?" :sssh:

 

You know, there's a take I hadn't thought of. :lol:

 

In that case, to quote Gilda Radnor:

 

Never mind.