Mark

Marg,

I simply will have to disagree. I don’t think it is acceptable to translate all the uses of diakonos as ‘minister’. Like i said earlier the context needs to decide the translation. In most of the NT instances, ‘servant’ is a much more logical and better translation. I agree that women had significant ministries, that is not in question. What is in question is in what way discussing Pheobe impacts the discussion. As iv’e stated, it is irrelevant to the comp theology as understood by Paul’s prohibition in 1 Tim 2:9-15.

Kay,

Don’t confuse soteriology with ministry. This is the mistake that egals make with Gal 3:28 and as it appears you are making with 1 Peter. ‘Preisthood of all believers’ is discussing soteriology as seen by the context. That is, through the work of Christ the once for all sacrifice was done and all people in Christ can approach God without the need of levitical priests and the sacrificial system. This is true of men, women and children. Yet the NT is clear that there are still differences in roles sanf functions within the church and home.

Kristen,

Your position seems contradictory. You want ‘husband of one wife’ to be gender inclusive. Yet you also want ‘gyne’ in verse 11 to mean ‘women deacons’. If both of these were correct it makes Paul’s discussion nonsense. What is the need to talk about ‘women’ in verse 11 IF he has been gender inclusive the whole time? The context simply cannot do what you want it to do otherwise it makes Paul’s discussion irrelevant and stupid. The shift to ‘gyne’ in verse 11 is obvious that the previous discussion therefore has not been applied to them. This is simple logic!

Note also your own acknowledge that ‘one woman man’ is different to ‘one man woman’ later in the epistle. You have to provide evidence why the context allows it to be gender inclusive. As iv’e said, the shift in verse 11 makes your claim unacceptable, aswell as the prohibition a few verses earlier. I am interested to know how you explain that away.