I have heard many times preached from the pulpit that every matter requires two or three witnesses to be established. In fact my own pastor just preached this exact same thing just a few weeks ago on a different matter. He quoted the exact same scriptures that I am going to quote to you and he confirmed that every matter and every law must have two or three witnesses.

This precedent is set in the Old Testament:

Deu 13:14 then you shall investigate and search out and inquire thoroughly. If it is true and the matter established that this abomination has been done among you,

How is a “matter established”? A matter is established by two or three witnesses. The Old Testament lists many places that two or three witnesses are necessary. Numbers 35:30, Deut 17:6, Deut 19:15.

In the Talmud, the Jews interpreted a witness as a person or a documented piece of evidence. A witness may be an oath that is written or it may be persons who testify.

Jesus also confirmed the Old Testament demand for evidence to establish a matter by saying that every fact is to be confirmed by two or three witnesses so we can see that it is vital that every judicial matter be established with the required witnesses. Jesus said:

Mat 18:16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

Jesus then made it so important that every fact is established and confirmed that he said that not even his own testimony if it were alone would be considered valid without another witness.

John 5:31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.

Jesus then goes on to establish his list of witnesses. He says that the Father is his witness John 5:37, John the Baptist is his witness John 5:33, the works that Jesus does are also his witness John 5:36, and the Scriptures testify about Jesus as witnesses John 5:39.

If Jesus himself accepted the need for a matter to be established with two or three witnesses even when it came to his own testimony, and he is the Son of God, then surely we can understand from the OT and the NT that a single witness cannot condemn a person because a matter has not been established by law. Paul said facts are repeated for our safety (Philippians 3:1) and the reason is because a matter that is not repeated can be misunderstood and misrepresented. It is then not safe. With the proper witnesses and the proper testimony a matter is established and the law is 100% established by the repetition of the charge of sin. If we have a “sin” that isn’t repeated and therefore it is not established as a charge of sin, then we need to ask ourselves why. Why would God break his chosen method of establishing a matter? Every single sin is documented in scripture with two or three witnesses and not even one has only one witness. If the “sin” of a godly woman teaching the truth of scripture to men is not established by a second witness, then God does not allow us to charge her with sin since it is not an established sin. It is not a safe matter to charge a woman with sin with only one scripture that has been taken out of its complete context. Scripture tells us over and over again that this is not safe and it is not allowed by God’s own law.

Deu 19:15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

I appreciate your feelings if you do not want to continue to dialog. That is certainly up to you. But know this for a fact, that a matter of charging sin against a woman is not accepted by God’s own written standard with only one witness. 1 Timothy 2:12 does not say that godly women are not allowed to teach. There would have to be a second witness to determine that Paul was setting a brand new law against all godly women who teach men. No such law existed in the OT and no list of “sins” contains this particular sin. There is no second witness that it is godly women who are being barred from teaching and this “law” that we have accepted by tradition and not by God’s standard of the charge of sin, is invalid.

Now if you can find another place in scripture where women in general (including all godly women) are barred from teaching the bible to men, then we can consider it as an established “law”. Until then it doesn’t pass as God’s law since it does not have the required two or three witnesses.

I have also encouraged people to prove me wrong on this matter. Find even one universal sin that is only mentioned once in scripture and which does not have a second or third witness. I have never seen such a law. Every law has been properly established and has been properly documented by more than one scripture thus more than one witness.

This certainly is a very important principle since aberrant doctrine and cults themselves base their doctrine on one scripture taken out of its context. There is no second and third witness to false doctrine nor is there a second witness to a false charge of sin. The scriptures are clear - a second or third witness is for our safety.

I am glad that you popped in again. You are right in that all are called to give an answer. You are also right in that not all are given the gift of teaching. The point of my post was for those who are called to teach the bible. For those who are called to doing good in teaching the bible (and teaching the bible in a correct and respectful way is always good), verse 13 & 14 are talking about suffering for the sake of righteousness (for doing what is good). In that context we come to verse 15 since it is a command in amongst verses that are talking about our suffering for doing what is right. Although it is not just about suffering for teaching the truth of God’s word, it certainly encompasses such suffering. If one uses their gift of exhorting and one suffers for using that gift in a godly manner, then this verse can also be used for one who is suffering for doing what is good. You said:

“Whether you believe in women teaching men or not, not all believers have the same gifting and yet vs. 15 is an instruction to all believers and can’t be pertaining to the gift of teaching as such.”

It is a verse specifically about suffering. If ANY believer is suffering for doing what is good or ANY believer is asked to give a reason for the hope that is within him or her, this verse is for them. In this respect it isn’t exclusively about teaching but it does include a woman suffering for the truthful teaching of God’s word. You also said:

“Furthermore, tying in verse 14 (suffering for doing what is right) to women suffering for teaching men assumes that teaching men is right. Suffering for something does not automatically mean that the person is in the right.”

The logic goes this way….if teaching the bible correctly is a godly thing then it cannot be something that is wrong unless scripture specifically tells us that God has a law against women teaching the truth of God’s word. Since there is no such law then we can rightfully assume that it is not wrong for a woman to teach the truth of God’s word to anyone who needs to hear that truth whether they are a woman or a man.

Does this make sense? If it doesn’t then you would need to prove that there is a specific “law” in scripture that forbids godly Christian women from teaching the truth of God’s word to men. This “law” must have the required two or three witnesses and having it listed in any list of “sins” would certainly qualify the list as one of the witnesses.

I hope that helps!

Here is the first problem I see: All are called to given an answer. Not all are giving the gift of teaching. Whether you believe in women teaching men or not, not all believers have the same gifting and yet vs. 15 is an instruction to all believers and can’t be pertaining to the gift of teaching as such.

Furthermore, tying in verse 14 (suffering for doing what is right) to women suffering for teaching men assumes that teaching men is right. Suffering for something does not automatically mean that the person is in the right.

I quoted 1 Peter 3:15 and I took this verse in context since it directly follows verse 14. In verse 14 Peter is talking about those who are suffering for doing what is right and he then encourages those who are suffering for doing what is right to be prepared to defend their faith and their godly actions (verse 15). The two verses go together connected with the word “but”. I tied in verse 14 (suffering for doing what is right) with woman’s suffering at the hands of some who berate them for using their God-given gifts for the benefit of men. I expressed the fact that nowhere in scripture does God tell women that they must be prejudiced against men and scripture is clear that the Spirit’s gifts in us are for the common good. In this post I focused on God’s gifts. While being responsible for a group of believers is a good thing, this is a place of responsibility and maturity and since I was only speaking about God’s giftedness and not about spiritual maturity, hence the issue of being responsible for a body of believers was not part of this post. I do however believe that “pastor” is a spiritual gift given to those whom God chooses (Ephesians 4) and those who have this gift will minister wherever they are. One may use their gift of pasturing in a small group or one-on-one or in the full body. The key here is using our spiritual gifts for the common good instead of any of us acting in a prejudicial way towards men by withholding our gifts for their benefit.

The person who is responsible as an overseer by overseeing the spiritual health of the congregation is not so much seen as a spiritual gift but a place of mature Christian responsibility. All may use their spiritual gifts but only those who have attained to a level of Christian maturity will be encouraged to oversee the flock so that the sheep are kept safe from the enemy and from false doctrine by the safe keeping of a mature and responsible Christian overseer.

I think you are right, that looking at what the Bible does say to do vs. just focusing on what not to do is extrememly important. Afterall, we haven’t simply been redeemed to sit in place with our hands folded- we are all called (men and women) to do something with what we have been given.

What you ended up doing here though is equating the call to give an answer for the hope that is in us (ie: knowing our faith, knowing the word, knowing our Lord, being able to explain to someone who doesn’t know Him how it is we are the way we are) to being called to teach anyone anywhere anything. I do not see the two as the same calling. The calling to be a pastor (elder/bishop) of a church and the instruction to know our faith and be prepared to answer those who challenge us are two completely different things. Yes, some of the knowledge (intamicy with the Word for example) is going to overlap. But being responsible for a group of believers (a local church) simple can not be made out to be the same thing as the sort of evangelism that is being talked about in this passage.

I have a mentor who is very old-fashioned about women’s roles in church… She thinks God is presently calling and anointing women to speak into the culture because men (whom HE called first) did not heed the call. She sees movements like PK as God calling men into spiritual leadership, but many did not heed the call and slid more deeply into things like porn (a rampant but unspoken problem in the church).

http://www.christianstandard.com/lettersmarapr07.asp
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/10/junia-apostle-part-1.html
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/articles/juniapreato.htm
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007/05/junia-response-to-michael-burer.html

I think what you’re seeing is another case of “search engine flooding”, where a few people put out a lot of documents and make sure they get posted and repeated all over the place. And of course CBMW has a vested interest in spreading their teachings far and wide. But when we look at all the research and see that the majority opinion of scholars is that no male form of Junia existed until the middle ages, the burden of proof is on the “gender benders” to present evidence that is recognized by both sides (and non-Christian scholars with no ax to grind) as credible scholarship.

At the moment, I’m trying to find an answer to the following question.
Sorry this isn’t on topic.

There is a circulating claim of historical evidence of Iounias the bishop
outside of Jerusalem during the apostolic era. Does anyone know of this?
Is this information on a website, and in any books documenting it? I’d
like to see what info there is on it.

While so many scholars have claimed no evidence of any male having the
name of Iounias… not one bit of evidence … where and when did this
info turn up? Is this person real. And if so, what evidence is there that
it is a man. Just because he/she was a Bishop that mean it was a man, is
circular reasoning (the same circular reasoning regarding Iounia) . Fact
is that there have been female elders in history.

Thus we have no indication anywhere that Iounia(s) is a male name. Yet, we
have a Iounia(s) Bishop that supposedly is male because of the position of
Bishop.

If anyone has any documented info they can point me to I would be most
grateful