Response to Starship's answer to study question 4 for Acts 17: 1-15

[Irving]

Starship's answer to question 4 of the assignment for 6.28 to 7.4,Acts
17: 1-15.

The question was: 4. Twice in chapter 17, Luke mentions the
conversion of “prominent women.” Why do you think he is at pains to
use the adjective “prominent” for the women but does not do so for the
men?

This answer assumes that the question sought an answer to the
question – currently a frequent one in Christendom – “Does the Bible
support a complete equivalence in the roles of men and women in the
Church?” That is a much more specific question than the one asked,
although it was phrased in the context of continuing debate in
denominations committed to historical positions.
A simpler answer to the question might have been, “ Luke, being
impressed with the constructive role that Paul found a number of
prominent women playing in the nascent congregations he was forming,
regarded it as a fact of importance in the inspired record.”
From the standpoint of the focus of our study of Acts and its great
instructional value to the Church of all ages, the inescapable
conclusion is , “ Within the bounds of Biblical teaching, "Make the
most of the talents and resources of the women in the congregational
fellowship to make it an effective instrument of the Holy Spirit in
the promulgation of the Gospel.”
The reference to the apocryphal books in Starship’s response is also
worthy of some discussion. Actually in its context, the reference is
broader than just the 14 inter testament books that were part of the
literature of Judaism by the time of the birth of Jesus. These books,
incidentally, were never part of the official canon of Judaism. Many
other books that haven’t been included in the Bible appeared in the
early Christian Church and a number of these were under consideration
for inclusion in the New Testament canon during the first four
centuries of its existence. For these the terms “apocrypha” and
“pseudepigrapha” are used within the Roman Catholic Church. A famous
Christian historian of the fourth century (the 300s), Eusebius, who
was an adviser to the Roman emperor, Constantine, assembled a list of
books that he predicted would become the New Testament canon. He did
this on the basis of the ones he saw as being favored by congregations
all over Christendom, which he was able to do as a result of the
communication capabilities of the Empire. As history developed he was
proved to reasonably prescient (He was suspicious of Revelation and
added some books not finally accepted). The New Testament canon was
settled in the Eastern Church by 367AD. – however, Revelation was
later rejected and still later, restored. In the Western Church the
same canon was settled in two conferences, one at Hippo 393 and one at
Carthage in 397.
The earliest Church fathers,e.g., Clement, Barnabas and Polycarp
quote the 14 apocryphal books as equal in authority to the canonical
books of the Old Testament, but later fathers questioned their
validity. Luther’s 1534 German translation of the Bible included the
14 apocryphal books after the Old Testament with the caveat, “These
books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, but are useful and
good for reading.”
The famous Roman Catholic counter Reformation Council of Trent,
1546-1563, reaffirmed the canonicity of 12 of the 14 apocryphal books
and declared them to be deuterocanonical, giving them equal authority
to the thereto fore established canon. The Roman Church now reserves
the term “apocryphal” to other books of Old Testament time known to
Judaism but not elevated to the level of the 14.
Protestant Denominations have rejected all of the books outside of
the established canons of the fourth century as being part of the
valid canon. The criteria that led to the selection of the New
Testament Canon were authorship by an Apostle, or by someone in a
close relationship with an apostle, e.g., Luke, who accompanied the
Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys and was the pen man for the
book of Acts. Another criterion was consistency of teaching.
While we can gain insight from non-canonical books into what writers
of the early centuries were thinking about the role of women in the
culture of that time, we must rely on the accepted cannon as God’s
Word as we make determination of what our practices in this area shall
be.
There is no question that as the surrounding culture changes, the
response of the Church in its practices must also change, and the
Church has done so. In particular, it has done so in relation to the
topic of this response. In the last 50 years most congregations in
the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod have adopted women’s suffrage for
voter’s meetings. The position of Synod on the subject of women
occupancy of congregational offices has also changed, with the only
restriction being those offices that involve the Office of Keys,
namely, presidency and elders. It is a good thing, as viewed from a
prior conclusion that follows from Luke’s use of the adjective
“prominent “ to describe the standing of recent women converts in
Berea. On the other hand, it is still our collective opinion that
sound Biblical exegesis excludes women from the role of pastor.

These views are based upon the following sources:

1. Lutheran Cyclopedia, Concordia Publishing House , Edited by Erwin
L. lueker, 1975
2. Erdman’s Haandbook of the History of Christianity, Organizing
Editor, Tim Dowley,
1977
3. The New English Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford University Press
1970
4. What Luther Says, Concordia Publishing House, Compiled by Ewald M.
Plass, 1959