Not sure why I’m commenting since this is old now, but this post just strikes me as so far out of the line with the theology I learned mostly from you and Rhome.
Paul gives his reasons right in the quoted scripture. That’s really the only reason needed.

1 Tim. 2:11-15:

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

There are lots of types of apostles in Scripture; the concept is Hebrew and it does mean “one who is sent out” the question is always who is doing the sending.

Jesus is an apostle in his own class and was sent by God.

The 12 apostles were sent by Jesus, one disqualified himself and another was picked to make 12, as they needed to map to the 12 Tribes of Israel. So Jesus and the 12 could be said to fill an office.

There are other apostles in the NT and they were sent out by a congregation. Paul claims he was sent by Jesus, so he is special but not one of the 12.

The apostles sent out by a congregation are not in an office, they simply have a ministry that have been given as a gift from the Spirit. The importance of it not being an office is that when a person dies or quits or otherwise leaves office, the office remains and is then filled by another, but this is not what happens in the faith. A church in the NT has plural leadership, but it is flexible as to numbers.

Some points to consider. It was not possible for Paul to have seen the RISEN Lord, since he was not around the Christians at that time, and Christ only spoke to him without appearing to him on the Damascus road experience. We have Paul’s testimony that he did see Jesus, but not the risen Christ.

Also, we do not know that Junia, Barnabas, and other apostles did not see the Lord, risen or otherwise. It is likely that they did even though it was not thought necessary (by Paul) to have noted that fact as it was probably common knowledge then.

It seems more accurate to say that there were particular requirements for the 12 for their particular commissioning that were different than other apostles.

The literal meaning of apostolos means sent or commissioned. Paul was an apostle to the Pharisees before Christ commissioned him. Thus one really cannot be commissioned by God for a service without being some level of an apostle.

Apart from the insinuation that I’m disagreeing with Paul, this definition of “apostle” is not mine to agree or disagree with. You can have that discussion with any number of respected systematic theologians.

I agree with Paul. I do not agree with your definition of an apostle.

1 Cor 9.1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

”In the sense of the office, one of the requirements was to have seen the risen Christ. ……… What makes Paul authoritative as an inspired author is not that he was sent, but that he held the office of Apostle.”

With your definition, Paul could not have held the ‘office’ of an apostle since he did not see the risen Lord. Christ only spoke to him. Acts 9:1-9

In which case, we really shouldn’t be reading any of Paul’s letters as authoritative.

TL, not in the least. As the rest of my original paragraph noted, the word “apostle” is used in two different ways. In the sense of the office, one of the requirements was to have seen the risen Christ.

The difference in the words is simple lexical work – they are not equivalent terms.

Not all elders are apostles, clearly enough. Just being “sent” doesn’t make one an elder, either. One could, however, make a case that the exclusive office of Apostle would automatically infer eldership, but even that’s not necessitated by the text.

There are even “false apostles” (2 Cor 11.13).

What makes Paul authoritative as an inspired author is not that he was sent, but that he held the office of Apostle. Not all apostles (sent ones) were qualified inscripturators, wouldn’t you agree?

““Apostle” means sent. “Elder” means shepherd. Being sent does not mean one is an elder or holds the office. Furthermore, “apostle” is used in two different ways in the NT – one for the rather exclusive office of those appointed by Christ and who had seen the resurrected Christ, and the more generic sense of those who have been sent.”

Colby, your eisigesis would make Paul not an apostle but just someone “sent”. In which case, we really shouldn’t be reading any of Paul’s letters as authoritative.

On submission, egals point out that submission is a attribute of every believer, per Eph 5:21. A wife’s submission to her husband is simply an example of that and we can KNOW that is the case, since Eph 5:22 has no verb in the Greek, so it inherits it from v. 21, so it MUST mean the same thing.

The point is that male supremacists make a hash of the text in cultural context and should repent.