Replies

Entirely debatable. Notice how Priscilla and Aquilla are referred to (Ac. 18:18ff, Rom 16:3, 1Co. 16:19, and 2Ti. 4:19) - she's mentioned first. Odd, considering the Greek grammatical convention that the person you emphasized was mentioned first. There's a colorable case to be made that she was the leading member of that ministry team.

I think you will find that the names were interchanged at times.

Luke that was a Greek placed his name first in Acts . Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Paul was a Roman Jew and probable free from the greek cultural practice one time put him first and to felt free to honor who he would . 1Cr 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

There is discussion on the rendering of Act 18:18 And Paul [after this] tarried [there] yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn [his] head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

This can be read that Paul and Priscilla having cut Aquilis hair because he made a vow.

So it could be grammatical if one takes the position that it was aquilla not Paul with the shone head

As for me, I am not convinced by this argument, but I must admit that it is not insignficiant. In order for this argument to be pursasive, one must be able to effectively deal with 1Co. 14:34 and 1Ti. 2:12. I've not seen that on this thread, nor have I ever really seen it.

The question Jude is do we make doctrine of exceptions to the rule? Perhaps we can get an ass to preach on Sunday

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

It's Priscilla and Aqilla in both the Nestle-Aland 27th and the Textus Receptus here; your translation may vary, but the literal rendering is as I said.

My point in making that argument is to recognize the validity of the position that I do not hold myself, not to espouse it.

The question Jude is do we make doctrine of exceptions to the rule? Perhaps we can get an ass to preach on Sunday

I would say that some churches already do.... Seriously, however, that argument would carry more weight with me if it weren't for the 1Co. and 1Ti. (seemingly blanket) prohibitions on women preaching. But they're there, they can't seem to be explained away, so we gotta follow them, even granting the precedent of Priscilla and Aquilla. That is my position.