The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians is written in the second person plural, except for the following verse.
Philippians 4:3 (NASB)
3 Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
This verse appears to be parenthetical, because here we find the Greek word, σύ, which is the second person singular; that is, in the following verse he reverts to the second person plural of address for the remainder of the epistle.
To whom then was Paul referring as the “True Companion” in this verse, if we understand that the epistle was supposed to be addressed to “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi” in general (Phil 1:1)?
Was this perhaps some literary device to address each individual in the Philippian Church to take responsibility in helping Euodia and Syntyche to live in harmony?
In other words, was Paul aware of the “Bystander Effect“ (or Genovese Syndrome) in the First Century? The thesis avers that larger numbers of people decrease the likelihood that any one person in particular will step forward to help those in distress; responsibility to help thus remains diffused among the large number of people. That is, the individual must be addressed in order to prompt the response to assist those needing help.
In this context was the “True Companion” therefore each and every believer in Philippi (thus Paul’s attempt to mitigate the “Bystander Effect”), or was perhaps the “True Companion” actually some particular individual person in Philippi? Thoughts?
Varnel Watson
Walter Polasik If it was not for women pastors like Lucy F. Farrow: there might not been Pentecostalism at all http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/massive-youth-revival-in-the-schools-of-delbarton-west-virginia/
Walter Polasik
It’s pretty sad that you put it that way. You don’t know your Bible. If it wasn’t for the Holy Spirit and true Biblical doctrine, there might not be Pentecostalism. Troy, I have found, over the years, that helpful definition of Liberals is: “People who love making the exception to the rule, the rule.” What is also amazing to me is how much, across denominational divides, people are so alike in nature. To wit: when the Holy Spirit begins something and people see the hand of God in it, a Divine act, they are thankful for a while, give glory to God for a little bit….and then set about building their own traditions, their edifices, on top of it. After they have done so, they identify a particular God-birthed movement by their own little trappings and edifices that they have built. So it has been, increasingly over the years, that, instead of God’s supernatural work and His holiness and purity (regarding doctrine and practice in the church) the Pentecostal movement has increasingly been characterized by three things: 1.) Ecumenism (making peace at the expense of truth, otherwise known as “kumbayah”) 2. Pandering to the world by turning Praise and Worship music into a straight rock fest. There has also been a “youth-izing” of everything and today’s Pentecostal teen and 20-something is only as Pentecostal and Christian as it fits his personal convenience. The latest look and the latest Christian rock band are de reguer. Everything must be “the latest”, and ‘cool”. No one wants to be thought of as “peculiar” any more. 3.) While #’s 1 and 2 predominate in modern Pentecostalism, # 3 isn’t far behind. Pastorettes are all the rage and it was Pentecostalism who put women in the pulpit first before the Episcopal or Methodist or any other church did so as the fashion of feminism took hold.
Pastorettes may be a “distinctive” of Pentecostal history and even theology, but it is no biblical distinctive and just as stubborn a denominational hold-over as pedo-baptism is for Presbyterians and Reformed. That’s not biblical either, but wild horses won’t tear it out of the people’s “denominational’ fidelity. Stubbornly, with nary a verse to show for it, they hang on. That kind of Christianity and Pentecostalism…I could do without.
Varnel Watson
Like Robert Borders explained earlier comments like the one made by Walter Polasik “relate to whether or not denominations and traditional contemporary models of hierarchical church structure and government are biblical” and not to the Biblical role of women in ministry. I pray that this group and our movement have more wisdom in honoring and recognizing women pastors like Lucy F. Farrow and so many others with a historic role within Pentecostalism
Walter Polasik
Troy Day: Again, notice how you phrase things “pastors like Lucy F. Farrow with a HISTORIC role within Pentecostalism”. Problem: that something is historic doesn’t make it right. Prostitution is historically the oldest trade in the world—yet its’ historicity doesn’t make it RIGHT. Roman Catholicism certainly has a long history and claims for itself the title of “historic church”. Again, this does not make it RIGHT. Cessationism also claims a long history and, if you include the general anti-supernatural attitude, this goes all the way back to the Sadduccees. It’s quite historic, but certainly not RIGHT. So, Troy, unless you’re able to demonstrate how women in the pastorate is a BIBLICAL concept, I suggest you drop what is “popular” and stick with what is clearly delineated in the Bible. 😉
Walter Polasik
P.S.—-I’m somewhat qualified to speak on things historical, I think: I teach it for a living 5 days a week.
Varnel Watson
Glad you are finally noticing it and BTW most here are also qualified and even over qualified so that doesnt make it right either. But since you teach history of Pentecostalism and Lucy F. Farrow please do share your insights with the group. It will benefit a few
Varnel Watson
William DeArteaga Lucy F. Farrow was Baptized in the Spirit on September 6, 1905 after Parham opened up a month-long meeting in Columbus, Kansas. Lucy F. Farrow was baptized in the Spirit during this month of meetings. In the meantime, Parham was watching events unfold in Zion, Illinois, where John Alexander Dowie was faltering.
I think Parham sent her and a man when Seymour sent notice that he needed help. Who was Julia?
It was not a Nazarene church, but an independent Holiness church. The NAzarenes have proved this. We learned this later
William DeArteaga
Thank you