For those who were following our previous conversation, John Piper just updated his blog with one more thought on women in combat. He writes:
“The exhortation is a good one that we not minimize the sacrifice of the American women who have died in combat, even if we think their presence on the front lines is a powerful commentary on the cowardice of our male military and political leaders. It is not a commentary on the cowardice of women. I do not commend women in combat. But I commend the sacrifices of love in a cause of truth and justice.
“My whole position assumes that competencies and character are not the criteria for who fights the enemy. Women may be more courageous than men in any given situation. They may have nobler vision. They may be smarter. That is not the issue. What God has written on our hearts and designed for our survival and our joy is the issue. Manhood puts itself forward between the women and the enemy. That is part of what manhood means. That is who we are by God’s design. The courage of women will show itself in a hundred ways. But when a man is around, he will not exploit that courage to fight the battle where he belongs.”
Since my comment was held back last time, may I mention Serah, the daughter of Asher here? She was one of the children of Israel who was able to go out to war. Numbers 26
Although she was an exception, I do believe that God blesses exceptional behaviour in either a man or a woman. Mention of exceptional women are in the scriptures for our edification.
Having also withheld my comments before, I would like to mention my concerns about Piper’s general tone here. What good does it do for a preacher of the gospel to go about calling anyone a “wimp“? Or to say that anyone who pauses, even to consider his skilled black-belt wife, when danger enters his house is “no man“? Whether or not this is an appropriate application of complementarianism, I’m saddened by the name-calling and concerned about the possible distraction these comments could be from Piper’s otherwise powerful exhortations regarding missions, ministry, and the gospel. Yes, preachers should address the culture when appropriate, but with great care. These gender politics frankly seem beneath Piper; I wish he would reserve his sharp words for missions and diversity and adoption and retirement.
Yeah, Piper didn’t get the meme that he was never to speak about gender. Of all the nerve to suggest men were made to protect and defend.
I just love the amazing stereotypes Piper throws on each gender.
I guess Piper hates GI Jane.
Suzanne great point!! Thus says Piper: Scripture is crystal clear women cannot go to war.
Piper stated that the Bible said women can’t go to war? Where?
I don’t understand what gives Piper (or anyone) the right to tell people what to do about matters of preference…I’m speaking now of what I read on Jen’s blog regarding Piper and his idea of ideal retirement. Perhaps I should take my own advice and research to see what exactly Piper said :), but why should we be saying anything at all about the way people decide to spend their retirement? Two things come to mind: 1) The way Judas reacted when *he* decided what a person *should* have done…she should have sold that box and given the money to the poor!!! and 2) Who are we to judge Another’s slave?
MLM: “Matters of preference”? I think not. Piper exhorts Christians to be worthy of their calling! And that calling is to go out and make disciples of all nations! Comparing Piper’s position to that of Judas is heinous! What does Piper stand to gain by calling Christians to action? Judas, as you’ll recall, desired the money in that box to fulfill his greedy desires. Jesus Christ certainly did not leave his disciples here on earth for them to render themselves useless by whiling away their hours on their own amusement, did He?
Anyway, can we please have some solid Scriptural evidence to refute Piper’s position? Because I’m just not seeing it.
Furthermore, are we really going to pick on Piper for name calling? Referring to someone in a negative tone is a common tactic used in the Bible to evoke emotional response that (hopefully) leads to repentance for wrongdoing, or correction for wrong thinking.
How do YOU know why Judas desired that money?
I continue to be perplexed by the extreme position taken by Piper here. Is he not comfortable with some flexibility? Is he afraid that without a hard line, there will be no line?
He writes, “My whole position assumes that competencies and character are not the criteria for who fights the enemy.”
How about “should not be the primary criteria, or even prevailing criteria.
If he wants to make the case that we should not be looking only to competencies and character, but also to something more fundamental in the design of our Creator as related to the sexes, fine. If he wishes to make commentary on our general failure to do such in our society, particularly as related to this specific issue, fine. I agree.
But this is not all he is saying. He is actually saying that these general God given roles, and a particular understanding of the application of those roles trumps everything.
I wish to be gracious, but I just have to say that this strikes me as utterly ridiculous.
To modify Piper’s earlier example a bit…
What if you and your wife are attacked by a guy with a knife and your wife is not only a marshal arts expert, but you are bound to a wheelchair? Wouldn’t it make sense for her to take the role of primary defender?
In that case, you would not be playing the wimp or the coward.
Piper’s case on this is simply illogical and overly simplistic, and it’s to bad because I think his fundamental concerns are spot on.
Two brief responses. First, re Piper’s stance on retirement: it’s a glorious one, exhorting all Christians to use every moment and dollar they have to further God’s kingdom while they yet have breath, not to whittle away their lives in frivolous leisure. I could hear exhortations on that subject every day, and need to do so. I am glad that Piper preaches on it, for we wasteful and slothful Christians need to get off our duffs.
Second, as for the biblical counterargument to Piper’s position, I’m not sure there is one. But I’m not sure there is an explicit biblical argument supporting Piper’s position either. His position requires an arguably biblical stance for what has been called “biblical manhood and womanhood” or the notions of male headship and female submission. Then he makes a very particular cultural application of that view to combat, but that’s not an intrinsically biblical application.
Hear me: I’m not saying that it’s necessarily unbiblical to make that application either. But one might say that the idea of “biblical manhood and womanhood” applies instead to to the spiritual realm only, or at least primarily. Or one might say that cultural expressions of such complimentarianism need not necessarily look like 1950s gender roles. But that begs a much larger discussion.
I’m sure this comment will get ripped up in response. Have at it.
Just a side thought.
This discussion on male protection has led me to think about the ‘bird’ kingdom and how the male bird was created with the vibrant color and the female bird with a more simple, plain and sometimes drab color for the sole purpose of male protection.
This isn’t my field of expertise, so if any of you have a better grasp on this kind of issue I would like to hear about it.
Grace and peace,
mlm: John 12:6, referring to Judas: “He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put in it.”
I bet when Piper enters the pearly gates, Jesus is going to say: Piper you great and faithful servant!! You some how managed to piss off the entire women population. Nice work!! Not………..Jesus was a servant to the women.
Look at Jesusâ€™ ministry, His ministry paid special attention to women, namely Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. Jesus treated women with dignity and respect. Women, were apart of the priesthood of believers, were permitted to learn (1 Tim 2.11, teach (Acts 18.26), lead in worship (1 Cor 11.4-16) and even serve as apostle (Rom 16.7). One would think Jesus would not want to hinder the female, but help the female.
Romans 16.7 doesn’t say or mean that Andronicus and Junias were apostles, but that they were “outstanding among the apostles”, that they were well known to the apostles or highly thought of by the apostles for their faithfulness to Christ and their service which apparently landed them in prison.
Help me understand your mentioning of 1 Corinthians 11.4-16 as support for women leading in worship. I’m not seeing it yet.
Ben (is that okay I call you Ben?)
Correction. Your argument of how Junias were “outstanding among the apostles” is an accurate. Only the NIV and KJV have translated this verse with “among” to mean that Junias and Andronicus are viewed outstanding by the Apostles.
I am arguing that “among” means that Andronicus and Junias are included as one of the apostles. That essentially Andronicus and Junias are one of the Apostles and they are outstanding “among the other” Apostles. This full phrase almost certainly means â€œprominent among the apostles,â€ rather than â€œoutstanding in the eyes of the apostlesâ€. They are simply part of the apostles. They are insiders and not outsiders.
I am sorry I meant to insert 1 Cor 12.11. I miss inserted sorry. Please forgive me.
Here is my argument for 1 Cor 12.11
I simply argue that Paul is clarifying that the Spirit is given to everyone. Jesus has given the believer an advocate. Regardless of gender, God has granted everyone and anyone the Spirit. Paul uses the word ivdi,a| is a adjective adverb that signifies the Spirit belongs to a particular person. The adjective adverb does not imply that only males receive the Spirit. This adverb is inclusive, and not exclusive. If anyone has access to the Spirit, then it would be safe to assume the Spirit could prompt one to do ministry.
God dispenses His gifts not according to gender, but according to His will. This means He can give it to anyone in a given particular situation.
Stanely Grenz in his book, Women in Ministry argues that (1) Godâ€™s dispensing of His Spirit is gender neutral and (2) that men and women are equal in exercising their gifts in the Church. Also, he states, â€œpersons chosen by God and recognized by the church as having the ability and responsibility to lead Godâ€™s people in fulfilling His mandate.” The Spirit is not gender selective on who gets to minister in the Church. Paul states that the Spirit is given to everyone and that everyone can minister and prophesy. (1 Cor 14.5)
sorry not “an accurate, but inaccurate.” I need to start proof reading my posts. I am idiot………
I was asking Jon, but it’s fine that you piped (pun intended) in because I was hoping he would reference that particular passage in the Bible. My point is that Judas didn’t act or speak in such a way as to indicate to the public eye what his motives were. The Holy Spirit revealed Judas’ intent. The Bible tells us multiple times that people see the outside of man but God sees the heart. Who knows the mind of man but the spirit of man? God alone knows the thoughts and intents of the heart. And that is my point.
What people do with their retirement (or anything in life that isn’t obvious sin) is between them and God. There is only One Lawgiver and One Judge. Sure, we can judge a tree by its fruit, but when it comes to motives and reasons and purposes of the heart, nobody can judge save God alone. Nobody: not you, not me, not Piper. IN fact, we are all told to NOT judge Another’s slave. Would that we all heeded the instruction.
On that note: Denny, thanks for the blog. Thanks for putting up with my many comments. Some things have come up and I’m no longer going to be visiting. For those of you that I met here on Burk’s blog, you can still find me at Couplesconnect.blogspot.com. Otherwise, may you all prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers.
mlm: Sorry to see you go. I hope this won’t be a permanent vacation.
On the point about Judas Iscariot–you are precisely correct, God DID reveal by his inspired word the heart of the man. And that’s how we now know what we otherwise could not know.
In response to the second paragraph above, all I can recommend is for you to read “Don’t Waste Your Life.” I think you’ll find Dr. Piper not judging but exhorting, pointing Christians to a more excellent way. Certainly we are responsible before the Lord for any decisions we make. Dr. Piper’s book is all about stewardship.
jz: Add the ESV to that Romans 16:7 list. “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” The text footnote acknowledges the variant “Junias.”
Add the NET Bible to the list also. We will obviously disagree on this passage, which seems to the case with all disagreements between comps. and egals. However, as noted here, you will see some of the why behind the interpretative decision to view Rom. 16.7 as meaning “well known”.
NET Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,6 my compatriots7 and my fellow prisoners. They are well known8 to the apostles,9 and they were in Christ before me.
6tn Or â€œJunias.â€
sn The feminine name Junia, though common in Latin, is quite rare in Greek (apparently only three instances of it occur in Greek literature outside Rom 16:7, according to the data in the TLG [D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 922]). The masculine Junias (as a contraction for Junianas), however, is rarer still: Only one instance of the masculine name is known in extant Greek literature (Epiphanius mentions Junias in his Index discipulorum 125). Further, since there are apparently other husband-wife teams mentioned in this salutation (Prisca and Aquila [v. 3], Philologus and Julia [v. 15]), it might be natural to think of Junia as a feminine name. (This ought not be pressed too far, however, for in v. 12 all three individuals are women [though the first two are linked together], and in vv. 9-11 all the individuals are men.) In Greek only a difference of accent distinguishes between Junias (male) and Junia (female). If it refers to a woman, it is possible (1) that she had the gift of apostleship (not the office), or (2) that she was not an apostle but along with Andronicus was esteemed by (or among) the apostles. As well, the term â€œprominentâ€ probably means â€œwell known,â€ suggesting that Andronicus and Junia(s) were well known to the apostles (see note on the phrase â€œwell knownâ€ which follows).
7tn Or â€œkinsmen,â€ â€œrelatives,â€ â€œfellow countrymen.â€
8tn Or â€œprominent, outstanding, famous.â€ The term á¼Ï€Î¯ÏƒÎ·Î¼Î¿Ï‚ (epishmo”) is used either in an implied comparative sense (â€œprominent, outstandingâ€) or in an elative sense (â€œfamous, well knownâ€). The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which á¼Ï€Î¯ÏƒÎ·Î¼Î¿Ï‚ is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Î•Î»ÎµÎ±Î¶Î±ÏÎ¿Ï‚ Î´Î Ï„Î¹Ï‚ á¼€Î½á½´Ï á¼Ï€Î¯ÏƒÎ·Î¼Î¿Ï‚ Ï„á¿¶Î½ á¼€Ï€á½¸ Ï„á½µÏ‚ Ï‡á½½ÏÎ±Ï‚ á¼±ÎµÏÎÏ‰Î½ â€œEleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the countryâ€]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, á¼Î½ (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although á¼Î½ plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (á¼Î½ plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be â€œwell known to the apostles.â€ See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, â€œWas Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,â€ NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here.
A bit technical but obviously worth consideration.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 12:11 I agree with your statement that “Regardless of gender, God has granted everyone and anyone the Spirit.” The only clarification I would make, is to stipulate that the ‘everyone’ and ‘anyone’ are individuals who have trusted in Christ as Messiah. I’m sure that was implied in your statement.
Thanks for your clarification!
That they were well known to the apostles or highly thought of by the apostles for their faithfulness to Christ and their service which apparently landed them in prison.
Someone should email Mike Burer and ask him how his article is going to defend this hypothesis since it has been torn apart thoroughly by Belleville and Epp.
The 18th century Vamva Greek NT has updated the phrase so that it now says unambiguously, so everybody even the weakest Greek scholar can understand, that Andronicus and Junia were among the apostles, they were apostles. Chrysostom says that Junia was so honoured as to be called an apostle.
I think Dan Wallace forgot to ask the Greeks what they thought the phrase meant.
Luther was so sure the Junia was a man, that he simply said that they were famous apostles. I think at some point people realized that she had been a woman all along and there must be some other way to exclude her from apostleship.
However, the quotes that Wallace and Vurer used to prove this, are not quite what they seem. If you want further explanation I am happy to discuss it.
I apologize for the tone. I just realized that my comments are no longer held back a day or two, so I shall try from now on to write my comments with the expectation that they will be posted and therefore with a more gentle tone.
interesting discussion here…
piper is certainly one of my favorite preachers, but let us not forget that while it is reasonable to defend biblical infallibility, defending the inerrancy of piper is not such a worthwhile task.
a young but wise man wrote this sentence that may give insight on name calling: and the lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but kind to everyone, able to preach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.
also, i’m thankful that should anyone have a deep disagreement with my wife, that they have not taken it out upon her. please direct any and all comments to me (i’m a man, i’m 30…)
Add the ESV to that Romans 16:7 list. â€œGreet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.â€ The text footnote acknowledges the variant â€œJunias.â€
I missed your comment before, but the ESV has unwisely followed the NET Bible here, into an unprovable hypothesis. It’s too bad really. I have written about this here.
And I can’t even post a link – sigh.
Response to Michael Burer.
Ms. Suzanne: Debating the finer points of New Testament Greek translation is well outside my sphere of expertise. JZ had written that “only” the KJV and NIV supported the argument Ben was making; I posted to let him know the ESV could be added to that list. That was it. I don’t propose to enter into the controversy any further than that.
Micah: How old was “young but wise man” Paul when he wrote his second letter to Timothy? 😉
my mistake… i sometimes read good, i sometimes think gooder
Sorry about that. It was Benjamin A. who said,
Romans 16.7 doesnâ€™t say or mean that Andronicus and Junias were apostles, but that they were â€œoutstanding among the apostlesâ€, that they were well known to the apostles or highly thought of by the apostles for their faithfulness to Christ and their service which apparently landed them in prison.
That is an urban legend perpetuated by the ESV, NET and HSCB. It was always translated to mean that they were apostles, until Dan Wallace asked himself how a woman could be an apostle and set out to prove she wasn’t – unsuccessfully.
yes thank you for the correction regarding the ESV.
How did we get stuck on Rom. 16.7 when we started with ‘Women in combat’?
If you get a chance look back to post 11; Do you think we see a principle of male protection within the animal kingdom? If so what could that imply about the ‘women in combat’ discussion?
Douglas Moo in his Romans commentary has some insightful comments that are helpful with regard to Rom. 16.7
“The identity of Andronicus’s partner is a matter of considerable debate. The problem arises from the fact that the Greek form used here, ‘Iounian’, depending on how it is accented, could refer either (1) to a man with the name Junianus, found here in its contracted form, ‘Junias’ (cf. NIV; RSV; NASB; TEV; NJB); or (2) to a woman with the name Junia (KJV; NRSV;REB).”
“It must be remembered that few of the oldest MSS had any accents at all. The later minuscules, many of which did have accents, reflect the interpretation of the name as masculine that became current from the thirteenth century onward (an exception, however, is the important minuscule 33, which has the feminine form; cf. Lampe, “Roman Christians,” p. 223).”
“But many scholars on both sides of this issue are guilty of accepting too readily a key supposition in this line of reasoning: that “apostle” here refers to an authoritative leadership position such as that held by the “Twelve” and by Paul. In fact, Paul often uses the title ‘apostle’ in a looser sense: sometimes simply to denote a ‘messenger’ or ’emissary’ and sometimes to denote a ‘commissioned missionary (2 Cor. 8.23; Phil. 2.25).”
“So ‘apostle’ here probably means “traveling missionary” (Lightfoot; B. Bacon; Meeks; Calvin; Godet; Michel; Kasemann; Cranfield; Wilckens; Dunn; Fitzmyer; Schlier).”
The later minuscules, many of which did have accents, reflect the interpretation of the name as masculine that became current from the thirteenth century onward
I am surprised that Moo said this. I have never heard of any manuscripts marked with a masculine. Here is an image of the feminine accent in a manuscript. This is typical.
If anyone has an image of Iounian marked with a masculine accent in a manuscript I would be very interested in this data. I understand that it does not exist.
It seems though that the only reason people would come up with an alternative meaning for apostle as some sort of lesser apostle (or missionary), or would argue that the verse says they are well known to the apostles, or even question the verse at all and not just read it as saying the two listed are outstanding apostles is because of the evidence that Junia is a woman. The fact that Junia is probably a woman causes people to look for alternative readings and interpretations since they canâ€™t see a woman as being an apostle and having authority. If it was clearly the names of two men I doubt anyone would question whether they were outstanding apostles.
But since it’s automatically believed that a woman could not be an apostle (largely based on an interpretation of 1 Tim 2) then people look for a way to make Romans 16:7 say something else.
You mentioned apostle probably means traveling missionary. That seems kind of circular, after all where does our idea of a traveling missionary come from in the NT? Who are our examples of traveling missionaries in the NT? Where is the word missionary used in the NT? It sounds like the idea of traveling missionary comes from the description of an apostle. Junia as an apostle would have preached and taught, performed signs wonders and miracles, maybe prophesied and started churches and had authority over them.
BTW I was wondering how everyone got on this subject too.
Oh and Suzanne you forgot to mention Richard Bauckham as one who thoroughly argues against Wallace and Burer.
Yes, when it comes to Junia, I don’t dare get started. 😉
The current UBS text will affirm that no miniscules have Iounian, á¾½Î™Î¿Ï…Î½Î¹á¾¶Î½, with masculine accenting, but some have á¾½Î™Î¿Ï…Î½á½·Î±Î½, as I posted. For me the question I ask is why so much biblical interpretation is biased. Why did the previous UBS text mention the possibility of á¾½Î™Î¿Ï…Î½Î¹á¾¶Î½ if there was no manuscript support for it. Sadly because of their firm belief that a woman could not be an apostle.
But that’s enough – I don’t know how this came up. Ah, yes, Jeremy and Benjamin.
“It seems though that the only reason people would come up with an alternative meaning for apostle as some sort of lesser apostle . . .”
No one is creating an alternative meaning for the word apostle, its meaning is simply “one sent forth”. Notice how the word is used in John 13:16, Philippians 2:25 and 2 Corinthians 8:23.
There is however an official office of ‘apostle’ that is distinguished from its common usage.
Notice Luke 6:13
“And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named apostles:”
Here Jesus makes distinctions between some who are His disciples and now 12 who are ‘named apostles’. By the way, I don’t think that means that He loved them more than the others who were not ‘named apostles’.
Then in vv. 14-16 we see that all those specifically ‘named apostles’ were men, including Judas Iscariot “who became a traitor”.
Notice again a distinction in Luke 24:10
“Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things TO THE APOSTLES”.
Though Jesus selected 12 men as His chosen apostles, it obviously didn’t hurt the feelings of these women here in Luke 24:10 not to have been named among the 12. ‘The Apostles’ here are a direct reference back to Luke 6:13 and the 12 men selected by Jesus (obviously minus Judas Iscariot by this time).
Notice Acts 1:2 ” . . . to the apostles whom He had chosen.”
They were chosen in Luke 6:13.
Notice Acts 1:26 “. . . Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles”.
In replacing Judas Iscariot’s office of apostleship notice what Peter says from verses 15-26. Notice the specific requirements that Peter (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) lays out.
1. Must be a man.
2. Must have accompanied “us all the time” of Christ’s ministry.
3. Must have witnessed the baptism of John.
4. Must have witnessed the “day He was taken up from us”.
This was required to take the office of apostleship that Judas abandoned, “to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
Verse 23 “So they put forward two [men], Joseph called Barsabbas . . ., and Matthias.”
Verse 26 ” . . . Matthias was added to the eleven apostles.”
These are indisputable facts that took place. Also, Acts 1:20 (quoting Psalm 69:25 and 109:8) is a fulfillment from the Old Testament. Notice the application of those Psalms to the life of Judas and Matthias.
Paul is understood to have had a special calling to the office of apostleship when Jesus appeared to him in person and commissioned him to his ministry among the Gentiles (Acts 9).
This seems to be why Paul links his ‘seeing’ Jesus with his apostleship.
1 Cor. 9:1
“. . . Am I not an apostle? HAVE I NOT SEEN JESUS OUR LORD? . . . ”
1 Cor. 15:8-9
” . . . as to one untimely born, HE APPEARED TO ME ALSO. For I am the least of the apostles . . .”
I don’t believe anyone would argue that Paul’s call to the office of apostleship wasn’t unique. Nor do I believe anyone would argue against his unique calling.
So even if I give you “Junias (NASB)” as being a woman who was called an apostle; its clear biblically that she doesn’t fit the Acts 1 requirements to have the office of an apostle; and we have no evidence that Jesus appeared to her as He did with Paul to give her a unique calling to an office of apostleship.
So “Junias (NASB)” was a faithful woman, just like the women of Luke 24:10, and all the faithful women who have served Jesus without the special calling to an office of apostleship.
Ben I do believe there is a distinction made between the 12 and other apostles. Paul refers to those in the 12 as Super Apostles and does not see himself within that group but still seems himself as an apostle. My point is if you see Junia as a different kind of apostle than the 12, fine I agree with that, but so is Paul and he seems to place her in the same category as himself. That being the case the office or role or calling of apostle still carried authority and Junia would have carried that authority as well.
You said, “and we have no evidence that Jesus appeared to her as He did with Paul to give her a unique calling to an office of apostleship.”
Being that Paul says Junia was in Christ before him and that lastly Christ appeared to Paul as one untimely born (1 Corinthians 15:8) and also lists an apostle as one who has seen the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1) I think there is more evidence than not that Jesus appeared to her and that she was called by God as an apostle.
1 Corinthians 9:1 doesn’t say that “an apostle [is] one who has seen the Lord”. Paul states that he, “Have not I . . .”, has seen the Lord.
Acts 1 makes that case instead.
1. Must be a man.
2. Must have accompanied â€œus all the timeâ€ of Christâ€™s ministry.
3. Must have witnessed the baptism of John.
4. Must have witnessed the â€œday He was taken up from usâ€.
Paul’s situation is unique. No doubt. However, I personally can not make the quantum leap you have just presented that Jesus made a personal appearance to Junias.
Wow, that is a bold exegetical leap of faith.
Bryan, what were your thoughts on this portion of my post:
“No one is creating an alternative meaning for the word apostle, its meaning is simply â€œone sent forthâ€. Notice how the word is used in John 13:16, Philippians 2:25 and 2 Corinthians 8:23.”
Wouldn’t this give credence to others being called an apostle without all the special supernatural stuff being involved?
Ben in regards to 1 Cor 9:1-2 Paul seems to tie apostleship to having seen the Lord. now I’m not saying that everyone who saw the Lord was an apostle but that it seems apostles were known to have seen the risen Lord.
I understand what you are getting at with Acts 1. Those who were to be listed as one of the 12 need to have fulfilled those requirements. If the person is required to be a man it have more to do with the fact that the 12 represented the 12 tribes of Israel which would logically need to be men.
Ben I have a hard time understanding why you think Jesus appearing to Junia is a bold exegetical leap of faith. Please explain to me why this is so far out there that Jesus might have appeared to a woman named Junia.
Paul says â€œNRSV 1 Corinthians 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.â€
Thatâ€™s a lot of people. Notice the progression, Cephas, the twelve (even though minus Cephas and Judas makes 10 but whatever), more than 500 brothers (and sisters) most of who were still alive, then James, then all the apostles, then Paul.
Now please help me understand why it is so unbelievable and an exegetical leap of faith on my part to believe that a woman who is called a notable apostle and was in the Lord before Paul would not have seen Jesus.
Regarding the verses you brought up I would dismiss the John verse right out since I donâ€™t see it helping us understand how Paul used the greek word for apostle (here on out just referred to as apostolos) especially since John is putting it on the lips of Jesus. The other verses do show that the word apostolos could mean something like messenger. But those verses say so little that itâ€™s hard to know what Paul meant when he called Epaphroditus the Philippians apostolos. And when he says in 2 Corinthians 8:23 â€œour brothersâ€ are apostolos of the churches, itâ€™s not clear what all he means by that. He doesnâ€™t go into either of those and say exactly what it means for them to be apostolos. It could mean just a messenger. But we still donâ€™t know what all it meant to be a messenger and if that came with authority or any particular roles in the church. But still, just because it can mean just a messenger that doesnâ€™t mean we have to assume Junia was just a messenger especially when Paul singles her and Andronicus out as notable among the apostles.
Hope that helps to see where I stand on that.
Good point about 1 Corinthians 15:6. Though the Greek mentions ‘brothers’ no doubt that could have and did include women. Junias could indeed have been one of those, however it is doubtful in that those post-resurrection appearances didn’t occur in Rome. Andronicus and Junias were ministering in Rome when Paul sent his greetings to them. Jesusâ€™ first post-resurrection appearance was to a woman (John 20:15-18). That didnâ€™t somehow make her an apostle did it? NO! Yet in that Jesus said to her, see John 20:17, â€œ. . . but go to My brethren and say to them . . .â€. Mary Magdalene was apostolos (one sent forth) from the Lord to be a faithful servant of His. Was she not? That doesnâ€™t however make her an Apostle of Acts 1 status or of an Apostle Paul status.
“But those verses say so little that itâ€™s hard to know what Paul meant when he called Epaphroditus the Philippians apostolos.”
“And when he says in 2 Corinthians 8:23 â€œour brothersâ€ are apostolos of the churches, itâ€™s not clear what all he means by that. He doesnâ€™t go into either of those and say exactly what it means for them to be apostolos. It could mean just a messenger. But we still donâ€™t know what all it meant to be a messenger and if that came with authority or any particular roles in the church.”
Can’t we also say the same about Romans 16.7? That “those verses say so little that itâ€™s hard to know what Paul meant when he called [Andronicus and Junias] apostolos.”
“He doesnâ€™t go into either of those [Andronicus and Junias] and say exactly what it means for them to be apostolos. It could mean just a messenger.”
Obviously they aren’t Luke 6:13 and Acts 1 kind of apostles that we do have a lot of information about the kind of authority they possessed. And obviously they aren’t like the apostle Paul, of whom we have lots of Intel about as well.
So why must we fight so fiercely over the feminine form of ONE word from Romans 16.7?
I would see this as fitting in with 1 Cor. 12,
“And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire[e] the greater gifts.”
1. There are women apostles, prophets and teachers in the Bible,
2. we are to earnestly desire the greater gifts,
3. Gifts are not assigned by gender
4. women are equally qualified by nature, by gift and by training
5. those who have heard the word and are faithful to it are qualified to teach the word, as in 2 Tim. 2:2. (This verse does not have the word for “men” in it in Greek, but the word for “people.”) (See also Eph. 4:8, another verse which has the owrd “people” in it and not “men”.)
I think overall, given the modern translations of the Bible that we do have, it is no wonder people do not think women are qualified to teach. But I trust people do their exegesis from Greek.
A question for the egalitarian women from a complementarian woman …
Do you truly respect a man who would look to you as the defender and agressor?
â€œIf anyone has an image of Iounian marked with a masculine accent in a manuscript I would be very interested in this data. I understand that it does not exist.
In Mooâ€™s Romans commentary, page 922, footnote 30 he states this-
â€œThe UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Teataments both accent ÎŠounia“`n, which would be the contracted form of Junianus. They cite ÎŠounijan , from â€œJunia,â€ as a variant.â€
Sorry, the Greek characters got messed up, but I think you will understand the intended message.
You said, â€œJunias could indeed have been one of those, however it is doubtful in that those post-resurrection appearances didnâ€™t occur in Rome. Andronicus and Junias were ministering in Rome when Paul sent his greetings to them.â€
Being that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before Paul and Paul got saved about 32 AD (Iâ€™m guessing) is it likely that Christianity spread all the way up to Rome before then so that they could be converted in Rome, especially when you take into account the tradition that Peter brought Christianity to Rome and he is still in Jerusalem when Paul gets saved? On top of that being that Paul hadnâ€™t even been to Rome yet when he wrote Romans, yet he knew Andronicus and Junia really well (he calls them relatives) and even says they were in prison with him I have a feeling they werenâ€™t always in Rome and so I donâ€™t really see a problem with them being able to have seen the risen Lord.
â€œMary Magdalene was apostolos (one sent forth) from the Lord to be a faithful servant of His. Was she not? That doesnâ€™t however make her an Apostle of Acts 1 status or of an Apostle Paul status.â€
Iâ€™m not saying she was considered an apostle (definitely not an Acts 1 type which is one of the 12), although it is possible and some think she was.
But what Iâ€™m more curious about is how you keep putting out 2 choices for apostle: either one of the 12 or Paul, who you consider to be a special and unique one of a kind apostle. Iâ€™m not sure Paul can really be classified by himself as a special unique one of a kind apostle. It seems like he sees himself as an apostle in a larger group of apostles which Junia was apart of before Paul was. And this larger group of apostles is different from the 12 apostles but still considered apostles.
I think there is enough evidence from Paulâ€™s letters to say that there is a group in the early church known as apostles (distinct from the 12) which Paul was one of (along with Junia) and to even be able to tell what characterized them as apostles (through pauls own self descriptions and what he describes as apostles).
Apostolos appears to be used in two different ways:
1.) a technical way to refer to someone in this group
2.) in a normal non-technical way to refer to a messenger.
The 2 verses you referred to (Philippians and 2 Corinthians) appear at the least to be referring to the non-technical use of apostolos but could mean more. The Romans 16:7 verse referring to Andronicus and Junia definitely seems to be using apostolos in a technical sense especially since it refers to a group of apostolos which Andronicus and Junia are notable among. That doesnâ€™t really make sense to highlight them as especially noteworthy apostolos if they are just messengers.
Again we would have no problem saying Junia and Andronicus were apostles if it werenâ€™t for the fact that Junia is a woman. Look at some of the other people in the NT that are called apostles and arenâ€™t part of the twelve. Is anyone arguing that they arenâ€™t really apostles but are just messengers?
Thanks Ben for the discussion. Iâ€™m enjoying it.
I hope people don’t think that egalitarian men believe their wives have to protect them and stick up for them. That’s not the case at all. We can always think of the hypothetical what if the woman were the trained ninja assassin while the man is a paraplegic and if she should stick up for him in that case, but really that’s not the norm. Men will stick up and protect their wives regardless of whether they are comps or egals. Really it just boils down to their courage and I think any man who sees his wife or family in danger, if he really loves them, will be able to muster up enough courage to protect them no matter how wimpy he normally is.
This is where I will need help. I don’t see the evidence from Paul’s letters to claim what you say here-
“I think there is enough evidence from Paulâ€™s letters to say that there is a group in the early church known as apostles (distinct from the 12) which Paul was one of (along with Junia) and to even be able to tell what characterized them as apostles (through pauls own self descriptions and what he describes as apostles).”
I will need you to paint that picture you crafted with some supporting scriptural evidence.
In Mooâ€™s Romans commentary, page 922, footnote 30 he states this-
â€œThe UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Teataments both accent ÎŠouniaâ€œ`n, which would be the contracted form of Junianus. They cite ÎŠounijan , from â€œJunia,â€ as a variant.â€
It so happens that both those critical texts published wrong information.
Remember the link I posted. Here is some of the text, I wrote this, so the my is me here,
“In my 1968 UBS text the miniscules are quoted as evidence for the masculine accented á¼¸Î¿Ï…Î½Î¹á¾¶Î½.
UBS 1968 and UBS 1998 actually quote two different sets of miniscules but six of these are the same ones. So in 1968 these miniscules are quoted as evidence of a masculine accent, 33, 81, 88. 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 629, 630, 1241, 1739, 1877, 1881, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2127, 2492, 2495, then the lectionaries. And no miniscules are quoted for the feminine. In fact, in 1968, no feminine form is acknowledged to have existed at all.
In the UBS 1993, these miniscules are explicitly given as evidence of the feminine accent, 0150, 33, 81, 104, 256, 263, 365, 424, 436, 1175, 1241, 1319, 1573, 1739, 1852, 1881, 1912, 1962, 2127, 2200, etc. And no miniscules are quoted for the masculine.
Six of these are the same manuscripts. So what is it – they are accented, the accents are entirely unlikely to be ambiguous, as my image of miniscule 676 shows. It is easy to read. 676 was the only one that I could find online yesterday. I haven’t actully seen the other manuscripts myself.
HÎ¿wever, in Metzger’s commentary to the UBS, 1994, he writes,
“when Greek manuscripts began to be accented, scribes write the feminine á¼¸Î¿Ï…Î½á½·Î±Î½.” ”
So according to Metzger, all miniscules had feminine accents. Check with a UBS 1998 critical text and see what it says. Ask Denny for a tie-breaker on the text base. He can give this information.
I appreciate you not being willing to just accept anything I say. For a quick read on how Paul used apostolos I recommend the article on â€œApostleâ€ by Paul Barnett in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. If you donâ€™t have that dictionary I highly recommend it. Iâ€™ll copy and paste the relevant section of that article for you. I hadnâ€™t read it earlier when I was writing you but after looking at it I pretty much agree with it and Barnett is able to state it way better than I could hope to. So here it is. Itâ€™s kind of long but I hope it helps. Iâ€™ll split into about 3 posts
5. Apostles in Paul’s Letters.
Broadly speaking, Paul uses the term apostle in two ways: in the nontechnical and in the solemn sense.
5.1. Apostle: Nontechnical. There are two references in Paul’s writings to apostle in the nontechnical sense.
In the first of these, Paul was writing from Macedonia to prepare the Corinthians for the coming of two men, about whom he writes a brief commendation (2 Cor 8:16-24). The purpose of their visit was to hasten the Corinthiansâ€™ completion of the collection for the saints in Jerusalem. Paul wrote, “[With Titus] we are sending synepempsamen) the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel” and one whom Paul calls “our brother whom we have often tested and found earnest in many matters.” Paul declared that these two “brothers” are “messengers [apostoloi] of the [Macedonian] churches” to the church in Corinth (2 Cor 8:23), sent for a practical and financial mission. This use of apostolos appears to resemble the saliah of later rabbinic writings who might be sent on a mission from Jerusalem to synagogues of the Diaspora.
In the second instance Paul wrote from prison (possibly in Rome) to the church in Philippi explaining that due to illness Epaphroditus was returning to them. Epaphroditus was the Philippian church’s “messenger [apostolos] and minister to [Paul’s] need” (Phil 2:25). This apostle’s role was practical and not directly religious. Once again the similarity between the saliah concept and the role of Epaphroditus, the apostle of the church of Philippi, seems too close to be coincidental. These two references support the notion that “messengers (apostoloi) of the churches” were well established in the Pauline churches by the middle fifties of the first century. The most probable explanation for the origin of these apostles is that Paul borrowed the idea from Jewish practice and applied it to his churches.
continued in next post – 1 of 3
…continued from previous post
5.2. Apostle: Solemn. By this we mean “apostles of Christ” (as, e.g., 1 Thess 2:6). These apostles are not sent by ordinary people on a mundane mission. The sender is Christ, the Messiah of God. The overwhelming number of Paul’s references to apostle belong to
this category, which, however, may be further divided into other apostles and Paul himself.
5.2.1. Other Apostles. There are “apostles before” Paul (Gal 1:17) located in Jerusalem. It is clear from Paul’s reflection on his apostolic call en route to Damascus, which we may date in the mid thirties, that there were apostles from earliest times in the primitive church, indeed from the time of the first Easter (“Christ . . . appeared . . . to all the apostles,” 1 Cor 15:8). Were there apostles after Paul? Is there a historical point after which, according to Paul, there were no apostles? 1 Corinthians 15:5-11 bears on these important questions. Paul’s words “[Christ] appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve . . . then to more than five hundred brothers… then… to James… then to all the apostles.
Last of all . . . he appeared also to me” seems to demarcate a span of resurrection appearances beginning with Cephas and ending with Paul. Paul does not say, “Then he appeared to me” but “Last of all he appeared to me,” suggesting a finality of appearances.
Paul is able to go on to say “I am the least of the apostles . . . by the grace of God I am [an apostle]” because the apostles are a group limited in number. He can say that he is the “least of the apostles” since he is, in reality, the “last” apostle to whom the Lord “appeared.” The first and most basic test of apostolicity is that the claimant has “seen the Lord” (1 Cor 9:1).
The nature of Christ’s appearance to Paul was atypical. He did not see the risen Lord in the context of the first Easter in Palestine as the other apostles before
him did, but as the glorified heavenly Lord a year or two later. The unusual and much debated phrase, “As one untimely born” (to ektromati, 1 Cor 15:8), whatever it means, reflects Paul’s defense of his genuine apostleship despite the isolated and late appearance
of the Lord to him. From Paul’s standpoint the unusual nature of Christ’s resurrection appearance to him serves to mark him out as the end point of such appearances and therefore the end point of apostolic appointment.
The apostles must have been numerous since the creed refers to “all the apostles” (1 Cor 15:7) and Paul can refer to “the rest of the apostles” (1 Cor 9:5). We do not know the exact number except that there were more than twelve who were the core group. The Twelve may have functioned as the symbolic foundation for the new community of the resurrected Christ. The apostles, on the other hand, took their character from their name: they were sent by Christ to go to others. At the missionary meeting in Jerusalem there were two “apostolates” (apostolai), which involved two “sendings”: one to the circumcised (see Circumcision), the other to the Gentiles* (Gal 2:7-9).
continued in next post – 2 of 3
…continued from previous post. This is the last 3 of 3
We know the names of some, but not all the apostles. James is linked with “all the apostles” (1 Cor 15:7; cf. Gal 1:19), suggesting that, while James* was not counted among the Twelve, he was the most honored among the apostles. It is probable that James’s relationship as “the brother of the Lord” gave him his special place (cf. Gal 1:19). The “brothers of the Lord,” who are unnamed but among whom James would be included, are probably also to be thought of as apostles (see context of 1 Cor 9:5). Clearly John is to be thought of as an apostle (Gal 2:7-9). The link between Barnabas* and Paul also suggests that Barnabas is to be regarded as an apostle (1 Cor 9:6; cf. Acts 14:4). The only others named as apostles in the writings of Paul are his relatives “Andronicus and Junia(s). . . persons of note among the apostles” (Rom 16:7). If to the Twelve we add James, Barnabas, Andronicus, Junia(s) and Paul (last and least), we know the names of seventeen apostles; but the number was greater.
Paul has a high view of apostles. As founders of churches apostles are pre-eminent persons in early Christianity. Paul declares, “God has appointed apostles first in the church” (1 Cor 12:28; cf. Eph 2:20; 4:11). Moreover, theirs was a prophetic, revelatory ministry, illuminating the meaning of Christ and the gospel.* Paul claims that he and the other apostles enjoyed the revelation of God through the Spirit (see Holy Spirit) to understand the mysteries* of the gospel (Eph 3:1-9; cf. 1 Cor 2:6-16). Apostles made known this revelation of God both verbally and in their writings (Rom 16:25-2ti; 1 (.01 2:13; Eph 3:3-4).
5.2.2. Paul the Apostle. Paul refers to himself many times as an “apostle.” He frequently introduces himself to his readers as “apostle of Jesus Christ” or by similar ascription (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Tit 1:1). It is “through Jesus Christ” that Paul has “received apostleship (apostate, Rom 1:5; cf. Gal 1:1) because Jesus has “called” Paul to be an apostle and “separated” him for the gospel of God (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1) to bring about the obedience of faith* among the Gentiles (Rom 1:5; 11:13). All of this is due to the risen Christ appearing to Paul “last of all,” as the persecutor was travelling to Damascus. According to S. Kim, Paul alludes frequently to his Damascus Road encounter with Christ. In addition to more readily recognized passages such as 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8-10; Galatians 1:13-17; Philippians 3:4-11, there are others (e.g., Rom 10:2-4; 1 Cor 9:16-17; 2 Cor 3:4â€”4:6; 5:16; Eph 3:1-13; Col 1:23-29). Kim argues
that to a remarkable degree the Damascus christophany has colored and shaped Paul’s vocabulary and thought.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for taking the time to type all those posts. Too much for me to respond to, but I have enjoyed our discussion.
Grace and peace,
Over and over again I have showed people what is really in the scriptures. Over and over again they say they simply dohn’t have time. And then they keep on saying the things they like about women in the scriptures.
I have come to the firm conclusion that the subordination of women is all about the wilfull and sinful desire of men to ignore the truth. No one ever says it is about anything else than this, they don’t have time to be fair to women. You are one more in a long line of men who don’t have time to find out what the Greek of the NT really says about women.
Just remember Moo really is factually wrong on this. My interest is more in manuscipts and facts than interpretation. It is disturbing to me to see interpretation built on pure falsehood.
Iâ€™m sorry to have disappointed you. But, Bryanâ€™s post was way to long to respond to; I do have other responsibilities needing my attention. And Iâ€™m sure Bryan had other books to quote from even had I taken the time to respond.
I also realize, that your one miniscule 676 is all the proof you need to make your case. Research them all and then let me know what you find. As stated, even if Junias was a woman, whom Paul refers to as an apostle; she obviously doesnâ€™t fit the qualification as specified from Acts 1:
In replacing Judas Iscariot’s office of apostleship notice what Peter says from verses 15-26. Notice the specific requirements that Peter (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) lays out.
1. Must be a man.
2. Must have accompanied “us all the time” of Christ’s ministry.
3. Must have witnessed the baptism of John.
4. Must have witnessed the “day He was taken up from us”.
And scripture gives us no information about her (if indeed a woman and #676 doesnâ€™t close the deal for me; nor does all your disparaging remarks regarding others who present an alternative view to your own [ie. Dan Wallace- just to name one; yes there are others].
Your entire argument here rests on one ACCENT. The original manuscripts didnâ€™t use accents. So ultimately, we will NEVER have conclusive proof if Junias was a woman or a man. Why can you not see that?
Now, in 1 Timothy 2:11 (which obviously precedes 2:12), Paul states that â€œa woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.â€ or more literally â€˜a woman in silence let learn in all subjection.â€™
The verb receive (â€™let learnâ€™) is not in dispute. To learn something, one must first receive that which should be learned. By Holy Spirit inspiration, Paul the Apostle, says that â€˜a woman in silence let learn in all SUBJECTION.â€™
NONE OF THAT IS DISPUTABLE. Why canâ€™t you see that?
Then, in v.12, the first thing Paul wrote was this, â€œto teach [a]woman I do not allowâ€; or NRSV â€œI permit no woman to teachâ€. And in its context this would prohibit women from teaching men in a church context (see the end of v.12).
The verb â€˜to teachâ€™ is not in dispute. Nor is his prohibitive statement â€˜I do not allowâ€™ in dispute.
NONE OF THAT IS DISPUTABLE. Why canâ€™t you see that?
Then the next section of v.12 is where we reach the verb in dispute â€˜authenteinâ€™ or â€˜to have authorityâ€™. Paul wrote, â€œor to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.â€
Denny referred to Kostenbergerâ€™s book for support in understanding that verb and you of course rejected it as error. No surprise.
So, if we take this disputed section out of v.12, â€œto have authorityâ€, we are still left with a prohibitive statement from Paul the Apostle by HOLY SPIRIT inspiration! â€œI permit no woman to teach . . . a man; she is to keep silentâ€.
And all of this in the context of the church.
NONE OF THAT IS DISPUTABLE. Why canâ€™t YOU see that?
Just for your info. I was not about to start quoting other books to you, it just seemed that article was exactly what your were asking about and it was from a respectable source (Does anyone here object to Paul Barnett?) All I had to do was scan it in the computer, and copy and paste it. It saved me the time of having to rewrite what the article said in a perfectly clear way. I didnâ€™t mean for my post to be too long to respond to I just meant for it to answer any objections you might have to the view that there were the 12 apostles and then there were other apostles of which Paul was one of. Iâ€™d be interested to see why you still doubt that and why you continue to want to make a total of 13 apostle, the 12 and Paul, and not recognize that there were many other considered apostles that carried authority in the church including Junia. I donâ€™t think there is any dispute about whether Junia was an apostle like the 12 as nobody is claiming she was. We are trying to establish whether she was part of a larger group of apostle within the early church.
Regarding Junia I think you are mistaken, the entire argument does not all come down to an accent. The fact is that Junian as an accusative can either be a feminine or masculine name based on the ending. If it is feminine then it would be Junia, if it is masculine then it is Junias. The problem is that there is plenty of evidence for the name Junia. It was an extremely common name and in fact where we have manuscripts that have different name other than Junia, they are Julia, the most common Latin womanâ€™s name. But Junias wasnâ€™t common. There are no occurrences of the name Junias in that time. Some have put forth the hypothesis that Junias is a contracted name but there is still no real support for this. That is the most damning evidence against Junian being a manâ€™s name instead of woman. The accent doesnâ€™t really seem to make that much of a difference although it is further proof. I think the proof for Junia being a woman is pretty solid.
Regarding your response to Suzanne you seem to be saying that it doesnâ€™t matter what evidence is put forth because either way you will not be convinced. What I find disturbing is that your view on Junia seems to be completely controlled by your reading of 1 Tim 2:12. Denny stated that this is not the linchpin of the Comp position but this is one of those cases that I pointed out that no matter what evidence is put forth b egals., comps seem to want to fall back on 1 Tim and dismiss the evidence.
You raise some good questions about 1 Tim 2:12 that I wouldnâ€™t mind discussing but I donâ€™t know how profitable it would be to engage in a discussion about it since this whole time we were discussing Junia as an apostle I was under he impression that it was important to establish with you whether she was or wasnâ€™t and now seems like this whole time you really didnâ€™t seem to think that was an important point to establish whether she was or not because it all comes down to 1 Tim 2:12 for you. Is this the case? I’m not really here to debate but to discuss the evidence. I just want to know if real discussion is possible.
In the recent UBS text Metzger says that all miniscules that have accents have feminine accents. It is now openly acknowledged that there was an outright false claim in earlier translations. This is not up for dispute. Junia has only ever been a woman’s name.
I understand that as a woman I am supposed to submit to wrongdoing but this is ridiculous. We are talking about fact here.
We are talking about the FACT that the UBS text used to print information that was outright wrong in order to cover up the fact that a woman was called an apostle.
Kostenberger also quoted evidence from Baldwin who quoted it from Hubbell and he quoted the wrong thing entirely. I have those images alos online and there is only one text involved so it would not take Denny all day to confirm that Baldwin has misquoted the text.
Just because Denny said that he didn’t have time to pursue it further does not mean that I am wrong. In fact, if Denny had had evidence against my point he would have posted it. The fact that he let go of the discussion regarding the meaning of authentein inicates that he does not have an answer.
Wallace and Burer admit that they did not properly quote their evidence for Junia being well known to the apostles. This is still up in the air. I don’t know if they will ever be able to defend their hypothesis, but will they retract. No, simply because they cannot admit that Junia might very well be an apostle.
No matter what this means doctrinally, there is no way that such errors of translation should be accepted to diminish the stature of women in the Bible.
These are three times that articles and commentaries have made outright errors regarding passages about women.
And you tell me to learn in silence. In fact it becomes obvious that you don’t care about Greek at all becuase it says “in quietness” just as men are to “quiet lives.” 1 Tim. 2:2.
So I submit to you that, as you would say “more literally”, men should live “silent lives”. Why can’t YOU see that?
I dont want my mom fighting no wars.
Here is the evidence that Baldwin misquoted Hubbell.
I have listed all the manuscripts with feminine accents and quoted Metzger. You quote Moo. I quote Hubbell and you quote Kostenberger.
Ask Denny to look at the evidence.
I dont want yo mama fighting no wars either.
Back to Junias you go. As I have said before, I will give her/him? to you. It doesn’t matter.
So she/he was called an apostle (one who was sent), and he/she was even one of the best of those who were sent as servants of Christ. Great. Greek is Greek. Apostle means ‘sent one’ or a close equivalent. That use in Rom. 16.7 is not describing the office of an apostle.
The office of apostle is established in Luke 6:13 and described in Acts 1.
And I submit that Paul, and only Paul, is a unique exception to that rule. Debatable Yes. That’s what Bryan and I were doing very nicely.
Other uses of apostle can easily and naturally be described as ‘sent ones’.
And don’t forget about 1 Tim. 2:11-12. Take out authentin in v.12 and there is still a prohibition from Paul (Holy Spirit inspired) for women not to teach men in a church context. Greek is Greek. Words have meaning. Context rules!
This I do see! Why can’t YOU?
The book comment wasn’t a slam. I appreciated you putting the time into what you did. There were just too many points I would need to respond to- and I do have a life apart from this discussion and bills to pay. Sorry if it came across wrongly. I did appreciate our discussion. And look forward to others.
Here is the evidence that Baldwin misquoted Hubbell. I quote Hubbell and you quote Kostenberger who quoted Baldwin who quoted Hubbell. Lots of room for error.
I have listed by number all the manuscripts with feminine accents and quoted Metzger. You quote Moo who quotes, I am not quite sure, tell me.
Ask Denny to look at the evidence.
We’ll accept that Kostenberger, Moo, Baldwin and everyone else involved has misquoted evidence. Now we are supposed to agree that men have some kind of authority that is independent of whether or not they are accurate?
Quote any passage that says that “teaching authority” is something that a man has whether he is accurate or not, and a woman has not, whether or not she is accurate.
And tell me if you don’t think that handling the word skillfully is important.
In 1 Tim. 2:12 the words ‘teaching’ and ‘authority’ are separated by the word ‘nor’ (oude).
“To teach a woman I do not allow NOR to have authority of (over) a man, but to be in silence.”
I know you know this. So why would you put them together as you did, “teaching authority” as if they were one concept together. Skillfulness is important, remember!
Could it be that you want the disputed meaning of authentin to some how cloud the rest of the verse as well? If only they were stuck together as one concept, then . . .
“Handling the word skillfully is important”.
No misquoted evidence here. Just the facts!
You would be right if that is what I was referring to.
I did not explain well. What I meant was, where does the scripture say that such a thing as “teacing authority” exists. I imply that there is no scripture for “teaching authority.” Either a person teaches the truth or they do not. This is irrespective of whether a person is male or female. A male is no more likely to be accurate than a female.
So I contend that aside from the fact that one must teach the true word, there is no such thing as teaching authority. I mean, it does not exist.
I spoke out of turn because Denny does not hold to the idea that women should not have “teaching authority” or “teach with authority”. He believes it says that a woman should not teach “Christian doctrine”.
So I assume from this that Greek, Hebrew, church history and exegesis would all be fine for women to teach. Any other thing that a woman can do accurately she should do, English, essay writing, music, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, things like that.
I think that would go a long way to clearing up the disagreements. First men and women need to agree on what the text actually says. That would be the first step.
That was a bit muddled, but all I mean is that seminaries should welcome women in teaching the Biblical languages among other things, or remove women from the universities altogether. If a woman may not teach a man, she may not teach a man. But if a woman may not teach a man Christian doctrine, she may teach a man anything but Christian doctrine. She may also lead a worship service where the purpose is not teaching but communion, for example.
Fair enough Ben. Maybe another time. I have some thoughts on your questions and statements about 1 Tim 2 thing and your opinions about apostles in the early church but I think I’ll leave it at that as this conversation has already steered way off the original intent of this post and it doesn’t really seem to be going anywhere.
Thanks for the conversation.
Looking at my UBS Analytical Greek New Testament, copyright (1966, 1968, 1975); this one printed December 1995; edited by Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wikgren in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research.
For Junias in Rom. 16.7 :
The Greek Text analysis was edited by Barbara & Timothy Friberg
Are you familiar with this resource? Are you saying, in your opinion, this also is fraudulent?
Yes, even though the 2nd edition of the UBS textual commentary appeared in 1994, the UBS text was not corrected until 1998, which was the fourth edition of the UBS text. What you must have is a reprint of the third edition, which still presents what the editors thought must be true, in spite of the evidence.
Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich also listed the name Junias as masculine but remark that it was not attested elsewhere.
So at that time, throughout the last century the bias against women was so strong that the text editors and lexicon editors, believed that it could not be a woman.
This was in spitee of knowing that Junia was a very common female name and Junias as a male name was unattested.
The Textus Receptus and the King James version have Junia – female, but Luther was the first to make Junia masculine, however, without at text base.
Up until 1927 the published text showed Iounian accented as female. From 1927 to 1998 the name was accented as male, because the editors thought it must be a male, even though they knew that early church fathers listed her as female.
I think fruadulent is really too strong word, although I may have implied that. I believe that bias against women is so embedded in culture that people are not aware of their presuppositions.