Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[olger]

Jesus chose 12 men as His apostles. Then He puts twelve foundations under the New Jerusalem - one for each Apostle. I think Jesus is a Good Builder.

`oG

[John317]

Quote:

aldona: If we truly followed Christ's Great Commission, and genuinely did more than pay lip service to the "priesthood of all believers" doctrine which Protestantism is founded upon, then we would ALL be baptizing.

What do you do with the church organization that the New Testament describes?

Does the New Testament describe a time when all believers baptized people?

Quote:

aldona: Just as Christ instructed his followers to go and make disciples of all nations, He commanded them to baptize. He did not say "only those of you who are ordained with the proper credentials may baptize the ones whom your brethren and sisters have helped to win."

All Christians have a responsibility to represent Christ and help spread the gospel. But does "making disciples" and "teaching" necessarily mean baptizing?

Quote:

aldona: Even Catholics believe that in an emergency, any professing Christian believer may baptize another.

I think the key here is "in an emergency." No church allows every member to baptize anyone they choose. There's a good reason they don't.

Despite the fact that there is a movement within the Roman Catholic Church to change some aspect of their doctrines, most Catholics still believe that people who aren't baptized won't go to heaven. For instance, babies who haven't been baptized go to "limbo." The Bible, of course, doesn't teach that. It doesn't teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. So it's natural for Catholics to have a different view about it than Seventh-day Adventists.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: ....[ya'll know that the church was organized in 1860, dontcha?]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Pretty close-- 1863, to be exact.

The point is that James White conducted baptisms. Ellen White never did.

Quote:

Neil D: ......and that he was NOT ordained.

What implications does this bring? John, this is important...

James White was an ordained minister of the gospel when he baptized Ellen White.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

The point is that James White conducted baptisms. Ellen White never did baptize anyone.

Quote:

Woody: Anyone can baptize in that kind of 'unauthorized' fashion. I could go out an baptize someone if I wanted. But it would not be recognized by the church. I hardly think that this supposed , undocumented, unwitnessed , unverified and unofficial RE-baptism ... proves anything. So, I am very thankful that our prophet didn't partake in this kind of activity.

Ellen White was not baptized in an "unauthorized" fashion. James White was an ordained minister of the gospel at the time her baptism took place.

It is not a "supposed, undocumented, unverified and unofficial" baptism.

James White wrote about it in Life Incidents, page 273, and it is also found in Arthur White's biography, The Early Years, page 121.

James White was an ordained minister of the gospel and conducted baptisms. Ellen White never did baptize anyone.

[Woody]

what church was she accepted into membership with?

and what date was this?

can you give us the name of witnesses?

and can you provide the baptismal certificate or record of this ... as I provided for her 'real' baptism?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The point is that James White conducted baptisms. Ellen White never did.

Quote:

Neil d: ......and that he was NOT ordained.

Yes, James White was an ordained minister at that time he baptized Ellen White. See SDA BC Vol. 10, page 1420. He was ordained 4 years before he baptized Ellen White.

Quote:

What implications does this bring? John, this is important...

Yes, I agree his baptism of Ellen White was important, and it was important that he was an ordained minister of the gospel. What "implications" do you see in this?

Quote:

Woody: This is typical of the anti-WO crowd. They bring up issues regarding what James White did when he was not a pastor as evidence of what a pastor should and should not do. It simply makes no sense.

But James White was an ordained pastor/minister. See 10 SDA BC 1420. Article under "James White."

Quote:

Woody: I should think that what was done in an unauthorized and undocumented and unwitnessed manner ... should have no positive bearing on this case. In fact ... it only has a negative bearing from my view of this mess.

It proves that James White conducted baptisms, which Ellen White never did. The question was asked if James White baptized people, and the answer is clearly yes.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: My only point in quoting Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich is that this highly respected Lexicon says Junias was a man.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: do you see a difference between stating that the lexicon says Junias was a man and in saying that the lexicon says that the context probably rules out the female gender?

Gregory, would you please tell us whether the entry in Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon gives the name as referring to a male? Is it an accute accent or a circumflex?

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: Does it appear to you that you have overstated what it said? I think that you did.

No, I have not. How have I overstated it? All I said was that this particular lexicon says that the individual in Romans 16: 7 is a male. And the entry clearly proves it. It gives the name as that of a male, not a female.

Quote:

I think that this is not the first time you have done so.

Let me know what else you have in mind, Gregory. We should revisit it because I don't want to overstate anything.

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: You raise many points that must be considered.

Yes, and one of them is the baptism of Ellen White by James White. This is together with the fact that James White conducted baptisms and marriages as an ordained minister of the gospel, and Ellen White never did. These are facts that I'm sure you agree with. If you don't, let us know. In fact, let us know if you do agree with them.

Quote:

But, as I read you, you insert within your important point opinions that are confused with facts, over statements of facts, intrepretations of evidence that go beyond what the evidence suggests.

How did I do that? What exactly did I say that was an opinion confused with facts?

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: Then I get frustrated when you argue a pont with vigor and the in response to objections that are raised tell us that the point you made is really not of major importanace and you go off in another direction.

I think you misunderstood me. Are you talking about my saying that it doesn't matter to me whether Junias is a male or female? Just because I am arguing that the evidence shows this person was a male doesn't mean that I think it's an issue of great importance.

I am saying that even if this person was a woman, I don't think it would make any difference as far as the overall doctrine of church organization or leadership is concerned.

I'm not aware of having gone off in "another direction," at least deliberately.

But let me know what other direction I have gone, and we can bring it back to the direction it was in before. I make it a practice to answer anyone's questions, so if I go in another direction for a while, that doesn't mean I am in that direction permenantly. I try to address fully all the issues that people bring up.

[John317]

Wow. I didn't know that.

Arthur White wrote in his biography of his grandmother, "Soon after accepting the Sabbath truth, Ellen White requested rebaptism-- undoubtedly into the third angel's message. James White writes of this in Life Incidents, page 273, in connection with his presentation of Ellen White's visions:

'On receiving baptism at my hands, at an early period of her experience, as I raised her up out of the water, immediately she was in vision.'

"This is the only reference to this step in her experience; the date of the rebaptism is not known." The Early Years, page 121, 122.

James White was an ordained minister of the gospel at that time, having been ordained in April 1843, to the ministry in the Christian denomination. See 10 SDA BC 1420.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody This is typical of the anti-WO crowd. They bring up issues regarding what James White did when he was not a pastor as evidence of what a pastor should and should not do. It simply makes no sense.

As the moderator, I wouldn't allow posters to put all people in favor of Women Ordination in a negative category the way you have the "anti-WO crowd," so I am going to request that you not do it to others. I know from your posts that you don't like it when people do it to you, so please do to others as you want people to do to you.

When I see this kind of thing posted on this thread or on others, I will edit such remarks. They're unfair and not right, and they violate the rules of the forum.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D:

According to Epp (p. 66), the following versions have adopted the feminine (Junia) reading:

Tyndale, Cranmer, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops Bible, Rheims (“Julia”), King James Version, Weymouth, Lamsa (NT), New American Bible, New King James Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Century Bible, New American Bible, Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Oxford Inclusive Version, New Living Translation.

In addition, other English versions not included by Epp which translate the name as feminine include the Bible in Basic English, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, Today’s New English Version, and the Webster Bible.

There are more English translations than those listed here which translate the name as Junia.

The best translations which translate it as Junia are New American Bible, New King James Bible, KJV, New Revised Standard Version, Weymouth, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Notice that most of above translations will tell you in the margins or footnotes that the correct translation may be "Junias." This means that while the majority of the translators of that particular translation voted for "Junia," a significant number of the translators voted for "Junias."

Quote:

According to Epp (p. 66), the following versions have adopted the masculine (Junias) reading:

Dickinson, Emphasized Bible, Revised Version (1881), Rheims (American Edition), American Standard Version (ASV), Goodspeed, Complete Bible (1903), Modern Reader’s Bible, Moffatt,

Ronald Knox, Revised Standard Version (RSV), Phillips, Amplified New Testament, New English Bible, New American Standard Bible (NASB), Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible,

Living Bible, New International Version (NIV), The Message, Contemporary English Version.

In addition, other English versions not included by Epp that translate the name as masculine include the Darby Bible, the English Standard Version, God’s Word to the Nation Version, New English Translation (NET), and the Young Literal Translation.

Again, there are many more translations which translate the name as Junias. Of my 65+ translations of Romans 16: 7, the majority render it as "Junias."

The above proves what I have been saying all along-- that the evidence is inconclusive. No one can be sure whether it was Junias or Junia. God alone knows.

Notice that Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament shows that it could read either male or female. It says a woman's name "is possible" (p. 306).

The best translations have generally chosen to translate it as Junias.

The most dependable and most accurate translations in the above list are the Ephasized Bible, Young's Literal Translation, New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, the Amplified Version, Darby's Translation, and the English Standard Verson.

I could add many more translations to this list, just as I could also add a few more to the list which translates it as "Junia." As I said, a majority of English translations render it as a male name, "Junias." Also, the majority of Greek New Testaments show it to be a masculine name.

This does not prove the name to be masculine. It merely shows there is good reason to believe it probably was. NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. THEREFORE IT CAN'T REASONABLY BE MADE THE FOUNDATION OF ANYONE'S THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OR OF WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: ... we all know that Elder White was a minister of the SDA church at the time in 1847....right?

No, of course he was not an SDA minister. The SDA church did not exist at that time. He was an ordained minister in the Christian denomination. The point is that James White was an ordained minister at the time he baptized Ellen G. White. This is in answer to the question whether James White conducted baptisms. And obviously he did.

The SDA church recognizes the legitimacy of baptisms conducted by ordained ministers of other denominations.

[Gregory Matthews]

John 317 said:

Quote:

For instance, babies who haven't been baptized go to "limbo."

Sorry, John, you clearly are not up on current Roman Catholic thology.

NOTE: I said current . . .

[John317]

Yes, I am, Gregory. I know that the Catholic church is going through changes in regard to limbo, but I am talking here about the laity, who still believe in it. My wife's family are all Catholics and I know what they think about mother's who don't baptize their babies. We didn't baptize our children when they were born, and my wife's family were very concerned for what would happen to our children if they were to die.

There's a difference between official Roman Catholic beliefs and the beliefs of the laity. They change slowly and don't always recognize the official doctrines as are they written on official documents of the church.

This, from the wikipedia:

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that it [Limbo] is considered consonant with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching.] Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo" are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition. These theories are not official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members.

[Neil D]

Again, there are many more translations which translate the name as Junias. Of my 65+ translations of Romans 16: 7, the majority render it as "Junias."

The above proves what I have been saying all along-- that the evidence is inconclusive. No one can be sure whether it was Junias or Junia. God alone knows.

[Neil D]

In case you missed the post, John, here it is again...sans my comments...sorry for the length...

JUNIA, A FEMALE APOSTLE:

Resolving the Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7

Dennis J. Preato

For Bio click here

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to solve two major interpretive problems in Romans 16.7. The first is concerned with resolving the gender of the person named Iounian. Was this person a woman? The Greek word Iounian has been translated as "Junias" (male) and as "Junia" (female). The second problem is concerned with the meaning of the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois. Andronicus and Junia were "either highly regarded by the early church leaders (the apostles) or they were regarded as apostles themselves."1 Resolution of these issues can have important ramifications for how the church should carry out her continual mandate. Reviewing Romans 16 will contribute to a better realization that both women and men were participants in all areas of ministry in the church. They were ministers, deacons, leaders and even apostles.

II. THE TWO VIEWS: MALE VS. FEMALE

Part of the interpretive problem is that the word Iounian, translated as Junia(s), appears only once in the Greek New Testament (GNT) and is shown in the accusative case with a certain accent mark. The use or absence of such mark is a significant factor accounting for the textual variations that appear in the GNT. The oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts contain no accents or punctuation marks. In addition, the GNT includes early support for a female named Ioulian, translated as "Junia." According to Douglas Moo, the problem with identifying this person "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' or (2) to a woman with the name of Junia."2 The use of such accents mark did not occur until the 9th or 10th century.

Additionally, there is limited external data specifically discussing the gender of the person Paul refers to as Iounian. Why is this? Probably because this issue was not a concern for those who lived in Paul's time. The first century and early Christian community would have certainly known the gender of the person in question. Therefore, a careful review of the evidence offered by manuscripts, writings from church leaders and scholarly research should shed more light on resolving theses issues.

Bible translators appear divided on the how they interpret Iounian. For example, the ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NAB prefer "Junias" while the KJV, NRSV, NKJV, NCV, REB prefer "Junia." Some bibles also footnote the name "Julia." This divergence in translations only serves to highlight the problem faced by modern readers of the text. The task is to synthesize the data and reach a conclusion on the basis of objective evidence.

1. Evidence for Male: Manuscripts

Bibles and commentators generally utilize Greek New Testaments in their translation and interpretive pursuit. Both the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testaments show Iounian accented with a circumflex accent over the alpha, which indicates "Junias" as being a contracted form of Junianus, a male name.3 Support for "Junias" is attested to by B2 , D2, Yvid., 33 and a number of minuscules dated from the 9th to 14th century. Chrysostom is also listed as lectionary support for this position.

a. Discussion. Some external evidence does exist supporting a reading of "Junias." However, this support is not among the oldest available witnesses. The majority of support for Junias comes from numerous minuscule manuscripts from mostly the 13th-14th centuries. These later minuscules contain accent marks reflecting the writer's interpretation that Iounian was a masculine name.4 Minuscule 33 is listed as support for Junias. However, according to Douglas Moo, this 9th century minuscule actually represents an important exception to the contracted form and supports the feminine form rather than the masculine.5 According to many scholars, including Bernadette Brooten, Peter Lampe, Leonard Swidler, Bruce Metzger and Dianne McDonnell, the male name "Junias" is unattested to in ancient writings.6 Additionally, the USB4 GNT may have incorrectly listed Chrysostom as support for a male "Junias." According to John Piper and many others, Chrysostom actually bears witness to a female Junia and not to a male Junias.7

b. Assessment. The manuscripts and lectionary support cited provide little justification to support a male reading.

2. Evidence for Male: Church Leader and Writings

John Piper and Wayne Grudem state that Epiphanius (315-403) wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he writes: "Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria." According to them, Epiphanuis wrote "of whom" as a masculine relative pronoun thereby indicating that he thought Iounias was a man.8 Piper and Grudem also presented the results of their computer search of ancient Greek writings looking for the name "Junia(s)." Based on their findings, they concluded that "no one should claim that Junia was a common woman's name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only three known examples in all of ancient Greek literature."9

a. Discussion. Douglas Moo discusses Epiphanius and calls into question the reliability of this evidence because in the same passage, Epiphanius thought "Prisca" (Priscilla) was a man."10 This church father also wrote and believed that "the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women... We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women" (Epiphanius, Adversus Collyridianos, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume 42, Column 740 f).11

The computer search by Piper and Grudem is inconclusive regarding their statement that "Junia" was not a common name in ancient writings. Many scholars including Brooten, Lampe, Metzger, Moo, McDonnell and Osburn claim otherwise, and state that "Junia" was a common name. However, the real significance of Piper and Grudem's search is the fact that they could not cite any example for a male named Junias. James Walters states: "Researchers have been unable to locate a single example of the male name Junias in ancient literature or inscriptions, either Latin or Greek." 12

b. Assessment. The observation by Moo and the misogynist statements by Epiphanius about women casts strong doubt to the appropriateness of this person providing any objective evidence in support of a male reading. His beliefs toward women may have certainly colored his thinking and writings. Therefore, we cannot conclude that this church father is an unbiased and credible witness. The computer search performed by Piper and Grudem offers no evidence for a male reading.

3. Evidence for Female: Early Manuscripts

According to Douglas Moo, the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testatments cite "Junia" as a variant reading.13 This variant reading is attested to by Codexes Sinaiticus (a), A, B*,C, D*, F,G, P. The GNT also cites "Julia" as a variant reading. Support for this female name is evidenced by P46, 6, itar,b, vgmss, copbo, eth, and Church Father, Jerome.

According to many scholars, Junia was a common name that appeared in Greek and Latin inscriptions and literature. Brooten states, "the female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among inscriptions from ancient Rome alone."14 Peter Lampe has also discovered over 250 examples of the female name Junia.15 Bruce Metzer, editor of the GNT, likewise agrees that Junia is well attested to in ancient literature.

a. Discussion. Support for a female named Julia is evidenced by P46, a papyrus manuscript, dating from around a.d. 200. This papyrus represents the earliest known and most reliable testimony in support of Julia. The 3rd century Coptic, 4th century Vulgate, and fifth century Latin versions provide additional early support for this female name. These early manuscripts clearly support a female named "Julia." Junia, the other variant reading, is supported by the earliest known manuscripts available. Sinaiticus dates from the fourth century and is earliest surviving complete copy of the Greek New Testament.16 Codexes A, B, C, D date from the 4th to 5th century and represent a broad spectrum of "text types." These early witnesses, by themselves, do not clearly reveal how an unaccented Iounian should be translated. The cumulative evidence provided by other ancient manuscripts, the existence of "Junia" as a common name in ancient times, and the lack of any evidence for "Junias" cannot be ignored. It is not unreasonable to state, as Moo does, that these early witnesses attest to "Junia."

b. Assessment. The quality and age of the above manuscripts provide strong support for a female name whether it be rendered "Julia" or "Junia." The research from many different scholars clearly support that a female named Junia occurred frequently in ancient writings.

4. Evidence for Female: Church Leaders and Writings

In commenting on Romans 16:7, John Chrysostom (347-407) states:

"Greet Andronicus and Junia...who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle."17

Chrysostom was not alone in confirming the gender of Junia as female. Earlier commentator Origen of Alexander (185-253) understood the name to be feminine.18 Others included Jerome (340-419) who wrote that Junia was a female. (Liver Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72,15.), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961, Theophylack (1050-1108), and Peter Abelar (1079-1142).19

a. Discussion. External evidence from writings of early church leaders testify that Junias was a woman apostle. Current scholars provide additional insight. Commenting on the gender of Junia, Leonard Swidler states, "To the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine."20 Douglas Moo agrees that commentators before that 13th century were unanimous in favor of a female rendering.21 Stanley Grenz maintains that "the gender of Junia was not an issue in the patristic era ... Origen assumed that Paul's friend was a women...Chrysostom, who was no supporter of women bishops, expressed high regard for Junia."22 Ray R. Schulz states the Church Fathers agreed that Junia was a female apostle.23

From the very earliest times, the attitude of the "church fathers" toward women could be described as negative at best.24 Origen, Chrysostom and others were no exceptions to the prevailing attitudes. Yet despite their negative attitudes towards women they gave testimony that Junia was female.

b. Assessment. The testimony by church various leaders through the 12th century provide convincing support that Iounian was female.

III. One of the Apostles VS. Highly Regarded

The second issue under consideration is whether Andronicus and Junia where "among" as "one of" the apostles or were simply highly regarded "by" the apostles. Grammatically, some say both meanings are possible. It is interesting, however, to observe that while the ten Bible translations, mentioned earlier, are evenly divided on how they translated Iounian, they are unanimous on the meaning of episemoi en tois apostolois. For example, they are "outstanding apostles" (NAB), "outstanding among" (NASB, NIV), "prominent among" (NRSV), "eminent among" (REB), "of note among" (KJV, ASV, NJKV) and the NCV states "they are very important apostles." All these bibles translated episemoi en tois apostolois as meaning they were "one of" the apostles. James Walthers states "virtually all" English bibles interpret the phrase as meaning they were among the apostles.25

1. Evidence They Were Apostles: Natural Meaning

a. Discussion. Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson states that the phrase en tois apostolois "naturally means that they are counted among the apostles in the general sense of Barnabas, James, the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense."26 Moo also concludes that it is more natural to translate the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois as "esteemed among the apostles" and not "esteemed by the apostles." He also states that earlier interpreters would argue against Paul meaning a woman because they had difficulty in "imagining that a woman could hold such authority in the early church.27 In this sense, such a translation would also represent the harder or more difficult one. J.B. Lightfoot agrees that the only natural way to translate episemoi en tois apostolois is "regarded as apostles."28 Cranfield states it is "virtually certain" that the phrase means "outstanding among the apostles." Walkers, commenting on Cranfield's remarks said, "this is the way the phrase was understood by all of the patristic writers and by most all modern commentators.29 Bauer provides the normal meaning of episemoi en tois apostolois as "outstanding among the apostles."30

Aida Besancon Spencer, makes the grammatical point that "the Greek preposition en which is used here always has the idea of 'within.'"31 Greek text books point out that en followed by the dative normally means "in, on or among." For example, en tois is translated as "among those" (1 Cor 2:6), and en tois ethnesin as "among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:12, 1 Cor 5:1, Gal 2:2, Col 1:27, 1 Pet 2:12). Where en tois is followed by a plural noun referring to a group of people, the word en is translated as "among." F.F. Bruce adds that not only were they "well known to the apostles" but they were "notable members of the apostolic circle."32 Liddel-Scott defines the Greek word episemoi as "having a mark on" it.33 James A. Witmer, explains that episemoi, literally means "having a mark [sema] on them," therefore they are "illustrious, notable, or outstanding" among the apostles.34 These defintions seem to describe them as one who "bears the mark" of an apostle.

b. Assessment. Numerous contemporary and past scholarship, lexical definitions, and grammatical construction provide conclusive support that they were "regarded as apostles."

2. Evidence for a Women Apostle: Church Bishop

Fourth century bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom wrote a series of homilies. On Romans 16.7 he "noted: 'Oh how great is the devotion of this women that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!' (The Homiles of St. John Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, 11:555; Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956)."35 Chrysostom praised Junia as an apostle. He also praised other women. It is significant to reflect on his following comment in reference to Paul's greeting of Mary in Romans 16:6:

How is this? A woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honor conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women among us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind by them . . . For the women of those days were more spirited than lions. (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 51, cols. 668f.)36

a. Discussion. Chrysostom's writings provide us with important insight into the ministry of women in the early church. Junia was an apostle and was not the only woman so honored by the early church. Chrysostom's statements about these women are particularly convincing especially in light of his misogynist views toward women.37

b. Assessment. Chrysostom provides credible objective evidence that Junia was an apostle.

3. Evidence for Highly Regarded

Some interpreters, have taken the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois to mean that they were "held in high esteem" by those who were apostles. John Piper and Wayne Grudem simply say they may have been held in high regard or that they were "of note among the apostles" meaning they were well known before Paul was converted. Thomas Schreiner states that if Junias was a woman apostle, then tension would be created because "apostles were the most authoritative messenger of God." He implies that women could not serve God in this manner. He states Roman 16.7 is unclear, but does not attempt to explain why he says this.

a. Discussion. Piper and Grudem offer no exegetical evidence to support their opinions and conclude "we cannot be certain."38 Their remarks are only opinions and are not based on any objective evidence. Schreiner provides no objective evidence to support the claim that Junia(s) was only highly regarded other than his own subjective opinion.39 James Walters states: "It is highly unlikely that Paul would have recommended this pair to the Roman Christians by saying they were "outstanding in the eyes of the apostles." Paul's comments on one's reputation in Galatians 2:6-9 would seem to argue against him trying to bolster the Roman Christians' opinion of the couple.40 Craig Keener casts serious doubt upon any such interpretation, saying, "Since they were imprisoned with him, Paul knows them well enough to recommend them without appealing to the other apostles, whose judgment he never cites on such matters, and the Greek is most naturally read as claiming that they were apostles."41

b. Assessment. There is no exegetical evidence offered or available that could substantially justify that "highly regarded" is the most probable and natural reading of this passage.

IV. PREFERRED VIEW

Junia was a female apostle. This is the preferred view. The evidence is authoritative, compelling, diverse, and objective. Junia has been demonstrated to be a woman based on the testimony of early manuscripts, recorded statements of various church leaders through the 12th century, and research performed by many other scholars attesting to the name Junia or Julia existing in ancient times.

The evidence for a male reading was based on later manuscripts subject to the interpretations of scribes who thought Iounian was a male and to the statement by one early church leader who was also mistaken as to the correct gender of Prisca. Computer-generated searches could find no example of a male Junias in ancient times nor is there any evidence proving that Junias was ever a contracted form of a longer name.

Junia and Andronicus were apostles. Numerous contemporary and past scholarship, lexical definitions, grammatical construction, and scriptural examples all provide the strongest support that episemoi en tois apostolois, naturally meant they were "outstanding among the apostles," just as Chrysostom so elegantly declared.

1. Meaning of Apostle

Andronicus and Junia were apostles. The only unresolved question is what did Paul mean by "apostles." James Walters offers four distinct ways "apostle" was used in the New Testament: 1) the Twelve original followers of Jesus, 2) persons who had seen the risen Lord and been commissioned by Him (1 Cor 9.1; 15:1-11); 3) a missionary successful in church planting, labor and suffering (which underlie Paul's arguments in 2 Cor); and 4) an emissary or missionary sent out by a particular church to perform specific tasks (2 Cor 8.23 and Phil 2.25).42 The first and fourth choice can be ruled out because they were not among the "twelve" nor was their apostleship specifically associated with a particular church or specific task. Selecting between the remaining choices 2 and 3 is more problematic. They certainly could have been among either or both of the remaining groups. We simply do not know. They may have ministered together as a married couple. An interesting parallel would then exist with Prisca and Aquila mentioned by Paul in Romans 16.3-5a. We do know, however, that Paul did not assign any gender-specific roles in his greeting to Andronicus and Junia, nor should the church today. They were both equally deemed outstanding apostles.

2. Concluding Comments

Andronicus and Junias were outstanding among the apostles probably by virtue of their apostolic sufferings, the numbers of years they had been in Christ, their labor, and their humble service for Christ. May the eyes of all those in the Church be opened to see this important truth and its significant implication in allowing women to minister equally as they are called by God. To do otherwise is to deny the full redemptive work of Christ.

NOTES_________________

1 Stanley Grenz, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, (Downers Grove: InterVaristy, 1995), 93. 2 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 921; James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)-Rom. 16:1-2,7," in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Volume I, ed. Carroll Osburn (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1995), 186. 3 Douglas Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 922. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)-Rom. 16:1-2,7" in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Volume I, ed. Carroll D. Osburn (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1995), 186. 7 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, "An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), 80. 8 Ibid, 79. 9 Ibid, 80. 10 Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 922. 11 Ronald L. Dart, "The Christian Woman" [on-line article], available from http://www.abcog.org/woman.htm; accessed 9 October 2001. 12 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 186. 13 Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 922. 14 Bernadette Brooten, "Junia," Women in Scripture (2000):109; quoted by Dianne D. McDonnell, "Junia, A Woman Apostle" [on-line article]; available from http://www.churchofgoddfw.com./monthly/junia.html ; accessed 8 February 2002. 15 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 186. 16 David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, A Concise Guide, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 19. 17 Bernadette Brooten, "Junia ... Outsanding among the Apostles (Romans 16.7)"[on-line article], available from http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.htm; accessed 2 February 2002. 18 Ibid. 19 Dianne D. McDonnell, "Junia, A Woman Apostle" [on-line article]; available from http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/junia.shtml; accessed 8 February 2002. This article includes discussion of how Junia become known as a male during the papal reign of Boniface VIII. 20 Ibid. 21 Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 922. 22 Stanley Grenz, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology, 95. 23 Ibid. 24 Dart, "The Christian Woman", accessed 9 October 2001. 25 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 186. 26 Archibald Thomas Roberston, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4: Epistles of Paul, (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parsons Technology, Inc., 1997), electronic edition. 27 Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 923. 28 Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle In the Early Church, trans. John E. Steely, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1969), 62. 29 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 186. 30 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 298. 31 Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 104. 32 F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 298, 388. 33 Liddel-Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parsons Technology, Inc., 1997), electronic edition. 34 John A. Witmer, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminay Faculty: New Testatment, (Hiawatha, Iowa: Parson Technolgy, Inc., 1997), electronic editon. 35 Leonard Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Woman, (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1979), 299. 36 Ibid, 295. 37 Ibid, 343. 38 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, "An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 80. 39 Thomas R. Schreiner, "The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A survey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 221. 40 James Walters, "Phoebe and Junia(s)," 187-188. 41 Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 242. 42 James Walters, 188.

Dennis J. Preato, Master of Divinity, magna cum laude is a graduate of Bethel Seminary, San Diego (June 2004). A condensed version of this paper was published in "Priscilla Papers" Volume 17, Issue 2, Spring 2003.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: Neil, you have just barely scratched the surface of this issue. You're jumping to your conclusions prematurely.

For instance, how many sources have you really looked at closely?

Also, have you studied NT Greek? Somehow you don't give me the impression that you understand it. If I asked you to parse Romans 16: 7, would you be able to do it?

Can you explain in your own words why you believe the name is that of a female and not a male? What is the evidence and what is your reasoning?

Quote:

Neil D: Ok, John, time for the "I'm not evaluating his evidence no matter how good it looks and I am not dazzling him with MY intelligence , so I will shoot the messenger" post.

If that's supposed to be what I'm doing or thinking, you're totally wrong.

Quote:

Neil D: You imply that I am not really looking at the evidence, and that my sources are contradicting each other.

I'm not implying that at all. I don't know if you're looking at all the evidence or not, and I'm not really concerned with that. That's up to you.

Quote:

This is not the case, in that I have seen AND posted sources in favor of what you are proposing. Apparently you forgot that.

OK, thanks for that. I did reply to that post, by the way. Check it out.

Quote:

Neil D: There are MUCH MORE INSISTENT sites that readily assume and deny even the hint of a possiblity that Junia is a male. Those are feminist sites. I have been avoiding posting them [ but if you wish, I can post them as well. Do you wish...?] And they have some very good arguments...Perhaps you would like to parse out the greek with them...? [i suspect that they will not be as nice with you as I have been...] ..Oh, and they also have little letters behind thier names, like PhD. ect. Maybe you understand those letters, 'cus it appears that I don't seem to in your estimation...

Actually, yes, Neil, I would like to see what they are saying is their biblical evidence. You are hereby invited to post whatever you think is a good argument.

Quote:

Neil D: Just because you can find that stuff out EASIER doesn't mean that the information isn't out there.

All kinds of information is "out there." The question is whether it's legit and true. On most subjects you can get anything and everything you want to find and from virtually any viewpoint you like. The question, then, is whether a person knows how to weed the truth from the false. It's important. For instance, today one can find dozens of web-sites against the Sabbath, the Investigative Judgment, and against Ellen White, and they spread that "information" far and wide. There's a lot of people who are deceived by that "information" because they don't know how to tell what's false and what's true. That's also the case when it comes to this subject. It's important for everyone to know their Bible and know the Spirit of prophecy and to have the Holy Spirit. If we don't, we'll be deceived for sure.

Quote:

Come on, John...admit that there is more than one way to get the information that one needs and still know what he is talking about. IOWs, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

So please, don't shoot the messenger....

I'm not shooting anyone, Neil. I'm talking seriously. It's a serious subject. I never suggested there wasn't more than one way to get information. You can get all kinds of information, both good and bad, true and false.

[John317]

In case you missed the post, John, here it is again...sans my comments...sorry for the length...

JUNIA, A FEMALE APOSTLE:

Resolving the Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7

....

Dennis J. Preato, Master of Divinity, magna cum laude is a graduate of Bethel Seminary, San Diego (June 2004). A condensed version of this paper was published in "Priscilla Papers" Volume 17, Issue 2, Spring 2003.

Neil, why did you post this again? Is this exactly like the first post? Or did you add something to it?

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): Part of the interpretive problem is that the word Iounian, translated as Junia(s), appears only once in the Greek New Testament (GNT) and is shown in the accusative case with a certain accent mark. The use or absence of such mark is a significant factor accounting for the textual variations that appear in the GNT. The oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts contain no accents or punctuation marks. hey John, are you reading this...OLDEST AND MOST RELIABLE GREEK TEXTS support the use of the female!

Neil D, could you please explain this? What do you mean that the oldest and most reliable Greek texts support the use of the female.

Is the writer saying that the oldest and most reliable Greek texts support the use of "Junia" in Romans 16: 7?

If this is true, Neil, I can see why you believe as you do. I'm starting to see the answers to some of my questions already. Please tell me in your own words what he means. Thanks so much in advance for this information.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

Again, there are many more translations which translate the name as Junias. Of my 65+ translations of Romans 16: 7, the majority render it as "Junias."

The above proves what I have been saying all along-- that the evidence is inconclusive. No one can be sure whether it was Junias or Junia. God alone knows.

Quote:

Neil D: Your information is behind the times, John. At least 3 different scholars [brooten, Peter Lampe and Bruce Metzer] at three different times made a scan of ancient greek literature. "Over 250 times" did each of those scans come up with the "common name" Junia...

How many times did the scan of ancient Greek literature come up with the name Junia?

Quote:

Neil D: AND not ONCE did it come up with the name Junias.... James Walters states: "Researchers have been unable to locate a single example of the male name Junias in ancient literature or inscriptions, either Latin or Greek.

Gringrich's Greek-English Lexicon says that Junias is "probably a short form of the common Junianus." (Page 381)

Quote:

JOHN3:17; Notice that Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament shows that it could read either male or female. It says a woman's name "is possible" (p. 306).

The best translations have generally chosen to translate it as Junias.

Quote:

Neil D: And those translations will be revising thier future editions also based upon the new information found....unless they are prejudice against women..

It will be interesting to see what happens with the translations. Are you prepared to say a translator who has spent years studying and translating Greek is prejudiced against women if he doesn't agree with someone in regard to a language the other person has very slight knowledge of? Does that make sense to you?

It sounds like you are ready to accuse people of being prejudice against women because they don't agree with you. There are millions of women who are opposed to Women's Ordination. Soon people may start saying that I am prejudiced against homosexuals because I believe the Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality and that the church should not have practicing homosexuals as pastors.

The information you refer to here is not really new. The Lexicons mention that the name Junias only occurs in the NT.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: This does not prove the name to be masculine. It merely shows there is good reason to believe it probably was. NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. THEREFORE IT CAN'T REASONABLY BE MADE THE FOUNDATION OF ANYONE'S THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OR OF WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH.

Quote:

Neil D: Since that information that I posted was compiled 2003 and hence, I would suggest strongly that we do know, John.

I didn't know it meant so much to you.

OK, then, let's say you KNOW. Now you can tell everyone that you know-- whether anyone else does or not-- that the name in Romans 16: 7 is Junia and not Junias. So what?

I don't think you're right, but let's suppose for the sake of discussion that you are right and the name is a woman's name. Of what importance is it? How does it change anything?

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: In addition, the GNT includes early support for a female named Ioulian, translated as "Junia."

Where does such support occur?

And where does this word, Ioulian, occur in the NT, Neil D? Would this be in Romans 16: 15 perhaps? Ioulian is never translated "Junia." Ioulian is translated as "Julia."

Perhaps Ioulian is a typo?

Quote:

Neil D: According to Douglas Moo, the problem with identifying this person "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' or (2) to a woman with the name of Junia."2

Is he talking about the problem with identifying the person named Ioulian in Romans 16: 15? This person is definitely a woman. See Thayer's Lexicon of the NT, page 306, about Strongs #2456. There's no problem with this person's name-- no dispute at all, either textually or in terms of translation. It's always translated "Julia," as for instance in the KJV and in all modern translations as well.

He seems to be talking about the problem with identifying "Junia" of Ro. 16: 7, yet he speaks of someone named Ioulian, which is different from Iounian.

Quote:

Neil D: The use of such accents mark did not occur until the 9th or 10th century.Hey John...you noting this? Those accent marks come from the middle ages, when the idea of a woman apostle was unthinkable.

Actually, Greek accent marks began coming into use about 200 BC. They were pretty well all the way in by 500 AD. It was kind of slow--- about a 700 year process.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ancgreek/accenttutU/acc_markU2.html

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: ... Bible translators appear divided on the how they interpret Iounian. For example, the ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NAB prefer "Junias"Sigh, these are my favorite bibles too! while the KJV, NRSV, NKJV, NCV, REB prefer "Junia." Some bibles also footnote the name "Julia." This divergence in translations only serves to highlight the problem faced by modern readers of the text. The task is to synthesize the data and reach a conclusion on the basis of objective evidence.

It also serves to highlight the fact that the scholarly world is divided over whether Iounian is male or female. Why do you think that almost all translations, including the NRSV, give the alternate reading in footnotes or in the margin? It's because scholars and translators are not sure whether it's masculine or feminine.

I like and use all those translations. It doesn't matter to me if they say "Junia" or "Junias."

The name "Julia" at Romans 16: 3 is an error. It only occurs in a few manuscripts and is never used in the main body of a translation because everyone who studies textual criticism knows without question that it's an error.

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K. In reflection, I overstated your position--exactly what I have suggested you do.! Well, I am not perfect.

Yes, I beleive that the wickipedia citation is an accurate representation of Roman Catholic belief. However, I think it is better to go to Catholic publications for statements of Catholic belief. My comment in regard to Limbw came from reading Roman Catholic publications--ST. ANTHONEY'S MESSENGER.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): 1. Evidence for Male: Manuscripts

Bibles and commentators generally utilize Greek New Testaments in their translation and interpretive pursuit. Both the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testaments show Iounian accented with a circumflex accent over the alpha, which indicates "Junias" as being a contracted form of Junianus, a male name.

Do you have a copy of these editions?

These are the main Greek texts from which most modern translations are made. The most faithful translation made from them is the Roman Catholic translation, New American Bible. The next most faithful are the New Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Version.

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): Support for "Junias" is attested to by B2 , D2, Yvid., 33 and a number of minuscules dated from the 9th to 14th century.

Whoever wrote the above is in error. It should read that those codices and manuscripts support the reading of "Junia." You will see this if you have a copy of UBS4. It is also given in the apparatus of NA27.

What are B2, D2, Yvid, and 33 dated to?

What does B2 and D2 represent?

The Majority Text attests to the reading of "Junia."

Ioulian is attested to by p46 and a handful of other later manuscripts and Latin translations, but it is a mistake.

Quote:

Neil D: Chrysostom is also listed as lectionary support for this position.Hey, John, impressive evidence against women here.

Why do you say "evidence against women"? You evidently see this as something either "for women" or "against women." I believe that's the wrong way to see this. The right way to see it is as a sincere and honest attempt to to find out what the Bible teaches.

If you had a Greek NT with good apparatus, and could read it-- (can you?)-- you would be able to tell that this is a mistake. Chrysostom is listed as a witness in support of "Junia."

Check out the UBS4 if you have it.

You will notice that the editors of the UBS4 say the reading is "Junia," whereas the editors of NA27 say the reading is "Junias." I have other editions of the UBS4 which agree with NA27.

Here's what the apparatus says, "Iounian [with accute accent, indicating a female] B2 D2 Yvid 0150 33 81 104..... Lect Chrysostom."

Therefore, whoever you copied your information from doesn't know what he's talking about. You would do them a big favor if you alerted them to the problem. I'm sure there are many people who are copying their material and are not aware it's false.

This is what I mean when I say that there is a great deal of information "out there" that you can pick up, but you have to be able to tell when it's true and false.

If you would rather believe the poster you borrowed the information from, that's fine, but you might as well get it right.

If you don't believe what I'm saying here, I suggest you take the material to a professor of Koine Greek and ask if what I'm saying is true.

And to think that Tom Wetmore thought that your copy-and-paste job was "Excellent work."

I'd have hoped he'd have caught these errors. He said that your post confirmed him in his viewpoint. I can see why now.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Since that information that I posted was compiled 2003 and hence, I would suggest strongly that we do know, John. The information that I posted meticulously shows that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of a female Junia....You need to assess that information and, if you are as honest as you say, either refute them or revise your conclusions.....if not, well, you have my permission to be stuck in your conclusions....

You posted this stuff "meticulously" perhaps but you didn't even understand it, apparently. At least you weren't able to tell whether it's true or not. There are some big mistakes in the stuff you meticulously posted, but you didn't pick up on it.

Quote:

Neil D (quoting): Support for "Junias" is attested to by B2 , D2, Yvid., 33 and a number of minuscules dated from the 9th to 14th century.

Whoever you copied the above from is in error. They should have said that those codices and manuscripts support the reading of "Junia." You will see this if you have a copy of UBS4. It is also given in the apparatus of NA27.

What are B2, D2, Yvid, and 33 dated to?

What does B2 and D2 represent?

The Majority Text attests to the reading of "Junia." I prefer to Majority Text to all others, but that doesn't mean it has no mistakes.

Ioulian is attested to by p46 and a handful of other later manuscripts and Latin translations, but it is a mistake.

Quote:

Neil D: Chrysostom is also listed as lectionary support for this position.Hey, John, impressive evidence against women here.

Why do you say "evidence against women"? You evidently see this as something either "for women" or "against women." I believe that's the wrong way to see this. The right way to see it is as a sincere and honest attempt to to find out what the Bible teaches.

If you had a Greek NT with good apparatus, and could read it-- (can you?)-- you would be able to tell that this is a mistake.

Chrysostom is listed as a witness in support of "Junia."

Check out the UBS4 if you have it.

You will notice that the editors of the UBS4 say the reading is "Junia," whereas the editors of NA27 say the reading is "Junias." I have other editions of the UBS4 which agree with NA27.

Here's what the apparatus says, "Iounian [with accute accent, indicating a female] B2 D2 Yvid 0150 33 81 104..... Lect Chrysostom."

Therefore, whoever you copied your information from doesn't know what he's talking about. You would do them a big favor if you alerted them to the problem. I'm sure there are many people who are copying their material and are not aware it's false.

This is what I mean when I say that there is a great deal of information "out there" that you can pick up, but you have to be able to tell when it's true and false.

If you would rather believe the poster you borrowed the information from, that's fine, but you might as well get it right. Tom Wetmore apparently relies on you because he praised your post which contained the false information and he didn't pick up on it. He said your post was "excellent work," even though it appears he didn't understand it or didn't read it very carefully.

[John317]

Quote:

Gregory Matthews: O.K. In reflection, I overstated your position--exactly what I have suggested you do.! Well, I am not perfect.

You're certainly right that it's best to go to Catholic publications, and I do that. I read their Bible and their books, including their Catechisms. I copied the stuff off the wikipedia because it's convenient. I've found their translation, The New American Bible, to be perhaps the most faithful rendering of Nestles Greek text. I like and admire many things about the Catholic church, but my knowledge of what Bible prophecy says about the papacy and the false doctrines prevents me from joining them.