Hopefully, those who read this post have read the first two posts on "the Resurrection of Junia." I just posted the article by David Jones at the website of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, so that those who desire to read the article will do so. Please take time to read the article before reading this one.
Today's topic will tackle another combative response of Wayne Grudem's from his book on "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" (http://www.efbt100.com/). I want to again re-emphasize that, while I am not a complementarian, I am also not a feminist. I believe that both sexes should exercise their God-given gifts in the church.
But, as those of you who've read my posts may know, I am currently tackling the problem regarding Junia: who was this person-- male or female? And if Junia was female, was she really an apostle in the church at Rome? I dealt with those issues last night...but one issue still lingers on: what does the word "apostles" mean in this context? Were Andronicus and Junia apostles in the sense that they possessed a God-given ministry? or were they just church representatives passing through Rome?
To start off the debate, let's get a good quote from our "favorite" guy, the distinguished Dr. Wayne Grudem: "Answer 7.2e: The word translated 'apostles' could just mean 'church messengers' here as it does elsewhere in Paul's writings" (EFBT, 226).
Grudem then proceeds to point out a few passages where this meaning is present: John 13:16, 2 Corinthians 8:23, and Philippians 2:25 (not to mention, Romans 16:7, our most important passage for this post).
To be fair, let's examine these three passages outside of Romans 16 where the word "apostles" could really mean "church messengers."
First, we have John 13:16-- "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him" (New American Standard Bible). Grudem believes that this refers to a messenger. And it does. At its basic definition, "apostle" means "one who is sent." The word comes from the Greek word "apostello," meaning "to send forth." It does mean "messenger", at its most basic definition. But note here that Christ is talking to those who would form the twelve apostles in the early church. In verse 17, Jesus says, "if you know these things, you are blessed if you do them." Notice that when He talks about "one who is sent" (v.16), He is referring to the twelve He would go on to give what we know as The Great Commission (Matthew 28). Jesus commissioned the twelve Himself and told them, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). The twelve got their calling from God, not from a church. Notice also that in Matthew 16 when Jesus is talking to Peter, He tells Peter, "and upon this rock I will build my church..." (v.18). Jesus hadn't built His church before renaming Peter; He was starting to gather His church. To call the twelve "church messengers" is to read a later construction back into a text that is, to say the least, "pre-church."
Looking at Matthew 28 once more, there is one more significant thing that we cannot miss; it is found in the preceding verse, verse 18: "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." It's funny that Jesus makes this pronouncement of having "all authority" before He sends out the twelve. This is what Paul makes reference to in our favorite gifts passage, "Ephesians 4," before mentioning the gifts. Let's read Paul's statement:
"Therefore it says, 'When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.'
(Now this expression, 'He ascended,' what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:8-11).
the verse that Paul quotes in Eph. 4:8 is a reference to Psalm 68:18 and Colossians 2:15. Read both verses in their contexts (surrounding verses), and you will see that in order to receive the gifts, Christ had to "disarm the rulers and authorities." And what happens when one ruler prevails over another? The defeated ruler in history had to pay tribute. This is where the saying, "To the victor belongs the spoils" was born. Whoever won the battle got the riches-- gold, silver, servants, women, etc. When Christ triumphed over Satan and his authorities, Christ received the authority (having defeated death, hell, and the grave) in order to give authority to His church. And the purpose for this was so that Christ could make good on His promise, "...upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." In order for Christ to make this promise, He knew that He would go to the cross and defeat Satan and his kingdom. As a result, He had the power to then leave gifts with His church. Ephesians 4 lists the gifts.
Christ mentions His victory to the twelve before sending them out, which shows that they were not going out through the church, but because of Christ. They were going out in order to "build" Christ's church. In so doing, they had Christ's support (His power and authority) with them. In addition, this task was not for a limited time (as that of a church messenger); instead, this was a lifelong task of reaching the lost for Christ.
Next, we have 2 Corinthians 8:23-- "As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you; as for our brethren, they are messengers of the churches, a glory to Christ" (NASB). The word for "messengers" here is "apostolois." Context here dictates these men are some sort of church messengers. 2 Corinthians 9 tell us what the underlying situation is for 2 Corinthians 8: "Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality of your contribution to them and to all" (2 Cor. 9:13). So we find that the context of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 involve the church at Corinth sending a contribution to the Macedonians (2 Cor. 9:2). These men involved are "appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work" (2 Cor. 8:19), so the title of "apostle" here has more to do with church delegation than the spiritual office itself.
In Philippians 2:25, Epaphroditus is sent by Paul to the church at Philippi: "But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus...who is also your messenger and minister to my need." Paul calls Epaphroditus "your messenger" and "minister to my need." Epaphroditus is serving as a church messenger ("your messenger"); but notice that Paul says more about him: Epaphroditus is a "fellow soldier." Not only does he work alongside Paul ("fellow worker"), but he is also one who "battles" alongside Paul. An ordinary worker could work hard for Paul, as did Mary in Romans 16:6, but every worker beside Paul was not a "fellow soldier." The fact that Paul refers to Epaphroditus as such lets us know that Epaphroditus "fought" alongside Paul, did the work of ministry beside Paul, went where Paul went, did what Paul did. He was not just a simple church messenger, for if he was, he would have been appointed by the churches. Notice that Paul sends him to the church (2:25). Let's look at what Paul writes about Epaphroditus: "Receive him then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me" (Phil. 2:29-30). Paul tells the church to hold Epaphroditus in high regard. The fact that Paul makes him an example to follow shows that Epaphroditus was not just a mere church messenger. When Paul refers to Titus, for example, he calls him "my partner and fellow worker" (2 Cor. 8:23). What did Titus do as Paul's "fellow worker?" "for this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you" (Titus 1:5). Titus, as an apostle, was supposed to establish churches on the island of Crete. He was an apostle, just as much as Paul was. Even he was not a mere messenger. With Epaphroditus, Paul refers to him as a "minister to my need." Paul chose to send Epaphroditus because he was close to him, but also because Epaphroditus served in that same office-- as an apostle whose job consisted of watching over the churches. Paul did not just send ordinary people, those without a calling, to the churches. If a person was sent, it was because Paul had seen testimony of such a witness in their lives. This is best seen in how Paul was hesitant to allow John Mark to come along with he and Barnabas (Acts 15:37-38).
Last but not least, let's look at the passage from Romans 16:7. In context, there is nothing that would make one believe that Andronicus and Junias were church messengers. If they were church messengers, they would have been sent to another church or place for a set purpose. When Paul writes to the church at Rome about Phoebe, he says, "our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea" (16:1). Phoebe, then, is serving here as a church messenger, while also being a woman in leadership at her church. So even Phoebe, while serving as a church messenger, is not someone without spiritual authority in her church!! Phoebe wasn't just a church messenger without authority, and neither are Andronicus and Junia apostles without authority. Notice that in Romans 16:7, no other church is given. They are not representatives coming to Rome from another church-- they are believers in the church at Rome! Paul salutes them, then, not because they're "running errands" for churches-- but because they're apostles at Rome, a man and woman of spiritual authority in the church!
I think this post has dealt with the attack by Wayne Grudem, David Jones, and others about Andronicus and Junia being just church messengers. Don't worry-- in case more attacks come, more scriptural combat will follow.
Showing posts with label Junia or Junias?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Junia or Junias?. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Resurrection of Junia (Part II)
In my last post on Romans 16:7 and the disputed name (Junia/Junias), I mentioned David Jones, a prominent scholar and member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, who argues that "iounian" is really "Junias," although it could be a woman. I just read a little while ago his 16-page article titled "A Female Apostle?: A Lexical-Syntactical Analysis of Romans 16:7," and I highly recommend that those who read widely on this subject take a hard long look at it (http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/A-Female-Apostle).
Jones is careful to do his research. However, there are problems (as one could imagine). In his section titled "Evidence from Greek Literature," he correctly notes that the names "Junia" and "Junias" are rarities in Greek literature-- but the evidence works against him. David Jones writes at the end of part I of his article, "Perhaps I could sum it up this way: if I were serving on the NIV revision committee, my recommendation to the committee would be to translate the name Junias, but to acknowledge with a footnote the possibility that the name could refer to a woman named Junia" (6). Jones makes it clear what side he's on-- he believes the name should be translated in the masculine. But what evidence does he give for this? in his section on Greek Literature, he notes that both Junia and Junias are rarities in Greek literature; but what he doesn't see in his own research is that, while both names are rarities in Greek, the only evidence he presents is for "Junia." First, he mentions the reference in Romans 16:7 (which he assumes is debatable); then, he mentions "Junia, who was both the wife of Cassius and the sister of Brutus (one of the men who murdered Julius Caesar(3); last but not least, he finds a partially-erased inscription which reads, "[ ] ia Torquata." Whatever the name was, the fact that it had an "ia" ending reveals to us that this was a woman's name. No man's name in the first century, nor today, will end in an "ia." If someone claims this to be true, call a man "Maria" whose name is "Mario," and I'll be glad to talk to "Mario" and ask him how it feels...
Therefore, while "Neither the male nor the female versions of this name were common in Greek literature" (3) surely, Junia appears in these evidences...and where is the case for "Junias"? There isn't a case, because the name didn't exist.
Jones gives himself away again on his section called "Evidence from Latin Literature": "In Latin writings Junia appears as a fairly common woman's name while Junias, the man's name, is virtually nonexistent. There is a masculine equivalent to Junia in Latin, but it is Junius, which then translated into Greek is 'Iounios,' not 'Iounias'" (3). Junias is nowhere to be found not only in Greek literature, but Latin as well. According to Eldon Jay Epp in his book (I recommended in my first post on the Resurrection of Junia), the name Junia is mentioned at least 250 times in historical literature, while "Junias" is nonexistent. How does Jones attempt to account for this apparent "imaginary" name? "This absence of the male equivalent (to Junia) could be explained by the process of forming nicknames in Greek" (3). Did you read that? Notice that it "could be explained." Yes, surely, it is possible that it could; but where's the evidence? Show me in all of Greek and Latin literature where the name is mentioned. It isn't. Looking for the name "Junias" in the historical research is like looking for the name "Shaquilla." "Shaquilla" is a contemporary name and chances are, it won't be found in any ancient literature.
In section E, "The Evidence from the Early Church Fathers," Jones notes John Chrysostom's belief that the person "Iounian" was Junia, and that she was quite a woman to be named an apostle. But then note Jones's sarcasm: "It is important to recognize, however, that Chrysostom did not take Junia to be an authoritative apostle, but rather as an apostle in a secondary sense, as one commissioned by the church for a certain task (cf. Acts 13:2-3; 14:14)" (5).
I find it fascinating that Jones uses these scriptures as his justification. If one looks at the context of Acts 13, one will discover that first, "prophets and teachers" are mentioned (13:1), and, secondly, the Holy Spirit is the one who commissions Paul and Barnabas: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (13:2). The Holy Spirit is the one who called Paul and Barnabas and told the church that He called them to this work in verse 2. Paul and Barnabas, in this context, are not "commissioned by the church" as Jones states; they are called of God. This calling by the Holy Spirit, then, is that of the office of Apostle, not a simple representative or one sent to do a task by a church. After all, it would be Paul who would later state in Romans 11:13, "Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry..."(English Standard Version). Paul then, considered being an "apostle" as more than a simple church task-- it was a ministry, a constant, continuous spiritual work that he dedicated himself to. It was not a task given by a church, but by the Lord. If Junia was given the work of Acts 13 and 14, then Junia truly had authority as an apostle. What apostle in Scripture, known as such, lacked authority in the churches? There is no such distinction between an "authoritative" and a "non-authoritative" apostle. This wording indicates Jones's inherent bias against women in authority. I smell a "1 Timothy 2" rat here...hmmm...
In his last section of evidence from the church fathers, Jones uses one example of a "Junias" mentioned: "Epiphanius (AD 315-403), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, writing perhaps just prior to Chrysostom's comments on Rom. 16:7, includes a reference to Iounian in his Index of Disciples: 'Junias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria'" (5). It seems that Jones has found such an example of "Junias"-- but the problem still remains: why is it that Jones provides a fourth and fifth-century example when he knows as a renown scholar that Paul writes his letter in the first century AD? Epiphanius then, had an interpretation that was the only one altogether. This does not shatter his attack on Brooten. He looks bad for not finding an example from the first century. He digs his hole much deeper here, after not having any evidence for "Junias" from Greek and Latin literature.
As if Jones's evidence against "Junia" is not poor enough, he then tries to attack her apostleship. In his section on "The Context of Romans 16," Jones writes:
"Andronicus and Iounian are buried amidst a virtual potpourri of greetings that Paul extends to members of the Roman church. It seems odd that Paul would not refer to two apostles until well into his greetings; one would think that they would be more prominent among the individuals mentioned. The fact that he mentions Phoebe, Prisca and Aquila, and others first suggests that Andronicus and Iounian were not as prominent in his mind" (9). This becomes Jones's first reason against Junia as an Apostle. His problem, however, lies in "One would think..." Placing this as a justification against Junia is no justification at all. Jones has failed here to provide examples of such writing in Paul's letters. He fails to study significant persons in all of Paul's greetings and show us a consistent pattern of where Paul mentions the "most authoritative" persons first. He fails to even research this, but instead, appeals to what "one would think." This is not scholarship-- just an intellectually lazy reason to bump Junia from her rightful place.
On to Jones's next reason for a "non-authoritative apostleship": "Andronicus and Iounian do not receive the extravagant praise that these others do, like Phoebe, Prisca and Aquila. Why would two prominent apostles be given less praise?" (9) What does an "extravagant praise" have to do with their authority? Phoebe, Prisca, and Aquila are all mentioned in the way Paul does because they have done specific things for Paul: Phoebe has supported Paul, and Prisca and Aquila worked with him as tentmakers (Acts 18:1-3). He had a lot more to say because he spent more time with them and Phoebe than he did his kinsmen. Notice that Paul greets other kinsman, such as "Herodion" (Rom. 16:11), about whom he had nothing to mention. However, he mentions Rufus, and Rufus's mother, whom he says, "has been a mother to me as well" (16:13b).
Now, on to what Paul actually says about Andronicus and Junia: "my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners...they are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me" (16:7). First, they are his kinsmen, his relatives; secondly, they are his "fellow prisoners"; third, they stand out from the apostles; and fourth, they were in Christ before he was. With all he notes about Andronicus and Junia, how can it be mistaken that Paul doesn't offer any "extravagant praise" for him? Once again, Jones is grasping at straws, attempting to find any and every little thing to keep from acknowledging Junia's apostleship.
Notice his third reason against Junia's office: "If we are to understand the gender of Iounian to be feminine, the fact that she is mentioned second to Andronicus suggests that she may have been less prominent than he was" (9). But look at what he places in parentheses: "(cp. the order in v.3, where Prisca is mentioned first)." If Jones wants to play the "order game," where order equals importance and ability, then Priscilla was more gifted than her husband-- and Paul doesn't have a problem admitting that to the church at Rome. Mentioning Junia second may very well mean that Junia had a "less prominent" role than Andronicus; but how does being "less prominent" replace the fact that Junia was still "prominent"? About Andronicus and Junia, Paul says that they are "outstanding among the apostles." They are noteworthy, they are of special mention to Paul. How is that degrading because she may or may have not been "less prominent" than Andronicus? As I've stated in a few posts, gender-biased scholars will focus on the little small things such as "less authority" because they don't wanna admit that Junia had authority. She was an apostle, and all the apostles had authority in the early church. They were all church leaders-- although some had more authority and greater tasks than others. But what does this have to do with Junia not being an "authoritative apostle"?
Next, he tries to use 3 Maccabees 6 (an apocryphal text) to show that the Greek phrase "en tois apostolois" really means "to the apostles": "whatever Paul means in Romans 16:7, he does not intend to say that Andronicus and Iounian are the most prominent of the apostles, or else he could have used the genitive case (as in 3 Maccabees 6:1) to heighten the comparison" (10). Now, Paul "could have used" the genitive! It seems as if, to save his own presupposition, Jones must now deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that drove Paul to write the way he did. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God..." For Jones to question how Paul wrote something shows that he is willing to deny the Holy Spirit's inspiration to write Scripture just to save his gender bias against Junia. The moment Paul acknowledges a woman, now Paul must have been a little beside himself!
Well, to prove Jones wrong, I found a passage, Matthew 20:26, where Jesus is discussing rank in the apostolic order. Interestingly enough, the Greek phrase says, "hos ean thele in humin megas," which translates to (in the English Standard Version), "whoever would be great among you." The phrase "en humin" here translates to "among you." Notice here that Jesus uses the adjective "great," followed by "among you." He first points out something that is above the rest of the apostles. Now look at Romans 16:7-- the phrase there in the Greek is "hoitines eisin episemoi en tois apostolois." The first word, "hoitines," is very similar to Jesus' word "whoever" in Matthew 20:26; the second word, "are," is the plural verb for Andronicus and Junia, just as Jesus used the verb "estai" (will be). Next, Paul uses a qualifier for these two persons, "episemoi," which means "outstanding" or "noteworthy." Jesus uses the word "megalas," which means "great," a qualifier for his statement.
Now, Paul uses the phrase "en tois apostolois." This is where the translation gets interesting. In Matthew 20:26, the phrase translates to "among you (all)." The "great" would stand above the rest. But this is where some scholars stop...and instead of translating the phrase as "among the apostles," they translate it as "well-known to the apostles" (such as translators of the English Standard Version and others). The problem with this is that there is a qualifier for these two persons: they are not just apostles, but of special emphasis for Paul. That, alone, makes them two who stand out from the rest of the group. But then, notice that Paul says about them, "they were in Christ before me" (Romans 16:7b). He is writing this greeting to them because he knows of their work in the faith and how they labored in his presence. If Paul were writing to greet other apostles, he surely would have mentioned them in his letter, as he mentions "Gaius" (v.23), "Timothy" (v.21), "Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater" (v. 21), as well as "Erastus" (v.23). None of these men are called "apostles." Paul does not mention another apostle in the letter, only Andronicus and Junia. While Paul is not mentioning himself as being of the group here, he is making it clear that there were a group of apostles at the church at Rome, and that, of them, these two are unique from the group. The ESV seems to not disagree with "among you" of Matthew 20:26; but when it gets to this verse, they seem to have a gender bias that keeps them from rendering this in the traditional manner.
There is so much more to write on this subject, and I will write soon. Next time, I will attack Wayne Grudem's translation of "tois apostolois" of Romans 16:7 as "church messengers."
Jones is careful to do his research. However, there are problems (as one could imagine). In his section titled "Evidence from Greek Literature," he correctly notes that the names "Junia" and "Junias" are rarities in Greek literature-- but the evidence works against him. David Jones writes at the end of part I of his article, "Perhaps I could sum it up this way: if I were serving on the NIV revision committee, my recommendation to the committee would be to translate the name Junias, but to acknowledge with a footnote the possibility that the name could refer to a woman named Junia" (6). Jones makes it clear what side he's on-- he believes the name should be translated in the masculine. But what evidence does he give for this? in his section on Greek Literature, he notes that both Junia and Junias are rarities in Greek literature; but what he doesn't see in his own research is that, while both names are rarities in Greek, the only evidence he presents is for "Junia." First, he mentions the reference in Romans 16:7 (which he assumes is debatable); then, he mentions "Junia, who was both the wife of Cassius and the sister of Brutus (one of the men who murdered Julius Caesar(3); last but not least, he finds a partially-erased inscription which reads, "[ ] ia Torquata." Whatever the name was, the fact that it had an "ia" ending reveals to us that this was a woman's name. No man's name in the first century, nor today, will end in an "ia." If someone claims this to be true, call a man "Maria" whose name is "Mario," and I'll be glad to talk to "Mario" and ask him how it feels...
Therefore, while "Neither the male nor the female versions of this name were common in Greek literature" (3) surely, Junia appears in these evidences...and where is the case for "Junias"? There isn't a case, because the name didn't exist.
Jones gives himself away again on his section called "Evidence from Latin Literature": "In Latin writings Junia appears as a fairly common woman's name while Junias, the man's name, is virtually nonexistent. There is a masculine equivalent to Junia in Latin, but it is Junius, which then translated into Greek is 'Iounios,' not 'Iounias'" (3). Junias is nowhere to be found not only in Greek literature, but Latin as well. According to Eldon Jay Epp in his book (I recommended in my first post on the Resurrection of Junia), the name Junia is mentioned at least 250 times in historical literature, while "Junias" is nonexistent. How does Jones attempt to account for this apparent "imaginary" name? "This absence of the male equivalent (to Junia) could be explained by the process of forming nicknames in Greek" (3). Did you read that? Notice that it "could be explained." Yes, surely, it is possible that it could; but where's the evidence? Show me in all of Greek and Latin literature where the name is mentioned. It isn't. Looking for the name "Junias" in the historical research is like looking for the name "Shaquilla." "Shaquilla" is a contemporary name and chances are, it won't be found in any ancient literature.
In section E, "The Evidence from the Early Church Fathers," Jones notes John Chrysostom's belief that the person "Iounian" was Junia, and that she was quite a woman to be named an apostle. But then note Jones's sarcasm: "It is important to recognize, however, that Chrysostom did not take Junia to be an authoritative apostle, but rather as an apostle in a secondary sense, as one commissioned by the church for a certain task (cf. Acts 13:2-3; 14:14)" (5).
I find it fascinating that Jones uses these scriptures as his justification. If one looks at the context of Acts 13, one will discover that first, "prophets and teachers" are mentioned (13:1), and, secondly, the Holy Spirit is the one who commissions Paul and Barnabas: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (13:2). The Holy Spirit is the one who called Paul and Barnabas and told the church that He called them to this work in verse 2. Paul and Barnabas, in this context, are not "commissioned by the church" as Jones states; they are called of God. This calling by the Holy Spirit, then, is that of the office of Apostle, not a simple representative or one sent to do a task by a church. After all, it would be Paul who would later state in Romans 11:13, "Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry..."(English Standard Version). Paul then, considered being an "apostle" as more than a simple church task-- it was a ministry, a constant, continuous spiritual work that he dedicated himself to. It was not a task given by a church, but by the Lord. If Junia was given the work of Acts 13 and 14, then Junia truly had authority as an apostle. What apostle in Scripture, known as such, lacked authority in the churches? There is no such distinction between an "authoritative" and a "non-authoritative" apostle. This wording indicates Jones's inherent bias against women in authority. I smell a "1 Timothy 2" rat here...hmmm...
In his last section of evidence from the church fathers, Jones uses one example of a "Junias" mentioned: "Epiphanius (AD 315-403), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, writing perhaps just prior to Chrysostom's comments on Rom. 16:7, includes a reference to Iounian in his Index of Disciples: 'Junias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria'" (5). It seems that Jones has found such an example of "Junias"-- but the problem still remains: why is it that Jones provides a fourth and fifth-century example when he knows as a renown scholar that Paul writes his letter in the first century AD? Epiphanius then, had an interpretation that was the only one altogether. This does not shatter his attack on Brooten. He looks bad for not finding an example from the first century. He digs his hole much deeper here, after not having any evidence for "Junias" from Greek and Latin literature.
As if Jones's evidence against "Junia" is not poor enough, he then tries to attack her apostleship. In his section on "The Context of Romans 16," Jones writes:
"Andronicus and Iounian are buried amidst a virtual potpourri of greetings that Paul extends to members of the Roman church. It seems odd that Paul would not refer to two apostles until well into his greetings; one would think that they would be more prominent among the individuals mentioned. The fact that he mentions Phoebe, Prisca and Aquila, and others first suggests that Andronicus and Iounian were not as prominent in his mind" (9). This becomes Jones's first reason against Junia as an Apostle. His problem, however, lies in "One would think..." Placing this as a justification against Junia is no justification at all. Jones has failed here to provide examples of such writing in Paul's letters. He fails to study significant persons in all of Paul's greetings and show us a consistent pattern of where Paul mentions the "most authoritative" persons first. He fails to even research this, but instead, appeals to what "one would think." This is not scholarship-- just an intellectually lazy reason to bump Junia from her rightful place.
On to Jones's next reason for a "non-authoritative apostleship": "Andronicus and Iounian do not receive the extravagant praise that these others do, like Phoebe, Prisca and Aquila. Why would two prominent apostles be given less praise?" (9) What does an "extravagant praise" have to do with their authority? Phoebe, Prisca, and Aquila are all mentioned in the way Paul does because they have done specific things for Paul: Phoebe has supported Paul, and Prisca and Aquila worked with him as tentmakers (Acts 18:1-3). He had a lot more to say because he spent more time with them and Phoebe than he did his kinsmen. Notice that Paul greets other kinsman, such as "Herodion" (Rom. 16:11), about whom he had nothing to mention. However, he mentions Rufus, and Rufus's mother, whom he says, "has been a mother to me as well" (16:13b).
Now, on to what Paul actually says about Andronicus and Junia: "my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners...they are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me" (16:7). First, they are his kinsmen, his relatives; secondly, they are his "fellow prisoners"; third, they stand out from the apostles; and fourth, they were in Christ before he was. With all he notes about Andronicus and Junia, how can it be mistaken that Paul doesn't offer any "extravagant praise" for him? Once again, Jones is grasping at straws, attempting to find any and every little thing to keep from acknowledging Junia's apostleship.
Notice his third reason against Junia's office: "If we are to understand the gender of Iounian to be feminine, the fact that she is mentioned second to Andronicus suggests that she may have been less prominent than he was" (9). But look at what he places in parentheses: "(cp. the order in v.3, where Prisca is mentioned first)." If Jones wants to play the "order game," where order equals importance and ability, then Priscilla was more gifted than her husband-- and Paul doesn't have a problem admitting that to the church at Rome. Mentioning Junia second may very well mean that Junia had a "less prominent" role than Andronicus; but how does being "less prominent" replace the fact that Junia was still "prominent"? About Andronicus and Junia, Paul says that they are "outstanding among the apostles." They are noteworthy, they are of special mention to Paul. How is that degrading because she may or may have not been "less prominent" than Andronicus? As I've stated in a few posts, gender-biased scholars will focus on the little small things such as "less authority" because they don't wanna admit that Junia had authority. She was an apostle, and all the apostles had authority in the early church. They were all church leaders-- although some had more authority and greater tasks than others. But what does this have to do with Junia not being an "authoritative apostle"?
Next, he tries to use 3 Maccabees 6 (an apocryphal text) to show that the Greek phrase "en tois apostolois" really means "to the apostles": "whatever Paul means in Romans 16:7, he does not intend to say that Andronicus and Iounian are the most prominent of the apostles, or else he could have used the genitive case (as in 3 Maccabees 6:1) to heighten the comparison" (10). Now, Paul "could have used" the genitive! It seems as if, to save his own presupposition, Jones must now deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that drove Paul to write the way he did. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God..." For Jones to question how Paul wrote something shows that he is willing to deny the Holy Spirit's inspiration to write Scripture just to save his gender bias against Junia. The moment Paul acknowledges a woman, now Paul must have been a little beside himself!
Well, to prove Jones wrong, I found a passage, Matthew 20:26, where Jesus is discussing rank in the apostolic order. Interestingly enough, the Greek phrase says, "hos ean thele in humin megas," which translates to (in the English Standard Version), "whoever would be great among you." The phrase "en humin" here translates to "among you." Notice here that Jesus uses the adjective "great," followed by "among you." He first points out something that is above the rest of the apostles. Now look at Romans 16:7-- the phrase there in the Greek is "hoitines eisin episemoi en tois apostolois." The first word, "hoitines," is very similar to Jesus' word "whoever" in Matthew 20:26; the second word, "are," is the plural verb for Andronicus and Junia, just as Jesus used the verb "estai" (will be). Next, Paul uses a qualifier for these two persons, "episemoi," which means "outstanding" or "noteworthy." Jesus uses the word "megalas," which means "great," a qualifier for his statement.
Now, Paul uses the phrase "en tois apostolois." This is where the translation gets interesting. In Matthew 20:26, the phrase translates to "among you (all)." The "great" would stand above the rest. But this is where some scholars stop...and instead of translating the phrase as "among the apostles," they translate it as "well-known to the apostles" (such as translators of the English Standard Version and others). The problem with this is that there is a qualifier for these two persons: they are not just apostles, but of special emphasis for Paul. That, alone, makes them two who stand out from the rest of the group. But then, notice that Paul says about them, "they were in Christ before me" (Romans 16:7b). He is writing this greeting to them because he knows of their work in the faith and how they labored in his presence. If Paul were writing to greet other apostles, he surely would have mentioned them in his letter, as he mentions "Gaius" (v.23), "Timothy" (v.21), "Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater" (v. 21), as well as "Erastus" (v.23). None of these men are called "apostles." Paul does not mention another apostle in the letter, only Andronicus and Junia. While Paul is not mentioning himself as being of the group here, he is making it clear that there were a group of apostles at the church at Rome, and that, of them, these two are unique from the group. The ESV seems to not disagree with "among you" of Matthew 20:26; but when it gets to this verse, they seem to have a gender bias that keeps them from rendering this in the traditional manner.
There is so much more to write on this subject, and I will write soon. Next time, I will attack Wayne Grudem's translation of "tois apostolois" of Romans 16:7 as "church messengers."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Resurrection of Junia
In case you're seeing one of my posts for the first time, let me make it clear that my job is to find out what the Bible says about men and women in the church. While I will often combat complementarians on this site, and may even sound harsh at times (although I don't like to), I am also not a feminist. I don't believe that women and only women should have leadership in our churches. A good 'ole boys network nor a good 'ole girls network will do.
Instead, God has designed two genders, male and female, and has given them both dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). So the church should be composed of men and women in leadership who love God and exercise their gifts to His glory.
Last time, I discussed Deborah's role as a prophetess and how women serving as prophets (one of the highest gifts according to Ephesians 4) aids the defense for women in ministry. Today, I'm gonna spend time on women as apostles-- and to aid this discussion, we have the question regarding Junia in Romans 16:7-- is the name "Junia" or "Junias?"
Romans 16:7 reads: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me."
Wayne Grudem tackles this topic in his book, "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" (www.EFBT100.com). In response to feminist assertions that Junia's apostleship opens the door for women, Grudem responds (Answer 7.2a): "The name that is spelled "iounian" in the Greek text of Romans 16:7 could be either a man's name or a woman's name simply according to the spelling...just as in English there are some names (such as Chris or Pat) that could be either a man's name or a woman's name, so in Greek, this name could be either masculine or feminine, and we cannot tell from the spelling alone" (224).
For those who desire a good response to Grudem (or any other complementarian), read Eldon Jay Epp's book entitled "Junia-- the first woman apostle." This book, written in 2005, shows how the issue of "junia/junias" became an issue when it wasn't one for a long period of time: "...for the first seven centuries of the church's life Greek manuscripts did not employ accents (in the name), but when accents did become common practice in the manuscript tradition...they uniformly identify the name as feminine...there is no Greek manuscript extant that umambiguously identifies Andronicus's partner as a male...that consistent pattern coheres with the evidence offered by early Christian writers for the first thousand years of the church's life and well into the second thousand years. Theologians as diverse as Origen, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, John Damascene, Peter Abelard, and Peter Lombard, assume that the partner of Andronicus is a woman by the name of Junia...only with the thirteenth century Aegidius of Rome, and especially with Martin Luther's translation, did the view arise that Junia was in fact a male, Junias. Finally, and not of least importance, the female name Junia is a widely attested Roman name, but there exists no evidence for the use of the masculine forms 'Junias' or 'Junianus'" (foreword, x-xi).
There are those who seek to attack "Junia" because they believe that a woman could never be an apostle. Epp discusses the editor's comment regarding Romans 16:7 in Bruce Metzger's "Textual Commentary to UBS" (1994): "Some members, considering it unlikely that a woman would be among those styled 'apostles,' understood the name to be masculine ("iounian"- Junias), thought to be a shortened form of 'Junianus'...others, however, were impressed by the facts that (1) the female Latin name Junia occurs more than 250 times in Greek and Latin inscriptions found in Rome alone, whereas the male name Junias is unattested anywhere, and (2) when Greek manuscripts began to be accented, scribes wrote the feminine 'Iounian ('Junia')" (Epp, 54). The historical research that gives credence to Junia's name is all there-- but yet and still, there are biased scholars who deny the truth even when it's staring them in the face. Evidently, research isn't an objective activity anymore.
At the end of Grudem's analysis, he concludes that the name of the mysterious apostle beside Andronicus is Junia (EFBT, 226) from the earliest citations by church fathers. However, other forces out there, such as David Jones (from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) have attempted to argue for "Junias." The problems with this interpretation have already been given: there is no research present for the name itself. When there is no research, and scholars "forge" research anyway, what do we have? A made-up, fictional character like Peter Pan to believe in. And I don't know about you, but I'm too mature for fairy tales...
Instead, God has designed two genders, male and female, and has given them both dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). So the church should be composed of men and women in leadership who love God and exercise their gifts to His glory.
Last time, I discussed Deborah's role as a prophetess and how women serving as prophets (one of the highest gifts according to Ephesians 4) aids the defense for women in ministry. Today, I'm gonna spend time on women as apostles-- and to aid this discussion, we have the question regarding Junia in Romans 16:7-- is the name "Junia" or "Junias?"
Romans 16:7 reads: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me."
Wayne Grudem tackles this topic in his book, "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" (www.EFBT100.com). In response to feminist assertions that Junia's apostleship opens the door for women, Grudem responds (Answer 7.2a): "The name that is spelled "iounian" in the Greek text of Romans 16:7 could be either a man's name or a woman's name simply according to the spelling...just as in English there are some names (such as Chris or Pat) that could be either a man's name or a woman's name, so in Greek, this name could be either masculine or feminine, and we cannot tell from the spelling alone" (224).
For those who desire a good response to Grudem (or any other complementarian), read Eldon Jay Epp's book entitled "Junia-- the first woman apostle." This book, written in 2005, shows how the issue of "junia/junias" became an issue when it wasn't one for a long period of time: "...for the first seven centuries of the church's life Greek manuscripts did not employ accents (in the name), but when accents did become common practice in the manuscript tradition...they uniformly identify the name as feminine...there is no Greek manuscript extant that umambiguously identifies Andronicus's partner as a male...that consistent pattern coheres with the evidence offered by early Christian writers for the first thousand years of the church's life and well into the second thousand years. Theologians as diverse as Origen, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, John Damascene, Peter Abelard, and Peter Lombard, assume that the partner of Andronicus is a woman by the name of Junia...only with the thirteenth century Aegidius of Rome, and especially with Martin Luther's translation, did the view arise that Junia was in fact a male, Junias. Finally, and not of least importance, the female name Junia is a widely attested Roman name, but there exists no evidence for the use of the masculine forms 'Junias' or 'Junianus'" (foreword, x-xi).
There are those who seek to attack "Junia" because they believe that a woman could never be an apostle. Epp discusses the editor's comment regarding Romans 16:7 in Bruce Metzger's "Textual Commentary to UBS" (1994): "Some members, considering it unlikely that a woman would be among those styled 'apostles,' understood the name to be masculine ("iounian"- Junias), thought to be a shortened form of 'Junianus'...others, however, were impressed by the facts that (1) the female Latin name Junia occurs more than 250 times in Greek and Latin inscriptions found in Rome alone, whereas the male name Junias is unattested anywhere, and (2) when Greek manuscripts began to be accented, scribes wrote the feminine 'Iounian ('Junia')" (Epp, 54). The historical research that gives credence to Junia's name is all there-- but yet and still, there are biased scholars who deny the truth even when it's staring them in the face. Evidently, research isn't an objective activity anymore.
At the end of Grudem's analysis, he concludes that the name of the mysterious apostle beside Andronicus is Junia (EFBT, 226) from the earliest citations by church fathers. However, other forces out there, such as David Jones (from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) have attempted to argue for "Junias." The problems with this interpretation have already been given: there is no research present for the name itself. When there is no research, and scholars "forge" research anyway, what do we have? A made-up, fictional character like Peter Pan to believe in. And I don't know about you, but I'm too mature for fairy tales...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)