Continuity In Change: Paikea As A Model For Extending Priesthood To Women

[Darren10]

Via facebook I come across another article regarding LDS feminism and the Ordain Women movement. This article was written by Dan himself.

 

In the last chapter of his letter to the Christians at Rome, the apostle Paul greets his friends there. The seventh verse, specifically, reads: “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”

Junia, the argument runs, was a woman, a very early Christian convert, and an ordained apostle.

 

Regarding Andronicus and Junia's gender, Dan writes:

 

The name “Andronicus” is unambiguously masculine. Moreover, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox traditions both identify him as one of the Seventy, and say that he was eventually named bishop of the Roman province of Pannonia (covering parts of modern Austria, Hungary and the Balkans).

However, the case of Junia is less clear.

 

Although Andronicus appears in traditional lists of the Seventy, Junia doesn’t. In addition, while the name in Romans 16:7 is probably the feminine “Junia,” it might also, for technical Greek reasons, be read as the masculine “Junias.”

 

All of the nouns and pronouns in the verse are masculine, but, because of the occurrence of the masculine “Andronicus,” that would be the case under Greek grammatical rules whether “Junia” were a man or a woman. Ancient tradition usually makes “Junia” the wife of Andronicus, or his sister, or simply a female fellow missionary.

 

On the other hand, Origen of Alexandria, a third-century writer who ranks among the greatest scholars and thinkers of ancient Christianity, seems to have believed that the person named by Paul along with Andronicus was a man. Moreover, the fourth-century Christian scholar and bishop Epiphanius records that “Junias” eventually served as the indisputably male bishop of Syrian Apamea. (Unfortunately though, just previously, Epiphanius plainly misidentifies “Prisca” as a man.)

 

In other words, the evidence is ambiguous. Most scholars today, though, believe that Romans 16:7 does indeed refer to a woman named Junia.

 

So while Andronicus was clearly male, Junia is undetermined though clearly leaned male by early Christians. Regardless, what is an 'apostle"?

 

But who were the “apostles” among whom, according to Paul, Andronicus and Junia were “of note”? The term may well refer to the Twelve. But it need not.

“Apostolos” was a fairly common Greek term in antiquity, denoting somebody who has been “sent,” and who is, therefore, a “messenger” or an “emissary.” It hadn’t yet assumed the more restrictive definition of later Christian and particularly Latter-day Saint usage.

 

Furthermore, it was often used quite broadly in ancient Christianity to refer to missionaries (a term that, like “emissary,” comes from the Latin “missio,” which also means “sending”). It’s in this sense, probably, that it’s used to refer to Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:6-9), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), and Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 2:6; compare 1:1), who (unlike Matthias, at Acts 1:15-26) never seem to be included among the Twelve. Eastern Christian tradition calls all of the Seventy “apostles.”

 

So Paul may simply be saying that Andronicus and Junia were well-regarded among Christian missionaries.

 

That makes perfect sense to me. We definitely have female missionaries and leaders in the restorative LDS Church.

 

On this last point, a helpful discussion is “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7” published in 2001 by Michael Burer and Daniel Wallace in the Cambridge University Press journal “New Testament Studies.” Carefully analyzing the Greek of the passage, this article concludes that it “is more naturally taken with an exclusive force rather than an inclusive one.”

 

In other words, Paul’s words should be understood as saying that Junia was “well known to the apostles rather than outstanding among them.”

 

Thus, Romans 16:7 seems to provide little if any solid support for the ordination of women.

[Abulafia]

CV75, my point is that the Abrahmic religions use Genesis 3:16 to argue that the subordination of women to men is divinely instituted. It formed part of the curse (men would work, and women would have pain in childbirth and be ruled over by their partner) and is the natural order of things so to speak.
 

16 To the woman He said,    "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children;Yet your desire will be for your husband,  and he will rule over you."

 

In that context, it makes Paul's letter to the Galatians regarding there being neither male nor female in the Lord even more startling and probably deeply so to his contemporaries, whether they were Jews, Romans or Greeks.

If the old law was regarded as fulfilled in the coming and resurrection of Jesus, then did this include laws on gender as given in Genesis? I believe that there is good evidence that it did, but was just too radical for the time and it's voice was quickly lost.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Bernard, for what it is worth, I don't think Peter said women are not worthy of life either, he was afterall married and his wife probably travelled with him on occasion.

I didn't have any wish to upset Tacenda by using these writings, only to show the tensions that existed in the early communities, and that is whether the writings made it into New Testament canon or not. Remember, it was a council of men led by a man, who decided on the issue of canon at a time when patriarchal systems were stabilized within the communities in the most part.

[Bernard Gui]

Ignatius to the Trallians:

3. Equally, it is for the rest of you to hold the deacons in as great respect as Jesus Christ; just as

you should also look on the bishop as a type of the Father, and the clergy as the Apostolic circle

form His council....

 

 

How can a female bishop be a type of the Father?

 

1 Clement writes how the Apostles ordained bishops and deacons. This is, as far as I know, the most detailed

description of Priesthood ordinations in the early Christian Church. In the rest of this section. Ignatius argues that is would not be right to turn men out of their callings as bishops because they had been selected and ordained by the Apostles and sustained by the consent of the Church. If women were to be involved as bishops and deacons, which indeed would be provocative, I believe he would have defended it in his letters, but he does not.

 

42-44. As [the apostles] went through the territories and townships preaching, they appointed their first converts -

after testing them by the Spirit - to be bishops and deacons for the believers of the future....Does it surprise

us that Christian men, entrusted by God with such a mission, should have made these appointments?....

Edited October 3, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I'm using "keys" in the sense that Joseph Smith used the term, which is just as a poetic term synonymous with authority or control, or in other words the ability to unlock a particular mystical power. Delegated keys are still keys--like if you lend your friend the keys to your car, he can still drive it. Nobody in the LDS Church lends their keys to women, however, because apparently the holding of keys is incompatible with having female genitalia.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine of keys of the Priesthood. For a correct understanding, the reader should see:

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng&query=keys+of+the+priesthood

[Bernard Gui]

Which would be the best evidence of Apostleship, The Lord personally appearing to you and telling you to go bear witness to his disciples, or a priesthood holder laying his hands upon you and ordaining you to an office where your primary task is to bear witness of Him?

 

 

 The best evidence is that described by Elder Haight:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/solemn-assemblies?lang=eng&query=apostleship+ordination

Our fifth article of faith declares: “We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.” [A of F 1:5]

The revealed process by which Howard W. Hunter became the President of the Church began when he was called, ordained, and set apart to become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—a call that was inspired of the Lord. That calling and ordination placed the newly called Apostle in a priesthood quorum with eleven other men who hold the apostleship.

Each Apostle is ordained under the direction of the President of the Church, who holds the keys of all of the kingdom of God. He gives to each new Apostle the priesthood authority necessary for him to hold every position in the Church.

 

Edited October 3, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Abulafia]

You'll get no disagreement from me that the early communities (Pauline I believe in the case of Ignatius) became/were patriarchal in nature, though the role of widows is interesting i.e. those that chose to stay single as women, to the extent that an age requirement was instituted in some of the communities. Women choosing not to marry is an interesting early development that took them out of normative roles.

The Montanist movement, which Tertullian seemed rather fond of indeed had two female prophets who were more popular according to some accounts than Montanus. This movement could be seen as an early attempt to get back to basics, so to speak and to reject the developing orthodoxy in the communities with which Montanus was familiar.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

[Bernard Gui]

Darren, Paul was never formerly ordained according to his own account (as an apostle), and it was a title he had to fight for. He did so on the basis of his visionary experience with the resurrected Jesus. If Paul regarded the title of apostle as someone who had walked and talked with Jesus then this is evidence that the Junia passage in Paul's letters referred to her as an esteemed apostle. The fact that the passage was changed to the male by many later scribes indicates how uncomfortable they (all men again) were with it.

Or, that it was causing a misunderstanding in the Church and he wanted to correct it.

 

By this standard, there were over 500 apostles in New Testament time.

[mfbukowski]

Well, I guess that is one way of looking at it.   Another, and I think more historically accurate view, would be to say that 'scripture' in the earliest period of Church history consisted of what we would call the Old Testament, and probably other related writings now lost to us.  

There was no New Testament canon at that time, and so to dismiss writings because they didn't make it into canon at a much later date is to miss the precious insights that they offer from various early communities.  

 

Gnostic, is a term that can be bandied around in a dismissive way, but it is a term that cannot be so easily defined.  There wasn't just 'one' Gnostic movement, but many strands, just as there were many strands of Judaic and Christian belief.

I answered as I did to help Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard, for what it is worth, I don't think Peter said women are not worthy of life either, he was afterall married and his wife probably travelled with him on occasion.

I didn't have any wish to upset Tacenda by using these writings, only to show the tensions that existed in the early communities, and that is whether the writings made it into New Testament canon or not. Remember, it was a council of men led by a man, who decided on the issue of canon at a time when patriarchal systems were stabilized within the communities in the most part.

Thank you for your kind words.

 

According to Alma 13 and D&C 117, the patriarchal system was established in the pre-mortal existence, and is epitomized in the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.

 

On a side note, weren't you a more regular participant here a few years ago? Terry Pratchett is the man.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Abulafia]

The textual evidence indicates that Paul had a much more liberal attitude to who could and couldn't be an apostle, based on whether they walked and talked with the living Jesus. It's a view that didnt last, as is indicated in 1 Clement, the Didache, Ignatius and Polycarp, as well as the later writings ascribed but almost certainly not written by Paul..ie Timothy and Titus etc.

[Abulafia]

Bernard, I guess it goes to the heart of what 'priesthood' actually is.  I still haven't seen an adequate response to the passage in Mark where Jesus tell his apostles to 'forbid them not' in dealing with others who were followers of Jesus and using his name but weren't 'authorised' as such, to speak and act.  Jesus' attitude to 'the power to act in his name' seems liberal here, which is quite baffling given the orthodoxy that came in the later centuries.  (Mark 9:38-39)

There are also the 'Acts of Paul and Thecla' where we have Thecla, a female, baptizing herself.  The story may or may not be based in historical reality, though the writer does use historical characters.  It, again, gives evidence of what women could and couldn't do.

It may indeed be the case that women baptized other women for the sake of decorum, that women taught other women, and that women supported other women.  They may also, as I have argued, have had a central place as those 'who wait at tables' in the early love feast/eucharist.  

Just out of interest, the Catholic Church also has a group of faithful women who are faithfully 'pushing' for change within Catholicism.  I think their movement is much more mature and takes a variety of avenues, including education in terms of the role of women in many of the early church communities.  They have a website here:

http://www.futurechurch.org/

 

[Abulafia]

Some more early evidence that may interest are the images found in the catacombs of Priscilla.  

Here women are depicted as presiding at the eucharist/love feast, as well as teaching other women.  It isn't evidence of anything other than they had roles that (in terms of the sacrament) are now seen as priestly duties within the LDS faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See: http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/fractio%20panis.htm

Edited October 3, 2013 by Abulafia

[CV75]

CV75, my point is that the Abrahmic religions use Genesis 3:16 to argue that the subordination of women to men is divinely instituted. It formed part of the curse (men would work, and women would have pain in childbirth and be ruled over by their partner) and is the natural order of things so to speak.

 

In that context, it makes Paul's letter to the Galatians regarding there being neither male nor female in the Lord even more startling and probably deeply so to his contemporaries, whether they were Jews, Romans or Greeks.

If the old law was regarded as fulfilled in the coming and resurrection of Jesus, then did this include laws on gender as given in Genesis? I believe that there is good evidence that it did, but was just too radical for the time and it's voice was quickly lost.

Yes, I agree with your point about what Abrahamic religions did. I also think the direction the Abrahamic religions took it, inasmuch as they reflected the traditions and attitudes of fallen and uninspired men and not of God, was and is wrong.

 

I see other evidences in the scriptures, some of which I shared, that show that the subordination of women to men is not divinely inspired. I agree that Galatians 3:26-29 is one of these. God’s is a house of order (priesthood) but also a house of progress (change). Priesthood holders are the agents of order, and helpmeets are the agents of change (as Eve and the women at Jesus’ sepulcher demonstrated). As Eve and these women demonstrated, not all death (in the form of change) is bad.

 

I would say that the gender laws in Genesis were not fulfilled (they are eternal), but rather that their malinterpretation and malapplication were corrected, in Christ. The fulfilled law in Galatians is the Law of Moses that was properly implemented, not corrupted; the fulfillment was of the proper schoolmaster, not the false one that Jesus condemned. Jesus fulfilled the true law and destroyed the corrupted ones.

 

For example, in prior posts, I tried to cull from the scriptures perhaps one eternal gender law, where the male priesthood corresponds with the female helpmeet. I downplayed using the role of motherhood as corresponding to priesthood, because in the “culture” of the OP, this was insufficient. However, this culture may run about as counter to the eternal gender laws as the oppression of women and mothers, and is a product of backlashing against injustice. Folks can still be entrenched in the very culture they find offensive, and so do not look above it (hence the contention).

 

But in looking at motherhood more closely, women are also the first to witness new life within their very souls, the first to know they have conceived, to first to know their children and their needs, etc. and proceed to inform the men about it (thus providing corresponding help to them) so they are enabled to do what they are to do in righteousness. The very biochemistry of conception can be used to bear out this principle as well.

 

So one may miss an eternal principle because he is bound up in tradition (whether he is for or against it), and instead of looking to Christ to eradicate the error, he looks to Him to hold and then fulfill an idea that wasn’t His to start with.

[CV75]

Bernard, I guess it goes to the heart of what 'priesthood' actually is.

I think this also gets to the heart of what people mean when they say women already have it, whether in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage,  temple service and covenants, in having priesthood power, etc. God has the one overarching Priesthood, and delegates accordingly.

 

I still haven't seen an adequate response to the passage in Mark where Jesus tell his apostles to 'forbid them not' in dealing with others who were followers of Jesus and using his name but weren't 'authorised' as such, to speak and act.  Jesus' attitude to 'the power to act in his name' seems liberal here, which is quite baffling given the orthodoxy that came in the later centuries.  (Mark 9:38-39)

I think because God delegates His Priesthood according to many considerations, it can be viewed by us as having many forms and applications. I think this gets into the "house of order" that Jesus was establishig over the course of His minsitry, and which He continues to establish through the course of this dispensation of the fulness of times. Of course this requires the corresponding "house of change" (which is spoken of more in terms of what we are to become in Christ, as part of His body); which change is made possible by the helpmeets, who are priestesses in this regard since this power bestowed upon them (not by ordination) is part of the overarching Priesthood of God.

[Bernard Gui]

Some more early evidence that may interest are the images found in the catacombs of Priscilla.  

Here women are depicted as presiding at the eucharist/love feast, as well as teaching other women.  It isn't evidence of anything other than they had roles that (in terms of the sacrament) are now seen as priestly duties within the LDS faith.

Looks like a modern Relief Society meeting...decorations on the table, refreshments...

[Abulafia]

This image with the same number of people, but male, gives the likely context for the female gathering.  

The images are utterly fascinating.  It wasn't till the female image was cleaned up that it was actually noticed that the participants were female.

[Cobalt-70]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine of keys of the Priesthood. For a correct understanding, the reader should see:

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng&query=keys+of+the+priesthood

 

I'm using the term "keys" the way Joseph Smith did, as a synonym for authority. (Smith also sometimes used it as a synonym for power.) If you want to call it "authority" rather than "keys," then go ahead. It makes no difference to the argument.

[Cobalt-70]

Yet none of your references describe women as having been ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, which is the issue here.

 

D&C 117: 17, 40-41 clearly describe both Aaronic and Melchizedek as a male function...from the very beginning, and Alma 13 clearly states Melchizedek priests were fore-ordained. If women are to be ordained, these doctrinal statement must be rejected. Patriarchal priesthood, as Elder Packer states is a subdivision of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Patriarchy was established in the eternities, hence the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Foundational doctrines must be abandoned for this change to take place.

 

{EDIT} If women were ordained to the Priesthood in the Primitive Church, that would have been big news indeed. In the Didache, it would be unthinkable for a single woman to wander from community to community, living off the members, and refusing to work for her keep. If women did, I believe the writer would have mentioned it.

 

Where in Alma 13 does it say that Melchizedek priests had to have male genitals? All it says is that they were foreordained to the priesthood the same way that Christ was. Would you say that women cannot be "Christlike" because they don't have male genitals?

[juliann]

Where in Alma 13 does it say that Melchizedek priests had to have male genitals? All it says is that they were foreordained to the priesthood the same way that Christ was. Would you say that women cannot be "Christlike" because they don't have male genitals?

Hebrews also says that Melchizedek has no mother or father or descent.

[Stone holm]

I think this also gets to the heart of what people mean when they say women already have it, whether in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage,  temple service and covenants, in having priesthood power, etc. God has the one overarching Priesthood, and delegates accordingly.

 

I think because God delegates His Priesthood according to many considerations, it can be viewed by us as having many forms and applications. I think this gets into the "house of order" that Jesus was establishig over the course of His minsitry, and which He continues to establish through the course of this dispensation of the fulness of times. Of course this requires the corresponding "house of change" (which is spoken of more in terms of what we are to become in Christ, as part of His body); which change is made possible by the helpmeets, who are priestesses in this regard since this power bestowed upon them (not by ordination) is part of the overarching Priesthood of God.

If the priesthood is the authority to act in God's name, and God holds the priesthood in whose name is He acting?

[CV75]

If the priesthood is the authority to act in God's name, and God holds the priesthood in whose name is He acting?

Ha-ha !!! (joke right?)

 

In case it’s not a joke (not being one to assume too much!), for us it is the authority to act in His name; for Him, it is His own authority (Hebrews 6:13, which relates to His giving the priesthood to Abraham). The name "the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God" hints to this; it is subject to Him, and He is subject to the Father, and the Father is subject to no one as far as we are concerned (see other scriptures such as 1 Cornthians 15:28).

[Stone holm]

Ha-ha !!! (joke right?)

 

In case it’s not a joke (not being one to assume too much!), for us it is the authority to act in His name; for Him, it is His own authority (Hebrews 6:13, which relates to His giving the priesthood to Abraham). The name "the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God" hints to this; it is subject to Him, and He is subject to the Father, and the Father is subject to no one as far as we are concerned (see other scriptures such as 1 Cornthians 15:28).

Partly in jest, and partly serious. I am quite confident that God holds a Priesthood from His Heavenly Father, plus He holds the Patriarchal Priesthood which governs the relationships amongst Gods. (I assume there is also a matriarchal priesthood which may actually be the same as the Patriarchal Priesthood, but we are taught so little about our Heavenly Mother(s), that it is hard to say.)

[Darren10]

If the priesthood is the authority to act in God's name, and God holds the priesthood in whose name is He acting?

 

God.

[Stone holm]

God.

Missed the point, there is an agent/principal relationship in the Melchizedek Priesthood. We are the agent by definition. But God is the Principal and therefore agency makes no sense for Him to hold.