Female Apostles in Early Church

[Freedom]

Romans 16:7 Great Andronicus and Junia, by fellow Jews who have been in prison with he. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was"

There is some debate as to whether Junia was a male or female, but it seems the vast majority agree that this is a woman. 

There is also some question whether this verse is saying that she is considered by the apostles to be outstanding, or whether it means that she is an outstanding apostle. 

John Chrysostom (AD347-407) is quoted as saying "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!" 

Many translations of this passage suggest she was an apostle such as the NIRV "leaders among the apostles' and TPT 'outstanding and well-known apostles'

I could only fine a few that translate it as 'well known to the apostles'

We do need to consider, of course, that we have no idea what was originally written or even if this verse was even written by Paul so any conclusions we draw are limited to the surviving texts. There is nothing in our doctrine that requires only men can hold the priesthood, just as there was never any doctrine that states blacks could not receive the priesthood. There is also nothing in our doctrine that requires a male to pass or prepare the sacrament, this is just a social construct that has been perpetuated by a patriarchal society from which our church sprang. 

Will this be a correction that will soon come about?

 

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

Romans 16:7 Great Andronicus and Junia, by fellow Jews who have been in prison with he. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was"

There is some debate as to whether Junia was a male or female, but it seems the vast majority agree that this is a woman. 

There is also some question whether this verse is saying that she is considered by the apostles to be outstanding, or whether it means that she is an outstanding apostle. 

John Chrysostom (AD347-407) is quoted as saying "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!" 

Many translations of this passage suggest she was an apostle such as the NIRV "leaders among the apostles' and TPT 'outstanding and well-known apostles'

I could only fine a few that translate it as 'well known to the apostles'

We do need to consider, of course, that we have no idea what was originally written or even if this verse was even written by Paul so any conclusions we draw are limited to the surviving texts. There is nothing in our doctrine that requires only men can hold the priesthood, just as there was never any doctrine that states blacks could not receive the priesthood. There is also nothing in our doctrine that requires a male to pass or prepare the sacrament, this is just a social construct that has been perpetuated by a patriarchal society from which our church sprang. 

Will this be a correction that will soon come about?

 

It is only in the 18th century with the appearance of "charismatic" women that the issue of women in authority has been rekindled. The admonition of Paul in 1 Tim. 2:11-12 is clear although politically not very correct in the 21st century. "...let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence..." 

Regardless of how we may particularly feel on the subject, God did not call women to the Levitical priesthood or the Apostleship later when Christ walked on the earth.  Neither did the church of Rome when they reinvented their "priesthood" or subsequently in history. The phrase has been traditionally understood that among the Apostles, this person is held in great standing, highly esteemed. Nothing more. We must be careful to try and force our own believe, desires and novel "interpretation" onto the text. It is just not there. Although the role of women in the curch is greatly valued and important, the priesthood is not one the Lord has called the sisters to in history.

[Freedom]

36 minutes ago, Islander said:

It is only in the 18th century with the appearance of "charismatic" women that the issue of women in authority has been rekindled. The admonition of Paul in 1 Tim. 2:11-12 is clear although politically not very correct in the 21st century. "...let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence..." 

Regardless of how we may particularly feel on the subject, God did not call women to the Levitical priesthood or the Apostleship later when Christ walked on the earth.  Neither did the church of Rome when they reinvented their "priesthood" or subsequently in history. The phrase has been traditionally understood that among the Apostles, this person is held in great standing, highly esteemed. Nothing more. We must be careful to try and force our own believe, desires and novel "interpretation" onto the text. It is just not there. Although the role of women in the curch is greatly valued and important, the priesthood is not one the Lord has called the sisters to in history.

and yet Paul refers to as being an apostle. President Hinkley when interviewed could not say defensively why women do not hold the priesthood and did not rule out a future change. We do not know why the practice has perpetuated, but the evidence at least in the text that we currently have suggests that a woman was an apostle. There does not seem to be any logical or doctrinal reason why women do not hold the priesthood, but we do not that they are ordained be become priestesses. 

[BRMC]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

 

There is some debate as to whether Junia was a male or female, but it seems the vast majority agree that this is a woman. 

 

 

No.   There is nothing in Church doctrine that I have seen suggesting what you claim.   Please link to a Church source.

[rodheadlee]

33 minutes ago, Freedom said:

and yet Paul refers to as being an apostle. President Hinkley when interviewed could not say defensively why women do not hold the priesthood and did not rule out a future change. We do not know why the practice has perpetuated, but the evidence at least in the text that we currently have suggests that a woman was an apostle. There does not seem to be any logical or doctrinal reason why women do not hold the priesthood, but we do not that they are ordained be become priestesses. 

I believe that says she was held in high esteem among the apostles not as an apostle. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

...................................

We do need to consider, of course, that we have no idea what was originally written or even if this verse was even written by Paul so any conclusions we draw are limited to the surviving texts. There is nothing in our doctrine that requires only men can hold the priesthood, just as there was never any doctrine that states blacks could not receive the priesthood. There is also nothing in our doctrine that requires a male to pass or prepare the sacrament, this is just a social construct that has been perpetuated by a patriarchal society from which our church sprang. 

Will this be a correction that will soon come about?

The assumption that everything is merely a social construct has endless consequences.  We don't actually know that to be true.

On the one hand, it is clear that God had female prophets and a female judge (warlord) and that He can pretty much do whatever He wants -- within certain strictures (and we don't know what those strictures are).  Indeed, we believe that females can be gods and angels.  So having a female apostle should not be out of the question.

[JustAnAustralian]

In Kevin Barney's NT footnotes, he has this to say in relation to "who are of note among the apostles"

Quote

The kjv artfully preserves the ambiguity of the Greek, which can be taken either to
mean that Andronicus and Junia were noteworthy apostles, or that they were highly
esteemed by the apostles. This is sometimes used to argue that the primitive Church
had women among the Twelve, which is most unlikely. It is possible that the pair are
both male (Andronicus and Junias), but this is unlikely as the name Junias is otherwise
unattested. More probable is that Paul is using “apostle” in a generic sense as one who
is a formal emissary (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:23), and not in the technical sense of one who holds
the Priesthood office of Apostle and is a member of the Twelve. They might, in effect,
be what we would now term a missionary couple.

Alas I'm not up with Greek so can't really comment on the original.

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

In Kevin Barney's NT footnotes, he has this to say in relation to "who are of note among the apostles"

Alas I'm not up with Greek so can't really comment on the original.

thanks, but to be devils advocate, I wonder if he is drawing this conclusions because of a preconceived believe that apostles are male, therefore if these women were apostles they must not have been apostles by calling. 

 

The problem is that we do not know what was originally stated, nor can be we be certain that Paul was property expressing his intent. The church fathers came generations later so their opinions may be based strictly on this reference from Paul which is vague at best. I think this is more of an academic exercise than anything because there is simply not enough information to draw any real conclusions. 

[Freedom]

5 hours ago, BRMC said:

No.   There is nothing in Church doctrine that I have seen suggesting what you claim.   Please link to a Church source.

the church does not delve into textual analysis or biblical history, I was referring to biblical scholarship

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Freedom said:

, I wonder if he is drawing this conclusions because of a preconceived believe that apostles are male, therefore if these women were apostles they must not have been apostles by calling. 

Knowing Kevin some, I would be very surprised if so. (Met him at FAIR stuff, dinners, read his FAIR responses)

Edited December 20, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

10 minutes ago, Freedom said:

if these women were apostles they must not have been apostles by calling. 

Well that gets into a Apostle as a calling / Apostle as a Priesthood office discussion.

[Nacho2dope]

21 hours ago, Freedom said:

Romans 16:7 Great Andronicus and Junia, by fellow Jews who have been in prison with he. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was"

There is some debate as to whether Junia was a male or female, but it seems the vast majority agree that this is a woman. 

There is also some question whether this verse is saying that she is considered by the apostles to be outstanding, or whether it means that she is an outstanding apostle. 

John Chrysostom (AD347-407) is quoted as saying "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!" 

Many translations of this passage suggest she was an apostle such as the NIRV "leaders among the apostles' and TPT 'outstanding and well-known apostles'

I could only fine a few that translate it as 'well known to the apostles'

We do need to consider, of course, that we have no idea what was originally written or even if this verse was even written by Paul so any conclusions we draw are limited to the surviving texts. There is nothing in our doctrine that requires only men can hold the priesthood, just as there was never any doctrine that states blacks could not receive the priesthood. There is also nothing in our doctrine that requires a male to pass or prepare the sacrament, this is just a social construct that has been perpetuated by a patriarchal society from which our church sprang. 

Will this be a correction that will soon come about?

 

What do you believe is meant by Kinsman in the verse you quoted? Why would he not use kinswomen like in other verses? I don't agree with your social construct approach to everything you disagree with. 

[Islander]

On 12/19/2021 at 4:42 PM, Freedom said:

and yet Paul refers to as being an apostle. President Hinkley when interviewed could not say defensively why women do not hold the priesthood and did not rule out a future change. We do not know why the practice has perpetuated, but the evidence at least in the text that we currently have suggests that a woman was an apostle. There does not seem to be any logical or doctrinal reason why women do not hold the priesthood, but we do not that they are ordained be become priestesses. 

You are reading more than there is in the scripture. No bible commentary in the last 1500 years has interpreted that passage the way you do. What we think is irrelevant when it comes to the word of God and the work of God. We can speculate all we want but that's all there is; speculation.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Islander said:

No bible commentary in the last 1500 years has interpreted that passage the way you do.

CFR please

[Freedom]

9 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

What do you believe is meant by Kinsman in the verse you quoted? Why would he not use kinswomen like in other verses? I don't agree with your social construct approach to everything you disagree with. 

Virtually every translation of the bible renders the name as that of a woman. If you had read my posts, you would see that I am presenting an idea to be discussed and not forcing any interpretation on these verses:

 

"The problem is that we do not know what was originally stated, nor can be we be certain that Paul was property expressing his intent. The church fathers came generations later so their opinions may be based strictly on this reference from Paul which is vague at best. I think this is more of an academic exercise than anything because there is simply not enough information to draw any real conclusions. "

 

The reality is, there is no doctrinal reason why women cannot have the priesthood and this practice may change. We also cannot definitively determine if these two women were in fact members of the quorum of the 12. But we cannot conclusively state that they were not. I am not clear what you mean by me dismissing everything with the argument of social construct. We do have many practices in our religion that are just that however. Gender and gender rolls are a social construct - there is nothing in our DNA that states a man must provide the income and the woman must stay at home with the children. 

 

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

Up until the 90s, the young women's program conditioned girls to be mothers and housewives, and conditioned boys to be outdoors. This has changed because we now realize that these gender rolls are flawed. Both boys and girls need to learn how to cook and sew, both boys and girls need to learn how to camp, and both boys and girls need to get an education and a career. Both men and women have the innate ability to be a bishop, stake president or apostle. For some reason, God has not stepped in to make any changes at this point but I will not be shocked if at some point he does. 

 

[Freedom]

50 minutes ago, Islander said:

You are reading more than there is in the scripture. No bible commentary in the last 1500 years has interpreted that passage the way you do. What we think is irrelevant when it comes to the word of God and the work of God. We can speculate all we want but that's all there is; speculation.

Are you suggesting that there is no room for speculation on this board? By golly, I had no idea that we only discussed pure doctrine here that gets vetted by the brethren. This passage warrants discussion, and we would all do well to open our minds to what possibilities can arise from such an exercise. What is the risk of making women equal to men in all things, including priesthood duties? 

[Peacefully]

7 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Are you suggesting that there is no room for speculation on this board? By golly, I had no idea that we only discussed pure doctrine here that gets vetted by the brethren. This passage warrants discussion, and we would all do well to open our minds to what possibilities can arise from such an exercise. What is the risk of making women equal to men in all things, including priesthood duties? 

I’m out of reactions but you get two thumbs way up from me! 

[Islander]

6 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Virtually every translation of the bible renders the name as that of a woman. If you had read my posts, you would see that I am presenting an idea to be discussed and not forcing any interpretation on these verses:

 

"The problem is that we do not know what was originally stated, nor can be we be certain that Paul was property expressing his intent. The church fathers came generations later so their opinions may be based strictly on this reference from Paul which is vague at best. I think this is more of an academic exercise than anything because there is simply not enough information to draw any real conclusions. "

 

The reality is, there is no doctrinal reason why women cannot have the priesthood and this practice may change. We also cannot definitively determine if these two women were in fact members of the quorum of the 12. But we cannot conclusively state that they were not. I am not clear what you mean by me dismissing everything with the argument of social construct. We do have many practices in our religion that are just that however. Gender and gender rolls are a social construct - there is nothing in our DNA that states a man must provide the income and the woman must stay at home with the children. 

 

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

Up until the 90s, the young women's program conditioned girls to be mothers and housewives, and conditioned boys to be outdoors. This has changed because we now realize that these gender rolls are flawed. Both boys and girls need to learn how to cook and sew, both boys and girls need to learn how to camp, and both boys and girls need to get an education and a career. Both men and women have the innate ability to be a bishop, stake president or apostle. For some reason, God has not stepped in to make any changes at this point but I will not be shocked if at some point he does. 

 

You are simply shooting" beyond the mark". You have put forth an idea. Granted. But such idea has no biblical or historical support. The Greek manuscripts are there. There are bible commentaries on the passage and none posit your interpretation as one even entertained by anyone across history. The Greek construction is not complicated. The issue is that in the 21st century, especially in America, we have a very poor handle on the language and, to make matter worse, we have deconstructed the language beyond recognition. The deficit exists to the point that few can actually read a sentence in English and render a proper interpretation of it.

It is obvious you are an advocate of female ecclesiastical leadership. But, again, the scriptures, history and revelation all point to the opposite side of the spectrum. The rest, you must admit, is just speculation.

 

 

[Islander]

17 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Are you suggesting that there is no room for speculation on this board? By golly, I had no idea that we only discussed pure doctrine here that gets vetted by the brethren. This passage warrants discussion, and we would all do well to open our minds to what possibilities can arise from such an exercise. What is the risk of making women equal to men in all things, including priesthood duties? 

When it comes to the word of God there is no room for speculation. It is rather dangerous, if history is to be taken into account.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Islander said:

You have put forth an idea. Granted. But such idea has no biblical or historical support. The Greek manuscripts are there. There are bible commentaries on the passage and none posit your interpretation as one even entertained by anyone across history.

Too be clear in what you are disputing, are you claiming that no one considered Junia to be a woman or that no one considered her to be an apostle (label can be interpreted as a Christian missionary like Paul was) or that no one considered her to hold the apostolic  Priesthood, she was not one of the Twelve?  Or something else, if the latter please be precise in explaining what you believe she wasn’t and what you think scholars have all agreed about in the last 1500 years.

How much studying of this issue have you actually done out of curiosity?

Edited December 21, 2021 by Calm

[Freedom]

8 minutes ago, Islander said:

When it comes to the word of God there is no room for speculation. It is rather dangerous, if history is to be taken into account.

ok, lets shut down the maxwell institute, the interpreter, Faith Matters, and lets delete every conference talk ever given. 

[Freedom]

12 minutes ago, Islander said:

You are simply shooting" beyond the mark". You have put forth an idea. Granted. But such idea has no biblical or historical support. The Greek manuscripts are there. There are bible commentaries on the passage and none posit your interpretation as one even entertained by anyone across history. The Greek construction is not complicated. The issue is that in the 21st century, especially in America, we have a very poor handle on the language and, to make matter worse, we have deconstructed the language beyond recognition. The deficit exists to the point that few can actually read a sentence in English and render a proper interpretation of it.

It is obvious you are an advocate of female ecclesiastical leadership. But, again, the scriptures, history and revelation all point to the opposite side of the spectrum. The rest, you must admit, is just speculation.

 

 

Then explain then why virtually every English translation of the bible uses the female name. Please excuse me so I can go tell our Relief Society, Young Women's and Primary presidents that they are not ecclesiastical leaders. There was a time when blacks having the priesthood was beyond the possibilities and any evidence of blacks receiving the priesthood was erased from  our history. Here are are now putting this racist past behind us. I for one am not willing to reject the possibility that women at one point held the priesthood and that they may again do so. There is nothing in our doctrine either way.  

[Bob Crockett]

On 12/19/2021 at 5:50 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

In Kevin Barney's NT footnotes, he has this to say in relation to "who are of note among the apostles"

Alas I'm not up with Greek so can't really comment on the original.

According to Erhmann, Paul wasn't originally accepted,as an apostle although he claimed to be.  He forced himself in to the Q12 based upon his personal view of the risen Lord.  Something that hundreds of others could claim.  Im not personally convinced about Paul.  But he certainly acted the part. 

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

No bible commentary in the last 1500 years has interpreted that passage the way you do.

A number of prominent commentators in the last 50 years have held that Junia was an "apostle." Here are a few that I am aware of.

• C. E. B. Cranfield (1979): "Most probably Andronicus and Junia were husband and wife. . . . ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις has sometimes been understood as meaning 'outstanding in the eyes of the apostles' . . . ; on this view 'the apostles' could mean the apostles in the more limited sense of the word. While this must be judged grammatically possible, it is much more probable—we might well say, virtually certain—that the words mean 'outstanding among the apostles', that is, 'oustanding in the group who may be designated apostles', which is the way it was understood by the patristic commentators (it would seem, without exception)."
   
• Douglas J. Moo (1996): ". . . commentators before the thirteenth century were unanimous in favor of the feminine identification; and scholars have recently again inclined decisively to this same view. And probably with good reason. For while a contracted form of Junianus would fit quite well in this list of greetings (for Paul uses several other such contractions), we have no evidence elsewhere for this contracted form of the name. On the other hand, the Latin “Junia” was a very common name. Probably, then, “Junia” was the wife of Andronicus (note the other husband and wife pairs in this list, Prisca and Aquila [v. 3] and [probably], Philologus and Julia [v. 15]). . . . In two relative clauses Paul draws the attention of the Roman Christians to the stature of this husband and wife ministry team. The first description might mean that Andronicus and Junia were 'esteemed by the apostles.' But it is more natural to translate 'esteemed among the apostles.'"
   
• Robert Jewett (2006): "Junia is a Latin feminine name, ordinarily given to slaves or freedwomen of the Junia family, of which some 250 examples have been found in Roman evidence. The modern scholarly controversy over this name rests on the presumption that no woman could rank as an apostle, and thus that the accusative form must refer to a male by the name of Junias or Junianus. However, the evidence in favor of the feminine name 'Junia' is overwhelming. Not a single example of a masculine name 'Junias' has been found. . . . Given the pairing with the male name first, it is likely that Andronikos and Junia are a married couple. . . . The honorific expression ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις should be translated 'outstanding among the apostles' rather than 'remarkable in the judgment of the apostles,' because the adjective ἐπίσημος lifts up a person or thing as distinguished or marked in comparison with other representatives of the same class, in this instance with the other apostles. The Latin equivalent is honoratus, the acknowledgment of the distinction and honor earned by another. Thus τὸ ἐπίσημον was used to refer to the badge distinguishing one shield from another (Herodotus Hist. 9.74), the flag or figurehead that identifies one ship in comparison with an otherwise identical ship in the same class (Herodotus 8.88), or the device stamped on a coin to distinguish it from another (Plutarch Thes. 6.1). The adjective is used by 3 Macc 6:1 to identify Eleazar as ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας ἱερέων ('remarkable among the priests of the country') and by Josephus to describe Mary of Bethezuba as 'remarkable (ἐπίσημος) by reason of family and fortune' (Bell. 6.201). A striking confirmation of this interpretation is provided by Chrysostom’s comment about Junia: 'Even to be an apostle is great, but also to be prominent among them—consider how wonderful a song of honor that is!'"
   
• Joseph A. Fitzmyer (2008): "who are outstanding among the apostles. The prep. phrase en tois apostolois may mean 'those of mark (numbered) among the apostles' or 'those held in esteem by the apostles.' Barrett, Cranfield, Lagrange, Lietzmann, Michel, Rengstorf, Schlatter, Schlier, Schnackenburg, Zeller, and BAGD take it in the former sense, as did most of the patristic interpreters." (So does Fitzmyer.)

Now, it should be noted that these commentators see the title "apostle" here as referring to a commissioned missionary/messenger/emissary or a witness of the resurrection. Moo and Fitzmyer opt for the former view. Jewett argues for the latter view: "Since Paul gives no evidence that they had been associated with a particular congregation, in contrast to Phoebe in 16:1–2, and since his usage of 'apostle' is oriented to resurrection witness unless otherwise indicated, it seems likely that he ranked them among 'all the apostles' who laid claim to being witnesses of the resurrection."

Paul never uses the term "apostle" to refer to an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood. So, no, he's not claiming that Junia was "ordained to the priesthood." But Romans 16 provides ample evidence that women played a prominent role in the early Church. Given that early Christianity consisted of a network of house-churches, I think it is very likely that some women held leadership positions. Phoebe, whom Paul refers to as "a deacon of the church in Cenchreae," may well have been one of those.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Nevo

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Paul never uses the term "apostle" to refer to an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood. So, no, he's not claiming that Junia was "ordained to the priesthood." But Romans 16 provides ample evidence that women played a prominent role in the early Church. Given that early Christianity consisted of a network of house-churches, I think it is very likely that some women held leadership positions. Phoebe, whom Paul refers to as "a deacon of the church in Cenchreae," may well have been one.

Of course "deacon" in Greek is another one of those multi-use words.  It is the same word translated as to "serve", as one would do in waiting at a table or in ministering to others.  So it's the same kind of argument for Phebe's position in this case.