D. Lee requested this of another individual but I thought I'd jump in and add a few things. I would recommend a very good resource to you for starters: Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective by James B. Hurley.

In the early church women had the elevation of their perspective to actual people. They were viewed as "counting". If you read through the gospels and then into the book of Acts...women are counted with the men - a first for that culture.

But beyond that Paul considered women as "fellow-workers". One outstanding example is Prisca. She and her husband, Aquilla, are in the book of Acts. THey sailed with Paul from Corinth to Ephesus. Now when you read through Acts 18...Aquila is mentioned first the first time but every time after that Prisca is first. Luke does not explain the change, but commentators have, I suspectly correctly, inferred that she was the more prominent. When you read Romans 16, again Paul mentions her first and there calls her and her husband "fellow workers."

Paul's ministry involved a significant number of women who apparently did more than clean the house and cook. We don't know the exact details of their role, but we do know they were close to him and considered by him a great help.

THere are also some interesting passages that indicate other non-traditional roles for women in the early church. Acts 21:9 and 1 Corinthians 11:5 indicate that women functioned as prophets in the early church. We see enrolled widows in 1 Timothy 5 and the questionable female apostle (Romans 16:7). Also of course is Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2) who is called a "deaconness" or more appropriately a "servant" or "minister."

The early church followed Jesus' example of being very inclusive towards the role of women. Jesus had sharply radical views about them that contradicted his culture.

I would say that this issue is one that brings out the worst in us. Male chauvanism is just as evil as radical feminism in my mind. They are both sinful. There do exist certain areas of responsibility in the church that are God-ordained as male-only, but these are miniscule in comparison to what women can actually do in the church.

You know what I find as funny as well...the guys who jump on the "women are to be silent" bandwagon never hold that view with consistency. Just a few rambles for you.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Answers

"There do exist certain areas of responsibility in the church that are God-ordained as male-only"

So Michael....humor us....and list what those responsibilities are.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Brother Lee....

You would have to know where Michael went to school at...then it would all make sense!:)

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

John....

See Ephesians 4:11-12 as per the office of Evangelist. Of course, it doesn't use the word office....but it is listed among the offices. (In fact, I would challenge the premise that deacon was an office....as opposed to a task.)

As per your discussion of "deaconesses"....I think you are right on.

Let's face it....the biggest reason most people have a problem with the deaconess issue is because first of all they are operating from a "church board" mentality....and the thought of women sitting on church boards really bothers them.

"Church board"....hah....now there is non-scriptural entity.

So it's simple....return churches to the N.T. pattern (i.e., Elder led churchs without church boards).....and have the elders appoint deacons and/or deaconesses "to a task".

There's another great point.....deacons and/or deaconesses in the N.T. were appointed to tasks....not to an office (see Acts 6 for instance...that is if they indeed were the first deacons....and that is questionable as well.)

And Michael....I see you can't take a joke as usual. If memory serves me correctly....you were quite often making jokes about your schooling.

But....be that as it may.....you might be heartened to know....that based upon what you wrote....our differences on the matter might be smaller than the difference between "twiddly dee" and "twiddly dum."

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

"I can take a joke, I just tld a better one than you did and you didn't like it (as usual)."

In typical "Sheridan Fashion" Michael.....you think way too highly of yourself.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

Ah-h-hh!!!

Someone must have opened a window and let in some fresh air!

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Brother Demastus:

You have suggested that there might have been a woman apostle with your following words:

“We see enrolled widows in 1 Timothy 5 and the questionable female apostle (Romans 16:7).”

Now there is no evidence whatsoever that Romans 16:7 even remotely mentions a woman apostle. In fact this is not even “questionable” as you suggest. This claim that Junia who was among Paul’s fellow prisoners was a “female apostle” is absurd and patently false. The passage 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.” (Romans 16:7). Andronicus was a man and Junia was a woman. And the phrase “who also were of note among the apostles”applies to both of them thus if it means that any one of them was an apostle it would mean both of them were. However the truth is that this passages does not even remotely suggest that either of them were apostles. It means only that these two were well and favorably known to the apostles rather than that they were well known as apostles. For if they had been well known as apostles this would not likely be the only passage of scripture that would have made mention of them and it only briefly mentions them and that as fellow prisoners and not fellow apostles of the apostle Paul. Reading the New Testament one finds no mention of them in all of the significant things done by the apostles in the work of the church. Thus it would not be true that they were well known AS APOSTLES rather that they were well known to the apostles.

The word which is translated of note is “epitomes {ep-is'-ay-mos} and it means of note or notable. It describes something that has “a mark on it, marked, stamped, and coined” it is used in a good sense meaning of note or illustrious. And in bad sense of notorious or infamous. It is interesting that this word found in two places that are located in the New Testament and Romans 16:7 is one of them. The other one is a reference to the fact that Barabbas was a notorious prisoner or a prisoner that was notable to the people. “And they had then a notable prisoner called Barabbas.” (Matt. 27:16).

It is indeed interesting that Paul would refer to them as “fellow prisoners” but not, since they were of such notoriety, mention that they were also his “ fellow apostles” if such had actually been the case. The reason can only be explained by the simple fact that they were not apostles at all. The clear idea of these words were that these two “fellow Prisoners” of Paul’s, Andronicus (a man) and Junia (a woman), were Christians who had been in prison with Paul and that they had been converted to Christ before him. And had been well known to the other apostles before Paul’s conversion to Christ. But there is not the slightest indication from these words that either Andronicus or Junia were apostles. And Brother Demastus' suggestion that there might have been a woman apostle is simply ridiculous and the truth is that he should know better!

The following comments are from Brother J. W. Mcgarvey, who was one of the brightest scholars of the restoration movement and was well respected and recognized around the world for his scholarship, concerning this passage. His words are a better explanation of them that I have given and I quote it for all to consider.

“Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen [my fellow-countrymen--Jews- -Rom. 9:3], and my fellow-prisoners [When or where we do not know. Scripture tells of four imprisonments of Paul, but Clement of Rome enumerates seven. There may have been even more--2 Cor. 11:23], who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me. [Meaning that these were converted to Christ before he was--early enough to be well known to the apostles and to be honored by them before that body was scattered by persecution, it being slow to depart from Jerusalem--Acts 8:1; 12:1-3.]”

But the idea that this is a reference to a “female apostle” is a pathetic example of the feeble attempts to push women into an office that they never held in the New Testament. You might call it “revisionist” in the sense that such a notion has not been the concept of scholars and commentators until more recent times. Your attempt, Brother Demastus, to find a “female apostle” is a very weak one indeed. There were no women apostles and that is the simple truth of the matter even if that truth is unacceptable to our “feminist conscious” society in which we live.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. `Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Danny...

I see your attitude is as lovely as ever. Listen, I don't want you to think that I'd ever say something disparaging against Florida Christian either, because I think it very good that they taught you every thing that Roger Chambers thought. I'm sure that is very useful and doesn't take anything from your own mental faculties. So I'm sure it was a worthwhile education.

As far as God-ordained male roles (or better) responsibilities in the church. I find only two. The role of elder and the role of evangelist (marked by its being so close in harmony with the role of elder).

Lee Saffold...

Hey, don't worry. I wasn't espousing that I accept female apostles. But you will be hard pressed to pick up a commentary on Romans that won't at the bare minimum share that as a school of thought. I was simply listing the roles of women in the early church as they are and are interpreted.

I find another extremely questionable situation is the development of the role of deaconness. This is based solely on Paul's commendation to Phoebe and is bad theology in my humble opinion.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Lee, I agree with you in your exegesis (not sure if thats the word I want) of Romans 16:7. The Greek does not imply that she was an apostle, but rather that she was well regarded by those who were apostles.

Michael, we also have writings of the Apostolic Fathers and others that show that it was not uncommon to have female deaconesses in the first century. So obviously somebody else, closer to the source, also understood that it was acceptable. (I also don't see a divine "thou shalt not" ... otherwise we wouldn't even be debating the issue.)

I'm curious where you find in the Bible the God-ordained office of "Evangelist" and that this office must be male. I only see the offices of Elder (Overseer/Bishop) and Deacon in my Bible. Certainly there are those who have the gift of an evangelist, but I don't think its an "office." And I think the New Testament shows a few examples of women who are evangelists, most notably Priscilla. What is an evangelist? One who goes around spreading the evangel, the good news about Jesus. Surely you can't believe that only men can be entrusted with this task?

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

E. Lee Saffold writes concerning the suggestion that Andronichus and Junia (the latter being a female name) might have been apostles apostles.,

>>However the truth is that this passages does not even remotely suggest that either of them were apostles. It means only that these two were well and favorably known to the apostles rather than that they were well known as apostles.<<

I asked someone who had taught Greek at the university level in secular universities about this verse. From what he says, it seems to be just as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English. if I remember correctly, he had even used this as a possible reference to apostles before I pointed out the ambiguity.

If the scriptures are ambiguous about a matter, you should acknowledge that. Do you have any Greek evidence to back up what you say so confidently? Why are you so confident on a matter where scripture is unclear? I wouldn't suppose you claimed a revelation from God on what the passage really means.

>> For if they had been well known as apostles this would not likely be the only passage of scripture that would have made mention of them and it only briefly mentions them and that as fellow prisoners and not fellow apostles of the apostle Paul.<<

Show me in the Bible where it says that if someone is an apostle, he wil be mentioned many times in the scriptures. I have yet to find a verse. Some of the 12 apostles only get mentioned specifially by named just in lists of the 12 apostles. Think about Simon the Zealot. Is he mentioned outside of the lists of apostles? Maybe he shows up 5 times in scripture, without a lot of detail.

And that is the 12 apostles! God was able to make apostles out of men that hehad called after the resurrection, like Barnabas for example. there was a lot of church activity going on in the first century, and there is no reason to think that every 'sent one' that God sent forth is mentioned by name. in fact, Paul talks about some 'apostles of the church' sent to deliver money without mentioning their names in II Corinthians.

>>It is indeed interesting that Paul would refer to them as "fellow prisoners" but not, since they were of such notoriety, mention that they were also his " fellow apostles" if such had actually been the case.<<

Paul was under no obligation to use the term 'fellow-apostle.' Does he ever use the term 'fellow apostle' in all of his writings. he uses fellow prisoners and fellow workers, but I am unaware of his ever using the term 'fellow apostle' even for those whom scripture indicates are apostles.

>You might call it "revisionist" in the sense that such a notion has not been the concept of scholars and commentators until more recent times.<

I recall reading on an Internet discussion that a very early manuscript translating the Greek into Latin translates Junia, rightly, as a female name, but there was a later translation in the first few centuries of Christianity that translated 'Junia' wrongly as a male name. Why the wrong translation if there was no indication in this passage that Andronichus and Junia, at least __might have been__ apostles.

From my inquiries on the subject, the text seems to be ambiguous as to whether or not they were apostles. Do you have any evidence that you can present to the contrary?

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

I'm with Link on this one.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

Link...

I thought I'd respond.You are very right in pointing out the ambiguity of the text on this. It reads in Greek "epistemoi en tois apostolois" which may mean "well known by the apostles" or "well known as apostles." IF it means well known as apostles, then what exactly does that mean?

The term 'apostle' is used in several senses in the NT. It can be used as a reference to the 12 (Acts 1:26) or it also has a more general sense which indicates one who is 'sent out' by a person or body as a representative. Paul and Barnabas were 'sent out' by the church in Antioch (Acts 13:2-3) and are called 'apostles' by Luke (Acts 14:4, 14). But it is clear Barnabas was not one of the 12, so the general sense of the word is employed.

So Paul's usage of 'apostle' in reference to Junias is that she or he was sent out by a church with Andronicus. At least that is how I deal with the ambiguity. It is a dangerous enterprise to let our emotions or even contemporary circumstances guide our conclusions in the hermeneutic process.

Danny...

I can take a joke, I just told a better one than you did and you didn't like it (as usual).

John Wilson...

Where did you ever conclude that I referred to the "office" of anything? I do not use that terminology. If I am correct I used the term "role" which is more clear. I would somewhat follow Danny's logic but I believe he goes too far in his conclusions on the diakonate. I think that role is largely defined by function, but for that matter so is the elder's role. So do we eliminate that as well?

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

Brethren:

Both Brother Demastus and Brother Hudson have made it clear that since they believe Romans 16:7 to be so ambiguous. At the very least, they thereby admit that there is nothing in Romans 16:7 or it’s immediate or extended context that DEMANDS that we conclude from this verse that that there ever was a female apostle. And of course Brother Demastus has stated plainly that he does not believe there ever was a female apostle and that he was not affirming such in his post. I appreciate your making that clear to me Brother Demastus and I agree with what you have said about it.

Further, Brother Hudson makes an argument that if true, would completely destroy the notion that there ever was a female apostle. He said:

“I recall reading on an Internet discussion that a very early manuscript translating the Greek into Latin translates Junia, rightly, as a female name, but there was a later translation in the first few centuries of Christianity that translated 'Junia' wrongly as a male name. Why the wrong translation if there was no indication in this passage that Andronichus and Junia, at least __might have been__ apostles.”

Now, reading something on an Internet discussion does not prove much to me. However I do have a comment by Brother Moses E. Lard who was a scholar in the restoration movement, from his commentary on Romans that seems to support idea that the name "Junias" was masculine, which says the following:

“Of Andronicus and Junias, the sum of our knowledge consist in what is here said. As to the myths of Hyppolytus and Dorotheus, they are just possibly true, no more. I do not think it worthwhile to name them. Junias I take to be masculine, not feminine. The joint description of the two persons named, seem to demand this. They were Paul’s real kin, according to the flesh, and not kin merely in the sense of being of the same tribe or of the same nation. Where they and Paul had been imprisoned together, is not known. We have not even a hint from any source upon the subject. Who are of note among the apostles: that is, among the other eleven. They were both distinguished men among the apostles, distinguished no doubt as preachers of the gospel. Who were in Christ before me: That is, they became Christians before Paul.” (Commentary on Romans, Moses E. Lard, P. 456)

Now, if this statement is true, which I am not sure that it is, but if Junias should be a “male” name then the idea of a female apostle is dead, isn’t it? But no one can conclude merely from the existence of a wrong translation, as Brother Link suggests, that these two might have been apostles. For there is no evidence to support the notion that the translation was intentionally “wrong” because someone was concerned that it might convey the idea of a female apostle. In fact, this is all pure conjecture. But if anyone honestly believes that they can prove that the name Junias should be translated as a male name. It would make it impossible, even if this passage is speaking of these as being notable “AS APOSTLES” rather than being notable “TO THE APOSTLES” (which it is not), to contend for the existence of female apostles in the New Testament. So even if we agreed with Brother Link, which we do not, we would still have no evidence according to his argument from a “wrong translation” that there ever was a female apostle. I hope that you are all able to see that these arguments for a female apostle hang upon the flimsy thread of ambiguity and possible wrong translations. A weaker position could not be taken than one based solely upon ambiguity and incorrectness in a translation!

Then Brother Link wants us to believe that this language is ambiguous in both English and Greek based upon his following statement.

“I asked someone who had taught Greek at the university level in secular universities about this verse. From what he says, it seems to be just as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English. if I remember correctly, he had even used this as a possible reference to apostles before I pointed out the ambiguity.”

Now just because Brother Link “asked someone”, we know not who, that “taught Greek in a secular university” that it seems to be just as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English is no reason to believe that he is correct. For he did not bother to give the evidence that this “professor” gave to prove that it was ambiguous in either language. I do not believe that this verse is ambiguous in either English or Greek.

But he still tells us:

“If the scriptures are ambiguous about a matter, you should acknowledge that”

If I believed that this verse is ambiguous in either English or Greek or both I would acknowledge it forthrightly. But I do not believe it to be ambiguous in either language. And I have not seen any reason given by anyone to prove that it is ambiguous. Just because it is variously interpreted is no proof of ambiguity. For this is true of many verses that we all agree are clear and plain in what they say to us.

Then he tells me:

“I wouldn't suppose you claimed a revelation from God on what the passage really means.”

Well, now Brother Link, that would be your method of argumentation for you know that I do not believe that Christians receive revelations from God today. But you have stated that you do believe in such revelations, now haven’t you? In fact, you believe that the Holy Spirit helps us understand the word of God. So if that were true it could not be ambiguous to any Christian guided by the Holy Spirit in his interpretation. So why is this verse ambiguous to you since you claim to have the Holy Spirit and you claim that He helps you understand its meaning? If your doctrine is true about the guidance of the Holy Spirit in understanding the word of God you have no excuse for believing that the verse is ambiguous to you. For in such an admission you are accusing the Holy Spirit of being unable to speak clearly and without ambiguity in revealing the will of God either in his word or directly to you in his efforts to guide you into understanding it.

But suppose that I did believe like Brother Link and claimed that I had received a revelation from God that told me that this verse is telling us that these two fellow prisoners of the apostle Paul were notable to the apostles rather than that they were notable AS APOSTLES? How would he prove that I had not received such a revelation? Would you, Brother Link, accept my argument as final if I believed as you do and claimed that I had received a revelation form God and offered that as conclusive evidence of my assertions? I do doubt it. But if you did not accept my claim how would you go about proving that I did not receive such a revelation? Your answer to this should indeed be revealing!

Then he asked:

“From my inquiries on the subject, the text seems to be ambiguous as to whether or not they were apostles. Do you have any evidence that you can present to the contrary?”

Yes I do. And when I have more time I will give it to you. But the verse itself is sufficient evidence to the contrary for it is not ambiguous at all. A verse of scripture does not suddenly become “ambiguous” just because it cannot be used to clearly support your favorite doctrine. Those who do not know the truth about the meaning and use of the term “apostle” and the teaching of the entire word of God concerning apostles and their qualifications and the end of the office of apostles have this confusion. But to those who have studied all that the word of God says about apostles do not have this confusion. For they are not searching for an apostle under every rock or every remote verse that might justify them in believing eventually that we can have apostles with the same authority and power and office as the apostles of the New Testament in the church today.

Now, while I am convinced that this language of Romans 16:7 is not in the least bit ambiguous in either Greek or English, concerning whether Andronicus and Junias were of note AS APOSTLES or TO THOSE WHO WERE APOSTLES. Even if one accepts it as ambiguous he or she has not justification to conclude from such ambiguity that there was ever a female apostle. For nothing can be proven with certainty from any ambiguity about a matter other than the ambiguity itself.

I have more to say later when I have time.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001